Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 109 makes changes to the regulations relating to the use of cookies, which, on the face of it, clarify and expand the PEC regulations. Some of the amendments seem benign enough, adding useful flexibility and much-needed clarity; others give the Secretary of State pretty wide-sweeping powers.

Taking a look at new Regulation 6A(1)(a), for example, a future Secretary of State will be able to add new exceptions to the cookie consent requirements. The regulation will also enable variations and omissions. All the Secretary of State would need to do is “consult” the commissioner and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate—so they will be left with some fairly wide powers and opportunities.

Before turning to Amendment 202 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I want to quickly respond to Amendments 199, 200 and 201, from the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Clement-Jones, and very ably supported by my noble friend Lord Chandos. These seek to introduce an additional exemption for cookies used for the purposes of non-intrusive audience measurement and ad performance, both of which are obviously very important to publishers, who need to understand how their websites are used and ensure that advertising is delivering revenue. It is famously hard to predict how successful advertising is; you are never quite sure whether the adverts are hitting home, but this sort of data is critical to that activity.

As noted by others, the Bill currently contains an exemption for cookies used solely for statistical purposes. It may be that the Minister is able to provide comfort to the publishing sector that audience measurement and ad performance are both areas that fall within this new exemption. If he cannot do that today, I hope he will be able to come back to interested colleagues in writing or, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested, hold further discussions on this ahead of Report.

We had a number of significant debates during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill regarding the fragility of the publishing sector. Newspapers, sectoral magazines and other sources fulfil a valuable role and we should seek to nurture that as far as is practical.

Amendment 202 in the name of my noble friend is another means of trying to support publishers by probing the potential consequences of the Government’s proposals around centralised cookie controls. Some users may happily accept cookies from the websites of trusted organisations, such as news sources that they use regularly, but generally decline cookies from other websites due to privacy concerns. I would like to know from the Minister how this nuance would be reflected if automatic preferencing is rolled out.

Organisations have also raised competition concerns. The number of mainstream internet browsers is incredibly small and they are operated by firms likely to be designated as having strategic market status under the digital markets Bill. If this legislation establishes a system that makes these browsers some kind of cookie gatekeeper, does that not risk amplifying existing competition barriers in digital markets, rather than bringing them down?

Our amendment would remove provisions around automatic cookie consent. Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, proposes a different option, providing a straightforward means for users to override their general preference when using specific websites. That is an interesting alternative, and we need to listen carefully to the Minister’s reply because it gets to the heart of the issue. The noble Lord’s Amendment 204 would also be important, ensuring broader consultation before statutory instruments were brought forward under new Regulation 6B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I am interested in the Minister’s point about the flexibility the Government see in this clause, but I am not sure who in the end has the responsibility to lead on that flexibility. Will it come from the commissioner or be driven by the Secretary of State’s considerations? The consultation duties seem very dependent on the commissioner’s view and I am not sure at what stage the Secretary of State would want to intervene to ensure that they have got this bit right. That is very important, because the balance is quite sophisticated.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

The Minister used the expression “when the evidence emerges”, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, in another context last week. I would have thought that these organisations know what they are about, and they have provided some pretty comprehensive evidence about the impact on their businesses. Is that not a pretty good reason for the Government to think that they might not have this set of provisions entirely right, quite apart from the other aspects of this group of amendments? If that evidence is not enough—I read out the list of organisations—the Government are more or less saying that they will not accept any evidence.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Will the Minister write and unpack exactly what the balance of opinion was? We are talking about pretty crucial stuff here. It is not always a question just of numbers; it is quite often a question of weighting the arguments. The Minister should write to us and tell us how they came to that conclusion, because the case was clearly being made during the consultation, but the Government have effectively ignored it.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

In this tripartite geography that the noble Lord described, the power—

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

It is a trifecta, actually—that is a betting term.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I am not a gambling man. It is an interesting term. The Minister is suggesting that power rests equally among those three elements but it does not. The Secretary of State is the all-powerful being and the commissioner is there to ensure that regulation works effectively. How will this operate in practice? There is no advisory body here; it is the Secretary of State having a discussion with the commissioner and then, on the balance of some of the consultation information that comes in, making a decision. That will not enable the sector, the market and those providers to be engaged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I will need to get back to the noble Lord on that, but perhaps can reassure him that it is already being worked on. You can imagine that, because of the sensitivity of these powers, we are working very carefully on this and making sure that it will be fit for purpose.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

Can we see the draft code of practice before Report?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

That is part of the answer that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which I think is a fair point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked about the code of practice and what steps my department will take to ensure transparency and accountability in the exercise of these powers if they are implemented. In the primary legislation, we will make provision to publish the code of practice, which will set out general guidance on how the third-party data power will work, as I have mentioned. We will develop the code of practice with relevant third parties and it will be consulted on publicly before being laid in Parliament. We will explain what the expectation is for data holders and ensure full compliance for the DWP. This will provide assurance that we will operate transparently and mirror the approach that we have taken with other DWP powers. Any changes to the code of practice, other than minor changes, will also be done in consultation with stakeholders.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, stated that the power was too broad and the gist of one of her questions was that there is no need for all these benefits to be in scope. As the noble Baroness has demonstrated, there is a wide range of benefits and therefore potential avenues for fraudsters to seek to exploit or for error to creep in. That is why it is important that the power enables the department to respond proactively, as new fraud risks emerge.

That said, as the noble Baroness knows, the power will not be exercisable in all the benefits that she listed, such as child benefit, because the legislation is drafted in such a way that it could reasonably be exercised only in relation to benefits for which the Secretary of State is responsible. I reassure the Committee that using Section 121DA of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is a consistent approach that we take to defining benefits in this way to safeguard all existing legislation and account for a benefit being, for example, renamed or amended. It should be stressed that the listing of a benefit does not mean that this power can or will be exercised upon it. The conditions in the third-party data legislation must still apply, and therefore not all benefits will be subject to this measure. That is a very important point.

Food Banks

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reported increase in food bank usage in 2018/19 and the 73 per cent increase since 2013/14.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)]

My Lords, we are reforming the welfare system to better support the most vulnerable while encouraging more people into work, which is the most effective route out of poverty. We provide a strong safety net for those who need it and continue to spend over £95 billion a year on working-age benefits. We are introducing big changes and a further £4.5 billion boost following the Autumn Budget, which will shortly filter down to those in need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

I remind the noble Baroness that 70% of people in poverty are actually in work. The Secretary of State, Amber Rudd, acknowledged in February that the difficulty in accessing universal credit was forcing families to use food banks. The CEO of the Trussell Trust, Emma Revie, said recently that it is,

“unacceptable that anyone should have to use a food bank”,

and added:

“No charity can replace the dignity of having financial security”.


Does the Minister agree with that statement? What steps will the Government now take to speed up universal credit payments and end the shameful need for half a million children to depend on emergency food parcels?

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, while we have always said that there are many reasons why people use food banks and that their growth cannot be linked to a single cause, we have long acknowledged that there were issues with the early rollout of UC. We have responded quickly to the feedback we have received and made numerous improvements to universal credit. We have removed waiting days and created advances of up to 100% of first payments, which people can receive within hours of attending a jobcentre. We have given extra support for disabled people and a two-week housing benefit run-on for new UC claimants. We are working hard to ensure that we are tackling the root causes of poverty, but also making sure to the best of our ability that we can improve our research into why people are using food banks.

Employment and Support Allowance Payments

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Buscombe]

Again, that is a good question. As the noble Lord will recognise, we have increased the number of people working on this quite considerably. We are increasing our resources from 400 to 1,200 fully employed people to manage all demands. We have taken a considerable number of staff from those who were focused solely on new ESA claimants. Of course, we are not taking new ESA claimants now because they are going straight on to universal credit, so we have a number of considerably well-trained staff. We are also increasing our training across the piece to make sure that people are fully aware of the support and the exercise required. I am pleased to say that I learned from meetings with officials only last week that we are taking on more and more highly skilled individuals, who want to work with us on this exercise and on universal credit.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, ESA enables passporting to other benefits. What compensation will the department give to those families that lost out from the passporting arrangements? Perhaps I missed something in what the Minister said earlier, but my other question is: what will happen to the payments that would have been due to people who have now deceased? Will their families benefit from these payments by way of compensation?

[Baroness Buscombe]

On the first question, the reality is that we are reviewing all cases potentially affected and paying any arrears of past payments that are due. Our focus is on paying arrears to claimants in line with the primary legislation. With regards to those who have already, sadly, deceased, we are making sure that the money that would have been paid to those individuals will be paid to the families.

Benefits: Reductions

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

That this House takes note of the impact on family life of multiple reductions in welfare benefits, universal credit, tax credits, housing benefits and child benefit.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, before I begin my contribution I ought first to declare my interest as a member of the CPAG board; I am a trustee. I also offer a disclaimer: there are no jokes in this script and there are a lot of statistics. Labour Peers have tabled today’s debate to enable a focus on the impact of cumulative cuts to a multiple range of benefits. During the debate I am sure that many colleagues will wish to join me in paying tribute to Baroness Hollis, who recently passed away. Patricia was a big figure nationally and locally in her home town of Norwich. She was greatly respected for her work, championing measures that attacked poverty and promoting the interests of women in the social security and pension system. She also pioneered moves to bring greater equality to pensions. She was a first-class DWP Minister. When she became a Peer in 1990, she had already made a name for herself as a councillor in Norwich and had completed a five-year term as leader of the council. She had integrity and a fine intellect.

When Patricia made an argument everyone listened, even when they did not want to hear it. She was one of those who, early on, saw the harm and long-term damage that council house sales would do to the social fabric of our communities. From the time of her elevation she became a highly effective spokeswoman for the Labour Party on housing, local government, disability and social security. During her time in opposition in the 1990s she led moves to ensure pension sharing when couples divorce. This later became law. Again in opposition she led—indeed rose—from the Privy Council Benches to oppose cuts to tax credits, which, if carried through, would have devastated the household budgets of the working poor. When she wound up that debate, you could literally have heard a pin drop, and you could certainly see and feel the discomfort her argument generated on Benches all around the Chamber. So today I intend to invite the Government to instigate an annual “Hollis Debate” to be held in her memory, to consider what best can be done to tackle poverty and its causes.

Patricia’s passion in tackling poverty was borne of personal experience—something both she and I shared, and which helped hone her arguments. Her father was a farm labourer and her mother worked in service—which, curiously, were jobs which my mother undertook in raising me in rural Essex during hard times. More importantly, Patricia Hollis argued rightly that we need to stop looking at the cuts to benefits in isolation, instead looking holistically at the impact of multiple cuts. Too often, opposition has focused on the singularity of a cut—say to child benefit or housing support. Consequently, Labour will insist today that we look across the range of income support measures which the Government have systematically reduced over the last eight years. Only then will we have an accurate picture of how the Government have increased poverty.

It is worth just reminding ourselves of the legacy left by the last Labour Government in terms of poverty reduction. We invested substantially in health, education and particularly childcare. Both child and pensioner poverty rates were falling when we left office, and the economy was growing. We tried to cement these gains in countering child poverty through the Child Poverty Act, which set targets and defined needs. During our time in government we attacked poverty by using tax credits to make work pay, and by increasing the value of key benefits like child benefit, which had the double benefit of putting more money in the pockets of the poor—but usually of mothers. This enabled Labour to take over 1.1 million out of child poverty. Many of these measures have now been reversed, so it is estimated that 5.1 million children will be in families below the accepted poverty threshold by 2021. Why?

Most commentators would argue that it is because of the way in which, since 2010, many of the income support cuts have been loaded. The dual reduction in child benefit through freezes in value and the two-child cap will mean that, by 2021, the value of the benefit will be 23% lower than in 2010. The austerity budgets of Chancellors Osborne and Hammond have loaded deficit reduction on to cuts in spending at about 80% as opposed to increased taxation at roughly 20%. This policy continues, and is clear when we look at the detail of the Budget. The Resolution Foundation found that social security cuts will continue to hit the poorest hardest. It calculates that the richest fifth of households will gain £390 a year by 2023-24, whereas the poorest will lose an average of £400. With the increase in the higher tax band rising to £50,000 next April yielding a net gain of £540, those on benefits will lose out because of the continuing freeze on benefits, leading to a loss of a further £200 a year.

Coupled to these cuts have been reductions brought about by the overall benefit cap, set at £20,000— £23,000 in London—and the changes in tax credits. These latter changes have been particularly damaging, because they impact on families of “just about managing” parents in work. It is thought that roughly two-thirds of children in poverty are in families where parents are working. The problem for them is the combination of income support cuts linked to pay pegged at national minimum wage levels, and insecure work and zero-hours contracts.

The CPAG has undertaken research into the cumulative impact of social security cuts on family incomes. The losses are dramatic. Lone parents with children will be £1,940 a year worse off on average as a result of cuts in the legacy benefit system, and £2,380 worse off as a result of universal credit cuts. Of particular concern is the breaking of the link between need and entitlement—a fundamental principle in a means-tested social security system. Two examples of this are of course the benefit cap and the two-child limit, and a third the bedroom tax.

We know that working-age benefits have been hit hardest, with some benefits simply abolished, and many frozen or uprated at rates lower than inflation. The Child Poverty Act was abolished, and when Iain Duncan Smith was Secretary of State he famously even tried to get rid of a definition of poverty. Studies by the IFS, the Resolution Foundation and the Human Rights Commission show that the cumulative distributional effect of these measures has fallen on those on the lowest incomes in work and with children, and that lone parents in particular have been the biggest losers, making George Osborne’s claim that “we’re are all in this together” a cynical lie.

What depresses me most is that, despite Mr Hammond’s claims that “austerity is almost over” this week as he announced modest reversals of the universal credit cuts, there are more to come. The IFS has demonstrated that 75% of the cuts announced in 2015 are yet to arrive. By 2020, £40 billion will have disappeared from social benefits. Compare that with the £2.7 billion the Chancellor claimed to be putting back. Current plans are projected to remove a further £15 billion-worth of support.

All this comes at a cost: an insecure family life, an increased reliance on food banks, access only to poorer-quality housing, and reduced childcare support such as Sure Start—some 600 centres have closed to date. We have hungry children using breakfast clubs often funded by the schools themselves, at precisely the same time that free school meals are cut. We can see the effects. Our streets house more homeless people, elderly people are neglected, and our social care system is creaking. The IFS estimates that all the gains made by Labour in reducing poverty will be undone by 2020.

It does not have to be this way. We know how to tackle poverty, and especially child poverty. During Labour’s last time in government the UK was the best-performing OECD country at taking children out of low-income households and providing good wraparound childcare through Sure Start. We used the national minimum wage, along with tax credits, to help lift working families out of poverty. We protected pensioner incomes and obliged enrolment in workplace pension schemes to ensure universal coverage. Earlier Labour Governments promoted equal pay and tackled wage discrimination in the workplace. Taken together with the founding of the welfare state, Labour has historically put in place measures that lifted working people out of poverty. That is a record to be truly proud of.

We need as a nation to reinvigorate interest in ending poverty. One way to achieve this is to better inform the public debate and ensure that, at a time when we have close to full employment, there is an understanding that it comes with people in work who are poor. Zero-hours contracts, part-time working, the operation of the gig economy and reduced rights at work are all features of modern working life. But if we develop the conversation about poverty, poverty pay, the poverty of the workplace and the poverty of work experience, we will at least have gone some way towards Patricia Hollis’s belief that, if people understood the arguments about poverty and social justice, they would want to bring that poverty to an end. That is a legacy worth following. Let Baroness Hollis’s insights and example of fighting poverty during her long years in public service be our inspiration and our guide, and let us name that debate in her honour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I thank everybody for their participation in this debate. The quality of it has proven the need that I identified at the outset: that we ought to have an annual Hollis debate on poverty and the best way to tackle it. I was greatly heartened by the warm words from all sides of the House about our late friend Baroness Patricia Hollis and her legacy. I recognise from some of the contributions—particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and my noble friend Lady Andrews—the way in which Patricia worked and her generosity of spirit. You often felt that she was there to make the case and advocate the case, even when she was being briefed by her civil servants. I well remember coming out of a meeting where she and I were being briefed for some future debate, and the civil servants were thanking her for the briefing she had just given them. That was a testament to her knowledge, and concentration on the detail of her brief.

There have been some common threads in this debate, although it has not always sounded quite like that. Colleagues on the Conservative Benches have been critical in part of the way in which universal credit has been rolled out. They recognised and acknowledged some of the problems with the system. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made an aggressive defence of the Government’s policy and I expect no less from her. The welter of statistics that she delivered this evening bear some close inspection and, on our side, we will want to reflect on some of the points she made. I think there was agreement, too, on both sides of the House that it is important that we place work at the centre of ensuring that people have an opportunity to work their way out of poverty, and that the relationship between the benefits system and the world of work is extraordinarily important, particularly for people on low incomes. Getting that right is very difficult. Our Government made strides and progressed in that direction; it is right that the current Government do the same.

However, it remains the case that there are losers from the introduction of universal credit. Almost two in five households will lose an average of more than £50 a week and 2.8 million households will see their income cut. A million home owners will see tax credits disappear, losing £43 a week on average, while 600,000 working single parents—I stress: working single parents—will lose money as well and 750,000 households on disability benefit will lose an average of £76 a week. There are more losers from this scheme than there are winners but getting it right is most important and, on our side, while we recognise that universal credit is a valuable system, we also recognise that it has flaws and that this Government have much to do to put those flaws right.

I thought that the Chancellor’s Statement this week was in one sense an admission of mistakes made in the past and an acknowledgement that more needs to be done in the future. We on our side of the House will argue that case because the impact on family life of these changes is profound. Anybody who doubts that should attend a surgery run by an MP, or go to a CAB or a law centre, and listen to some of the stories that come forward. They do not paint a happy picture.

That said, I am grateful to the House for its forbearance. I have learned a lot from this debate and I am sure that other colleagues have as well. It was a very fitting legacy to our friend Patricia Hollis, who was not just an inspiration but a great mentor to us all. She will will be greatly missed.

Motion agreed.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

68: Clause 2, page 1, line 16, after “target,” insert—
“( ) information about the uptake of apprenticeships broken down by region, age, ethnicity, disability, sector, qualification and level,( ) a report by the UK Commission on Employment and Skills on the quality of apprenticeships being provided,”

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord gets to his feet to move his amendment, I have had discussions with the Chief Whip and I am not terribly happy about us proceeding as late as we are. I do not think it is right or proper, particularly since a number of colleagues in your Lordships’ House are severely disabled and they are spending a lot of late hours working on this Bill. I am prepared for us to proceed with this group of amendments, but I hope that this debate can be relatively short, notwithstanding the importance of the issues. I hope colleagues will see sense in that; we should not be working as late as this on this sort of legislation.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I say to the Opposition Chief Whip that the order of consideration was designed at the request of the Opposition, so that those who are severely disabled could participate in the debates in Committee at the beginning of business. I admit that, today, we have had other business to deal with. However, the truth is that we are still not at the point at which we were due to start business on the third day, which was Amendment 72. This House has a tradition that it tries to deliver the business. I understand that I need the support of the Opposition in doing that. I believe that we should complete one more group of amendments, which will take us past the normal hour for taxis but that is not unusual in this House. Given the unusual nature of the discussions that have taken place on this Bill, that is not an unreasonable thing to ask. I hope that the noble Lord—my “usual channels” partner—is prepared to accept my decision. We still have not reached the target we set ourselves when we discussed this matter earlier today.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I cannot understand this. I was extremely clear, and have been really clear all the way through, about which amendments relate to which, and which have to be taken separately. I read out what I said. I said it quite loudly and all noble Lords heard it. I cannot feel that it is right to accuse me of anything but absolute clarity in the House.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, this is somewhat unprecedented, and I am trying to be helpful here. The House is in danger of getting into a considerable muddle. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that we should perhaps adjourn to try to sort this out, or perhaps come back to it when the House is in fuller session. I do not think that anyone on our side wants to accuse the Government of sharp practice, but that is certainly how it feels at the moment. That is not right or good for the reputation of the House. I ask the Minister to reconsider the course upon which he is currently embarked. Perhaps I may continue with a few more words, and perhaps the Minister will be enabled with a response that can help. I do not want the House to lose the respect that it has, and it should not be frustrated in the way in which the Minister is currently suggesting. My noble friend Lady Hollis made a very reasonable point earlier in addressing this issue. It would serve the Government better if they withdrew for a moment and paused to think about where they are going, so that we can better reflect and try to sort this out in the way that is usually in the House’s best tradition.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have thought more deeply and accept that the amendment is consequential.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

I thank the noble Lord for that moment’s reflection, which does great service to your Lordships' House. I am very grateful to him.

Amendment 46 agreed.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I know that this is becoming an aficionado’s debate, and obviously we have to make sure that we understand what is going on.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, made claims about what he considered to be consequential, and I know that he did so in good faith. However, it is not for the noble Lord, Lord Best, to tell the Government what the Government believe is consequential. As a matter of fact, Amendment 17A is not consequential. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, might find that I am about to be helpful, so she might wish to hesitate for just one moment. At least, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, the Opposition Chief Whip, might find that I am about to be a little more helpful.

Clearly this is not a consequential amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Best, may want to accept it as such, but it is not procedurally. The Government’s view, if I can make it clear, is that the amendment is not consequential. We do not accept it as being consequential, and will not do so when these matters are debated in another place.

However, the Government have also seen the result earlier on. It is not the Government’s intention to try to unpick some of the debate that occurred earlier. During that debate, at no time did the Minister accept that Amendment 17A was consequential. The position is clearly that when the matter was debated earlier on, other noble Lords felt that if the matter were put to a vote, they might wish to vote along the same basis, but that did not happen.

I am sure it will be to the confusion of noble Lords opposite, but the position, quite simply, is that the Government will not call against Amendment 17A when it is put. I hope that is helpful. The important thing is on the record; I make it clear that the Government will not accept this in another place. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, finds that useful.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I was waiting for those words, and that is why I had not made a procedural intervention. Having now heard what the noble Baroness has said, I will be content, for the orderly process of business, if the Government accept this. Of course, that is on the understanding that what happens in another place is what happens in another place. No doubt these things will be revisited upon us, as they usually are.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, as I say, the Government do not accept the amendment. I will certainly ask my colleagues behind me—including the Minister, who must be wondering what on earth this is all about—that when the Question is put, no person on the coalition Benches calls against it.

Welfare Reform Bill

Lord Bassam of Brighton Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, did not seek to alert me to the information that he had, nor has he given any information to justify what he has just said. No doubt whoever said this to him did so in good faith, but they are wrong. The basis upon which the House made its decision yesterday stands.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton]

My Lords, I apologise for this intervention, which is, I confess, rather opportunistic. However, I have been given a copy of our forward business. I hate to say this but it lists Grand Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill as being held in the Moses Room. I assume and hope that this is a typographical hangover from an earlier iteration of the forward business. However, the House deserves to know, on the record, that we will not be using the Moses Room for Grand Committee on the Welfare Reform Bill. That seemed to be a clear undertaking that was given to the House yesterday.

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for pointing out what is clearly a typographical error. If that is the source of information to which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred, it is a pity that he did not make that clear. He may have other sources of information. The assurance that I gave stands. I am not accustomed to having the veracity of my statements challenged, which is clearly what is happening. This is opportunistic. May we please proceed to the business in hand?