Voting: Young People
Lord Wills Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I suspect that a number of us in this Chamber are registered in two different places and have been for many years. Many students are registered in two different places, at their home and at their university. In all matters of electoral registration we have a balance to consider between keeping fraud to a minimum and doing everything that we can to encourage all British citizens to register.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, while I welcome everything that the Government are doing to encourage increases in registration among young people, does the Minister accept that these efforts are very limited and that there is a lot more that they could be doing at relatively little cost? This could include, for example, sending out registration forms to young people when they get their national insurance numbers, when they get their driving licences or when they are applying for student loans. What consideration are the Government giving to those sorts of measures?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, in the most recent visit by representatives of Bite the Ballot to the Cabinet Office they presented it with a draft voter mobilisation Bill that would indeed mean that when young people interacted with the state they would be reminded on each occasion to register. There are a number of quite tricky questions about government and the citizen, and how many things that you pull together in each interaction between government and the citizen, and we may be producing a Green Paper on this next year. We are conscious that the ICT revolution makes all this much easier, but the privacy lobby is not entirely keen on us making it as easy as we would like.
Ukraine, Syria and Iran
Lord Wills Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That is a very difficult question to answer in some ways because, as the noble Lord well knows, there is a very large variety of fighting groups. Indeed, in north-eastern Syria in the past week or two the moderate forces in the opposition have been fighting radical jihadis to expel them from ground otherwise occupied by the opposition. However, my experience of the Geneva II talks so far is that the representatives of the Syrian National Council have been more coherent and more constructive than some had predicted in advance. We are doing all we can to support the Syrian National Council in being an inclusive body, including Kurdish and Christian representatives, women and so on, and in strengthening its links with the moderate fighting forces on the ground. Of course, the picture remains extremely unclear. It is currently very difficult to get around inside Syria for obvious reasons, but we are a little more confident than we were that there is a reasonable opposition willing to work for a transition regime, through which we and others can work.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I think that we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wills, because he has been trying to get in for a while.
Lord Wills
I am very grateful and my question is brief. The Minister will be aware of reports that there has been a significant flight of capital from Ukraine in recent weeks. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that assets that have been corruptly acquired in Ukraine are not being laundered in this country?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that is a question that I have asked myself inside government. We are concerned about the movement of funds whose origins are not entirely clear. I am assured that the Government are monitoring these movements, but of course it is a matter of concern.
Electoral Registration
Lord Wills Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Hansard Society is working with Homeless Link on a project that is very much targeted at young people who are moving very rapidly or who do not have a settled address, who of course are one of the most difficult groups to reach.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister is well aware, the Government generally allocate funds to local authorities for the purposes of electoral registration through the local government finance settlement. As he is also aware, these funds are not ring-fenced. Will the Government say whether they know, rather than hope or think, how much of that funding is spent for the purposes of electoral registration?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
As the noble Lord knows from our previous discussions on this on many occasions, the Government are not in favour of extending ring-fencing. Having met a number of electoral registration officers, I have great confidence that they can look after themselves and ensure that the money is not siphoned off to other sources.
Electoral Registration: National Voter Registration Day
Lord Wills Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, National Voter Registration Day is an independent initiative to which the Government give their full support, but it is not a governmental initiative. We are all aware, as we move towards individual elector registration and deal with the problems of underregistration, particularly among young people, that the Government cannot do it all on their own and do not have all the answers, so we enormously welcome the engagement of as many voluntary groups of this sort as possible.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the success of the schools programme in Northern Ireland in increasing the numbers of young people who are registered to vote. Will the Government consider introducing that programme more widely?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that Bite the Ballot has developed a schools programme, Rock Enrol!, which is now also on the gov.uk website. We are encouraging schools to play that with 16 and 17 year-olds. We are also encouraging schools to continue the citizenship education programme; there will be a new element of that for the national curriculum this September. We are all conscious that PSHE has never been quite as good as we all wanted it to be. However, it is there and we very much hope that schools will be taking this further.
Electoral Registration
Lord Wills Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that electoral registration levels do not decline between the 2010 and 2015 general elections.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Government are safeguarding the completeness of the register by using data matching to ensure that the vast majority of existing electors are reregistered in the transition to individual electoral registration. We are phasing the transition over two years, with a carry-forward to allow those not individually registered to vote in the 2015 election. We are making registration more accessible by introducing online registration and are providing additional resources at a national and local level to fund activities to boost the completeness and accuracy of the register to the greatest degree possible.
Lord Wills (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I welcome all the measures that he has described and all the other measures that the Government have taken to improve the levels of registration. I also recognise his own personal commitment to that goal. However, he must recognise that every independent authority has warned that the approach that the Government are taking to changing the method of registration carries risks to levels of registration among particular groups of people—young people, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities and people living in areas of extreme deprivation. In the light of that, does he recognise that, in what is likely to be a very tightly contested general election next year, levels of registration could significantly skew its outcome? They are likely to benefit one party alone: the Conservative Party. In the light of that, will he give an assurance that he will monitor levels of registration later this year and, if they have declined, will he make more money available to local authorities to increase levels of registration?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I think the noble Lord knows that we are working extremely hard across the board on all this. In the confirmation dry run on data matching, the two boroughs that came out with less than 50% successful data matching were Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea—not exactly the areas with the lowest level of income in the country.
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) Order 2013
Lord Wills Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the careful way in which he set out the basis of these regulations. I want to associate myself with the great sweep of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. I do not think the Minister will be surprised to hear that I still have concerns about this legislation, but he will, I hope, be pleased that I do not intend to rehearse all those concerns today. This is not the appropriate place to discuss the Government’s approach to introducing individual electoral registration. My noble friend Lord Lipsey has already set out for the Committee the importance of that, so I will not go over it.
There appears to be very little that is exceptionable in these regulations. I welcome much that is in them. However, your Lordships’ House is being asked to approve them without the benefit of crucial information, which is available to the Government but not to your Lordships. This cannot be an acceptable way to proceed in a healthy democracy, where there is proper scrutiny of the Executive by the legislature.
As far as I am aware, every independent body has warned of the potential damage to levels of registration by the Government’s approach to this legislation. All experience and evidence suggest that there are specific groups at particular risk of seeing their registration levels fall as a result of government policy: young people; students, as we have already heard; people with learning disabilities; people with disabilities generally; people living in areas of high social and economic deprivation; and ethnic minorities. These concerns were extensively rehearsed during the passage of the Bill and were brushed aside by the Government, who have still not produced any evidence to justify their insouciance. Their responses have brimmed with hope and aspiration, but they have not really put forward anything to justify their confidence.
It is not credible to argue, as the Government often do—we have heard a trace of it again today from the Minister—that there are significant problems with current levels of registration. It is no justification at all to make a bad situation worse. We are not in a position to assess the arguments put forward for the efficacy of the measures that the Government have outlined today and elsewhere, because we do not have the information to judge whether they are sufficient. It is impossible to assess whether these measures are adequate without knowing the assessment of risk that the Government have made.
The Minister suggested in the past that the Government had indeed considered these concerns. If your Lordships’ House is to approve these regulations, surely it should have access to the same evidence as the Government about the risks to electoral registration of their policy. Yet, we do not. I have been trying for nearly a year to secure it under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. I have been fobbed off with what I regard as inadequate excuses for not giving it. These excuses have consistently been delivered late—well outside the provisions of the Act. I last wrote to Cabinet Office officials on 6 November. I am still waiting for a response. The Minister, I am sure, can work out that the response is out of time.
Will the Minister today at least spare me—and, more importantly perhaps, his long-suffering officials—further grief? Will he tell your Lordships what assessment the Government have made of the risks this legislation poses to levels of registration among young people; among students; among people with learning disabilities; among people with disabilities generally; among people living in areas of high social and economic deprivation; and among ethnic minorities? If he will not, please will he explain why he will not?
There can be only two possible explanations for the Government’s persistent refusal to share this information with your Lordships’ House. The first is that all the concerns that I have referred to are groundless, but the Government are not revealing this because of their worries about extending transparency in government. Will the Minister say whether this is indeed the reason for the Government’s refusal to reveal the detail of their assessments of the risks to electoral registration of this legislation?
The only other possible explanation for the Government’s lack of transparency is that their assessment indeed confirms all other independent assessments of the risks that so concern everybody else and that they are embarrassed to reveal it, because that would throw a harsh light on the profound flaws in the legislation.
I would be grateful if the Minister could say today which of these two arguments applies to the Government’s lack of transparency in this area. If he will not respond to that—and I fear that probably he will not—will he at least make a guarantee? It is only a small request, but it would save everybody a lot of grief and place the Government in a much better light than they currently are in. Will he guarantee that I will receive replies to my freedom of information requests—which, I must give due warning, are unlikely to stop now—within the statutory limits provided for under the Act? I hope that the Government recognise that the sort of inexcusable tardiness I have experienced until now undermines their frequent claims to the promotion of transparency in government.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, first, I draw Members’ attention to my interest as a member of the Electoral Commission. I am also the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Voter Registration.
The order and regulations we are considering in Grand Committee today are important as part of the process of bringing into effect individual electoral registration. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey, who described to the Grand Committee just what is at stake and how important the regulations—and all that we are discussing here today—are. I look forward to many more discussions and debates on this over the coming weeks and months.
National Voter Registration Day, which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, mentioned, is something that I very much support. We discussed it many times at the all-party group meetings. It is very important that we get young people registered to vote. They are a real risk group, as other colleagues mentioned. There is, as my noble friend Lord Wills said, much that we agree with here, but there are real risks. I agree with him very much. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will be able to address the points my noble friend has made; in particular, I hope that when my noble friend puts in FOI requests, he will get proper and adequate responses and that this will be addressed.
Members will be aware that the previous Labour Government put on to the statute book individual electoral registration and a process for bringing it into effect. With the new Government coming into office, the process was accelerated and other changes were made with the passing of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. As many noble Lords said, IER is supported by all parties and we all welcome its introduction. It is another safeguard to ensure that our democracy is both protected and enhanced. It is important for the governance of our country at all levels, for society in general, for our citizens, for political parties and for our reputation around the world that we can all have confidence in our electoral process. It is largely built on trust, but it needs safeguards for protection.
I have a number of questions for the noble Lord. I am sure he will answer as many as he can today, but I do not expect him to be able to answer them all—or all the questions posed by other noble Lords. Where that proves to be the case, I assume that he will write to me and other noble Lords who have asked questions and place a copy in the Library of the House
I turn first to the order that requires electoral registration officers throughout England, Wales and Scotland to undertake specific activities in relation to the transition to IER. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, there are real concerns with the IT needed to deliver this. Fundamental decisions have to be made and some may have to be reviewed. Will the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, tell the Grand Committee what safeguards are in place? About 70% of electors were confirmed through the tests in the data-matching exercise—the noble Lord said it was 78%. However, as he will be fully aware, we do not have an overregistration problem in this country but an underregistration problem. Will he tell the Grand Committee what else is proposed to get electors on to the register, other than the online proposals?
Noble Lords are all aware of the Northern Ireland experience. I accept that this is being done in a different way, but it would be good to hear what other plans the Government will put in place to ensure that we do not have a similar problem. It has to be a bit more than the ERO being able to concentrate on the other 30% who are not identified through this process. Will he also tell the Grand Committee what the status is of other databases and matching exercises? Are these not going to be looked at further? Will they be able to give us what we want? Might we look at any others in the future? What is the review process for looking at databases as we move forward?
I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that the completeness and the accuracy of the register are not the same thing. I note the baseline measurements of 86% complete and 85% accurate for our electoral register. However, to put it another way, our electoral register baseline measurements are 14% incomplete and 15% inaccurate. Is that acceptable to him—and, if not, what will the Government do to improve the situation?
My worry is that, as other noble Lords mentioned, it will be students, people living in private rented accommodation, service men and women and their families, and other groups that have the potential to move around who will be at the greatest risk of being lost to the system. I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware of the importance of the register that will be published in December 2015, as it relates to the next parliamentary redistribution of seats. I think that I am right in saying this will be the base figure that the Boundary Commission will take. If there is a drop in the number of people registered to vote, that will have very serious consequences for how seats are redrawn and could create a gross injustice and unfairness. How will the noble Lord ensure that that will not happen? What contingency plans do the Government have in place?
I turn to the other regulations before the Grand Committee. Changing the name of the edited register to the open register is a very sensible move and I fully support it. The Government are a bit obsessed with the retention of data and I have some concerns about losing the ability to detect fraud that their keenness to destroy records could create. Where someone has failed to be matched and cannot produce documents that satisfy the ERO, they will need to have their application attested by an elector who is registered in the same local authority—someone of good standing. Can the noble Lord tell the Grand Committee who is a person of “good standing” and how many applications they will be able to sign per year: one, two, 10 or 100? When do alarm bells start to be rung?
Does the noble Lord think that one visit and two follow-up invitations will be enough? Does he not accept that in many places EROs will have to go much further than this? What advice would he give to EROs about using the requirement-to-register power: is it something he would expect EROs to do only in exceptional circumstances, or is it something he would encourage them to do much more frequently than that to improve the completeness and accuracy of the register in their locality?
On postal vote identifiers, will he give a commitment to look at the date of birth identifier in particular? As I see it, the most common problem is that people will give their signature and date of birth when applying for a postal vote, but, when casting their postal vote, they will sign the document and put that day’s date on the form. That would be an understandable mistake, but it would mean that their vote was not counted. I am sure that the noble Lord would regret that most sincerely, as would I.
As I said at the start of my remarks, I fully support IER, as do all parties—and, I am sure, all noble Lords. However, I and other noble Lords have raised a number of concerns at which the Government will have to look seriously as these changes move forward.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am grateful for almost everything that has been said in this debate. We all agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, that it is extremely important, first, to get maximum registration, and then to get maximum turnout. We also accept that both of these are difficult and have become more difficult; and that the question of the legitimacy of government is, of course, caught up in this. We are all well aware that we might possibly elect a Labour Government at the next election with 35% of the votes cast on a very low turnout. I can imagine what the Daily Mail would say about the legitimacy of that Government.
We have a shared interest across all parties, first, to make sure that we maximise registration and then—this is something on which we need to have some active cross-party conversations—persuade our deeply alienated electorate, let alone our deeply hostile media, that politics is an honourable profession; that voting is important; and that maximising the turnout at the next election has to be seen as a civic duty and not as something that, as some newspaper columnists tend to suggest, will only encourage the bastards.
Lord Wills
I am very grateful for what the Minister has just said and want to associate myself with those remarks profoundly. I would like to “mark his card” with a particular potential problem on which I hope the parties could collaborate. That is the problem about funding for electoral registration in this context. As the Minister will know, it is not ring-fenced—although I personally believe that it should be. However, because it is not ring-fenced, local authorities under a lot of pressure might well be tempted to skimp, shall we say, on some of the efforts made. The problem could arise, therefore—and it is only a potential problem at the moment—that local authorities with a particular political complexion will not necessarily see it as in their interests to canvass areas that support the other parties. I am sure that the Minister can imagine the sort of scenarios that could occur.
At the moment, there is no protection against that happening. I am not saying that it will happen. Most local authorities in my experience as a Minister were extremely diligent and took their democratic duties extremely seriously. I would be very surprised if it was a widespread problem, but it could be a problem. I welcome the comments just made by the Minister and his reassurance that he will at least explore what might be done to protect against that sort of eventuality.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I hesitate to get into a discussion on ring-fencing, which the noble Lord and I have debated several times before. The good news is that the data matching so far has come up with a much higher proportion than we originally anticipated. That will enable us to focus funding on those vulnerable groups and particular areas that we now know to be the most difficult. We all understand which those groups are. They are young men above all—young men who tend not to open letters and who move around very rapidly—students, young black voters, and other challenging groups of one sort or another. That is the area on which we are currently concentrating. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and others that the Government are co-operating actively with Bite the Ballot, Operation Black Vote and other organisations that are working to increase the intention and willingness to register within their own communities. We are also working with universities and students to ensure that they, too, are able to raise interest and maximise the registration of those groups in their areas. We are well aware of this and we are doing everything we can.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, asked whether we were going ahead for 2015. So far, things are going better than anticipated. We have not completely gone snap on it, but the IT has demonstrated more resilience than we feared might be the case, so it is on track. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s comments on the open register. There are some wider considerations here, as we all understand, such as the questions of credit references and identity verification for mortgages, and other such things. There is also an issue about overseas voters, since they will be asked to demonstrate that they have been, within the past 15 years, resident somewhere in a particular constituency. All of these things fit in with maintaining an accurate register, let alone the question of longer historical research, which relates to the future of the census—another complicated area on which I will not go into more detail here.
Yes, of course we will review the situation after 2015, and we will be absolutely concerned to do whatever we can about service registration. The question of service voting and registration is becoming a little less difficult than it has been, because as troops return from Afghanistan and from Germany, the proportion of our serviceman living outside this country is going through a relatively rapid decline. Of course they will continue to move around, but arrangements for Armed Forces voters and their spouses will be maintained in as strong a form as we possibly can.
We are absolutely concerned to get good young people’s registration forms. I have already mentioned our work with universities and other groups. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, talked about access to the Government’s risk register. Again, we have discussed this before and I have reiterated that the Government work through a risk register as a matter of course but do not publish it. We have just all agreed where we know the risks are in this shift in registration, but I have to reiterate that we knew where many of these risks were already. It is relevant that we have already had increasing problems with young men, people living in rented accommodation and ethnic minority voters. Those existed already; we simply have to work harder to get through to all of them; that is why we are targeting our efforts.
Lord Wills
Very briefly, everyone knew where the risks were with the current system of registration. The question I have been trying to get the Government to address is: does the way in which they are proceeding to introduce individual registration increase those risks, maintain the same level of risk or decrease the risks? Which is it?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, our efforts are intended to mitigate a risk that was already increasing and is likely to increase further. We will continue to need to look at a range of issues. I am well aware that a Labour Private Member’s Bill, which has been presented two or three times in the House of Commons, suggests, for example, that benefit seekers should not be able to receive their benefits unless they are on the electoral register. This provision is not included in the Bill. It is something that the noble Lord may wish to pursue further. There is a range of questions that we still need to consider, but he and I know how difficult this is: first, getting these people on the register and then persuading many of them to vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked how aware we were of the importance of the register for December 2015, because it is likely to be the basis on which the redistribution of seats next time around will be drawn. Again, this is not a new problem. We are already aware that there has been underregistration in a number of cities—a number of safe Labour seats, one has to say. To the extent to which we have managed to raise the level of registration, we will raise it on a much fairer basis for the next redistribution of seats. Again, we all recognise, on a cross-party basis, that these things go together, and that we share an interest in making sure that as many of these vulnerable groups as possible are persuaded to register.
The last question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was: who is a person of good standing? I am tempted to say that it is clearly a university professor. However, I take the question as he put it and I promise to write, particularly on the question of how many times the same person can sign a form on behalf of someone else before the ERO begins to question whether they are an appropriate person to sign the form. I am aware of where he is going with that question and I will do my best to answer it. I hope that I have answered all the questions that noble Lords raised, and I beg to move.
Public Services: Private Sector Companies
Lord Wills Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I think we have discovered yet again that there is no perfect way of providing goods and services and that each model has its own advantages and disadvantages. The Government are currently doing their best to encourage the development of mutuals. Some weeks ago I went round the mutual housing association operating in Bradford, and it was doing a superb job, in particular in training apprentices. But of course there are good examples and bad examples in almost every sector.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that transparency can only improve the delivery of public services by private sector companies? If he does, can he explain exactly why the Government continue to resist the extension of the Freedom of Information Act to the provision of public services by private sector companies?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that is a familiar question. There are, of course, problems of commercial confidentiality, as the noble Lord well knows. I will take it back and write to him yet again on the subject.
Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]
Lord Wills Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
“Auditor’s right to documents and information of significant private contractors
(1) A local auditor has a right of access at all reasonable times to audit documents from significant private companies that the local authority have contracted services to during the last financial year.
(2) Local auditors only have a right of access to audit documents from private companies, under subsection (1), that relate to the service provided to the local authority by that company.
(3) A local auditor must make available on request any audit documents, obtained under subsection (1), subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(4) In this section “private company” shall be interpreted to mean any legal entity, including joint ventures, not-for-profit organisations, mutually-held organisations and charities.
(5) Five years after the coming into force of this section, the Secretary of State must commission and publish a review of the effectiveness of subsections (1) to (3) and of the costs to local auditors, private companies and local authorities arising from it.”
Lord Wills
My Lords, this amendment is designed to bring greater transparency to the relationships between local authorities and the private contractors to whom increasingly large amounts of public services are being contracted out. Billions of pounds are at stake in these contracts and the recent revelations about the electronic tagging work carried out by private sector firms for the Ministry of Justice are just the latest example for the case for greater transparency in these arrangements.
I moved a similar amendment at both Committee and Report, when I set out the merits of greater transparency in tackling fraud and corruption, incompetence and inefficiency and in terms of citizens’ rights to know about the services provided to them and the taxpayers’ right to know about the services they pay for. I do not need to detain your Lordships today by rehearsing those arguments again at length.
The Government appear to believe that there are already sufficient provisions for transparency for this amendment not to be necessary, but the fact that local authorities themselves are covered by the Freedom of Information Act does not always provide the necessary transparency for private sector bodies carrying out public sector work, as I argued at Committee and Report, nor does the right of electors to inspect accounts and audit documents, important though that right is and has been for the many years.
At the heart of the Government’s resistance appears to be a belief that transparency increases cost. I addressed this argument at length on Report, by analysing the Government’s figures, which suggest that such costs are likely to amount, if at all, to an increase in a tiny percentage of the sums involved. The Government have not, so far, questioned my calculations. I also pointed out that transparency can save money often by revealing fraud and corruption, incompetence and inefficiency. However, I recognise that Ministers fret about things which sometimes they do not always need to fret about and, in an attempt to set their minds at ease, I have made two changes that I hope will go some way towards meeting the Government’s concerns.
First, in this amendment, there is a provision for a review after five years to see whether the Government’s concerns about costs among other things are justified. Secondly, I have inserted “significant” into the amendment to make it clear that it is not intended to cover the provision of services by small businesses, nor the work of town and parish councils, as in those cases this amendment might be unnecessarily onerous. I hope that, even at this late stage, Ministers might reconsider their position on greater transparency in this area and that these changes might encourage them to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Tope
My Lords, Liberal Democrats campaigned hard for freedom of information long before the Act was passed and have since been consistent and enthusiastic supporters of its provisions. It follows therefore that we start with considerable sympathy for the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is pursuing. This is the first time I have spoken on his amendments and I am grateful to him for pursuing the issue at all stages of the Bill.
It is timely because we are now seeing in local government a significant and substantial change towards commissioning. It is not quite the same as outsourcing, as has been referred to, but it is largely brought about by budget pressures and is a change that is coming anyway. Now and in the years to come we will see local authorities all over the country of all political persuasions increasingly commissioning services not just from commercial contractors, but from the third sector, joint ventures, charities and so on. I am pleased that the noble Lord has therefore included in subsection (4) of his proposed new clause a reference to,
“joint ventures, not-for-profit organisations”,
and so on, because that is at least in part the direction in which we are heading. For all those reasons, I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate his amendment. I am also pleased that he included “significant” for reasons that he explained. I assume it will mean that all the smaller sub-contractors, for instance, will not necessarily be covered by this, and that is welcome too.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for our useful discussions about Amendments 1 and 2, both after Committee and again earlier this week. I also acknowledge his commitment to this agenda and the enthusiasm with which he pursues it.
Amendment 1 seeks to give auditors a right to access audit documents of significant contractors to local authorities and to make these available on request. Amendment 2 is concerned with extending freedom of information rules. The debate we have just had has extended over both amendments and, to some extent, I have to answer both amendments, even though the noble Lord chose to separate the two last night.
I acknowledge that there is a wider issue here, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has just said, about the appropriate levels of audit, transparency and accountability for private providers of public services—whether they be for-profit companies, not-for-profit voluntary organisations or others. This issue has grown over the past 25 to 30 years as successive Governments of all parties have outsourced public services, both from the national and from the local level. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pointed out, recent publicity over inadequate performance has heightened public interest and interest in this House, although I should note that almost all the recent cases publicised have been about nationally negotiated contracts, not local contracts. Noble Lords may have noticed that the Atos contract with DWP on work disability assessment included provision for DWP audit. That has now discovered certain weaknesses for which Atos has apologised.
I encourage the noble Lord to pursue this issue further. I will repeat what I said on Report: both Parliament and the Government need to look at this issue in general. With my Cabinet Office hat on I would say that the Cabinet Office is actively looking at the issues of commissioning and contracts and how to make sure that we are raising standards across Whitehall. The new Commissioning Academy, the Government’s champion for the non-profit sector, is part of how we are working at learning from mistakes that have been made, both under this Government and under our predecessor, and raising the level of approach. It would be highly appropriate for Parliament to look at this in parallel with the Government. As I suggested on Report, I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Wills, to consider whether he should bid for a sessional committee, for example, which would examine the changing relationship between non-governmental providers of public services and local authorities and national authorities to see whether we can find consensus across the parties on how we approach this issue.
On the wider issue, nevertheless, I have to say that the case has to be made. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, was, in his commitment to greater transparency and freedom of information, in a minority in the previous Government. I recall that the Prime Minister Tony Blair said that the Freedom of Information Act was the biggest mistake that they had made. I share, as do all those in my party, a commitment to transparency in government, and the coalition Government have done their best to extend transparency. In many ways, however, there is rather further to go, particularly when one comes to the relations between the private sector and the public sector—the private for-profit sector, which pleads commercial sensitivity and additional costs from the extension of the sort of transparency and audit which the noble Lord is approving.
This specific amendment is not necessary because the Bill already gives these powers to local auditors. Clause 21 enables local auditors to access whatever documents and information they think are necessary to undertake their functions under the Bill. That includes documents held by local authorities’ contractors if the auditors consider that these are necessary in order to undertake their functions. That covers all the functions in the Bill, not just the audit of the financial statement but all the additional functions that are unique to local public audit such as the consideration of questions and objections from the local electorate and the issue of public interest reports. Schedule 11 to the Bill also includes provisions which enable local auditors to disclose information necessary to answer those questions and objections. The Government’s code of recommended practice for local authorities on data transparency recommends a minimum set of data to be published locally. All local authorities now publish expenditure over £500 and many publish their contracts. No audit firms have yet indicated that the current access rights are inadequate or lacking.
That being the case, I argue—I hope the noble Lord recognises that I do not argue the resistance to his amendment primarily on cost grounds—that the case is not made on this amendment. We all recognise that there is a wider issue about the overall transformation over the past 25 years of the relationship between government as provider of funds and the private, profit and non-profit sectors as the provider of those services in return for funds. However, I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, who said that much of this is covered in the contractual relationship. We are all learning about how to improve that contractual relationship. The Government, particularly within the Cabinet Office, are working on how to extend best practice across the Government nationally as well as assisting local authorities. Having given all of those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment on the condition that we will continue to discuss and examine this very broad issue.
Lord Wills
My Lords, this has been a short but useful debate. I am grateful to all who have spoken in it and for the fact that everyone—except the Minister—has broadly supported the amendment. I congratulate the two new vice-presidents of the Local Government Association on their contribution on this subject. I am also grateful to the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, and their officials for their willingness to engage continually with me on this subject. I have benefited from our discussions.
I am grateful, too, that the Minister expressed his continuing willingness for the Government to keep looking at this issue. That is a step forward from the Committee stage and the Report stage. Although the Government have not accepted the amendment, I am grateful for what I take to be a slow, almost imperceptible, warming of their position on it. However, looking at this issue is not the same as doing something about it. It is not the same as taking advantage of what is likely to be quite a rare legislative opportunity to bring greater transparency to this important sphere of public life.
The Minister mentioned two primary reasons for resisting the amendment. One was commercial sensitivity. However, he will be well aware that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 has an exemption for commercial sensitivity—subject, of course, to a public interest test. So, with all respect to him, I am not sure how far he would wish to pursue that argument.
The Minister then focused on the idea that the amendment is not necessary. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, relied for their position on the fact that good local authorities should have this aspect covered anyway in their contractual relationships with private sector companies providing outsourced work. The noble Lords are, of course, right. Good local authorities should have this covered. If all local authorities were good local authorities, my amendment would not be necessary. But they are not. They make mistakes and they overlook things, as we all do. In Committee I gave examples. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, did not say that all local authorities do this. He said, quite rightly, shame on those that do not, but he conceded that there are those that do not. I think that the Minister himself said that “much” of this—not all of it—was covered under the contractual arrangements. That is precisely what the amendment seeks to remedy. It seeks to ensure that all local authorities bring greater transparency to this crucial area of public life, where billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are at stake. We have seen already how necessary this is.
In the light of that, I am afraid that I shall have to resist the Minister’s invitation to withdraw the amendment. Because the Government are warming to this idea, I hope that this House can send a signal to the other place about the importance of transparency and perhaps encourage the Government, when the Bill gets there, to move further on this issue. I therefore beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Wills
“Freedom of information
(1) In the Freedom of Information Act 2000, at the end of Part 1 of Schedule 1 (public authorities), insert—
“7 A local auditor of a local authority.”
(2) Five years after the coming into force of this section, the Secretary of State must commission and publish a review of the effectiveness of this section and of the costs to local auditors, private companies and local authorities arising from it.”
Lord Wills
My Lords, I moved an identical amendment to this at both Committee and Report stages of the Bill. I will not rehearse again all the arguments I set out at both stages or the merits of greater transparency, which we discussed in the debate on the previous amendment, the advantages of tackling fraud, corruption, incompetence and inefficiency, or the principled arguments in favour of citizens having the right to know about the services provided for them to the maximum extent possible and of taxpayers knowing as much as possible about the services for which they pay. However, I stress again that this amendment sets out not to promote an increase in transparency so much as to tackle a decrease in transparency which is brought about by the new arrangements under the Bill.
As I said on Report, the Audit Commission, which is being replaced by the provisions of the Bill, was covered by the Freedom of Information Act. My understanding is that in addition to information that it held for its own purposes, which of course was covered by that Act, other information held by auditors would also have been regarded as being held by the commission in certain circumstances, and therefore would also be covered by the Freedom of Information Act—for example, when the Audit Commission was investigating a complaint against a specified auditor, when it was conducting a quality control assessment of an auditor’s work or when it had required an auditor to provide information for the discharge of wider commission functions such as making judgments on local authorities’ use of resources. In such circumstances, such information would have been deemed to be held by the Audit Commission, and therefore would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. These are important categories of information that cover significant areas of public interest and concern. Yet, as far as I can see, no public authority as defined in the Freedom of Information Act has inherited those responsibilities from the Audit Commission under this Bill. Therefore, under this new regime, such information will no longer be covered by the Freedom of Information Act. I think that it should be.
This restriction of transparency damages the public interest and the amendment seeks to prevent that happening. At previous stages, this amendment received support from all sides of the House and has the support of the Local Government Association. Only the Government have stood out against it. In the light of our previous discussions on this issue and the previous debate today, I hope that they will now change their minds. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to point out that this is simply a question of preserving, or perhaps reviving, the level terms on which freedom of information has hitherto applied. It is different from the previous case that we debated. No question of cost is likely to be germane to the amendment. It is simply there to ensure that the transparency currently available within a local authority’s documentation is extended to those with which it contracts, subject to the Freedom of Information Act provisions and exemptions. There seems to be an unanswerable case for ensuring that that degree of transparency will apply as it applies now, before the Bill is enacted. I concur with my noble friend who urges on the Government acceptance of this provision, which is different from the previous amendment and to which I can see no possible objection, even from Liberal Democrat Members of your Lordships’ House or, indeed, elsewhere.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench and to the Minister for his response, but I am baffled by it. He has not argued on the fact that it is a decrease in transparency, does not maintain the status quo and does not provide citizens with the right to know, in the way of the old regime. Yet the Minister wants time for this decrease in transparency to bed in.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I do not accept the noble Lord’s contention that it is a decrease in transparency. As I remarked on the Atos cases, on which there has been some publicity, the way in which contracts are now being formulated provides for a considerable expansion in transparency in how they are negotiated, and with access to the public authority as contractor. We simply do not accept what the noble Lord is arguing.
Lord Wills
I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention but he has still not answered the question. It is clear that the Minister cannot guarantee—I will sit down if he can do so—that all local authorities will formulate their contracts with private sector contractors in a way that guarantees the transparency that he says he wants. I am happy to sit down if he can guarantee that. The Minister is not moving in his seat. Of course, he cannot guarantee it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
There is a difference of philosophical approach between the two parties and the current position of the Labour Party. The Labour Party is rather more centralist and authoritarian and wishes to tie everything up together. We are trying to provide more flexibility and more autonomy. That is why we are attempting this slightly less centralised and over-regulatory approach.
Lord Wills
I agree that there is a difference between the two sides on this. However, it is not about authoritarianism but about whether we trust a bunch of politicians or the citizen with the right to transparency. The whole point of freedom of information is that it gives the citizen the right. The Minister wants to give private sectors and politicians the chance to stitch it up between them without giving the citizen the right to scrutinise it. That is the difference between the two parties. It has nothing to do with authoritarianism.
However, the Minister has still not addressed the point that this is a decrease in transparency. He has not said, for example, how the coalition will decide, when it reviews the arrangements that the Bill will bring in, whether transparency needs to be increased. By its definition it will be almost impossible for the coalition to find out and I am curious about how the review will be conducted.
The Minister focused his remarks on the relationship with the private sector but the amendment covers not only that relationship but local district auditors. That is the key point. The citizen and the taxpayer need transparency in the operation of the people who scrutinise the delivery of public services. I remind the Minister that the Grant Thornton report on Mid Staffs showed how important it is that there should be transparency in the work of those who monitor and scrutinise the delivery of public services. The Government say that they have learnt the lesson from Mid Staffs but the Minister, whatever he says, has just proved that they still have not learnt the lessons about the merits of transparency.
However, I notice the Minister’s careful words. He said that “at this time”, “at this stage”, he is reserving his options. It may be that between now and the Bill going to the other place the Government will change their mind and it will not be “at this time” any more but “at another time”. With that and the disappointingly unsatisfactory response from the Minister in mind, and in the hope that your Lordships’ House will send a signal to the other place, I ask leave to test the opinion of the House.
Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]
Lord Wills Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
“Auditors right to documents and information of private contractors
(1) A local auditor has a right of access at all reasonable times to audit documents from private companies that the local authority have contracted services to during the last financial year.
(2) Local auditors only have a right of access to audit documents from private companies, under subsection (1), that relate to the service provided to the local authority by that company.
(3) A local auditor must publish any audit documents, obtained under subsection (1), as part of a local audit publication.”
Lord Wills
My Lords, both amendments aim to improve transparency in the new arrangements for local government. Amendment 18 is very similar to one that I tabled in Committee, and Amendment 23, with which it is grouped, is identical to the one that I moved then. Both were resisted by the Government, and I am bringing them forward again to give Ministers the opportunity to think again about whether it is really in the best interests of the Government, let alone in the public interest, to restrict transparency in the way that continuing to resist the amendments would.
I set out the case for the amendments in Committee, so I will not repeat those arguments in detail now. However, since then, both Ministers and their officials have met me to discuss the amendments, and I should like to place on record my gratitude to them all for all the time and trouble that they took in doing that. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, then followed up with a letter, which, I understand, has been copied to all interested Peers, setting out in some detail the grounds of the Government’s resistance to the amendments. Again, I am very grateful to the Minister for the careful and thorough way in which she and her officials have approached these issues, and I think they are now owed the courtesy of a response to their arguments.
Their first argument is that the amendments represent an increase in transparency and would bring auditors under the Freedom of Information Act in a way that they were not under the previous regime. I regard this as an argument for the amendments, not against them.
The recent Grant Thornton report for the Care Quality Commission showed just how important transparency can be in the work of those scrutinising the delivery of public services. What the Secretary of State for Justice last week rather politely referred to as,
“a significant anomaly in the billing practices under the current contracts”,—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/13; col. 573.]
for electronic tagging has shown how important transparency is for scrutinising the work done by private sector companies for the public sector. In the light of what has been revealed recently about such work and about what has happened in the NHS, I am baffled as to why Ministers should still be resisting increasing transparency.
However, these amendments are not only about increasing transparency; they also set out to tackle a decrease in transparency brought about by the new arrangements. The Audit Commission, which is being replaced by the provisions of the Bill, was covered by the Freedom of Information Act. My understanding is that, in addition to information that it held for its own purposes—which was of course covered by the Freedom of Information Act—some information held by auditors would also have been regarded as being held by the commission in certain circumstances; for example, when it was investigating a complaint against a specified auditor, when it was conducting a quality control of their work, or when it had required an auditor to provide information for the discharge of wider Audit Commission functions, such as making judgments on local authorities’ use of resources. In such circumstances, the information would have been deemed to have been held by the Audit Commission and so subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
These are important categories of information that cover significant areas of public interest and concern. Yet, as far as I can see, no public authority, as defined in the Freedom of Information Act, has inherited those responsibilities from the Audit Commission, so under the new regime such information will no longer be covered by the Freedom of Information Act. I think it should be. This restriction of transparency damages the public interest. These amendments seek to prevent that happening.
Next, the Government appear to believe that there are already sufficient provisions for transparency for these amendments not to be necessary. However, as I set out in Committee, the fact that local authorities themselves are covered by the Freedom of Information Act does not always provide the necessary transparency for private sector bodies carrying out public sector work. Nor does the right of electors to inspect accounts and audit documents always provide the necessary transparency, important though that right is and has been for all the years that it has existed.
The Minister will be well aware of all the information that would not be available for scrutiny by the public under this regime. Why should the citizen have to resort to the cost and trouble of going to court under the Government’s regime—as the Minister suggested in her letter—to secure rights to transparency, when such rights could be made available to them under the more accessible regime of the Freedom of Information Act?
The Government then argue that exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act, particularly regarding commercial sensitivity and audit activity, mean that little extra information would be made available under these amendments. The Minister, however, will be aware that these exemptions are subject to a public interest test. That is a relatively high hurdle to overcome, so it may mean relatively little information will become available through the means of these amendments. However, when the hurdle is overcome it means that the information that does become available is—by definition—in the public interest. I believe such information should be made available to the public. I am surprised that Ministers want to deny it to them.
Finally, we come to the nub of the Government’s arguments, which is that transparency increases cost and so increases audit fees and, ultimately, the cost to taxpayers—and that it may also restrict competition as some auditors will be deterred by the requirements of transparency from bidding for such work.
These arguments crumble as soon as they are examined in any detail. Quite apart from the fact that the Government admitted, in answering a Parliamentary Question from me on 3 July, that they have made no estimate of the cost of bringing local auditors under the Freedom of Information Act; quite apart from the fact that greater transparency can often save money by revealing fraud, corruption, incompetence and inefficiency; quite apart from the question of why anyone should want an auditor carrying out crucial scrutiny of public services who would be deterred from such work by making what they do subject to scrutiny by the public they serve; quite apart from all that, the Government's own figures suggest, as far as I have understood them, just how flimsy this argument is.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this has been quite a wide-ranging debate and I recognise the importance of the issue that is being raised. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for the discussion that we had the other week and for the determination with which he is pursuing this. The Government are not persuaded that these amendments serve the cause. It seems to us that the current arrangements provide the requirement for transparency in outsourcing, but I recognise the much wider issues that the noble Lord is raising, such as the growth of outsourcing over the past 25 to 30 years, the potential conflicts of interest that then arise and the rise of substantial amounts of public money that are now being spent by private contractors. The current and recent cases of alleged fraud and error that have arisen in a number of areas of outsourcing of the work programme have not been mentioned. However, noble Lords will also remember that there have been a number of worrying cases.
This has grown up over a long period, from well before this Government took office, but it is with us now and we certainly need to look at it. I promise the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that if he would like to pursue this we are open to further discussions. This is the sort of subject that is perhaps appropriate at some stage for a committee of one or other of the Chambers to look at, to see whether the current rights of freedom of information, rights of access, and challenges from electors and others are adequate, or whether there is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed by legislation.
Local authorities are covered by the Freedom of Information Act and information is directly available from the auditor through the right for local electors to ask questions and raise objections. These cover contractual arrangements with private contractors. The DCLG consulted on bringing local auditors into FOI in spring 2011, when the consultation asked whether local auditors should be brought into the FOI Act. The conclusion was that they should not be brought within the Act, because it was believed that doing so would add little to local authorities being covered in the FOI Act, and because provisions in the Bill retain,
“rights for electors to inspect the statement of accounts and audit documents, and to raise questions and objections with the local auditor”.—[Official Report, 24/6/2013; col. GC 203.]
As I said in Committee, all respondents to this question said that bringing auditors into the FOI Act would increase audit fees. I shall not repeat the argument that I presented in Committee in resisting these two amendments, but the Government’s door is not closed on this. It is a matter that affects all parties and all those in charge of local authorities, future Governments, this one and past ones.
A previous Prime Minister said that the FOI Act was the single biggest mistake that he thought he had made. We disagree with him. It is painful, but necessary. The universality of outsourcing across a range of areas means that from time to time we need to look at this overall, but we are not persuaded that on this particular occasion in this particular Bill these amendments are necessary or appropriate. With that assurance, I hope that we are open to further discussions and that the noble Lord may be willing to withdraw his amendment at this stage, recognising that the question is not therefore necessarily closed.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has contributed to what has been a valuable debate and from all sides brought to it a wealth of experience and expertise. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, brought invaluable experience to bear on these issues, and I am grateful to them. They both made a valid point about the fact that the audit can discover problems only after the fact, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked me directly why I thought that these amendments would still be valuable in the light of that. They would be valuable for many reasons. Perhaps the most important one is that knowing what you do will be subject to public scrutiny is a powerful incentive to getting it right. If you know that what you are doing can be covered up successfully, that is more likely than anything else to ensure fraud, incompetence and inefficiency. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I am also grateful for the support of my noble friends on my own Front Bench.
I am particularly grateful for what the Minister said; I am grateful to him and his officials for the way that they have engaged with this issue so far. I hope that I am not wrong in detecting just the slightest imperceptible budging from their resistance to these amendments that I saw in Committee, or at least a willingness to carry on engaging with the issues. I welcome this. I also disagree with the view of the former Prime Minister on the Freedom of Information Act and agree with this Minister.
I shall withdraw the amendment today, but I hope that we can return to these issues at Third Reading. The Government have said that they are prepared to look at this again and I welcome that. Even if they do not accept these particular amendments, if they can come up with something better I am happy to discuss that with them. I also ask the Government to look at two issues between now and Third Reading, because they bear on the whole purpose. First, in his response the Minister did not really address my arguments about the inadequacies of the current regime. With all respect to him, he just repeated the arguments in the noble Baroness’s letter to me. I have said why I took issue with those arguments, and I hope that he will look at Hansard and look again at the problems that I have with the regime that is proposed.
Secondly, there is the question of cost. This has not been the time to get to grips with this, but I still think that the argument about costs is unpersuasive. The fact that a consultation produced a predictable response from the predictable vested interests is no argument for government policy to be made on that basis. So I hope that the Government will look at what the actual costs of compliance are likely to be, how much of a deterrent they are likely to be, how far those costs can be absorbed by auditors and how far they would have to be passed on.
I am happy before Third Reading to extend to the Minister and his officials the invitation that he so kindly extended to me in Committee of meeting them again, discussing these issues and seeing if there is a way that we can find some common ground. If not, we will probably have to return to the matter at Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Extension of Franchise (House of Lords) Bill [HL]
Lord Wills Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
My Lords, I admire my noble friend Lord Dubs for many reasons, and one of them is his persistence in bringing this issue to your Lordships’ House. I also congratulate him on the pithiness of the drafting of the Bill. Successive Governments could have learnt a lot from him on that.
I am sympathetic to the democratic instincts that lie behind the Bill—so well articulated by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Shutt. I understand the frustrations that they both feel, after lifetimes of distinguished campaigning, that they now cannot use their votes in parliamentary elections. The Government’s defence of the current position does not seem to be coherent, as articulated by the Deputy Prime Minister in his letter to Hywel Francis of 25 January 2011. He states that there is no case for the Lords to elect representatives as they are able to sit in Parliament any way. If that is a coherent argument, it is not clear to me why it does not apply equally to Members of the other place because, in the Deputy Prime Minister's words, they too “sit in Parliament anyway”. As the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said, the argument about money Bills is archaic now. The Deputy Prime Minister’s words suggest an after-the-fact justification of an archaic provision which has little place in a modern democracy.
Your Lordships’ House, unreformed as it remains, also has, in my view, no place in a modern democracy. It is for that reason that, with considerable regret, I feel unable to support my noble friend’s Bill at this time. It seems to me that this is the wrong time to bring forward such a measure when there are so many more compelling reforms that still need to be made to your Lordships’ House. Some, including me, still want to see the membership of your Lordships’ House determined by election, but I recognise that I am in a minority in this place on that issue. However, there is far more widespread support in your Lordships’ House for reforms which fall short of election but which are still important and urgently needed. I think that most Members of your Lordships’ House would agree, for example, that there should be provisions for expulsion after conviction for criminal offences, and for retirement and resignation, among other things.
Such measures are needed to enhance the democratic credibility of your Lordships’ House but, regrettably, there is still no sign of them being implemented. I think that they should take priority over this Bill. I think that the public would find it hard to understand why we are giving greater priority to something which primarily benefits the Members of this House rather than measures which improve the democratic credibility of your Lordships’ House and the way that it serves the public.
I am not opposed to incremental change, and I agree with all the arguments in favour of it that my noble friend put forward. It is not an argument against incremental change. It is an argument about the order in which such incremental change should take place. If my noble friend were to bring forward this proposal again in the context of further reforms of your Lordships’ House, I would then be happy to support it.