National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Fresh Signatures for Absent Voters) Order 2013

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Fresh Signatures for Absent Voters) Order 2013.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

EUC Report: EU External Action Service

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 3rd June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I should explain that it was a simple mistake that my noble friend Lady Warsi was put down on today’s list of speakers instead of me. I volunteered some weeks ago to take this debate because I had just made a speech at a conference for the Foreign Office on the development of the External Action Service, had done a considerable amount of work, had had briefings from officials and had talked to people in Brussels. It seemed rather idiotic that, my having put in that effort, she should then have to do the same and duplicate that work. This happens to be one of the few subjects on which I am mildly well informed, and I find this much more comfortable than answering questions on South Sudan, North Korea or other things that one occasionally has to do. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, for his reference to the Coronation. I was indeed rehearsing in the Abbey this morning for the very small role that I will be playing in tomorrow’s service, but I shall be singing rather more deeply than I did some 60 years ago.

The Government are extremely grateful to the committee for this report, particularly for the speed at which it was completed so that it could feed in to the discussion at the informal Foreign Affairs Council in March. That helps very much to ensure that informed British views carry. We all know, and I have certainly experienced this many times in Brussels and Strasbourg, that reports from this committee are widely read and respected.

The Foreign Secretary has set out the Government’s position on the review in a recent letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, which has been shared with Parliament. In it, he welcomed the fact that the noble Baroness has set up from scratch a service that has now moved beyond the initial institutional issues to focus on a number of key foreign policy priorities. Like many of those who have spoken in this debate, the Government look forward to the EEAS continuing to focus on those areas where it can really add value by complementing and supplementing the work of member states’ diplomatic services.

Mention has been made of the valuable work on Iran. I add to what has been said in this debate that the value of the EU is sometimes that it appears to be slightly more neutral than individual states. In those parts of the world, particularly the Middle East, where there is sensitivity about the imperial past, and where echoes of the imperial past carry against Britain, France and sometimes others, the collective weight of the EU can therefore sometimes be more helpful. That is also true, to some extent, of the western Balkans.

I also noted the point made in the report about the collective weight of the European Union’s multilateral institutions. There are now some 28 states working together, with Croatia joining, plus a number of others often voting with them, which amplifies the weight of states like the UK when we all agree. The work of the E3+3, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, has been playing a collective role for the smaller states, has been very valuable in a number of ways. I note the subtle distinction between what I read in the American press about the P5+1 and in the British press about the E3+3. I am sure that the Committee understands the subtle distinctions in those descriptions of the same process.

I was quite surprised not to hear Members picking up the issue of the comprehensive approach. The issue of trying to build a much more comprehensive approach using the different levers of EU policy is part of what this has all been about. We note that the Americans, in some ways, envied the European Union in its ability to bring together aid, humanitarian intervention and a number of military instruments in the way that NATO cannot. Trying to bring together the EU-wide levers of influence, aid instruments, trade access and sanctions is very much part of what we are all attempting to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked me how this would help to promote policy coherence, to which one has to say that there are a number of aspects to this. The rivalry between different directorates-general in the Commission and between different Commissioners is a problem, but the extent to which domestic lobbies in different countries and their collective representatives in Brussels do their utmost to resist the policy coherence that he and I would love to have—for example, in trade policy toward north Africa and west Africa—so that trade policy does not cut across what we are trying to do in terms of development policy is something that we are stuck with as a problem of our domestic politics.

A number of noble Lords also spoke about the budgets. We have worked very hard to promote budget neutrality. We note the issue of high salaries. From anecdotal conversations that I have had, particularly with a number of people in the newer member states, I am conscious that if you come from a poorer state which is a net beneficiary of the EU budget, these issues may seem rather less important than they do to the net contributors. For those who have struggled away in national politics for some time, the thought of being appointed to an international post that will pay them far more than they are paid in their national Government has a real appeal. However, Her Majesty’s Government will continue to battle away on this front.

A number of people have also spoken about British representation in the institutions. We are very concerned to promote a high level of British representation in this new institution from the Commission, from direct recruitment and from secondees. Of course, there are problems with languages. The last time I was in Brussels I was talking with a senior official in UKREP about how we could encourage more British applicants to go through the concours to join the Commission and to gain the language skills needed. He said that by far the best way was to get them to marry someone from another country so that they will then acquire the language and, furthermore, they will agree that it is easier to live in Brussels than either of their home countries. Perhaps that is the gospel of despair. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that we all recognise that have a great deal to do in this country on languages. The international languages, such as French, particularly for Africa, Spanish, particularly for Latin America, Arabic and Mandarin are extremely important and that requires a concentrated effort in schools as well as in universities. The noble Baroness knows as well as I do that applications to study languages at universities have been going down in recent years and that is one of the reasons why language departments in universities have been shrinking. That is all part of what we need to reverse.

A number of noble Lords also spoke about turf wars. The other day I heard from someone about the current tour of the head of the World Bank and the United Nations Secretary General to Congo. The remark by this international civil servant was that this was the first time they had managed to do something on such a good note between these traditionally deeply suspicious and uncooperative institutions. Rivalry among institutions, sadly, is a mark of international bodies. It helps that the new American head of the World Bank speaks Korean as his own language and the current Secretary General of the UN is a Korean. We have to work to reduce these turf wars.

That takes me into the question of deputies and competencies because, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned, the idea was that we would have clusters of commissioners and that the Relex group of commissioners would meet regularly. I regret, and the British Government regret, that the Relex group of commissioners has not met as regularly in the current Commission as it did in the previous Commission. Now that there are 28 commissioners, Her Majesty’s Government would very much like to move in the next Commission to a much greater dependence on clusters of commissioners, with vice-presidents, in effect, as their chair, and it seems to us entirely appropriate as part of that that one of the clusters should be an active group of external commissioners working more closely together. That would also help to reduce the element of turf wars with different commissioners and their different directorates-general promoting nuances of difference against each other. It would certainly reduce some of the weight which overloads the current high representative.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, spoke about the importance of understanding the difference between large state interests and small state interests, which is fundamental to all this. It is quite clear that for small states the EEAS is a tremendous boon. It gives them knowledge and representation in states which they had not covered before. For large states, that is less essential, although, as the squeeze on our budgets persists and as the number of member states in the UN expands beyond 190, it is not possible for all of us to be represented in all those places. Indeed, there are a number of places where the EEAS is represented where the UK is not.

Pooling and sharing is part of what we are moving towards in this area as in the common security and defence policy. We are now co-located with the Germans in Antananarivo in Madagascar as part of moving the British back into resident representation there, and also in Quito, Pyongyang and Reykjavik. I have visited the building the British and Germans have in Reykjavik on several occasions over the past 10 years. We are co-located with the French in Chisinau and Valetta, with the Dutch and the Danes in Baghdad and Beirut, with the European Union, the Germans and the Dutch for some years now in Dar-es-Salaam and with the EU, the French and the Germans in Bishkek and in Astana, a new national capital, jointly with the EU, the French, the Germans, the Italians, the Dutch and the Austrians. We are working together practically where we can and it provides greater coherence. As I have travelled around, I have experienced generally extremely favourable comments from British ambassadors about the utility of EU delegations on the spot, particularly in countries some distance from the EU, and the way in which EU embassies—often only a few EU embassies—and the resident EU delegation have learnt to work together. There is common political reporting—of course, you cannot say everything because, in a group of 28 member states, not everyone has the same attitude to confidentiality and so sometimes you cannot put everything into a joint telegram that will be circulated around all 28 members—common intelligence and common representation to the host Government.

We have some problems with the way the EEAS was set up. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, and I had some sympathy with his speech, it was brought into being before its purposes had been entirely agreed. It is not the first time that has happened with an international organisation or a European institution. I am not at all sure people knew what the International Labour Organisation was going to do when it was created after the First World War. That is one of the reasons why we have some of these problems with the institutions. However, now that the EEAS is there, we have to make the best of it, and we certainly need to have as coherent a policy as we can in all of those areas where member states can agree a common policy.

Perhaps the committee will now move on to look at the question of whether we can agree a revision of the European security strategy for next December’s meeting of the European Council, which will focus on the common security and defence policy. It may be impossible to agree on a common EU security strategy again because we have not yet reached a sufficiently shared approach. That is why national Parliaments and committees meeting together for a more coherent dialogue on foreign policy and defence, and a common approach between national Parliaments, is what we need to encourage. I am glad to hear that that is developing more effectively through COSAC and other areas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, asked about more engagement with Latin America. I am glad to be able to tell her that the new head of the European delegation in Bolivia will be a British national—who, I assume, must have absolutely fluent Spanish—on secondment to EEAS. There is a clear recognition that the EU has to be in partnership with many other South American states apart from Brazil.

I have discussed the question of language. I hope that I have answered the questions of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby about structure. We need not only the right structures but a more coherent approach. That requires active dialogue among political elites and others in various countries to agree a common approach, which is often lacking. Those in the south look naturally to north Africa, those in the east look naturally to their eastern neighbourhood, and we have different sets of priorities and assumptions.

The right reverend Prelate talked about commitment to human rights and a values-based approach to foreign policy. Her Majesty’s Government were being criticised in Brussels the other week for having what others regard as a rather transactional approach to the European Union. I look forward to hearing the Church of England collectively demanding that we have a much more positive approach to European Union co-operation because we share values with our neighbours across the continent, something that the Daily Mail is not always willing to accept. I have also answered the question on the clusters of commissioners and touched on the question of the role of national Parliaments in promoting dialogue.

I think that that enables me to say that I have answered the three points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on deputisation, turf-fighting and policy coherence. Let me therefore end by saying that the Government believe that the European External Action Service should focus on priorities agreed by member states in the Council. It should complement the member states’ diplomatic services, not replace them. Where there is no agreement among member states, we cannot expect the EEAS to bring coherence that reflects the nature of EU common foreign and security policy, but I hope that your Lordships agree that our current Foreign Secretary has been extremely active in working, above all, with our French and German partners and the other large, active diplomatic states to promote common positions where possible and, as far as we can, to carry the other, smaller member states with us in common policies toward our eastern neighbourhood, the deeply disturbed Middle East and the many weak states of Africa in which we have been active.

We look forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, issuing her review of the EEAS in the summer. We very much welcome this constructive input into the debate. Her Majesty’s Government will respond to the review of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, when it is completed. I thank all those who have contributed to this debate. The committee is extremely valuable and I look forward to the many future reports it will produce under its new chairman, who was once my boss and with whom I once wrote a short book on the future of British foreign policy in the 1990s.

EU: Reform

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the agenda for the forthcoming European Council on 22 May is tax, energy and an update on economic and monetary union. Our objective will be to secure EU support for a G8 commitment to a new global standard for tax and the multilateral automatic exchange of information on tax. We will also aim to secure agreement for a stable energy policy framework that provides growth, competitiveness and investment. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have both been clear that the EU needs reform. The UK will continue to argue for reforms to ensure that the EU can better tackle the challenges it faces.

[Lord Dykes]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Bearing in mind the very sad humiliation and setback that the Prime Minister, absent in the USA, suffered yesterday, with a much larger vote than expected, would not the obvious solution, because of agreement by those two, therefore be to assign any negotiations to the Deputy Prime Minister and other Liberal Democrat Ministers in the Cabinet who have excellent relations with other EU member states and who would help to exorcise the Tory demons of xenophobia?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this is a coalition Government, and we work as a coalition Government. There is substantial ground in the Government on a multilateral EU reform agenda. I spent three days in Brussels last week and was encouraged to find how much support there was for the sort of reform agenda we are talking about within other Governments and with a number of senior people in the EU institutions themselves.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, is it possible for the Minister to be more vague and imprecise about the exact nature of the reforms that the UK would wish to propose within the European Union?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are, of course, following up the PM’s speech with some detailed work under way at present on precisely what our reform agenda should be. I will simply set out that it includes changes in the EU budget. We have already made some progress on that in the multiannual financial framework, but that needs to continue. There will be a stronger role for national Parliaments. The Lisbon treaty allows for that, and we are encouraging our own Parliament and others to work more closely together. An external trade agenda will include in some ways more European action; the Prime Minister, after all, pursued that very thing in his discussions with President Obama in Washington. There will be a deepening of the single market, such as digital single market services. Therefore there is a range of areas, including better regulation and cleaning out some of the dead aspects of the acquis.

[Lord Renton of Mount Harry]

My Lords, does my noble friend know yet whether other countries will make proposals for the reform of the European Union? If so, for what purpose, and what will those proposals be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

We have already had extensive discussions, particularly with the German Government but also with a number of others. There is the potential here for a like-minded group. Of course one has to work in shifting coalitions on many of these issues. On some issues, some member Governments agree strongly with the British Government’s proposals; on others, we have others to work with. On changing the culture of the EU institutions and perhaps changing the balance of portfolios in the next Commission, et cetera, discussions are already well under way.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question concerning Article 50 of the European treaty. As he will know, that is the provision that deals with the renegotiation of the treaty. Will he kindly tell the House whether any member state has invoked the provisions of that article, and, if so, with what result? Furthermore, will he tell the House that the Government will publish a list of the powers that they seek to have repatriated, so that the British people will be able, in the light of reason, to determine what the issues are rather than having to fumble about in a miasma of popular clichés?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I welcome the noble Lord’s support for a reasoned debate. The question is not about unilateral repatriation but about the multilateral reform of the EU.

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord can speak for the Prime Minister on this occasion, but will he tell us whether the major changes that he said he was looking for will require treaty change and the agreement of all 27 member states?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Of course, many things require the agreement of nearly 28 member states—Croatia is about to join. There is a great deal that we can achieve without treaty change; the Lisbon treaty has considerable headroom in it. The question of whether we are likely to face treaty change in the next five years is much more to do with what form banking union takes—I am sure that the noble Lord read Mr Schäuble’s article in the Financial Times the other day—and with other areas of management of the eurozone.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, as a first step towards closing down the whole ill-fated project of European integration, why do Her Majesty’s Government not propose the abolition of the euro, with all its participants returning to their national currencies? Would that not start to ameliorate the suffering of the Greek, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, Cypriot and—soon—French people? Would it not also give us financial and monetary clarity for the longer-term future?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am fascinated by the way in which the noble Lord approaches some very complicated international issues. I am struck by the extent to which European Union regulation and global regulation go together. While the UK is inside the EU, we are playing a major part in negotiating global regulation, for example on tax and on how the global framework for digital regulation will evolve. If we were to leave the European Union, we would lose our influence over the evolution of global regulation—unless the noble Lord is such a free trader that he believes that we should have no global regulation at all.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the success of any proposals for reform that are pursued by the Government at the European Council will be severely diminished as a consequence of last night’s vote in the House of Commons, when the majority of Conservative MPs who voted voted against Her Majesty’s Government’s Queen’s Speech?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I agree that the degree of noise in the British domestic debate damages our ability to conduct a reasoned, multilateral negotiation with our European partners. We need a reasoned debate on the advantages and costs of EU membership.

Retail Prices Index

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the UK Statistics Authority overruled the recommendation and decision of the Office for National Statistics, following public consultation, to keep the Retail Prices Index as an official national statistic and whether they intend to challenge its downgrading.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the board of the UK Statistics Authority accepted the recommendations of the National Statistician both to produce a new index, to be known as RPIJ, and to retain the RPI as it is currently constructed. RPIJ is constructed in a way that meets current international standards whereas RPI was judged not to meet those standards. Because of this, the designation of the RPI as a national statistic was removed by the UK Statistics Authority, following a statutory reassessment which confirmed the finding of the National Statistician’s consultation that its formulation failed to meet current international standards.

[Lord Naseby]

Is my noble friend aware that this is a UK statistic and that international standards on statistics are, frankly, a little irrelevant? After all, is it not the case that the Office for National Statistics changed its mind from the original proposition, based on strong representations from finance, commerce, industry and savers? In the light of that, will my noble friend make further suggestions to the UK Statistics Authority that it thinks again and puts that badge of quality back on the RPI?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I was not aware that either mathematics or statistics differed according to national boundaries. The only statistics course I took was in the United States. I should have thought that international standards—those of Eurostat, the International Labour Organisation and the IMF—are standards that the UK should follow without wishing to bring the defence of national sovereignty or hatred of the European Community into account.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, does the Minister agree— I am sure he will agree as his background is similar to my own on this matter—that there is no such thing as a perfect price index—far from it? Those of us who taught the subject spent all the time explaining why there is no such thing. Is it not for the Government to explain what they want to use this particular index for? Is it to measure the inflation rate, in which case the RPI is not, in my view, the right index and the GDP deflator is, or is it to measure the cost of living? Even then, they have to answer the question: whose cost of living? Does the Minister agree with that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have gone back into the area of statistics and I am happy to tell the House that there is a range of different measures of inflation in Britain—the RPI, RPIJ, RPIX, which excludes mortgage costs, and the RPIY, which excludes tax changes. Then there are the CPI, CPIH, CPIY and CPICT. I hesitate to explain all these in detail to the House.

[The Lord Bishop of Ripon and Leeds]

My Lords, what advice does the Minister have for those widespread organisations which have historically used the RPI to alter pensions and salaries? They are unclear as to which of the various measures that the Minister just mentioned they should use for those purposes.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, they should not be unclear. The decision to maintain the RPI was taken precisely to leave clarity on the various forms in which the RPI is used as a reference point. I am quite clear from what I have read that the RPI as measured has an underlying upward bias of currently about 0.9% a year above CPI. That means that the Government end up paying more for index-linked bonds and elsewhere, which, in the long run, is against the interests of taxpayers although very much in the interests of investors and pensioners.

[Lord Barnett]

My Lords, the problem is not whether the Minister agrees with my noble friend Lord Peston. Is not the real problem with all these statistics whether anyone believes any forecast of anything? Is not the problem therefore not which is used but believing them?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we could try giving up and steering in the dark if we want to, but trying to assess as well as we can what is happening in our economy and in the economies of our partners is a necessary part of the way we have to operate. We recognise that all measures will be imperfect. The decision to make changes in the RPI was taken to make it a little less imperfect than it was.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby]

My Lords, as the Minister who, a little over 30 years ago introduced RPIX, is not the most important thing to forget about all these indices and just to keep inflation really low? Then the difference between these indices is neither here nor there.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Digging into this, I am told that one of the problems is the way in which the RPI was estimated. They changed the way in which they calculated changes in the pricing of clothing, which got more and more difficult as discount stores were adopted. That is why the gap between CPI and RPI has widened in the past four or five years. That has a substantial knock-on effect for the Government, the Exchequer and for consumer prices.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

My Lords, in order to overcome the notion of dodgy statistics, the Minister will be aware that Parliament set up an independent body in the UK Statistics Authority which was first chaired by Sir Michael Scholar. As a result of that, he and others have resisted the massaging of statistics by politicians. Is not the UK Statistics Authority a bulwark to prevent the massaging of statistics by politicians? Therefore, we must commend the work of the UK Statistics Authority and resist any breach of it by politicians or others.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, one of the best things done in this area by the previous Government was to establish the UK Statistics Authority as an independent body. The decision was criticised on all sides. Some noble Lords will remember the article in the Financial Times by Chris Giles which said that it was appalling not to have abolished the RPI and move all the way towards the CPI.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Did the Minister notice the other day that Sir Mervyn King, the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England, said that one of the main contributors to rising RPI and therefore rising inflation was higher energy taxes? Every time the RPI goes up, it generates a gigantic increase in public expenditure through indexed provisions in the public sector. Could he possibly advise his friends to think again about some of the higher taxes that are being piled onto our energy costs in industry and in the home?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to say that the extent to which tax increases are factored into the calculation of inflation is one of the problems. If you are not careful, when inflation is rising, you get into a positive feedback as mortgage interest rates rise, and that increases the measurement of inflation.

Official Statistics Order 2013

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 14 and 25 February be approved.

Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 19 March.

Motions agreed.

Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) Order 2013

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the draft order laid before the House on 30 January be approved.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 12 March.

Motion agreed.

Official Statistics Order 2013

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Official Statistics Order 2013.

Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, all Members of the Committee will be aware of the important work being done by the UK Statistics Authority. This body was created in 2008 with a statutory responsibility to,

“promote and safeguard the production and publication of official statistics”,

which includes monitoring of and reporting on official statistics.

Under the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007, statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics, government departments, the devolved Administrations and other Crown bodies are automatically deemed to be official statistics. The Act also makes provision for identifying other organisations as producers of official statistics. This is important, as it enables their work to fall within the remit of the authority and the public to have added confidence in their statistics. The purpose of this order, which is subject to affirmative resolution, is to specify these organisations.

The UK Statistics Authority has been consulted in preparing this order, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act, and is content for it to be laid. The Cabinet Office has laid this order on behalf of government departments, in preference to each department laying an order for the bodies for which it is responsible. This approach saves considerable parliamentary time.

This is the fourth use of this order-making power by a Minister of the Crown, and revokes and replaces the one that came into force on 3 December 2010. The previous order contained 57 bodies. The 2010 order was amended by Article 17 of the Education Act 2011 (Consequential Amendments to Subordinate Legislation) Order 2012. This omitted entries relating to the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Training and Development Agency for Schools, which were abolished by the Education Act 2011. It will also be amended by the Financial Services Act 2012 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Order 2013, which will come into effect on 1 April. This will reflect the change in name of the Financial Services Authority to the Financial Conduct Authority, which comes into effect on the same day.

In arriving at the current order, 21 bodies have been removed from the previous order and five new bodies have been added. Much of the reduction in the number of bodies is due to the recent reforms to public bodies. As noble Lords will recall, in 2010 the Government announced plans to reform 481 quangos to help reinvigorate the public’s trust in democracy; to ensure that the Government operate in a more efficient and businesslike way; and to radically increase the transparency and accountability of all public services. A number of these changes will come into effect on 1 April this year. It is important that these reforms extend to areas such as official statistics. Therefore, some of the changes have led to the streamlining of some statistics but those most important to public life have been preserved. The longer-than-usual hiatus between this order and the previous one has been to ensure that the new order fully captured these reforms.

In summary, this order reduces the number of bodies that are subject to the UK Statistics Authority’s oversight; those bodies listed on the order will have to work to the new code of practice for official statistics; and their statistics will have the potential to be nominated for formal assessment by the authority to be national statistics. I reassure the noble Baroness that I have discovered the difference between an official statistic and a national statistic, even though it took me some time. This House agreeing the order is a vital part of enhancing public confidence in official and national statistics, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his introduction and explanation of this order. Perhaps the only point he missed was to stress the importance of always having accurate statistics, and indeed that is implicit in bringing forward the order today. It is a sign of the times that public confidence is higher and trust is greater in statistics if they are seen to be produced independent of government, and I think we should put on the record our praise of the UK Statistics Authority and of the Office for National Statistics, which is part of the executive wing, as it were, of the Statistics Authority. In many ways, the authority acts as a check and balance on some of the important areas of the economy. It is helpful that the Statistics Authority can look at statements and figures so that the policies of all political parties can be held to account. We can ask the Statistics Authority to check the accuracy of any statement that is made.

However, this is not just about the face value of statistics, but how they are used and how they can be misinterpreted either accidentally or deliberately. We have seen that recently. The Minister may be aware that the Statistics Authority had to write to MPs. Any of us can make a mistake, and in this case it was made in a Conservative Party political broadcast on 23 January. It got into a muddle between debt and deficit, and that had to be put right. My understanding is that the broadcast said that it had gone down, but information from the UK Statistics Authority showed that net public sector debt in June 2010, the end of the second quarter, was £811 billion, which represents 55.3% of gross domestic product, and that by the end of the fourth quarter 2012 it had risen to £1,011 billion. We should thank the Statistics Authority because it is able to make corrections to statements made by politicians of any party because it has the confidence of the public behind it.

I know that the noble Lord has worked through the order and looked at the different definitions. As a former Minister who was in the same position that he is in now, perhaps I should not have been puzzled by this, but I want to ask about the Statistics Board. The order refers to consultation with the board and it is referred to in the legislation, but it is actually the UK Statistics Authority and the ONS. The only reference I can find to a board is to the Board of the UK Statistics Authority, whose membership includes people from the ONS—the chief executive, the National Statistician and the Director General. I am slightly puzzled about why the order refers to the board when the entity is in fact the authority, but I hope I am correct in assuming that the board he is referring to is the board of the authority. It would be helpful if he could confirm that.

The board was consulted and I assume that the response to the changes being made was positive. It would be helpful to have the complete list in the schedule, but 21 organisations were removed. If I understood the Minister correctly, he has already answered part of my question in his opening. Part of that arises from the Public Bodies Act, about which he will understand we have mixed views, in particular with regard to the changes being made. If those organisations are no longer able to produce official statistics, does that mean that there is now a lack of available statistical information, or has the work of those 21 organisations which are no longer on the approved list been allocated to other organisations? Are we still able to get the kind of information that was being produced? Further, is the Minister able to provide a list of the 21 organisations? It would be helpful if he could write to me.

The explanatory note also said that the charities being included as producing official statistics will have no official burden placed on them. Does that imply that they have previously produced statistics of use to government and held in public regard, but that have not been regarded as official? If the Minister can say something about that, it would be helpful.

I was puzzled to find that two organisations were not on the list. As I mentioned to the Minister, later on today we will have a debate on crime statistics. It is helpful to have this debate today to help inform that debate later on. In my reading for that debate, it was clear that the UK Statistics Authority says that there are two sources of official figures for crime statistics: one is police records from individual police forces and the other is the British Crime Survey. Individual police forces are obviously not on here, I assume because they feed information to the Home Office which then issues that information. If I am wrong about that, I would be happy to be corrected. But the British Crime Survey is not here. It is interesting if the UK Statistics Authority recognises the British Crime Survey statistics as being very useful, if not “official”—because that is a legal term. If it uses those statistics, I wonder if it would be appropriate for the survey to be on the list. Why is it not?

My final point is on another organisation that I doubt has been missed: the Office for Budget Responsibility. When they came into power, the coalition Government were clear that they wanted to see independent figures and assessment of the economy, and set up the Office for Budget Responsibility in response to that. That was widely welcomed. Yet it is not included in the list. Clearly, it is highly regarded—as is what it produces. Like the UK Statistics Authority, it is a check and balance. The Prime Minister said in a speech on the economy:

“As the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has made clear, growth has been depressed by the financial crisis, by the problems in the eurozone and by a 60% rise in oil prices between”,

and he gave the dates.

“They are absolutely clear, and they are absolutely independent. They are absolutely clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible; in fact, quite the opposite”.

The head of the Office for Budget Responsibility then had to write to the Prime Minister to make clear that that was not the case. He said:

“I think it is important to point out that every forecast published by the OBR since the June 2010 Budget has incorporated the widely held assumption that tax increases and spending cuts reduce economic growth in the short term”.

Clearly the OBR has the authority and credibility to write to the Prime Minister when he gets something wrong in talking about statistics and the economy, but it is not listed as an official statistic-producing body. It would be useful were the Minister able to help me understand the reason for that.

Those are the only questions I have. Clearly, it is helpful to have the list and we are obviously supportive of the order. It would be helpful to have the responses to the questions I have asked.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her constructive speech. Of course, I should have said that this is very much an all-party set of issues. The last Government introducing this new system of greater independence for statistics was a very valuable contribution to more informed debate. I am in some ways a great admirer of the Daily Mail and its uses of statistics, and the wonderful way it manages to imply that statistics mean something entirely different from what most of us understand them to mean. Usually you have to read down to the tenth paragraph on the second page to discover that actually the story is not as good as it seems. In politics, we want an independent body that can point out that statistics cannot be twisted in that way. That is what this current system most attempts to do.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

Just as an aside, I owe the noble Lord an apology. In the last debate we had, I accused him of being a Guardian reader. I now appreciate that he is in fact a Daily Mail reader.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I do my best to skim through several newspapers of one sort or another.

The Explanatory Memorandum for this order lists the 21 bodies that are disappearing. I know that the noble Baroness will be deeply familiar with a number of them, such as the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services Limited, the National Patient Safety Agency, the National Policing Improvement Agency and so on. In almost all respects, the functions of those bodies have now been transferred to other executive agencies and the statistics which they were responsible for producing will thus be provided by the new agencies. However, I will check to see whether there are any holes in that and will, of course, write to the noble Baroness.

My understanding is that the Office for Budget Responsibility—again, I will check this and write to her to confirm it—rather like the National Audit Office, is an independent body and is thus responsible for its own quality assessment rather than being a government agency which has to be checked by the UK Statistics Authority. Similarly, the Bank of England’s statistics are not checked by the UK Statistics Authority because the Bank is an independent body which is responsible for its own statistics and their quality. That is my understanding on the OBR, but again I will check on that.

I will have to check which agency is now responsible for providing the crime survey. I suspect that it is under the Home Office, which will therefore be responsible for it.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for looking into this. As regards the 21 that were off the list, if he can write to me to clarify any gaps, that would be helpful.

I think the noble Lord will find that the British Crime Survey does not come from the Home Office. I drew a distinction between the police force figures, which I think may be produced by the Home Office, and the separate, more independent British Crime Survey. If the figures are used by the statistics authority, I wonder why they are not included in the list. I am very happy for the noble Lord to write to me on that.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I will check on that. It is absolutely right that we should use a case like this as a chance to check that reliable statistics on important matters are coming from agencies which we all respect.

Having answered those questions, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and very much hope that the Committee will be willing to accept the Motion.

Motion agreed.

Electoral Registration (Disclosure of Electoral Registers) Regulations 2013

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Electoral Registration (Disclosure of Electoral Registers) Regulations 2013.

Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, in moving the Electoral Registration (Disclosure of Electoral Registers) Regulations 2013, I wish to speak also to the Electoral Registration (Postponement of 2013 Annual Canvass) Order 2013. The Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 received Royal Assent on 31 January. It marks the first legislative step towards fulfilment of the coalition Government’s commitment to speed up the implementation of individual electoral registration (IER) so that it takes place in 2014-15, a commitment reaffirmed recently in the Government’s mid-term review.

The principle of IER has won cross-party support. Indeed, the change to individual registration was introduced into the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 in your Lordships’ House with cross-party support. In passing the ERA Act earlier this year, Parliament showed its intention to see the implementation done using a different plan and a different timetable. The transition to IER will begin in the summer of 2014 and the Government are planning that it will end with the publication of the first IER-only register in December 2015. I know that this is familiar to all those present as we spent a great deal of time debating all these issues. The legislation was altered in your Lordships’ House so that the end may come in either 2015 or 2016, with an order laid by the Secretary of State of the day required to conclude transition. I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to concluding the transition in 2015 in accordance with the implementation plan already published.

The two statutory instruments before the Committee today are key components of the transition to IER in preparing for the confirmation data-matching process. It is one of the important changes from the transition envisaged by the PPE Act 2009.

In their official response to pre-legislative scrutiny on IER, the Government announced that part of the transition would be a data-matching stage whereby all electoral registers in Britain would be matched against trusted public datasets. Where a positive match is made between an entry on the register and information in the dataset, that person may be “confirmed” as having an IER entry on the register because the electoral registration officer can have confidence that they exist and reside at that address. These people will not have to supply their personal identifiers—their national insurance number and date of birth—unless they move house and apply to register at their new address.

Preliminary findings from pilots of this data-matching system have been published on the gov.uk website, and suggest that approximately 70% of existing electors will be confirmed on the register through data-matching. This is slightly higher than the results of previous pilots, with results suggesting that we can be confident in the accuracy of the matching, both of which auger well for the success of data-matching in the transition to IER. Both instruments being considered today support that data-matching element of the transition in very important and practical ways.

Regulation 2 of the draft Electoral Registration (Disclosure of Electoral Registers) Regulations 2013, if approved, will allow EROs, working with the Government, to carry out a dry run of confirmation data-matching, so that we can be even more confident that the new system will work when it goes live in the summer of 2014. The regulations would enable the Lord President of the Council to require electoral registration officers to disclose the information on their electoral registers to him through a conduit specified in writing for the purposes set out in paragraph 1A of Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.

The conduit will be the IER digital service, which is currently being developed and will be able to carry out the secure transfers of data required for IER, including the confirmation data match. The service is not identified specifically in the regulations in order to allow for flexibility to handle risks around this data transfer, whereby any problem that arose in using the digital service could be dealt with by using a different conduit for data transfer without the need for changes to the regulations. The Information Commissioner’s Office has advised us that this is the best way to legislate for this kind of digital data-transfer system.

Regulation 2 also provides for the sharing of the information on the registers with the Department for Work and Pensions, where it may be compared against certain data held there and matched against the names, addresses and dates of birth. Date of birth is included because this is held by EROs in relation to attainers—those under 18 who will become electors during the life of the current register.

The personal identifiers that will be used as part of the verification process for IER—the national insurance number and date of birth—will not be disclosed under these regulations because they do not appear on the electoral register, with the exception of attainers’ dates of birth. This is also true of the full confirmation process in 2014, meaning that considerably fewer items of sensitive personal information will be transferred through the IER digital service and matched with DWP data than would be the case if confirmation data-matching was not being used as part of the transition to IER. Once the information has been matched at DWP, a match result will be sent back to the ERO. In the full confirmation process in 2014, this result will assist the ERO in deciding whether the person can be confirmed on the register, or if they should be invited to make an IER application.

In the dry run later this year, however, there will be no contact with electors. Instead, the EROs will have an indication of what their overall match rate for their local authority area will be in 2014, and therefore the extent to which they are likely to need to invite and process IER applications. They may also find that certain areas in their zone have lower match rates than elsewhere. In this case, they may, for example, feel that they can focus resources in areas with low match scores during the canvass period to ensure that the information on the register for those areas is up to date for the 2014 confirmation data match.

In order that this dry run and the 2014 confirmation data match can take place, these regulations would also allow local authorities to build up their IT resources and connect to the secure IER digital service in order that they can disclose their registers in the format and through the conduit specified by the Lord President, as they will be required to do Regulation 2(3). By setting up this IT infrastructure and having a dry run of the process this year, we can be confident that all the component parts are in place and all EROs are securely connected to it before the transition to IER and the full confirmation data-match in summer 2014.

Under the Electoral Registration Data Schemes (No. 2) Order 2012, this connectivity is already being set up in 22 local authorities in which pilots are being conducted. That work, under that order, will cease at the end of 31 March this year, though, and these regulations will enable it to continue in those authorities and to be rolled out to the rest of Great Britain. It is vital that this work is continued uninterrupted in the pilot areas and begins as soon as possible elsewhere, with these regulations in force from 1 April 2013.

Having described the context for the draft regulations at length, I now turn to the draft Electoral Registration (Postponement of 2013 Annual Canvass) Order 2013. The postponement of the annual canvass was also outlined in the Government’s response to pre-legislative scrutiny in February 2012. The purpose is to ensure that confirmation data-matching in summer 2014 is done using registers that are as complete and accurate as possible. We know that the completeness and accuracy of registers deteriorates over time at a rate of around 1% per month, so reducing the gap between the compilation of the register and the point at which the data are matched should improve match rates.

We announced that the canvass due to take place in autumn 2013 would be postponed so that the revised register would be published in early 2014, rather than December 2013. The draft order sets out the specific dates for the canvass and the publication, with canvass activity beginning from 1 October 2013 and the revised register being published on 17 February 2014 in England and on 10 March 2014 in Scotland and Wales. These publication dates represent the best balance between the benefits of delaying the canvass to improve the match scores and the need for electoral administrators and political parties to have the revised register published prior to local elections and European Parliamentary elections, due to take place in 2014.

The different dates for England and for Scotland and Wales reflect this point. As there are local elections due to take place in England on 1 May, the register will be published earlier there, whereas there are no such elections in Scotland and Wales so the register can be published later, as long as they are available in time to prepare for the European Parliament elections.

It is worth noting that, while 1 October is given as the date from which canvass activity may begin, this does not mean that registration officers must begin on that date. Indeed, many may feel that a shorter period, beginning in late October or early November would be more suitable for their district. By setting 1 October as the date after which canvass activity may take place, we are allowing EROs to be flexible in planning for their district. The October to February and March time frame is akin to the longest period in which we are aware of EROs carrying out canvass activity at present, from July to late November.

As set out in the Explanatory Memoranda for these instruments, formal consultation has been conducted with the Electoral Commission on both instruments, and with the Information Commissioner’s Office on the regulations. This is in addition to informal and ongoing consultation on these instruments and other delegated legislation with these organisations, as well as with the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Scottish Assessors’ Association, and the major political parties and other stakeholders.

These two statutory instruments, if approved, will play an integral part in preparing for the transition to individual electoral registration in 2014. Between them, they would set up the IT infrastructure for confirmation data-matching in summer 2014, enable a dry run of the process to be conducted in advance, and ensure that the registers used for the 2014 data-match are as complete and accurate as possible.

We have been through much of this in previous debates and, while passing, working through the ERA Act. I hope that Members of the Committee will recognise that the Government are continuing to work as well as possible, and as actively as possible, to make sure that we end up with as complete and as accurate an individual electoral register as possible, as we move through this transition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I have to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has really been worn down by all these debates on IER, he is showing no sign of it whatever.

I thank the Minister for introducing these measures. I turn first to the disclosure regulations. The Committee will recall that we welcomed all the efforts made to locate and contact eligible voters absent from the register, and to confirm those already on the household list. We therefore fully support this dry run, which will assist EROs to compare their data against datasets kept by DWP and to test the confirmation exercises.

Noble Lords will not be surprised that I have a number of questions. I had hoped that if the exercise had revealed the names and addresses of people not on the current list, the ERO would then be able to write and invite them to register. The Minister said that there would be no contact, but I do not know whether that means that even if an ERO finds from DWP material someone who is not on the register, the ERO will be unable to approach that person. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that.

We know that the Minister in another place confirmed the Government’s confidence that everything, including the resources, is sufficiently in place for this work to happen within the required timescale. Perhaps he can repeat that assurance for the benefit of the Committee, together with any comfort that he has received from the Electoral Commission.

The other issue that I had intended to raise was that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—to ask Minister to confirm that the Electoral Commission will be required to evaluate these pilots and therefore to report back to the House.

Will the Minister also confirm that the regulations will give the necessary authority for all the relevant parties to release the data necessary for this work? Perhaps he can also assure the Committee that all the relevant parties involved will be clear about their duties and responsibilities under the Data Protection Act before any data-sharing begins. Perhaps he can set out what safeguards are in place to protect individuals’ data security. We noted in previous discussions on individual registration that some people, including those in your Lordships’ House, tend to register their vote at one address but use another address for correspondence. That will clearly be a major issue when using the DWP material. Perhaps the Minister can outline how this is to be dealt with in the pilots.

I turn to the second measure, on the postponement of the 2013 household canvass, which is now to be published in England in February 2014, and in March in Scotland and Wales. The Minister will recall my sadly unsuccessful attempt to remove from the then ERA Bill the ability of the Secretary of State to abolish the canvass. That is an indication of how important we see this tool in seeking out and registering all citizens with an entitlement to vote. Clearly, this will be even more important in the move to IER, which will fully replace the household register only in 2016. I ask the Minister to confirm that he is confident that the Government’s plans will ensure that by 2016 we will have a better register than we have at present, and that the Government remain clear that there will be no dropping of the household register before 2016.

We are very content that the Government push ahead with locating non-registered but eligible electors, so that by 2016 we have the maximum possible number of individually registered electors by a variety of means and no one is inadvertently denied their vote in 2016. But we seek assurance that any such work is not with the idea of bringing forward sole reliance on the individual rather than household-registered electorate. In the mean time, however, while we remain with household lists, as the Minister has said that registers decline in accuracy by about 1% a month, we are content with the canvass taking place slightly later—provided that the information is then made available to political parties as soon as possible thereafter, so that their work on the lists can begin, as he mentioned. This is key. The Committee knows that much of the business of alerting voters to the fact that they are or are not on the electoral roll is done by political parties, as the voting cards tend to go out only a short time before an election. It will be more and more important, with the gradual shift to IER, for parties to have early and easy access to the new registers so that they can undertake their canvass work and so that anyone left off can be identified in time to rectify that absence. We also need, as early as possible after the delayed canvass, publication, perhaps monthly, of a rolling register, showing IER flags.

We know that the ERA allows for transfer to IER to be completed by the end of December 2016, which is a sensible date. The Committee will understand that we remain a little nervous. The Act retains a power to hurry it through earlier than that, but we hope that the Government are not trying to do that, given the risk of losing eligible voters. We would also query—and this was another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—whether there is a satisfactory way in which to judge whether the 2016 date is appropriate to complete the transition. We would like to know what criteria would be applied and what would be the role of the Electoral Commission in such a process. Under the Labour Government’s legislation on IER, the Electoral Commission had a pivotal role in deciding whether progress had been sufficient to create safe conditions for the final move to be made. This Government removed that role, but surely the commission must have a duty to press the “Go” button, if that decision is to clearly non-political and based on solid data.

Perhaps I could use this opportunity to ask the Minister two questions.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Two more?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Yes, but I once asked the noble Lord 16.

First, are the Government committed to the December 2016 timetable? Secondly, will they await a commission pronouncement on whether the conditions are right before making the final transition to IER? We assume that a core criterion for assessing those conditions is whether, as the Minister says, the electoral register is at least as accurate as the current register, but we need that to be judged by an independent body, which surely can only be the Electoral Commission.

Finally, we return to the point of which we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that the Electoral Commission remains concerned about an October rather than November start date. I noticed that, in introducing this, the Minister seemed to say that a later date might be more suitable. Perhaps he could clarify whether that reflects discussions with the Electoral Commission.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their contributions. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that this may not be the last SI on this subject and it is important, since this is such a key element, that we make sure that we have all-party confidence in the process as we go through. We are dealing with data-sharing in some sensitive areas, so we need to make sure that everyone is carried along.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, some of the questions raised are familiar to us from previous debates and will no doubt be repeated in further debates. Let me summarise: of course we want to ensure that, as we go through this important transition, we carry all parties and stakeholders with us, that confidentiality of data in terms of data-sharing is maintained, and that the Electoral Commission is fully engaged throughout the process.

On the flexibility of electoral registration officers in deciding on the canvass, as I said in my speech, some will decide not to start until November. I am tempted to say to those who live in the lush south, such as my noble friend Lord Tyler, that “it’s grim up north”. Canvassing in north Yorkshire in January and February is not always easy. My mother-in-law, when she lived in Upper Wharfedale, was usually snowed in for at least six weeks during that period. It will differ from area to area and this is why we are allowing EROs a certain amount of flexibility.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that this is a dry run. It is not intended to involve contact with electors. It is a confirmation test of how far we can get matching data with the DWP database and others so that we have a better indication of the scale of the remaining chunk of the electorate who need to be visited or contacted one way or another. That is the whole purpose of this activity. I repeat the assurance that we are on track. We are confident that we will be able to carry through this process by our preferred date of December 2015 rather than delaying until 2016. However, as the noble Baroness is well aware, we will be monitoring this as we carry it through. If we discover that there are delays along the way, there is the potential in the Act for that delay.

I have confidence in the Government’s digital service in terms of data sharing. I have spoken to staff in that service on a number of occasions and am very impressed by what they are doing. There are some larger questions here about data privacy, data sharing and data use. The Cabinet Office is in the process of setting up a briefing for Peers on the digital revolution. One of the issues that we will cover for that will be precisely data privacy and data protection. I hope that we will get a good audience for that because there are some much broader issues here than simply this Act which I think it will be useful to explore.

I was asked whether the new register will be better than the present one. Given everything I have seen about the long-term deterioration of the current register’s accuracy, I say cautiously that our aim is that the new register will be at least as good as the one we have now, and we will end the long-term process of deterioration from which the register has been suffering. The Government are thus confident that we will come through this process with as accurate and complete a register as possible.

The suggestion of flagging the status of the register on a monthly update is one that we will take away and consider further. On the question of annual canvasses, I reassure the noble Baroness that we have no plans to abolish the annual register to identify potentially eligible electors and invite them to register. However, as we have discussed on previous occasions, the process of doing the annual canvass is becoming more difficult over a long-term period. It is also getting more difficult to recruit people to do the annual canvass. That is something we need to bear in mind as part of a much longer-term transition of how we manage a process which was, after all, set up in the early 20th century and may not be entirely suited to the sort of built environment which we have in many areas of Britain. The resources are in place. The Government are committed to concluding the transition by the end of 2015, if all is in place. That will, of course, be subject to everyone with a stake in the process having confidence that this has been completed, certainly including the Electoral Commission, which has been closely involved so far and will rightly continue to monitor and comment as we carry through the process. I hope that I have answered all the questions. I will write to those who have contributed if there are any further questions that I have not answered. I commend the regulations.

Motion agreed.

Electoral Registration (Postponement of 2013 Annual Canvass) Order 2013

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Electoral Registration (Postponement of 2013 Annual Canvass) Order 2013.

Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) Order 2013

Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) Order 2013.

Relevant documents: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Representation of the People Act 1983 lists a number of exclusions from election expenses, which this order seeks to amend. The order adds a further exclusion whereby payments made to disabled candidates from the Access to Elected Office for Disabled People Fund are also exempted. This means that recipients of the new fund will not be penalised for accepting grants that are intended to increase their electoral participation. Fund payments will not therefore be considered for the purposes of candidates’ spending limits.

There are more than 11 million people with a limiting long-term illness, impairment or disability in Great Britain, and they are substantially underrepresented in Parliament and other elected bodies. The Government strongly believe that elected bodies should be more representative of the people they serve.

To address this, the Access to Elected Office Strategy was launched in July last year to provide disabled people with training, paid parliamentary internships and grants through the Access to Elected Office for Disabled People Fund. The fund was established because one of the principal reasons disabled people are underrepresented in elected bodies is the fact that they face additional costs when standing for elected office—for instance, extra transport costs or the hire of sign language interpreters. These additional costs create an extra barrier to elected office for disabled people—one that other, non-disabled, candidates do not face. The fund therefore seeks to help disabled candidates to overcome these financial hurdles by covering the cost of their disability-related items or services, whatever they may be.

The fund provides grants to all disabled candidates, whether they are independent or represent political parties, provided that they are standing at UK parliamentary, English local authority, Greater London Authority, English mayoral or police and crime commissioner elections or by-elections. By offering specific disability-related financial assistance, the fund will place disabled candidates on an equal footing with the other candidates.

Unfortunately, under current electoral rules, grant payments awarded by the fund will count towards candidates’ election spending limits. This is not an issue for parliamentary, Greater London Authority or police and crime commissioner elections, where disability-related costs are likely to be treated as personal expenses and are therefore exempt under Section 76(5) of the Representation of the People Act 1983—a provision that I am sure Members of the Committee know off by heart—but for local authority and English mayoral elections, the rules place disabled candidates who are awarded funding from the Government in the extraordinary position of being penalised for accepting it. Of course, in local authority elections, the overall limit for spending is much lower and there is therefore potentially a much higher barrier. This is because any fund spending will reduce the amount that disabled candidates can spend on the usual election expenses, while unfunded candidates will have the entire election expenses limit at their disposal.

The situation is further affected by the fact that there are a number of high-cost needs for which many disabled candidates will seek funding, such as British sign language interpreters who can cost as much as £350 a day. In some circumstances, the fund could entirely consume a disabled candidate’s election expenses limit, which is on average just £1,000 for local authority elections. This order therefore seeks to remove these unintended effects of the fund by excluding grants provided by the Access to Elected Office for Disabled People Fund from candidate spending limits. Using an existing order-making power contained within Schedule 4A to the Representation of the People Act 1983 to amend the Act itself, a new tightly drawn exception to the definition of election expenses is thus being created. This exception will provide that any item or service financed by the fund would not amount to an election expense, and would not therefore count towards a candidate’s spending limit.

A three-part test must be met in order for the exemption the order provides to apply. First, a candidate must have incurred spending specifically in order to remove or mitigate barriers to seeking elected office—barriers which must be associated with his or her disability. Secondly, that spending must also have been incurred through the means of a grant awarded under the fund’s terms and conditions. Lastly, the spending must then be defrayed or reimbursed by the fund. The fund is intended to cover all the additional costs that disabled candidates face as a result of their disability. That can therefore include extra costs that arise from campaigning activity. For example, campaigning leaflets would not normally be considered for funding, but where a blind candidate might require Braille leaflets for proof-reading purposes, the extra cost of producing those leaflets in Braille will be met by the fund.

The order is also drafted with a sunset clause so that it exactly aligns with the short and temporary operating period of the fund. The fund has been set up as a pilot exercise only until June 2014, so its effectiveness can be assessed before the Government take a view on whether to introduce it on a permanent basis. If the resolution is passed, the Representation of the People (Election Expenses Exclusion) Order will be made to ensure that it comes into force by 26 March, the start of the regulated period for the next local authority elections. I hope noble Lords agree that the fund provides essential support to disabled people seeking to participate in elections and democratic processes, and that this order helps very considerably to enable that. I beg to move.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, as we have heard, the additional costs faced by disabled people in contesting elections—for example, the cost of sign language interpreters—can make running for elected office prohibitively expensive for them. Therefore, the Government’s decision to implement the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference on parliamentary representation through the setting up of the access to elected office fund is very welcome and much to be commended. This will go a long way to removing the financial barriers and ensuring that aspiring disabled candidates who have higher costs are not penalised, and should improve access to elected office for disabled people. Avoiding spending limits deterring disabled people applying for support from the fund would, as we have heard, require a change in the law to establish an exemption as to how the candidate’s expenses related to disability are treated. Therefore, I support the draft order which seeks to amend current election limit rules which pose problems for the operation of the fund.

It is important that we pass this order before the start of the regulated period for the forthcoming local elections in May this year. Given the breadth of the extra costs which could be faced by prospective disabled candidates, the fund does not provide an exhaustive list of expenses that would be covered and provides only an indication of the most common expenses that are likely to occur and would be eligible for funding. In fact, it would not be possible to provide an exhaustive list.

The Electoral Commission has, however, voiced concerns that the exemption which the order creates to the current limits on candidates’ spending is not sufficiently clearly defined. Following further discussion with the Government and the fund, it proposes the following actions to make the risks associated with this order manageable for the 2013 local elections. First, it proposes that the fund should ensure that all candidates accessing funding are referred to the Electoral Commission for individual advice on how their funding will be treated under the spending rules; and secondly, it proposes that the fund and the Government should set out a clear policy to clarify the operation and scope of the fund to reduce the uncertainty around interpretation of the order.

Scope, which has done a lot of work on the accessibility of elections for disabled people, believes that the exemption needs to be broad enough to allow for any potential expense that occurs because of an individual’s disability. It takes the view that the proposed drafting, which states that in order to benefit from an exemption, the expenditure must be designed to remove or mitigate barriers to seeking elected office, should be sufficiently mindful of this to achieve the desired purpose. In view of the high level of scrutiny that takes place around election expenses, the proposed exemption would need to be applied carefully and transparently to militate against the prospect of a subsequent legal challenge; for example, if another candidate made an allegation of overspending. Such allegations would be extremely detrimental to the future of the fund and would risk undermining the progress being made in improving access to elected office for disabled people. Accordingly, Scope has recognised that mechanisms need to be put in place to ensure transparency about how the exemption is operated in order to maintain trust that the fund is not being misused for political gain. It therefore supports the Electoral Commission’s suggestion of providing advice to disabled people to disclose expenses paid for by the fund on a voluntary basis on their spending return.

With these safeguards, which have been suggested by the Electoral Commission, I think that the risks can be sufficiently managed for the local elections that are to take place in a couple of months’ time. Work will continue after those elections to make sure that the exemption is working satisfactorily, and there is a sunset clause, as the Minister explained. With those safeguards, I support the order and urge the Committee to agree to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, in responding to points from the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we hope that they are very successful in selecting their candidates. Noble Lords will not be surprised, however, if I do not necessarily wish them success in being elected. But it is a challenge to my party to make sure that we can similarly find some candidates. It will also come as no surprise to the Committee that we broadly and warmly welcome this draft order which, as the Minister says, will enable disabled candidates to apply for and use the fund specifically created to encourage them to be candidates by excluding those moneys from the schedule of election expenses. It is clearly a shame that it was not thought of when the fund was established, but we are pleased, as the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, that it will be done by 26 March, in time for this year’s election. Unsurprisingly, the charities representing people with disabilities, most notably Scope, are also supportive of the thrust of the measure.

The Minister will have read the discussions of the House of Commons committee on this. Perhaps it is a bit late to regret, along with it, that the fund does not cover parish council elections. Indeed, for many people, that is their first attempt at the ballot box, and it might have encouraged more disabled people to make that same first attempt. However, this is a pilot, and we hope that if it is successful it will be rolled out in a comprehensive way.

My questions, therefore, are not about what might have been but about this specific order, which allows the fund expenditure to be excluded. Will the Minister confirm that anything that the fund agrees to finance will then automatically be covered by the exclusion? In other words, there will be no additional formality to be gone through? We do not want the fund saying that it is covered and then being told afterwards that it is not. There needs to be just one lot of decision-takers, and I assume that it will be the fund decision-takers. It would be useful to have that confirmed.

What is being done to promote awareness of the fund? In preparation for today, I did the usual thing and tried to find out about it. I found it impossible to locate the fund through the Electoral Commission’s less-than-helpful website. Google was rather more helpful and got me on to the relevant site. Given that the Electoral Commission wants to be involved in this, I would have thought that it would do more to make knowledge of the fund better known, rather than simply being able to find out about this specific order, which is not of interest to disabled people once it is done.

Information on the fund itself was not brilliant. I could not get hold of the application form from the website although it has now been sent to me. It also was not clear how quickly a decision would be made, which I should have thought was also quite important for candidates to decide whether to go ahead. They need to know that before they start spending too much of their own money. Although we are keen for the Electoral Commission to be involved in encouraging and helping disabled people to be candidates, we hope that it will smarten up its own access via the web in time to do this.

We very much support the exclusion of fund expenditure but rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we wonder whether this leaves a transparency gap. It would be useful to know what disclosure of such funds and their use will be made. Mention was made of a voluntary system, and I wonder whether that is sufficient or whether the fund should itself be transparent. It would be useful to know the Government’s thinking on that. Finally, can the Government assure us that if this pilot proves a success, it will be rolled out fully and with money following intent? As we know, the groups who will benefit from this are highly underrepresented at the moment. Indeed, I cannot believe that this Government would have so undermined the lives of so many disabled people as they have done both under the Welfare Reform Act and now the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill had we had more people as MPs, or indeed Peers, but especially MPs, from those particularly affected groups. We very much want this fund to be a success and we hope that its administrators, the Electoral Commission and the Government will play a very full part in helping disabled people to find out about the fund and then stand for and be elected to public office. I am sorry, but I hope that they will all be Labour if they get elected.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank those who have spoken for their general welcome for this order. I stress that this is a pilot and an experiment in some ways. I also stress that it is absolutely an all-party initiative. We very much hope, as the noble Baroness has suggested, that all parties will want to take this up and make use of it, and that part of the way in which information will spread out is that all parties will wish to inform their local associations to look more actively for potential candidates for whom this would make the crucial difference.

In the disability world, the communications strategy is already a good deal better known than in the general outside world. I had not heard of it until a few weeks ago but I am told that the Government have a comprehensive communications strategy in place. There have been a number of news stories in the press, and in tweets, blogs and the like, targeted very much at the disability community. This will continue as the pilot rolls on.

As for the question of what happens in August 2014, this is a pilot over which we will want to consult as we go along, as well as seeing how many people come forward. Once the SI ends, we will ensure that there is a smooth transition to the new regime, if by then a decision is made that the fund is seen as worthwhile and is to be extended. So far there have been about 30 applications for the fund, and the average per application is between £4,000 and £6,000. We are not talking about enormous amounts. Noble Lords will recall that there is a £20,000 maximum per application under the fund at the moment. However, we hope that this will be shown to make a crucial difference in making it easier for people with different disabilities to put themselves forward for election.

In the pilot we decided not to include parish councils. A great many parish councils do not have elections. At my party’s spring conference, I talked to a local activist from West Yorkshire. He told me how deeply unpopular he has made himself with a number of other politicians in his ward, because he keeps insisting that there should be elections for the parish council. Others think that elections are an unnecessary expense and that co-option is much to be preferred, this being a predominantly Conservative parish council. Perhaps one of the questions that we will investigate and discuss further, and come to a different decision on as we move forwards from the pilot, is whether we include parish council elections, in which many people first cut their electoral teeth, as the noble Baroness rightly says.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asks whether it will be retrospective. The answer is that it will not, but those who have already approached the fund for support for this coming May’s elections will be able to roll their applications in and it will not go back further than that.

[Baroness Brinton]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am concerned that some people who have applied to the fund for grants have not yet stood for office but clearly intend to be candidates. I would not want them to be compromised in that position because they had had an early grant. It would be useful if some reassurance could be sought to protect them.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I will need to investigate exactly what the position is there and will write to the noble Baroness. I understand that those who are not yet in the election campaign for this May but who have had grants already to help them in their campaigning will come under this order once it has been passed. I will check whether that counts as a degree of retrospection and return to her.

I have already answered the question about whether the Government will ensure that there is no gap on the expiry of the pilot. My very clear understanding is that any spending covered by the fund will automatically be under scrutiny. That is the purpose of the order. Certainly, my reading of it suggests that that is absolutely one on one and that no difference is allowed in that regard. I was asked how quickly decisions will be made. They will be made as quickly as possible. Our concern in all this is to make a significant difference to the decisions that disabled people may make on whether they can manage to stand for election, and to encourage others to work with them by recognising that they have the ability to cope with all the strains of elections.

The noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, asked me how clear the policy was. As he will know, the fund administrator, Convey, will manage this on behalf of the Government and it will clearly set out on the fund website its policy approach to funding decisions, explaining the principles used to assess an applicant’s disability needs. This will also be reflected in the guidance document and updated, if necessary, on a quarterly basis. For fund applications over a certain limit, an advisory council will offer more expert advice. Convey has agreed drafting with the Electoral Commission and will introduce these proposed changes on the fund website before this SI comes into force.

On the question of spending returns and transparency, Convey has agreed to amend the fund’s guidance to encourage successful applicants voluntarily to disclose any fund awards on their election spending returns at all elections. A suitable form of wording to this effect has been agreed with the commission, so we are working very closely with the Electoral Commission on all this. Every effort is being made to take decisions as quickly as we can. We want to make sure, as far as possible, that this pilot is seen to be a success, that it does make a significant difference, and that after we have seen the impact on this year’s elections and the impact it may have on the selection of parliamentary candidates for the next set of elections, we will be able to agree that the pilot fund should be converted into a longer-term fund, perhaps with a number of tweaks and amendments, which we hope all parties and all those interested in democratic politics with diverse representation will wish to accept. I commend the order.

Motion agreed.