Elections Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 17th March 2022 Lords Chamber

We should be actively seeking measures to do what the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, encouraged, which is to increase participation and involvement, to increase registration and, perhaps, to think about why we have elections on Thursdays, which are typically working days for so many people. There are a whole series of things that we could be worrying about on the question of increasing participation, but the Government have made the choice to spend a significant amount of money on this particular issue. I would like to hear from the Minister why it is better to spend that sum of money on this issue rather than, for example, on a campaign to increase registration and participation. That seems to be the real cost question that should be faced.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that long, thought-provoking and interesting debate. I am sorry my noble friend Lord True is not answering on this issue, but this was much more of a stand part debate than one on any specific amendments.

I sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, and my noble friend Lady Verma for what they have said today, and indeed for coming; the noble Lord has come from Cambridge today, and I know my noble friend has a really painful foot. I thank them both for coming because, as noble Lords have said, their passion on this issue really shone out.

I think the issue is connected. It is about making sure that as many people as possible take up their democratic right to vote, and we always have more work to do on that. I totally agree with the noble Lord about citizenship in schools—I was a huge supporter of that for the many years that I was leader of a large council—but we also have to listen to my noble friend Lady Verma and the communities that she comes from about the issues in play at the moment that prevent some of her community using their democratic vote. We are going to try, through citizenship in schools and other measures that the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, is taking, to make sure that people can do that. I thank them both for coming and for their input.

Most of what we have talked about today is about communications. Having worked for many years with electoral officers in local authorities, I know that they are very good locally. I thank them for everything they do in targeting their communities; they know those communities and are very good at making sure that they get the message out.

However, when this Bill goes through, the communication of the new way that the electoral system will work as a result of it will be down to the Electoral Commission, which has agreed to deliver comprehensive and targeted communications about the new system. I hope it will work with those local electoral officers—we will make sure that it does—to make sure that it is a joined-up approach so that everyone understands how it will work.

The top line on this issue is that in our manifesto the Government committed to protecting the integrity of our democracy by introducing identification to vote at polling stations. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that we won a majority of 80 seats. Yes, we did, and we won it on that manifesto commitment. That was part of what we offered the electorate at that time.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Can I be clear? The House has heard three times from the Government Front Bench about their manifesto. Did the Government’s manifesto commit to compulsory voter ID?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

It was photo identification—

[Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)]

With respect, it was not photo ID, it was ID. That also means non-photo ID. I am afraid that the goalposts are being shifted, which could have a dramatic effect.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I have listened to what the noble Lord said and will check the detail of the manifesto. I will ensure that we write to all noble Lords to make that clear—

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

I will not intervene again, but I asked the noble Lord, Lord True, whether he could rely on the integrity of the electoral system and the mechanisms that returned an 80-seat majority. Can the noble Baroness answer that specific question? Is she happy that it was a free and fair election? If she is, why is she bothered about voter ID?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that any good electoral system can always be improved and that is exactly what we are doing.

Many countries are doing this; we are not the only one. Italy, France, Spain and Norway—all our European friends, which I am sure the Liberal Democrats will be very pleased about—already have voter identification. Canada, which is not in the EU, also does. But as many noble Lords have mentioned—

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

It is really important that we have a level playing field here. Of the countries that the Minister has just outlined, how many do not have mandatory ID cards?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not know about mandatory ID cards. All I know is that they have to use voter identification when they vote and that is the important issue—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt but surely the important thing is that if they already have to have an ID card, it is very different from having to get a special ID card to vote.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I do not agree with that. I do not think that is necessary. It is in the government manifesto and electoral fraud is not a victimless crime. I know the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, was very clear that there had been only one case of fraud but the impact of electoral fraud on voters can be very significant. It takes away their right to vote as they want to—whether through intimidation, bribery, impersonating somebody or casting their vote for them—

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness in her flow but the implication is that a vote is taken away. It is not. There is a process in the polling stations by which if you claim that somebody has already taken your vote—usually because the wrong name has been crossed off by one of the polling clerks—a replacement ballot paper, known as a tendered ballot paper, is given to you. There is no theft and no loss of vote. You get an extra vote. We know from the Electoral Commission’s analysis that there were only 1,300 cases out of the 37 million votes cast in the 2019 general election. Most were simple clerical errors. It virtually never happens and if it does, there is a replacement.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, that is if anybody goes back because they have not been intimidated into not going in the first place, I have to say. I respectfully say that this is something that we simply cannot ignore—

[Lord Eatwell (Lab)]

Will the noble Baroness explain the relationship between intimidation and the intimidating need to get photo ID?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

You need to do both. We are trying to make sure that people in the communities that my noble friend Lady Verma has stood up and very bravely spoken about have the opportunity, as well as others, to take up their democratic right to vote. She rightly pointed out that many people may feel more empowered to participate if they feel more secure in the system—that has come out in research done by the Electoral Commission. In 2021, 66% said they would have more confidence in the system if there was voter ID at polling stations.

[Lord Maxton (Lab)]

I am very reluctant to speak, because I have sat through most of this and I did not take part in Second Reading, but if an ID card is presented at the polling station, is that taken as proof that you have voted or are voting? There is a photographic ID card.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

If you have the necessary photo ID and your name is on that electoral register—

[Lord Maxton (Lab)]

But surely most countries that the noble Baroness has already said are part and parcel of the extension of this scheme have an ID card.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I think that is a different discussion.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

This might be helpful, because we were wondering what was in the manifesto. In fact, the Joint Committee on Human Rights quotes from it:

“We will protect the integrity of our democracy by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections.”


There is nothing about photo ID.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can we now move on, please?

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The Minister might have inadvertently misled the Committee from the Dispatch Box in the figures she has just quoted from the Electoral Commission’s survey of 2019. The Government’s own impact assessment, on page 42, paragraph 83, refers to that, saying that satisfaction in the pilot areas was 69% of the poll in 2019, whereas it was 83% in those areas where there was no photo ID pilot.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am quoting from the 2021 Electoral Commission winter tracker, which was clear that the majority of the public, two out of three voters, 66%, say a requirement to show identification at a polling station would make them more confident in the security of our elections. That was 2021.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The pilot was done in 2019. These are people who actually had the photo ID. When there was photo ID against a control group of no photo ID, the people who were more satisfied with the ballot, post the election, were the people who did not have photo ID. The Government’s own impact assessment says that, and that was signed off by the noble Lord, Lord True, on 20 January this year. Is the Government’s impact assessment correct?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord is conveniently ignoring the experience from Northern Ireland, which is better than the pilots, as one would expect, because they have had it for a very long time. To keep quoting from these pilots as a way of trying to discredit the rollout is a pretty ineffective approach when there is clearly a lot of experience from Northern Ireland which shows a high degree of satisfaction.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I will answer the Minister directly. The Northern Ireland experience shows that between 2% and 3% of people, after the introduction, did not vote. If we extrapolate that over here, that is 1.2 million people who would probably be less likely to vote. It has taken 10 years to get back to the equivalent before photo ID was introduced. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but that is the evidence, because I have read it. I have read it and I have seen what the effect in Northern Ireland actually is: it has taken 10 years. The noble Baroness shakes her head, so I ask her to show me the evidence that shows that what I am saying is not correct. What is more, for one conviction, is it worth, for 10 years, 1.2 million people being discouraged from voting in England?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I want to move on, rather than discussing different pieces of information. I will move on to costs. My noble friend Lady Noakes is absolutely right about costs. I will come on to costs to local authorities, but the overall cost has been put at £25 per year per person. That is the estimated cost of the production of the voter card and of raising awareness of voter identification across all polls happening within 10 years. We are not expecting this to be a fixed cost; we are expecting it to reduce over time as voters become more familiar with these arrangements.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I specifically asked about education programmes, the rollout of information and how people were going to know about the changes. What is the cost that the Minister has just given us going to deliver? It does not seem very much to engage electors in a pretty enormous change.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

As I said, the Electoral Commission has agreed to do much of this. I will come to local authorities now. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Pinnock and Lady Meacher, quite rightly talked about the costs of this to local authorities. The impact assessment presented a range of costs that could be incurred by the introduction of these measures in order to ensure that local authorities and valuation joint boards are provided with the funding to implement the changes successfully. We will continue to refine our estimates of the future new burdens required to reflect the design of the secondary legislation. Government analysts are engaging with local authorities and valuation joint boards as this model is developed. Work is being done by all those involved.

Any allocation would be subject to detailed consideration of the varied pictures across local authorities and the valuation boards and would seek to allocate funding according to need. As was the case with the introduction of individual electoral registration, new-burdens funding will be provided to cover the additional costs resulting from the changes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about the different needs of different authorities. We accept that. The administrative burden will be driven by a variety of factors across local authorities, including their existing capabilities. The allocation of new-burdens funding, including for any additional staffing required, is being modelled and discussed with local authorities and other key stakeholders, working with the programme team in the department. The allocation of the new-burdens funding will take into account the different requirements and characteristics of all local authorities. We are working with local authorities and with the Local Government Association, and we are looking at all the different characteristics of those individual authorities. As a local authority person, I understand this.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I want just to check on the question which has already been raised about the extra security costs. While preparing for this Bill, I went to talk to the Bradford electoral registration team. One of the strongest messages that came from them was that a significant number of poll clerks in Bradford were young women. We all know that intimidation is the most frequent election problem in parts of Bradford. When faced with rather aggressive men of one sort or another whose identity is being challenged, young women are going to feel very unsafe. This will require extra staffing and police. Has this been factored in?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I cannot tell the noble Lord whether that has been factored in. I will ask the team and come back to him. The fact that local authorities are working with the team means that those sorts of issues will come up and be dealt with.

We have also already established a business change network covering England, Scotland and Wales, specifically to support local authorities with the implementation of the policy changes arising from the Elections Bill. The network allows the regular flow of information both ways between local authorities and officials in DLUHC, acting as a local presence with knowledge of the Elections Bill and supporting and engaging with administrators during the implementation. That is where these sorts of issues need to come up and I expect them to be dealt with in that way.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, brought up training for returning officers. This will all come out of the same network. We continue to work with local authorities to understand their needs and the needs of voters in relation to training on the new electoral system. I think that deals with all the points, so I will now get on to the actual amendments.

These amendments and those in the groups just after place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a wide range of reports, impact assessments and reviews, as well as to hold consultations on the impacts and estimated impacts of various measures in this Bill. Amendment 55 would prevent Schedule 1 coming into force until the Secretary of State has made a statement before Parliament on the estimated cost of the provisions, in addition to the potential impacts on voter turnout across different demographics.

This amendment is entirely unnecessary. A detailed estimate of costs for all the provisions in the Bill was published alongside it, as was an equality impact assessment. To suggest that the impacts of the measures in the Bill have not been considered in great detail would be a disservice to the many officials in the team who have spent considerable time modelling the various impacts and who are already working very closely with the sector to prepare for its implementation in a thorough and very considered way.

On the financial costs, we have worked extensively with the electoral sector to assess the impacts of the measures and have rightfully modelled a range of costs to account for a number of scenarios. We continue to work to refine these as the detail of implementation planning is settled. Our priority remains ensuring that local authorities have the necessary resources to continue to deliver our elections robustly and securely, and we have secured the necessary funding to deliver that goal.

As is usual for programmes of this kind, any additional funding required will be delivered to local authorities via the new burdens mechanism. Rollout of any funding will be timed to ensure that local authorities can meet the costs incurred. This is not the first time that the Government have delivered a change programme in this area. The Government have worked closely with the sector to deliver a number of national programmes, including canvass reform and the introduction of individual electoral registration, to great effect. This programme, while complex, is no different and we will continue to take the same open and collaborative approach to implementation.

When it comes to publications, the evaluation of and reporting on funding for programmes of this kind are already subject to publication requirements, particularly as this qualifies as a government major programme. Furthermore, we are developing robust evaluation plans and intend to produce a process and impact evaluation of the programme across all policy measures. Therefore, in light of the already published assessments for the Bill and the assurances that existing plans will provide ample transparency, I beg the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, this debate has ranged rather wide of the area covered by my amendments, to say the least. Having said that, it has been very interesting. As other noble Lords have said, the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, made a very important and powerful speech. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, that I am sure that we would all agree that every vote should count—of course it should—and I totally understand what she is saying. The challenge for us, as parliamentarians, is how we change that—that is a debate for another day, but she raised an incredibly important issue that we have to look at very carefully. Perhaps we should look at areas where we could do something to increase empowerment and engagement—perhaps that is missing from this Bill. I would be really interested to engage more with the noble Baroness to think about how we can support her, from this side, in what she is trying to achieve and to better understand her concerns.

I will not go into the manifesto commitment debate—my noble friend Lady Lister resolved that quite adequately. But she also raised an important concern, as did—

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister talked about costs and went into a lot of detail. I asked a number of questions, which I know she did her best to answer, but a lot of it is still quite vague—it is about work being done and modelling. I need to go away and have a proper read of Hansard to see exactly what she says is happening at the moment. My concern is when all this will be ready. When will this modelling be completed? When will we have some idea of the costs and how they will be managed? On a number of occasions during today’s debate, we have talked about the implications of a potential snap election. Let us say that an election is called in September. Where does that leave us? Let us say that the Bill has gone through and this is what will be required, but the Government are still busy modelling.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Let me respond to that. I was not talking about modelling; I was talking about groupings and communications between DLUHC officers and local authority election officers in individual councils to make sure that we know exactly what the issues are for them and what the costs will be for them. Things such as whether they are rural or inner city and need more security are being discussed at the moment with individual local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, listening to this debate, it is quite obvious that some groups of people are less likely to have access to the voter ID that will be required. We should know much more about the potential consequences of such a major change to our tried and tested system at polling stations before introducing it for a general election. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, said, let us press the pause button on this. A single survey commissioned by the Cabinet Office is not sufficient to show that compulsory voter ID will not have many of the same problems that we see with electoral registration, which effectively excludes many people from their right to vote.

We should look in some detail at the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on this issue. It drew attention last September as to how:

“The Government must do more to demonstrate the need for voter ID”.


The committee said that the Government must also

“mitigate the potential barriers to voting its proposals may create.”

The Government’s response spoke about making elections “accessible”, but they failed to justify any additional barriers to voting or to show that they were proportionate to what is shown to be an extremely low level of electoral fraud and one conviction. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said that

“it is estimated that over 2 million people will not have an acceptable form of ID and so will have to apply for a free voter card or lose the ability to vote at the polling station. These proposals are aiming to reduce fraud at polling stations, however the recorded instances of such fraud are rare.”

Having taken expert advice, the committee warned that:

“The impact of the proposals may fall disproportionately on some groups with protected characteristics under human rights law. Older people and disabled people are less likely to have photo ID and some groups such as Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities may be hesitant to apply for the Voter Card. The Committee calls on the Cabinet Office to produce clear research setting out whether mandatory ID at the polling station could create barriers to taking part in elections for some groups and how they plan to mitigate this risk effectively.”


It is worth noting that this is what the impact assessment says about this policy in terms of its effects on voting:

“The analysis does not assess the impact of the policy on voter turnout.”


The Government’s own impact assessment has not even looked at what the effect will be on voter turnout. Why was this not done?

It has been mentioned that some countries have voter ID. To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, certain states in America do not have compulsory voter ID, and the effect on turnout is that those who are more economically affluent will vote while those who are least economically affluent will not, because they do not have access to voter ID. So there are international comparisons showing that this is a problem.

Because of the lateness of the hour, I will say just this: there will be roughly 2.1 million people for whom mandatory voter ID will be a barrier to exercising their vote. If that is the case, why are the Government pursuing this policy, and why have they not carried out an impact assessment to see its effect on voter turnout?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for an interesting debate. I shall respond to a couple of things straightaway. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, raised some issues from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I have agreed with the Minister that if she does not mind, we will write to the noble Baroness and send a copy to anyone who has taken part in the debate.

Due to the lateness of the hour, and because we are going to have a stand part debate on this same issue at our next sitting, I will be much briefer than perhaps I would have been, because I am sure all these issues will get brought up again. The Government strongly stand by the importance of public participation and engagement, which has come out from many noble Lords today. It is important to us. I reassure the House that we share a joint aim on that front. We all want participation in a strong democratic election system.

Turnout fluctuates from election to election; I think we all know that. If we look at national elections versus local elections versus parish council elections, they all have fluctuating turnout, for many reasons, so it will likely not be possible to isolate the impact of the measures in the Bill on that. It would be quite difficult. I hear the concerns that have been raised but, as I said earlier, the impact of the measures in the Bill have been considered in great detail. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I will get her a list of the consultees that we worked with because that is important.

With regard to making sure that all groups, particularly minority groups, engage with the electoral system, register to vote and vote once they are registered, I go back again to the importance of the local electoral teams in all our local authorities. They are the people who have the experience of the communities that they serve and work within. I myself have a particular interest in the Gypsy, Romany and Traveller communities. If those local electoral teams understand a community locally—I have seen this working locally myself—then they are often the people who can speak to them, find out the barriers for those communities and work through them. I am sure that is same for many other communities across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

I asked a specific question as to whether the Minister had met the London Voices project and, if not, whether he would be prepared to meet them now.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

We will write to the noble Lord. We have met, but I shall make sure that we give the noble Lord a clear response on that.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I know that it is very late, so I shall be quick. The Minister skipped over this, and it is quite key. There has been no analysis of the impact of this policy on voter turnout. The Electoral Commission will do it retrospectively but I am talking about before it comes in. Why have the Government missed this key issue? They keep telling us from that Dispatch Box that the policy will not have an impact on voter turnout, yet they have done no detailed analysis in their impact assessment.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I can confirm that we have not done that impact analysis. The important impact will be after.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

The issue of impacting the outcome of elections is seriously important. Will the Minister go away and think about whether the Government should do an impact assessment not only on overall turnout but on differential turnout among different groups—for example, the disabled, the poor and the elderly—to assess the likely impact on election outcomes. All these things are important, but it seems to me crucial that, in a democracy, Governments should not introduce policies that are going to skew election results. I ask the Minister to take that away and write to us all about what the intention would be.

Elections Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Doing this is really dangerous. I know we will get into other debates on the codes and Electoral Commission guidance, and we will go on to some of the other issues, but we are in danger of undermining our good constitutional position of single-Member constituencies in favour of a more presidential-style election campaign. That is a big risk, and we should resist it. If it is not broken, do not fix it. Let us stick with what we have.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I will start by answering the noble Lord, Lord Collins. He asked twice, once of my noble friend and once of me: what is the problem here? Currently, as the 2018 Supreme Court case revealed, the law is at odds with what the candidates understand in their communities. That ruling has meant that agents are now unsure—we have talked a lot about how difficult it is to get agents —about how to account for notional expenditure. That is exactly what we are addressing in the Bill.

Before I move on from the noble Lord, I will just say how much I agree with him on the importance—to me, the most important thing in our electoral system—of that connection between an individual candidate, whether local or national, and the communities that they are trying to serve, and do serve if they win an election. To me, that is the most important thing in our democracy.

The level playing field was brought up by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Wallace. It is important, but the rules that we are putting forward on notional expenditure are designed to maintain free and fair elections. Political parties will not be able to spend more on candidates as a result of these amendments. All spending which is currently recorded will continue to be recorded. These amendments will therefore uphold the level playing field for elections, which, as I have said, form the cornerstone of our democracy. Expenditure that promotes an individual candidature will continue to count towards a candidate’s own spending limit. Expenditure which is joint between a party and a candidate will continue to be apportioned in an appropriate way and reported to the returning officer. The level playing field is continued.

A number of noble Lords brought up national spending limits. Spending limits are different from the protections for candidates which ensure that their agent must approve certain expenditure, but the Government are intending to review party and candidate spending limits for all other polls apart from local elections, which were increased in line with inflation in 2021. It is important that these are uprated in line with inflation, which will create a solid baseline for future reviews.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, again mentioned national versus local spending and asked whether this would cause spending to stop being reported and allow parties to spend more on candidates without reporting it. No, it will not. No notional expenditure will stop being reported as a result of this clarification. Benefits in kind which are offered and used by them or their agent, or anyone authorised, directed or encouraged to make use of them on the candidate’s behalf, will still need to be reported. Also, where a third party, including a political party, is spending money to promote a candidate directly to the electorate, this generally falls under spending in Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Those reporting rules will still apply.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about transparency. Transparency is indeed there and will continue to be there in all spending on local and national elections.

We have heard already, and it has been said a number of times, that Clause 18 clarifies the law on notional expenditure, making it clear that candidates need to report only benefits in kind—that is, property, goods, services and facilities that are provided for the use or the benefit of the candidate at a discount or for free—which they have actually used or which they or their election agent have directed, authorised or encouraged someone else to use on their behalf. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about somebody ringing up from central office and saying that they are bringing down a bus. I suggest that you will have either authorised or encouraged it; I do not believe you would say nothing on the end of that phone if that is going to happen. This is what was already widely understood to be true. Nothing much is changing; we thought that was true prior to the Supreme Court judgment in the matter of R v Mackinlay and others.

In its 2019 report on electoral law, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee called for consultation to take place on how the law on notional spending could be clarified. In evidence to PACAC, the Labour Party said that it would be supportive of legislation

“that would serve to clarify Parliament’s intention as to the extent the election agent is responsible for expenditure by third party campaigns to support their candidates.”

So the Labour Party, in PACAC, was in support of this. That is precisely—

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt, but one has to see the context of that response. Our argument tonight is that this clause does not do that—it does not provide clarity. I wish it did, and then we could all support it. But it could lead to the complete opposite of what the noble Baroness is suggesting.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I suggest that the Government believe that it does clarify; that is exactly what it does, so we will have to disagree on that. We feel that Clauses 18 and 20 of the Bill do precisely what the Labour Party asked for and supported in PACAC.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, if I have understood the argument that the noble Baroness has been making, this clause would not in any sense change the outcome of the Thanet case. If it is clarifying things in that direction, the clause is not necessary.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

No, what I am saying is that it will clarify for candidates and agents what is required and what was not very clear at the time of that case.

We have sought input on these measures from the Parliamentary Parties Panel and we are confident that they will bring important clarity to the rules and support compliance. Indeed, Craig Mackinlay, the Member of Parliament for South Thanet, whom we have talked about a number of times, knows better than anyone the deficient nature of the current rules, and he welcomed and praised the clarity which this Bill brings to notional expenditure.

In this clause, we are also making an equivalent amendment to the notional expenditure rules for other types of campaigners, such as political parties and third-party campaigners, to ensure that all the rules are consistent. Together, these changes will bring much-needed reassurance and clarity to candidates and their agents on the rules that apply to notional expenditure for reserved elections. Alongside guidance from the Electoral Commission, with which we are working closely, this measure will support compliance with the rules and ensure that those wishing to participate in public life can feel safe doing so, clear in their legal obligations. It is for this reason that I urge that this clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. She mentioned the PACAC report into some of these issues, but without quoting the crucial recommendation, in paragraph 16, which says that

“reform should only be taken forwards on the basis of clear consensus.”

This debate, at the very least, has shown that there is not that consensus. It seems to me that the debate is not about how to account for notional spending but whether to account for some of it at all. We have not really been satisfied that, if there were busloads of people from one party, the costs of the coaches, their hotels, their meals and the leaflets they deliver—all spent in a constituency with the clear intention of promoting a candidate—will appear in the constituency limit for that candidate, which is their proper place. The Bill does not seem to make that plain.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for confirming on behalf of the Labour Party and the Green Party that they do not see this clause as necessary. It seems to add significant confusion, and in my view it is particularly important not to add to confusion about what should be included at the same time as you may increase spending totals nationally. As the noble Baroness said, they may have to rise, but the Government said yesterday, in answer to a Written Question I tabled on 28 February, HL6502, that they may increase in line with inflation. That is inflation since 2000, which is 79% and would take a £19.5 million limit to nearly £36 million. There are more issues to debate on this in the next group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, on Amendment 28B, which is about transparency, perhaps the Minister could comment on some of the recommendations in the CSPL report which related precisely to the point of transparency of election expenditure and its availability in electronic form so that it could be studied more widely and easily. Obviously, that clearly requires legislation and might well properly have been in the Bill.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, relate to existing provisions in electoral law in respect of codes of practice on election expenses for candidates that the Electoral Commission may prepare.

We have included measures in Clause 19 to ensure that any code of practice on candidate spending from the Electoral Commission is sufficiently broad to fully serve the purpose of explaining the rules on candidate spending, which are set out in the Representation of the People Act 1983. We are making this change to put the scope of the guidance beyond doubt. It is important that the guidance is comprehensive, so that we can address concerns raised from across the political spectrum on notional expenditure.

Amendment 25B would require the commission to issue new guidance at least every 10 years. As the noble Lord said, the commission is already able to amend any such code as required from time to time and must reflect the rules as set out in law. Clearly, the Electoral Commission is expected to keep up to date all guidance, including such a code of practice, and revise it as far as necessary to reflect changes in the law. Therefore, there is no need to legislate in such a rigid fashion.

Amendment 25C would require the Secretary of State responsible for approving the code to consult on that code before its approval. It is for the Electoral Commission to consult whomever it considers reasonable to consult before it submits a draft to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can then accept it, with or without modification, and must lay it before Parliament. It is then down to Parliament to consider the code laid before it and decide whether or not to approve it.

Amendment 28A would require the Secretary of State to publish within 12 months of Royal Assent draft legislation to amend the 2000 Act

“for the purposes of increasing the transparency of expenses”.

I say with the utmost respect to the noble Lord that that is quite an imprecise instruction to the Secretary of State. Transparency of electoral expenses is a cornerstone of the UK’s electoral system. Electoral law already has a robust set of controls and reporting requirements which ensure that spending during election campaigns is transparent, and the Bill supports that. Political parties, recognised third parties and candidates are already required to report their election spending, and this includes money they spend on digital campaigning, an issue raised by the noble Lord.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

I apologise if I was misunderstood. I was referring not to digital campaigning but to the digital submission of election expenses. At the moment, they are often kept in a cupboard in the returning officer’s office and are not accessible in any way. There are also issues of data redaction, and so on, which make it more complex.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook]

I will take that back and get an answer for the noble Lord. It is an important issue, as the way we will do elections in future will be very different because of new IT.

As I was saying, the new digital imprints regime will also improve the transparency of digital campaigning, requiring those promoting campaign content online, paid and unpaid, to clearly show who they are. With that said, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her comments. Of course, I am trying to get on record some political points here, so I am going to repeat them. I understand the statutory requirements for consultation by the Electoral Commission, but there is often a failure to consult beyond the political parties, and we need to ensure that that is properly addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made a very good point about transparency: if I wanted to look into a particular record, it is extremely difficult to do so, and there are ways to make it easier.

In later debates we will return to the issue of transparency, particularly when we get to Clauses 26 and beyond, but in the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to secure the integrity of elections, ensuring that they remain secure, fair, transparent and up to date. The UK Government undertook extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations in preparing the policy and drafting the legislation. For a number of measures that are within devolved competence, the UK Government considered that a co-ordinated UK-wide approach would have been beneficial by ensuring consistency and operability for electoral administrators and those regulated by electoral law, and strengthening protection for electors and relevant political actors. It is therefore regrettable that, while the Government sought legislative consent for these measures, the Scottish Parliament has not granted such consent and the Welsh Government have recommended that the Senedd does not grant legislative consent to these measures.

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement on the application of Clause 20 in devolved Administrations. This measure will apply only to candidates at reserved elections, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments could choose to replicate these measures in respect of elections within their legislative competence. For clarity and reference, I remind noble Lords that subsections (2) to (7) of Clause 18 make equivalent amendments in respect of other campaigners, including political parties.

We are respecting the request of the devolved Governments by limiting this power in application only to elections within the UK Government’s legislative competence. Clause 25 is necessary because it is important that new categories of campaigner can be added to the list if necessary. This is because the introduction of the restriction on third-party expenditure in Clause 24 means that any category of campaigner not on the list will be significantly restricted in their ability to campaign by not being able to spend more than £700.

The relevant provisions will apply only to matters of reserved or excepted elections, and the Bill makes an important clarification, so that candidates and their agents can have full confidence about their legal responsibilities and do not need to fear being responsible for benefits in kind of which they had no knowledge. The Scottish and Welsh Governments could choose to replicate these measures within their legislative competence.

Finally, I will reiterate that the Electoral Commission will be responsible for preparing guidance on notional expenditure which will support those seeking to contest elections and enter public life throughout the whole of the UK. With that said, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. Just to reiterate, we will continue to have discussions around devolution, as it is affected by many parts of this Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I will comment on Amendment 31, which is about record-keeping. I return to the point I made a few minutes ago: it is about not just keeping the records but access to the records that have been kept. There are plenty of “publicly available” records that are not actually publicly available in real life. Election expenses are a case in point: GDPR has added an extra layer of complexity because they often contain personal details, bank details, addresses et cetera that ought not to be transmitted to other persons. Clearly, these records might well come within the same purview. I do not seek a detailed reply from the noble Baroness as that would be quite unfair, but I hope that, as we proceed, the Government will be able to illustrate that they have considered carefully issues of record-keeping, and, indeed, how the transparency that goes with record-keeping will be maintained in the current and projected circumstances.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, as part of the registration process, political parties are not currently required to submit a declaration of their assets or liabilities. This information becomes available only in their first annual statement of accounts published on the Electoral Commission’s website. Clause 21 brings forward this important transparency to the point of registration.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, tabled a probing amendment seeking to understand why the threshold for this declaration is set at £500. I am pleased that the noble Lord has highlighted this, and I point to the fact that this measure, including the £500 threshold, was first recommended by the Electoral Commission in its 2013 report.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

If it was a 2013 report, and thinking of inflation, I wonder whether that should have been reconsidered, to come back to an earlier discussion.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Baroness has now undermined the argument about going up rather than down. I have checked that, because I know the noble Baroness mentioned 2018. I have 2013, but I will clarify that. It was also more recently recommended in the CSPL’s July 2021 Regulating Election Finance report, which is more up to date. It would not be proportionate to require parties with assets below £500 to submit this declaration.

On a similar topic, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, tabled a probing amendment to understand why the clause specifies that the Electoral Commission should make this statement available for as long as it sees fit. This is simply a matter of consistency with the existing approach to assets and liabilities declarations contained in a party’s annual statement of accounts. Under Sections 45 and 46 of PPERA, the commission is able to keep documents, including the annual statement of accounts, for

“such period as they think fit.”

Therefore, this is simply a technical provision, enabling this first assets and liabilities declaration to be compared with various subsequent records provided by political parties in their annual statements of accounts.

I will write to my noble friend Lady Noakes on her very interesting question, to which I would like to know the answer as well. I will place a copy in the Library so that we are all aware of it. That said, I urge noble Lords not to press these amendments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her response. Like her, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked an extremely interesting question that did not occur to me when I read through the Bill. It was a very thoughtful question to take forward. I am interested to see where that goes.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made an important point about access to records and transparency of record-keeping. It is important that we all take that on board. The Minister gave a clear response on the reasoning behind this.

On my Amendment 31, which would delete the phrase

“such period as the Commission think fit”,

it is interesting to note that this is consistent with what PPERA says. I was not aware of that, so I thank the Minister for that. I wonder whether there is any guidance as to what it means—I have no idea whether it is five or 50 years. It would be interesting to know a little more about that and what happens in practice, so that there will be more information in that area as we take this forward.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I will endeavour to find out exactly what was behind that and let the noble Baroness know, and I will also address the point about transparency and access to all these figures, because that is important. It is no good keeping them unless they are easily available to any person who wants to see them. We will take that back and respond.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. I look forward to her response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly, if only to remind your Lordships’ House that the Labour Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I were not able to vote in 1974, but that is probably not a good reason for rising to the Dispatch Box at this time of night.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for raising a number of issues that have concerned this House as a whole. I think it was my noble friend Lord Coaker who, during the debate on the police Bill last Monday, reminded the House that we were discussing measures to curtail protests that even Margaret Thatcher would not have contemplated during the worst times—as she would have seen it—of the miners’ strikes. We have moved a long way in what we think of as acceptable.

I point out that in 1838 the Chartists had six demands. All have been met, and we have gone beyond on some, such as the universal male suffrage that they wanted—we have improved on that—except for the one demand of theirs that has never been met, which is for annual elections. I am not making that case.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I thank noble Lords; I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Rooker, for tabling these amendments, which have initiated what has been an interesting short debate, if not necessarily always on the amendments. In 1974, I remember pushing a pushchair and delivering literature, though not necessarily for the Labour Party of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.

If noble Lords do not mind, I will stick to the amendments and not answer any further questions. The Bill makes express provision for Parliament to automatically dissolve five years after it has first met. This is the most straightforward way to calculate the five-year term. It also remains the case that your Lordships’ House has an absolute veto on legislation to extend the life of any Parliament.

I first turn to the question of the length of parliamentary terms. I have heard the argument for a four-year term, and I heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, that he does not necessarily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this. However, the Government remain of the very strong view that five years is the right maximum length for any Parliament.

A maximum five-year term allows the Government time to undertake and implement their programme without having to start any electioneering. This is an important issue that I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, took into account as he did not mention it. Any Government have to deliver on the programme that is in their manifesto. Five years is a maximum period which I and the Government believe balances sensible, long-term government with ensuring that a Government and Parliament are accountable to the electorate in a timely manner.

In fact, we can that see parliamentary terms have developed their own effective and flexible rhythm. A strong Government seeking a fresh mandate might seek a Dissolution after four years. Anything less than four years is usually a sign of some political crisis or emergency. Often, Parliaments are dissolved for political necessity rather than choice, to put a policy or political question to the electorate or to resolve a political crisis. Moreover, shorter maximum terms invariably mean earlier speculation about whether a Parliament will see out its full term. This speculation does not serve Parliament, the public or businesses well. The former Cabinet Secretary noted in evidence at PACAC that longer-term Parliaments and longer-term tenures for both senior civil servants and Ministers would all be very good for Governments, who are increasingly having to face up to very long-term issues, as we have seen recently.

Finally, this question was reviewed by the Joint Committee, which did not question the starting premise that five years is the appropriate duration for parliamentary terms and the life cycle of a Parliament.

I will now address the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on the timing of elections. The noble Lord has reflected on the experience of the electorate in December 2019 and observed that winter elections are not desirable. I hope your Lordships will allow me to relate Stanley Baldwin’s comments on the impossibility of finding a time for an election that suits everyone. On 23 October 1935, when seeking a Dissolution, Mr Baldwin observed on the timing of elections:

“Therefore I have long come to the conclusion that you must rule out the spring and summer months because of financial business. You must rule out August and September because of the holidays. You are left with the autumn, but in no circumstances must you run into any interference with the Christmas trade.”—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/1935; col. 154.]


Those light-hearted remarks contain an important kernel of truth.

Certainly, outside times of political tumult when exceptional elections are necessary, it may well be the case that a Prime Minister would prefer not to call on the public to venture out to cast their vote in the depths of winter. I share the noble Lord’s sentiment that winter elections do not provide the most ideal conditions for queuing at a polling station or canvassing from door to door. The election in 2019 was, of course, exceptional and was called to bring an end to a period of extended parliamentary deadlock.

Nevertheless, the purpose of the Bill is to provide for a system that will serve successive Governments. As the 2011 Act has taught us, we should not draft our constitutional arrangements in response to one event. There is no guarantee that, in the future, an election will not again be required in December—or February, as in 1974, which we have heard about. So it would not be wise to legislate in the long term for an event that was an exception to the rule. Our arrangements need to be adaptable. That is the important point.

The challenge of the approach set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is that it prevents the flexibility necessary for a Government to respond to particular circumstances. As such, I suggest to the noble Lord that to subject the timing of elections to this particular constraint—even if Parliaments do not normally run their full term—would run counter to that objective.

The purpose of the Bill is to revive arrangements that have stood, and will continue to stand, the test of time. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Rooker, for stimulating this fascinating discussion but I hope that your Lordships’ Committee will agree with me that Clause 4, unamended, is the most suitable approach to achieve that aim. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, noting that we may return on at least one of these amendments on Report. That remains to be discussed.

Legislation: Skeleton Bills and Delegated Powers

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, on her choice of debate and the brilliant way in which she introduced it. As a member of the DPRRC, it is a particular pleasure to follow our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—the Braveheart who led us into this important report alongside his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I am sure the Minister knows how formidable a duo he faces.

What is different about the two reports at the heart of this debate is not just the arresting language or, indeed, the fact that we have a pincer movement on Westminster and Whitehall; it is the nature of the analysis and the depth of the recommendations, which will go beyond this Chamber. This is about context.

Take the titles of the reports, for a start: Democracy Denied? and Government by Diktat. One might be forgiven for thinking that these were the product of some raving pamphleteer but no, they are not. They come from the two most senior scrutiny committees in the House, and the language is justified. They express with little reservation all the frustration that we in this House have felt for a long time at the growing contempt for Parliament, which has been accelerated by the expediency of Brexit, the concentration of ministerial powers, the interpretation of “emergency” in terms of Covid and the stranding of Parliament.

The reports confront this challenge holistically and head on. They take the long view: they look backwards over a century of accumulated frustration but they also look forward. If Parliament is to reassert its power, it will be for the long term. Over the years, the DPRRC has won many battles on the Floor of this House. What we have been less successful at is changing and challenging habits, which these reports do. What should be exceptional has become business as usual, whether it is skeleton Bills or delegated powers.

The prescription set out in these reports goes far beyond “Chaps should do better”. It challenges the Government in principle and in practice to assert and govern by the basic principle that legislation is the servant of parliamentary democracy. In that context, the state we are in is not an extension of a game of cat and mouse between Ministers and Parliament. The reports document a structural shift in both the culture and strategy of the Government and Whitehall—that is, a culture that says that anything goes, anything can be tried on and any excuse can be offered and a strategy through which Ministers can, without restraint, hide in delegated legislation aspects of policy that need to be open to scrutiny and challenge. Skeleton Bills, Henry VIII powers and guidance rather than regulation are defended on the grounds of urgency and flexibility, no matter how flimsy or, frankly, nonsensical the argument. It is a creative culture, as we have seen in the raft of inventive ways, language, protocols, directions and so on in the form of disguised legislation.

The point is that this transfers powers to people and institutions that are well out of Parliament’s sight, sometimes in contested areas when the police are asked to do something by guidance that should have been regulation. The impact of this secondary legislation is the sharp end of the law: the point at which perverse consequences that could have been cleared away become real and make a real difference to people.

Sometimes it is argued that the Government do not understand what they are doing—of course they understand. Why else would they have introduced attempts to prorogue Parliament, or indeed to strip out treaty obligations by law? It marches on: the Health and Care Bill has so much delegated legislation and, with 50% of it beyond parliamentary control, the committee had to weigh it rather than analyse it.

We can no longer rely on the good chaps reasserting control. A reset means putting the Cabinet Office on the line so that its own guidance insists that the making of all legislation and the behaviour of Ministers is subject to the explicit principle of parliamentary democracy. It means identifying skeleton Bills as the outlaw Bills that they are and treating them as such, and it means ensuring that every civil servant assumes that Henry VIII powers can expect to be constrained by regulation.

It is time that we reopened the whole debate over the nature of secondary legislation and the sole nuclear option open to us. We ought to revisit this because it disables us as a Parliament. If we intend to strengthen Parliament in future, we have an obligation now to revisit that.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

May I remind noble Lords that the limit for speaking is four minutes? We have a long list of speakers tonight.

EU–UK Partnership Council

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the Partnership Council is, of course, the highest body of the governance structure created by the TCA, and as such it does not need to meet very frequently. That is why the treaty commitment is to once a year. However, the specialised committees are important and look through the detail, and those have been running since June. As I said, all of those will shortly have met. So the governance structures are working well. We obviously have been giving thought to the agenda of the Partnership Council; it will no doubt take the issues that are of highest priority at that point. We touched on the question of touring artists at the 9 June meeting, and I imagine that we will do so again at the next meeting.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, wishes to speak virtually. I think this is a convenient point for me to call him.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, could we seek to place on the council agenda the whole issue of French threats to blockade channel ports, transport arrangements and compromised channel fishing rights? Can the Minister raise at such a meeting that it might be prudent for the United Kingdom to start moving cross-channel, roll-on roll-off trade to Belgian ports? We cannot go on under constant threats from France to block our European trade routes, because British jobs are at stake—and I say that as someone who loves France.

Standards in Public Life

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Blunkett on his wonderful opening speech. I took away four issues—procedures, processes, transparency and trust—and many other noble Lords have spoken about these, as well. I will give the example of what I believe is a disgraceful standard in public life, as applied by the Government to HS2. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Adonis is in his place, and I am not going to start criticising whether it is the right project or not; I am talking about its management and the way that Parliament has been misled. I hope we can have a few lessons learned.

I remind the House that this is the most expensive public sector project on the Infrastructure and Project Authority’s annual review of government projects, and it has the dubious record of having the longest run of amber/red designations—seven years—followed by a red one. That means

“successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable”.

I believe this is a good example of a project that needs regular and detailed scrutiny, instead of what we have, which is a massive, long-lasting cover-up of costs.

This week, we received from senior managers in HS2 —I think you can call them whistleblowers—85 megabytes of files, so big documents. That is interesting because, for the first time, it says that they had produced a detailed estimate of this project from the beginning. They had always denied that to me and to many others, but they have an estimate and the problem is that it came out at £48 billion, at a time when Ministers were telling the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House that the cost was £23.5 billion. It was on the basis of that £23.5 billion that the House approved phase 1 of the HS2 Bill.

Everybody knew about this; it is clear from this documentation. I can list all the people who knew about it, and it goes back to a meeting in Oxford, at the Saïd Business School. The present Prime Minister was not there—this was in 2016—and the notes of the meeting, which we have, indicate that Ministers and officials knew that the project could not completed for the figure that they had given to Parliament. Somebody wrote an email to the current Prime Minister when he was assuming leadership of the Conservative Party, saying that the cost would be over £120 billion, when they were saying it would be £20-something billion. This is a serious misleading of Parliament and a breach of the ministerial code.

I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 7 July, suggesting that Ministers appeared to have misled Parliament on the costs and timescale, and asked him to set up an inquiry. I also asked him to look at the role of the Permanent Secretaries at the Department for Transport, who are the accounting officers and must have known all these figures. Did they tell Ministers, as they are required to under the code, and did they ask for a letter of instruction to authorise the funding? There is no record of either.

The Cabinet Secretary passed my letter to the Department for Transport, but the Permanent Secretary there is the accounting officer. It is interesting that the Cabinet Secretary thought it the right thing for the Permanent Secretary to investigate her department’s own failings, but there we are; that is what happened. The Cabinet Secretary has now replied to me and said that the decision to investigate any matters like this rests with the Prime Minister, which goes back to what several noble Lords said, including the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Kerr.

I quote in support a comment made to me by Sir Tim Lankester, a former Permanent Secretary, who has quite a track record from the Pergau Dam issue in Malaysia, 20 or 30 years ago:

“Like you, I think the continuing deception over the costs of HS2 is an absolute disgrace. We had come to expect this from ministers, trying to protect their own backs and trying to protect the project’s credibility against mounting evidence … But what I find utterly horrible, and in some ways even worse, is the Permanent Secretary’s complicity in this deception. Her weasel words … are utterly unacceptable from a senior civil servant, or indeed from any civil servant.”


That is a very telling comment.

The project is massively over cost, at £160 billion now. One of these whistleblowers—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

Can I remind you of the five-minute limit?

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I was about to finish. The latest opening date for phase 1 is 2041, and I think this boil needs lancing. I hope the Minister, when he responds, confirms that he will pass on my comments to the Prime Minister and ask him to take some action to lance this boil.

House of Lords Appointments Commission

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to place the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory basis.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this debate is limited to one hour. That is very tight and, in order to give time for the Minister to respond, all noble Lords apart from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, need to stick strictly to no more than two minutes.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord True will note the number of Peers contributing to this short debate. Each, as has been mentioned, will have two minutes. My noble friend will have 10 minutes to say what he could probably say in 10 seconds: namely, that the Government have no plans to put the House of Lords Appointments Commission on to a statutory basis. They should have: for some of us, this is unfinished business.

I have the honour to be convener of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber. My noble friend Lord Cormack chairs the campaign. We formed it more than 20 years ago to make the case for strengthening the existing House in the valuable work that it does. The key changes that we sought were embodied in the House of Lords Bill introduced by Lord Steel of Aikwood. Some of what we included in that Bill we have managed to get enacted, primarily through the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. The House of Lords Bill included a clause establishing the House of Lords Appointments Commission—that is, putting it on to a statutory basis. I wish to explain why it should be done and how it can be done.

In an Ipsos MORI poll in 2007, respondents were asked which factors were important to determine the legitimacy of the House of Lords. The option attracting the most support was “Trust in the appointment process”—75% of respondents ranked it as “very important” and 19% as “important”. Trust in the appointment process ranked higher than “The House considering legislation carefully” and “Having many Members who are expert in their field”. I note that it considerably outstripped “Having some Members elected by the public”. How appointments are made is thus crucial to how the House is seen by the public. At present, the process falls short. At times it is mired in controversy, and there is little transparency in the selection of nominees. However worthy the individual nominees may be, their merits are lost in media criticism of the process and public perceptions of the type of person elevated to the peerage.

The existing Appointments Commission examines all nominations and puts forward nominations for Cross-Bench Peers, but it is limited in two significant respects. It can examine nominations only in terms of propriety, not suitability, and it is the creature of the Prime Minister. Having an Appointments Commission that is not only independent of the Prime Minister but is seen to be independent strengthens both the Prime Minister, confirming the merits of the persons nominated, and the legitimacy of the House.

Putting the Appointments Commission on to a statutory basis is necessary, but it is not sufficient. Powers will have to be vested in it and, I shall argue, can be without jeopardising the Prime Minister’s role as principal adviser to the sovereign in recommending individuals for peerages. How, then, can it be done? As noted in the Library briefing for this debate, I have introduced a Bill that has now had its First Reading. I have sought in it to ensure that the commission can have an impact through vetting nominations to ensure that they meet a high-quality threshold, through requiring the Prime Minister to await the advice of the commission before putting forward names to the Crown, and through ensuring transparency in the process by requiring the Prime Minister, and other party leaders as appropriate, to inform the commission of the process by which the names were selected to be put forward. As noble Lords will see, it also includes provision for the Prime Minister to have regard to the principles that I believe are widely supported by the House, not least in terms of size.

The case for putting the commission on to a statutory basis has been made by a number of bodies, including the Government, over the past two decades. It was made by the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords, chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. It was a proposal that was accepted by the Government but not acted on. I served on the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill, which also endorsed the proposal. As I said, it was a key provision of the House of Lords Bill that was variously debated and widely supported in your Lordships’ House.

The proposal itself is modest relative to the report of the royal commission, which recommended transferring the power to nominate Peers from the Prime Minister to the Appointments Commission. My proposal would retain the existing position whereby the Prime Minister recommends names to the sovereign, although he would be required to wait until such time as he had received the advice of the commission. The Government, in 2001, proposed that the commission should have responsibility for managing the balance and size of the House. My Bill provides for the commission to offer advice on how to reduce the size of the House, but does not empower it to determine the size. This, therefore, is a modest proposal, and it may be prudent for the Government to accept it rather than wait until overtaken by more radical demands for change.

When questioned on the issue of reform of this House, my noble friend Lord True said that the Government did not support piecemeal reform. Well, as a Conservative, I do—and so, too, to judge by their election manifesto, do the Government. The 2019 manifesto stated that the Conservative Government had enacted legislation to enable Peers to retire and to remove those who committed a serious offence. That was not strictly accurate. What they had done was support, or at least acquiesce in, the passage of the Private Member’s Bill that I drafted, which was introduced in the Commons on behalf of the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber by Dan Byles and taken through this House by Lord Steel. That was piecemeal reform, which I believe has proved its worth.

The same applies to the House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. She is unable to be here for this debate, but she would very much like to have been, to support the case for putting the Appointments Commission on a statutory basis.

Even if my noble friend Lord True says that the Government have no plans to place the commission on a statutory basis, he could indicate a willingness on the part of the Government not to oppose such a move. Simply saying that there are no plans does not mean that the Government do not accept the merits of the case. My noble friend has not really engaged with the principle. He has the opportunity today to say whether he accepts the principle. The Government need not commit significant resources, including time, to getting a measure through. They can instead facilitate the passage of the Bill or another Private Member’s Bill with a similar aim. The important thing is to get it on the statute book.

In short, it can be done. My contention is that it should be done. It will not undermine the position of the Prime Minister but rather bolster it, certainly in the case of a confident Prime Minister, in making nominations, and it will enhance the legitimacy of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

My Lords, we have to recognise that Mr Johnson has damaged this House in three ways. First, he has not followed the advice of the Appointments Commission on a point of propriety, damaging his own reputation but also ours. Secondly, the flow of Peers coming here on the recommendation of the commission seems to have dwindled to zero. Thirdly, of course, he has ignored the Burns report, ignored the restraint of his predecessor and reversed all the progress that we had made in reducing the size of the House. So, let us be realistic. Of course the commission should be on a statutory basis, but what is the chance of the Prime Minister agreeing to do that? What is the chance of the Prime Minister agreeing to limit his options, to fetter himself even very loosely? I think there is no chance at all, unless we separate the honour from the job, as the Burns report in fact recommended.

Detailed legislative work is an acquired taste, and it is clear that some of the recent creations have no desire to acquire it. So be it. If they do not want to do the job, why could they not just join the majority of Peers who do not sit in this place and do not receive a Writ of Summons, the majority being those culled in 1999 and their successors, as well as the growing number of us who have wisely decided to retire—a number that would grow much faster if the Burns “two out, one in” recommendation were accepted? The commission’s scrutiny of candidates to work in this House could then be confined to only those willing to work here, and not to the unwilling who would not come. Thirty years ago, the Queen was good enough to give me a knighthood. She did not require me to pick up a lance and get on a horse. It is was an honour with no equestrian duties attached—which was a relief to me and could be a precedent for the House.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I remind noble Lords that the time limit is two minutes.

Trade Agreements

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. The purpose of my Question was to explore the priorities and processes that determine the Government’s trade policy. In a way, what I am asking is the mirror image of the replies that he gave on the Northern Ireland protocol. As far as I can see, the Government’s trade policy is focused very much on the Asia-Pacific region, which brings benefits but not terribly big ones by comparison with the overwhelming importance of our trading relationship with the European Union. Do the Minister and the Government’s trade policy recognise that fact and that it will be the case for decades to come? Do the Government take into account that any divergences that we negotiate from EU standards in other trade agreements are bound to cause some friction in the EU relationship? Does he accept that they are going to make the Commission more reluctant to explore—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The noble Lord has asked his two questions.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

—the flexibility that he is seeking in the Northern Ireland protocol and does he want to build on the spirit of the trade and co-operation agreement to deepen the trading relationship with Europe?

UK Government Union Capability

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, for his report. I too regret the delay in its publication. There are many positives in it, and I admire and applaud—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am afraid we cannot hear the noble Lord. I suggest we move on.

Security of Ministers’ Offices and Communications

Baroness Scott of Bybrook Excerpts

Tuesday 29th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I make no comment on Matthew Hancock, but what happened to him raises questions. Is the recent filming of the Secretary of State for Health in his office part of a systematic intrusion into ministerial offices? Is it appropriate to have cameras in the offices of a Secretary of State or, indeed, any other Minister? It is quite possible that highly classified documents might be photographed. What happens to the recordings? Are they erased? If they are, what method of security is there to ensure that they are erased? The recent sale to the Sun is evidence that not all is as it should be for the security of these recordings. Are there bugging devices as well as cameras located in ministerial offices? Could that explain why there are so many leaks from all sorts of government departments—senior, junior or wherever? Might that indicate that there are a lot of recording devices all over the place? The mind boggles about where all this could end up.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, it is meant to be a short question.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend reflects a concern that has been expressed across the House about the potential security implications of such devices being in ministerial offices, the capture and use of such material and how wide it might be. That has been commented on by a number of noble Lords. I am sure that those responsible for the investigation, which is being supported by the Government Security Group, will take those points into account.