Cabinet Office: Efficiency and Reform Programme

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Brabazon of Tara

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

The noble Lord gave a very interesting answer to the previous question—

[Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)]

If we did sell the Post Office too cheaply, surely that pales into insignificance in comparison with the sale of the gold reserves some years ago.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I do not want to be too partisan on this question. I am focusing on the efficiency gains that this Government have achieved very creditably in the past four years.

Internet: Copycat Websites

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Brabazon of Tara

Thursday 21st November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brabazon of Tara]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to discourage customers from using copycat websites that charge for services, such as European Health Insurance Cards, that are provided free of charge by government departments.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, most users access digital government services via the major search engines. This user behaviour has been used to inform the design of gov.uk so that government services consistently come at the top of search results. Easy access to and education about the official source of digital government services is the main way the Government protect users from inadvertently using non-official sites. The Government will continue to take action against websites that misrepresent their relationship with government and misuse government logos.

[Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that reply, but is he aware that if he googles “European Health Insurance Card”, the first two or three sites that he will come to will charge him something more than £20 for the card, whereas if he goes down to the National Health Service official site, he can get one for free? There are other examples of this, most notably passport applications where one can pay well over £40 for something that one can do oneself for nothing or go through the Post Office and pay just over £8 for help with filling in the form. Does my noble friend agree that some of these sites, to a non-legal eye anyway, come very close to passing themselves off as the official site? Would not the solution be for the Government to make sure that their site, even if it costs money with Google, always comes first on the list?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I spent some time on Tuesday afternoon looking at some of these sites. I confirm I had not realised—no doubt a number of noble Lords have not realised—that the first two or three sites to come up on the list are sponsored ads, which is indicated in very, very small print. In all cases, the top site of the non-sponsored ads was the gov.uk website. I also checked a number of the sponsored ads, which are extremely well designed. They all say that they are not an official website, but it is quite easy if you are in a hurry to miss that paragraph. Perhaps I should add that Transport for London also suffers from this if you are paying your congestion charge. I suspect that one or two noble Lords have paid more than they should for their congestion charge on one or two occasions.

Superannuation Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Brabazon of Tara

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)]

I understand that there is a mistake in Amendment 6 as printed in the Marshalled List. Instead of “(2) to (ii)” it should read “(2) to (11)”.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I appreciate that we will come on to caps in a later amendment, so it is a little difficult to know whether to respond in detail now or to leave it to later. We discussed this delicate set of issues quite extensively in Grand Committee, and I subsequently set out in a letter, which the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has mentioned and which has been placed in the House of Lords Library, that I wished to avoid being in the position that followed the High Court’s judgment of May 2010, which resulted in the February 2010 arrangement being squashed and the pre-February scheme being largely revived. I reiterate our strong intention to ensure that the proposed new scheme is legally robust and our consequent view that the scheme would ultimately survive any legal challenge.

Nevertheless, it is open to anyone to seek to challenge the scheme now or in the future, regardless of whether their intention is rational or their arguments are ultimately found to be meaningful by the courts. Such a challenge could result in the scheme being suspended until due legal process has been pursued. The Government take court rulings very seriously; we would always give the most serious consideration to court judgments and would certainly take the necessary steps to take account of any final ruling. As I previously explained, the question that arises is what the default position should be during any period of uncertainty caused by litigation. The Government continue to believe that it is right that Parliament, a democratically accountable body, should decide in an Act of Parliament what the default position should be, and that is the reason for Clause 3 as it is currently drafted.

I do, however, feel certain that a court would have views of its own about an Act of Parliament containing the approach set out in Amendment 6. This seeks, in effect, to oust the court’s power to strike down a scheme, an approach which the courts have often felt to be misconceived and on which the Government would not therefore be confident to rely. I also note that the drafting of the amendment is a little vague, which would not be helpful in conveying to a court a clear meaning of Parliament’s intent. For example, given all the opportunities for appeal or for proceedings to be taken on to the European Court, how could anyone be certain that the “final determination” has been made? Even if the intention and the process could be made sufficiently clear, I am not convinced that a court would always accept that a compensation scheme that is being challenged qualified as a scheme that should remain in place during that challenge.

I emphasise once again, as we did on several occasions in Grand Committee, that the coalition Government hope not to need to use the powers in Clause 3, nor the powers in Clause 4 that support them. What we want is a new, reformed, sustainable, affordable and fair Civil Service Compensation Scheme that can be implemented once this Bill has received Royal Assent and which will mean that we will never need to use the caps in Clause 2. If we are taken to court and therefore need to fall back to a provision that means that the necessary reductions in the Civil Service workforce can be made without disproportionate cost and perverse effects, it is more reasonable to rely on such caps than on a clause that attempts pre-emptively to bind the court.

We shall shortly have the chance to discuss Clause 3 again as drafted, along with the provisions in Clause 4 that provide for the repeal, extension or revival of Clause 3. I do not think it would be right for us to agree to an amendment that might be interpreted by some as seeking to constrain the powers of the courts. So, for the reasons that I have given, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.