Public Services: Workforce (Public Services Committee Report)

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Friday 16th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, whose speech reminds us that his tenure as Minister for Civil Society was all too short. It has been a privilege to serve on the Public Services Committee, so wisely and ably chaired by my noble friend Lady Armstrong. I know, as she said, that many more Members would have liked to speak in this debate, had the timing been more propitious.

Our report on the workforce was very much on my mind this week when I had a hospital procedure. It was carried out with the efficiency, care and commitment that we rightly expect and get from the NHS, but I was struck by the air of disillusionment among the staff—the weariness and the acceptance that, as one member of staff said, “It’s never going to change, is it? We’re always going to be ignored.” Their department is constantly short of staff, with staff constantly covering for each other and running to catch up. Most of all, you can sense the despair of staff who feel they are falling short and not meeting patients’ needs in the way they would like. I emphasise that this was not the case, as the service was in fact efficient and caring, but I worried about the price being paid by those who deliver it. The conclusions of our report were emphasised again for me this week as a patient: services in crisis, serious staff shortages and very low morale.

We were frustrated in our inquiry by the lack of willingness to take this workforce crisis sufficiently seriously, as though it were a blip, caused perhaps by the pandemic or Brexit, which would somehow get better of itself with time. Yet of course the inescapable fact is that demand for services will rise faster than the working-age population, as will the number of people with complex and multiple needs. Staff numbers cannot presently keep up with demands and the problem is only going to get worse.

In spite of the crisis we are facing, however, our report is not all gloom and doom. The problems are solvable if we tackle them robustly, making a substantial difference and securing a more sustainable workforce for the future, but we are required to be imaginative and innovative.

Why do people work in public service? It is certainly not for the money, nor usually for the status or recognition. What you get in public service is the satisfaction, even the reward, of knowing that you are somehow contributing to the betterment of society, whether as an individual, a group or an institution. Take away that satisfaction and you might ask yourself: why do it? You can earn more stacking shelves in the supermarket.

We have relied for too long on the good will of employees—to stay on at the end of a shift, for example, or cover for a sick colleague. We must harness that good will by empowering the workforce and ensuring that services meet the needs of the consumers, not the ideas of the planners. We have powerful examples from users of services of the need for training to highlight the importance of so-called co-production—that is, designing services with the help of those who will use them—and how it can save money as well as more effectively meet the needs of users.

It is clear that such co-production also brings job satisfaction and starts to tackle low morale. In turn, this leads to greater retention of staff and is a more attractive offer when we look at how public service staff are recruited. As my noble friend has reminded us, however, and as many of our witnesses told us, recruitment takes too long, is too inflexible and has a dated format.

Skills in the public sector are precious but not always as readily recognised as they should be. I have lost track of the number of former carers who have told me that they were unsuccessful in applying for public service jobs. All the skills they acquired as unpaid carers—which are a lot, and include not just practical but administrative skills—were dismissed as irrelevant because they did not conform to a rigid job description or person specification.

It is important to note that what we need to tackle our workforce crisis—I emphasise that it is a crisis—is a strategy embraced by all government departments which takes account of the different needs of all parts of our workforce and emphasises flexibility. As an example, we wish to give all employees status, training opportunities and recognition, but what you give a doctor who needs seven years’ training and a guarantee of employment at the end is quite different from what you give a care worker.

The carer workforce has a 40% turnover every year. What good is registration to them? You have to compete with the competition, which, in this case, is Sainsbury’s and Lidl, and give job satisfaction, which is the only discriminating difference in choosing one occupation over another. “Training to retain” is a memorable phrase but training must encompass development opportunities and the ability to move between one service and another. I first heard the idea of a workforce that could move freely between health and social care some 40 years ago. How much progress has been made? Very little, because it requires a cultural shift in leadership, which has always been the hardest nut to crack.

Our report emphasises—as much of the work of this committee has always done—the importance of preventive services. As my noble friend has reminded us, these can effectively reduce the need for service input and thus the strain on the workforce. I hope the Minister can give the House an assurance that the Government are committed to supporting preventive work.

Avoiding the workforce crisis is no longer an option. It was gratifying and a tribute to my noble friend and the excellent staff who supported us that the Government agreed eventually—I repeat, eventually—with all our recommendations. Investment in apprenticeships and improving the recruitment, retention, progression and well-being of staff in adult social care is a start, but we should be under no illusion: there is a long way to go. I hope the Minister can give us an assurance that, as well as accepting all our recommendations, the Government are committed to implementing them.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 26th October 2022 Grand Committee

Clause 73, as amended, agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

Finally, we come to Amendment 404.

[Noble Lords]

Well done!

Carer’s Leave: Government Departments

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many government departments offer (1) paid, or (2) unpaid, leave to their staff who have caring responsibilities.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the statistics are not centrally collected but all government departments have policies on special leave. These enable managers to give paid and unpaid special leave to support employees in a variety of circumstances, including where they have caring responsibilities.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am glad to hear that many government departments make special arrangements for carers, as do many private sector organisations, but the situation is still far too patchy, discretionary and dependent on employers’ good will rather than the rights of the carers concerned. When will the Government fulfil the promise that they made in their 2019 manifesto to introduce rights to unpaid leave for carers, and recognise that there are sound economic reasons for doing this in terms of retaining carers who would otherwise have to give up paid work—something that the nation can ill afford at this time of severe staff shortages?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we remain committed to legislation to deliver on our commitments on employment, including on carer’s leave, as parliamentary time allows. We are aware in this context of the Private Member’s Bill on carer’s leave in another place; we will look closely at whether we can support it in this Session.

Covid-19 (Public Services Committee Report)

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I was delighted to be appointed to the new Committee on Public Services. I knew that under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Armstrong it would be a lively experience, and I join others in paying tribute to her and the clerks who supported us so well.

Of course, when we began, we had no idea that we should be producing our first report during a pandemic, nor that that report would focus on how those public services we were investigating would react to that pandemic. I must record what a privilege it was to work with a group of such experienced, wise and committed Members, and to reach a degree of consensus which was, and is, part of the pleasure of our work together.

A Critical Juncture is the title we chose for our report, which we are debating today, recognising that Covid represented an unprecedented challenge to our public services to which they responded with innovation and commitment. The outcomes are critical in terms of lessons learned, what can be retained from such excellent outcomes, and how resilience against any further challenges can be built up.

We have had some wonderful and heart-warming examples of how services responded to the pandemic: huge upscaling of provision, rapid decision-making and the breaking down of long-standing barriers by the urgent needs of the moment, but of course the virus further disadvantaged those already left behind. Black and minority-ethnic groups and those on the margins suffered disproportionately, and the years of underfunding of preventative and early intervention services came home to roost. Poor children’s education attainment got worse and the ability of local services to understand the needs of their communities was sometimes ignored in favour of some overcentralised and needlessly bureaucratic national service provision.

Lessons must be learned if we are to reap the benefits we have gained and not slip back to old ways as soon as the pandemic is over. Nowhere is this more important than in the issue of co-production, already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, where the users of services are involved in their design and planning and treated as equal partners. Our witnesses emphasised that this approach could have helped to predict and short-circuit some of the problems that came up. On the rough sleepers initiative, already mentioned by some of my colleagues, that separate sleeping accommodation was required by male and female rough sleepers would not have been a sudden surprise to providers if they had talked to rough sleepers before they set up a service which did not provide it, wasting time, money and good will. We must remember that most users when consulted—and I mean really consulted, not presented with a plan once it has been agreed—do not ask for the moon, as many providers think they do; on the contrary, their asks will usually be modest and far less than expected. If more services adopted this approach, it would be possible to maintain some if not all the innovation we saw over Covid. We must never undervalue the lived experience of users and customers—that is a very important lesson.

This lesson must be learned by public services, and they must similarly hear that the way really to engage with their consumers is most likely to be not through statutory service providers but through the voluntary and community sector. If you are single mother with addiction problems, you do not want to talk to your social worker for fear that you will lose your children, but through a local support group where you meet other mums in the same situation, share your fears and get advice and, above all, support; you will learn to deal with your difficulties, gain in confidence and become a reliable mother to your children. Time and again, we had examples of these experiences, but time and again too, we heard charities and community groups say that were treated like poor relations, did not have a seat at the table and were patronised and talked down to. Many of those barriers were broken down due to the simple urgency of the situation. The speed of acting may be much easier for a charity or community group, and many were able to mobilise services quickly without going through the various procedures and permissions which are inevitable in the statutory sector. We must commend the courage and willingness to take risks which was shown not only by staff and volunteers in charities but by their trustee boards. Often thought to be resistant to risk taking, they stepped up magnificently to support innovation and speed of delivery. The better relationships and increased respect which were gained in the pandemic must not be allowed to slip away. Not only will it provide more satisfactory services, meeting the needs of users rather than the notions of providers, but it will often save money too.

I hope the Minister will be able to confirm the value the Government place on the voluntary sector and their willingness to support it, not only in terms of funding but in ensuring that both the sector and the users on whose behalf it advocates are treated as equal partners in the provision of services, and in ensuring that the voice of users is strong and influential whenever public services are planned.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who spoke compellingly about collaboration. It has been a pleasure and an honour to be a member of the Public Services Committee, which has behaved throughout in a collegiate and constructive way, and I thank my committee colleagues. Like others, I would like to thank our excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hilltop, who has demonstrated throughout hard work, dedication and great good humour. Thanks also go to our secretariat—the team of Tristan Stubbs, Claire Coast-Smith and Mark Hudson —for their utter professionalism.

Our first report, as has been stated, commenced physically in February last year, before the first lockdown, but we quickly moved to working virtually. Work was carried out remarkably smoothly on our report A Critical Juncture for Public Services: Lessons from COVID-19, which was published in November last year. I thank officials, broadcasters and all who made this possible. I will focus on three areas in particular, although, as has been demonstrated by those serving on the committee, our report was wide-ranging. I would like to look at prevention and early intervention, then at local delivery, and then at the importance of voluntary organisations.

On prevention and early intervention, a key area, the evidence that we saw was clear. People who are obese, who smoke, who are diabetic and who live in unhealthy social, economic and physical environments are at a far higher risk of dying from Covid-19. That seems now almost beyond challenge. The Prime Minister himself nailed the danger of obesity when he spoke of Covid-19. Yet the Government in their response to the report did not recognise these factors explicitly, rather surprisingly, saying that further analysis of the evidence will inform our learning. I hope that the Government accept the very clear evidence, and it will be good to hear from the Minister on this.

Our inquiry heard from Sir Michael Marmot about the underfunding of prevention services, and we heard that obesity rates were highest in deprived areas. It is laudable that the Conservative manifesto of 2019 commits to extension of healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035. A litmus test of the Government’s approach will be the attitude to the recently published national food strategy, the Dimbleby report, the last part of which was published last week. That report is clear on action at producer level to reduce salt and sugar in foods, just as we have done successfully under a Conservative Government for soft drinks. That action would produce results. I hope that the murmurings of some on the libertarian extremes, who suggest that exhortation is sufficient, are ignored, given that they are the voices of a few people who have not been following the evidence of the pandemic, and who are committed to an imagined libertarian Valhalla. Not only will positive action help hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of our fellow country men and women, it will also of course ease pressures on the NHS and, indeed, on the economy from the impact of ill health. The details of how the Government are to carry out future arrangements are awaited with interest.

The importance of preventive services in the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office is also highlighted in our report. The Government’s response does not pick up on how there will be investment here in preventive services for those who have been impacted by addiction, homelessness and poor mental health—evidence that we received on this from Revolving Doors. By the same token, early intervention on education, particularly as disadvantaged children have fallen further behind, is crucial. Beyond the existing pupil premium, we need to pick up the proposals on catch-up that Sir Kevan Collins put forward.

On localisation, in the memorable phrase spoken earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, running England out of London is not on. I agree with that, as does the report. Local provision, whether through the public sector or voluntary organisations, is vital; it is familial, trusted, responsive and fleet-footed, and it is more likely to be flexible. We need to recognise that through public health teams and more local funding, not just because of a democratic deficit but because of lack of local provision, certainly contributing to the disease and to death. I welcome the progress that has been made on metro mayors, and I anticipate more—but much more than that is needed for the localisation that is necessary.

The third area of our report that I wanted to cover related to the importance of voluntary organisations. As I have indicated, they are trusted and familial. Their reach is extraordinary, as I found during our inquiry. For example, Ian Jones, the chief executive of Volunteer Cornwall, told us of 4,500 Cornish charities. Many local councils pick up and work with the voluntary sector. Camden Council, for example, relies on Hampstead Volunteer Corps to help with food distribution, and we welcome the development of the new outsourcing playbook by the Cabinet Office. It is welcome, but we need to see it being followed by ensuring that public service commissioners prioritise social value when contracting services. We look forward to that.

In short, there is a lot to do, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on taking things forward—in all our interests, but particularly in the interests of those most disadvantaged, which, as we have heard, includes the BAME community, as well as the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. Generally, those at the bottom of the pile have been hardest hit, and the Government must do more to help them.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Sikka.

Finance Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Forsyth referred to simplification. A 417-page Bill and 349 pages of Explanatory Notes to explain it—I know that most noble Lords will have read both from cover to cover—illustrates that we are not moving in the direction of simplification.

We now have a situation in this country where, because of our devolved settlements, significant economic barriers are being exercised in the devolved areas—particularly in Scotland, where taxation powers are broader than in the other devolved Administrations. But there is one thing that we are not doing: we are not explaining to the people in those regions where the money that the devolved Administrations spend comes from.

I have said before in this House that the devolved Administrations are a bit like giant ATM machines; when the cash stops coming out of the machine, those in the devolved areas simply say, “Well, Westminster didn’t give us enough”. We do not explain the arithmetic to the people in the devolved regions. That would not be a difficult exercise; all it would require would be for the Treasury, perhaps on an annual basis, to produce a short leaflet, or put it online, to show people where the money actually comes from. Local authorities often send out leaflets telling people how their taxes are spent but that does not happen nationally. There is a total absence of accountability to this Parliament for the funds given to the devolved Administrations. Vast sums of money are given over but there is absolutely no feedback or requirement to account for it. That is a perverse principle.

We talk about the pandemic and the rollout of the vaccines bringing our nation together, which I support and which is an excellent selling point. But when the biggest single element that affects the devolved Administrations is the money that they receive from the Treasury through block grants and Barnett consequentials, why do we not tell citizens in the devolved areas what the arithmetic is? It would not be a huge undertaking and it could be done on an annual basis. I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that the Chancellor might look at this. It is a simple exercise, but it would put in context what is actually going on in this country.

I want to refer to a matter that the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised on Clause 102, which deals with restrictions on the use of rebated diesel and biofuels. I mentioned the Explanatory Notes, at least some of which I have looked at. The background note at paragraph 33 states:

“This measure introduces changes that will remove the entitlement to use red diesel and rebated biodiesel from most sectors from April 2022 as part of the government’s strategy to meet the UK’s target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.”

That is a laudable aim but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned, there is a perverse effect relating to our power suppliers in Northern Ireland. They are legally and contractually required to have distillate back-up in the event of a crash of the gas supply, because there is a single source of supply, called SNIP, which comes from Scotland to Larne, in County Antrim. If anything were to go wrong with that pipeline—which, thankfully, has not happened in all the years it has been operating—it is perfectly legitimate to require the people who generate our electricity to have that back-up. It is the only power supplier in these islands that has that legal requirement placed on it.

Distillate means red diesel, so the effect of the measure in the Bill would be that 12,000 tonnes of red diesel which does not need to be burned would have to be burned by April 2022 and replaced with another 12,000 tonnes of white diesel, simply because one has dye in it and the other has not. There is no technical difference between the two fuels—they are just the same, but one has red dye in it and one does not. The systems would have to be purged and because the number of tankers allowed to bring fuel in per day is limited to eight for environmental reasons, it would take between three and four months to purge and then replace. I am no climate expert, but we will produce an additional 23,000 tonnes of carbon that could be left sitting there because that fuel supply is only for an emergency and, fortunately, has not had to be used.

I appeal to the Minister to take this matter back to his colleagues. I have no doubt that the legal obligation for our power suppliers to have this back-up is one of those things that people had not realised—both the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and I were Energy Ministers in Northern Ireland, and I do not know whether I enforced it or if it is his fault—but it was the right thing to do. It might even have been the Deputy Speaker’s fault, because he was there before I was.

So I think it is just one of those things that had not been picked up, but its effects would be negative and perverse. It would mean extra costs for the consumer and have significant implications for our power suppliers because we are in an all-island market now; there is no similar requirement for power suppliers in the Republic of Ireland to have such a back-up, so they will automatically be more competitive when they are bidding to generate electricity to go into the grid. I appeal to the Minister to be kind enough to take this matter back to his colleagues and explain the difficulties. I am sure they can be dealt with and overcome.

I support the general principle, although there is no question that red diesel is abused. I also make the point that paramilitaries have been smuggling such products for 20 years—reasonably successfully so far, from their point of view—so to penalise the electricity consumer through no fault of their own would be perverse in the extreme.

By the way, it would be interesting to know—the Minister may not know this or he may not have the information at his disposal today, but he can let me know—if in fact he received any representations from the relevant department in the Northern Ireland Executive and, if so, when.

On a broader, general point, very few people in any of our lifetimes have seen anything like the last 18 months. There is no doubt that the Chancellor has been very vigorous in his attempts to ensure that our industries do not collapse, but I have to say to him that one industry that is in severe trouble, as the Minister will know, is the aviation and aerospace sector. I am a member of the APPG on Aerospace, and we had a well-attended meeting with the Minister, Robert Courts, just before I came into the Chamber. The sector is in despair because of the chopping and changing.

Aerospace is one of the key providers of high-quality jobs in the UK—over 100,000 of them, highly skilled and highly paid. It also provides apprenticeships, which are vital for the future. The uncertainties and the on/off process that is unfolding before us make it very difficult. Orders for aircraft have, naturally, gone down dramatically. We need more investment in reducing fuels, developing alternative means of propulsion and so on, but at present that whole supply chain is in dire straits. It is propped up by the furlough scheme, but that will not last for ever.

I appeal to the Government to get their house in order with regard to the aviation sector, and that means deciding when people can move around. I know these issues are difficult, but I have to say that a lot of the very good work that has been done is at serious risk of leading to high job losses. It is an area where this country in particular already has great leadership potential. In aerospace we are number two in the world, and there are not too many sectors of our economy about which we can say that. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that we protect this sector, which is so vital to the UK’s economy.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise with the unusual luxury of 10 minutes’ speaking time, given because we have only a dozen Back-Bench speeches on this crucial taxation issue. I hope that some Peers in your Lordships’ House who specialise on issues of poverty and inequality—indeed, on any issues at all—will join these debates in future. Taxation, or the lack of it, shapes our societies. As the richly informative and powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, outlined, decades of decisions about taxation have helped to give us our deeply unequal, poverty-stricken society. We have been taxing the poor and allowing large companies and rich individuals to get away without paying.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, suggested that your Lordships’ House may need more experts in tax, finance and business, but this is a far broader issue that needs a far broader input. I quote the American historian Albert Bushnell Hart:

“Taxation is the price which civilized communities pay for the opportunity of remaining civilized.”


It is clear now, on the streets of London, that there are strong and rich debates about how the people who benefit from the investments of this and previous generations—in roads, public buildings, electricity supplies, and the services that we all pay for such as schools, hospitals and policing—make a fair contribution to the maintenance and restoration of our degraded physical and social infrastructure, and the impacts of austerity that we see in potholed roads, closed libraries and inadequate social care provision. These are not technical issues, but are at the very foundation of our society.

Noble Lords might worry about where they get sources of information. I thank Tax Justice UK for an excellent briefing and for drawing attention to the work of the Women’s Budget Group, which has identified how women, people on low incomes and BAME communities will benefit least from the tax breaks in the Bill and bear the chief brunt of the scheduled spending cuts.

It is interesting that, in the debates so far, the failures of regulation and of culture in our financial sector have come up again and again. Noble Lords who took part on the then Financial Services Bill might reflect on this. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, talked about umbrella companies, which is an area where the UK is world-leading in entirely the wrong direction. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, talked about the “many-headed Hydra” of tax-dodging schemes, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, in great detail. The fact is that we have too large a financial sector, which is milking not just the UK but the entire world and particularly the global south. The centre of global corruption is on our doorstep.

It has been suggested that we all live in social media bubbles these days, but in your Lordships’ House I feel like I am in the vigorous Atlantic surf of strong disagreement on economic issues. I particularly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about their entire economic commentary. The ways and means mechanism and its implementation have existed for many years and show how the rules of the game have changed and that the old economic approaches failed disastrously and gave us the global financial crash. We are finally looking differently at how the economy works and what it is for. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and many others said that we need to get the economy going again and focusing on growth. I remind your Lordships’ House, in the country that is the chair of COP 26, that we cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. That is not politics; it is physics.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, recommended some reading to us. I have some alternative reading to suggest, a book I reviewed this week in the House magazine by Professor Tim Jackson. He is quite a mainstream economist and his book Post Growth is well worth a read. I also pick up on the points of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, which focused on the importance, as he sees it, of giant multinational companies. I stress that 61% of employment in the UK is in small and medium enterprises. The Government talk of levelling up, but I would rather talk about spreading out prosperity. The foundation of prosperity for every community in this land needs to be built on strong local economies of small independent enterprises and co-operatives—a different and stable kind of economic model.

Having set the scene, I turn to some details in the Bill. I take the point made by several noble Lords about the thickness of the paperwork but, when you look at the measures, you see that it is actually a modest Bill. It talks about tidying up some Northern Ireland and VAT Brexit issues—another reminder that Brexit is by no means done. There are some modest measures that noble Lords have referred to about plastics, red diesel and cycling—very modest again for the chair of COP 26, when you think about the need to act on the climate emergency. We also have an increase in stamp duty land tax for overseas purchases of residential property in England and Northern Ireland which, should your Lordships take an imaginary scan of the boroughs around where we sit today, might be best described as shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The headline measure is a super deduction for the largest companies, many of which have done very well out of the great tragedy and suffering of the global pandemic. This is estimated to be going to cost the Treasury £25 billion. That would be a lot of social care or a large injection that our education sector so desperately needs. The Office for Budget Responsibility said that £5 billion of the spending that would be covered by this will be spent on previously planned investments. The Times reported that tax advisers specialising in capital allowances have pointed out that jacuzzies are listed as one investment that could receive a 130% rebate.

Perhaps we also need to think about what is not in this Bill. It is interesting that, despite widespread debate in society now, both in the Bill and in the debate around it in the other place, no amendment was put down about a wealth tax. There was no real discussion of it in the other place despite that now being a major topic of discussion among even some quite mainstream economists and certainly among the public.

Of course, there is a lot of discussion about the levels of corporate taxation, led not by the UK but by Joe Biden’s America. When I asked the Minister on 14 April about the US President’s plans, he effectively gave me a “no comment” response when I asked what the UK stance would be. I am pleased to see that we have now signed up to the US initiative. The noble Lord in his answer to my supplementary question then said something very interesting. He said the Government had always been one that wanted to reduce taxation wherever possible. Perhaps he might like to consider the words of the Chancellor in deciding to end the race to the bottom in corporation tax by increasing the headline rate to 25% in 2023 after Her Majesty’s Treasury found that the cut in the headline rate since 2010 did not drive inward investment. To quote the Chancellor, it

“might not be the most effective way to drive capital investment up”.

I also refer to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, about those statistics. He referred to inward investment. I would say that that inward investment very often has been the selling off of the family silver, whether that is our water companies, publicly held land or, indeed, the family beds when it comes to selling off our care homes to the hedge fund industry.

If we did have, let us say, a wealth tax, where might it go? Despite the Government’s talk of an end to austerity, a £15 billion cut in annual government departmental spending is planned. These budgets are already cut to the bone and, of course, are being hit by the huge and continuing impacts of the pandemic.

There is some very useful information about who is paying and who is not. I have referred noble Lords to a report from the CAGE institute at the University of Warwick. In 2015-16, a quarter of people who had more than £1 million in taxable income paid less than 30% tax, while one in 10 paid just 11%—the same as a person earning £15,000 a year. This is a key issue.

I come back to the inequality and the poverty in our society, issues so well covered by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. We are talking about capital gains tax and inequality in the way income is taxed. These issues are all missing from this Bill. They will need to be confronted soon.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, have withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.

Ministerial Code and Register of Ministers’ Interests

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked, so we will move to the next business.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am afraid the Minister is not available. Can we please adjourn the House for five minutes?

People with Disabilities Standing for Elected Office

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I will ensure that the important suggestions put forward by the noble Baroness are taken into account as we go forward. I reiterate the Government’s desire to see more disabled candidates for all parties.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the process of managing their disability, or the disability of someone they care for, people learn many skills, both practical and organisational, that are useful in public life and elected office? As the Government are rightly—[Inaudible]—will he also agree that it makes sound economic, as well as moral, good sense to give financial support to ensure that these much-needed skills are not lost?

Covid-19: May Elections

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, guidance has been issued on aspects of election campaigning and further guidance will be issued. Campaigning is an essential part of democracy. The current national lockdown restrictions in England say that one must not leave or be outside one’s home unnecessarily, and those restrictions do not support door-to-door campaigning or leafleting. However, I take advice from the noble Lord’s question and, as I have said, there will be further guidance on top of the guidance that has already been issued.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, frail elderly people, people with disabilities and their carers have traditionally relied on transport services provided by the voluntary sector to access polling stations. Since many of those services are now in short supply, or even non-existent because of a shortage of money, volunteers or Covid restrictions, how does the Minister suggest that this should be addressed so that those less able citizens are not denied their democratic right to participate?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, like most people in this House, I have driven electors to polls and I anticipate a future when I myself might be driven. I can assure the noble Baroness that the arrangements that we are putting in place for emergency proxies right up to 5 pm on the day should ensure that anyone who is self- isolating or has tested positive for Covid-19 can still have their say in the elections without having to leave their residence. That will be the Government’s policy and is the assurance that I give the House.

Essential Services: Large-scale Technology

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab) [V]]

Is the Minister aware that certain forms of technology are useful in care settings? For example, Alexa does not mind how many times someone with dementia asks the same question. Does the Minister think that the development of assisted technology—social robots alongside human care givers, perhaps—should be factored into the Government’s planning for the reform of social care?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a profoundly important point, which I agree with. I assure her that all the lead departments involved will consider her points. We must use the future to the benefit of all ages.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Grand Committee

Relevant document: 13th Report from the Constitution Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.

A list of participants for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips Office, as have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments, or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted. During the debate on each group I will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groups are binding and it will not be possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate.

Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not Content”, an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an amendment expected to be agreed to, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.

Debate on Amendment 15 resumed.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I am not sure that I will tell my honourable friend Mr Bone about the support he has from the Liberal Democrats—I am very solicitous for his health, of course. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made a powerful and interesting speech, which I listened to carefully, as I have tried to to all speeches in your Lordships’ Committee.

A false dichotomy underlies part of our discussion last week, between an attitude posited—even called a sort of arithmetical obsession by one Member of the Committee, who avows his authorship—and the idea of fluidity and connection with local places and local ties. It is said that these two things are antithetical; they cannot run together. Of course, there is a balance in these matters. I believe, and I hope to persuade the Committee, because the Government cannot accept the amendments spoken to today, that a good and fair balance is struck by a tolerance of 5%.

There has been a difference of opinion. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Lennie and Lord Grocott, proposed a tolerance range of 15%, plus or minus 7.5%. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, backed up ably by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, proposed plus or minus 8%, together with headroom to move to 20%—plus or minus 10%—where deemed necessary. The noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foulkes, went further, suggesting 20%—plus or minus 10%—in all instances. Amendment 22 in the next group even envisages a 30% range in some circumstances. A variety of opinion has been put before the Committee, before referring to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who went in the other direction by suggesting a tolerance range of 5%.

I also thank other noble Lords who spoke, my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Hayward. My noble friend Lord Blencathra nodded to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Forsyth and came down on balance, I think, in favour of 5%, as did my noble friend Lord Hayward. His expertise, detailed knowledge and experience of this subject—matched, as we heard today by other Members of the Committee—are of great benefit. I was struck by what he said about splitting wards and noted also what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said on this subject.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra gave us a dose of practical political reality in his powerful speech. There will be disputes. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was very solicitous for the future of the Conservative Party, which was kind of him, but wherever one strikes this, there will be disruption—the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—but the Government believe that the current position, set out in existing legislation, is the right one; namely, a tolerance range of 10%, to allow the Boundary Commissions to propose constituencies 5% larger or smaller than the quota.

The Government are resolute in their goal of delivering equal constituencies so far as possible. We committed to do so in our 2019 manifesto and the elected House has upheld that position. With our having made that pledge, I hope noble Lords will recognise that this House should not wind back the current reasonable and achievable tolerance range of 10%.

Of course, I understand the views expressed in this Committee about communities being kept together within single constituencies and about particular geographies being respected. They are powerful sentiments and were eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, but the concept of equal votes—the simple idea that each elector’s vote must count as nearly as possible the same—is equally, if not arguably more, powerful. It is the cornerstone of our democracy and fundamental to maintaining voters’ participation and trust.

The only tool we have by which to ensure such an approach is to apply the electoral quota on a universal basis while allowing appropriate flexibility to the Boundary Commissions to take into account important local factors such as geographical features and community ties without introducing significant variability. That will remain the position. Previously, Parliament has debated tolerance and judged that a range of 10% is right and will allow this. The Government believe that we should hold to that position. It strikes the right balance between achieving equal, fair boundaries and allowing the Boundary Commissions flexibility to take account of other factors.

If we let out the seams of tolerance, as it was put in debate, the results are quick and clear, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra illustrated. Using the electoral figures from 2019, with a 15% range, one could range from 78,000 electors to almost 11,000 fewer. At 20%, one would be looking at a potential disparity of 20,000-plus electors, with some constituencies of around 62,000 and others approaching 83,500. I agree with my noble friends Lord Hayward, Lord Blencathra and Lord Forsyth: there is no legitimate argument for having constituencies with sizes varying by potentially 11,000 or 20,000 electors, depending on the amendment in question in this group. That is not equitable.

At 20%, the latitude provided to the Boundary Commissions is so significant that more than 80% of constituencies could be untouched by the next boundary review. Some—and it has been argued for in this Committee—may think that a good outcome, but I urge that we recall that the purpose of a boundary review is to update constituencies to take account of how the population has changed. The current parliamentary constituencies, which no one defends, are based on the electorate as it was in the early 2000s, nearly 20 years ago. We all know that there have been significant shifts since then, in migration, in housebuilding and in population growth.

Let me touch on the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—followed up by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, with some interesting historical references —of giving the Boundary Commissions discretion to apply a greater tolerance in certain instances where they judge it to be needed. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, suggested a basic tolerance range of 16%, but with flexibility to move to 20%. Similar ideas were put forward in the other place. On the face of it, such discretion may seem attractive, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made a good fist of it, but, in reality, it can make the job of the Boundary Commissions more difficult and the outcome of boundary reviews considerably less certain.

It is not difficult to envisage that the Boundary Commissions would quickly come under pressure to use the discretion allowed by this amendment. When a commission used that discretion in one part of its territory, it is highly likely that communities in another part would call for something similar. The same phenomenon would be likely to occur across the four nations of the union. For example, were the Boundary Commission for Scotland to be quicker to propose constituencies with a larger variance range, it would surely not take long for a similar approach to be demanded of the Boundary Commission for England or for Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, mentioned protected constituencies. We have discussed this concept and will do so again on a later group of amendments. I thank him for acknowledging that there is a small number of specific instances where exceptions might be sensible. We will discuss that later but, again, the Government’s feeling is that we have struck the right balance.

One reason why the Boundary Commissions are as effective and respected as they are is that they implement rules that are clear and unambiguous—the importance of clarity of rules was referred to also by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. While they act with clarity and transparency and steer clear of subjective judgments and rankings, the scope for disagreement and challenge—yes, it will be there—will be limited. The Government are keen to protect that position.

Our task is to update the UK’s parliamentary constituencies and to ensure that our electors have votes that are fairer and more equal. That task is urgent. As Professor McLean said of Parliament when giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee,

“it is … very embarrassing that it is operating on the basis of 20-year-old boundaries and therefore we did not have equal suffrage in the 2019 general election”.—[Official Report, Commons, Parliamentary Constituencies Bill Committee, 23/6/20; col. 94.]

I should at this point add my own comments of respect and appreciation for the late Professor Ron Johnston and endorse what many others have said in this Committee.

I urge the Committee to recognise that the tolerance level agreed in previous legislation and reaffirmed by the elected House on this Bill is right and reasonable. Changes to it have been rejected on numerous occasions in the elected Chamber, to which it relates. I ask noble Lords to resist the desire to fix something that the Government contend is not broken and not to press these amendments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received no request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]]

On Thursday, on an earlier group of amendments, I thought that the Minister was correcting my quotation from the Constitution Committee. In fact, he rightly questioned my assertion that it had endorsed, rather than simply noted, suggestions from others as to how to ensure that the Boundary Commissions were independent. He was right; I was wrong. I think that is 1-0 to the Minister.

However, on this amendment, the Minister is on shakier ground, but I shall to try to avoid making what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, called a “holier-than-thou” speech, especially as I want first to turn to something more serious that the noble Lord said, when he claimed:

“Trying to link this matter to the issue of saving the union is very shoddy politics”.—[Official Report, 10/9/20; col. GC 320.]


I shall not try to pretend that I understand Scotland, but just at the moment in Wales, when the Government seem intent on weakening the devolution settlement via the internal market Bill and when again and again UK Ministers ignore the Welsh Government—indeed, even sharing the internal market Bill with Welsh Ministers two hours after it had been shared with the press—the noble Lord might note that a seismic reduction in Welsh voices in Westminster fuels separatist emotions and the feeling that Wales is a mere afterthought to this Government. I was particularly struck that the Government’s statement on the internal market Bill quoted the Scottish Secretary of State, a Scottish businessman and the Scottish Retail Consortium, with no equivalent endorsement from anyone in Wales, not even the Welsh Secretary.

I am not speaking for Scotland, but I hope that the Government do not think that chopping Welsh input into Parliament has no wider implications. As was said in an earlier debate, the Americans recognised early on that size alone did not matter, with each state being accorded proper recognition in the Senate. The UK Government should give serious thought to binding in each of the four nations if they really want to retain the United Kingdom. This does not go to the heart of these amendments, but it is a response to what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. Incidentally, he apologises because he has just left to chair his own Select Committee, but he has been with us thus far.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 16 and 17 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 18. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.

Amendment 18

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I am in much agreement with what he said, specifically on Cornwall and Devon. My name is also against Amendment 20. I thank him for his kind words and say that he was making even more sense than usual despite that lack of sleep. I offer him many congratulations on that feat.

I want first to say something in general in relation to amendments in this group before turning to the position relating to Cornwall. I have much sympathy with the argument that a 5% variance in each direction is too strict and rigid. We should not apologise for a principle of equal-size constituencies in population terms in general. We have demonstrated as a country and a Parliament flexibility in relation to some islands, quite rightly, and I cannot see why we should not do the same elsewhere. Clearly, there has to be a restriction on the variation, but we need more flexibility in that direction, particularly in rural areas and particularly in the rural areas of Wales, which I know well. There is a compelling case in relation to Brecon and Radnorshire; I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who knows a thing or two about that area. There is such a case to be made too in relation to England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The same principle applies, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said.

In Cornwall, not only does the Tamar provide an effective natural boundary—who can doubt that who has been into Saltash?—but it is also a demarcation of a clear difference between Cornwall and the rest of the country. It has its own cultural attributes, its own language and its own national minority. There is a powerful, compelling case for acting differently in relation to Cornwall as we have done in relation to islands such as Ynys Môn, the Isle of Wight and so on. I agree with the powerful case put by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.

I shall not delay the Committee too long, but I strongly support this amendment. The Minister, whom I know well and who has listened with great care and attention as he always does in these debates, appeared sympathetic to the case for Cornwall. I hope that he is persuaded of the need to protect in legislation the unity of Cornwall and to write that into the Bill.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

Baroness Jolly. No? If the noble Baroness is not with us, we shall go on to the noble Lord, Lord Hain.

[Lord Hain (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 22 standing in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to whom I am grateful.

Why this Bill? Is there a clamour from voters to change their constituencies? No. Do, for example, rural voters in Wales want even larger constituencies because they think that their MPs are too close to them? No. So what is the motivation?

Much is made by Ministers, as the noble Lord, Lord True, has already done, of the case for equalisation, but equalisation has been the principle behind our constituency system for generations—we all accept that principle. The point is that the Boundary Commissions have had the discretion to apply it fairly and sensibly, taking proper account of local views, of community identity and of geographic sparsity instead of being rigidly straitjacketed, as this Bill requires.

The Bill means that the uniqueness of Wales, in the past always having had special consideration by this Parliament, including in the 1944 Act, and by the Boundary Commissions, is ignored. In no other nation of Britain, proportionate to the population, are there such large and remote areas and vast geographical rural areas where there are thousands more sheep than people and constituencies are hundreds of square miles if not larger. Yet under this Bill, four existing geographically large seats in Wales could well become, and almost certainly will become, two monster ones. Instead of being hundreds of square miles in size, each will become thousands of square miles, in mid-Wales, north Wales and west Wales—none of them, by the way, Labour seats, so no party pleading is going on here.

Much has been made about the Bill creating constituencies that are more equal in size, but that has come at the expense of community ties, history and geography. We do not live in a world where populations grow in neat conurbations which fit an electoral quota dictated from on high. Nor does our geography in Wales lend itself to communities being switched dogmatically between constituencies to help achieve that quota. Our existing system already takes account of that by trading off strict electoral quotas in order to prioritise community identity, local ties and geography. Identifying with the constituency we live in and the close link between an MP and their constituents are fundamental to our parliamentary democracy and envied by democracies around the world.

The rigidity of the electoral quota and the 5% variance provided for in the Bill put that in jeopardy and give primacy to a rigid mathematical equation which is damaging for our democracy. That is why Amendment 22 proposes, in relation to Wales alone and to meet its specific needs, that the electorate of any constituency be no less than 85% of the United Kingdom electoral quota and no more than 115% of that quota. Why is this needed? Wales’s unique geography means that constituencies can vary drastically, from vast rural constituencies which are sparsely populated, such as the existing Brecon and Radnorshire, to densely populated, small urban constituencies in Cardiff and Swansea.

It is no surprise that two of the five largest geographical constituencies, Montgomeryshire and Dwyfor Meirionnydd, are also two of five smallest in electorate size, while two of the five largest electorates, Cardiff South and Penarth and Cardiff North, are also two of the five smallest geographical constituencies. There is a logic to that. There are seven constituencies in Wales which are more than 1,000 square kilometres in size—Brecon and Radnorshire is more than 3,000 square kilometres—but because of the rigid electoral quota used during the last review under the previous legislation, the Boundary Commission for Wales ended up proposing mega constituencies to achieve numerical parity and to cover the vast areas of sparsely populated rural Wales, as I described in great detail when moving Amendment 14. Much the same will happen under this Bill.

Mega constituencies like that will only alienate voters from those whom they elect to represent them, leaving them feeling more cut off and remote than before. It is a toxic combination which will lead to disengagement and undermine democracy. Equally, the strict quota is problematic for valley constituencies and makes the task of creating constituencies which make sense to valley communities extremely difficult.

It is not easy to move single communities from a valley and dump them in a different constituency. By their very nature, valley communities are linked and do not easily connect with neighbouring valleys. To reach a neighbouring valley you cannot just drive over a mountain of fields and forests. You have to drive to the top or the bottom, making communication take longer and not easy. Valley communities are also linked to specific towns in terms of transport, community links and historical ties. These community ties form the basis of many of the valley constituencies in the south Wales area, which I know well, still live in, and represented for a quarter of a century.