House of Lords Appointments Commission

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I think I have already made clear, the Government have no plans to change the status of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. It is an independent, non-departmental public body, and the Government always consider its advice very carefully. But, as I said, the Prime Minister is democratically accountable, and in our view appointments should not be determined by an unelected body.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, when I listen to the noble Baroness, I always have a smile on my face—but I do not think that is the reaction she intends me to have. When she talks about not wanting piecemeal reform, what she is really saying is that she will do absolutely nothing. This House welcomes new Members, even when they are overwhelmingly Conservative, but I want to bring her back to the numbers. After 13 years of a Labour Government, we had 24 more Peers than the Conservative Party. After 13 years of a Conservative Government there are 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour Peers.

The central point about HOLAC is that all Members of this House are treated equally, except when it comes to the vetting process. I do not in any way want to take away the Prime Minister’s authority to appoint, but I hope that he would have some respect for this House as well. Would it not be just a minor tweak to suggest that HOLAC also look at the suitability of candidates for this House, to ensure that they are willing to come here and play a full role in the work of your Lordships’ House, as everybody here does?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

One further statistic is that the Conservatives won 56% of the seats at the last election and we still have only 34% of the seats in this House. As to the noble Baroness’s point about suitability, constitutionally and legally it is for the Prime Minister to make recommendations to the sovereign on new Peers. He is head of an elected Government, not a member of an arm’s-length body. Of course, he places great weight on the advice of HOLAC, but he remains of the view that it should remain focused on vetting for propriety. It is for him, and for future Prime Ministers, to think about suitability and bring the right mixture of Lords on to these Benches, so that the conduct of business, which is a mixture of public life and politics, continues well.

Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete: Public Buildings

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As the noble Lords knows, there is of course a legal framework for managing asbestos through the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 and I refer to the expert advice and involvement of independent building experts that have played a very important part in identifying RAAC in places such as hospitals and managing that in a responsible way.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the test of a good Government is not whether a crisis pops up on their watch that they have to deal with but how Ministers respond. There are two options—you can roll up your sleeves and get on with it or you can dither, delay, cut funding and blame others while expecting to be thanked. As the scale of the schools problem emerges, and given that the Government cut Building Schools for the Future funding, the Minister said just now that the Cabinet Office wrote to all government departments in 2019. Can she tell the House whether the Government now have a grasp of the extent of the problem to which courts, hospitals and other buildings used by the public are affected by this? If they have, given that the letter went out in 2019, when will that information be published?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Actually, we have rolled up our sleeves in this case, to quote the noble Baroness. We wrote in 2019, and again in 2022 after Covid. A great deal of management on a risk-based basis has been undertaken across the public sector, drawing on professional expert advice, because it is very important that that is done. More recently, in June 2023, the Cabinet Office set up an expert working group under the OGP to look at RAAC. Of course, that has been meeting very frequently since the information, which has been the subject of other Question sessions, became available in schools in August.

Electoral Commission: Data Breaches

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is a matter for the Electoral Commission, which is independent of government and accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Since it reported the incident to the NCSC, we have been working closely to provide expertise and support. The Electoral Commission has made a statement that the breach was limited and not a great deal of new information has gone into the public domain, and it has given advice on what citizens might do. On the cause, I am not sure I have anything to add to the general comment I made on operational matters.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, if I am honest, the Minister’s answers are quite unsatisfactory and do not answer the question the noble Lord asked. She will recall consideration of the Elections Bill, during which many of us considered that the Government unnecessarily put in place measures to make it harder to vote. Now, it seems that the backdoor was open to hackers and perhaps more alarmingly, nobody noticed for 10 months. There are two issues about confidence here, the first of which is confidence in the integrity of the system, which the Government said they were interested in. Today, however, the Minister has not been able to give us any detail on what action is being taken to protect the electoral register. Secondly, how do we instil in the public confidence in continuing to register if their data can be hacked without anybody noticing for almost a year?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I may be able to help on that. An independent investigation into the attack revealed that the actors were able to access only reference copies of the closed electoral register and the commission’s email system. Those have information about electors including their names, addresses, electoral numbers and franchise markers. They do not contain more confidential information such as national insurance numbers, nationality data, age, or anonymous electors, so the extent of the breach was limited. However, I emphasise that the Electoral Commission is independent, and we have done our best to help it through our cybersecurity expertise in order to make sure that the hackers have been completely taken out of the system and there are no future risks. So, the public can feel reassured in that regard.

Vetting Social Media Accounts

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 21st June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I like to think that we are free speech champions. Unfortunately, the matter the noble Lord raises is now the subject of ongoing legal correspondence, which means it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have read the document concerned—Due Diligence and Impartiality – Supporting and Protecting our Diversity Networks—the guidance and the forms that have to be filled in. I wonder whether many Members of the party opposite who have spoken in this House would be eligible to be invited to events under that guidance. The Minister said that this applies only to cross-departmental events and not to departmental ones. Does the guidance apply only when civil servants meet civil servants from other departments on courses? Does it not apply for meetings and events within a department? More helpfully, can she tell us how many speakers have been blocked and how many invitations have been withdrawn?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The guidance is for cross-government diversity networks. Obviously, there are individual diversity networks in different departments that have existed for some years, and which are helpful and provide support to staff. There may have been a misunderstanding here. This guidance is for such networks; we do not collect individual numbers or monitor what speakers individual diversity networks invite. This guidance was produced in 2021; the Cabinet Office had a review by a senior official in February and it seemed to be working reasonably well.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 8th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

This is an independent inquiry, and its conduct is for the chair. However, clearly the experience of other countries is also important, and I am sure that material in respect of those will be submitted to the inquiry and taken into account.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I raised this issue of the timing during the Minister’s Statement earlier this week. The amount of information that the Government say is relevant is enormous. They have said that 20 million documents may be relevant to the inquiry and, so far, something like 55,000 have been submitted. Why were the terms of reference of exactly what was required, and a timescale, not agreed between the Government and the inquiry prior to it starting? What is the Government’s assessment of the time that it will take them to go through these 20 million documents?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I explained, ever since the inquiry was agreed, the Government have been helping it to ensure that, as is the precedent of other inquiries, the key documents are made available and appropriate witness statements are prepared. We have extended that process to wider material at its request, to reflect modern communications. The terms of reference were wide and a lot of discretion was left to the chair. The Government are keen to see the inquiry’s conclusions and findings as soon as possible. It is being phased by modules, and we look forward to hearing the chair’s conclusions.

Covid-19 Inquiry: Judicial Review

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, what a dog’s breakfast this is when a Government who spend so much time complaining about other people using judicial reviews stand before us trying to justify their decision to use the same legal process to prevent an inquiry that they set up having access to communications sent by members of that very same Government on matters of significant public interest.

The Government’s case appears to be that full disclosure would be unfair because their communications are all over the place, mixing business and pleasure with God knows what in a soup of uncontrolled WhatsApping, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has already flagged. Yet this is a problem entirely of their own making. While the pandemic was not something that anyone could have foreseen, it was entirely predictable that the way this Government have been working would lead to problems. If this were not happening with the Covid inquiry, we would have arrived here sooner or later with some other investigation into government decision-making where disclosure of Ministers’ messages was necessary.

Does the Minister accept that this situation could have been avoided if her Government had shown more discipline in managing government communications from the outset? Does she agree that it was not inevitable that we would end up in this mess—that this could have been avoided through having clear rules such as using different devices for home and work communications, as is common in many other sectors? Can she indicate whether all Ministers are now following improved protocols so that we will not repeatedly fall into this same situation, as there are surely other areas of government policy that will be challenged either in the courts or through future public inquiries?

I am sure that all of us find it hard to keep track of which communications channels we use for which purposes, and it can of course be convenient to mix them up, but the business of government is special and communications about decisions by government that affect millions of people have a particular importance. This importance means that Ministers of the Crown and those working for them should be held to a higher standard, and they have more resources available than most of us to help them meet those high standards.

The fact that this court case is happening is not—however much the Government protest—a way of protecting all Governments from overreach, as not all Governments would have allowed decisions to be made in the way that this one has done. Concerns about this Government acting as a chumocracy, mixing public business with the private interests of their friends and supporters, run much more widely than the supply of PPE during the pandemic.

The public interest is not now served by the Government throwing up legal barriers to those we have tasked with investigating, thoroughly and impartially, how decisions were made on matters of massive public interest. The Minister has a job to do and she has been sent here to defend her Government’s latest actions, but I hope that she will at least acknowledge that this is not a bolt from the blue but an inevitable consequence of how her colleagues have been working for far too long.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

I start by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, that it is difficult to answer questions when we have not had the benefit of the Statement. It was a long Statement in the other place.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The Minister misunderstands. It is difficult to ask the questions, but it should be easy for her to answer them.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is helpful to set things out, and I thank her for trying to do that.

I want to respond to the point about our intentions. The noble Baroness described the inquiry and how it was set up. The Government wholeheartedly support and endorse this important inquiry as it seeks to establish the facts and lessons to be learned from the response to the pandemic. I agree that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, the very distinguished, eminent former Court of Appeal judge who is chairing the inquiry, brings invaluable experience, and we are very grateful to her and the team.

As noble Lords know, the Cabinet Office is challenging the Section 21 notice issued by the chair, fundamentally as a matter of principle. We are protecting the proper conduct of government for the longer term. Indeed, we remain hopeful and willing to agree the best way forward with the inquiry.

The noble Baroness asked about discussions between the Government and the inquiry prior to the application for review. We have been working for months and making documents available. That has been done by the special team for the inquiry in the Cabinet Office. Attempts have been made to agree and, as the noble Baroness said, we are conducting the inquiry under the 2005 Act. The grounds of our review have been set out clearly in a statement of case and grounds. That has been made available and is on GOV.UK so that people can understand what our case is about.

Obviously it is with regret that we felt that judicial review had to be brought. I assure the House that it has been done in relation to unambiguously irrelevant material—I cannot emphasise that more—and as a matter of principle. The Government are not trying to suppress anything. We are happy to provide any potentially relevant material that the inquiry requests, but not unambiguously irrelevant material, which is an unwarranted intrusion into other aspects of the Government’s work. That explains the need for what is, in a sense, a narrow and technical judicial review. It does not touch at all on the Government’s confidence in the inquiry.

The noble Lord, Lord Allan, asked about the JR and felt that people would not understand why we were doing it. The truth is that the Government embarked on this course only after very serious consideration. It is with regret that we had to bring the judicial review forward. We are very aware—I am very aware of this—that it is sometimes in the nature of government that difficult decisions have to be taken, knowing that in the short term there may be criticism, but we believe it is important for the country in the longer term to ensure exactly the arrangements for disclosure. However, I cannot emphasise more strongly that if information relates to Covid then it will be made available to the inquiry.

It is true that there is a lot of documentation, along with WhatsApps, calendars and so on, to be gone through. That is why the Cabinet Office and other departments are doing everything they can to make information available to the inquiry in a usable and sensible form. I emphasise that, on the whole, relations with the inquiry have been harmonious and co-operative. What the inquiry does and decides is a matter for it, but we have done our very best to continue with that and make sure that things run smoothly.

As the noble Lord, Lord Allan, said, some inquiries in other countries have already concluded. He probably mentioned Sweden, which I think had a less wide-ranging inquiry. There is much wishing here for the inquiry to be very wide-ranging and to look at all the different issues. That is why the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, has set out the procedure for the inquiry in the way that she has, with modules looking at different things. We are assisting her. All government Ministers—those being supported by the Government—are co-operating with the inquiry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Perhaps I could pick up that last point, which the noble Lord, Lord Allan, also raised—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It was me.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My apologies. There is a well-established precedent, as we all know—I think it goes across many Administrations—that former Ministers are supported with legal representation after they leave office. The cost of that is met from government funds and for good reasons, I think, for when those of us who serve as Ministers are doing so. When the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, decided to recuse from being supported by government legal services a letter was sent to him, explaining that it was possible for him to have his legal advice—if this is what was being referred to—paid for, subject to the normal rules of value for money, as the Permanent Secretary has to sign off that money is properly spent. I think it is a non-issue and that he is now drawing on his own solicitors, Peters & Peters, for advice.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, explained that we all agree that we have empowered a very eminent judge. I think she was making the point that it is up to the judge to decide what is relevant and what is not. We agree that the framework of the inquiry is for her to decide, but there is this narrow point about unambiguously irrelevant documents and messages. Some of those are WhatsApps, as has been mentioned. Since the Act was passed, WhatsApps have become a much more common form of communication. You can imagine that in the bundles there is a combination of personal communication and matters that are completely unconnected to the Government’s handling of Covid.

I want to make it clear—the Paymaster-General made it completely clear in the other place—that documents relating to Covid and potentially relevant material will be made available to the inquiry. It is a broad-ranging inquiry. We owe it to the people who lost their lives and those whose relatives lost their lives to find out what happened. The inquiry has to be of a very wide-ranging nature. However, in some of those documents and notebooks, there is material which is completely unconnected to the Covid inquiry.

We have therefore asked a judge to use the process of judicial review—those noble Lords who have been involved in the courts will know this is quite a common process—to rule on this technical point. We hope to have a hearing on this by the end of June so that things will be clear. In the meantime, we are continuing to submit material every day to the inquiry and to work with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I hinted, we have been in discussion for some time, and we have tried to make progress. We have taken the view, on advice from our own King’s Counsel, that it is appropriate to seek a judicial review—so that we can get guidance on this narrow and technical point of law, particularly in the new era of communications—and that that is the sensible thing to do.

I failed to respond to an earlier question about the use of digital communications. I should repeat that this is something we debated. I made a Statement in March issuing the new guidance on the use of non-corporate communication channels, which distinguishes between things that must be recorded for posterity, and the disciplines that we as Ministers have to enter into, and the ephemera with which is not appropriate to clog up the record book. Obviously, it is early days, but I hope that that will help with these issues in the future. I also look forward to the clarity of this judicial review, into which we have entered with good faith and the expectation that it is proper, whatever might have been said by some others.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has addressed a number of issues tonight but, looking back, I am not sure that she answered many of the questions that I asked at the beginning. I shall check Hansard. To press her on one point, she was clear that the inquiry was under the Inquiries Act 2005 and all parts were being complied with. I asked her about the judicial review, and she did not really respond to that. She may not have time to reply now, and she may not know the answer, given her previous answers, but I would ask her to look at Section 21 of that Act, which says that the person who chairs an inquiry can require a person giving evidence to

“produce any other thing in his custody or under his control”.

There is quite a bit in that section about the duty to comply with any request as

“determined by the chairman of the inquiry”,

which would imply that the Government may not be fulfilling all requirements under that section of the Act. I would be grateful if the Minister could look at that and write to me.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I can certainly look at it. The document that I mentioned, which is on the internet, starts off by going through exactly those paragraphs of Section 21 and picking up the points that the noble Baroness has made and explaining why. Interpretation is at the heart of the judicial review. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, helpfully made clear this morning when she made some comments in opening a phase of her inquiry, we should leave that to the court, and find out how that works out. But I am very familiar with Section 21.

Ministerial Code: Investigation of Potential Breach

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 25th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister alone is the guardian of the Ministerial Code. The Prime Minister alone appoints the ethics adviser. The Prime Minister alone decides whether an alleged breach should be investigated; and whatever the outcome or conclusion of any report that is produced on a possible breach, the Prime Minister alone decides if a breach has actually occurred.

The Minister will be aware of demands and recommendations for greater independence. In the absence of such independence, and in light of the fact that so much lies with the Prime Minister, can she explain why calls for greater independence have been rejected by the Government? Will the Government publish the criteria on which the Prime Minister makes such judgments and explain today what those criteria are?

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, the Ministerial Code sets out the standards of conduct expected of Ministers and how they discharge their duties. As the noble Baroness said, the Prime Minister is the ultimate judge of the standards of behaviour expected of a Minister and the appropriate consequences of a breach of those standards. That is indeed why he decides, as she has explained, but in light of advice from the independent adviser. The Prime Minister moved quickly to appoint an independent adviser, Sir Laurence Magnus, on whose advice he relies.

The noble Baroness asked why this system is not set up independently. This subject has been looked at by committees. Indeed, last year, as we discussed before, we did make some changes to the independent adviser’s powers and gave him more support. We believe that having an independent system would be a problem. An independent commission or system would amass considerable unelected power over the workings of government in somebody who does not have an elected mandate, without the checks and balances and accountabilities of elected politicians. We are here to debate, in a democratic way, circumstances that have gone on including, of course, the Home Secretary and the issue of the speed awareness course, which was the subject of this Question earlier in the week.

The criteria for investigating a breach, of course, depend on the circumstances. As the noble Baroness will know, the Ministerial Code is very wide ranging. It is the Prime Minister’s code, so he is rightly the decision-maker. The criteria for a particular investigation will depend on the issue being investigated.

List of Ministers’ Interests and Ministerial Code

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt for the Minister, the Question is in two parts, about first the ministerial register of interests, and secondly the Ministerial Code, and my question is specifically about the Ministerial Code. She will know that finally the Prime Minister has appointed an ethics adviser. Officially the adviser’s title is “the independent adviser on ministerial interests”, but I ask whether she considers the job title somewhat misleading. Only the Prime Minister can decide to initiate an investigation and only the Prime Minister has a veto as the sole arbiter of whether the code has been broken. Either the adviser has the independence that the job title implies, or at minimum should be able to investigate. In the interests of integrity and clarity, should the job title not be changed to “the Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial interests”? It is very hard to see where the independence applies. Will the Minister tell the House whether she considers that change to be appropriate?

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

I do not think we should make the change that the noble Baroness suggests. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the terms of reference for the role of the independent adviser were strengthened in May 2022 when the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, was in the post. The changes made expanded the powers of the independent adviser, in particular giving the office holder the ability to initiate investigations. Where the independent adviser considers that an alleged breach of the Ministerial Code warrants further investigation and that has not already been referred to him, he may initiate an investigation. Before doing so, he will consult the Prime Minister, who will normally give his consent.

I am very pleased that we now have the independent adviser and, for completeness, I should revert to one or two of the points made in response to this Question when it was asked yesterday in the other place. The list of Ministers’ interests was published by the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests on 19 April. The list is not exhaustive but is designed to be read in conjunction with the register of interests in this House, which we all complete. I am very happy to answer further questions in relation to the list of Ministers’ interests, which has now been published in relation to all 120 Ministers.

WhatsApp: Ministerial Communications

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

As I have explained, we do have guidance and we are in the process of developing revised guidance on the use of non-corporate communication channels, which we will be publishing in due course. There is a general understanding of the nature and extent of the use of WhatsApp for ministerial correspondence. As regards Mr Hancock, we have of course established a Covid inquiry to look into these things and it would be wrong of me to be making piecemeal comments on his use of WhatsApp.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, many of us recall the TV series and the films “Mission: Impossible”, where a confidential message from the Government would self-destruct in about 30 seconds. I think some Ministers probably did not realise that was fiction and not what happens in real life. We understand the difference between personal messages between Ministers and civil servants and those that relate to government decision-making, which, in normal circumstances, would be minuted. From the Answer she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I think she has confirmed that there is currently no official guidance on the use of the disappearing message facility for WhatsApp. Can she confirm whether it is true that, at present, there is no guidance or advice on this? If that is the case—she said that they were going to be working on this—when guidance has been set up and published, could she confirm that it will be in the public domain so that it can be easily understood by all?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We have obviously been looking at the guidance to bring it up to date with modern methods, to which the noble Baroness refers, and are in the process of finalising that. To the extent that matters relate to security, we have to be careful about what we publish, but I will bear in mind the request from the noble Baroness as to what we should say about disappearing WhatsApps and their use. However, I refer back to the advantages of using disappearing WhatsApps as well as the disadvantages.

Civil Service Impartiality

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

We have had a lot of heckling—I think we are getting a bit bad-tempered in the Chamber these days. I am happy to repeat what I said, in case anyone missed it.

It is not without precedent that a senior civil servant is offered a political role on leaving the Civil Service, but Sue Gray is certainly the first to be attacked in this way. She has had such a distinguished career, and I am appalled that some now impugn her integrity for the time that she served successive Governments. Surely we should welcome that the leader of His Majesty’s Official Opposition, in preparing for government, wants to employ someone with such impeccable credentials and integrity—or perhaps those kicking up a fuss just fear the appointment.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

I will set out the facts from a slightly different perspective. Sue Gray, formerly Second Permanent Secretary at DLUHC and at the Cabinet Office, resigned from the Civil Service on Thursday. This resignation was accepted with immediate effect. Because it was unique—and I would say unprecedented—for a serving Permanent Secretary to resign to seek to take up a very senior position, that of Chief of Staff working for the leader of the Opposition, we are looking into the circumstances leading up to her resignation. However, it is incumbent on the office of the leader of the Opposition to be much more forthcoming about the details of what discussions were involved and the timing of those discussions so that we are able to complete our fact-finding exercise.

Ministers must be able to speak to their officials from a position of absolute trust. It is the responsibility of everyone in this House to preserve and support the impartiality of the Civil Service, and this step does the opposite.

House of Lords: Party Balance

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 9th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am not sure I entirely understand my noble friend’s point. However, I will say that new lists are a matter for the Prime Minister. The normal process is followed, as noble Lords will know, starting with retiring Prime Ministers making proposals. HOLAC, a very important committee, gives consideration to the probity of those appointments, and in due course the Prime Minister of the day makes recommendations to the sovereign. When we look at the composition of the House, it is necessary to keep in mind that any adjustments have to be compatible with our role in scrutinising and revising legislation, while respecting the primacy of the Commons and the associated conventions between the two Houses. These are important points.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, at last that was something I can agree with the Minister on. Does she accept that this House works best and does its best work when it is in balance? Her figures, I thought, were somewhat selective. When the Labour Party left government in 2010, after nearly 13 years, Labour was 29% of the entire House, and the Official Opposition—then the Conservative Party—was 26%. After 13 years of government, we had fairly balanced appointments. In the last 13 years, we have had the coalition Government and Conservative Governments. The Government are now 34% of this House and the Official Opposition has only 22%. Does that not indicate the unfairness in the appointment system? It is all very well saying that the leader of the Opposition gets nominations, but they only get those given to them by the Prime Minister. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, wisely says that 20% of nominations to the House should be for the Cross Benches. Should there not be a similar balance between the Government and the Opposition?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

In a very fetching way, the noble Baroness raises some very important constitutional questions. When giving consideration to the composition of the House, we really do need to remember what its role is. It needs to take into account the ability to scrutinise and revise legislation which, I agree, includes the Opposition Benches but, of course, the Opposition Benches are not only the Labour Benches. It needs to take into account the results of the last general election and another statistic is that the Conservatives won 56% of the seats at the last general election. Finally, and I think this is very important, the quality of individuals put forward as Peers must be taken into account.

Boardman Report

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I take a rather different view. I think that think tanks advance democratic engagement by advancing ideas and policies, and they go up and down in time in terms of influence, as I am sure the noble Lord will acknowledge. There is no legal requirement for think tanks to reveal their funders, and it would be a disproportionate intrusion on civil society to require that of them. We are talking about charities and research institutes. It is important that people are able to bring forward their views on all sides of the political spectrum. Some are influential, some less influential. I think that helps our civic strength.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister. I want to be clear from the start that I think lobbying is a legitimate democratic activity. When we are lobbied on policy issues on legislation, as all of us will be, whether by charities, trade unions, campaign groups or trade associations, we know who they are, why they are lobbying us, because that is their reason for being, and who is paying. When companies or so-called institutes are established and set up in order to lobby on a range of issues, none of that information is available in the same way. Transparency is essential to avoid any suggestion of corruption or inappropriate contact with Ministers or parliamentarians. The Minister will be aware that a succession of scandals have taken place around this issue that have caused concern to the public and impacted trust in Parliament as well as in the organisations. Will the Government accept that the lobbying of government must be transparent and that the funding of lobbyists must be transparent and properly regulated if we are going to restore public trust in a process that I believe is helpful to Parliament?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am glad we are agreed that lobbying is part of legitimate policy development. Of course, we have the lobbying Act, which is in the process of being reviewed, notably by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other House. We also have various transparency mechanisms, such as the publication of ministerial transparency returns—we have just put out a whole load more—the register of consultant lobbyists and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. There is always a fine line between regulating to death and ensuring that we inhibit inappropriate behaviour.

Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 30th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do wonder how many times Ministers can tell us that this is such an important issue and that it is a priority without appointing anyone. There is a queue of outstanding, incomplete investigations at present, and the Government have already had to draft someone in to investigate the alleged behaviour of the Deputy Prime Minister in a separate process. What are the estimated costs of this delay? King’s Counsels will not come cheap for such an investigation. Why does the Minister think candidates are refusing even to consider taking this appointment up? I understand that several have been approached. Could there be a problem with the Government’s definition of independence, which appears different from that of the rest of us?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Baroness refers to the cost of the King’s Counsel hired to help on the Raab inquiry; it is obviously the usual process that costs will be accounted for in the Cabinet Office annual report and accounts. However, I understand that in the other place my honourable friend Minister Burghart has committed to write on the issue and I will ensure that this letter is shared with the noble Baroness. Could she remind me of her second point?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

It was only a couple of seconds ago. Why does she think good candidates are refusing to take up the position? Could it be to do with the Government’s definition of independence?

Parliament: Deferred Peerages

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will start by saying that we do not comment on leaks and rumours—but I agree that it is a core constitutional principle that the monarch is never drawn into party politics. I think we all very much agree on that. As far as individual proposals and speculations are concerned, no list has been confirmed and I will not go any further in adding to the speculation.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is one thing, as the Minister says, when someone, for personal reasons, genuinely cannot take up a seat in the House of Lords that they have been awarded, but will she recognise that it is completely unacceptable, if the rumours are true, to create a situation where four Members of Parliament hang onto their seats in the other place but can jump into this House at a time of their choosing, or at a time that is more convenient for their political party? The Prime Minister could stop this in its tracks: will he?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not think I can add to what I have said already. It is very important not to believe what you read in the newspapers; sometimes they are right and sometimes they are wrong. A list has not been confirmed, and it is not appropriate or fair for the Government to speculate—or encourage speculation—on names that may or may not have been nominated or vetted. We need to be fair to those being considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is for the Prime Minister of the day to advise the sovereign on proposals for peerages, as the noble Lord has said. If the House will bear with me, I could mention two obvious precedents if that would be helpful. One was my noble friend Lady Davidson of Lundin Links—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

She was not an MP.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

She was an MSP—but the point is that she was nominated in Boris Johnson’s Dissolution List of 31 July 2020 and her Letters Patent, to respond to the noble Lord, were issued on 16 July 2021. She was introduced to the House later that month.

Ministers: Government Business

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Good. The Government take matters of security very seriously. Of course, I am not going to comment on individual cases—that would not be appropriate—but I draw attention to the fact that the Home Secretary has provided a very detailed account, step by step, in a very full letter to the Home Affairs Select Committee and, of course, she apologised for her error and resigned. The Prime Minister has now appointed her to do a very important job.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, and his entire Cabinet at that time, many of whom are now back in the Cabinet, were warned in 2019 not to use their personal phones for business but it appears that some continued to do so. Can the Minister confirm what guidance was given to Cabinet Ministers at that time? Is it still being given to Cabinet Ministers? How is that guidance being enforced and is not obeying those rules a breach of the Ministerial Code?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will not, of course, comment on the particular; however, it is the case that government systems should be used, as far as practicable, for government business. The guidance issued and kept under review does not rule out the use of different forms of electronic communications in some circumstances. There has to be a place for a variety of digital channels. Ministers have informal conversations from time to time and they have to use a variety of digital communications for personal, political and parliamentary matters.

Home Secretary: Resignation and Reappointment

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the response in the other place that the sacking or resignation of the Home Secretary in last week’s Government was for “an error of judgment”, and that she recognised her mistake and stood down, is now under scrutiny and it is starting to wilt like a lettuce. A range of sanctions is available for the breach of the Ministerial Code, yet for this particular breach, which the Government now want to play down, apparently resignation was the only option, not the other sanctions available.

Last night, Sir Jake Berry, who was the Chairman of the Conservative Party until Tuesday, said that there had been “multiple breaches” of the Ministerial Code. Numerous questions are now becoming more evident—it is quite a murky business—but two are really important for Parliament. First, did the Home Secretary immediately refer herself for this security breach, or did it come to light only after being reported by somebody else? Secondly—I was surprised this question was not answered by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons yesterday, when Keir Starmer asked it, so I will ask it again—have officials raised any concerns about Rishi Sunak’s decision to reappoint Suella Braverman as Home Secretary?

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is actually very simple. Noble Lords have seen Ms Braverman’s letter. She made a mistake when she was Home Secretary. She acknowledged the mistake; she acknowledged an error of judgment; she apologised. That was dealt with by the previous Prime Minister and Ms Braverman resigned. Separately, the present Prime Minister has decided to appoint Ms Braverman as Home Secretary.

Everyone deserves a second chance. The Prime Minister was clear that this is a Government with integrity, professionalism and accountability, and I believe it was right to bring her back. On the question of advice, noble Lords will know that we do not comment on internal advice; such advice is confidential.

COP 27

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I know all that my noble friend has done to help on climate change and his great work chairing the Climate Change Committee. As for the Cabinet committees for the new Government, we will have to wait to find our exactly what they look like.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I bring the Minister back to her answer to my noble friend, who asked about the 30/30 campaign. The Minister said that we lead the campaign on this; it is all very well leading campaigns, but after 12 years in government, we have not had actually made much progress. We are talking about 3% of land rather than 30%. With COP 27 pending, could she not say a little more about the implementation? Having led the campaign with such vigour—but obviously not great response—when will we get to the 30% required by the campaign?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

On the 30%, there is obviously lots to do. I believe that 100 countries have now signed up. We have been very good at leading other countries and trying to get them involved in these matters. Obviously, it is work in progress. The UK is recognised as a global leader on many aspects of climate change. Our emissions reduced by 47% since 1990, and we have a stretching NDC, but, perhaps most of all, we are the first nation to legislate for net zero by 2050.

House of Lords: Appointments

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 17th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I start by making the general point that, given retirements and other departures, some new Members are essential to keep the expertise and outlook of the House of Lords fresh. The Burns report had longer-term proposals to maintain a steady-state size. Those still require further thought and engagement, particularly with the House of Commons, given the constitutional implications. Theresa May’s Administration in 2018 did not sign up to the Burns recommendations, but there is a Conservative manifesto commitment to look at the role of the Lords.

On the other point that my noble friend Lord Fowler raised—if I may still call him my noble friend—the nomination for the appointment of the individual he referred to is a matter for the leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, to answer for. Obviously the HOLAC provides advice on nominations for all life Peers, including those recommended by UK political parties, to ensure the highest standards of propriety. That was applied in the usual way.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, listening to the Minister, we accept that the appointment of new Members is important to refresh skills, talents and expertise as others depart from your Lordships’ House. However, the Burns report, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, showed a road map towards a smaller and therefore more effective Chamber.

Let us look at the facts over the last few years. David Cameron appointed more Peers per year than any other Prime Minister ever, with a far greater proportion to the government parties. Boris Johnson then made him look like an amateur. There have been so many resignations from the Government Front Bench in the last two years that, even with the higher number of Conservative appointments, we have had an extra 10 appointments on the Conservative Benches purely to fill ministerial posts following resignations.

Your Lordships’ House has regularly expressed its concern and its support for the Burns report. This must be the first time ever that the House of Lords has called for reform and it is the Government who are blocking it. With the talk of another list about to be sent our way, courtesy of the former Prime Minister’s resignation list—I do not know if there will be any further ones—is it not time to stop, pause and have a genuine discussion about a sensible way forward?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

On the last point, it is a long-standing convention that individuals can be nominated for an honour in recognition of their public or political service and Prime Ministers can draw up resignation lists after leaving office. This has been the case under past Governments across the political spectrum. I point out regarding the numbers that, after a long period of Labour government, there were very substantial numbers of Labour Peers. The Conservative voice in this House is still underrepresented and has been for some time.

Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I think I have already been very clear on the point. I do not accept the link, but I am trying to answer on the question of Labour Party funding, and to move forward to say something about party funding, because that is the subject of the debate and the report.

There is, in my view, no reason why a union that is using the political fund to advance the interests of its members could not get a large majority of them to contribute. In Northern Ireland, where the system has existed since the 1920s, some unions, such as the Prison Officers Association, have up to 89% of their members contributing. It is clear that if unions are providing a service that people want through their political funds, members will willingly pay for them. It is not unreasonable, as some have suggested, that some union members may want to contribute more.

I move on to what might loosely be described as the mechanics of the opt-in process. The committee has made a useful contribution to the debate on this issue, analysing the Bill’s measures and suggesting changes to the opt-in process. I remind your Lordships that my honourable friend Nick Boles told the committee that he wanted,

“to make sure that the transition from the pre-existing approach to a modern approach of opt-in is possible for the unions to do in a way that is successful for them and their members and not punishing in terms of costs”.

I repeat that because I think it is an important statement.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating that quotation, because she talks about a modern method of opting in. Does she think that the hurdles placed in the way—that it has to be within three months in every five years but also that it has to be in writing, on paper—are a very modern approach?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

If I may, I will continue and perhaps return to that point in due course.

No doubt on Report, which starts next week, your Lordships will wish to debate the further specific measures and suggestions contained in the report, but an important point is that the Government remain committed to introducing a transparent opt-in system for political funds for all union members, not just new ones. However, we will reflect on both the recommendations of the committee and the views of other Members of the House expressed in Committee on the Bill and this evening on the mechanism of the provisions.

As for the specific recommendations on the operation of Clause 11, I am pleased that the committee has endorsed the principle that union members are entitled to a reasonable amount of detail about the political expenditure of their unions, and agrees that the current level of reporting is insufficient. Again, we will reflect on the committee’s technical recommendations and, as I said, continue to engage with the Certification Officer on this and other matters.

I turn to the wider issue that the committee was asked to consider in relation to party funding: the necessity of urgent, new legislation to balance those provisions with the other recommendations made in the Committee on Standards in Public Life report. As the committee itself noted, we have a democratic mandate to introduce the opt-in for political funds. Our manifesto did not state that that depended on there being party funding reform. So the Government agree with the committee’s conclusion:

“While there is no agreement between the political parties, we see no scope for introducing urgent new legislation on party funding to balance the provisions of this Bill. We believe that the political parties should give effect to their manifesto commitments on party funding”.

The Government agree in principle, but for any talks to be productive, there needs to be a sense that all parties agree on the basis for discussion.

Let us not forget that, despite the efforts of its members, the 2011 Committee on Standards in Public Life report did not get cross-party support. Indeed, both parties opposite objected to at least some of its conclusions. It is also important to note that the report predated the Government’s 2015 manifesto.

There are clearly major stumbling blocks to progress. There is no appetite for state funding of political parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Wrigglesworth, a former treasurer of the Liberal Democrats, told the committee:

“I cannot see a time when political parties will be willing to go to the taxpayer and ask for money for their own organisations”.

So what might the approach be? The unfortunate fact is that inter-party party funding talks over the last decade have failed to reach any consensus, in part because they have focused on controversial and complex structural changes. Evidence to the Select Committee suggested moving ahead with smaller reforms that might command cross-party support, such as finding practical ways in which to encourage more and smaller donations from wider audiences. As part of the Government’s broader approach of promoting giving to good causes, the Government would be willing to take that forward for further consideration, such as publishing a discussion paper in the first instance, if there was a positive reaction to such a potential step from the political parties. I hope noble Lords will be pleased to hear that; I shall be particularly interested to hear the views of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, on these issues.

To conclude, we are heartened that the committee agrees on the fundamental principle behind Clauses 10 and 11—that union members should be given an active choice to contribute or not contribute to political funds. We welcome the contribution and ideas on how that mechanism might work and commit to reflecting further on these recommendations, such as the transitional provisions for implementation and the methods of communication that a union is permitted to use in our digital world.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I say at the outset that we have got ourselves into a bit of a pickle over procedure; I know that the Government Whip is not in his place at the moment. It is rather unusual for the Minister to agree to answer one debate when responding to another. I hope that that does not mean that she will avoid any of the questions raised in the previous debate, however unusual the procedure that has been adopted may be. I also hope that she has found her folder: she told me in the Ladies that she had lost it, and I think that she would struggle to respond to some of the debates without it.

I thank my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours for raising this issue, which he did with his usual tenacity and also his usual thoughtfulness. There is merit in discussing this further. Surprisingly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh—although not with his analysis—that this is probably not the right place to debate it. The noble Lord says that the Bill is not about the funding of political parties, but the amendment is about the political levy, which is in the Bill. If the amendment affects political parties because it discusses the political levy, so does the Bill—so that is a curious and tortuous reason he gives for not supporting it.

The wider point is that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours highlights why the issue of the political levy, which involves party-political funding and political funding of the work of trade unions, should properly be considered in the round, as it was by the Committee on Standards in Public Life when it looked at the issue. If we consider tax relief on those paying their contribution to the unions’ political funds, that has wider implications. To look at it in isolation from the other issues raised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life is wrong—as we have argued that these two clauses are wrong.

My noble friend highlights the inadequacy of the Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on one point: there is a debate to be had about whether contributions to political parties or the political levy of a trade union are part of wider civic society and should be recognised as such. I suspect that the Minister feels nervous at the idea that trade unions could be regarded as part of civil society, from her earlier comments, but this should be fed into the overall debate on party-political funding. It is worthy of consideration, but today is probably not when we should be discussing these issues; the proper place would be in a debate on party-political funding.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for tabling this amendment and sparking this debate. He sought to build an analogy between trade unions and charities. It is, of course, true that unions do philanthropic good, as indeed do many companies. However, having said that, I am afraid that the rules on tax relief on voluntary donations are well established and very clear. They apply to charities. To qualify, an organisation must be recognised as a charity by HMRC and the independent Charity Commission. This tax relief does not apply to money that is used for political purposes.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Leigh that this is not a matter for this Bill. As we have said, it is not about party funding. I am slightly less sure about his direction of travel. I was pleased to have a curtain-raiser from the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, with some of his thoughts on party funding.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that this is not a matter for this debate. I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The first time that I saw the papers in relation to 1984, shown to me by my noble friend Lord King, was at the beginning of this week. I would have to ask others what they knew.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the Minister for that extraordinarily candid answer. Will she check with her officials, and report back to your Lordships’ House, whether at any time, when they were either preparing the impact assessment or briefing Minister on policy, they were aware of that agreement negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord King, and the late Len Murray?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The agreement of course dates back a fair number of years. The letter from the then Government, as I have now seen it, undertook not to introduce in the then Trade Union Act provisions to require an active opt-in on the condition that the TUC council adopted a statement of guidance on trade union political funds. However, my noble friend Lord King made it clear that if the guidance were not to prove effective the Government must of course reserve their right to legislate to ensure that union members were fully aware of the choice that they had in relation to political funds and were readily able to exercise it. The noble Lord, Lord King, quoted from the original guidance. Currently, a member automatically contributes to a political fund as part of their union subscription, unless or until they notify the union that they do not wish to do so. This system relies on the inertia of members to opt out.

We have concerns about the system because it does not seem to be providing union members with the information they need to make an informed decision, so those who might want to opt out and get their money back simply do not know. That is why I share some of the scepticism that my noble friend Lord King mentioned this evening. We have reviewed the available online membership forms—the point at which the applicant is actively contributing money—for 25 unions which have political funds. We discovered that 12 unions—just under half—do not mention the existence of a political fund. Of the 11 that refer to a political fund, a further five do not make it clear that a member has a choice to opt out, and in many cases it is unclear whether there is a reduction in contributions when a member chooses to opt out.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, whom I have known for many years, shared some other examples of good practice with us. I will certainly get officials to look at them and will look at them myself. The point is that all union members who pay the levy must have a choice, and that needs to be transparent at the start of the process. I am sure everybody would agree that it should not be in some complicated and separate link.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about our impact assessment, which we were able to publish in good time for Committee.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Well—

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

In time for Committee. The impact assessment sets out scenarios about how the move to opt in might change the number of those contributing and therefore the level of contributions. This reflected the uncertainty around the impact. This approach was endorsed by the Regulatory Policy Committee. The assessment recognises that member inertia might reduce contribution rates, but that unions are likely to respond with a stronger rationale and more communication to encourage contributions. As I recall, PCS did such a campaign when changes were introduced in the Civil Service. There will be other factors beyond any reforms that will also affect contributions levels. Contribution rates to political funds have been rising among union members over the past few years, which is perhaps a reason for some optimism among the political classes.

The Certification Officer has been mentioned. We will come to that on day four. I see the strengthened Certification Officer as having an important and useful role.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in relation to burdens, mentioned penalties and asked me about the penalties that might apply if members did not opt—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I asked about penalties if organisations used their best endeavours to achieve what the Government are setting out for them but were unable to do so in the time stipulated.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The answer, which I hope the noble Baroness will welcome, is that a union will not be able to deduct a payment to a political fund if the member has not opted in within three months of the commencement of the Act, but there are no penalties and a member can always opt in at a later date.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Is the Minister saying that she is creating a criminal offence, but if someone fails to comply with the provision, there will be no penalty?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My understanding is that it is not a criminal offence. It is an offence. This quite often happens in regulations. I deal with a lot of regulation. You do not always have severe penalties. In this case, that is the situation. We will certainly look further, but it seemed to me a reasonable and moderate approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, raised the issue that the Certification Officer had not been consulted and that there had been very few complaints. Given this lack of transparency in a significant number of cases, how would people know that they should complain, that they could get an opt-out or, indeed, that the Certification Officer existed? In some cases the union may publicise that; in others it may not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, my mind is not closed to logistic arrangements that would make these provisions workable; that would be ridiculous. But I did not want to leave the House with the idea that, somehow, just new employees, as it were, would come into the system. We feel that that would not quite hit the mark. However, of course I will look at the process and how it is working in reflecting on this issue before we return to it at Report.

We have had a good, long and late debate. We will reflect further in the way that I have indicated but, in the mean time, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and her willingness to reflect on some of these issues. I have found this quite an extraordinary debate. The more I think about it, the fact that the Minister did not know of that letter—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King, on this point—is amazing, given that that would have been something for her to look at and consider.

This comes back to the impact assessment. I am used to Home Office impact assessments, which often state what other solutions have been considered, why they were rejected and how much they would cost. It seems to me that, on this, no other way forward was ever considered. The amendment that my noble friend Lord Monks put forward is something that the Government should have considered before coming forward with this proposal, particularly if they had known about the arrangements of the noble Lord, Lord King, in 1984.

The Minister has addressed some of the detailed points, and I think she understands that my amendments around implementation are, in essence, probing amendments to try to ascertain the justification for the proposals that the Government have brought forward and the urgency of them. That is the key part that the Minister missed in her response. She should look again at the answers she has given, or I could table some Written Questions, because clearly there are some points missing. On the impact assessment, she admitted—or confessed to your Lordships’ House—that there is uncertainty around the impact. I think that is an honest and candid statement, and I am grateful to the Minister for that. The rationale she gave was that there are concerns about the system because it does not “seem” to work. I find it extraordinary that we get such legislation through because there are concerns that the system does not “seem” to do what we want it to. To me, that is not the way in which legislation should be made.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I promised in a meeting that they would be published before Committee stage and I have delivered on that promise. I have arranged for them to be published tomorrow, which will give plenty of time before Committee starts on 8 February. I look forward to discussing them with noble Lords across the House.

In conclusion, this Bill seeks to modernise the relationship between trade unions and their members and to redress the balance between the rights of trade unions and the rights of the general public, whose lives, as I have said before, are often disrupted by strikes. Clauses 10 and 11 embrace the good democratic values of choice, transparency and responsibility. I look forward to full scrutiny of the Bill in this House.

This Bill is a package of measures and it is disappointing that the party opposite has chosen to misinterpret our intentions. As I have demonstrated, Clauses 10 and 11 are quite distinct from the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life mentioned in the Motion and relating to party-political funding. We would merely be adding confusion if we established a Select Committee.

Our reforms in the Bill look at how trade union members choose to contribute to trade union political funds. We are not looking at how trade unions fund political parties. Opt-ins and opt-outs for trade union political funds have always been a matter for trade union legislation. Party funding and its regulation have always been a matter for party funding legislation. Party funding is rightly outside the scope of the Bill and I call on the House to reject the Motion.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thought the Minister was making quite a good fist of it until she said that we had misinterpreted the intention of the Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. That has been very helpful.

It may assist the House if I very briefly make it absolutely clear what my Motion seeks to do. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, hit the nail on the head when he said it was about the impact of the legislation, not the intention. The Minister says that the impact assessment will be published tomorrow. That is great but it would not have informed this debate at all, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, because there is nothing in there about any impact that the Bill may have on party-political funding.

We strayed a long way from the specifics of my Motion. My Motion is quite clear. It is not about party funding as a whole; it is not about the Trade Union Bill as a whole. It is very specifically about the two clauses in the Bill over which there is a clear difference, as noble Lords have heard, between the Minister and this side of the House—between the Government and I was going to say the Opposition but I think it is much more widespread than that—about whether those clauses will have an impact on political funding.

The Minister reminded us of the Conservative manifesto. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was quite right to challenge on this—I apologise for citing him again. The Conservative Party manifesto says, on page 49:

“In the next Parliament, we will legislate to ensure trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for subscriptions to political parties”,

but now she tells us it is nothing at all to do with political parties. Is the manifesto right or is she? The manifesto goes on:

“We will continue to seek agreement on a comprehensive package of party funding reform”.

I entirely agree but that is not what is in the Bill. The Bill looks at what the Committee on Standards in Public Life says and picks one area. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, was quite clear that one of the recommendations is reflected—I am not saying it is exactly the same—in these proposals.

I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for his contribution—wise words, as usual. I remind him how narrow and specific our Motion is. He says that he would much rather not have the clauses implemented. That could be debated by the Committee on the Bill when we get to those clauses. What I am proposing today is the opportunity to inform the debate on those clauses on one specific point; otherwise, the debate on those clauses will be clouded by the debate on whether or not there is an impact on party-political funding, although I entirely accept the point about what was in the manifesto about the opt-in or opt-out. I am seeking to remove that party-political element from the debate and debate the specifics of that in a Select Committee in order to then inform the Committee.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 11th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to delay the House and I wish noble Lords a very happy new year, but perhaps I may seek guidance and advice from the Government. We are about to start our deliberations on the Trade Union Bill, in which there is considerable interest in your Lordships’ House today, yet, not for the first time, we have no impact assessment. This has happened before but this Bill started around five months ago in the House of Commons and we still do not have that impact assessment. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that the Cabinet Office manual on impact assessments states:

“The final Impact Assessment must be made available alongside Bills published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny or introduced to Parliament, with 80 copies sent to the Vote Office … and 10 to the Lords Printed Paper Office”.

We do not need 10: we will settle for one but we would like it as soon as possible.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue, which I was intending to cover today. To assist the House, I am happy to clarify that the Government have already published consultation impact assessments alongside the public consultations that support our package of reforms, as well as an equality impact assessment. As foreshadowed when I met noble Lords before Christmas, we will publish a further impact assessment on the Bill before Committee.

This is an important Bill, dealing with a very important subject. Trade unions have a long and distinguished history. They first came into being when many workers led a precarious existence and incapacity in a family’s main breadwinner could spell tragedy. They helped bring about higher wages and safer workplaces, and have many more worthy accomplishments to their credit. Everything I say today should be seen against this background.

In an earlier life, I worked at a company that had excellent relations with its main trade union, which achieved many benefits for its members in the company. However, every great social institution requires occasional modernisation if it is to remain relevant and responsive. I know how keen on modernisation noble Lords opposite are. Every institution can benefit from greater transparency, better accountability and clearer regulation.

The Bill seeks to modernise trade unions—not to undermine their place in society, but to strengthen it by making sure that they are accountable and transparent and use their powers responsibly. It is not fair that a strike in the education sector in 2014 organised by the National Union of Teachers was held on the support of just 22% of its members. Similarly, in 2014 a strike among NHS workers was called by Unite on the basis of the support of just 12% of members.

The consequences of strike action can be widespread and severe for many. I think especially of those having to juggle childcare whenever schoolteachers or Tube drivers take industrial action. As a parent and, indeed, now a grandparent, I know just how difficult such disruption can be. and remember that in Britain today we have the highest level of women’s participation in the workforce ever.

Some people have described the Bill as an attack on trade unions, on workers’ rights, on their ability to strike, and even on human rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Bill is about bringing more democracy and transparency to industrial relations. It seeks to achieve a better and fairer balance between the rights of workers and the needs of people who rely on important public services.

Taking democracy first, the key purpose of the Bill is to ensure that strikes take place only where there is a genuine democratic and recent mandate. The Bill therefore provides that all strike ballots will require at least a 50% turnout before industrial action can commence. In addition, in important public services we will require at least 40% of members eligible to support a yes vote. We need to find a better balance to ensure that people who rely on these services do not find their lives disrupted at short notice by strikes that have the support of only a small proportion of union members. The Government’s reforms will restore public confidence that, where industrial action takes place, it always has the strong support of union members.

The Bill also requires unions to provide their members with a more detailed explanation of what issues are in dispute and what form of industrial action is planned on the ballot paper. This will allow all members to vote meaningfully and with confidence. Once a ballot has been won under our proposals, it would be valid for four months. This measure means that a strike can be called only on a recent decision by union members, not on a ballot that happened years before. The National Union of Teachers called a strike in July 2014 on a mandate from June 2011. We cannot go on in this way.

Moving on to transparency, the Bill will allow individual union members to make an active choice whether to contribute to a union’s political activities. Paying into the fund automatically will no longer be the default position. Having taken the decision, we want members to consider whether they want to continue to support the political campaigning of their union. That is why the Bill requires that union members will have to refresh the decision every five years. There is no reason why this new transparency should reduce the appetite for individual members to contribute to a union’s political fund. Indeed, we hope that it will increase the democratic debate within unions about the appropriate use of such funds.

Facility time is another area where we want to increase transparency. Most taxpayers are surprised to hear that some public sector workers are paid by the state to do a specific job, but spend a significant proportion of their time—indeed, in some cases, all their time—working on union matters. This, however, does not mean that the duties carried out by union representatives are not valuable. The measure will aid a more effective use of taxpayers’ money, while allowing public sector employers to focus on those areas that are vital to maintaining good industrial relations. It allows Ministers to require employers to publish information on the use of facility time in their own organisation. In the Civil Service, we have already introduced such a transparency requirement. Before these 2012 reforms to facility time, the cost to the taxpayer was around £36 million annually; now it has reduced to £9.45 million a year. Although we have taken a reserve power to set a limit on facility time, we will use that only if facility time is disproportionately high.

I now turn to measures to ensure a modern framework for union activities. We are grateful for the democratic debate that has taken place during the passage of the Bill through Parliament so far. We have listened, which has allowed us to improve the Bill. For example, our manifesto committed us to tackling the intimidation of non-striking workers. We held a wide-ranging public consultation and published our response in November. Much concern was raised during that consultation over what we may and might not do, most of which was unfounded. For example, we were never going to approve the text of individual tweets. Following the consultation, we are not pursuing a new offence of intimidation on the picket line. However, the consultation has allowed us to be clear that we need to update the 1992 code of practice on picketing to ensure that it addresses the use of social media. The Bill also makes an obligation of the appointment of a picket supervisor. This requirement is already in the code of picketing, which has been followed without difficulty on many occasions by many unions.

We believe that better transparency and democratic accountability will be further enhanced by a stronger and more direct relationship between unions and their members. That is why we are ending the practice of check-off in the public sector. Nowadays, in a world of direct debits and easy online payments, it feels unnecessary. Unions need to have a more direct relationship with their members.

We are also reforming the role of the Certification Officer to allow proper, robust and proportionate regulation. A modern regulator should not be a burden on the taxpayer. That is why we are asking trade unions and employer associations to pay for their regulator via a levy. This is not an unusual approach. The Bill equips the Certification Officer with appropriate new powers for a modern regulator of trade unions and employer associations. We are widening the Certification Officer’s powers of investigation in relation to suspected breaches of statutory requirements. These are neither unusual nor draconian. For example, the CO will be able to request the production of documents where there is good reason to do so. He or she will be able to consider concerns from third parties in deciding whether to investigate potential breaches. He or she will also have the ability to impose financial penalties for those who do not apply the statutory requirements. I shall say more about the exact levels of financial penalties at a later stage of the Bill.

I recognise that many noble Lords feel passionately about unions and industrial relations and are wary of any attempts to change the laws relating to them. I hope they will accept that these are sensible, proportionate measures that will bring industrial life into the 21st century.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Smith of Basildon and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

When the noble Lord, Lord Best, with his experience and expertise on housing, speaks on issues such as this, we all do well to listen. I am sure the Minister has taken on board his comments. On the issue he raised about students, the Minister has made clear that the Government will bring forward an amendment to address this issue, and I welcome that. I hope he will listen, take on board and incorporate the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which are very helpful indeed. I welcome the fact that the Minister has listened and intends to table an amendment. I also welcome this recognition by the Government of how clumsy this provision in the Bill is, and the consequences of that. I will not speak at length today, because I spoke at length on earlier amendments covering the same issues.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, address, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the principle, practicality and workability of the provisions on landlords. Notwithstanding the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the provisions do not just affect students, as I know she has acknowledged. These provisions on landlords will impact on many people to the detriment of many UK-born and British citizens and those who have a legal right to be here. I welcome the opportunity to look at some of the practicalities.

I notice that the impact assessment for the Bill comes straight to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Under the heading, “What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary?”, the impact assessment comments:

“Housing is a key enabler of illegal migration. … Government intervention is necessary to deter illegal immigration”.

I disagree with that. The problem here—the concerns that have been raised in the amendments—is about whether it is the landlord’s role to take action to deter illegal immigration in the way that the Government suggest.

What I am concerned about is highlighted by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Best. It is becoming increasingly clear what limitations, pressures, problems and responsibilities these provisions are going to have and what impact they will have on those entitled to live and work in the UK, including UK citizens. The noble Lord, Lord Best, and the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have highlighted concerns regarding the impact on landlords.

The Government estimate in their impact assessment that they will take fines of £6.8 million from landlords over the next 10 years. The point has been made to the Minister that that could be seen as, and could well become, a disincentive to those who currently rent out. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether, given that this also includes rooms which have been rented to lodgers, any assessment has been made on the impact of availability of homes or rooms to rent in the private rented sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, mentioned the letters that she has received from estate agents wanting to rent or buy her property. Anybody who has lived in London will have regularly received such letters from companies offering vast amounts of money to rent a room. Can the Minister tell us whether any assessment has been undertaken of the impact that these proposals could have on the availability of properties or rooms to rent?

I will not go through each amendment—I raised a number of questions which I had on Monday—but the amendments would bring some clarity to the issue. If we take the questions raised by these amendments, those that will be raised in the next group of amendments, those that were raised in yesterday’s discussion on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, and proposals for a pilot—I welcome the Minister’s letter and look forward to discussing the Government’s proposals for a pilot—it is increasingly clear that there is little to commend these clauses. I hope that, in his response today, the Minister is able to address the concerns that have been raised by noble Lords here today and some of those still outstanding from our previous debates.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I will make two brief points. First, I welcome the broadening of the exemption for students which my noble friend outlined late in the debate on Monday. That seems to be relevant to Amendment 54ZZA, and we all look forward to seeing the new wording on Report, recognising the importance of our student population.

Secondly, I will comment on the idea outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best, for an approved agency arrangement. This may be a good idea, but it will of course come at a cost. I would prefer a simple system that would allow landlords to do the checking themselves by having proper guidance for small landlords, both through the normal trade associations and guidance and on gov.uk. In that way enforcement can be minimised, fines avoided, and compliance maximised. The trial run that all noble Lords seemed to be agreed on in the earlier discussion in Committee should be used to test the workability of these important proposals.