Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 25th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, due to the rules of procedure of our House, I was unable to take part at Second Reading but, having listened very carefully to the whole debate and reread some of the speeches, there are some points not made on Monday that I think should be drawn to your Lordships’ attention. My colleagues will deal with the detail of the debate and the Bill.

We are in familiar territory because powerful campaigns have common characteristics and patterns. A classic campaign identifies a minority group—preferably one about which the majority population knows little—ascribes to it characteristics and motivations which make it a threat and repeats those assertions, preferably with the backing of a neutral body or experts, over and over until they become received wisdom. It is what happened to migrant communities in the UK in the 1970s and, in the 1980s, it was lesbians and gay men. Today, it is the turn of trans people. I say in what will be the continuing theme of my speech: there is no evidence, and no evidence has yet been offered, that trans people are a systemic and significant threat to women.

We see a reliance on campaign techniques with which some of us are very familiar. When this House was debating changing the law to allow gay adoption, or enable civil partnerships—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will remember it well—we were sent documents which purported to be research. In those days, they came from organisations such as the Christian Institute. These days, the alt-right has become a lot more savvy. It supports campaign groups and individual academics to produce documents that look like research—noble Lords will have got one during the recess—but, on closer inspection, they are just the same dodgy dossiers as in the past. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his speech on Monday recorded at col. 652, was full of passionate assertions based on that document and others, but if you examine his speech closely, there is no actual evidence of any threat from trans people to individual women or women’s rights. It is just an opinion —admittedly, widely repeated.

On Monday, I listened to the phrases carefully crafted to make it appear that the people using them are not transphobic, just protecting women. We heard that again today from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As a lesbian who lived through Section 28 , I know what it is like to be portrayed as a member of a group that constitutes a threat to women, children and families—it was unsafe to let us into changing rooms, because we could pose a threat—all without any evidence. That was an experience of classic homophobia, often expressed in exactly the same arguments and phrases as we hear today. This time, no matter who the messenger—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, or the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—and regardless of their record on other equalities issues, the effect of what they propose is the same. It is to limit or deny a minority group—in this case, all trans people—access to services and public spaces.

Another trope was on show on Monday: people supporting amendments, like other people in this wider campaign, stated over and again that they are being silenced. Week in, week out, that claim is repeated in national newspapers and on the BBC and other broadcasters. They are not being silenced; it is just that some of us have the temerity to disagree with them and call them out for what they are doing. They state that they are hounded on social media. They are, but anyone listening to the debate on Monday would have thought that was all coming from one side of the debate. I invite noble Lords to look at my Twitter timeline. I assure them that they will be astonished by what people claiming to be feminists are capable of saying and doing in threatening other women.

I am not surprised that these proposals and amendments have some support in your Lordships’ House. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne, is on record as having consistently opposed LGBT equality since 1994. Other noble Lords read the Times, which in each of the past two years has published over 320 articles about trans issues, almost all of them full of gross misrepresentation. Others will have been approached by women—female friends and colleagues—who are scared by the never-ending messages that trans people are a threat to them. That is understandable, given the deluge of this incessant campaign. But I stress again that the evidence behind it is not there.

As a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have worked hard to improve the position of women, in all their diversity. That includes lesbian mothers in the days when they were considered not fit to be mothers. I have worked hard on women’s reproductive rights, so that women and girls, here and abroad, have access to safe, appropriate healthcare. My commitment to women’s health and dignity is undiminished. I ask noble Lords who listened to the strong allegations and assertions made on Monday to note the lack of credible evidence for trans people being a threat.

The wording of the Bill is already inclusive. Amending it would be a deliberate decision to exclude trans men and others from services. That is the first and thin end of a dangerous wedge. When people like me were in the firing line, we depended on allies. Today, trans people are under sustained, unwarranted attack. For those reasons, if I get the opportunity, I will vote against these amendments and I strongly urge noble Lords who may well have listened to the debate on Monday to go back and ask themselves the question: where is the real evidence of trans women in particular being a threat to other women?

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Baroness Barker Excerpts

3rd reading & 2nd reading & Committee negatived & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, this is not just a historic day, it is actually quite an emotional day for many of us who have spent many years arguing that the future of the United Kingdom was best outside the European Union. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who, through his determination, and despite many people, even in your Lordships’ House, saying that it could not happen, has brought back a trade deal that must be the catalyst that will allow us to grow and thrive and trade with the whole world.

I recall the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, saying this about our country in relation to negotiations with the EU:

“We will huff and puff but, in the end, we will basically come to heel”.—[Official Report, 16/1/18; col. 585.]


Well, our Prime Minister did not come to heel, but it is very sad that talking our country down has been so typical of many of the ex-mandarins, a few of them in your Lordships’ House. This has to end now. The culture in the Civil Service must now change—no more relying on an EU bureaucrat to blame, and no more kowtowing to an unelected commission. We can finally, unashamedly, put the British people and our country first, and work more closely with the Commonwealth, so shamefully betrayed when we originally joined the Common Market.

Of course this deal is not perfect. There is too much red tape and too many committees, which I hope will not be filled with Sir Humphreys who think that close alignment with the EU is somehow glorious. We have not moved as quickly as I would have liked on fishing. The extra money for fishing communities is so welcome, but can the Minister assure us that the policing of our fishing waters will be constant now and that we will stop immediately—as we legally can—the huge Dutch trawler that comes into our waters and hoovers up fish while destroying the seabed?

As many noble Lords have said, the Northern Ireland protocol is unfinished business. Every day we find something new which divides Northern Ireland further from the rest of the United Kingdom. Once again, those who threaten violence have been rewarded, while the pro-union community, who have not threatened violence, are rewarded with a trade border with their own country and their biggest market. I have a gentle warning for Michael Gove, who I know to be an ardent unionist and friend of the union. Those of us who really care about the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will see tomorrow as the beginning of the work to end this protocol as soon as possible, and certainly in four years’ time.

Finally, I pay tribute to the remarkable courage, fortitude and enthusiasm of all those in our country who made that brave decision to vote to leave in 2016. It is they who took the brunt of the ridicule and nasty abuse. Their dedication and continued support for those of us in Parliament fighting the remainers, who wanted to ignore the referendum, kept us going when sometimes it looked like we were losing the battle. That meant a lot to us.

One other man apart from our Prime Minister who has been absolutely instrumental in getting us to where we are today is Nigel Farage, and the country, and millions of people—whatever Members of this House think—will for ever hold him in their debt. Never has a man been more attacked and vilified, yet throughout, he kept focused. Today, as he said, the war is over. I am confident that if our Government and our people show positivity, vision and enterprise, we can make our country great again, and even greater.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. Oh, we cannot hear him. I will call the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth? No? I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, as I indicated at Second Reading and in the light of the arguments I advanced then, I beg to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper and wish to test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

The original Question was that this Bill do now pass since when an amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Newby, as set out on the Order Paper. The Question I now have to put is that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord be agreed to. The Question will be decided by a remote Division; I instruct the clerk to start it.

Spending Review 2020

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Loomba (CB) [V]]

My Lords—[Inaudible.] Just one minute, please.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

Please go ahead, Lord Loomba.

[Lord Loomba (CB) [V]]

Yes, I am coming. It is just that—[Inaudible.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

We cannot hear the noble Lord. We will try to sort out the difficulties and come back. For the moment, I call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I ask the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, to stand by to follow the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton.

[Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]]

My Lords, today I shall focus my remarks on the impact of the spending review on councils. Local government has been critical in the fight against Covid-19, protecting the most vulnerable, supporting our local businesses and keeping the country running. Given the commendable leadership from our local politicians and their officials, it is right that the spending review provides some financial certainty for councils next year. A potential increase of 4.5% in council spending power will help support vital local services, albeit that the increase assumes that council tax bills will rise by 5% next year—something that will place a financial burden on households at a time of economic uncertainty.

While the spending review did make progress in helping address the short-term pressures on councils, as it is a one-year settlement there is still much to do. The financial pressures facing local services have increased because of Covid, and the challenge facing councils is stark. It is time for change, which is why I support the LGA’s calls for multiyear financial settlements and place-based budgeting, which will give councils long-term certainty, sustainability and, as importantly, the power to innovate.

While every pot of money that national government announces is a tempting opportunity for a ministerial press release, we need to look again at how that approach fragments funding and creates unnecessary complications and duplications. The Levelling Up Fund would be a good place to start this conversation, along with a move back to the community budgets model that I helped pilot a decade ago. By giving councils financial sustainability, certainty and the power to do things differently, we can empower their efforts to level up inequalities and rebuild our national economy, one local economy at a time.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I call again the noble Lord, Lord Loomba.

[Lord Loomba (CB) [V]]

My Lords, 2020 has been [Inaudible.]

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I am sorry, we cannot hear the noble Lord, Lord Loomba. We will have to go to the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, finally we have recognised the critical need to increase, in real terms, our defence spending. The key point was the Prime Minister’s reference to a unit that will be set up to monitor procurement. Five years’ ago, industry personnel told me—lawyer speaking to lawyer—that they would welcome much more rigour in the procurement system. This is critical to counter equipment that arrives too often substandard with long lead-times for spare parts. We also need a strong focus on what inexpensive measures would significantly improve the capabilities of our armed forces personnel—such as much healthier food and natural light replacements in our modern warships—as well as the expensive hardware.

In addition, it is right to reduce to our development spend to 0.5% of GNI in the light of our economic emergency. This crisis also presents a real opportunity to fully review the DAC rules on which we classify our ODA spending.

I have just one thought regarding our spending at home: when I left the DWP, pre Covid, our welfare system was already unsustainable. Although 1,000 additional people were working each day and there were around 700,000 job vacancies, still 13.9% of all working-age households in the UK were entirely workless. This is not sustainable post Covid.

Separately, our reliance on the private sector to create the wealth to pay for all this is fundamental. However, we are now at risk of making the UK the least attractive shopping destination in Europe through changes to tax-free shopping rules that will trigger real and negative behavioural change in high-spending visitors. Post Brexit, we must showcase the very best of the British-made, high-quality and often bespoke for export goods that we manufacture right across the UK. How will these tax changes help with so-called levelling up when some of those highly skilled jobs could now be at risk? Will my noble friend the Minister agree to keep a close watch on this?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I remind noble Lords that the speaking limit for today’s debate is two minutes.

[Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]]

My Lords, there is a forecasted drop in GDP of more than 11% this year, the worst in 300 years; the fear of unemployment possibly going up to 7.5%—almost 3 million people—by Q2 2025; debt to GDP more than 100%—the last time that happened was in 1963; and a deficit of £400 billion. The amazing support that the Government have given during the Covid pandemic of almost £300 billion—and counting—and many measures in this spending review are so welcome. The new national infrastructure bank is fantastic and upgrading infrastructure is great, but does the Minister agree that broadband should be at 100% coverage of the country, not 85%?

On the plan for jobs, we need to avoid long-term unemployment. The scarring would be horrible. Young people, in particular, have suffered so much; we cannot have youth unemployment. We urgently need the energy White Paper. Can the Minister confirm that it will come soon? There must be no talk of tax rises, because what would be worst for the recovery—for businesses to bounce back after this—is stifling that recovery by increasing taxes. We need to create growth, which means keeping taxes low. It is that growth and the creation of jobs that will pay the tax that will pay for the public services. That is the best solution.

The approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is a major breakthrough against Covid-19. After the loss of so many lives and livelihoods, it now really feels as though there is light at the end of the tunnel. Does the Minister agree that three things are now needed to shore up confidence? The first is the continued, urgent rollout of rapid, mass, affordable antigen lateral flow testing throughout the country, available in schools, workplaces, colleges and universities and at airports and factories—everywhere. That regular testing is a huge part of the solution.

Secondly, firms need clarity about the level of support through to March and beyond. Thirdly, we need transparent trigger points for exiting higher tiers and a robust, evidence-based approach to ongoing restrictions.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

Lord Loomba, please stand by to speak after the next speaker. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, the Chancellor says that,

“during a domestic fiscal emergency … sticking rigidly to spending 0.7% of our national income on overseas aid is difficult to justify to the British people”.

I wonder: with what evidence does he so impugn the British public? The most recent edition of the World Giving Index, commissioned by the Charities Aid Foundation and compiled by Gallup, puts Britain at number six globally and the second most generous country in Europe after Ireland. I suggest to the Minister—or the Chancellor—that, rather than having to justify helping the world’s poorest to the British public, the cut to the aid budget is in fact to pacify the right wing of his party, to the extent of breaking a manifesto pledge.

That is a shame, because evidence from diplomats to the Commons International Development Committee says otherwise. The former UK ambassador to Jordan, Peter Millett, said:

“Our aid programmes certainly enhanced our influence.”


The former UK ambassador to Yemen, Frances Guy, said that the UK’s aid

“counts towards general respect for the UK in multilateral institutions and gives the UK a bigger voice in multilateral meetings”.

It is not just the diplomats. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, said that our 0.7% aid commitment sends

“a strong signal that the UK is a reliable partner for long-term economic, social, environmental and educational advancement across the globe”

and that this is

“cheaper than fighting wars”.

Those sentiments were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, in your Lordships’ House just last week.

The architects of this reprehensible decision have shown that they know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, once again I call the noble Lord, Lord Loomba.

[Lord Loomba (CB) [V]]

My Lords, 2020 has been an unprecedented year, with many charities—[Inaudible.]

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I am sorry, Lord Loomba. Yet again we cannot hear you. I am afraid that we will have to move on to the next speaker. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern.

Covid-19: Devolved Administrations

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Friday 27th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I cast stones at nobody. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that co-operation is always the best route forward and posturing is never helpful. The Christmas alignment arose from a joint meeting at very high level on 2 September, which was followed up by four further high-level conversations. It is an example of co-operation in action.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, speaking as a Scot, Christmas is a secondary festival to new year for many of us. What steps have been taken to address issues of cross-border policing for the whole of the festive period?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, I am not a line Minister on this specific question, but I will ensure that she is advised on the matter.

EU: Future Relationship

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]]

My Lords, as far back as February 2020, the European Commission laid out its negotiating position, covering general arrangements, values, principles and governance, economic arrangements, trade, level playing field guarantees, fisheries, security arrangements, law enforcement, judicial co-operation in criminal matters, foreign policy, security and defence. Then, in May, the UK published a draft free trade agreement in a series of separate draft agreements covering fisheries, air transport, civil aviation safety, energy, social security co-ordination, civil nuclear, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, the transfer of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and readmission of people residing without authorisation.

Between March and September, we have had eight rounds of negotiations. At the end of the eighth round, the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, accused the UK of refusing to include indispensable guarantees of fair competition in our future agreement, while requesting access to our market and said that

“the UK has not engaged in a reciprocal way on fundamental EU principles and interests.”

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, the UK’s negotiator, said that the UK had

“consistently made proposals which provide for open and fair competition, on the basis of high standards, in a way which is appropriate to a modern free trade agreement between sovereign and autonomous equals.”

So what if there is no agreement? What if there is a so-called Australia-style agreement whereby we will trade with the EU on WTO terms? The Prime Minister said in early September that a trading agreement like Australia’s

“would be a good outcome for the UK.”

Can the Minister confirm that this is the case? We have of course also had the whole issue of the internal market. In his statement after round eight, Michel Barnier said that:

“The EU remains committed to an ambitious future partnership with the UK. This would clearly be to the benefit of both sides. Nobody should underestimate the practical, economic and social consequences of a ‘no deal’ scenario.”


I speak as president of the CBI, which has been urging both the UK and EU to renew efforts to get a deal. This is essential in order to protect people’s jobs and living standards amid one of the worst recessions in living memory. Time is running out. We have to avoid a cliff edge. This must be the utmost priority for both sides; the UK and the EU cannot afford a no-deal scenario, which would weaken the economies already impaired by the Covid-19 crisis. Business preparations on both sides have not only stalled but have gone backwards. Firms have had to use their stockpiles and reserves—previously built up in the run-up to the threat of no deal last year—to survive the pandemic. There is now next to no capacity to rebuild reserves while directing resources and attention to dealing with the impact of Covid-19 and now a potential second wave of the virus.

Over the last six months we have seen extraordinary levels of ambition, determination and collaboration between businesses and Governments across Europe. These efforts have helped weather the immediate impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic and must be redoubled for the challenges that lie ahead. This same level of determination and creativity is now needed by both the EU and the UK to deliver a Brexit deal for growth.

A deal will have tangible, positive benefits for firms employing thousands of people across Europe in industries such as advanced engineering, manufacturing, green technology and digital and cyber technologies—I could go on. It will also underpin economic recovery on both sides, protecting our younger generation and the future of our public services. Does the Minister agree?

A deal will form a foundation for a strong, growing relationship between the UK and the EU in the future. It will create space for both sides to focus on shared challenges, such as creating jobs, rather than needlessly adding red tape, extra costs and paperwork.

A deal will also be a catalyst to address the global challenges of our time, from tackling climate change at next year’s COP26, which we are going to be privileged to host, to strengthening international institutions, including the WTO, and global co-operation during the UK’s presidency of the G7. It will be crucial for the UK and the EU to work hand in hand to be at the forefront of these issues.

The CBI is committed to working closely with BusinessEurope—which we will continue to be a member of although we have left the European Union—and its sister federations to champion a strong and open Europe on the global stage. In short, the size of the prize is real. Ending years of division and delay by securing an agreement between the EU and the UK will help our economies during the biggest challenge of our generation.

This has been such a turbulent period, not least because of Brexit, but talks are on and the efforts to get a good deal must continue. Business cannot afford anything else. Amid all the noise of the negotiation, businesses in the UK and the EU remain clear that a good deal is essential. Let us not forget that a negotiated outcome is the official position of the UK Government. Can the Minister reassure us about this once again?

An agreement will be the foundation for post-Covid recovery across the continent. It will protect jobs under pressure from the pandemic by duty and quota-free trade, closer customs co-operation and easing the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. We must remember that the protocol was the compromise needed to avoid a hard border in Ireland. For Northern Ireland’s businesses and communities it must be implemented in an effective and sustainable way. For that, we need a deal.

A deal will provide a platform on which the UK’s world-beating services industry can continue to trade with its biggest market and stay competitive. It will also be a great fillip for UK exporters, allowing them to focus on R&D, not red tape. Getting a deal requires political leadership and compromise from both sides and is needed urgently in the coming weeks.

As I have said, the reality is that many businesses are still struggling to deal with the fallout from Covid. That is why getting the deal over the line is so important. It means a greater choice for consumers. It means prices of groceries do not rise during a recession. This is vital to help people who are struggling. It will allow businesses to concentrate on helping the Government’s levelling-up agenda. It means building more schools and hospitals, better-quality housing, and growing our economy through the creation of green jobs, and it will be a catalyst for the global challenges of our time. Ultimately, a deal with our biggest trading partner provides a platform on which future trade agreements can be built.

Businesses have shown extraordinary resilience over the previous four years—and over the past six months. We need this deal urgently in the interests of everyone, both in the UK and Europe.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, is not contributing, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I address my remarks this afternoon to the frontier controls and customs arrangements because we have three months to the end of the transition. Many noble Lords have spoken about whether we are going to get a deal but many of the frontier issues will be similar, if not the same, whether we have a deal or not. Businesses should still be ready and still expect the Government in their dealings with them to be open, transparent and inclusive with information and with what has to be done.

As is so often the case in this sphere, we have heard lots of good words from the Government which are mostly, sadly, motherhood and apple pie. We seem to be getting into a big blame game, with the Government seeking to blame business, the EU and the electorate for their own failings. I know that the electorate voted in favour of Brexit, but I do not think they voted in favour of the chaos that we are seeing. As many noble Lords know, the devil is in the detail. It can have a massive adverse effect on business, as many noble Lords have already mentioned. We are not told the detail at the moment, nor even the options. In some of the discussions I have heard, I question whether Ministers themselves actually understand what is needed or listen to their officials who clearly do know.

In the Guardian today there is a report of a letter that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wrote to the haulage industry and customers earlier this month —I have a copy of it—saying that we face some 7,000 trucks in a queue in Kent. Mr Gove claims that the cause of the delay is the traders not being ready. That is blaming the traders again. The Secretary of State for the Environment, George Eustice, similarly blamed other people for the delays. After Mr Gove wrote the letter, industry representatives had a meeting last week with him, the Secretary of State for Transport and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, from the Treasury. They discussed three separate issues: the need for intermediaries, the readiness of systems, and the physical infrastructure. All these are needed, whatever the outcome of the negotiations. I think about 40 people were at the meeting. A report of the meeting said that there was

“frustration over the lack of clarity and too many unanswered questions.”

On intermediaries, questions were asked about

“how the cap on state aid could be lifted and potential use of government loans”.

It was questioned how systems

“could be made ready earlier to allow training and familiarisation to take place”.

Of course, this should have happened many months ago. The Government are blaming the industry for not having 50,000 intermediaries to do it for them. We do not know who is going to pay for it. It is a serious issue. At the port there are quite a few structures required and arrangements. Who is going to pay for them and when are they going to be in position?

Then at the meeting we heard more motherhood and apple pie when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was quoted as saying that

“he hoped that the EU would not take a rigid interpretation on all legislation”.

Well, isn’t that lovely? Why should the EU give way on this when we are digging our heels in as hard as we possibly can?

In the end, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, in summing up,

“if businesses haven’t prepared they will suffer against what is a known change”.

Does the Minister know what the “known change” is? Has he told anybody? Has the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told anybody? It is clearly still a secret.

All the Government talk about now is in the export direction. We have heard very little about what might happen on the French or the continental side apart from the fact that the Government have decided that they will not require all the paperwork to be complete on the incoming direction for six months—but only for certain cargoes. We know that cargoes will not be allowed on to the ferries unless they have all the right paperwork.

It is really wrong that the Government are allowing this to carry on, with George Eustice saying that the queues are down to “slipshod” EU lack of planning. That is not a good way—indeed, it is a very bad way—to conduct negotiations. It is no way to undertake a trade negotiation with our major trading partner. As many noble Lords have said, something like 40% of our exports go to the EU.

I believe that Ministers should know most of the detailed changes that will be required, whatever the outcome, but the Government are failing miserably to share this with businesses so that their systems and their staff can be ready for the changes. Do they really know what has to be done? Should they not be proactive and positive in helping? I am afraid that, if they are not, many businesses will give up and, after a few weeks or months, settle fully on the continent. I hope I am wrong. But I wish the Minister would confirm that the Government will stop blaming businesses, the EU or the coronavirus crisis. It is down to the Government to sort this out.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee that the time limit for contributions is a maximum of seven minutes. I call the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza.

[Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]]

My Lords, despite ministerial denials, we appear to be marching inexorably towards a no-deal Brexit and a consequent reliance on WTO trading rules. There are two issues I wish to put to the Minister. One concerns the potential impact of a reversion to WTO terms of trade, and the other is about reaching a decision on continued participation in the EU Erasmus+ programme.

From the start of the legal process at the end of last year, there was a disconnect between the EU’s mandate to uphold common high standards in areas of state aid, social and employment standards, environmental standards, climate change, relevant tax matters and other regulatory measures and practices, set against the UK’s statement that its

“primary objective … is to ensure we restore our economic and political independence”.

No wonder the negotiations have run into trouble. Apart from the major issues taken up by your Lordships so far—the Irish border, fisheries and state aid—I would like to revisit some of the other consequences of a no-deal departure, which would kick in on 1 January 2021.

The expressed hope that the UK might achieve a Canada-type relationship would not go even half way to resolving the current negotiation sticking points. For a start, the CETA is not, as yet, fully implemented, despite being agreed in 2014 and provisionally in force from 2017. Tariffs on certain food items would remain, requiring lengthy examinations at ports. Furthermore, 53% of all UK imports are from the EU, and 45% of all UK exports go to the EU. Those figures do not compare well with the equivalent Canadian figures of 10.5% and 7.9% respectively.

The Australia-style deal—another “solution” championed by the Government—is essentially a WTO agreement, and would allow the EU to impose punishing tariffs on some goods, such as dairy produce, which in turn would impact badly on British farmers. There is no FTA between the EU and Australia, so it is difficult to understand why the UK Government ever thought this might be a useful model.

The recent removal of some existing EU tariffs by about 20% was, and is, welcome, until it emerges that these concessions refer to items such as pistachios in shells, sewing thread and vacuum flasks—not necessarily key trade items. Nor will WTO rules allow most favoured nation status: any UK trade concessions would have to apply to the rest of the world as well. The 20 or so additional agreements via the EU with countries around the world have not yet been rolled over, further restricting UK trade transactions. Most importantly, in the absence of a trade deal the non-tariff barriers will require all produce standards and safety regulations to be checked at borders.

An exit based on WTO rules would present a huge challenge for the service industries, in that there would be a loss of guaranteed access for bankers, lawyers, musicians and chefs, among other trades. The financial services sector is a huge contributor to national income, estimated at approximately 10% of all tax receipts. Preserving the integrity and reputation of the sector should be an absolute priority, yet there is still no agreement on the legal status of contractual relationships, which in turn affects a whole tranche of SMEs and the job security of up to 2.3 million people who work in the financial services industry. The City of London Corporation has said that even a deal with limited coverage of financial and professional services would be preferable to no deal.

Above all, the current acrimonious nature of negotiations will do nothing to generate a positive future relationship with the EU, which is surely in the interests of each and every household and business in the UK. It is difficult to understand why the Government have remained tranquil about a possible no deal, and are apparently satisfied to engage on WTO terms. The cost of achieving, by 31 December, political and economic freedom from the EU could be very high.

In the political declaration of October 2019, both sides agreed to establish general principles, terms and conditions for the UK’s future participation in EU programmes, including youth, culture and education, and further agreed that this would be subject to the conditions set out in the EU’s own legal instruments establishing such programmes. In February, the UK set out its overall approach, saying it was ready to consider third-country participation in certain EU programmes, and on Erasmus+—the most successful EU exchange programme—that it would consider options on elements of the programme on a time-limited basis. None of the papers or draft legal texts published so far refers to UK participation in Erasmus. As we have heard, the EU published a draft new partnership agreement on Erasmus with the UK in March. However, no detailed information on negotiations is available.

The Government are now apparently considering the option for a domestic alternative to Erasmus. This is despite widespread praise, both within and without the Government, for the programme and its investment in forging international friendships and co-operation. Universities UK calculates that leaving Erasmus could cost the UK up to £243 million a year.

In an Oral Question in June, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, questioned the Government’s plan for continued participation. The Minister repeated that while the matter was being discussed no further details would be given. Nor was any leeway allowed to the devolved nations to negotiate their own participation deals. In answer to the question about what possible advantage the UK would gain by leaving Erasmus, the Minister, rather lamely, stated that the Government wished to encourage mobility beyond the 27 EU member states. Continued participation in Erasmus would in no way impede this.

Overall, the lack of transparency and willingness to consult with the many sectors affected is a severe failure. The Government’s overriding priority of escaping any EU controls on any aspect of political, economic and cultural life is not based on sound economic impact assessment. Thus it does not serve the British public now, and it certainly will not serve them in future.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

Since the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey of Didcot, will not be contributing to our proceedings this afternoon, I now call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, on the basis that it is never too late to avoid making a bad decision, I want to set out what I think should be the Prime Minister’s guest speech to the European Council in mid-October:

“As leader of the UK, I have been having a think about the future. I have not so much changed my mind as reverted to my original views when I said:

‘We are, and we will remain, a paid-up, valued, participating member of the single market. Under no circumstances, in my view, will a British Government adjust that position.’


As I said before the referendum:

‘I would vote to stay in the single market. I’m in favour of the single market.’


It is not true that only in 2019 I understood the meaning of the single market. I now have the knowledge and experience that leads me to want to avoid damage to my country, its stability, economy and culture, by simply allowing the current negotiations to linger on into no deal. There are a host of issues that are very damaging, and I am going to refer to a few of them.

“Our energy security will be put at risk. I cannot possibly preside over power cuts to gas and electricity while leaving the EU’s internal energy market. If the UK were a member of EFTA or the EEA then we could have had a Norway-type energy arrangement, but my predecessor ruled out such membership.

“I have only recently been made aware of the importance of the chemical industry. I had no idea that the UK uses over 21,000 substances that are registered for safety under the EU-wide chemical regulation system. Only around 5,000 of those are registered in the UK; the others, the great majority, are under the control of the EU. The market is huge in terms of exports from the UK to the EU. I do not think we can take the risk of less safe chemicals being dumped on the UK.

“Furthermore, I had never heard of ADNS, RASFF, EASIN NOTSYS or EUROPHYT. I have asked my advisers why not, since these are so valuable to UK citizens and the economy. ADNS is the Animal Disease Notification System, which registers and documents the development of infectious animal diseases. RASFF is the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, which enables swift and timely exchanges of information on health risks. Only EU members, along with EFTA and Switzerland, can be members. Approximately 10 alerts per day are issued. RASFF came into being only in our time as an EU member so there is no previous system for us to fall back on. The other two systems involve alien species and plant health notifications, which are both highly important. Witnesses to Select Committees in the UK Parliament such as vets and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board said that they were in favour of the UK remaining a member of these systems, which give instant access to information. We cannot do that with no deal, thereby putting the UK at risk.



“I have woken up to the fact that no deal will lead to some real problems, such as a prolonged period of uncertainty, which we have had far too much of already. Half of UK export goods will face disruption, and there will be a reduction in the safety of UK citizens by leaving the EU arrest warrant system. No one explained to me that leaving with no deal means that future negotiations with the EU will be outside the Article 50 framework, meaning they will be much more difficult. If the disruption were prolonged, it is likely that in January and February next year there would be shortages of food in the UK. While residency rights are to be protected—and we have all agreed that—UK expats will lose their right to have bank accounts in the UK. This is a disaster.

“No deal will not bring Brexit to an end. It could go on for a decade, as warned in the UK Government Command Paper 9216 on the process of withdrawing from the EU, which I had not seen until now. The holy grail of the world trade terms would mean the UK economy growing more slowly. After Covid, I cannot possibly countenance this. Therefore, I say to my colleagues—still colleagues, EU Council members—that I will not put the unity of the UK union at risk or the safety of the population and the economy in a danger zone. Therefore, I request a further extension of the transition period of two years for the United Kingdom to enter into meaningful arrangements to continue membership of the single market and the customs union. If that requires rejoining EFTA, we will willingly come to a mutual agreement.”

That is the substance of the speech that the Prime Minister should make.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is not with us this afternoon. I therefore call the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, refer to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties because I believe it will have a profound effect on the final resolution of our recovery of sovereignty on a number of issues. I would like to read an extract from Article 53 of the convention. It states:

“A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law … from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.”


I suggest that that is a convenient way out for us. It avoids the confrontation of having to argue to take back areas of our sovereignty which are not lawfully given by Europe. We can effectively just wait for the European partner to initiate its own action—under what it sees is available to it under that convention—to try to force it on us. In that case it will have to revert to a plea to the bar of world opinion by going to the United Nations. Good luck to it. I do not think it will succeed on much. I think we have a soft way out that we should not overlook.

Everything else I want to say is about sovereignty issues. The principal concern when the vote was taken was the recovery of sovereignty. Of course, the European Union’s acquis communautaire—or ratchet mechanism—is steered towards ever-closer union. It has directly encroached on our sovereignty on so many issues in a manner not necessarily understood and foreseen at the completion of the treaty of Lisbon.

I have 13 sovereignty concerns that I wish to see resolved. That is too many to cover this afternoon, but I will try to go through eight of the most important ones. On 28 January, I obtained an Answer to a Written Question which assured me that there was no intention whatever for Britain to enter into the European defence union nor to forsake any of our Five Eyes capability to Europe. I was very pleased to get the answer saying, “You are right. Nothing is intended.”

Since that time, an eight-minute film has been put out by the European Union. It is easily available on a video link. It shows what the EU considers to be the celebration in Bosnia-Herzegovina of the first meeting of the armed forces of the European defence union. It starts with the downloading of an RAF jet containing 200 members of the Parachute Regiment. The commentary says they are accompanied by 30 members of Special Forces, who I take to be the SAS. There is then a march past, behind the European flag, in front of a saluting base, and a Jeep is pulling a platform on which are the 27 flags of the European defence union, including the union jack. I want further reassurance that we are not part of the European defence union. That is hugely important.

That leads to my second point. All our defence forces have to be under direct oath of loyalty to our sovereign. The European defence union requires a direct line of commitment to Brussels. We cannot have that situation. It would get us straight into the issue of whether we are participating in a standing army, which has been strictly prohibited since the trial of Charles I. We cannot possibly encumber our sovereign with the burden and embarrassment of having to contend with that in the latter stages of her reign. This is a disgrace. Those issues are paramount and we must have a definitive statement on them.

Throughout the past three or four months, we have been frozen as to the defence contracts we can engage in as Europe is still insisting that, as part of the go-forward arrangements, we will use only the authorised European defence production capability, which includes its boatyards, its tank capacity and everything else. It has already allocated to Krups the order for the first 50 of the new key Type 51 frigates, which are very important to us for our own coastal defences, and we are therefore prohibited from placing the order for the remaining 30 or so which we need for ourselves.

Similarly, the most important vessel required for the British Navy at this time is the replacement for the fleet auxiliary. The original one has been sold off to the Far East to be turned into razor blades—I am sure it was a good price—and we now have a situation where we cannot put out an order for the new form of fleet auxiliary, without which our carriers are effectively port-bound. These issues really need to be resolved, and we need clear direction on them.

The fisheries have been talked of much, and they are a major issue, but I wonder if your Lordships know just how bad the situation is in certain places. I have a direct and particular interest in Bridport bay, and the situation there is rather like a war zone. The trawlers going in are of what is called the wedge variety, which means they are flat-bottomed, and they are used to scrape up the bottom of the sea. As a result, they have destroyed the entire spawning and breeding capability of the Bridport area for the future. They have encroached so far upon the beach that they have undermined the sands adjacent to the cliffs, so the cliffs are crumbling, and this is now the worst area of crumbling in the country. It is like a war zone, and it is quite unfair on the local community. This is not fishing rights; this is absolute aggressive intrusion.

If the exercise is correct, that we sent 200 paratroopers to participate in the jollification in Bosnia about the creation of the EDU, it was also significant that it was said in the commentary all to be under the direct command and control of the European development union, at the head office of the EU. I have been sent fortuitously, by an anonymous person, a complete set of the command and control procedures for the European defence union, and it is fascinating. If you are a corps of armed soldiers and you have occasion to take a defensive situation, or even fire a round, you are then not allowed to reload or fire another round until you have been through 16 levels of consent, up to Ms von der Leyen herself, for consent to reload and shoot—

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

Could the noble Lord bring his remarks to a close, please.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

Sorry. I have said my peace, and I hope you will understand it has come from the heart.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I have to confess that when I first had sight of this Motion coming from the Government, I wondered why as it clearly focuses attention on an aspect of the Government’s performance that leaves so much to be desired. I thank the Minister for his explanation today, but I think lots of questions need to be put, and answers need to be given.

I regard Brexit as a social and economic disaster for the UK, and in particular for Northern Ireland, but I accept that the UK has left and that the exit, however shambolic, will be completed by the end of the year, so the remarks I make here are not rerunning the Brexit debate. They are about the Government’s approach to the negotiations, which has been dreadful from the very start.

We set out with former Prime Minister May’s assertion that “Brexit means Brexit”, without any further elucidation. Contrastingly, the EU made its three requirements clear and patiently asked the UK Government to outline the kind of Brexit they wanted to negotiate, but it got no clear answer. Instead we have had the chaos of hard Brexit or soft Brexit, in the customs union or not in the customs union, backstop or no backstop, ERG and even a general election. We had a Brexit Secretary who did not like going to meetings and a Foreign Secretary who likened our negotiating partners to the Soviet Union.

Then we had a year of farce in the other place while the EU waited patiently, allowing more time for the UK Government to get their act together. Eventually we reached a withdrawal agreement which, along with the Northern Ireland protocol, settled the most vexed matter of all: the future of the EU-UK customs border. Then only in February this year, as the pandemic was starting to break around Europe, the UK Government finally said that they wanted a Canada-type trade deal.

Since that time, the UK Government’s approach to negotiating the future relationship with the EU has been characterised by bluster, brinkmanship and, I am sad to say, bad faith. There is a refusal to accept that along with the obvious benefits of the free trade agreement, which the EU actually wants to give us, we have to accept some responsibilities. Instead the Government want all of the freedoms and none of the obligations.

The negotiating strategy is based on “They need us as much as we need them”—surely one of the greatest untruths ever peddled in this country. With the introduction of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and some of the Prime Minister’s own recent utterances, the Government have taken that bluster, brinkmanship and bad-faith approach to a new level. Imagine legislating to disapply the withdrawal agreement while breaking international law in the process; ridiculously accusing the EU of bad faith when it is the other way around; ludicrously claiming that the purpose of the Bill is to defend the Good Friday agreement, when it threatens to do the exact opposite; and simultaneously grabbing power back from the devolved Administrations without their consent.

That is not all: while the Government’s approach has seriously damaged the prospects of a deal with the EU, we should remember that any deal with Mr Barnier has to get through an increasingly agitated European Parliament and EU 27, not to mention the warnings from Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi about a US trade deal and the unnecessary damage to the UK’s relationship with Dublin.

This is doing real damage. Businesses in Northern Ireland, including hauliers, while apprehensive about new customs impositions, were satisfied that with the Northern Ireland protocol they could at last plan ahead. That has now been thrown into doubt. Only yesterday the Northern Ireland Assembly backed a Motion brought by my colleagues that roundly condemned the Government’s approach to the EU negotiations. Maybe the Minister could indicate what progress has been made on the deal relating to hauliers and indeed to fisheries? I think of both the Irish Government and the UK Government having jurisdiction in the Irish Sea. Will they be concluded soon? How will the Government protect our economy and society if there is no deal? How will they protect our devolution settlements?

Perhaps most ridiculous of all was the scene of Boris Johnson in the other place conjuring up fantastical images of the completely fictional threat of an EU blockade of UK food supplies, a nonsense that was brilliantly exposed by the colleague of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, Ed Miliband. Unfortunately, the PM still has to clown around with jokey notions of exports of Devon clotted cream being blockaded by the EU.

I am afraid for me and for the people of Northern Ireland. This has gone too far. We want to see a deal. We want to see those intricate sets of relationships that we have on the island of Ireland between north and south, within the north and between Ireland and Britain, as captured in the Good Friday agreement, protected and enhanced. We want no further nonsense such as we have seen espoused by the British Government. I hope the Minister can provide some answers today to those vexing questions on that vexing issue, because there was no doubt that the protocol provided an answer to that most vexed question of the border.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

Since the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, is not contributing this afternoon, I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Wei.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Baroness Barker Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, the last Conservative Party manifesto promised to make changes to parliamentary boundaries in order to make sure that

“every vote counts the same”,

but this Bill does nothing of the sort.

While the principle of MPs representing roughly the same number of constituents must be right—it was the major aim of the Chartists in the 19th century—the idea that every vote counts the same is incompatible with the system of constituencies electing a single MP. As long as we have first past the post with single-member constituencies, the rules for drawing up the boundaries for them must be fair and stable and based on two fundamental principles. First, we must ensure that, as far as possible, everyone entitled legally to be registered to vote should be included on electoral registers. Secondly, the boundaries should be drawn up with sufficient flexibility to ensure that they are not changed fundamentally every time they have to be revised. The Bill does not address either of those issues.

It is welcome that the boundary reviews will take part every eight years and not every five years as in the 2011 legislation, but when we considered that legislation, we were told that just about everyone who should be included on voting registers was included. However, both the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office have shown that millions of people are missing from registers and many millions more are incorrectly recorded. A disproportionate number of those missing from the registers are young people, private sector tenants and members of BAME communities—groups traditionally less likely to vote Conservative. So more constituencies will be created to represent the more Conservative areas where fewer of those demographic groups are resident.

It is a pretence to say that this legislation is about making every vote count the same. In reality, it is about creating even more Conservative seats in the House of Commons even if the numbers of votes do not justify that. Automaticity of this in-built bias is simply a perpetuation of a lack of democratic accountability, and we should oppose that very strongly in this House.

National Risk Register

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

On the detailed and very important point that my noble friend raises, we will provide her with the details that she asks for. The flu requirement for PPE is slightly different from that for Covid, which is different from flu in its symptoms and hospitalisation rate. My noble friend will understand that—but, again, I believe that the Government have made a determined and effective response.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

Since 2010, the resources of local government have decreased by 50% but their statutory obligations have not. Will the current review include an updated estimation of the capacity of local government to deal with Covid and other emergencies such as flooding or civil disorder, and will the Government publish that review?

Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [HL]

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 18th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, my noble and learned friend’s amendment goes a long way to protect the public from some of the ambiguities of these questions. If the question is optional and one does not need to answer it, one does not have to resolve the ambiguities, which are considerable on both halves. That is to say, it is not clear to me that every member of the public will understand what is covered by the term “sexual orientation”. I ask myself: is chastity a sexual orientation? Is paedophilia? I could name some nastier things, but that will do.

Equally, the term “gender identity” is not entirely clear for members of the public: do we mean what someone is or what they think they are? Public discussions of notions of identity have shifted a lot in the past 30 years. It seems unfortunate to put into a census form a highly disputed sociological term of art without clarifying what is meant by it. I therefore think it is a splendid thing to make both questions voluntary. I hope many people, such as myself, will be a bit hesitant about answering them.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to differ with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge: I think these are riveting matters. This debate has shown exactly why that is so, because they are not easy. I am very glad that he has in effect gone back to what some of us said right at the beginning of Second Reading: that the importance is not what is in the Bill but what is on the form that results from this piece of legislation. That is what we have been driving at, not only in the debates in your Lordships’ House, but also in the discussions we have had with civil servants from different parts of government and from people within the community, over a number of very interesting and informative sessions.

I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, regarding his problems with the DVLA, welcome to the world of some of the minority groups in this country, who are faced with forms that they wish to answer truthfully but find doing so extremely difficult. It is always a joy to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. I wish she could have been present for some of the discussions that we had with the community groups, the ONS and the civil servants, who are in the middle of extensive testing, not just of the understanding of people who are in these groups and who are familiar with these terms, but with people who are not.

This is something which by its nature evolves over time, and the language within it changes over time; I guess that every 10 years there is something new. We should not be critical of that, but simply do our job in Parliament, which is to oversee those changes and make them as good as we possibly can. I have said this before and think it is worth saying again: the taking of a census is an important moment in our civic life. I know there are those who wish to dispense with it, who make an argument that we can get much of the information in other ways. I understand that to an extent, but nevertheless this is one time when the Government engage with all citizens and ask them questions about themselves. I understand that it is flawed—I suspect that it always will be—but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has got us to the point we said we wanted to be at, where we will get the most data in the easiest and most efficient way from the greatest number of people. If we send the Bill to the Commons in this state, we will have done a good job.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I came here this afternoon intending to support my noble and learned friend Lord Judge. However, something said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—who also had the sagacity to promote me—has given me a slight worry. I was going to support my noble and learned friend Lord Judge on the basis that clarity is all important, but I now wonder whether his amendments are sufficiently clear.

It is made plain you do not have to answer the question, but what if you answer it untruthfully? I confess that I have not sufficiently explored the overall legislative context in which this happens, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, says that it is made plain elsewhere that not only do you not have to answer a question but also, if it is one of those questions that you do not have to answer, whatever answer you give, however misleading or absurd, will not expose you to prosecution. However, the formulation in Amendment 1, and equally in Amendment 2, begs rather than answers the question: if you choose to answer, must it be a truthful answer? That itself could give rise to a difficulty which may not exist absent these amendments.

Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [HL]

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 4th June 2019 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Barker]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—
“( ) In section 3 (regulations with respect to proceedings for taking census), after subsection (1)(f) insert —“(fa) providing guidance on how the particulars relating to sex and gender identity should be answered, including —(i) whether this should be on the basis of self-identification;(ii) how intersex and non-binary people are expected to address these questions; and(iii) whether gender confirmation surgery or a legal gender recognition process is required.””

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, it is good to be back on this small but none the less important Bill. After Second Reading, I found myself reflecting on the importance of the census. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said about the fact that these days there are many more sources of data that the Government can call on to establish various aspects of citizens’ identities. She, largely I think on economic grounds, questioned whether there needed to be a census at all. That is a legitimate debate to have, and no doubt we will have it at some later stage. However, from talking to people who watched our debate, there is agreement that the simple process of the Government engaging in an exercise to establish information about their citizens is in itself important. It is an aspect and example of citizenship that has quite a lot of meaning for individuals. However we may come to do this in future, and in whatever mode, for the moment it is important to recognise that, for all citizens, having the right to engage in a meaningful exercise of registering the details of one’s existence with the state is important. That is why, for the very small group of people we are talking about today, it is important to take great care.

In the Bill we are primarily talking about making whether one registers one’s gender identity voluntary and making sure that anyone who wishes not to do so will not face a penalty, as they would for failing to answer mandatory parts of the census. However, we are going into this new area for the census of questioning people about their gender identity, which is a sensitive matter, so we need to do so with great care.

The purpose of the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire is, in essence, to get to the heart of what is important about the Bill—not the legislation but the guidance that will accompany it and will inform or assist people when they make their return. I should tell the Minister at this stage that I have no intention of pressing my amendment, the purpose of which is to enable us to clarify one or two points on which there may not have been sufficient understanding from our debate at Second Reading.

The first thing I want to establish is whether the question asking a person to say what their sex is will remain binary, as it has been since 1801, and whether it will be the case in 2021—as it has been for the two censuses in the past 20 years, if not before—that people answer on the basis of their lived identity: that which they present to the world. I have to say that I hope that is the case. If not, and we go for a far more limited definition, we run the risk of requiring people to give answers that would contradict those given in good faith in the censuses of 10 or 20 years ago because they have changed their gender and recognise their new gender. If we were to require them to go back to an earlier iteration of their existence, we would confuse the matter. Can the Minister confirm these things?

As I have just demonstrated that these are enormously complicated matters in practice, the second thing to ask is whether the officials testing the questions on sex and gender identity—who have, I believe, consulted civil servants in Scotland engaged in a parallel exercise—might engage quite widely with a number of different groups who have been working on these sorts of issues for some considerable time. There are questions for officials about what they have discovered during the extensive testing already done, and perhaps about the further testing that will need to be done leading up to 2021. That is the basis of my amendment; I hope the Minister will be able to clarify. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I have very little to add. I concur absolutely and reinforce the importance of the census, not just as a purely numerical thing but as rather more. I am sure the Minister will not have heeded too much the pleas of one of his predecessors, the noble Lord, Lord Maude, or the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. We should question whether we have this.

As was clear at Second Reading, we support the census and the initiative in this Bill. However, everyone agrees—this is not new—that it will be key for it to be done correctly with everyone’s confidence, particularly the populations who will now be able to answer questions deeply relevant to them. I also think it means that there should be no surprises when the census appears, either for the relevant groups, for whom this will be a welcome move forward, or for the rest of the form-fillers. There should be no surprise—or, if you like, antagonism—and I do not think there will be from the non-involved groups when these questions appear.

While we need to have the questions tested on those with a particular interest in answering them, we also need to test that they are understandable to those to whom they do not particularly apply. I am sure that the consultation on the questions will take account of this so that even those not interested in answering these questions will understand why they are there. We should not confuse people so we need to test the questions with all those who will fill in the forms.

My second point goes beyond my amendment in this group. We need to make sure that we see a very high completion rate of the census as a whole as well as on these additional questions. A lot of good PR will be needed to achieve that. Explanations and preparations need to be made well before the census form arrives, whether online or through people’s letterboxes. While I realise that this is beyond the scope of the amendment before the Committee, it would be useful if the Minister could say a little about the publicity covering the questions once they have been agreed.

I want to raise only one other point, perhaps a little cheekily because again it is not part of the amendment. At Second Reading we asked about the additional question on military service. Is there any update on how the consultation on that issue is taking place?

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that, in sharing the proposed guidance in draft and setting out the process for further developing and refining this guidance, I have reassured both noble Baronesses, who will now feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that—does he wish to add a further point?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I have received some in-flight refuelling about the pertinent question the noble Baroness asked about the campaign and publicity. She is absolutely right that we have to inform people about what is happening. The ONS will undertake a national campaign as well as local campaigns. It has been working closely with the GEO on the campaigns and it will also work closely with local authorities and the third sector to reach out to all communities to help them fill in the census and to identify as they like.

[Baroness Barker]

I thank the Minister for that; it is extremely helpful. It reflects, albeit in a condensed form, a longer and rather more detailed conversation that we had about these matters.

I stress that this is not only an important matter of civic engagement. As officials from the ONS have been at pains to point out to us in briefings, this is an opportunity to gather data not otherwise available. Therefore, it is extremely important that the data gathered is as true, full and inclusive as possible. Apart from anything else, this data will inform public policy for decades to come. It is therefore important that we enable people. The people I have talked to often struggle to know how to fill in a form. They wish to fill in forms honestly but they struggle to do so, because it is not always clear. Therefore the more that can be done to include people, the better. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that it is important that, in seeking to make this as good as it can possibly be for a minority population, we do not end up confusing everyone else as well. That is not the intention. I welcome the offer to look at this in greater detail over the summer and the autumn as the census rehearsal happens—what an exciting prospect that is.

This is an important matter for us all. I thank the Minister very much and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [HL]

Baroness Barker Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and thank him and his team for the briefing they gave Peers the other day. He is right: this is the first time I have been involved in census legislation. My previous experience of considering the census in great detail was in 1971, when my mum was an enumerator. Most enumerators were women because it was short-term work that working mums could do. She was an enumerator in a working-class area of the west of Scotland. I guess in those days we did not bother to ask about people’s religion because everyone knew what everyone else’s religion was, and if in doubt asked which school they went to.

I am pleased with the provisions of the Bill, which I hope will command general agreement. It is high time our data gathering became more inclusive. The LGBT community has suffered over time, particularly in the provision of public services, because there has been no basic data from which service planners have been able to work. All the information we get these days—patchy though it is—about LGBT people’s use of the NHS is not population data but data about our use of the NHS. That is all there is to go on, whereas for the rest of the population there is basic data from which projections can and should be made.

It is right that the Bill will ensure that it is not compulsory to answer that question—it is voluntary—and that there should be no penalty for not doing so. For many people it is still a matter that they wish to remain private. Other people cannot divulge their sexual orientation because they fear for their safety in the communities in which they live. It is therefore right that we should do this in the way that we will.

I was pleased to read the White Paper and about the great care that has gone into the preparation of the whole census and many of the questions. However, it is not what the Bill is trying to do that is important but what is not said in it. It is not clear what the questions will be and how they will be framed, and that is crucial. My understanding is that while the sexual orientation question has been subject to consultation, the gender identity one has not. I hope there will be extensive consultation with people likely to have to answer that question.

I understood from our briefing the other day that the sex question is likely to be, “What is your sex? Male or female?”—to be answered by everyone over 16—but the gender identity question is likely to be, “Is your gender the same as the sex you were registered under at birth? Yes/No. Please write in the gender or ‘Prefer not to say’”. Working from that, the assumption would be that a transgender woman would tick “Female” for the sex question and tick “No” and write in “Female” for the gender identity question. A non-binary person would tick the sex that they most closely identify with in the sex question and then tick “No” and write “Non-binary” in the gender identity question. A cis person like me would tick the sex assigned at birth in the sex question and “Yes” in the gender identity question. That is the basis on which I am working.

The standard sex question being left as it has been since 1801 causes a problem for people from three different groups: trans people, non-binary people and intersex people. First, trans people have for many years been filling in the census and have done so in their lived-in identity. Is it anticipated that that will happen from now on and that a trans person will respond in their lived-in identity? We have to bear in mind that the Government are currently consulting on a review of the Gender Recognition Act and these two proposals may come in at the same time. Let us remember that gender recognition is a legal process, not a medical process.

Secondly, what do the Government expect non-binary people to do? Whatever the Government expect them to do will have to be written into the guidance that goes along with the question. How are the Government going to consult on that?

The most difficult question, however, is about the smallest group of people: intersex people born with the characteristics of both sexes. As a result of the current way of not legislating properly for intersex people, they are currently assigned a sex at birth to have their birth recorded. Subsequently their sex may be changed. What are those people supposed to do? I know this all sounds horrendously complicated but I have talked to a number of people involved and they are aware that they are filling in a legal document. They want to do it properly. They do not want to deceive; they just want to know what to do, so it is critical that we get the guidance on this right.

That leads me to my next point, which will perhaps be raised by others, and is about privacy. I understand from the briefing the other day that the data will not be released for up to 100 years. As the Minister will know from our meeting, there is a fear, particularly among the trans community, that while at the moment our society is broadly well disposed towards its members, it may not always be. We are in the middle of a very vicious anti-trans campaign, orchestrated by one or two of our main media outlets. It may be that in 100 years’ time, people may not wish this information about their family to be released. Will the Minister say what might be done with this information in future? It needs to be handled with as much sensitivity as that afforded to religion.

I have two final points. First, this will only ever give us a minimum number because there will be all sorts of reasons why people do not respond to the question. When the statistics are released and show that there are far fewer people than we thought, let us not be surprised about that and let us not base public service provision on what will inevitably be a small number. I took the point made by officials that the census is kept as simple as possible to obtain information that cannot be obtained from other sources. That is why we do not ask every question that people would like to ask.

Secondly, I return to the point I made to the Minister the other day. There is another group of people—men who have never had children—about whom it is extremely difficult to find data. It is possible to work out which women have not had children through their medical records. Why is it important? Currently, 1 million people over the age of 65 do not have children, and we have a health and social care system predicated on the fact that your kids will look after you. It is estimated that by 2030 there will be 2 million people with no children. The trouble is that, because we cannot count them with any degree of accuracy, this significant emerging public policy issue is being ignored. I realise that this matter does not come within this Bill, and I realise, from questions, that the Minister will instantly go away and appoint a working group to look at what I have said. I thought I would throw it in on the off-chance, because I believe it is a significantly overlooked point of public policy. With that, I welcome the Bill very much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Sorry, did I misspeak? All the questions are compulsory, apart from the religious question and the two questions before us today—corrigendum.

The new question on past service in the Armed Forces is proposed for the 2021 census to identify those who are 16 and over and who are veterans. This will enable us to serve those who have served their country and keep the commitment which we made to them when they joined the Armed Forces. As I said, the detailed question will be determined later in the year.

The term “head of household” has not been used since 1991, so the argument that some noble Lords on the Cross Benches have with their wives as to who is the head of household is unnecessary. It has gone to a more neutral form, either “householder” or “joint householder”.

On the 100-year rule, there is such a rule but of course Parliament could always change that if it wanted to. It has 100 years in which to come to that decision if some of the concerns voiced by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, took place. The noble Baroness asked a number of questions and I will do my best to answer them. One was about what intersex people do. The ONS is recommending that there be a note on the sex question, to advise that a gender question follows and include guidance that those who wish to can use the free-text box on gender identity to write “intersex” or another identity. Engagement by the ONS with the intersex community has not shown any objection to this proposed approach. She asked what we will do with this data and how it will be protected. Public confidence in the security and confidentiality of all information given in the census is paramount, including in particular on the questions that we have referred to today.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Hayter, asked whether we were going to consult on the guidance. The guidance for the online and paper versions of the census is in development and being informed by research and testing with members of the public, and by input from stakeholders. On an additional point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, we do not use “issue born in marriage” in the census. Just to clarify, responsibility for completion now falls to the householder or joint householder, as I said, which is defined as the person who owns or rents the property, or is financially responsible for day-to-day expenses.

A homeless person would use the address of the establishment—the day or night shelter—where they fill the form in. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Finn, who worked in the Cabinet Office and helped to move a number of public services online, as that has made the forms much more convenient for the citizen to fill in.

Yes, we have an objective of 75%, which I will come on to in a moment. My noble friend also referred to the value of cross-referencing census data to other data to build a more granular picture of society as a whole.

The 2021 census is part of a wider modernisation programme to transform ONS data collection to provide improved population statistics. As part of this programme and by using data-sharing provisions in the Digital Economy Act, the ONS is exploring how administrative data could replace the need for a decennial census after 2021. As to whether this is the last census, the UK Statistics Authority will make its recommendations on the future of the census in 2023. The ambition remains as set out in 2014: censuses, after 2021, will be conducted using other sources of data and by providing more timely statistical information. How will we hit the 75% target? ONS will provide assistance, including in-person support sessions, for example in schools and libraries. There will be a dedicated census contact centre working with community groups, and also work by census field staff on the doorstep.

Along with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and me, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, welcomed this being a non-controversial debate. I suspect that, had I introduced this provision in 1981 in another place, the debate would have lasted slightly longer than it lasted today. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, as a statistician, particularly for his reference to the value of data at a ward level.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked when we will get the order. We hope to debate it towards the end of the year, around October. “Later in the year”, my briefing tells me—that is perhaps a broader definition than the one I just used.

A person can tick as many national identity boxes as they like and write another. The noble Lord, if he wants to, can identify himself as English and Yorkshire. I think I have addressed most of the issues raised in the debate.

[Baroness Barker]

On exactly that point, I put two questions to the Minister to which he has not responded. How do the Government expect non-binary people to respond? Are trans people expected, as they do now, to reply to questions going by their lived-in experience? Perhaps the Minister will write to me about the interrelationship between this and the Gender Recognition Act.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

In so far as the compulsory question is concerned—the binary question of male/female—the guidance is minded to say, “Fill in what was on your birth certificate”. If you have changed your gender and have a gender certificate, you would put in that gender. The noble Baroness’s question underlines the importance of the guidance being right, and we propose to consult on it. If she agrees, I will write to her on the other question. Having said all that, I beg to move.