Essential Services: Large-scale Technology

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, at my level in Government I will not comment on the final part of the noble Lord’s question. He is right that malign cyber activity, including by states, is an ongoing concern. In the Cabinet Office and across Government we are maintaining our capability to respond to major cyber incidents, and the National Cyber Security Centre and law enforcement cyber specialists are active in supporting critical organisations in the UK, including outside government.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Ipsos MORI research on understanding the full cost of cyber breaches, published by DCMS last year, points out that the current lack of accurate data makes it very difficult for SMEs in particular to get insurance for such events. Will the Government consider backing a cyber breach reinsurance scheme, based on the successful Pool Re and Flood Re reinsurance schemes, over this interim period?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, once again this is slightly outside my area of responsibility, but the interests of SMEs are always of great concern to the Government and I will pass the noble Lord’s suggestion on to appropriate colleagues.

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it seems a long time ago—indeed, it was a long time ago—but I thank the Minister for his original introduction, which was well balanced and got us off to a good start. This has been a rapid-fire debate and, like others, I hope we can find a better way of debating big issues in future, otherwise we will seriously diminish the reputation of our House. Having said that, I thank all speakers—not just for participating today and for their interesting points, but for sticking to the time limits, which was incredible. I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Wharton of Yarm. I also thank the Library for its very helpful briefing notes on the debate.

The TCA is a complex and extensive agreement and, as others have pointed out, it has a large overhang. Issues such as data adequacy and the urgently needed memorandum on financial services still need to be resolved. There will be ongoing discussions through a partnership council, a plethora of specialist committees and bodies on issues arising, including the Northern Ireland protocol, and a joint parliamentary committee. The TCA provides provisions for a review of the deal every five years.

Every senior politician knows that one of the keys to their success is the ability to shut down debate on issues likely to harm them later. I take it from this debate that the great majority of those who have participated accept the need to draw a line over the recent past and move on, but I wonder whether this will be possible in practice. I suspect that we will be dealing with the aftermath of this deal for some time to come.

The main topics that have been raised today have centred on a few issues, to which I am sure the Minister will respond. We have heard a lot about the problems that have already emerged in the tariff-free and quota-free trade in goods. I look forward to his response to the issues raised on rules of origin and the worrying lack of a deal on diagonal cumulation, which will have a huge impact on manufacturing value chains. We need to hear more from the Minister on why services have largely been ignored and particularly why UK service suppliers will no longer benefit from country of origin principles, mutual recognition or passporting. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, deserves a full response to his devastating analysis of the fisheries agreement.

Several noble Lords, including former Home Secretaries such as my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lord Reid, raised law enforcement co-operation and particularly that the UK will lose access to the Schengen Information System and not be a member of Europol. I look forward to the Minister’s response to that. Although it has not been given much attention today, the level playing field agreement includes certain provisions to prevent distortions to trade and investment—for example, through subsidies or reductions of labour or environmental standards. This is a live issue, as it features in amendments to the Trade Bill made this week. Can the Minister explain how this is going to operate in practice and if there will be a need to create new institutions? If so, will that require further changes to the Trade Bill?

It is interesting that the issues that were raised by noble Lords most often in this debate were the departure from the Erasmus+ programme and the inadequacies of the proposed Turing scheme; and, despite assurances given by Ministers, the failure to negotiate a procedure for our creative industry practitioners, particularly musicians and performers, and young entrepreneurs to travel easily in the EU and vice versa. Blaming the EU does not ring true here and I hope that the Minister can give us some real hope that these matters will be resolved.

Finally, I end on the opportunity that some, including the noble Lords, Lord Bridges, Lord Birt and Lord Greaves, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, suggested we now have to focus on the future. There may not be agreement on where exactly it might lead us, but we surely can agree that, post pandemic, there is an opportunity to sort out some of the long-standing and apparently intractable problems we face as a country. My list includes using a green recovery to ensure further strengthening of the union, improving productivity, investing heavily in 5G and gigabit-enabled internet for all, improving transport linkages, combining health and social care, modernising the core curriculum, having proper regard for apprenticeships, improving housing standards, and better balancing the immigration policy. This will deal with some of the issues raised during this debate. As was observed by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, we are clearly at a turning point. We should work together as a country to ensure that this is a truly transformative experience.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 8M as an amendment to the words restored to the Bill by non-insistence on Amendments 8L, 13 and 56—

8M: Schedule 1, page 48, line 47, at end insert—


“5A (1) The United Kingdom market access principles do not apply to, and sections 2(3) and 5(3) do not affect the operation of, any requirements which—


(a) make a contribution to the achievement of—


(i) environmental standards and protection, or


(ii) protection of public health,


(b) are a proportionate means of achieving that aim, and


(c) are not a disguised restriction on trade.


(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b), a requirement is considered disproportionate if the aim being pursued in the destination part of the United Kingdom is already achieved to the same or a higher extent by requirements in the originating part of the United Kingdom.””

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in moving Motion B1 in my name, I thank the Minister for his full and comprehensive introduction and make it clear that we agree with his Amendment 15C, which we think is very helpful to the overall operation of the internal market Bill. In particular, it picks up points that we have been making in relation to market access. I have just one point of correction to what he said: the changes set out in my Amendment 8M remove the amendment completely from the main part of the Bill. He said Clause 1, but I think he meant Schedule 1; in other words, even more disguised and hidden than perhaps was the impression he gave when speaking.

In opening this debate, I do not want to spend a lot of time on this issue, which is quite narrow. Indeed, the arguments are very similar to those we have already heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The Minister’s defence of the current drafting in the Bill depended largely on the often-used threat by Ministers that those who are preparing amendments do not understand the unintended consequences that might flow from their drafting. I suggest to the Minister with some humility that we are not the experts on drafting. If there is an issue here that we should progress a little, we would certainly be happy to work with him and the team of draftspeople in his department to try to make sure that any egregious issues are removed. He drew particular attention to a concern about the phrase used in proposed paragraph 5A(1)(c), which those who wish to bring forward changes to market access would not be permitted to do so if they were disguised restrictions on trade. As I understand it, that comes from the existing WTO regulations and is therefore relatively well understood among those involved in the operation; these are trivial points, however, compared to the main points of principle that he raised.

I want to make three main points. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has already explained in his amendment that the common frameworks issues he talked about require a market access regime as well; the two are interrelated—almost two sides of the same coin. The devolution settlement has to be observed in both the spirit and the letter of the law. We think that the Bill can both honour and enhance the devolution settlement, provided, first, that we emphasise the common frameworks and the coherence that they can bring to the whole process of a devolved settlement and, secondly, that we do not make the market access principles, which operate automatically, too narrow and too prescriptive. That would fatally undermine the opportunities for devolved Administrations to diverge—if they wish and as agreed by all concerned—in a managed and coherent way.

We have a devolved system of government. That must necessarily imply divergence, so it has to be part of the system. In some way, the argument revolves around how it is possible to frame that managed divergence in legal terms. My Amendment 8M uses derogation powers that are already in the Bill to highlight areas of public good that could benefit consumers, workers and traders. The Minister said there was already coverage on these areas within the Bill, so, in a sense, he is making my point that areas such as public health and the ability of people to work in the environmental areas will be public goods if they can be brought forward. Any sensible Government would ensure that the system made it possible for those who wish to make changes that would raise standards —managed and with agreement—to do so.

The amendment therefore enhances efforts to improve environmental standards and public health; I cannot believe that the Government would want to be against that. It amends a schedule, and does not change any of the main clauses in the Bill. We are talking about trying to find a system for allowing divergence to happen in a proportionate way, which will not in any sense damage the ability of traders to trade but will benefit consumers and workers. It is a very small change. As the Minister rightly said, it has been slimmed down in the process of arriving at this point in the Bill’s discussions, and it is very much tied to the amendment that we have just accepted by a majority of over 100 in relation to the common frameworks. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

The question is that Motion B1, as an amendment to Motion B, be agreed to. I have had no notice of anyone in the Chamber wishing to speak—in fact, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.

--- Later in debate ---

With that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will be able to support the Government’s approach—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, looks sceptical—to reinstate these original clauses on exclusions in the Bill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a very short debate, but, as the Minister has said, it has been quite interesting, and revelatory in some senses. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for speaking in support. I think that I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his suggestion that “yin and yang” are the words I was looking for in terms of my relationship with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. We are certainly not yin and yang if you consider size or intellectual ability, but, even so, it is a nice thought.

I recognise that the Minister was not going all out to take down the arguments I was making, and I am grateful to him for that; he can sometimes be quite destructive when he does, and it is nice to have the sunny side of him on show today—he does have a sunny side.

I cannot understand why there is such a concern about divergence. For those of us who were born and brought up in Scotland, it is well known that building regulations there are substantially different for not unreasonable reasons: the weather up there is so different from that which one experiences further south. Those regulations were different in Scotland for many years before devolution took place, and have continued to be.

Of course, there are many other areas of difference, right across a range of activity in Scotland: a different legal system, a different religious environment as well as other factors. This has led to different ways in which people operate, trade is conducted, and people shop and carry out their business. The idea that divergence is not already present in the system and not respected as such seems very strange.

I know that the Minister stands by Schedule 1 because he referred to it at length, but those who have read it carefully—I suspect that not many people have read it right the way through because it is dry—will know that, basically, the only real reason for divergence is set out there very clearly. It says that there has to have been a threat to life caused by a “pest or disease”—that is a very wide-ranging thought and a way we can approach it. Nevertheless, that is really the only sure and certain basis under which divergence would be permitted, other than that which already exists.

In that sense, we are on the right track: there could be a better way of formulating that. The schedule contains many other ways of implementing curtailment and restriction that we could use if the wording currently in our amendment is not satisfactory. However, I do not think that the Minister has said anything that would negate our feeling that this amendment, in its essence, is the counterpart to the amendment that we already agreed in relation to common frameworks—and that it would play a necessary part in making sure that devolution continues. I recommend it, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

Members taking part remotely have given their voices in support of this Motion, and I will take that into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

There is almost no one left in the Chamber who has not spoken. This has been an interesting debate and, no doubt, the Minister is carrying away lots of advice from some of the Benches. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Liddle, for their passion. If that passion is matched by votes in the event that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, decides to ignore the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and press this to a vote, I will have more excitement because otherwise, it is merely a rhetorical gesture.

The noble and learned Lord set out his view on devolution. It is quite clear, as was set out a number of occasions, that in the structural fund process, which this will herald the replacement for, the devolved authorities were in the driving seat of deciding where and on what the money was spent. It is not clear from anything the Minister said today, or in answer to questions last time, that the Government will not seek to impose things on the devolved authorities. The Minister said there would be governance structures; it would be interesting to hear how those governance structures will be introduced and what the Government envisage. In other words, do central Government have the veto in deciding what goes where? In the end, that is the difference between this being genuinely consultative and, as we have heard described around the House, a Westminster-knows-best process. Consultation is fine but only if it is adhered to.

My final point on the quantum of money and its distribution comes back to a question I asked earlier. I think the Minister said that the amount of money envisaged to go into the shared prosperity fund is equivalent to that which came through the structural fund. The Minister also indicated a much broader remit for spreading that money around than was the practical reality of the structural fund. How will the Government manage the process of certain areas that have been particularly well funded through the structural fund, such as Cornwall and Wales, getting less money if there is no increase in funds and they are spread more widely? Furthermore, the European Union distributed that money using classifications of need, so how will the UK Government develop those? Do the Government envisage that they will be different, and can they undertake that they are transparent?

In conclusion, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, decides to call a vote, we on these Benches would support it, but there are a lot of questions we would be grateful if the Minister could answer.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords—[Inaudible]—on earlier discussions around this issue and the issue that will come up in the next group of amendments on state aid and spending as a result of moneys which may be available to support that. We should pause and take note of the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has engaged with this issue again despite the view taken in the other place that it is a financial privilege. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is right in saying we are in a difficult area. I am not sure how the comments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, will take him forward. He certainly has a point, but I do not think this is the right amendment or place to explore it. It needs a wider perspective. Many of these issues date from time immemorial; it is important to respect them and understand where they come from, but they should not block debate and discussion on key issues.

The issue the noble and learned Lord is raising, which has also been picked up the Minister, is how, in the future, possibly using statecraft—whatever that is—we will manage spending in the devolved areas, which are not reserved, when the funding mechanisms are different and have to be adapted to meet current arrangements. There are issues that will need to be addressed in the future, but we covered a lot of ground in earlier debates, and I thought the points made by the Minister on the shared prosperity fund were sufficient to ensure that we do not need to go back over this again. It is not our view, as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, that we need to divide the House on this issue again.

If the issue is common between us, we need to understand where we can get to in respect of comments made from the Dispatch Box. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made a number of good points and asked a number of questions, and I am sure the Minister will respond to them. I do not think the points added by my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lord Liddle vitiate that approach; they made a good case that we will need more in this area in the future, but this is not the right amendment to take us down that route.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with others who have spoken that this has been an interesting debate. It is clear that good discussions have taken place between Ministers and the movers of the amendments, which is a good sign and reflects changes.

The Government have made a concession and a commitment to extensive consultation prior to bringing forward proposals for their state aid regime. That is a major change compared to where we were at the start of this Bill, which we welcome.

Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, we agree that control of state aid and the regime which underpins it must lie at the UK level, but, as we discussed when debating a recent regret amendment to the statutory instrument referred to by the Minister, we think that policy development in this area has been quite bizarre. How on earth Parliament is expected to opine on state aid rules without first knowing what those state aid rules might be—whether we are continuing where we were, whether we are changing to WTO or whether it is somewhere in between—is beyond me; it is not the way we normally do things, as we made clear in that debate. I imagine, and it has been said by others, that it is because this issue is still at the heart of the never-ending discussions in Brussels about the future of the EU free trade agreement. We may begin to see progress once that is resolved, but we are where we are, and we are moving to World Trade Organization rules—much discredited—on 1 January and have yet to consult on an appropriate state aid regime. This is not the way we should do things.

However, we on this side of the House accept that Ministers have given assurances at the Dispatch Box, and they have been repeated today, that spending on state aid, as opposed to the control of policy on it, is an issue that has to respect the devolution settlement. It needs to be done in a way which brings forward the consultation and the seeking of consent that have been discussed by just about everybody who has spoken today. However, a final assurance from the Dispatch Box is required to take the trick on this matter. If the Government repeat that they will make every effort to work consultatively and seek the consent of the devolved Administrations, I do not think that this is right amendment on which to divide the House on this issue or the right time to do it, so we would not support that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on the other hand, is moving ahead of the game, looking to future changes and asking how they would be introduced. She is right that these are big decisions that need to be thought through very carefully. If they are to be slipped through in some form of secondary legislation, they will not achieve the scrutiny and debate that they should. She makes some good points about that, and about the gap that will emerge if there is no primary legislation, let alone the need for consultation and discussion with those who have to implement the legislation once it is brought in. Although I discussed it with the noble Baroness prior to this evening’s debate, I suspect that this amendment has been picked up too late to be included in the Bill at this time. As she said, however, it would be good to hear the Minister set out his plans at the Dispatch Box. Again, if he does so, I would not be prepared to divide the House on this issue.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, I have once again listened carefully to the points made in the debate today. It is always particularly entertaining to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who has once again benefited us with his Brexit prejudices. I give some advice to the noble Lord: he just needs to accept that we had a referendum on this subject as well as a general election that was mainly devoted to it. He really needs to use his considerable talents in other areas and get on with his life. The issue is settled; we are leaving the European Union. I respect his ideas and opinions, but he lost. As a Conservative from the north-east, I know when I have lost an election, and there have been plenty of them in the past.

Regarding devolution, in my previous job I chaired the Joint Ministerial Committee with the devolved Administrations on ongoing EU business. I attended many meetings with both Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Of course, we did not always agree on the outcomes or the issues, but we certainly had a very good personal relationship. I listened to their concerns very closely, as indeed they listened to mine; as I said, we had a good working relationship.

I reiterate, first, that I welcome the shared consensus in this House to continuing the UK-wide approach to subsidy control and confirming this in law. While I am grateful for the time and the effort that has been devoted to scrutinising this provision as is right for your Lordships’ House—perhaps too much time and effort, but we are where we are—it is important to note that we have asked the other place, the elected Chamber, to think again on the relationship between subsidy control and common frameworks. It has been clear that subsidy control does not fall within the common frameworks programme, and that any undue delay is not something to be supported. I hope that noble Lords will be able to respect that decision. I recognise the concerns of the Welsh and Scottish Governments, but I reiterate that the noble Baroness’s amendment is not the best way forward. This amendment is inconsistent with the reservation clauses that both Houses have now agreed should remain in the Bill.

I also reiterate that state aid has always been reserved and, as such, has never been part of the common frameworks programme. This amendment seeks to reverse a decision which has already been made. We need to move forward on this issue as I have indicated, and this will be done through the forthcoming consultation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked me for an assurance that we will make every effort to get devolved Administrations’ support. Amendment 51B demonstrates that the Government are committed to maintaining a constructive, collaborative relationship with the devolved Administrations, as it is in all our interests to ensure that a new regime works for the whole of the United Kingdom. We hope that this amendment will enable us to discuss and resolve any such issues before the publication of any consultation response, and we will commit to listen very carefully to the devolved Administrations’ concerns.

We all agree that the UK Government and devolved Administrations should work constructively and co- operatively in this policy area. That is why, as I have said, the UK Government have set out an amendment that commits to consulting them. The amendment ensures that, before publishing any relevant report relating to the outcome of the UK subsidy control consultation, the Secretary of State will provide a draft of the proposed response to the devolved Administrations, inviting them to make representations. The Secretary of State will then consider any representations and determine whether to alter the report in light of that consideration. If after all that we decide to legislate, it will, of course, come to this House.

This process will ensure that the devolved Administrations’ voices are heard, but it avoids creating the unnecessary delays and confusion that a legislative requirement to try to agree a common framework would introduce. Potentially waiting 18 months for a UK-wide system to be agreed would create uncertainty for UK businesses and damage our efforts to promote the UK’s economic recovery. For these reasons, I respectfully suggest that the approach put forward in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is not appropriate at this time.

EU: Non-financial Services

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the single market. The Government have tabled proposals in a number of the areas that the noble Baroness referred to, and I have commented on the reasons for some of the current difficulties in making progress.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lord Whitty, what assessment have the Government made of the concerns raised by the chair of the DCMS Select Committee about the impact on any adequacy agreement on personal data if the mooted free trade agreement with the US includes Section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, in the interests of time, I will write, if I may, to the noble Lord with a detailed response on that point.

Covid-19: Debt Collection

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

My Lords, again, I hear what the noble Lord says. I find myself in the position of answering on behalf of a department that manages the group in relation to government debt. Obviously I will pass on to my colleagues in MHCLG the points that he and noble Lords are making. I repeat that they had announced last year that they would update guidance to councils on collection and enforcement.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of StepChange, the debt charity. I thank the Minister for his very full replies to these questions today. To follow up my noble friend Lord Wood’s question, recommendation 3 of this excellent report states:

“Council tax debt is the only form of civil debt for which people can be sent to prison in England.”


Will the Government consider repealing Regulation 47 of what he called the “Neanderthal” 1992 council tax regulations, as recommended?

[Lord True]

I fear that I referred to “Neanderthal” to mean the age-old days when I was young but, certainly, part of the call for evidence and part of the appropriate and proper management of debt would be reflection on experience since that time. I can only repeat that my colleagues in MHCLG have said that they will update their guidance to councils on collection and enforcement.

Covid-19: Economy

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Eatwell on securing this debate and delivering a masterful speech. I thank all those who have contributed. Two minutes is a ridiculously short time in which to express a fully rounded argument, but taken in the round we have covered a lot of ground and we anticipate a proper response from the Minister, perhaps backed up with letters if they are required.

My noble friend Lord Chandos said that it might be too early to draw lessons from this pandemic, but we already have a long list of issues that we need to address. Local government is starved of funds and responsibilities. Our NHS is brilliant, but not funded sustainability. Our social care system is neglected, fragmented and underfunded. The benefits system cannot cope when incomes drop unexpectedly, particularly for those in the gig economy or who are self-employed. Inequality is hard-wired into our society. In pursuit of a false goal of freedom from red tape, we have winnowed away the good regulatory base that is the foundation of all strong societies. Wages in our lower-income deciles are too low. We need to do something about the living wage. Our tax system is not fair. Productivity has stuck again and that is not capable of being resolved. Housing seems out of sync with needs, and we need to improve the treatment of those who face unmanageable personal debt. So we have a long list of starting points, not all of which we have covered in this debate, but which give us food for thought.

Yet ironically, as my noble friend Lord Darling reminded us, the crisis has also revealed the true power of the state. Joseph Stiglitz said recently:

“when we face a crisis like an epidemic or a hurricane, we turn to government, because we know that such events demand collective action”.

The urgency with which the Government have acted so far demonstrates how their response to an emergency can be swift, decisive and at scale—for example, the furlough scheme, which now supports nearly 9 million people—but more is required as we move to the recovery stage. This has led some, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, to suggest that an entirely new approach may be necessary, perhaps something as radical and far-seeing as the Beveridge report of the 1940s, with its call for a country to unite in the aftermath of war and to legislate for all to employ gainful employment, adequate housing, access to educational opportunity, free healthcare and an adequate income. The language used nearly 80 years ago may be archaic but Beveridge’s aims remain appropriate, albeit that today we would need to add a sixth aim: to provide a cleaner, more sustainable economy.

We are fast approaching the point where the focus of the Treasury’s efforts has to change from ameliorating supply shock to boosting demand. As the pandemic eases, and assuming we do not suffer a second or subsequent waves, how will we persuade people to spend more than they do at present on goods and services? To do that, people have to trust the Government and believe that they are not just winging it. They have to feel secure about their income and employment, and certain that spending on immediate necessities today is not going to tip them into unmanageable debt tomorrow. Consumer confidence is vital for the economy, as well as for its own sake. According to Which?, in normal circumstances consumers spend more than £110 billion per month, which is around 60% of total GDP. We do not want to turn this great pause into a great depression.

At heart it seems simple enough: the Government need to consult widely and come up with a comprehensive rescue plan to drive up demand and reduce business uncertainty for the long term—a strategy which focuses on sustainable, high-quality job creation and long-term growth significantly above recent trend levels. They also have to secure the confidence of consumers and avoid any hint of austerity, which can only make things worse.

There are important choices to be made here. For example, writing recently in the Times, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said:

“There must not be a short-term fix and then simply a return to normal. We need a vision for the psychological, emotional, social and financial consequences. We must see the hope of a new way of living together.”


The Countryside Alliance says that while we must support those communities and services worst impacted —several noble Lords highlighted the problems of the creative industries, the hospitality sector and tourism—we must ensure that no part of the UK is left behind, especially seaside and rural areas. One of the persistent failures of Governments so far is to deliver on plans to provide gigabit-capable broadband to rural businesses and residents by 2025, as promised in the last general election manifesto. Can the Minister confirm that that is still the Government’s aim?

Recent polling suggests that the public also want something else. They do not want the economy simply to return us to where we were pre-pandemic; they want a new deal, with growing support for a green new deal. Voices are growing on all sides for the Government’s economic recovery plan to reflect the UK’s climate goals. Earlier this week, almost 200 chief executives from companies including HSBC, National Grid and BP signed a letter to the Prime Minister which said that

“Efforts to rescue and repair the economy in response to the current crisis can and should be aligned with the UK’s legislated target of net zero emissions by 2050 at the latest.”


Can the Minister confirm that the recovery package is in planning and that it will look beyond shovel-ready projects and be focused on long-term investment in green industries to secure the recovery? Can we look forward to an army of workers planting trees, rewilding our countryside, insulating our existing housing stock and office buildings and working on green technologies? What about a scrappage scheme focused on switching private and public transport to electric vehicles? Such a package, taken together, could provide people—particularly in rural areas and those entering the labour force this year—with much-needed job security after this period of turmoil, and benefit everyone’s financial security through lower energy bills.

The current public investment in our economy is unprecedented, but does the Minister agree that such investments should be used to return benefit to the public good? Will we follow the lead given by other countries and ensure that any government support to private companies should be in the form of equity or grants? If it is equity, does he accept that there is a case for such support to be contingent on legally enforceable commitments for companies to reduce energy-intensive activity and achieve stretching zero-carbon targets?

Finally, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, the pandemic has exposed severe weaknesses in global production and trade. Countries are turning in on themselves, and we know that cannot be a good thing. Twelve years ago, major international efforts led by Gordon Brown stabilised international financial markets. Now we need a resilient, co-operative, international trading system, lest Britain becomes marooned alone in a hostile post-Brexit world.

Coronavirus has cruelly exposed global inequality, so different priorities for trade need to reflect a reoriented world. A sustainable trade policy could focus on securing opportunities for all sizes of businesses, human and employment rights, consumer interests and climate protection for the long term. How does the Minister see this playing out in the UK?

We need to use this opportunity to commission a Beveridge moment, and thinking on that should start soon, but we also need an immediate demand stimulus and a longer-term plan, under which the Government will work with all parts of society to secure the recovery based on a green new deal which shares the benefits of cleaner inputs and more sustainable outputs for the benefit of us all.

Income Equality and Sustainability

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I join with others in thanking the most reverend Primate for his service to the House and to the country. His excellent speech caps a career spent campaigning for greater equality in income, notably the living wage. His time has surely come. I declare an interest as a former chair of StepChange, a debt charity, and I would like to make two points.

First, we are seeing a welcome attempt by the Government to mitigate the supply shock being caused by Covid-19. Keeping sufficient liquidity in the economy to ensure that companies can survive and hold jobs open is crucial. But as the IPPR reported today, once the immediate crisis is over, the economy will be scarred and we will need a broad-based stimulus to drive up demand, reduce risk and support the creation of high quality jobs—particularly, as other noble Lords have said, for young people about to enter the job market. Can the Minister confirm that plans for this are under way?

Secondly, the figures show that the Government need most urgently to support the debt charities that are working with those who are suffering because of unmanageable debt. ONS figures show that 8.6 million people have experienced reduced income as a result of the coronavirus crisis, while Citizens Advice has reported that over 13 million people have already been unable to pay or expect to miss at least one bill, and there has been an 81% increase in the use of food banks.

The Government should lead by example by taking measures to reduce the impact on households which are falling behind on bills. These could include bringing forward the statutory breathing space, temporarily suspending the rule that people become liable for their full council tax bill if they miss one payment, temporarily halting all bailiff activity and agreeing with the proposal from Citizens Advice for better protection for renters.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

With apologies for the difficulty in hearing the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Janke.

Budget Statement

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very good debate, and the Library for its briefing, which was very informative and useful. As a result, this has been a very high-quality debate held against a fast-moving scenario. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, just mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Bates. He encouraged us to be optimistic about everything, so I will try to thread optimism in, although sometimes when I have been reading some of the detail, I have been rather depressed by it all.

My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe said that the timing of this debate is normally such that we reflect on the Budget and on the reaction to it. That is what has made this debate so interesting, as the many excellent contributions today have benefited from such a rich picture.

We have also benefited from having seen how the Government have responded in real time to the economic aspects of the coronavirus pandemic, and many contributions today focused on that. Indeed, the contributions of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Lords, Lord O’Neill, Lord Lamont and Lord Skidelsky, my noble friend Lord Adonis and several other noble Lords have broken new ground, which I hope the Minister will take back to his department and prosecute with some vigour.

The main challenge facing the Chancellor, on which I think he was largely successful, was how to make sense of the Conservative Party’s new clothes and, in particular, how the end of austerity U-turn was going to be achieved without destroying the Conservative Party’s alleged reputation for managing the public finances. What we got, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, reminded us was a reaffirmation of Keynesian economics. The Chancellor tried to persuade us that his party now has a large appetite for increasing public spending combined with far less appetite to raise taxes and a growth in public sector debt unseen in modern times. Timing is all, apparently. As the Resolution Foundation commented:

“The result is a Conservative Chancellor now planning a bigger state than was seen under Tony Blair, financed through higher borrowing than Gordon Brown ever saw as Chancellor”.


The Office for Budget Responsibility described it as the “largest sustained financial loosening” since 1992. So this new Conservative economic policy approach may be a third way in its imitation of some of the tropes of new Labour, but it is certainly not fiscally conservative. Time will tell, and there are enough uncertainties out there to blow even the best-laid plans off course but, as my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, said, we support much of what has been proposed.

As my noble friend Lord Livermore said, the most recent OBR forecasts were completed long before the widespread domestic impact of coronavirus was clear, but even so they make grim reading. The OECD forecast suggests that the UK economy will grow at 0.8% for the next two years, which will bring the UK’s annual growth outlook down to an average of just 1.2%, the worst average annual growth forecast on record. When he comes to respond, will the Minister comment on those figures?

This Budget reflects the Government’s goal to be seen to turn the corner on the austerity over the decade of the 2010s. Successive Chancellors have been increasing capital spending since 2016-17. Bringing austerity to a close on current spending is new, and very welcome, but the sober truth is that in less than five years the Government’s ambitions have gone from shrinking the state in order to run an absolute budget surplus to growing public spending to almost 41% of GDP and actively aiming to borrow around £60 billion each year. This is the new reality. The good news is that the spending review later this year will therefore be able to apportion day-to-day spending growing by an average of 2.8% a year, well above the rates of the past decade, but it is less than was promised in September last year by the previous Chancellor—4.1% was his figure—and is below the growth rates prevailing in most of the years after 2000, but it is an increase and we welcome it.

According to press reports, overall real-terms, day-to-day public spending per capita will return to 2009-10 levels by 2024-25. However, the figure is more nuanced. As we have heard from others, austerity will continue for many departments, with spending increases being sufficient only to reverse around a quarter of the real cuts per capita in the departments which have not been protected since 2010; that is, those other than health, defence and international development.

The real picture is that the Budget does almost nothing to offset the considerable welfare cuts put in place by George Osborne in 2015. As my noble friend Lady Lister and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester said, these factors mean that not only will the incomes of the poorest families fall over the next period, but there is a significant risk that, despite the extra spending, child poverty may reach record levels by the time of the 2024 election.

Perhaps the Chancellor did not have time in his speech, but he did not mention international competitiveness and how the Government intend to address the increasing productivity gap between UK workers and those in the largest EU economies. The announcement of £600 million for new infrastructure investment is good news, albeit that the figure represents only a small increase on the Government’s existing plans, while some of the money is a reversal of cuts in previous decades. Nevertheless, it will bring public investment up to around 3% of GDP, and we await further details. Can the Minister say when we will finally see the national infrastructure strategy?

The proposed changes to how the Treasury calculates the benefit of infrastructure projects may also benefit lagging regions rather than focusing solely on public projects that are most likely to generate higher returns, which tend to favour those in London. It is hoped that the new proposals will place more weight on projects across the country. But there is no easy fix when it comes to reviving the regions that are lagging. New money for infrastructure projects will go only so far given that renewal also requires investment in better skills, support for business and knowledge networks, strong local public services and local government. When will we see those proposals?

The Chancellor announced an increase in public spending on research and development, more than doubling the current budget. This is good, but the Budget was quieter about using innovation to tackle other societal problems such as adapting to an ageing society and research around the creative industries, perhaps building on the Creative Industries Clusters programme. Can the Minister confirm that there is more to do in these areas?

Small businesses took centre stage as part of the Chancellor’s £30 billion Budget package to deal with the coronavirus outbreak. Increasing resilience in SMEs is crucial to help them overcome major economic shocks and requires bold and decisive action. As research shows, the uncertainty caused by Brexit and the global financial crisis is deeply harmful to UK SMEs. While on paper the Chancellor’s new lending measures seem appropriate in scale, they are very supply-side focused and assume that there will be uptake and demand from SMEs but, as we know from the global financial crisis, uncertainty typically leads to reduced demand. Given that, what about doing more? If these measures prove insufficient, do the Government have other plans such as a reduction in VAT for SMEs? As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, suggested, what about speeding up payments to SMEs and giving more powers to the Small Business Commissioner?

I turn now to the coronavirus announcement. A number of noble Lords have said that we have to work together as a country to overcome this threat, so we on this side make it clear that we pay tribute to the work of experts in the NHS and to the Government for their work so far, and we join the Chancellor in saying that we should do what needs to be done to get this sorted. However, as several noble Lords have argued, if we are facing an unprecedented demand and supply shortage shock, are we doing enough? People are being laid off today and thus losing their incomes. Gig economy workers and the self-employed are not getting the support they require. The general sense of today’s debate is that something along the lines of the people’s quantitative easing proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, may be required to ensure that the economy itself is not damaged beyond repair.

I was struck by the suggestion made earlier in the debate by the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and picked up by others that we may lack more of a moral dimension to some of the issues we face. One concern mentioned in the other place was the impact that all this will have on the charitable sector, which faces a bleak future if funding dries up. Have we thought through how we would function as a society if the third sector were not able to function after the end of the crisis? Let us take the recommendation to practise social exclusion. Why is the language being used so vague that those affected—hotels, restaurants, pubs, theatres, galleries and arts organisations—are not eligible to claim on the insurance cover that they have paid for?

As a result, as we have heard, premises are closing, jobs are being lost and the very fabric of our society is being destroyed before our eyes. It is morally reprehensible, but it is also economically illiterate. Take the early announcement to safeguard mortgage payers; no parallel announcement has emerged about those who rent. Housing is vital to survival, whichever choice of tenure you take. Surely, that is morally reprehensible as well as economically illiterate. Chasing loans for SMEs, which will be hard and slow to administer, may also encourage bad effects in a nation which already suffers from a personal debt problem. Is that fair or moral?

I could go on, but I will make just one further point, as made earlier in the debate, about the school closures which we now know are happening. I gather that the Minister has some expertise on this issue. Can he ensure that the wide impacts of this change—particularly as grandparents are apparently being asked not to help out with childcare—are taken properly into account? Free school meals have already been mentioned, but this is also about careers and future employment for older cohorts, as much as it is about learning social skills and growing up in our society for younger cohorts. How will that all be dealt with and by whom? Will it be sustainable and fair to all concerned? This has been a very interesting and somewhat inspiring debate, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Breathing Space Scheme: Consultation Response

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my previous interest as a former chair of StepChange, the debt charity. I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement, and I am very happy to hear what he had to say. I have campaigned for both these changes in policy for a number of years, and it is astonishing to hear them being announced today. What on earth will I do with my time?

The Minister will recall the discussions we had during the passage of the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill when he was the co-pilot, as he described it. We worked closely with the Government to try to get a breathing space scheme into scope. We did not succeed then, and the worry was that although these two measures were in the Conservative Party manifesto, they might, like so many other good and necessary policies in recent years, fall under the Brexit behemoth, but here we are. I welcome the excellent progress made on this issue.

I was interested to hear that the Minister making the announcement in the other place revealed that this is an issue close to his heart. I think everyone who has seen at first hand the hardship that problem debt can cause realises that it places a heavy burden on households and can lead to family breakdown, stress and mental health issues. It was good to hear the Government accept that it is wrong to assume that overindebtedness is simply a product of feckless people taking out too much credit. Many hard-working families struggle to meet essential bills and can end up owing money to multiple creditors in the public and private sectors. My experience in StepChange was that the majority of the 500,000 or so people who contacted the charity each year had successfully managed their finances for many years before illness or another unexpected factor tipped them into unmanageable debt, which they desperately wanted to repay.

With this announcement today, the Government have taken a significant step which will do a huge amount to encourage people to seek the free professional advice they need timeously when problem debt occurs. The combination of the breathing space and the statutory debt recovery scheme will support those who have the capacity to repay their debts but lack the knowledge and expertise to deal with their multiple creditors. It will allow them to do so in a way that will repay much more to creditors and in a shorter time. This system has worked for many years in Scotland, and it is good to see that pioneering approach being extended to England and Wales, and hopefully to Northern Ireland in due course.

The detail of the government response has only just gone up on the website and there is a lot to take in, but I would like to make a few points. I worry that the breathing space period of 60 days may not be long enough in practice, and I am sure that this will be something we will need to come back to, but I think the best thing is to begin with that length and review it in the light of experience. It is good that the protections include the freezing of further default interest, charges and enforcement action once somebody has taken the first step of seeking debt advice. We are delighted that government debt will be included in both schemes. In particular, this should give some protection to many people against the rather aggressive action that is sometimes taken by bailiffs collecting council tax arrears.

The introduction of a special version of the breathing space for people experiencing a mental health crisis is most welcome. It is good that there is not going to be a public register, with all that that might bring in terms of unsolicited approaches to those on it from unscrupulous third parties. I think the Government have taken the right decision about a private register. We are sad that we will not see the breathing space scheme until 2020 and will not see the statutory debt management recovery scheme until 2021 or later, but I hope that HMT will do what it can to expedite both schemes. We certainly stand ready to help if that is required.

I have some reservations about the suggested level of the statutory fair share element in the SDRP. The current scheme agreed with large creditors is much higher than the 9% suggested in the Treasury’s response. However, I am aware that there is a broader discussion on comprehensive debt advice funding being worked on by the new Money and Pensions Service.

I will conclude by discussing two other issues. Unmanageable personal debt is a by-product of many factors, but most are linked to the health of the economy. Lack of affordable credit, slow wage growth, growth in zero-hours contracts and changes brought in by the gig economy all play a part. In addition, it is incontestable that the introduction of universal credit is causing strain and stress here. While this new policy is welcome—and it is—other issues need to be addressed. Does the Minister agree?

Finally, while it is true that the Government have acted to correct abuses in the consumer credit market, high-interest loans are still being made to people who cannot afford to repay them. Banks are not averse to making punitive charges for temporary overdrafts. Guarantor loans are a current concern, and it is a matter of considerable regret that the Government have not taken action to outlaw logbook loans. In relation to the latter, will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss how we might progress the Law Commission draft Bill on goods mortgages, which would inter alia have the effect of repealing the Victorian legislation that gives rise to these bans?

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches very much welcome the introduction of the breathing space and the statutory debt repayment schemes, although we do have a few questions about execution.

To debtors, this reform may seem to have been quite a long time coming: I can recall discussions in Parliament in 2015, as well as outside long before that. The proposal was, of course, included in the Conservative Party’s 2017 manifesto. Many people and organisations have played a part in getting us to this stage. I particularly want to mention StepChange and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. The critical point in getting the Government to do something arose during the passage through this House of what is now the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018. The amendment to the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about breathing space now appears as Section 6 of the Act. This section encouraged and enabled the Government to do what they have announced today.

Turning to the schemes themselves, we are pleased that the Government have in most cases followed the advice they were given in the consultation—which seemed to be a model of its kind, unlike some of the other consultations that the Minister and I have had to discuss in this Chamber. We believe that the eligibility criteria for the breathing space scheme are broadly right, although we have doubts about the restriction to only once in 12 months. We encourage the Government to think again about this and—as they say they are minded to—to include provision for joint debts to qualify for inclusion in the scheme.

We are also happy to see that local and central government debts are to be included in the new scheme and very pleased to see the inclusion of small sole-trader debts, which we think is a vital element. We especially welcome the unlimited extension and repeated entry to the scheme for those in mental health crisis.

The Government’s very helpful consultation and policy response paper does qualify the inclusion of universal credit advances and third-party deductions from universal credit. The document is very vague about the timing of their eventual inclusion. I ask the Minister to give the House a little more detail and encourage him to speed up the process of including these two elements.

When it comes to which ongoing bills should be paid during the breathing space, I think that the Government have it about right in giving debt advice agencies the discretion over whether to remove people who do not keep up specified ongoing payments from the scheme.

Debt and debt repayment continue to be severe problems for millions of people in this country. As the Minister noted, the Money and Pensions Service has estimated that around 9 million people are overburdened with debt. We also now know that real incomes have started to fall again.

The Government’s proposals are a significant step forward in addressing problem debt, and we welcome them. However, we are disappointed with the timetable for the introduction of these measures. Early 2021 seems a very long way off—probably an intolerably long way off if you have unmanageable debt. All the Government’s proposed measures can be introduced by SI. Parliament is not currently overpressed with business. Why can we not use some of that time to bring forward the implementation date?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I have probably mistimed this but the Minister, who is well known for his quickness on his feet in debate and for his ability to spin out of absolutely nothing a brilliant joke, may have slightly overstepped himself. When he tried to pay tribute to the work done on the Bill, he got himself to the point where he could use the wonderful phrase, “Young and Freud did it”. In fact, it was the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who took the Bill through this House, with his great co-piloting. The dual team was indeed a dream team and we had a great time. The noble Baroness also got the issue that we are trying to get very well. She did a lot of work behind the scenes and I pay tribute to that.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. There are so many Bills going through the House on which my services are sometimes required that I may have muddled them up. My noble friend Lady Buscombe is not a great philosopher, unlike my noble friend Lord Freud. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for putting the record straight and pay tribute to the work that my noble friend did. I know that she worked extremely hard to get consent and was as generous as she could be—within the constraints, as he will understand—in bending government policy to accept opposition amendments.

Public Procurement and the Civil Society Strategy

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, like others, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, for securing this debate and I also thank her for her excellent overview of the case that she made for increasing the social value of public procurement.

There are not many of us here today. I suspect that the timing of the slot has not maximised the attendance. But I hope that lots of people will read this debate, because we have had excellent contributions from around the House, largely in support of the proposition in the Motion and drawing on experiences which, together, have woven a very convincing argument that I am sure will reach out beyond the very small number of people who have been able to attend today.

The general impression is that this issue, having been around for a few years, is now reaching the point where it needs more action and more support. I do not think that there would be very much concern if the Government decided that they wanted to put a motor under it. They should take comfort from the fact that, although there was a bit of a bad smell about this whole area after the big society—which did not really take off and never really seemed to resolve anything in one direction or another—out of it have come other good ideas and good issues that are worthy of consideration.

It is very interesting to read in the wider papers that other people are beginning to talk this up. For instance, there was a piece in the papers this week in which Andy Haldane, the chief economist of the Bank of England, was interviewed. He talked specifically about the need for civil society, which he thinks will be crucial in the technological age, and the need to rebuild it. If that is the level and range of the debate, and if we add in the fact that there is not much party difference on this—I think we can all support it, whichever part of the political spectrum we come from—there is an opportunity to do something.

Having said that, we have to ask ourselves some of the questions that have already been raised. Why has there not been growth in the quantum of activity in the public realm delivered by social enterprise? I remember being involved and interested in this towards the end of the last Labour Government and being very confused about why, with all the public support, political support and, eventually, legal support in terms of an Act, there had not been the lift-off that one would have expected.

Why has the activity been so patchy across the whole country—not just in relation to government involvement but in other areas, particularly the NHS? Some bits are good but others are not doing it. Why is that? In addition, what is the best legal form that will be required to help it to develop? The report produced by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, talked about vertical and horizontal increases in terms of the bite of this policy, but no answer was given as to how one might do that.

Others have picked up the important question of why we are not seeing linkages between this initiative and, as we mentioned, many of the other areas in which similar activity, thinking and developments are taking place, with particular reference to the public sector enterprise duty, which is something that I want to come back to. Whether or not we leave the EU at the end of the day, or whatever circumstances we find ourselves in, the point made by my noble friend Lord Haskel about the need to make sure that we protect ourselves and do what is right for the UK against external pressures is something that we need to return to.

The current legal framework, found in the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, although not implemented until 2013, requires commissioners to consider securing economic, social or environmental benefits when buying services which come in above the OJEU threshold. As was pointed out by most people, that is a rather weak formulation, and it may well be that it is the major issue that needs to be addressed. However, it poses quite a big dilemma for those who want to make policy in this area.

The social value Act is firmly rooted in best-value commissioning, yoked therefore to a requirement best expressed in pure monetary values. However, in truth, as we have heard, it is best considered as a tool to promote a much wider uptake of a particular approach to commissioning for best value—that is, social capital. At its most useful, the Act provides a way to think about public services in a more coherent way that plays into the redesign of those services for the benefit of users—what I think the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, called the outcomes. However, the tension between the two outcomes specified in the Act is at the root of the problem, and I very much hope that the consultation that is going on will, if not resolve it directly, at least recognise the dilemma and bring forward ideas.

I have already mentioned the review of the original Act carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, and it is important to have that in our mind as we go forward. He found that where the Act had been taken up, it had had a positive effect, encouraging a more holistic approach to commissioning, which he felt was of value. The Act has made commissioners think about securing value through procurement in innovative ways. Some people are concerned that we have lost innovation, but he found it there, as well as significant cost savings and a more responsive way of delivering better services. But he pointed out a number of concerns that are still relevant and part of the debate.

The incorporation of social values into actual procurement appears to be very low compared with the number and value of procurements across the whole public sector; we have heard figures today from many speakers. Many respondents showed a lack of understanding of how to apply the Act, and that had led to inconsistent practice, making it difficult to evaluate this. The noble Lord felt that commissioners needed to be better able to measure and quantify the social outcomes we are seeking to embed in the procurement process. This comes up time and again and I am sure the Minister will want to address it in his response. So the Act is delivering positive benefits where it is operating well, but awareness, understanding and measurement are the main problems.

The consultation was launched in 2018 and we have a chance to see whether this can be brought forward. I understand that it is due to finish in early June 2019. The Minister is an expert at ducking questions of timing on this; I am sure he will say that the results will be out “soon” or “shortly”—I await a variation on that if there is one. We need this. As I have tried to hint, there is a bit of space here which could be filled if the Government were to come forward with some really heavy proposals; a lot more progress could be made.

As we have heard, the framework within which this has been discussed is a cross-governmental framework for social value with common policy themes, outcomes and metrics; that answers the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about the difficulty in getting on with this if we do not know what we are trying to measure. I agree with those who have said that the minimum 10% social value weighting should be higher. There is a need for training and development for buyers working across central government procurement teams, and this will be brought out by having champions and those who might lead both centrally and locally.

There are questions arising from the consultation, which I am sure the Minister will respond to. How do we get the law better suited to the aspirations? Suggestions have been made today about extending it so that all public bodies have to do this, and to make sure that it covers all aspects of procurement: goods, services and works. If we add in the comments made on equality, not talking about major construction contracts looks like a strange decision.

Social value is not always a strategic priority; it is sometimes considered as something for procurement teams only, so opportunities are being missed. We have to make sure that those who implement this recognise that social value is about finding ways of using public money to support the well-being of all our citizens. If it is to be successful, measurement and reporting will have to be systematised within a national framework. However, with a national framework would come a concern that we would lose innovation—the chance to do things in a different way. Perhaps the mutuals that the noble Lord, Lord Maude, spoke about would find it difficult to chance their arms on an area that was not in the national framework. We should be careful about national frameworks if they suppress the sorts of things that we want to talk about.

The Government have been quite innovative in some of these areas. We should not forget the work on GDP, or on happiness as a substitute for GDP as a measure of the success of the economy. This work is bringing issues such as social value into the forefront of consultation and debate. So why do we not try to build on that? There is also a suggestion, which has some merit, about a “social value budget” based on social values generated by all departments affected by this, in the same way as for the green budget. That would be a way to get more discussion and debate going across the country.

I conclude by suggesting a number of questions to which the Government should respond. How will they make Whitehall the leading adopter of social value? Many people have spoken of the need to root out the differences between the various departments and the different approaches being taken. Obviously that is an ongoing and much wider debate. But the Cabinet Office is in a good position to do it. What is the trick that will make this work?

Can we come up with a proper definition of social value? In its broadest sense, it is about added value that creates jobs or uses more environmentally sustainable products, but what is the nature of the metric that we are talking about here? How will we ensure that we have a framework that will not prevent people being innovative? That is a point that I have already made. Will the Government lead on this, or will some other body be created that has responsibility? Will some sort of non-departmental body take this on? The system of government that we use will be important. Whatever is in place, it must be rigorous, and lead to comparable and transparent outcomes.

The Government might want to think about the difference between the social value Act and the requirements of the public sector equality duty because of the difference between “consideration” and being made “accountable”. If people have only to consider social value, they will not have the same approach as if they have to account for what they do in social-value terms. That is a very important point.

I was struck by the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about the difficulties faced by SMEs. I endorse her view that this would be a great opportunity to try to resolve the bugbear about payment ratios to SMEs. She did not mention, but might want to look at, our argument in recent months for the need to give more powers to the Small Business Commissioner. If that person had more responsibility for making sure that prompt payment codes were implemented, they could also have a role to play on social value. That is a possible way forward. The post already exists and we would like it to take on these extra powers.

During a political hiatus such as that we are currently in, it is often the case that things that have clear political support all around can make progress. As I have hinted before, we would certainly like to get something done on this to make sure it works. I wish the Government well if they want to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My understanding is that it is advisory, because it was not included in the mandated list I just read out. If I am wrong I will write to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord asked why the strategy guidance has not been issued and whether we will produce a quick guide on it. We actually published guidance on how to work with central government, including social value, working with the VCSE Crown representative Claire Dove. The DCMS and the Cabinet Office are working with the advisory panel to understand the needs of the sectors and to prepare for the changes to social value. We will work with the sector representative bodies to produce the guidance the noble Lord just asked for.

The noble Lord asked for an annual report on social value procurement. Again, in his announcement in June last year the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster included a requirement for central government departments to report on social value.

I was asked why large government contracts are out of scope for social value procurement. The answer is that the balanced scorecard is already in place to cover procurement of over £10 million. That already covers socioeconomic factors. The new social value framework covers everything below £10 million and above the Public Contracts Regulations threshold.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

On that point, use of large construction contracts was particularly mentioned. Could the noble Lord take that back and consider it further? The point is not so much the value of the goods and services concerned, but the point made by the Equality and Human Rights Commission—that the impact on employment and the way it is inclusive of a diversity of employees and on apprenticeships and training is so great that the sheer numeric value cut-off was limiting the effect of the social value Act. Would he consider that again?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I will reflect on that. I understand exactly the point that the noble Lord makes and that there would be value in extending it upwards. Perhaps I will write to him when I have taken advice on that.

We would be very happy to discuss the network of social value champions with partners in the sector.

One of the main themes emerging from the debate has been the need for the Government to encourage as wide a range of suppliers as possible to deliver the objectives we have been discussing. We remain fully committed to supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, and indeed helping the mutuals that my noble friend referred to. Our work with sector bodies and individual companies through the Crown representative network will continue, unlocking more opportunities for smaller businesses and those owned by underrepresented groups, as well as mutuals and charities.

Initiatives around prompt payment, simpler bidding processes, better visibility of opportunities in the supply chain and the Public Procurement Review Service have all been established to stimulate SMEs and VCSE organisations as the lifeblood of the economy. Our approach underpins this. I understand the point made by my noble friend Lady Finn and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about prompt payment. I believe prompt payment is a condition of any public sector contract. If a contractor does not promptly pay he runs the risk of being removed from the list of approved contractors. I was interested in the noble Lord’s suggestion that the Small Business Commissioner might have his energies harnessed in this area. I will certainly reflect on that.

With the Crown representative for VCSEs we are producing supporting guidance for smaller organisations bidding as part of consortia, and have helped buyers to better understand how they can level the playing field for SMEs and VCSEs in our introductory guidance on the social value Act. In line with best practice in policy-making, we are piloting the outline framework to see how it will be applied in practice and to help formulate the guidance on evaluating bids fairly and consistently. Two of these pilots are for major national contracts and one is a national framework agreement. Let me be clear that, in doing so, the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring it does not add complexity or cost to the procurement process. We do not want to restrict markets or exclude small businesses and voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations from government contracts.

It is always the misfortune of the Opposition spokesman to have the answers to his questions arrive right at the end of a debate. I am afraid that misfortune has fallen once again on the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I will convert the handwritten notes I have in front of me into something legible and typed up and write to the noble Lord to deal with the issues he raised about instilling social value procurement, what steps we are taking to create a standard definition, how this will link to the public sector equality duty, which is an important point that he raised, and how we will make Whitehall a leading partner in social procurement.

We want to see more good practice and to accelerate the opportunities available for the UK’s small businesses and VCSEs. In the words of I think my noble friend Lady Finn, we want to put social values at the heart of service delivery. This new approach is the next step in our journey of transforming how the Government are delivering smarter, more thoughtful and effective public services. We will utilise our huge purchasing power to deliver on our promise of a fairer society that works for everyone.