Covid-19: Public Wealth Investment Fund

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton [V]]

Our first priority as a Government has been to try to protect the productive capacity of the economy, which is why we have one of the most generous furlough schemes in Europe. On the hospitality side, we have provided cash grants of £10,000 for properties with small rateable values of under £15,000, and cash grants of £25,000 for those with a rateable value of between £15,000 and £51,000. We will continue to monitor how the leisure sector recovers from this crisis.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

At the time of the Budget, the OBR forecast that taxpayer losses in the RBS had increased to £4.7 billion compared to the Government’s estimate of just two years ago. Would it not be better for British businesses across the UK to think more creatively about the use of our shares in RBS and to expand the role of the British Business Bank, established by Sir Vince Cable during the coalition, so that we can see the early stages of a genuine UK-wide investment wealth fund?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton [V]]

I agree with the noble Lord on the role of the British Business Bank, which has played an extremely important part in the economy over the last few years. It has given some £7 billion of finance to almost 95,000 SMEs and has been part of the distribution for much of the support over the last few months. We will continue to review the greater part that it can play.

Beyond Brexit (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, in our recent debate on economic forecasts, led by the Minister, we had three minutes in which to speak. At the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said from the Conservative Benches:

“This is not accountability. This is a sham. The sooner we return to normal proceedings, without the excessive time-limiting that has been introduced, the better.”—[Official Report, 5/5/20; col. 382.]


I agree with her, and in the limited time available, I want to address trade.

It does not protect our interests, or persuade others to align with them, to set aside pragmatic co-operation of the kind described by the former chairman in his speech. The Government have set this aside, and instead our future EU and global trading relationship are highlighted by glib self-deception. In January, at the UK-Africa Investment Summit, the Prime Minister told the bemused African delegates that after Brexit, chicken from Northern Ireland would be enjoyed in Angola and Ugandan beef would be on UK lunch tables. Portugal, Belgium, Italy and Spain all already export meat to Angola and Ugandan beef cannot be imported into the UK because of health standards.

For the US discussions in March, the Prime Minister said that we would be trading salmon for Stetsons while ignoring the recent restrictions on processed fish imports announced by the American Administration. These are the glib elements and no doubt have some comic effect, but they are illustrative and speak to a greater truth. Moreover, they are noticed by the EU and by the rest of the world. The self-deception is that such new trading outside the European Union, reflecting growth of less than 0.1% of UK GDP over a 15-year period, is believed to offset, according to the OBR, a 4.7% reduction in productivity because of disruption to our main trading bloc.

After the economic forecasting debate, the Minister did not answer or write to me about to my four simple questions, so I will try again. What is the Government’s core assumption about the impact on UK trade from January 2020 of their current EU policy, taking into context all new agreements made? Without honesty and openness, we will never protect our interests or align others to them—nor by replacing pragmatism with a politics in which one is influenced only by other acolytes. That is not a future that will benefit our country.

Budget: Economic and Fiscal Outlook

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 5th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the OBR report, as will I. He was keen to show the areas of progress. I understand that, and indeed that is all welcome, but he glossed over the areas where the OBR has flagged concerns, on debt in particular. We know that debt is likely to increase considerably and there will be consequences that we will have to manage well into the future. The Chancellor has already said that the self-employed will need to pay more tax in future to pay for the support package, and that will be unfair if done disproportionately.

Setting aside the Minister’s slightly tone-deaf rhetoric at the start of his speech about sovereignty at a time of global pandemic, the reality is that our economic life, our trade and our people will continue to be inextricably linked with our closest geographic and trading economic partners in Europe. The Minister celebrated what he described as being able to act free from the constraints of EU rules, as he put it, but the Government themselves chose to take part in the PPE procurement scheme and to operate under the customs system, and they themselves operated under the EU repatriation scheme. Why? Because it is now, as it has been, good sense for the British economy and our people to work seamlessly with our closest partners and neighbours—although of course the words “seamless” and “frictionless” are no longer used.

The Minister also neglected to reference the report on the future levels of GDP and the impact of other trade agreements and our EU relationship on productivity. Taking the fact that the UK has left the EU and will have its own migration policy, in March the OBR said:

“In broad terms, these imply that potential productivity will eventually be around 4 per cent lower than it otherwise would have been, mainly due to extra costs resulting from higher trade barriers and greater impediments to the exploitation of comparative advantage.”


The Government try to suggest that this fall will be offset by new trade with the USA. The Government themselves stated in their negotiation briefing earlier this year that a good deal with the USA would represent about £1 billion extra a year for our economy over 15 years—that is, 0.07% to 0.16% of positive GDP. Not many in this debate, other than perhaps the Minister or the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, believe that a 0.16% increase will offset a 4% fall. So what is the Government’s assessment of the net impact on future trade of all possible EU and other-country arrangements?

We remain unsure about the imminence of a comprehensive deal with Japan and Canada—and that is simply to prevent massive disruption, not to grow. This is not about fighting old battles, but we need the Government to be open now and tell us what they estimate the net impact on all productivity and trade will be. We simply will not be able to enter the battles of the future wearing an armour of self-deception, which has been too prevalent in this debate so far.

Tax Avoidance

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

I think that most of us share the noble Baroness’s views on abusive tax measures by companies. Apart from all the measures that we have introduced over the past seven or eight years, we announced that we will legislate this year in a Finance Bill for 2021 to strengthen HMRC’s existing anti-avoidance powers to make it more difficult for promoters, in this case, to sidestep their obligations. We will continue to bear down wherever we can.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

One measure highlighted by the Minister was the new tax evasion offence for corporations and partnerships that do not act properly in their operations. Will the Minister consider expanding that offence to include enterprises that aggressively pursue individuals—mainly those who are potentially vulnerable or re-entering the workforce, such as NHS workers. Tax evasion is an act that morally subverts the law, especially for self-employed people who will have to pay extra tax at the end of this crisis.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

I am sure that the noble Lord will contribute to the legislation when it comes through. I support his ideas. I assure noble Lords that we have closed the tax gap quite dramatically over the past 10 years. In 2005-06, it was £4.9 billion; in 2017-18, it was £1.8 billion. HMRC has won 90% of the avoidance cases that it has litigated on since 2018.

Covid-19: Self-employed

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, we estimate that 95% of small businesses will benefit from the structure of the schemes we have been discussing. Beyond that, we have made enhancements to the universal credit system that will benefit small business proprietors who are caught and do not benefit from the broader measures. I can put into Hansard a detailed explanation of how those changes work, because they are quite complicated and I am conscious of the need for brevity.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The self-employed will have to wait another month before they can start applying for support, and it will be six weeks from now until the first payments. The Canadian Government announced support packages for the self-employed and the employed on 15 March, and payments started to be processed last week for Canadian businesses. What is preventing the Government fast-tracking support for self-employed people, who have this huge uncertainty, especially women and mothers who have to look after children and on whose income this will have a real impact now?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, as I mentioned earlier, we have pushed out some £6 billion of grant payments already, and when HMRC opened its Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme on 20 April some 185,000 claims had already been made. So the money is going out, but I accept that it needs to go out more quickly.

G20 Summit

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who brings not only his experience but his refreshing objectivity and common sense to both the committee and many of these debates. I want to agree with him on a couple of points and will address them from my perspective in a short while.

On the structure of the G20, while it is welcome that South Africa is a member, I also wonder why Thailand, Nigeria, Taiwan, Iran or Colombia, which have bigger economies, are not participating. Ultimately, however the G20 is constituted, it is clearly better for leaders of nations to talk than not to. It is better to attend and participate actively, rather than following the approach of the leader of Mexico, for example, who chose not to attend, or President Bolsonaro, who cancelled a meeting with President Xi because the Chinese were late. It is clearly also better to seek consensus on the global challenges facing the biggest economies and the largest proportion of the world population.

While I greatly admire the diplomatic dexterity in the drafting of the communiqué on some of the key issues, it is becoming harder and harder to secure consensus in many respects, because of the symptoms the committee had already identified in its report on shifting global patterns. The USA, Russia and, in many ways, China look much more towards a transactional diplomacy than a multilateral one. We could see that in the Prime Minister’s reference to maintaining support for the JCPOA—the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, or others may address that in this debate. Just this weekend, in referencing his regret about the coming apart of that, a former diplomat who worked for former Secretary Kerry in the United States said in very clear American terms that the US, all the P5 countries and all the EU agreed on this and it was the last time they agreed on anything. We can see this starting to unravel.

It is harder and harder to bring about consensus. That was seen on perhaps the biggest issue facing the planet. There was a distinct section on climate in the communiqué because the USA was distinct from the other 19 countries represented there. While other elements of the communiqué could well be warm, fine words, looking at those on cybersecurity or “Data Free Flow with Trust”, surely those in Putin’s circle would say that they are merely that—fine words. That said, the statement from the Prime Minister on the UK’s position is admirable, and the communiqué, and those from the Finance Ministers and others, covering women’s empowerment, tourism, innovation, digitisation, artificial intelligence, agriculture and development, are commendable. This is where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. The question asked of the Prime Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was: how will we ensure follow-up? There was an even more specific example in the communiqué on anti-corruption. It said:

“We will intensify our efforts to combat foreign bribery and to ensure that each G20 country has a national law in force for criminalising foreign bribery”.


How does the G20 ensure that? I would be grateful if the Government could respond to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howell.

During our hearing in the committee, I pursued a question to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, one of our excellent witnesses, on whether a grouping such as the G20 is as effective as coalitions of the willing, given the current global political climate and the likelihood that it will be with us for the next decade, or perhaps for the remainder of the period covered by sustainable development goals? We saw one example on the Global Fund. There are many other examples of countries large and small, developed and developing, that come together for specific objectives being more effective than a slightly more arbitrary group of large economies parcelling out, south to south, countries or developing countries to themselves. The UK will need to be a driving force in establishing many of these coalitions of the willing. It is going to be one of our major opportunities and a challenge for the world.

Finally, something that really concerned me about the communiqué’s otherwise commendable language was the between-the-lines interpretation I took from it that Africa is still seen purely within the development framework. Africa, the most dynamic continent, with a young and fast-growing population, was still seen almost entirely through the prism of development. It was jarring to see no reference to the world’s largest free trade area, which is currently being formed. It has taken 20 years to negotiate, but the African continental free trade area has enormous global potential, not just for the UK but for all its partners in the developed world. If we continue to see Africa only through the prism of development and not as an opportunity, the other warm elements of the G20 communiqué will not be implemented. That is the opportunity for the UK to take the lead going forward.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I agree with much of what he said, and I hope that his Front Bench will agree with him before the Bill has passed through this Chamber.

As referred to earlier in the debate, we received a delegation of Norwegian MPs in Parliament this week. I met them yesterday, and as they were leaving, one of the MPs, a member of the EFTA parliamentary group, took me aside and said, “We think in Norway that we have a closer relationship out of the EU than you have in, so what are you going to do now that you will be out of everything?”. The only thing I could think of, as a proud trustee of Sir Walter Scott’s home in Abbotsford, in my beloved Borders, was the quote from “Marmion”:

“O what a tangled web we weave

When first we practise to deceive!”

This measure seeks to disentangle the tangled web of deception by some who put forward the arguments for Brexit in the referendum. It is preparing us for an unknown destination, as many Members, on all sides, have said.

This measure is not just a continuity Bill. It is not merely a technical measure, as some have argued. It establishes a new category of law in England and in Scotland. It alters the characteristics of our 20 year-old, settled approach to devolution. It is worth stressing for those who have made the point on devolution—from my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace, to my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in her very measured contribution—that, between the referendum in 1975, the devolution referendum and today, we have had devolution for half of the period that we have been members of the European Union. These are norms and practices which have now been an established part of the British constitution for half the period of time that we have been members.

In the absence of a written, codified constitution, our constitution is based on norms and statutes. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others have said, these norms are being up-ended and our constitution is being affected. As a direct consequence of the Bill, it will be necessary to form new common frameworks of governance within the United Kingdom over policy areas which had previously come under the auspices of the EU. There is some agreement at executive level on the areas that these will cover, but so far there has been nothing about scrutiny and how the legislation will apply to those.

The breaking of the norms is in many ways more significant than the breaking of the rules—norms based on trust, respect and the recognition, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, that those with power need oversight. That is the same when it comes to the relationship between certain component parts of the United Kingdom as it is for the citizen’s relationship with government. These norms have become even more important in the more complex world that we live in.

I have lived all my life in a country that is a member of the EU and its previous smaller Community. The world I was born into in 1974 had 3.9 billion people living in it; today, there are 7.5 billion of us. Then, the world economy was worth $5.5 trillion; last year, it was nearly $77 trillion. Then, there were only 34 democracies in the world; today, there are 87. The expectations of people of their rights and of their hopes of their democratic Governments are exponentially greater now than when we joined the European Union. The world is incredibly more complex than it was then.

It is no surprise, then, that while we hear much about tariffs and trade, the growth in non-tariff measures is now much more significant than the tariff measures. There were 1,500 in the mid-2000s; today, there are 2,500. Because these non-tariff measures are about standards—health and safety, and the environmental standards to which we have become accustomed—it is very troubling that we will see the Trump and country first approach.

To take one sector in particular, one vital for the British economy, aviation is worth £57 billion to the British economy. The UK, through our membership of the European Union, has led the debates on liberalisation. We have led, not followed, and the regulations that apply have in many respects been designed by the United Kingdom, using the European Union as a platform for the world. When I was born, there were 400 million air passengers in 1974; in 2016, there were 3.7 billion. To ensure safety and efficiency in this complex web of regulations, it is very worrying that the Government do not have today a clear position on the EU-US Air Transport Agreement.

We do not need to forecast or repeat assertions; we can simply look at the record of the Government since the referendum. There are the red lines which were set which are now being blurred. There was the comment from the Foreign Secretary that the European Union could go whistle rather than demand the £39 billion to which we have agreed. The UK said that we would start the talks only if we could negotiate the new relationship at the same time as the withdrawal agreement, which we have now gone back on. We have said that we will follow all the single market rules during the transition period, and that we will seek to adhere to European rules on medicines, aviation and financial regulation. Those strong Brexiteers have been critical of all those areas.

Our relationship with the European Union will not be healed by this process. Sometimes, the relationship between the UK and Europe has reflected what our former colleague, Earl Russell, described as the relationship between England and Scotland:

“England could brook no equal, and Scotland no superior”.

Our relationship with Europe is not the same as other countries’ relationship with Europe, but our process now will not heal the wounds in the Conservative Party.

However, I am more concerned about healing the wounds of those who were disfranchised in the referendum —the 16 and 17 year-olds who will have to live with the consequences longer than any other. They did not have their say. I hope that they will have their say. Those who will be living with the consequences need to have a voice.

I have quoted Scott before:

“Faces that have charmed us the most escape us the soonest”.


That was present with many of the promises from those for Brexit. They said, “Let the people decide”. When it comes to whether the withdrawal agreement is in the best interests of those who will live with its consequences, I feel I have to say, “Let the people agree”.

House of Lords Act 1999 (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

Let me finish. The new Leader looks forward to working with Peers to support incremental reform that commands consensus across the House. We feel that that is the way forward at the moment.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords—

[A noble Lord]

He has only just arrived.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I have just heard from a noble Lord that I have just arrived. I do not know whether he means in this House three years ago, before he did, or in this debate. I have sat through the debate from the start.

If, as the Minister said from the Dispatch Box, we will be talking about this problem, could that discussion be informed by the Government saying what areas they would not consider core to the composition of the House in order for us to decide where we could make some of these incremental reforms?

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I think I have said all I am going to say on the matter in my speech. We are not taking forward reforms during this Parliament. However, as I said, the new Leader looks forward to working with Peers to support incremental reform that commands consensus across the House. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today.

Constitutional Convention Bill [HL]

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Friday 11th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, I will make just a few, short points. First, I again congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on this Bill. I always find it interesting to discuss these points. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for being here and heed what he and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said. I will not repeat all the points I made at Second Reading. All I will say, briefly, is that this very short interchange shows that we will probably need a convention about the convention because it is so clear that we cannot quite agree on any of the terms. My noble friend Lord Forsyth called it ambitious. I think that is mandarin-speak for “virtually impossible to agree” on all these points. He said he was looking for the kitchen sink. We have the kitchen sink and, in the next debate, I think we are about to discuss the wiring and plumbing.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

It is probably fair that I respond to some elements of this debate, and in so doing I thank, first, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. It is a pleasure to follow her and I also thank her for the throat pastilles that she gave me. It was a relief to see that this could be a relatively short Committee stage, so my voice can survive it. However, I can rely on the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Forsyth, to make sure that it is fully debated, in this “Second Reading in absence” debate that we have just had, in many respects.

I turn to the specifics raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, before turning to some of the wider aspects that the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Forsyth, raised. It is a fair observation to say that the Bill states the need for reform of the electoral system. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is always very welcome to attend the all-party group, which considered the intention behind this. He might attend it as a radical, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. There will be political theorists studying Hansard, so if the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is describing the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, as a radical, I need to go back to my political study books. The all-party group considered the number of systems that we have, including the changes brought forward in the Scotland Bill, whereby the Scottish Parliament will be responsible for its own franchise and mandate—and, in addition, how they all interact.

The fundamental feeling was that it was right that a convention should consider the interaction of all the electoral systems from the point of view of the voter and not from that of the institutions. In many respects, some of the debates on the role of Parliament and the institutions have been from the perspectives of the institutions themselves and not from that of voters. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is itching to intervene, and I shall give way in just one moment. It is about that interaction, and how they operate; it is about how voters in my former area, for example, see two Parliaments, one elected on a proportional basis in Scotland and one here, where, as my noble friend Lord Wallace said, the Government were elected on 37% of the vote. The noble Lord asked me whether I referred to the electoral system of the United Kingdom Parliament, but that can only be a partial system, unless he is referring to the by-elections of hereditary Peers in this House.

[Lord Grocott]

Surely nothing in the noble Lord’s proposal is from the perspective of the voter rather than the institution. There is surely no more effective way in which to discover the perspective of the voter than to hold a referendum whereby the voter gives the clearest possible response.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

Clause 4 indicates strongly that the composition of the convention is to be citizen- led. If the thrust of the proposals is to consider how the systems that we operate interact, including the systems of this Parliament—and, if we are moving towards reviewing the functions of this House, how it is subsequently elected—it is legitimate that it is part of a constitutional convention that is citizen-led.

I widen this now to the overall aspect. The noble Lord Forsyth, asked if I had reflected on the Second Reading. I had reflected, first, about those who said that the remit was far too broad and therefore that it was impossible for it to be successful and those who said that it was far too specific and did not even address first principles. I reflected, and I think the broad areas of the terms of reference meet most of the areas where the debates that we have had over the last month have drawn real focus on the need for consideration of how all these reforms are being held together. So yes, for devolution and for legislative and fiscal competence, there is the Scotland Bill, although it needs to make its passage. There is the Wales Bill and there are changes within England—and then, of course, there are the legislative changes to taxation for Northern Ireland. None of the thinking behind this proposal would set any of that back. The whole fundamental reason that the convention is necessary is there is no thread holding everything together. That has been a consistent element of all the debates on the Scotland Bill, for devolution in England, for the Northern Ireland taxation Bill, which this House considered, and with the forthcoming Wales Bill. The fact that there have been considerable delays to the presentation of the Wales Bill shows that there is not that coherence across the whole of the piece.

When it comes to the devolution of legislative fiscal competence in England, it is the same point. Part of the difficulty has been looking at the fundamental principles of the areas to be reserved, what is the right tax balance et cetera. This is again rehearsing the Second Reading debate, but it is necessary—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

On the point about the scope of Clause 2, will the noble Lord tell the House how many hours and how many meetings he anticipates would be required to cover this ground within a year?

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I cannot set that. Legislation cannot set that. Legislation can set what is a reasonable time for these areas to be considered, the political imperative about why they should be considered within 12 months and that the Government should report on them. Fundamentally, we should be going into the next UK general election with more consensus about the constitutional future of our union rather than with it fractured into a piecemeal approach. My noble friend Lord Steel called it a guddle; we will be having five years of guddle. A convention can consider these aspects within 12 months, and it is reasonable that a Government should have a timeframe in which to respond.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

Before the noble Lord moves on to his next point—I am sure he has many more—does he agree that this convention, this conference, or whatever it is, can talk until the cows come home about one aspect of what we have in Clause 2, namely, the electoral regime for the European Parliament? Surely that is fixed by the European Parliament.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

We can follow two models. It can be very short, like the Smith commission, which perhaps on reflection has been too short and has not considered the wider view of the people, or it can be like the Airports Commission. I would not use the Airports Commission as the model for the constitutional convention. We can do better, and I hope the Government agree on that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, tabled an amendment to the Scotland Bill for a convention to review the Bill, but it was late in the day, so he did not move it. I am pleased to see that the wind is back in his sails today at an earlier hour. If we are to have a convention, and it is to be citizen-led, it is not in any way an impertinence, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, for the people of this country to consider what this second House does in Parliament. It is not an impertinence to involve the people of our country in considering a revising Chamber’s role and how its functions should be set.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I did not plan to interrupt again, but as the noble Lord referred to me, what I said would be an impertinence was for an outside body to tell us how our rules and procedures should operate. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made the correct point. The constitutional convention should look at the high level—at the role and function of the House. Procedures are a matter for this House.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

There is nothing in Clause 2 that would prevent that. On that point of broad consensus—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The trouble with overspecifying, as Clause 2 does, is that you require people, before they report, to have considered everything. The first report should be about principles. Perhaps that would be the only report and the convention would never meet again, or perhaps it would, but when it comes to things such as the House of Lords, it should be considering them on the basis of principles that have by that stage, one hopes, been debated across the country, in this place and the other place, and have achieved a degree of consensus. Then it would consider the role of the House of Lords in the union, how can it best discharge that role, and how can it best be composed to do so. If you put on your original shopping list that, before the convention tells us anything it must make sure that it includes proposals to reform the House of Lords, you are making a terrible mistake. You would do much better to stick to the high ground of principle.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

As a Liberal Democrat, I never want to move away from the high ground of principle. The noble Lord seeks to bring me down to lower land.

Fundamentally, I do not believe we are that far apart. Of course a convention will have to start with consideration of what the principles of this union are. I rehearsed that argument at Second Reading and I need not do so again. Equally, though, I know the Government are taking forward a programme of reform, much of it based on cross-party consensus, with legislation and proposals, and I would not wish to set those apart. As I said, the fundamental difficulty is over how all those are being held together under the principles that the noble Lord indicated. I believe that setting a framework of specific areas that the convention should cover, within the overall aim of trying to secure a holistic view of what the union is for, is captured within Clause 2.

Clause 2 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I heed what the noble Lord so rightly draws out. My point would be that these are the foundation stones on parts of which we have been building over the centuries.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

My Lords, I enjoy the interactions with the Minister on this aspect, although we do not see eye to eye. I think he was referring to the previous constitutional history of England when he said “this country”. It is worth mentioning that. We often have to reflect on the previous errors of England in the constitutional history of these nations—plural.

I understood the amendment to require, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated, a more codified relationship between the House of Commons and House of Lords, and that it was not a consideration of a wider British written constitution. But I respect the extensive experience of the noble Lord in the other place and in this House, and share many of his views about the need for a more codified relationship in respect of our governance. It is interesting that those who now seem to set their faces against that—primarily the Government—are happy to institute processes that do not necessarily have any end or focus at all.

One example was the debate we had on incremental and gradual change of the House of Lords. Any objective observer of that process would feel that what the Minister said was a criticism of my Bill, but it could be applied exactly, in fact more so, to the process of reform that his own party is putting forward. That is amplified by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has proposed that external people should interfere in the procedures of this House, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. It is probably more appropriate for the Government to adopt a slightly different tone, because there is now justification for moving towards a more codified system of relationships between the nations and our governance.

I shall go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. Incidentally, if the Minister thinks that a superhuman expert is required for the running of such a convention, the more the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, contributes to that debate, the better. Much as he may indicate that he is ruling that out, I cannot think of anyone more qualified or who could give me greater assurance in running this constitutional convention. He pointed out some of the difficulties we have been having without a more codified system that also ultimately seeks a degree of flexibility.

Turning to the amendment, if the conclusion of the convention’s deliberations was that our relationship with the legislation we consider needs to be dealt with through a written constitution, that would be one of the benefits of such a convention and a justifiable part of it. I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, but I ask him to withdraw his amendment on the basis that the convention should be empowered to consider this issue itself.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. As is often the case in such debates, rather than introduce clarity, I seem only to have introduced more confusion. It is clear that I have not been able to persuade the Committee of the magnitude of the change that will happen if we have two elected Chambers. It is a recipe for clashes all the time, so in my view it is essential that that is taken on board. I appreciate the difficulties of time, but the noble Lord said that it would be a mechanism for changing the written constitution. I said in my opening remarks that there would have to be mechanisms for doing that. If there is no mechanism such as a written constitution, how would we adjudicate between two elected Houses? I suppose that there is only one other possibility. Each time there was a failure to agree, it would have to go to judicial review. However, it would be somewhat ironic to abolish a predominantly nominated, unelected House of Lords of whatever number, only to be governed by a small number of unelected, appointed judges. That needs to be considered more deeply than it has been in the past. I also take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2015

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Empey]

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that people can be on the register in a particular constituency, but that does not mean that they are not on the register in a different constituency. That is the point that I made in the student example. We found that people registered in their place of residence at home registered again when they came up to the university area. When they had to produce a national insurance number we could tell that people were registered in two different places and they got knocked off in one place but were still on the register in another. That practice is widespread and well known.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Does the noble Lord acknowledge that the Electoral Commission report which has been cited has taken all that into consideration? It did a very good and nuanced report that looked at the risks and benefits. It concluded, as my noble friend Lord Tyler indicated, that given the five weeks’ notice and potentially the 250,000 people affected by this in Scotland alone, it was not right to bring forward the closure of the transition period. The more targeted approach that he is asking for is best conducted over the normal timeframe which the Electoral Commission and the EROs have operated under existing processes.

[Lord Empey]

First, I do not accept that the scale of the problem is as large as the noble Lord suggests. As to the five weeks, our experience is that this process has been going on for quite some time—it is not as if it has come from nowhere. We are talking about the opportunity at least to bring it to a conclusion. However, the period after 1 December is not a period in which nothing can happen. People can continue to register. I hope the Minister has listened seriously to what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has said. It has been done before and it works if it is targeted. If we are drawing up new boundaries in parallel, the best thing to do is get on with it, draw the line, bring it to a head and provide the resources to target the groups that are traditionally underrepresented. If the effort is made we will end up with a very accurate register. However, the Government should go further. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, made a fair point when he mentioned ID. I do not understand why people should not be asked for their identity when they go to a polling station. It is a very basic thing to do. The postal voting system is mad. There is a lot of work to do and the problem with this process is that the Government are not going far enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. A lot has been said this afternoon. It has been an excellent debate, and there have been very good contributions from all sides, although I profoundly disagree with some of what has been said, as I will come on to. It is always nice to be reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that I have not read my Aristotle. He firmly puts me in my place.

I shall start by taking a step back to make two fundamental points, on which I hope we can all agree. First, we all agree that we want more people to engage in the democratic process and register to vote, but those who are not on the register today will clearly not be affected by the measure we are discussing, which is the removal of ghost entries. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Lexden said in his excellent speech, nobody will lose their right to vote as a result of the government proposals that we are debating today.

Instead, the core of what we are debating comes down to the accuracy of the new electoral register. Do we keep on the new register ghost entries—entries of people who may have moved house or died or may never have existed in the first place? Are these ghost entries living, breathing voters, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, calls them, or hundreds of thousands of database errors which need to be removed ahead of the important elections next year? As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly pointed out—let us not disguise this fact—for the sake of completeness, the Electoral Commission wants to keep those entries on the register, even if this means that the accuracy of the register is undermined. It judges the risk of fraud to be acceptable, and the Government disagree.

First, we believe that after 18 months of transition and more than a decade of waiting, as we enter a year of elections and possibly a referendum on Europe—possibly—the time has come to move fully to the new system. Secondly, we see the risk of fraud as unacceptable. Thirdly, we believe that people have been given ample opportunity to register on the new system. That said, fourthly, we entirely agree with those who want more people to register to vote and participate in the elections, but we do not make the register more complete by stuffing it with inaccurate registrations.

I shall take those points in turn. As the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, we have been waiting for the full transition to individual electoral registration for more than a decade. As the current chair of the Electoral Commission said:

“This change is something we’ve been calling for since 2003 and is an important step towards a more modern and secure electoral system”.

To give the former Labour Government their due, they legislated to introduce individual electoral registration in 2009. The coalition Government further legislated in 2013 and, finally, in the summer of 2014, the new system was introduced. I remind your Lordships that at the general election, in its manifesto, the Conservative Party committed that:

“Building on our introduction of individual voter registration, we will continue to make our arrangements fair and effective by ensuring the Electoral Commission puts greater priority on tackling fraud”.

This Government believe that it is time to finish the process, and finish it now. This decision is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, rash.

Let us consider the progress that has been made. Back in May, 96% of the electorate was successfully registered under the new system. It is the remaining 4%—the so-called “carry forwards”—that the Government believe should be removed from the register at the end of December. It is not the entire register that we are questioning, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, seems to suggest; it is the 4%. Then we have to ask ourselves: what do these entries represent; who are they; do they exist? The reality is that neither we nor the Electoral Commission know who they are. They may be people who have moved or have died, or they may never have existed in the first place. However, we have gone the extra mile to find out whether these entries actually are people living at the registered address. Electoral registration officers have been working tirelessly to confirm whether the remaining entries are real people or whether they are merely ghosts.

These people will have first been sent three invitations to register. If they had not done so by last autumn, an electoral registration officer would have visited the address linked to the entry. If this failed to elicit a response, a further letter would have gone to the address earlier this year. Where carry-forward still exists, these addresses will receive three further letters and another visit from an electoral registration officer this autumn. That is the second fact that I would ask noble Lords to remember. These people, if they are people, will have been contacted at least nine times by December. I ask noble Lords to compare that with the number of times people are contacted about renewing their TV licence—four times. These people, if these entries do indeed represent people, have been contacted nine times. On top of this, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said, the Government made available to councils up to £3 million of additional funding to support extra efforts targeted specifically at carry-forward entries, and £1.2 million of that was drawn down.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has always been very courteous when we have been debating issues of the constitution. He will be aware that the Electoral Commission has taken everything that he has said into consideration, yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said, it has still given a very clear recommendation that the transition period should not come to an end early. One reason is the significant polls scheduled for May 2016. The Minister knows that I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament. On an issue of principle such as this, it is inconceivable to me that the Government would not have consulted the Scottish Parliament in bringing forward the transitional period, given the significance of the polls in May 2016. Can he confirm formally, at the Dispatch Box, whether the Government did or did not consult the Scottish Parliament? If they did, what was the view of the Parliament?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, the timetable for the start of IER was agreed with the Scottish Government and allowed the referendum to take place before IER got under way. There is no legal requirement to consult on this order, and electoral registration is at present within the competence of the UK Government. I will come back in a moment to the other points raised by the noble Lord.

I refer those who argue that we should wait for another year to the Electoral Commission itself. It said that such efforts are likely to see:

“Diminishing returns because a greater proportion of these electors are no longer resident at that address”.

On the point that the current canvass will address this issue, I agree entirely. The canvass going on at the moment means that we can be even more sure that the vast majority of these entries are ghost entries.

I come to the next point. Where are these ghost entries? Six of the local authorities with levels of carry-forwards above the national average have been identified as among the authorities more at risk of electoral fraud. As my noble friend Lord Hayward said, one of these boroughs is Tower Hamlets. There, the election judge slammed the “extremely lax” registration rules of the previous system as opening the door to electoral corruption. It is worth noting that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets was awarded top marks in the Electoral Commission’s performance standards for electoral integrity.

In Hackney, which is not even one of those six authorities, there were in May 43,000 carry-forwards. That is 23% of its electorate—I repeat: 23%. It is worth noting that in Hackney the register has increased by 10% since the introduction of individual electoral registration. The Electoral Commission states that the increment in the number of entries,

“may have therefore been inflated by a high volume of inaccurate entries”.

What might be the cause of those inaccuracies?

Hackney, and many other areas where there are large numbers of ghost entries, share a common characteristic: their population is, as has been mentioned, mobile—and in mobile populations many people rent their homes. Again, the Electoral Commission itself has suggested that those who rent private sector accommodation are more likely to have been carried forward. Why is that? One in three households in the private rented sector moves every year. It is therefore hardly surprising that we see a high percentage of carry-forwards in these areas given that the entries to the register are over a year old, dating from February 2014, which was before the introduction of the new system. As my noble friend Lord Hayward pointed out, these numbers are not just in Labour areas; the last time I looked, Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth and Windsor were blue.