Ministers: Legal Costs

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The Secretary of State has explained her actions fully. I refer noble Lords to her statement. The important thing is that legal advice was taken, and subsequently there was a full and final settlement of the dispute. The Secretary of State made it clear that she should have sent the letter in confidence to UKRI and apologised for that. The basic principle is that it is very important that Ministers can seek advice on work that they carry out as part of their official duties, otherwise there would be a chilling effect on public life. This has been important to all Administrations.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, if the chilling effect were to extend to preventing Ministers posting things on social media at midnight, we might all be able to live with that. The Minister said that the indemnity covered the activities of her fellow Minister while fulfilling her duties, so can she advise the House which of her ministerial responsibilities the Secretary of State’s comments attacking two academics were fulfilling? Will she also explain why the taxpayer should foot the bill for a blatant abuse of position and power by the Secretary of State that further undermines the standing of the very UK research institution that her department is supposed to be promoting?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The Secretary of State is responsible for the non-departmental public body UK Research and Innovation. She was operating in that context. Her intentions were always to do the right thing. It is very important that Ministers can do this. Of course, insurance is available to MPs, which is provided by the House at the taxpayers’ expense, in cases where professional indemnity insurance covers defamation. The House of Lords Commission is due this week to discuss the provision of professional indemnity insurance to Peers. Of course, there is indemnity insurance in the private sector because directors have to act in good faith and in the wider interest.

UK Population Growth

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The figure for June 2023 was actually down to 672,000 people, but my noble friend is right to point to the problem of underemployment. The focus of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in changing the benefits system and helping people into work is to improve skills so that everybody in this country who can possibly do a job has one, because that is very much related to contentment and happiness—certainly in my own experience. It is a very important area of work that this Government have truly underlined.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the UK population is increasing, but it is also ageing, with a declining proportion of the population now of working age. There were just over 600,000 live births in England and Wales in 2022, which was a 3.1% decrease from the previous year and the lowest number for 20 years. That means that the current UK fertility rate is about 1.5 children per woman, the lowest since records began in 1939. Does the Minister agree with Professor Jonathan Portes from King’s College, who said that

“the impact of the housing crisis on young couples, sharp cuts to financial support for low income families, and access to childcare are all likely factors”?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The interesting thing about the fertility figure, which the noble Baroness rightly mentioned, is that it is partly about people delaying when they have children and partly linked to the factors that she mentioned, including housing. So a priority for us is attacking housing by making more housing available for young people, which is very difficult. The fertility rates are themselves a problem, but not one that is confined to the UK; I used to work a lot in Korea, where fertility rates are horrifically low.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I think the best way to approach a Bill such as this is for me to be completely straightforward with the House. We on these Benches oppose this Bill. We do not support boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns towards Israel—they wrongly single out one nation and are counterproductive to peace—but the Bill is deeply flawed. It contains draconian powers and fails in its central purpose, which surely ought to be to prevent anti-Semitism.

The Bill prohibits public bodies from making procurement and investment decisions based on their “political or moral disapproval” of a foreign state’s conduct. The Government say that this is an attempt to ensure that all UK public bodies speak, as the Minister said, “with one voice” on international issues. However, the Government seem to think that there are councils, universities, NHS trusts and nursery schools with their own foreign policies, and that this is somehow confusing to our international allies. In fact, the impact assessment points to just three local government pension funds in Scotland that have disinvested from an Israeli bank since 2018. None of them say that this was a political decision or should be taken to represent any kind of political or moral disapproval, so can the Minister explain how the Bill would have impacted on those decisions? Would trustees be interviewed by enforcement authorities, for example?

The naivety of the Bill is to believe that trustees of pension schemes have, until now, been making investment decisions—which have a profound impact on their funds—in response to local boycott, divestment and sanctions campaigns. There is just no evidence for this. The risk is that the Bill will serve only to heighten tensions. I am afraid it plays into the hands of those who spout incomprehensible conspiracy theories and will have unintended consequences. I repeat that Labour has consistently opposed boycott, divestment and sanctions against the State of Israel. We know, and accept, that some campaigners have used the cover of BDS to whip up hate towards Jewish people, to hold Israel to different standards, to question its right to exist and to equate the actions of the Israeli Government with the Jewish people. We know that this happens and it is utterly wrong, but do we really think that the Bill will eradicate anti-Semitism? My fear is that it will make things worse, and it could not be happening at a more sensitive time.

The Bill treats the Occupied Palestinian Territories as though they are, in effect, the same as the State of Israel. This runs counter to decades of British diplomacy under Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments. In 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, requiring every UN member to distinguish between the territory of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967. The resolution says that illegal settlements have “no legal validity”, constitute

“a flagrant violation under international law”,

and are

“a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution”.

Not only was the UK involved in drafting this resolution, but the Government’s advice to UK businesses investing in the region makes this distinction clear. Can the Minister tell us what the Foreign Secretary had to say about this Bill? Can she tell us who drafted it? It is so strange that a Bill is being presented that so blatantly contradicts an internationally agreed and long-standing position of this Government.

Then there is the issue of freedom of speech. Not so long ago, we spent days in this House on a Bill to protect the right of individuals to express their views. This Bill does not do anything to legislate against the expression of anti-Semitism, but it does curtail the right to freedom of expression. Clause 4 is clear: decision-makers cannot express political or moral views that might be seen to relate in any way to procurement decisions. This is unenforceable. Councillors are elected officials. They have every right to express their views on moral and political issues—some might say that is their job. They do not, of course, have a right to whip up anti-Semitism and where that happens it must be dealt with, but the Bill will criminalise community representatives expressing views in a free and open way that has been a fundamental underpinning of our democracy for hundreds of years.

I listened to what the Minister said to try to persuade us that this is not the case. I am afraid she is being completely unrealistic and naive. Why does she say, on the one hand, that a council leader can express a view calling for a boycott on their social media or about another council, yet they would fall foul of this legislation should they express that opinion in a different context? What will the likely advice be from a borough’s solicitor to a council leader or a cabinet member who seeks to express such views? I will tell you: it will be to keep their mouth shut. Is that what the Government really want?

The Minister says that the Bill applies only when a councillor acts on behalf of a council. What does that mean? It is naive in the extreme. I do not know whether she has served as a councillor; I have, and I do not see how the Bill’s provisions, as currently written, are going to work. Suppose a council leader attends a local government conference and expresses a view on human rights, modern slavery, tobacco production, the arms industry, animal welfare or the environment in relation to another country. They will be advised not to express that view or to tone it down. That is not the kind of democracy that I think we want to create.

As for universities being within the Bill’s scope, they are not even classified as public bodies by the ONS, and nor should they be. Why are they included? Which university has actually acted—not made a statement but acted—as a result of a BDS campaign? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. We have just legislated to place a duty on universities to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom. When does an academic speak in an individual capacity and when do they speak as a representative of their institution? This matters. I just do not think that Ministers can properly answer that question—not when they have an enforcement body with an annual budget of £120,000 to £200,000. I suggest that the Minister might need to look at increasing that, because there are likely to be considerably more complaints and vexatious referrals to that body than the one or two incidents referred to in the impact assessment.

This really does matter, and the issue must be properly answered. If not, there will be the most profound, chilling effect. What would happen if a professor expressed at an event a view relating to China, for example—and was paid for by the university as its representative—at the same time as a procurement or investment decision was being made by that institution? It is not clear from the Bill how that would be investigated.

I accept that there have been some BDS campaigns on some campuses where the atmosphere experienced by Jewish students has been damaged by those campaigns. I completely accept that, and it is right that we do what needs to be done to protect those students. However, the Union of Jewish Students is against this Bill. We need to find a better way to tackle this issue. Universities are not public bodies but are included in the scope of the Bill; however, where is the comprehensive list of public bodies we need in order to consider whether any other institutions might be inappropriately included? I have seen a list, but it is nowhere near comprehensive. It is a very odd list, containing some very surprising institutions such as small children’s charities and the like. This makes you wonder whether the Bill is as well thought through as it ought to be.

One final point is the lack of support from the devolved Governments. The Minister says that the Government have no intention of seeking any kind of legislative consent. That is of course the Government’s right—but is it good politics? Is it good for our democracy for the Government to proceed in this way? What conversations has the Minister even had with her counterparts in the devolved Administrations? Can she confirm that the devolved Governments will be subject to the constraints of this Bill? That being the case, can she understand why this would be a problem for them as democratically elected, accountable bodies in their own right? What have they said to her about what they think of the Bill?

Noble Lords will perhaps remember that we on these Benches supported an alternative approach, during the passage of the Procurement Bill. The approach the Government are taking in this Bill is not, therefore, the only option. Public bodies should be able to take ethical decisions, but these should be based on consistent principles applied equally to all countries. However, the Government rejected that amendment, which would have been a far better way to go about dealing with BDS than this Bill is. Why are the Government hell-bent on taking this approach? I think it is because they want to make political capital out of a very serious issue. This is a sad state for a Government to find themselves in—desperate, in fact. The Front Bench in the other place offered four times during the earlier stages of the Bill to sit down with the Government and formulate a more effective approach. That offer remains open. I only hope that the Minister and the Government are listening.

Succession to Peerages and Baronetcies Bill [HL]

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no interest to declare in considering this Bill.

When I first saw the Bill’s Title, I thought we were going to get one thing; on reading the Bill, it turned out that that was not to be. As we have heard, the Bill does not mean that daughters will be treated the same way as sons. As an eldest daughter with a younger brother, I imagine what would have happened had my dad not been the son of a soldier from Middlesbrough with little to pass on but some medals and a casserole dish. Would I take a different view on this? In reading the Bill, I genuinely think that Clause 1(4) really stands out as something that it is very surprising to read in a Bill in 2024. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, said to explain it; he spoke about the management of estates and great houses. We all appreciate and enjoy the great estates of our country—of course we do—but it sounds a bit thin as justification for keeping such a rule in place. I wonder whether there are not some more ingenious ways around it that would allow for the eldest child, not just the eldest son, to be preferred.

The Government have said previously that it is too complex to make this change for women to inherit titles on an equal basis with men. That has not been sufficiently explained by Ministers; I wonder whether the Minister here today could help us out. Many contributors have acknowledged—I applaud the lack of self-interest, as well as the self-awareness, of many of the hereditary Peers who have spoken—that it is time for us to revisit this issue; that is to be commended and welcomed.

This is a strange little Bill. With the best will in the world, it does not really do an awful lot for the reputation of this House and the relevance of Parliament, nor for the situation of women across the country. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, did not bring it here hoping to be heralded as some sort of feminist icon, but we can do better. There is a gradual approach—I accept that—but there is gradual and then there is a glacial pace. We could move a bit quicker.

I must commend what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said. She is completely right: the right way forward is for the eldest child, rather than the eldest son. As she said, if titles occasionally die out, that is something the nation can withstand.

Devolved Authorities: Expenditure outwith Competences

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree that we need to consider the presence of Scottish Government offices in UK Government posts, but there is a case for having individual officials knowledgeable about Scotland engaged on issues such as fishing, where there is an important Scottish interest. I have seen that working well, so there is a balance here—but I agree with the general direction of the noble Lord’s comment.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Ritchie, we very much welcome the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. But in the letter to the Prime Minister ahead of their meeting today, Northern Ireland Ministers wrote that they want

“immediate and durable changes to our funding arrangements”.

How do the Government interpret that, and what is their response?

Civil Servants: Working from Home

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I completely agree with my noble friend and that is part of our approach. I noticed in the press recently that the president of Adecco, an international recruitment company, said that working from home can hit creativity and empathy and was part of the problem we have with soft skills. I am very keen that we should have balance, but people should come into the office and get the sort of mentorship my noble friend has mentioned.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, it is certainly true that the Government ought to think much harder about their approach to the Civil Service. The overuse of external consultants, for example, is expensive and gradually undermining in-house expertise. The Government awarded £2.8 billion of consulting contracts in 2022 alone. Does the Minister agree that the Government should work hard to retain expertise within the service? Will she commit the Government to cutting back on their habitual overreliance on consultants?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I do not see an overreliance on consultants. While I have been a Minister—only just over one year—we have moved to replace consultants with full-time civil servants in areas such as digital, because they represent better value for money. We probably have a certain amount of alignment on that. Clearly, we need to use outside consultants for some things, not least bringing in skills on things such as AI where we do not have the Civil Service skills we need. There has to be a balance; consultants can be valuable. Where I am with the noble Baroness is that there needs to be proper value for money and proper competition and we should not overdo it.

Extreme Weather: Resilience

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the words of the Minister in saying how sorry we all were to hear of the loss of four lives as a result of Storms Isha and Jocelyn in the UK and Ireland. Our thoughts are with their families and friends. Our thanks go to the emergency and utility service workers who worked tirelessly to protect homes and lives, often in the most challenging of circumstances. The Environment Agency estimates that the number of homes at risk from flooding could double by 2050 due to the impact of climate change. The UK needs to be better prepared. Will the Minister accept that a COBRA-style flood resilience task force, as proposed on these Benches, is needed to tackle the problem?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I very much echo what the noble Baroness said about the emergency services and all who are involved in this. Indeed, without the changes we have made and the effort they put in, these recent storms would have caused much more damage and perhaps more loss of life, so that is very good news.

The COBRA system, which the noble Baroness mentions, is of course already baked into standing cross-government flooding response mechanisms, as the last tier of escalation for the most severe flood events. These mechanisms are stood up to support the operational response at local level, which is obviously necessitated by the increasingly sophisticated weather warnings that we see coming through from the Met Office. We managed well across the country on this occasion and the COBRA unit in the Cabinet Office—the ministerial unit—was not needed. That does not mean to say that officials did not get together. They worked well across the country with local people and the devolved Administrations. In some sense, it is a success that it was unnecessary to have the full COBRA ministerial meeting on this occasion. I have referenced the future resilience work that we are doing. We have brought these much better co-ordination systems into the Cabinet Office and work very closely with Defra, which is responsible for building up long-term flood protection. We have also invested a lot of capital in recent years. There is £5.2 billion available for flood defence projects, which I think is a doubling on the previous period.

Freedom of Information

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend; records are important, both for the record and for the next steps agreed at meetings, which one wants to make sure are carried forward in the interests of efficiency. Obviously, the Scottish Government are a separate Government with their own rules. The Cabinet Manual, as we have discussed before in this House, is in the process of being revised, but that applies to the Civil Service across the piece. We have also introduced new guidance; it is called—a rather difficult mouthful—Using Non-corporate Communication Channels (e.g. WhatsApp, Private Email, SMS) for Government Business, for UK Government, Civil Service and Ministers. That is on GOV.UK and is absolutely designed to make sure that WhatsApps of substance in policymaking or government business are recorded for posterity.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the Information Commissioner has found that some government departments have a consistently poor level of performance for FoI request handling. Departments find ways to avoid responding—for example by denying that information is held—and seem to have worked out that there is no meaningful penalty imposed as a consequence. Given that these departments repeatedly fail to comply with the law, do the Government intend to review the sanctions imposed for this failure?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

At the moment, as I was saying, we do not have plans to change the Freedom of Information Act. However, we have worked hard to clear the backlog that was created on freedom of information as a result of the pandemic. Some departments have done better than others. We have worked very closely with the Information Commissioner on just that. As I have explained, the casework continues over time. The Cabinet Office gives advice centrally; we try to delegate these things to the appropriate responsible department, but we do encourage good practice and compliance with the complexities of the Freedom of Information Act and its different sections.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for reading the Statement out this afternoon, and we very much welcome it.

Someone dies every four days as a result of this scandal. Time is passing. Each week, more families are left to grieve. The campaign led by victims, by their families and, in Parliament, by Diana Johnson, and the vote in the other place to amend the Victims and Prisoners Bill, forcing the Government to establish a body to administer compensation in anticipation of the final report of the inquiry, are no doubt focusing Ministers’ minds. I had hoped that the Statement that the Minister helpfully read out would provide some assurance that the Government are proceeding with this work. Can the Minister clarify what they are doing in anticipation of the completion of the passage of the victims Bill to comply with its new Clause 40?

It is clearly the will of Parliament that the Government make progress quickly. They could, for example, set about appointing a chair and members of the compensation awarding body. They could begin conversations with devolved Governments about how to work together to ensure fairness across the United Kingdom. Much could be done ahead of the final report. Can the Minister inform the House when these steps will happen? We are pleased to hear that the Government are establishing specialist psychological support, but can she explain why this will not be available until next summer?

We pay tribute to the bravery and determination of the victims of this scandal and their families. These Benches would gladly work on a cross-party basis to ensure that a scheme can be agreed and implemented as soon as possible to provide certainty to those infected and affected.

The Minister said that the Government are appointing clinical, legal and social care experts to advise the Cabinet Office on detailed technical considerations in the new year. It is not clear from the Statement what this will involve or what technical considerations are meant. Can the Minister elaborate? Is it the Government’s view that primary legislation will be needed to establish the body to administer the compensation? If so, this could also be done in January, given the cross-party support that exists. When do they plan to introduce any necessary legislation?

There is no need to wait for the victims Bill to pass, given the clarity of the words of the Minister of State in the Ministry of Justice that the Government would

“put in place the necessary legislative framework and timescales for a delivery body for compensation for the victims of infected blood”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/23; cols. 136-37.]

In the light of this Statement, when does the Minister anticipate that payments can start to be made?

We cannot undo what has happened. We cannot bring people back, but we can, through a fair compensation scheme, recognise the wrong that has been done to so many families and individuals. We can provide the financial support that is due. But I reiterate that we do not have the luxury of time. We have a moral duty to act, which the Government accept, and Parliament has demanded. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to pick up from where the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, left off. We need to occasionally remind ourselves of the history of this. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and thank the various campaign groups that continue to persevere for justice and compensation and to ensure that we are kept informed about the current situation.

I particularly thank Colette Wintle and Carol Grayson for their briefing and their amazing campaigning over the years. They reminded us that the history of this started in 1991 with the HIV litigation, when the Conservative Government blocked compensation. In 2003, the Skipton Fund was set up, but that was blocked by the Labour Government. In 2009 and 2010 there were other incidents that were also blocked by that Government. In 2012, the coalition Government also blocked compensation, delaying things for a further decade. This year, given that Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report made it absolutely clear that compensation should be set up and run from now, it is extraordinary to have a three-page Statement, in which the first page says all the right things but the second and third pages then put it into the long grass.

It is good news about Clause 40 in the Victims and Prisoners Bill. It had its Second Reading in your Lordships’ House yesterday and, had we heard the details of the Statement before that, some of us might have changed our speeches. It is almost as if Ministers have not yet seen Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation on 5 April. To remind your Lordships’ House, he said:

“I recommend that a compensation scheme should be set up now and it should begin work this year”.


The Statement says that the Government will work through everything before starting the scheme. Can the Minister say on what grounds they are going specifically against Sir Brian’s recommendation that the scheme should start immediately? Time is not on the side of the victims or their families.

From these Benches, we too welcome the proposals for a bespoke psychological service for people infected by and affected by the infected blood products. But can I ask the Minister if there is new funding for this? There has to be funding outside the existing mental health budgets, which are severely under strain. If there is not, it will just put further pressure on an overwhelmed service and lead to further distress for people who believe that it will be available to help them when it is not. Even worse, others who have been waiting years for urgent mental health services will find that they cannot get them.

It is important because, as the Factor 8 scandal campaign has said, in a recent case of a young man whose father, mother and sister all died of AIDS when he was three years old, he has received nothing. He gets no ongoing support and struggles deeply with his mental health. Factor 8 says that it is “unimaginable” that his case is not

“described as ‘one of those most severely impacted’”.

There is also reference to setting up a group of experts. Who is appointing these experts? It would be normal for the chair of the compensation panel to choose their experts. There would usually be two panels —one would be medical advisers and one would be legal advisers. There is, of course, the important element of making sure that there is the voice of the people affected. Can the Minister say whether this is being done by the Government in advance of the panel being set up?

It would really good if we could have some speeding up of this process. There is no time, as everyone has said—but we have been saying this for close to 30 years, and it needs to be actioned now.

Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023

Baroness Chapman of Darlington Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Grand Committee

Those are my three questions. Why are they interfering in industrial relations? Do they accept that good industrial relations involve a cost? If they are interested in modernisation, why not have ballots through the internet?

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Davies; they made some very good points that I would have made myself. I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said in terms of advice to the Conservative Party; I suspect that the Minister will, as he said, have secretly agreed with some of it. It is sad what has happened to the Tory Party. It is sad that the Government have picked what is, in the scheme of things, such a minor issue—for goodness’ sake, what is happening with our public services?—when to pretend that it will somehow restore the faith of the British taxpayer is laughable. Certainly, no one in the Committee this afternoon is buying it. This is a classic case of getting the facts to fit an argument that the Government want to have.

We know that for some reason Conservative Governments tend to want to limit check-off, whereas we on these Benches see it as more of a positive and helpful thing in supporting good industrial relations, as my noble friend Lord Davies said. I would have thought that these things, small scale as they are—although I will go on in a minute to talk about some of the data, or the lack of it, that the Government are choosing to rely on to make their case—ought to be resolved locally. Local managers and trade union officials resolve things all day, every day. That is the norm.

There are occasions that we all know about where the Government have chosen to get themselves involved or to pick a fight. We have seen what has happened in the NHS. Far be it from me to give the Government advice on good industrial relations, but they need to take some advice from somewhere because there are disputes that have been going on for far too long that are having a direct impact, for example, on patient care in the NHS, where the Government have been far from helpful.

It is striking that the Government admit that they do not have reliable information on the extent of the use of check-off by government departments and are relying on estimates, most heavily, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, those from the TaxPayers’ Alliance report of 2014. This is interesting because it claims that only 22% of those offering check-off were reimbursed by trade unions. At the moment, as we know, it is already possible to be reimbursed, but when it asked the same question of local councils, the LGA found that 67% were reimbursed. There is no attempt within the report provided by the Government to explain this difference. I think we can all come up with our own explanation of why these two organisations might have come to very different outcomes, but it is extraordinary that a policy change such as this, which could have some negative repercussions, is being based on such wide-ranging estimates. Given that we do not have accurate information about how many people use check-off or how many organisations are already reimbursed, it is impossible to know what the financial impact of the changes that the Government are implementing will be when taken against the potential damage to good will.

A number of questions arise from this. On devolution, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace referred to, my reading is that these regulations will apply to England, Wales and Scotland. We know that many public services are devolved. I think I am right that industrial relations more widely are a reserved power, but the Minister will correct me. For example, obviously much negotiation goes on between the Senedd and public services in Wales, so why is it that this measure will be mandated from Whitehall? I have not asked the Welsh Government—perhaps I should have done—what their attitude to this is, but I am assuming that the Minister has had conversations with her counterpart in Cardiff. Can she let us know the Senedd’s view on this issue?

The estimated savings are bizarre and do not seem to take account of the diversity of services within the public sector in terms of the rates of trade union membership, the use of check-off and the rate of reimbursement. Big assumptions are being made about the standardisation of involvement in check-off. No justifications for them are provided.

Employers are required to assure themselves that the reimbursement amount is—this is the phrase the Government use—“substantially equivalent”. I am not clear what that means. We accept that a cost of check-off exists. That cost is then calculated, that money is to be reimbursed by the relevant trade union and that amount is to be substantially equivalent. I am interested in that choice of words, as I would have thought the Government’s aim would be better reflected by use of the term “full cost recovery”. I have heard “substantially equivalent” used for medical devices and sometimes in maritime situations, but I do not understand why it and not an alternative phrase has been used here. Perhaps the Minister could explain.

It seems very strange that on page 8 of the impact assessment, in its analysis and evidence, the Government rely on the TaxPayers’ Alliance’s assertion that 90% of public sector bodies use check-off to justify the need to act but later, on page 26 of the same document, when estimating the cost of implementation, the Government repeatedly assert BEIS data that states that 56% of public bodies offer check-off. Can the Minister explain why the document relies on different figures for the same thing to support action? One overestimates the need and the other underestimates the cost. This does not seem a very sensible way of making policy. If there is no accurate information, perhaps the Government should say so or perhaps go out to consultation to get some more accurate data.

It is fascinating to read in the Explanatory Memorandum that the Government did not think that consultation would be helpful because

“the principles of this provision were debated extensively in Parliament … in 2016”.

This is a bit shabby. I follow our proceedings very carefully, as I am sure do the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Davies. To say that because we had an extensive debate in Parliament in 2016 there is now no further need to seek advice, comment or consult more widely is quite extraordinary. It perhaps overemphasises the interest which people outside the House take in our proceedings. There has been no opportunity for the main partners in this endeavour to share their thoughts because, the Government say, they did so seven years ago. That is not good enough.

The guidance to employers is not available, so we are not able to assure ourselves that employers will be given sufficient advice to make calculations about the cost, agree reimbursement and assess this “substantially equivalent” phrase. None of that is available to us for this debate and it would have helped to have sight of it. If we had examined the guidance, it would have helped us to assess how much care—I think that is the right phrase—the Government are taking on this. On the face of it, it appears that Ministers are reaching for this policy for reasons of political positioning or because they are seeking some sort of wedge issue rather than because of genuine concern about the practical impact. They do not know how widespread check-off is, how many individuals are involved or how many public bodies are affected. They therefore cannot possibly know what, if any, impact this will have in savings to the taxpayer.

This is not a good way to carry on. We expect better of the Government when they ask us to agree this sort of thing. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says, but I put on record our dissatisfaction with the way that the impact assessment is written and its reliance on different data sources. This slapdash approach is because the Government are hell-bent on getting this done without considering some of the issues that I raised as carefully as they ought to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I cannot just accept that, I have to say; I believe that views from all different directions can be valuable in debate, and that includes the TaxPayers’ Alliance. I explained why it had done some work in this area. It was used in these estimates—entirely transparently—and we have also taken data from other sources. I nevertheless thank the noble Lord for his comments.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

The point is that the TaxPayers’ Alliance is a campaigning organisation. Our concern is not that it is included at all; the Minister is quite right in what she said about a range of sources and perspectives. But given that there is a lack of data, which the Minister has acknowledged, it seems a little odd that it is relied upon quite as much as it is. You do not need to make any assertions about some of the estimates that the TaxPayers’ Alliance is making to pursue the policy. It seems a bit strange that it is included.

My attention was drawn to this by what is on page 23 of the impact assessment. There is a little table that lists probable estimates of savings to the public sector. It just seems strange that—to take the Civil Service, as the first example—the high estimate of savings is £149,000, the low estimate is £1,500, and the most probable estimate is £11,500. Then, however, there are local authorities, for example, with a high estimate of £161,500, a low estimate of £91,000 and a most probable estimate of £161,500. It just is not clear how some of these figures have been reached. Are the Government treating the TaxPayers’ Alliance evidence with equal weight to a survey conducted by the LGA, for example? That would seem a strange thing to do without further inquiry or more critical analysis. Maybe this is a point to make to officials behind the Minister rather than the Minister herself, but it is not really what we would expect in this kind of document.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I commend officials for producing a detailed impact assessment and I will not renege on that. I also think that the TaxPayers’ Alliance is a perfectly respectable source. Obviously, every think tank has different people working for it; some people are excellent at estimates and some are not. I have already said to the noble Baroness that I will go away and look in a little more detail at the estimates. This impact assessment was not written by me personally, of course, but I will take it away and have a look. I commend the use of different sources of data and data standards. The noble Baroness probably knows that that is what I would want, but I will of course take a look.

Perhaps I can move on and just try to answer one or two of the questions about devolution. Matters of industrial relations are clearly reserved and there is no obligation for the UK Government to consult with the devolved Administrations. However, the Scottish Government were consulted on the scope of the regulations to ensure that they capture all public bodies that are wholly or mainly funded by the taxpayer. Wales is not in scope as a result of the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017. The Government will take action to bring Wales into scope at the earliest possible opportunity.

I should mention that the TUC has been engaging with us on, and had input into, the guidance. I noticed its flash new logo on its writing paper. This also included engagement with employers in the public sector, so I hope that that provides some reassurance.

In conclusion, I am confident that the regulations provide a fair and appropriate intervention and capture an appropriate scope to meet the policy aim. They allow check-off to continue, as was agreed during the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016. They represent a reasonable direction of travel and continue to support productive industrial relations in the UK—which, Members may recall, was my experience during my past career at Tesco. To return to the point that the noble Lord made, of course the trade unions have a role to play in our society, so I am delighted to have this opportunity to be at the Dispatch Box today to put to bed the last of the regulations relating to that Act. I hope that colleagues will join me in agreeing the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.