King’s Speech
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, whose views I have listened to over the last nine years with great care and whose views today I totally agree with. For the past nine years, I have been able to make speeches in the House only when somebody has not turned up or no one has wanted to do it at 7 pm on a Thursday. It is good to speak again, and to regain my freedom.
My overriding interest, particularly as I have been going around the doorsteps over the last couple of months, is to think through what we have to do to counter populism and Reform in this country. The sorry tale of static living standards, low growth and poor productivity in our national economy is one of the compounding factors that has contributed to the problems we now have in the national scene. It must be the objective of the Government to get more growth, and they must succeed.
The Government have to focus on growth. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, in a very strong speech today, about how our national defence security needs to be funded. We need to pay for an ageing population and a proper system of social care. We need to recover and reverse the decline in services and infrastructure, which low growth has imposed on us, and we have to find a successful response to climate change.
A lot of policy areas have been covered today, but I would like to concentrate on just three that are important to the growth objective in the long term, medium term and short term. In the long term, the Government’s industrial strategy and the various other reports that they have done are key. It requires commitment, energy and determination to see these documents implemented. Above all, it needs, if possible, the continuity of Ministers completely committed to them to make our products and our services more competitive.
I would like to draw attention to one aspect that I think needs particular attention. We are a great nation of innovators and entrepreneurs. We have world-class innovation, but it too often fails to capture the economic returns from this work. Before scale is reached, our ideas are often traded on and taken overseas. I welcome last year’s report, Bleeding to Death: the Science and Technology Growth Emergency, by the Science and Technology Committee, and indeed the Government’s response to it. Our world-class universities have to be a major source of this potential, and our world-class capital markets need to be responsive to the needs of high-growth technical companies. Government also needs to be sensitive and supportive—and, frankly, we need cross-party support for these long-term policies to be enacted.
My own area of Hampshire, with its wonderful universities, its medical schools and its Farnborough air facilities and research, has the potential to repeat what it was in the 1930s, with its aeronautical industries, before the German bombers dissipated it. We have almost achieved our local government reorganisation, but now we need to get on with the appointment of the new councils and a mayoral election, which the Government have postponed to 2028 in their latest pronouncements. For goodness’ sake, let us get on and do it at the same time as the new council structures are introduced or voted on next year.
The medium-term objective I want to talk about is our re-engagement with Europe. I am not sure what the government legislation will achieve, but I am obviously supportive of it. Brexit was a tragedy as far I am concerned, and as far as the country is concerned. I have yet to hear today people talking about the benefits we have got from it. Some 30% of the country are still against it, so we should not underestimate the difficulties of re-engaging and taking public opinion with us. One of the results of our debate today, as we heard from noble Lords, Lord Lilley, Lord Redwood, Lord Jackson and Lord Frost, is that we need independent assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of these benefits. We are going to have constant going backwards and forwards. I know where I stand and Iu agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, said. My party, and others, advocate prioritising going into the customs union, because it is possibly the easiest thing to do politically. However, in my view, the benefits of the single market are greater and, if there is political pain, we might just as well go for that, rather than the customs union on its own. Setting that objective might also make it easier for us not to be seen by Europe as trying to cherry-pick.
Finally, I turn to the short term, and I declare my interests in land and housing. It has not yet been revealed, but the information that seems to be coming from the housing sector on housing starts in the first quarter of this year is pretty serious. The problem is going to get worse with the rise of interest rates, if the Iran war continues, and we will then be in an emergency situation for all those who have been trying to restore the housing sector and provide the houses that young people want. A number of housebuilders are already beginning to bail out of buying land. There is some indication that some could collapse, and we need the Government to look at this very carefully. Social housing could be used in downturns in the construction industry, and at the moment the housing sector is blaming construction costs and lack of viability, and it is cautious about development. The Government may have to intervene, and I hope they will use this opportunity to offer to buy private unsold stock to sustain the industry, which otherwise could be a major setback but will now provide an opportunity to expand the amount of social housing in this country.
I commend to the Government three areas of priority: turning innovation and entrepreneurship into scale, restoring our rightful role in Europe, and acting promptly in the housing sector to avoid calamity and job losses in construction. They cannot afford to delay or bluster; they must act decisively.
The UK’s Demographic Future
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts(6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I wanted to participate in this debate, obviously because of the valedictory speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, but also because it is a very important debate. I thank him for it. As everybody has said, he has been a respected Member of the House and a great servant of it for the past 25 years. He represents all that is best in this House, and we shall miss him.
For part of the 14 years that I have been in the House, I shared accommodation with the noble Lord over in Fielden House. We did not share the office but were in the same area, and we often walked over for votes here. We talked about the merits and demerits of Brexit, three general election campaigns, the prospects for the coalition, and endless battlefield tours that we were going on or had been on.
I have always respected the campaigns that the noble Lord has so bravely led in this House at times. We have mentioned the Albert Hall, but I also remember the Holocaust memorial debate, in which I admired his bravery and his interventions. I could not quite believe that he was going to retire when I talked to him earlier this week. He has always seemed so youthful and energetic, and the only consolation is, as others have said, that we will have the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, continuing here, which will provide a vital link with him. We shall miss his contributions, his courage and his tenacity on issues dear to his heart, such as this one today. I am sure we wish him a very happy and long fourth age outside the House.
I have read the report in total and I thought it was fair, timely and provocative. It has encouraged debate, as we have seen today, and it is an example of the noble Lord’s persistence on an issue that troubles him. I congratulate him on it. The only criticism I have, which is what I am going to talk about today, is that although it mentions Denmark, Japan and Holland, I think it lacks an international, global perspective. The pressure of immigration is from outside. It is not just the demand from inside; it is the pressure from outside. We now live in an age that, sadly, reminds me of the 1930s. The only consolation of the 1930s was that, although it ended in a war, it led to a generation of international co-operation in trying to address some of the problems that the 1930s were dealing with.
Today, we have not mass unemployment but mass insecurity. Due to the huge pace of change, we have international competition and the breakdown of traditional jobs and occupations. We have absolutely stagnant productivity and living standards. We have nationalism, or at least “nation first” has revived itself despite all the efforts after the war to generate international work, provide co-operation and stop the rise of nationalism. We face the situation in this country of an ageing population; there is going to be huge pressure on public spending and the need for care provision on an unimaginable scale as we go forward. Actually, I have to say that I think war in Europe seems closer than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis. Inevitably in that circumstance, immigration and population growth are very high on the agenda. It is not surprising.
It is a key issue of public concern, largely, I think, because people think immigration is out of control, and I have to say that over the last few years it has been, extraordinarily so. I know we have had the problems of Ukraine and Hong Kong, but clearly the numbers show how out of control it has been, and the result is that some of the benefits of immigration are now being challenged. I accept that short-term fixes may be the order of the day, but I agree with the report that it is the long-term trends that need attention.
Whenever we talk about immigration, we must recognise that there have been benefits. The open economy, the dynamic energy that it has given us, the commitment to education and enterprise of people coming here for education have been important to our culture and our community. We have only to see the schools in our immigrant areas of London and elsewhere, where aspiration and commitment to education have actually strengthened. The last generation of my family was half-Dutch. The next generation will be half-Indian and half-Singapore Chinese. That has given our family huge perspective and dynamism. Whenever we talk about these issues, we should not forget the commitment and the contribution that immigrants have made to our nation and still do. We should not underestimate that, nor play it down.
Obviously, the country wants to see immigration under control. People do not like lack of control, and that is what they see—the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, made this point in his speech. The principal problem at the moment is that people think that immigration is out of control. We know that boat migration is not the sole problem of immigration, but at the moment it is defying control and it seems unfair to a fair-minded country that people are trying to jump the queue. It is only one small part of the problem, but it attracts attention and focus and we need to stop it. The Government have been trying to do that and I support their efforts in doing it, but it will not be the sole issue going forward.
On the problem with the boats, I have to ask whether Brexit has made it harder. I think it has, because the French are not wholeheartedly behind us and they do not have the pressure of the EU to bring them into line, as they would if we were a member of the EU. We cannot tackle the gangs because we are outside Europol and do not have the intelligence, and “Take back control” has proved to be a complete illusion. In reality, immigration cannot be solved by one country. Sovereignty is not actually very powerful when dealing with the issue, because all the pressure is coming from outside and, unless Europe can address the numbers coming across the Mediterranean, it will not be easy to stop the numbers coming across the channel.
Immigration is an international problem. If we do not accept that or have an international perspective in dealing with it, we are missing a trick. Are we assessing, for example, the cutbacks that we and the USA are now making to overseas aid on birth control in Africa? That will be a key issue. It is suffering huge cutbacks and women are unable to get the help that would be available from overseas aid programmes, so we are worsening the problem and the pressure of immigration. Some think that we should pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights. I accept that it will be difficult to get consensus on reform. There is international recognition that it needs redrafting, but withdrawal from such international engagement will simply make the problem worse.
In finishing, I will mention one final aspect of immigration. We have not had much discussion of students and the dependence of our university sector on overseas students. In my view, students are not the problem because their time here is transitory, but the report makes the excellent point that the problem is that they move on to work visas and become settled, which contributes to permanent migration. We should separate out the student figures when talking about the total numbers of net migration. There are huge benefits for our university sector in having these overseas students—we know about soft power—but we need to deal with people staying on simply because we need their skills and our own people have not been trained to fill them.
I welcome this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his service and contribution, and I send him every good wish for the future.
Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, on the ongoing investigations, I understand that appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that any work being undertaken by the independent adviser continues and is completed. Obviously, one regrets the resignation of anybody who has given such distinguished public service as the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, but I do not agree with the noble Baroness’s interpretation of it.
On her question about what will happen now, the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, raised a number of issues about the role of the independent adviser, as indeed did PACAC in its session earlier this week. As was said this morning, it is right to consider those carefully and take time to reflect on them before moving forward. However, this role has been important in public life.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
If a friend of the Minister’s approached him for advice on applying for the job of the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, what advice would he give him or her?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it would depend on who the person was and whether they were qualified to perform the important role of an independent adviser.
Houses of Parliament: Co-location
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for introducing this debate.
We should remind ourselves that the Michael Gove initiative to relocate the House of Lords from London was launched on the weekend of 14 and 15 May for the Sunday papers, 10 days after the local elections. I am not sure whether he planned it as a wedge issue to inflame his opponents and firm up his supporters or whether it was a dead cat strategy to divert attention from the disastrous opinion polls and election results which were threatening the Prime Minister. It is this sort of cavalier and short-term approach to public policy which diminishes politicians and politics, and it is surprising that Gove so diminished his reputation for competence and delivery as a Minister. I cannot see the Governments of Callaghan, Thatcher, John Major or Theresa May behaving in this way. I think even the more publicity conscious Governments of Blair, Brown and Cameron would have been circumspect on such a blatant scam. In any event, it is not the Government’s decision as to where we go; it should be Parliament’s.
I have a couple of specific questions for the Minister in addition to the four he has had from the noble Lord, Lord Norton. First, was he or the Leader of the House consulted before Michael Gove sent the letter? To find out a little more about how this Government operate, did he give advice and make representations on our behalf? Did anybody work out the cost of this initiative and whether it could possibly provide value for money, given the already huge cost of R&R? As a personal issue, perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he has worked out how he will undertake his current duties as a Minister while scampering up the railway lines to Birmingham, Sheffield, York or wherever it is to be, at our behest.
I find it slightly ironic that those who were telling us a few years ago about the huge extravagance and duplication of housing the European Parliament in two places are now very keen for Parliament to meet in two locations. Of course, I buy all the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, expressed and can only say briefly to him and the House, looking at the week I have had, how important those social connections across both Houses are. In fact, I would argue that. even now, the connections are not as strong as they should be; we are operating in two silos. I have been involved with our parliamentary team in the other House this week; I have attended meetings with our MPs and the Chief Whip. I know that my Back-Benchers and Front-Benchers have been in meetings with Ministers throughout the week, and in the coming weeks, I am sure that lots of meetings on the Schools Bill, for example, will have to be had at a very high level, and not just by the Minister in the House of Lords. These contacts and the APPGs are very important in bringing in public opinion and lobbying us, and it would be weakened by being in two locations.
One lesson that came out of Covid, despite all the arguments of those who want to hold on to some of the reforms that we achieved during Covid—which I do, was that what we missed most was social contact between us. Politics is about social contact; it is about gossip and the conversations that take place in the corridors and dining rooms, in our meetings, Select Committee work and so on, and with our colleagues in the other place through the various Joint Committees —of which there should be more—of the two Houses.
Having said that I agree fundamentally with the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and there is no point repeating the arguments made by him, I want to comment on three issues which I think underlie this debate and the proposal that Michael Gove made. On levelling up, gimmicks and PR stunts just do not wash. At the moment, we have a daily publicity stunt from the Government, which I am afraid shows their weakness. Until we have a Secretary of State with the energy, enthusiasm and determination of a Michael Heseltine, the levelling-up strategy will not work. It needs a genuine partnership between central government, business, local government, universities and across all government departments. It needs such a dynamic figure to bring it together.
On R&R, we need to get on with it. If a very long gestation period is required to improve implementation, so be it, but we need to vacate this building. It must not be seen as an initiative simply for our benefit; that is, improving our accommodation. It is to protect our heritage and the safety of the building but, most important, it should be about opening up Parliament and encouraging access and ownership for the public, just like the Germans have done in their parliament in Berlin.
We should stop denigrating this institution of the House of Lords without coming up with genuine plans to reform and improve it, however difficult that will be. I am in favour of reform, obviously, but I must accept that gradual reform seems to be the most likely way forward, and we should increase awareness about that. We have to tackle four issues which I do not think are fundamental but which we have been discussing for years: reducing our size, breaking the link with the honours system, introducing a retirement age and ending the hereditary by-elections. That would be a start, and then we could have a longer-term look at how we make this House more representative of the states and the regions. Sadly, the Michael Gove publicity initiative simply will not do.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am coming on to consultation, as I indicated I would. I will make every effort to get to that and I will get there, because I acknowledge that I was asked that.
I was asked about York specifically. As your Lordships will be aware, there are already civil servants based there through the Places for Growth programme. This is part of levelling up. The Cabinet Office continues to support the relocation of civil servants, including senior grades, out of London, which includes to York—indeed, I have been there on ministerial visits. In this context, the Government had previously engaged with the York Central partnership and, as part of that, explored whether the space would allow for parliamentary activity should it be required, but this is not a current activity.
On consultation, my noble friend Lord Cormack again asked directly, in relation to the letter that was published, whether I, as responsible Minister in the Cabinet Office or otherwise, was consulted. The answer is that I was not. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, is considering all options for levelling up, which is a key government policy. I have the utmost respect for this House. I recognise the strength of feeling on this matter; I will refer that feeling to the appropriate quarter. I am committed to keeping your Lordships updated on this, and I know that the Leader of the House will play a full and important role here. Let me reassure my noble friends and others that if I can be of any further service to your Lordships on this question, I will be happy to do so.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
The Minister confirmed he was not consulted. What about the Leader of the House: was she consulted before the letter was sent?
Lord True (Con)
I have not asked the Leader of the House personally, but if the noble Lord looks at the record, he will find that it is not my habit either to brief newspapers or, frankly, to read them. I sound a bit like the judge who did not know who the Beatles were, but I have slightly better things to do. The day after this report appeared, I was before your Lordships’ House and I think I made the position very clear for the Government. I have made the position clear again for the Government—the whole Government. Who said what to whom at any time I cannot answer but, as the responsible Minister, I have given the House a very clear response.
Housing: Availability and Affordability
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts(8 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in this debate from these Benches. These days I am not able to speak very often in the House but, given my experience of chairing three housing associations over the last 14 years, I would like to contribute to this debate. I declare my register of interests, particularly as chair of Housing and Care 21, a housing association providing retirement housing.
Housing associations are not perfect but I have always appreciated that there is huge potential to improve their performance and make their operations more effective. That is what I have done in that sector over the last 14 years. Housing associations are a force for good. They have huge commitment, the potential to build many more homes and a record of delivery. I asked the chief executive of my housing association what he considered was the single most important proposal that we could put to the Government in this debate. He said that we simply need greater certainty and continuity of appropriate policies.
The problem is that housing does not benefit from the mentality of politicians who are always looking for short-term fixes, prefer policies which provide partisan and party advantage and whose timeframe does not go beyond five years. Over the last seven years, the Government’s partisan advantage and focus has been to get people to buy more homes. The coalition had to work hard to engender any interest in social housing but at least we delivered on what was agreed. The higher rent policy—the so-called affordable rents—provided the mechanism to build so-called affordable homes for rent to reduce the amount of grant paid out. We on these Benches warned at the time that it would be more expensive in the long term to do this and would simply put pressure on the housing benefit bill, which it has. Now, despite commitments from the Government to the contrary, we face a 1% reduction in rents, which has simply led to housing associations reducing their development and investment plans. We also have the unresolved issue of the housing allowance rent caps. Certainty on those two issues going forward is now essential.
What other issues should we be looking at as a sector? First, it has been mentioned already in this debate that it is absolutely ridiculous for the Prime Minister to say that she will take charge of housing. As Michael Heseltine said last weekend, we need a gauleiter for housing at Cabinet level. That person should bring in people from the sector who know how to deliver on housing, exactly as Macmillan told us how to do it in the 1950s.
The second issue we need to resolve is that housing associations should concentrate on their social purpose, which is to build homes for people of modest means. In my view it is hugely worrying that they are being diverted into speculative building as part of a new business model to fund social housing. If this goes on, it will end in disaster and is a distraction from housing associations’ proper focus and what they are good at doing.
Stability and continuity of policy and partnership working are essential. I agree with every single word of the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Kirkham and Lord Horam. As my noble friend Lord Stunell said, one problem is that private builders will not build more than 150,000 to 180,000 houses per annum. Sadly, their business model depends on rising prices and they will not want greater supply bringing prices down. I say with respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that this business is not like Tesco. It is a cyclical business full of huge risk. Every time we have a cyclical downturn, capacity in the sector is wiped out. That is why it is very difficult to get productivity up unless we have continuity. I emphasise that the most important thing Macmillan demonstrated was that for the sector to be effective a partnership is required between the public and private sectors. That is needed if we are to increase the supply of homes. That is the lesson from that time and that is what is urgently needed now. Now we also have housing associations to provide a major source of potential for more development. They can also act in a countercyclical way, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, explained.
I share the scepticism about short-term fixes such as Help to Buy. That scheme may be good politically but it has led to price increases. Somebody described it as a cocaine fix for private developers. We have to recognise that in many respects that policy has put housing out of reach for even more people. There is a huge capacity for improving the supply of housing but it requires leadership, partnership between the private, public and voluntary sectors and a realistic timeframe for achievement.
Trade Union Bill
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, perhaps I may add to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, but, first, I also add my apologies for not being here when the Minister made her contribution. However, I think that some of us are entitled to an apology from whoever set out the business for today, as it has been taken in an order different from what we were previously advised.
I obviously apologise if my noble friend has already covered this matter clearly but I was very struck by the statement from the Minister, Mr Nick Boles, in response to a contribution from Mr David Davis, who has taken a keen interest in this matter. Mr Davis asked what assurance could be given about the outcome of a positive review. The Minister replied:
“I have made it clear that we have no objection in principle to e-balloting. If the research suggests that it is safe to embrace, we will proceed with it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/16; col. 1476.]
Interestingly, there was then considerable discussion about the Minister’s career prospects—whether it meant anything or whether it was merely the reflection of a Minister who was here today and gone tomorrow. He made it quite clear that he had made that statement on behalf of the Government and, regardless of who succeeded him, it was the Government’s position. It is to the Government’s credit that they recognise the validity of this argument. It is sensible to have a review and if it is positive, obviously there will be benefits in introducing it.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, must apologise for being a little late. I was brought up on the good trade union tradition that an agreement on procedure is an agreement, although clearly it was not this afternoon.
I want to add a couple of comments to the important speeches that we have already heard—particularly those from the Cross Benches—and to what the noble Lord, Lord King, said. We are seeking three things. The first is that the unions should be consulted as part of this review. Secondly, we would like to see some form of pilot as part of the review, bearing in mind that the Electoral Reform Services has conducted in the past year 2,000 polls and covered 1 million votes. There is a lot of experience out there, so this review does not actually need a lot of time. Therefore, our third requirement is that there should be some form of deadline. We are concerned that this will be heading for the long grass otherwise. The whole concept of electronic balloting is very important to the future of trade union democracy, not only for ballots for industrial action, but ballots for union leadership. Postal ballots were seen 20 or 30 years ago as essential reform, but now that turnouts in postal ballots are disappointingly low, we have to look at alternative methods of making such ballots more representative. Electronic balloting, as we have discussed in this Chamber, is now the next important reform. I hope the Government will exercise this review quickly and expediently and get a positive response.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I believe that we have made significant progress today, despite the confusion over the timing of the Statement. The review will help to assess the rigour of the latest technology and address concerns about security, confidentiality and intimidation. It will allow us to consider again the case for e-balloting and ensure that we are making the right decision about whether to allow this method for conducting trade union ballots. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said about the value of increasing participation through e-balloting and the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Pannick, about its value.
Let me first address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, about pilot schemes. Pilots are always a good thing, and it is a pity they are not deployed more generally in public policy. How and when you use them in this area is not something that can be decided today. However, we have specifically mentioned them in the Bill and I appreciate from exchanges that we have had, including with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, that they are important.
I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about involving interested parties in the review, and in particular trade unions and the Trades Union Congress. This will of course be an independent review, and it will be for the chair to determine how best to conduct it. However, to my mind, it would make sense to involve trade unions, and indeed other relevant experts, and I am sure that he or she will come to the same view. Union input is very important, and in deciding how to set up the review we obviously need to avoid conflicts of interest.
My noble friend Lord King rightly quoted my honourable friend Nick Boles, who has done so much to progress this legislation, and the Government’s intentions, as set out recently. I cannot really add to that, but a number of noble Lords have asked about timing. I am pleased to provide reassurance that the review will be acted upon in due course and without delay.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I first declare my interest as president of the Local Government Association. Your Lordships will be aware that I moved an amendment to delete Clause 13 from the Bill. I did so because I was concerned about the extensive powers it gave to the Secretary of State for what, as far as I could see, was little justification. That is why I argued that this provision is necessary: so that the transparency provisions of Clause 12 will control expenditure and make visible the amount that public bodies spend.
My sense is still that there is no convincing case for why the clause is needed, but I acknowledge the considerable distance the Government have gone by introducing safeguards that will protect public bodies from arbitrary power in this situation. I absolutely welcome that movement, which reflects well on the Government and Ministers.
I hope that this is a reserve power that we never see used. I hope that the rational decisions of public bodies and the process that will now be put in place will ensure that we never need to impose this reserve power. I recognise that there are now proper safeguards, and I welcome that change.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
I want to make just one brief point. We, too, welcome the amendment and the compromise which the Government are showing. However, having got rid of quite a lot of the powers, we are still left with a hell of a lot of bureaucracy—for no good purpose, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, was suggesting. It is now a very complicated procedure and one wonders whether this will disappear into the long grass and be quietly forgotten. It would have been much better to have a one-off review to see what the problem is and deal with it through the management of the public sector, rather than setting up this ridiculous bureaucracy for no good purpose.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity and brevity—after the previous debate—in introducing the amendment. I also thank him for taking the time to meet me and colleagues to discuss the possible introduction of a cap on facility time. He knows that we have serious concerns, which we retain, about the principle, and that we have even greater concerns about how it might work. How and when would a Minister decide that the amount of time taken needed to be restricted, and on what grounds? Would it be contrary to the desire of the relevant employer?
We raised the example of organisations going through contraction, restructuring, relocation or even growth, where more negotiating time with union reps is always needed. There is also the example of industries with particular safety issues or health issues—we discussed the health service—where safety reps might be needed more than average, thereby pushing up the overall amount of facility time recorded.
On the phrase,
“any other matters that the Minister thinks relevant”,
it would be helpful to hear from the Minister what sort of things he deems might be relevant. However, that is the only remaining issue, because the others we raised have been met by the safeguards he has just listed. They will spell out that particular instances can be given and that the employer will have time to give reasons.
The remaining issue is therefore one we discussed under the previous clause: whether charities might be caught by this provision. I acknowledge the discussions we have had and those that will now take place with the organisations likely to be affected, including with representatives of charities. We also recognise that we will be able to debate this further when the relevant regulations are brought forward.
These amendments show that the Government have clearly heard our original concerns. They have produced a schema which allows the relevant comparative data to be used and judged alongside similar industries and organisations, and which allows time for consultation with the employer, giving them the opportunity to explain the management practice that requires so much union reps’ time to do their work. We still concur with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that this is an unnecessary measure and would prefer the cap to be dead and buried. However, having recognised that we were not going to win that one, we acknowledge the change that the amendments have made and are happy to support them.
Trade Union Bill
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, these Benches would also welcome the simplification that this amendment recognises. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that it provides a much better balance. I have two questions for the Government. I hope they have not forgotten something which we have said throughout this debate: for every new regulation put in, two should be taken out. Is that no longer the Government’s policy, or is this yet another example of the Government ignoring that diktat when it comes to somewhat partisan legislation?
We now have the slightly ridiculous situation where two bodies monitor political funds and expenditure: the Electoral Commission and, in relation to trade union funds, the Certification Officer. What consultations have the Government had on this new amendment with the Electoral Commission, and are they satisfied that it eliminates unnecessary duplication between the two organisations?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, although I welcome the Government’s movement on this, the original draft of the clause was, frankly, unworkable. This is definitely a step in the right direction, although my noble friend Lord Collins and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, require answers to their questions.
Before the Minister replies, I will point out something which I have mentioned at earlier stages in the passage of the Bill. In the five years to 2015, £64 million was given by trade unions in political donations, but £80 million was given to various parties—predominantly the Conservative Party—by other organisations. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is a parallel requirement for reporting for all the other organisations which make political donations?
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I would like to add my words of thanks. However, the Bill now goes to another place. It has been amended significantly in this place and I hope that the comments that have just been made are not prematurely euphoric. I hope that when it comes back from another place the significant amendments passed on Divisions in this House will not be challenged, and we will then have a Bill in which we can all take some quiet satisfaction.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I wish to make a few comments and add my thanks at this stage of the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on her courtesy and good humour during the passage of a Bill that we on these Benches have regarded as somewhat partisan. She has sought to cross that divide and we are grateful for the amendments she has persuaded the Government to accept.
The role of the Cross Benches has been very important. It has not been mentioned but the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake, Lord Pannick and Lord Burns have all played a very important part in the Bill and in achieving the amendments. I have enjoyed working with the Labour Benches and rekindling old friendships. I hope that it will be a basis for other matters in the future in this Session of Parliament.
We have regarded it as a very partisan Bill. We regret that it does not address the real issues for the country—the economy and productivity—and we hope that the Government will accept the amendments that the House of Lords has passed on political funds and electoral balloting when it goes back.
Lord Dykes (Non-Afl)
I, too, thank the Ministers for listening closely and attentively to the various suggestions made for improving the Bill. It has been a listening ministerial team and we are very grateful for that. It is an indication of what can be done in what in many ways is the more thoughtful part of the two Chambers of the body politic and parliamentary bodies of the United Kingdom constitution. I say that with no disrespect to MPs: they have their own pressures and their own electorates to satisfy, as well as many other things, and must pay attention to their party manifestos.
The House of Lords has the opportunity for more detailed, careful and objective consideration of measures that may be unwise—or which perhaps have been hastily drafted for various reasons—and can be improved. The link between the two Houses therefore is that if the House of Lords defers to the primacy of the House of Commons, one hopes very much that the House of Commons will defer to the intelligence and wisdom of the Lords in making suggestions for improvements through detailed amendments to some of the technical parts of this Bill, and that that will echo the co-operation between the two Houses. That, in other words, is what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to just now. It is an important matter in the future for all parties as well as those on the Cross Benches.
Trade Union Bill
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will have noticed the slight but significant change of wording in this amendment. Despite my cogent and—I thought—very persuasive argument when I moved my amendment in Committee, I clearly failed to move the Government Front Bench. The Government’s argument was that currently there are a variety of ways in which employers can and do engage with the workforce. Quite so—there is no disagreement between us on that. The noble Earl, Lord Courtown, said:
“It is not right that we restrict how employee engagement can happen”.—[Official Report, 25/2/16; col. 462.]
Nothing in my previous amendment nor in this amendment would or could restrict ways in which employee engagement can take place. Indeed, the thinking behind the amendment is to encourage involvement, participation and voice, and for a thousand flowers to bloom. The amendment asks that employers are encouraged,
“to have due regard to … mechanisms”—
in other words, to establish systems which suit themselves and the workforce.
Back in 2009, David MacLeod and Nita Clarke, director of the Involvement and Participation Association, in which I declare an interest as a member of the board, produced a report for the then Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills entitled Engaging for Success. A number of subsequent events took place. In March 2011, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave his backing to the newly established independent employee engagement task force during its launch at No. 10 Downing Street. In November 2012, 43 CEOs, from a wide range of organisations, signed a letter inviting UK businesses to embed employee engagement in the ways in which they work and quantified the loss to the UK from low levels of employee engagement.
Later that month, 300 practitioners gathered in the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. In May 2013 the job design and engagement White Paper was published and in May 2014 the well-being and engagement White Paper was published. By August 2015 more than 600,000 visits had been made to the EFS website—around 27,000 a month—and 1.4 million hits had been made on the EFS pages. There has been lots of interest and lots of activity. Then just last month a White Paper on further evidence was published showing, via new sector case studies, the links between employee engagement and business performance.
When I spoke in Committee I mentioned the report produced by the IPA entitled Involvement and Productivity—The Missing Piece of the Puzzle?. I remind your Lordships’ House that the report examined the evidence from large surveys, behavioural experiments, academic studies and employers themselves and went on to show that, when employees have a voice in the decision-making process over their jobs and the wider organisation, productivity is higher.
We have a lot of government activity and support, right up to the level of Prime Minister. We have a large, wide-ranging and supportive group of employers involved and a report demonstrating the link between employee engagement and improved productivity. What’s not to like? The amendment calls on the Government to reiterate their support and to give this initiative—which they are on record as being supportive of—a formal boost.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, when I spoke in Committee I made reference to the Minister behaving like Stonewall Jackson. I was concerned in making that analogy because I pointed out to the Committee that he was eventually shot by his own side. I was mightily relieved today that, when all the cannons were turned on the Minister, the Government made a number of sensible suggestions in the interests of her welfare.
As we come to this debate, we can relax a little and look at how industrial relations affect industry and employment in this country. I hope that we can spend a moment away from the adversarial side of industrial relations and look at the more positive aspects. It is not that I do not respect the need for collective bargaining but I see the benefits of employee participation and working with trade unions as important elements of our democracy. It is sad that in industry generally we have often relied far too much on overseas companies and foreign management to bring in new techniques for our managers and employees and benefit from. There are some notable examples, particularly John Lewis and Marks & Spencer, but I have to say that in these days when customer service, quality and value-added products and services are so important all these aspects of employment require direct employee engagement.
I am reminded of my own experience in the 1970s in a WEA class of shop stewards from the Morris Cowley plant who I had to teach the economics of the car industry. It was not an easy task at that time, particularly as they were cynically suspicious of me and I was warning them of the coming threat to them and their jobs from Japan, which had reached America and was about to become very dominant in Europe. The Morris Marina was the car those employees made at the time and I remember using the words of Gerald Ratner to describe their product.
At that point, there was uproar in the class. The people who made the rear door panels and the electrics and those who worked in the paint shop came to an amazing defence of their product. I was quite astonished. They took real pride in their product and in what they did in that plant, despite its huge complexities and difficulties at that time. Throughout the rest of my career, I have always thought what an opportunity was missed by British management in the British motor industry at that time by failing to engage with its staff. It was only when we had the foreign management of Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover, Toyota and Honda that we started to make real progress in those sectors.
Trade Union Bill
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
I am glad that the amendment has been passed but obviously we will wait to see the Government’s reaction. We therefore reserve the right to come back on this but, in the mean time, I shall not move Amendment 11.
Deregulation Bill
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I use this opportunity for a brief moment to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Stevenson, who, from our side, has guided and marshalled our many Front Bench colleagues, including my noble friends Lady Thornton, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord McKenzie, through what has been called a “Christmas tree Bill”. Of course, we do not think it is quite such a Bill because it is not full of goodies, but I thank my noble friend Lord Stevenson and, I have to say, our brilliant legislative adviser, Muna Abbas; this was her first such Bill. We think that it has ended up a little better than it arrived.
I thank the Minister and his sometimes expanding, sometimes reducing ministerial team. I also thank the other members of the Bill team who have helped negotiate, redraft, debate and discuss throughout the process, including the setting up of a large number of bilateral meetings, some of which have dealt with some very complex issues. They now deserve a very good holiday, so I suggest that before too long we have a general election so that they may have one.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I thank my noble friend Lord Wallace for seeing us through this Bill. When we started, we thought that this would be a complete nightmare, but his skill, perseverance and patience have helped that not to be so. I thank also the opposition Benches for their part in seeing this legislation through, and our colleagues in our own office, Giles Derrington and Elizabeth Plummer, who supported us through the business of this Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this is almost the end of the Gardiner-Wallace double act for this Parliament. The kinder definition of this Bill is “a portmanteau Bill”, I think. I am particularly grateful to the Bill teams for the way in which they have coped with what has unavoidably been a matter of negotiation across Whitehall, dealing with different Whitehall departments, in pursuit of what the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, would like to call better regulation rather than deregulation.
When I look across the currently empty Benches, I am always conscious that there are those who believe that the only regulations imposed on Britain are imposed by Brussels. Many of our discussions here have been about the necessity of regulation for many different parts of the British economy, British society and British science, and we are going to continue, for the rest of our careers in this Chamber, to discuss many of these issues about risk, regulation, the market and how one balances all those very difficult issues.
There are many others whom one could thank. I almost feel that I should thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for agreeing that, having chaired the pre-legislative scrutiny, he would not take further part in this Bill because he felt that he had had enough. He is far too sharp otherwise to have missed a number of things that we have been struggling with. It has been a very large Bill. We have managed to repeal or amend a number of early 19th-century Acts and statutory instruments, and we have now come to the end. I am extremely grateful to all those who have co-operated in this, including the Opposition Front Bench and their researchers, as well as our magnificent Bill team.