Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, as a Conservative, I believe absolutely in the right to freedom of speech, but I do not think that the limits on freedom of speech in Clause 4 are as great as some noble Lords have tried to make out. I do not think that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is something that affects the rights of individuals, and Clause 4 is fundamentally aimed at public authorities. I completely understand that there is a very small number of public authorities who can be individuals as well, but, as my noble friend the Minister explained at Second Reading and as the Explanatory Notes make very clear, the prohibition on statements is against public authorities and attaches to individuals only to the extent that they are speaking for the public authority. Even if it applies to the statements made by individuals on behalf of the public authority, the ban applies to the public authority and the enforcement action is taken against the public authority. So individuals are not targeted by Clause 4.

We have to remember that this is not an academic issue. We already know that councils are starting to pass BDS motions and they are against this Bill. We know that the student encampments are including demands or public statements on the conflict in the Middle East and on divestment. They may not get all their demands, but that is certainly where they are pushing towards. Without the Bill, I think we can be fairly sure that BDS activities and statements will continue to increase and that will have an impact on social cohesion, and a particular impact on the Jewish communities that are affected by the sorts of statements that are made.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

The noble Baroness said that she is afraid that BDS statements will increase. Is she in favour of preventing such statements in unavoidably lively public debate?

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Yes, I am against statements being made by public authorities. I am trying to make the distinction at the moment between public authorities and the individuals who are involved in those public authorities, who I think are hardly affected by this, except to the extent that they speak for the public authority. I think there is a case for taking a position against statements by public authorities, because of the impact on social cohesion.

We have to remember that this provision does not come from nowhere: it is rooted in the real, live example of what happened in Leicester Council back in 2014. It passed a BDS motion and then said, “only as far as legal considerations allow”. At that time, that was hugely divisive in the local community. It does cause very real harm and that is why this is so different from the kind of example that the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, gave at the beginning, about wanting to make a statement about stealing my noble friend’s excellent handbag. This is about social cohesion, at the end of the day; that is why this provision is in here.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Baroness Noakes

Report stage
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 166A in my name. I also thank the Minister for the way in which the Bill has been discussed and amended between Second Reading, Committee and Report. It is a model of the way in which the Lords should operate, and we all appreciate the way in which the Minister and his team have responded to reasoned criticisms as we have moved forward.

Amendment 166A merely draws attention to some of the definition problems we have all struggled with, wanting to catch all the problems but not to overload the necessary and highly desirable international co-operation with other Governments and other countries, many of which are governed in ways we do not entirely approve of. As somebody who used to work for an international think tank, I am particularly concerned with the opacity of the funding of some of our political think tanks, which as charities do not have to declare their revenue.

In the United States there is much concern with the extent to which some foreign Governments, in particular the Gulf states, put enormous amounts of money into institutes operating as political think tanks, intending to influence and therefore reshape the American political debate. Although that is outside the scope of the current Bill, I and others are much concerned to insist that there should be much greater transparency about the funding of think tanks that set out to deliberately influence the way in which our politics take place.

That is an example, but we all know that there will be a substantial grey area between direction and influence, which we and the Minister have all grappled with. We are not entirely sure that we can draw the line clearly as we go. This amendment asks the Government actively to keep under review and to consult on where that line needs to be adjusted as we move forward in implementation. I hope the Minister will respond in that way.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I got involved in Committee—my only appearance on the Bill—because of concerns brought to my attention about the impact of the registration scheme on huge swathes of ordinary, everyday business and commercial activity. I was much encouraged that at that stage my noble friend the Minister said that this was under review. I am more than pleased with the actual outcome. I know that once a Bill has been published it is very hard for the Government to do a radical overhaul, so we have to pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister and the Security Minister in the other place for having the courage to say that what we started with would not work well enough and to come back with such a significant set of revisions on Report. I thank him again for all he has done to achieve this.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Wednesday 6th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 22 is in a group of rather different amendments, most of which have more meat in them than my amendment. It is a probing amendment to paragraph 4 of Schedule 3, which contains a provision to ensure that contracts are not fragmented in order to escape the value limits that govern some of the procurement rules. The basic rule in paragraph 4 is that the contracting authority has to add up the value of all the contracts if they could reasonably have been supplied under one contract.

However, paragraph 4(2) allows the contracting authority not to do this if it has “good reasons”. Amendment 22 proposes to remove this in order to find out exactly what the Government intend to allow contracting authorities to do and to probe why they have not been more specific in the Bill. At first sight, paragraph 4(2) is a massive let-out clause, enabling authorities to avoid aggregating contracts. I look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s explanation. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 81, which we on these Benches regard as particularly important. It would put in the Bill one of the most important decisions to take before embarking on the procurement of public goods and services: make or buy? That is the subject of an entire chapter in the Government’s own Sourcing Playbook. This key decision process is missing from the Bill. We seek to put it in as an essential part of the pre-procurement process. The choice of delivery models should be based on careful and impartial consideration of the different forms of delivery available for each type of work, supply or service.

Conservatives in Government have sometimes acted as though outsourcing to for-profit companies—often large outsourcing companies that have been labelled “strategic suppliers”—is the only model worth considering. Unless the Minister wishes to argue that The Sourcing Playbook and other recent publications on procurement guidelines are no longer operable, it seems entirely appropriate to put in the Bill that the choice between in-house and outsource should first be considered. Later, we will move other amendments on the delivery model choices between for-profit and not-for-profit provision.

We have carefully followed the Government’s own language in these publications in drafting the amendment. The Minister may argue that we should leave the Bill a skeleton as far as possible to allow Ministers as much flexibility as possible; we have heard him press the case for flexibility already. We argue the case for clarity, accountability and future-proofing. The principles of the procurement process must be in the Bill, not left for later in the policy statements issued by changing Ministers as they pass through the relevant office.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Baroness Noakes

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

We have it because it is just possible that the courts could find a way in. We have seen them getting involved in areas that we never thought they would get involved in before. That is a fact of the way the judiciary has moved in recent years, and it is why the clause is there.

I do not accept that the clause sets a dangerous precedent. It is about this one very narrow issue. It is not about an ouster clause that would be put in every statute that came before Parliament. Of course, Parliament must decide at the end of the day how it wants to frame its laws. It has the right to do that, and the courts can then interpret those laws, but I do not believe that this will be seen as a precedent for a more general use of ouster clauses. If it is, I am fairly sure that Parliament would not accept them. We should see this clause in the narrow concept in which it is drafted and not try to extend it beyond that.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, if we are talking about our tried and tested constitution, we should remember that in the 17th century it was Chief Justice Coke and his defence of the rule of law against the extent of the royal prerogative which led to the development of some of the ideas of constitutional democracy at least as much as Parliament. The rule of law is an essential part of the way we work.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we all know that this clause is in the Bill because of the judgment on Prorogation in 2019. I was interested to hear that the Minister’s definition of Prorogation did not in any sense suggest that that use of the power came within an accepted definition. Perhaps he will change his definition next time he comes.

The Minister has said that the importance of the Bill is to restore the status quo, but this ouster clause is not the restoration of the status quo. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that it opens a window to its use on other occasions, which would be highly undesirable. It is much more radical than Clause 2 in changing our customs and practices. If we want to maintain the status quo while changing it a little—

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Baroness Noakes

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The caps, as the noble Lord will be aware, are there in case litigation were to prevent the new scheme going into operation, so that there would be an alternative. However, the caps can be repealed by negative order and the intention is that that order would be placed the day after Royal Assent, if all else is in play.

[Baroness Noakes]

Can my noble friend explain what kind of litigation might be anticipated and therefore the need for Clause 2? Clause 1 is self-contained and does away with the need for agreement in relation to a scheme, and Clause 2 has these caps, which are inconvenient because they will get in the way if they are not what we want to bring into effect. The Minister just explained that we might need these caps if there is litigation. What sort of litigation could follow once this Bill has been enacted, doing away with the need for consent?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Neither the previous Government nor this Government expected the challenge to the agreement presented by the PCS on the previous occasion. The outside possibility with which we are concerned is a successful challenge that might ask for judicial review under the Human Rights Act and might under certain circumstances go as far as the ECHR. That process could last for some considerable time.

[Baroness Noakes]

If it is the case that we are providing some kind of insurance policy against litigation that might take us all the way to the European Court of Human Rights—I think that is unlikely, but let us assume that that is going to happen—why are the Government providing caps that are so out of line with anything that they think they are going to agree? It is perfectly plain that Clause 2 is something to wave at the unions to say, “If you don’t agree, this is what we will do to you”. It is not a reasonable fallback position if Clause 1 is litigated. I am still very confused about the structure of the Bill, as I explained to the Minister at Second Reading.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The noble Baroness has raised a very pertinent point but, in terms of the litigation—whatever the outside risk of it might be—that could come from challenge under the human rights legislation, what leads the Government to assume that that might be successful in relation to a scheme that would not be equally successful in relation to the legislation around the caps? You would expect them both to be subject to the same sort of challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes]

The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, has said twice this afternoon that the civil servants who are potentially affected by the Bill are often not very well paid. This may have been the case in the past, but all recent studies show that on pay levels up to £40,000 or £50,000—that is, “well paid”—public sector employees are better paid than their equivalents in the private sector. What may have happened in the past, and may have been part of this notional package whereby people say, “I accept low pay and get a better pension and redundancy”, has, over the years, been completely eroded. The terms and conditions are collectively out of balance with private sector comparators. In particular, pay levels at the lower levels are high.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

There are, however, a substantial number of low-paid civil servants. I am rather surprised at the number of them earning less than £21,000, most of them working outside London. One of the Inland Revenue computer centres is half a mile from Saltaire, and I am well familiar with average rates of pay in the northern part of Bradford. The reason why the scheme is set to be biased in favour of those earning less than £23,000 is that there are a very large number of them. There are a small number of extremely well paid civil servants; the changes in the compensation scheme are also to limit the payouts to which they might be entitled.

The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, seem designed to remove the substance of the Bill. To rehearse briefly, the intention behind the Bill is to bring to a close two years of negotiation by successive Governments with the trade unions, to change a compensation scheme designed nearly 40 years ago, which does not fit current conditions or circumstances.

Amendment 5 would, in practice, go further than the requirement in Section 2(3) of the Superannuation Act 1972, which, as I have explained, we have already needed to amend. First, under Section 1(3) of the 1972 Act, it is for the Minister to judge who should be consulted—

“persons appearing to the Minister … to represent persons likely to be affected by the proposed scheme”,

or with those persons themselves. However, rather than requiring the agreement of those who have been consulted on this basis, Amendment 5 would prescribe that consultation must take place with “the relevant trade unions” and, indeed, that these unions must agree.

We have already explained the efforts that successive Administrations of all parties have made, and which some of the trade unions have made, to reach such agreement. We are setting out in primary legislation and have reiterated in both Houses our commitment to meaningful consultation but, as I have described, our intention in adding Clause 1 was to remove any union veto on changes to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme. I cannot imagine that any of your Lordships will be surprised to learn that, after more than two years of consultation, the Government's view on this is resistant to change.

The second respect in which the noble Baroness's Amendment 5 would go further than the approach set out in the 1972 Act is that it would apply to any changes proposed to the Civil Service Compensation Scheme, not just to those changes that would have the effect of reducing benefits. This would create a new bureaucratic process, in which any change to the compensation scheme including, to pick a trivial example, a minor amendment to its title would require consultation and agreement from all the Civil Service unions. Amendment 6, which is grouped with this, seeks to remove from the Bill the main provisions covering the potential caps on the value of benefits provided under the compensation scheme. This guts the Bill.

The Government are determined that there is a fallback position that can be used and that, bearing in mind the lessons of the previous Administration's scheme, we are not left unable to progress due to some sort of unforeseen legal challenge to the details of the new scheme. We are therefore providing in Clause 2 to have in reserve the possibility of applying caps on the maximum value of redundancy payments under the Civil Service Compensation Scheme: a maximum of 12 months' pay for compulsory departures and 15 months' pay for voluntary departures. Putting these limits in primary legislation leads to greater legal certainty and democratic accountability and, as I have already remarked, the Government can, by negative order, raise the level of the caps, but cannot lower them. I hope that provides reassurance to the noble Baroness and that on that basis she will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I feel I should not reiterate the arguments that I have made already about the necessity of Clause 2. My feeling about this is that after two years of negotiations, any Government would have introduced such a proposal. Therefore, I do not want to push this in any partisan way. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, thinks that this has soured the negotiating environment. That is not my impression of the quality of the negotiations between the majority of the unions and the Government on this. We have made real progress and both the unions and the Government have been negotiating with clear commitment to reach a consensual agreement in the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

As I described at Second Reading in your Lordships’ House, the caps in this legislation serve several purposes. First, they set out a basis for discussion of reform of the compensation scheme with civil servants and with the trade unions representing them, comparable to best practice in the private sector. Secondly, they provide an interim solution if agreement cannot be reached. Thirdly, they provide a fallback if, following discussions and what we believe to be the conclusion of a new workable compensation scheme with terms improved beyond the caps, we find that we cannot implement it.

If we do not have this clause, we shall be in a state of legal uncertainty in which it is possible there might be a judicial challenge. Primary legislation provides much greater legal certainty, which may be important in the event of protracted litigation, where the case might be referred from one court to another. Therefore, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his opposition.

[Baroness Noakes]

The Minister said that he did not want to rehearse the arguments he put up before, but I would invite him to rehearse them because that is where the crucial issue lies. The Minister gave three reasons for having Clause 2. One is as a basis for discussion, which is no basis on which to put anything in legislation. A second is as an interim solution if there is no agreement. As I understand it, once we have Clause 1, there is no necessity for agreement, so there is no necessity for an interim solution. The third item is a fallback, if for some reason the Government were not able to implement an agreement under Clause 1. So we come back to the crucial issue of whether Clause 1 is legally robust. If it is not, on what basis is it not legally robust, or potentially not legally robust? If that is the case, what are the differences between a potential lack of robustness in Clause 1 and a potential lack of robustness in Clause 2, if that is what one has to fall back on?

I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, that these are punitive caps as I think they are relatively generous compared with what the private sector offers. The Government are indeed prepared to go further and offer a more generous scheme. I have no problem with the quantum but I seek to challenge why we have this clause. If it is just for a basis for discussion, it is no basis on which to legislate. We have to tease out why Clause 1 might be challenged and why Clause 2 would not be challengeable.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, logic might suggest that all we need in this Bill is Clause 1. I understand that point, but since the High Court judgment in May, it has become apparent that when the terms of the compensation scheme were subject to legal doubt, the purpose of restructuring within government might be stalled altogether, with consequential financial implications and uncertainty and consequent distress for staff. Having Clause 2 in reserve ensures that, if a scheme is subject to prolonged litigation, there is a provision which produces certainty and can be brought into force to prevent the process of government restructuring being put into limbo. Therefore, this is a reserve power which the Government are asking for which we hope will not be necessary. I stress again that it is a fallback in the event of refusal to agree followed by judicial challenge. The question then arises as to what the default position should be if a scheme is stalled by prolonged litigation. It is right that Parliament should decide in an Act of Parliament what the default position should be, hence Clause 2. I repeat: putting these limits into primary legislation leads to greater legal certainty and thus democratic accountability.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Baroness Noakes

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for a serious and good-tempered debate. I should declare an interest as my wife was a civil servant for some time and my daughter is a civil servant. Many of us have great respect for the Civil Service as a whole, and I know that many noble Lords have similar close links to the Civil Service. I do not think that any of us intend to denigrate the Civil Service. The noble Lord, Lord Brett, referred to briefing. I regret to say that I do not think that anyone needs to brief the Daily Mail against the Civil Service. It has its established narrative and does not need prompting. One does not need to brief the Daily Mail against the Liberal Democrats either. It carries on with its narrative in the same way. It is unfortunately part of the way we are.

I reiterate that the aim of this Government—an aim which we share with the previous Administration—is to make the Civil Service Compensation Scheme affordable, sustainable and fair to civil servants and other taxpayers while, very importantly, providing protection for the lowest paid. It is our strong intention to do this through a negotiated settlement with the Civil Service unions. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, remarked, the Bill is a regrettable necessity.

The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised the question of whether we would like to be where we are. Of course we would much prefer to be in a different place. This is not—as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Handsworth, described it—a political sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is not a question of legislation coming first and negotiations coming second. The current Government have been in active negotiation since they took office, and we remain in active negotiation. The previous Government were in active negotiation for 18 months. The legislation is here only because there is strong evidence that PCS has been dragging out the negotiations without a willingness to join the consensus which has been reached between the other unions and the employers about an acceptable package. Therefore we hope that the legislation will not be necessary, but it is here as a reserve power. So we have legislation as a reserve but negotiation as our strong preference. I regret to say that my understanding is that PCS has been very slow in replying to initiatives and has regularly delayed the date on which it will reply to government proposals. I understand that the PCS executive is at last meeting again today. We hope to hear further from them soon.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked what the Government intend to do about Clause 1. We all understand that this is the most important clause in the Bill and that getting the language right is important for the Government and the unions. We therefore hope that consensus will be achieved by Committee stage on the exact language of this clause. We all also understand that consultation has a legal meaning. We need to get that absolutely right and, if possible, agree it with our trade union partners.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others asked whether Clauses 2 and 3 are an appropriate use of legislative time and an important part of the Bill. We think that they are a necessary part of the reserve powers. These negotiations have been dragging on and the Government, like our predecessors, felt that it was useful to spell out a minimum level of support which would be there if we failed to achieve negotiated agreement. However, we much prefer to reach a negotiated agreement if we can. We are confident that—with the majority of the unions, but not yet with those representing a majority of the workforce—we are within sight of an acceptable agreement by consensus.

The caps set out in the Bill of 12 months’ pay for compulsory redundancy and 15 months’ pay for those who leave voluntarily under the scheme, represent the minimum below which the Government are clear that they should not go. The caps are a fallback if—following our discussions and what we believe to be the conclusion of a new workable compensation scheme, with terms improved beyond the caps—we find that, for whatever reason, we cannot implement the scheme. In other words, they are there to avoid having no choice but to revert to the old scheme, which looks increasingly like an historic anomaly and is not affordable.

[Baroness Noakes]

I am struggling with why, once we have Clause 1, which removes the requirement for consent, there is any requirement for anything else to be a fallback in Clause 2 with the underpinning of Clause 3. If Clause 1 takes away the need for consent and puts in place proper consultation, what is the necessity for any other part of this Bill?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I shall come in a moment to Clause 3, which is of course different. I am advised that Clause 2 is useful and necessary for spelling out the minimum that, under any conditions and without negotiation, the Government would offer. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, it is the Government’s intention to repeal Clause 2 by the time the new scheme is in force. Clause 3 allows for the Bill to lapse once the new scheme is fully in operation. That is the timescale under which we will allow the Bill to fall in the sunset clause.