Constitutional Convention

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on his choice of subject and its timing, this debate coming as it does in a month when a number of important constitutional issues have captured the headlines. I join all noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Higgins. I first heard him speak from my party’s Front Bench in 1974, when he was part of Ted Heath’s opposition team, and have followed his career ever since. I remember him in particular chairing the Treasury Select Committee in the 1990s. The debates here will be the poorer without him. I hope that he does not entirely absent himself from political discourse, but uses other platforms. I was touched by his genuine tribute to his successors, the fact that he has done 54 years in public service and the way that he stuck up for his beliefs at a time when they were unpopular. The children of this country are for ever grateful to him for the rebate of VAT on children’s shoes.

It has been a real pleasure for me to listen to this debate, well informed and topical as it has been, as I have a long-standing interest in constitutional issues. I was my party’s spokesman in another place on the subject at the turn of the century, when we debated what became the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, along with Lords reform. I served on a democracy taskforce, chaired by Ken Clarke, with fellow members including the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Tyrie, which promoted the policy of English votes for English laws. I shall come back to that in a moment. As the leader of the House in another place, I promoted some reforms in the coalition Government to give back to Parliament some of the powers the Executive had taken away. I have also done some time on the council of the Hansard Society and worked with my noble friend Lord Norton, when he was commissioned by the then leader of my party, now my noble friend Lord Hague, to work up his report on strengthening Parliament.

However, the pleasure of listening to and learning from this debate has been moderated by the knowledge that I am expected to wind it up. Noble Lords have given me a long frontier to patrol and while I will try to address some of the key issues raised, my remarks will mostly be a contribution to the debate rather than a summation. The wide-ranging nature of this debate highlights one of the problems with a constitutional convention—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. Noble Lords have raised so many issues that any convention looking into them would take years to do them justice. When I got the brief from the Cabinet Office for this debate, it was over 100 pages long and covered over 25 topics that could come under such a convention. Noble Lords have raised many others.

I am not averse to independent conventions looking at certain constitutional issues. Indeed, there have been many successful examples which we have heard of during this debate. We have had the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on reforms to this House; there were the Silk and Smith commissions on devolved powers; recent commissions, such as that of the UCL Constitution Unit on referendums, have added greatly to the debate and knowledge in this area. The noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord McConnell, reminded us that they were both part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and I applaud the success of that convention in producing two reports prior to the devolution changes in 1997. I also applaud the work of the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Hain, on the Act of Union Bill, which I understand we will now be debating early next year. But the point about all these conventions is that they were narrowly focused, rather than the wide-ranging agenda proposed by the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, reminded us of the fate of the Kilbrandon commission.

The helpful Library briefing note for this debate referenced the work undertaken by Professor Robert Hazell and Dr Alan Renwick, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on their Blueprint for A UK Constitutional Convention. However, the quote that he used was not this one. The summary to the report said:

“While some activists would like to see an overarching constitutional review, there is good reason to think this would be too complex and controversial to yield useful results. Limiting the convention to one aspect of the constitution is likely to be better”.


As this suggests, it would be worth considering how such a large topic could be disaggregated and prioritised, with the key issues being more clearly defined.

The Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, helpfully does not stipulate that the Government should initiate such a convention; indeed, he implied in his opening remarks that this was something the Opposition should do. Anticipating a government response the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said that there was no way that the Government would agree to this. What struck me during the discussion about the nature of such a convention was what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said when he spoke of the convention on which he served: that it was successful because it reflected the settled will of the people of Scotland. That convention had a purpose and that was why it succeeded. The whole argument behind this convention is, because there is no settled will or purpose, there is clear disagreement. Some noble Lords want a written constitution, including the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Dykes; others who have taken part in this debate would be firmly against a written constitution. The suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, that we should do this quickly and urgently is not an optimistic prognosis, given the difficulties it would have to cover.

While our debate has been wide-ranging, it has not covered everything that affects democratic accountability. For example, I regret the recent erosion of collective responsibility in government and the selective briefing of exchanges in Cabinet, both of which I believe hinder good government. Another issue central to democratic accountability in this country is the role of our political parties, hardly mentioned in this debate. Half of all voters think that British politics is broken. Only one in seven thinks that the Tories and Labour represent the views of the public—I will come to the Liberal Democrats in a moment. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, rightly spoke of those who feel disfranchised and dispossessed. The noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke of alienation.

Half of those who spoke in this debate served in the other place. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed out, as party membership declines, as has happened in my party, with its centre of gravity shifting to the right, or is swollen by supporters with a particular ideology, as has happened to the Labour Party in its shifts to the left, it may become more difficult for candidates in the centre of the political spectrum to get selected. Putting aside our age, how many of us who have spoken in this debate—predominantly remainers or Blairites—would be selected today?

Meanwhile, what has happened to the Liberal Democrats? For all my political life, when a Conservative Government have faced difficulties, whether that be under Macmillan in the 1960s, Heath in the 1970s, Thatcher in the early 1980s or Major in the 1990s, the third party has been a safety valve and has won by-elections, particularly when the Opposition party have also been unpopular. There was Orpington, Berwick, Crosby, Hillhead, Newbury and Christchurch among a long list, which brings back painful memories. Today, with a Government who are facing unprecedented difficulties and visibly divided, and a Labour Party led by its most left-wing leader in history—without Michael Foot’s gift of oratory and Cabinet experience—where is our third party? It is languishing in single figures. I make this point not to provoke but to underline the central importance of our parties to democratic accountability and the risk of their being seen as not relevant to voters. I reinforce the point made during this debate about the broad terms of reference of any convention on democratic accountability.

No one, except I think the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, mentioned the role of social media in our democracy. Last Saturday a former head of GCHQ said that Facebook poses a threat to democracy without tougher regulation. As I have said before, usually in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, we have an analogue regulatory system for our elections in a digital age. During the last three decades, the internet has revolutionised not only the way we interact with each other but the way we do politics. The digital landscape poses challenges for our democratic accountability that we cannot afford to shy away from addressing, so it is incumbent on this Government to keep pace with the changes to technology. We are determined to have a system that is fit for purpose, and we will be introducing reforms once relevant court cases have been disposed of and the relevant Select Committee and Electoral Commission reports are available to achieve that objective.

As others have outlined during this debate, constitutional conventions can work in some circumstances, but it depends on the situation. Other countries which have tried have found the process challenging. The recommendations of the conventions in British Columbia and Ontario were rejected when they were put to the public in referendums. In Ireland, of the 18 recommendations made by the Irish constitutional convention, only two were put to referendum and only one passed. In Iceland, where a more wide-ranging constitutional convention was undertaken, all six of the proposals of the constitutional council were passed following a referendum. However, they have not been taken forward by subsequent Governments. That highlights one of our key concerns with proposals for a constitutional convention: that they often fail to deliver the intended result.

I shall try to touch on some of the points that were raised during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, touched on AV and criticised first past the post. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that he has seen the hurdles facing those who want a second vote on the referendum where the result was 52% to 48%. What hurdles will confront those who want a second referendum on the result of the referendum we had on AV, when the vote was 67.9% to 32.1%, particularly against a background of the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that we should not repeat referendums too often?

A number of noble Lords made a valid point about the potential tension between government by referendum and government by representative democracy. What would have happened 40 years ago if any of us had stood for Parliament and been elected making it quite clear that we were opposed to capital punishment but there had been a referendum and the people decided that they wanted it? Would MPs have had to respect the result of the referendum and go against what they had said in their election address? There is a potential tension there which was rightly brought out in a number of comments.

English votes for English laws came in for a little bit of criticism from one or two noble Lords. I remember sitting in another place on a Standing Committee considering the Labour Government’s proposal to ban smoking in public places. In Standing Committee, there was an amendment to extend the ban to pubs, which was opposed by the Minister in the Standing Committee. There were enough people on the Standing Committee to demand a vote and the Government were saved by a Member of Parliament from Scotland, where smoking had already been banned in pubs, voting not to ban smoking in pubs in England. From that moment I became a strong advocate of English votes for English laws. Contrary to what a number of noble Lords have said, I think it has embedded fairness and balance into Parliament’s law-making process. I think it has strengthened England’s voice, just as devolution strengthened the voices of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland within our union. I think it is right that elected Members of the House of Commons who represent constituencies in England have the opportunity to give their consent on domestic legislation that affects only them, simply mirroring the position in Scotland.

On the case for an English Parliament, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, cast some doubts as to whether it would work, and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, pointed out the asymmetry in the United Kingdom with such a large component of it being accounted for by one unit. If one looks at Andrew Blick’s pamphlet Federalism: The UK’s Future?, he makes the point that an English Parliament would not deliver the benefits of decentralisation associated with devolution. I think there is no consensus that an English Parliament is the way forward. I believe that English votes for English laws delivers a coherent constitutional response without the upheaval of an English Parliament.

Rather than work up the case for an English Parliament, we prefer to strengthen communities and regions within England through, in particular, the northern powerhouse and the Midlands engine and by developing a devolution framework for England, providing clarity for all English authorities about the future of English devolution. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Owen, said about the German Länder, but it seems to me that we do not have the building blocks that they have in Germany to create the structure that they have there.

A number of noble Lords mentioned regional assemblies. This was piloted in the north-west by the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, and did not find favour, so since the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 came into force we have taken major steps to decentralise governance in England through devolution deals and combined authorities headed by elected mayors in seven city regions, with an eighth mayor in North of Tyne to be elected in May. A number of noble Lords said that this is asymmetrical and a muddle—I think that was the expression used—but it has happened only when it was what local authorities asked the Government to do. Combined authorities are created when that is what local authorities have decided to do. Likewise, if they want elected mayors rather than the traditional local authority settlement, that is what they can have.

I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said about building on the success of elected mayors. Looking not just at London but at Manchester, we have arranged for particular combined authorities to assume the delivery of central government programmes such as the work and health programme and the life chances fund, and to help to develop new and innovative ways of working with local public services such as health and justice. I agree that this is a model we should build on. I think my noble friend Lord Heseltine can claim to be the champion of mayors in advance of anyone else who may make that claim.

I think elected mayors have been one of the successes in the British constitution. They chair their combined authorities and ensure strong and strategic leadership across a clear economic geography as a recognised leader who is accountable to voters in their region. They can act nationally and internationally as an ambassador for their region, boosting the area’s profile and helping to attract inward investment. Mayors also have soft powers, such as the ability to convene a range of stakeholders to tackle complex issues such as homelessness, and I applaud what Andy Burnham is doing on Manchester on that point. I think the introduction of strong mayors has been one of the most important constitutional changes in past years.

With two minutes left, I am not going to be able to do justice to the issues that were raised about Brexit and the impact on devolution, but I was struck by what two noble Lords said about having a single constitutional member in the Cabinet or, as I think was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, getting rid of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales altogether. As an English MP, I would have been worried about the potential impact on sentiment in Scotland if it no longer had a voice in a UK Cabinet but if he—

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

My Lords—

[Lord Young of Cookham]

It comes out of injury time.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale]

I said to your Lordships’ House that I would support the proposal that was put by my noble friend because of course you would have to replace the Secretaries of State with another post in Cabinet that could reflect those national interests throughout the UK.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Right.

Perhaps I may say in conclusion that I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said towards the end of his remarks, that rather than go for this all-singing, all-dancing convention we should stand back. I was also struck by what my noble friend Lord Norton said about, instead of having this convention, starting off by having a good look at exactly where we are. I conclude conscious that I have not responded to the debate, but I thank all noble Lords who have taken part—and leave the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, a second or two in which to sum up.

Interserve: Provision of Public Services

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Interserve’s financial situation and the impact this may have on the provision of public services.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the funding arrangements of Interserve are the responsibility of the company and its directors. The Cabinet Office has regular discussions with the company’s management and monitors the financial health of all government strategic suppliers. The company successfully raised new debt facilities earlier this year and plans further restructuring to strengthen its balance sheet and financial robustness.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but the monitoring does not seem to work, because this is happening too many times. As well as infrastructure, Interserve does welfare to work, probation, home care and hospital work—all important services—yet because of its financial structure, like many other public service companies, it has become a speculative vehicle for hedge funds and private equity. How will the Government rectify that? Will they give it more work to keep it afloat or sink it by taking the work away? How will they ensure that these essential services continue?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As I said, the Government are in regular contact with Interserve to monitor its performance. Not only does the Cabinet Office have overall responsibility for monitoring the health of the company, but individual government departments that have contracts with Interserve have a dialogue with it about those specific contracts. The noble Lord may have seen the statement which the Cabinet Office issued a few days ago:

“The Cabinet Office has expressed full support for the work the company is doing to implement”,


its “long-term recovery plan”. It is worth making the point that Interserve is very different from Carillion. Interserve is now taking the action that Carillion ought to have taken—to restructure its balance sheet and improve its robustness—and, unlike Carillion, it does not need new money. It needs to turn debt into equity. It is not accurate to make a direct comparison between the two companies.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in a meeting in the Cabinet Office in the spring, I specifically asked David Lidington about Interserve. Since then, there have been a number of warning signals. Ministers may be talking to Interserve, but are they talking to the companies that support Interserve by delivering its services to people? If they did, they would hear from Rudi Klein, the chief executive of the Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group, who is advising its members not to work for Interserve. The Minister’s response seems very relaxed in the light of what is actually going on. What contingencies are the Government taking in the event that Interserve is unable to deliver services?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the first point, I made inquiries to Interserve about the suppliers: 90% are paid within 60 days or less. The Government have now insisted that, where they place new contracts with suppliers, there is a contingency plan to take effect if and when that contract runs into difficulties. Interserve, along with four other companies, is piloting this new arrangement, which was introduced post the problems with Carillion.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the real problems is that more than 20% of government procurement now goes to a small number of strategic suppliers, a figure that has doubled since 2013? The top three suppliers are all having financial problems. After Carillion, a new system was introduced, which I think the Minister was referring to; rather surreally, it is called “living wills”. Has this been completed for Interserve—he mentioned a pilot—and can he reassure the House that no new contracts will be offered to Interserve until such time as the miracle of the new company emerges, and that public services delivered by Interserve will be continued without the cost penalty of £148 million which occurred after Carillion?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite right. On 19 November, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a speech to the BSA outlining new arrangements. The noble Lord referred to some of them; we prefer to call them resolution plans rather than living wills. We have recently announced plans for all suppliers to draw up resolution plans in the unlikely event of a business failure, to ensure continuity of services and, where necessary, to enable another provider or the Government themselves to step in. Interserve has volunteered to lead the way as one of the first suppliers to design one of these resolution plans.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, in view of the substantial difficulties that major outsourcers are now going through, do the Government have a view on the minimum number of major outsourcing companies they need to maintain a competitive market for government outsourcing of public services?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord raises a good point. We want to promote a healthy and diverse marketplace for public services so that not only the Government but local authorities and, indeed, the private sector can access these companies. For that to happen, we need to ensure that the existing ones have a robust financial regime. We are also trying to break down some of the very large contracts into smaller items so that smaller suppliers, who cannot bid for the major contracts, can bid for contracts that have been disaggregated. I hope this in turn will help to build up the marketplace that both he and I want.

Taxation: Digital Publications

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they have given to the possibility of a flexible Value Added Tax regime to allow digital publications to be zero-rated; and whether they intend to make use of this flexibility should it come into effect.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government keep all taxes under review, including the application of value added tax. Any decision to amend the VAT regime with regard to physical and electronic publications must be carefully assessed against policy, economic and fiscal considerations before reaching any conclusions.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his predictable response. He will be aware that there are hundreds and thousands of blind and partially sighted people in this country who rely on audiobooks or digital books whose print size they can alter. Now that the EU has agreed that the anomaly whereby those products are charged 20% VAT and the print books that the rest of us can rely on are zero-rated can be lifted, it is clear that whether we remain in or leave the EU the discrimination against the blind and partially sighted can be removed. Will he urge the Chancellor to do so?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord makes a forceful case for equalising the VAT rate on e-publications and conventional publications. He rightly says that, on Tuesday, the EU decided that countries now have the freedom to make that equalisation, so we could now move to a zero rate instead of a standard rate on e-publications. Tuesday was apparently “eVAT Freedom Day”. I can tell him that the Professional Publishers Association is pursuing this with the Chancellor and the Treasury, and on 29 November the Financial Secretary wrote back to it saying: “The industry’s arguments and economic analysis are welcome to enable the Government to determine the benefits and risks both for digital business and high street retailers associated with extending the zero rate of VAT to e-publications”. I note the forceful arguments made by the noble Lord to support that case.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Is it possible to follow the examples of Italy and France, which have just removed VAT on the basis that it is a tax on learning and intellectual rights? Perhaps this is the moment we can jump in and show that, whatever happens, we will not tax our children, who have to pay through the nose for their digital materials.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord makes the same case as made by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. On Tuesday, all countries within the EU had the freedom to change the rate from 20%, the standard rate on e-publications, down to zero. We have had that freedom for only two days, so both noble Lords are very prompt in urging us to use it. As I said, negotiations are now under way between the interested parties and the Government to assess the case. If the case is made, I am sure that the Chancellor will look at it favourably.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I can help with a digital source of tax and welcome the recent proposal for a digital services tax, particularly given the demise of our high street. Will my noble friend ask the Chancellor either to accelerate that tax, because it is not due to come in until April 2020, or put pressure on the established tech giants to make substantial payments to the public purse until we have a proper tax at either the UK, EU or international level?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Chancellor always welcomes suggestions for raising money in tax, rather than the representations which he normally gets to spend more. It is indeed the case that we plan to introduce the digital services tax in April 2020. It is designed to bring in £1.5 billion over the next four years and is targeted on the multinational companies operating in the digital sphere, to ensure that they pay appropriate tax on the value they derive from UK business. It is seen as an interim solution until we move to a global solution, and the UK is taking the lead in the OECD and G20 to secure that. I certainly note my noble friend’s suggestion that we should move ahead with it before 2020, and if we did that, there might be the resources to pay the sum of money that we might lose from zero-rating e-publications.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, we expected a rather more positive response from the Government. My party made clear two years ago that it was not prepared to see VAT in any shape or form increased on cultural goods. This should be recognised as a very important dimension, particularly for the special groups of people referred to already. Could he move with some degree of urgency as far as the Chancellor is concerned? The position is now quite clear in Europe and it would look remiss if Britain were to stand out in this respect.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I detect a certain degree of unanimity in the representations made so far. As I said, I have some sympathy with the argument that we should now equalise the tax on e-publications and conventional publications. We have had that freedom for only two days, so I hope the noble Lord will understand that we have not acted so far. However, meetings are under way with interested parties to develop the case. As I said earlier, if the Chancellor is convinced that a substantial case has been made, I am sure he will respond favourably.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, research from the National Literacy Trust shows that one in eight children from disadvantaged backgrounds say they do not have a book of their own at home. Have the Government, in anticipation of this potential, done any assessment of what impact zero-rated VAT would have as a way to tackle reading inequalities? Do they plan any such assessment, as so many of these children have access to a smart phone or a tablet?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Again, the noble Baroness makes the case for equalising. As far as literacy is concerned, this country has quite a good record if one looks at the international literacy standards. With e-publications for schools, at the moment the VAT can be got back through the local authorities. The noble Baroness adds reinforcements to the case that has already been made for using the freedom that we now have to equalise the rates.

Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Rawlings]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government which Government-owned properties the Office of Government Property has discussed with Parliament as possible relocation sites as part of the Restoration and Renewal programme.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, as part of the Joint Committee work that helped to prepare for the restoration and renewal programme, the government property unit discussed potential temporary relocation sites with the R&R programme team—namely Richmond House and the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. The Government Property Agency has continued to provide advice on those relocation sites, and of course the final decision will be a matter for Parliament.

[Baroness Rawlings (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, and I thank my noble friend for his Answer. But can he give noble Lords an assurance that the grade 2* listed Richmond House, completed as recently as 1998, which is a major work by the architect William Whitfield, will not be substantially or partly demolished to make way for a temporary House of Commons Chamber; and, as importantly, that a full feasibility study of the alternative options and locations for this temporary Chamber will be carried out?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, ownership and responsibility for Richmond House has now been transferred to the other place, where it forms part of its northern estate strategy. The other place is now looking at how Richmond House might be reconfigured to meet its needs. Any changes will require planning permission and listed building consent, and the other place is working very closely with Historic England in view of the importance of the building, which my noble friend has rightly pointed out.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

Does the Minister recall that when Richmond House was built 30 years ago, it was greatly admired; and as the noble Baroness has just said, it is only three years ago that it was listed grade 2*? The Minister talked delicately about reconfiguring, but would it not be an awful waste effectively to destroy the greater part of it to accommodate a temporary decant? Will he give the House an assurance that a full feasibility study of all other options will be carried out, including the suggestion that a temporary House of Commons Chamber be erected in the atrium of Portcullis House put forward by its architect, Sir Michael Hopkins?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That suggestion by Sir Michael Hopkins was looked at by the Joint Committee and discounted for the reasons it has set out. As I said in response to my noble friend, the responsibility for Richmond House now rests with the other place because it is the legal owner. It will take on board the heritage issues which have just been mentioned. The building was, of course, substantially reconfigured in the 1980s before it became the headquarters for the Department of Health.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government have a plan for the development of Whitehall? In the past 25 years, three government blocks in and around Whitehall have been transferred to private ownership and converted into hotels. I wonder if they intend to move that further along Whitehall and take more departments out towards Marsham Street and Horseferry Road, or whether they think that the historic context of Whitehall departments grouped together is something that we ought to attach importance to at a point when the Department of Health has just had to move further away.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The decision to transfer Admiralty Arch on a 99-year lease was one taken by the coalition Government. I think it was the right thing to do because that building was no longer required by the Government. It was costing nearly £1 million a year to maintain, and it needed substantial renovation. It has now been tastefully renovated in the private sector according to the original designs by Sir Aston Webb. Moreover, the Government still retain the freehold. That was a sensible decision which was taken by the coalition Government. More broadly, the number of civil servants is reducing. There are still 78,000 civil servants in London but many thousands will be relocated outside London as part of our industrial strategy. Those who remain will require some 20 buildings instead of the 65 that we have at the moment. But the core Whitehall estate will be sensitively managed with advice from the Government Historic Estates Unit. And as the noble Lord said, some government departments are already doubling up. The Treasury, DCMS and HMRC are co-located, as are the Home Office and MHCLG.

[Lord Haselhurst (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that as long as the security level remains high, our choice of alternative accommodation is drastically curtailed unless one is going to consider further steps to enlarge the security circle around the parliamentary and other historic buildings in Parliament Square?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons why Richmond House was selected was the direct access to the rest of the Parliamentary Estate from that building, for security reasons.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we all agree that it is important that we keep the costs down and ensure value for money during the restoration and renewal project. I turn to two specific areas, not about the Chambers but about the office location for Peers following decant. First, is it correct that available offices in government departments in Whitehall which were identified by the Joint Committee as possible office space have now been blocked and ruled out by the Government because they are being used by the additional staff who have had to be brought in for Brexit, thus forcing more expensive options to be considered for office space for Peers? Secondly, can he quantify the extra costs incurred by delay not only in terms of the additional maintenance and prevention work that is needed but also the increased costs of the work involved?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On value for money, the Government have published a draft Bill. Under Clause 2(4), the sponsor body must ensure that the works represent good value for money. I was not aware of what the noble Baroness has just said about the government departments blocking access to buildings but I will make inquiries. If the noble Baroness is referring to the overall cost of the project, which is now estimated at some £3.52 billion, the overall management of the project is a matter for Parliament. It is not a matter for the Government. Responsibility will rest with the sponsor body, which is now being set up, and the delivery body. But, ultimately, it is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for Parliament as to how this matter is progressed.

Church of England: Disestablishment

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for the disestablishment of the Church of England.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, none.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Going back a short time in your Lordships’ House to 1953, when the Queen was crowned, some noble Lords may remember that the Archbishop of Canterbury crowned the Queen and she gave a sworn oath to,

“maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, discipline and government”,

et cetera. According to the National Secular Society, even since 2002 the proportion of Britons who identify with the Church of England has halved from 31% to 14% and half of British people have no religion. Is it not time for the new monarch, when he comes, to embrace this secular state and perhaps swear an oath to Parliament, as suggested by the UCL Constitution Unit, that he will in all his,

“words and deeds uphold justice, mercy, fairness, equality, understanding and respect for all”,

his,

“Peoples, from all their different backgrounds”?

Is that not the way we should be heading?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the noble Lord seeks to amend the Coronation Oath Act 1688. The Act sets out the oath and requires that it is,

“In like manner Adminstred to every King or Queene who shall Succeede”.

While it has been altered to modernise the language and to reflect the territories that have been added and subtracted, the noble Lord’s proposition goes beyond that, raising broader constitutional issues and requiring primary legislation.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that one of the reasons why an established Church should be retained is that its prelates are needed in this House, not least in order to be held to account for the occasional serious lapse, such as the destruction after a deeply flawed investigation of the reputation of the great Bishop George Bell, who died 60 years ago—an investigation castigated by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in a report published a year ago, to which the Church has yet to make any redress?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Well, without getting drawn into the second half of my noble friend’s question, I agree with the first half that it is important that the bishops are represented in your Lordships’ House. They add a spiritual dimension to our discussions. They speak with a moral authority that escapes most of us, and they are the only Members of your Lordships’ House with a specific geographical remit.

[The Lord Bishop of Worcester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his affirmation. When the country came together to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Armistice earlier this month, the Church of England led events of solemn remembrance and thanksgiving in pretty much every community up and down the land of England. The convening power of the Church in bringing together people of different faiths and none is a central feature of its established status that is greatly valued by those of other faiths, who appreciate such a hospitable establishment. Does the Minister agree that at a time when healing divisions must be a priority in our society, the established Church is a significant force for good?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I wholeheartedly endorse what the right reverend Prelate has said. The bishops seek to heal religious conflict and promote religious tolerance and inclusiveness. He quite rightly points out that on some of the major occasions in the country’s history—coronations, state occasions, other anniversaries and Remembrance Day—it is the Church that has a leading role. It would be sad if that link between Church and state was weakened, and it is not something the other faiths have asked for.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the Minister that William Gladstone’s Liberal Party had a programme of constitutional reform that included the disestablishment of the Church in Ireland, Wales and England, an elected second Chamber, the separation of the House of Lords’ judicial function into a Supreme Court, universal suffrage with a fair and open voting system and, for some, abolition of the monarchy. Not all of that programme of constitutional reform has yet been agreed, and I know there are many in this House who are opposed to a number of aspects of it. Meanwhile, can we not be grateful that our national Church—part of that continuing anomaly—does so much work to hold together local communities, in particular working with other faiths, including the new faiths within Britain, and to hold our national community together?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree with the noble Lord. Who we are as a country is defined by our Church and our state and the relationship that has been developing over 400 years between them. The Government value that relationship; we think it adds value to both sides and is welcomed by the country. We have no plans to destabilise that relationship.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Would the Minister like to reflect on the undoubted fact that the moral authority in the clergy in Wales is no less than that of the clergy in England, albeit that there has been no established Church in Wales for approximately a century?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is right: the Church in Wales was disestablished in, I think, the 1920s. The four bishops that Wales sent to your Lordships’ House were then assumed by England, and I am sure no one would object to that. He is of course right about the validity of the authority and morality of the Church in Wales.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, we have had some terrible disasters in the months that have passed. And where do people go with these disasters? They flock to the Church. The Church of England is there to provide a service that all faiths and none find comfort in on these occasions.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree with my noble and learned friend. The Government’s policy, in a word, is antidisestablishmentarianism.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I am one of those people who is unrepresented, as my noble friend suggested. In my view, the Church of England is hugely important to the nature of this country and in this House as well. Indeed, it is one of the reasons why I am proud to be British.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord. Perhaps the Labour Party should disestablish the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister submit to the canard that the Church of England is sometimes seen as the Tory party at prayer?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Well, a large number of the Tory party were at prayer 10 minutes ago.

Verify: Digital Identity System

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, over 3 million people have used GOV.UK Verify to perform over 8 million secure transactions. My honourable friend the Minister for Implementation made a Written Ministerial Statement on GOV.UK Verify on 9 October. The Government have an immediate and growing need for a secure digital identity service.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very sorry tale. The Government Digital Service started with high hopes for its flagship Verify digital identity system, aiming for 25 million users by 2020. Now, with constant changes in leadership, the imminent cutting of the entire project budget and the refusal by departments such as HMRC to adopt it, the Government are now, after £130 million of investment, simply handing it over to the private sector. Is it not extraordinary, when the need for a trusted universal UK-wide secure identity system has never been higher, that the Government are abdicating all responsibility in that way? Where does that leave Verify’s 2020 target? Is this not an admission of total failure?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I would not describe the service in quite the terms that the noble Lord has just used. Progress is being made towards the target of 25 million users by 2020. It is not the case that HMRC is not using Verify. Noble Lords who want to can upload their self-assessment tax return using Verify, and if they so wish they can check their income tax account using Verify. More and more government services are now subscribing to Verify; the MoD recently added an additional service, and some 18 services are now available. It is not the case that we are abdicating the whole thing to the private sector. Verify, which is a government service, will continue to provide a digital identity service to the public sector, and it is talking to the NHS and to local government in order to continue to broaden the base.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House clearly what went wrong?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I challenge the premise on which the noble Lord based his question. Verify was launched in 2016 and, as I said in my initial reply, now has 3 million subscribers who have completed 8 million transactions. I signed up to Verify over the weekend and, if noble Lords have not, I suggest that they make themselves familiar with this new and innovative service.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the simple truth that, following pressure from the Liberal Democrats in the coalition, Labour’s national identity card scheme, which would have dealt with this problem, was abolished? Is it not odd that it has finally dawned on the Government that identification is vital to protect against entitlement fraud? It has taken them a long time to learn that lesson.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Verify was started under the coalition Government—I think Nick Clegg was in charge of the Cabinet Office when it started—but there is a difference between providing a secure online identity, which Verify does, and an ID card which you have to carry with you. The key difference between Verify and an ID card system is that Verify is voluntary and the ID card was to be compulsory.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, having worked in government with Nick Clegg on precisely that. I was very impressed by the Government Digital Service and frustrated by the extent to which departments across Whitehall resisted its moves to modernise government handling of data and abandon the separate legal frameworks under which departments manage and keep data. There was much discussion in the coalition Government about introducing a new Bill to update those rules to cope with rapidly moving technology. It has not yet appeared. Do the Government still have plans to do so?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord knows much more about this than I do. It is the case that HMRC has its own service, the Government Gateway. Since it developed that service, Verify has come along. Obviously one would like to migrate from Government Gateway to Verify and encourage other departments so to do. I am not wholly convinced that we need legislation to do that—I will go back to my department in the light of what the noble Lord said—but we need to win the hearts and minds of government departments and persuade them to make more services available on Verify. That impetus is, I hope, gathering momentum.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord explain what Verify will do to make our borders safe after Brexit? Will he now review his position on compulsory and voluntary ID and agree that the only way for us to have safe borders is by a compulsory form of recognition?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am not convinced that compulsory ID cards would stop the illegal entry into this country of a whole range of people. The noble Lord will know that in 2010, legislation was passed to scrap the ID legislation introduced by the previous Labour Government. We have no plans to reintroduce such legislation.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

Can the Minister say how much has been paid in consultancy fees on this issue? Given that departments and the Government centrally keep no records of how much they are spending on consultancy, is it not about time that we were more transparent?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

There is an issue of commercial confidentiality in publishing the amount paid to the five identity providers, but if the noble Lord wants to know the cost of the Verify programme, I should be more than happy to write to him and place a copy in the Library.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, we electronically tag all our animals—I speak as a former farmer. Why cannot we electronically tag humans? We could all have microchips, and then we would know where we were.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Noble Lords will have their own reaction to that suggestion, but the thought of going along to a vet to have something implanted in my neck is not something I find immediately attractive.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am tempted to ask the Minister why it took a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for him to sign up to Verify, but instead I shall ask him about his other revelation—that there is a Minister for Implementation. What are his or her—I do not know whether it is a he or a she—other responsibilities?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

His name is Oliver Dowden and he is a Minister in the Cabinet Office. Noble Lords will find his responsibilities set out in the list of ministerial responsibilities.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why he has the misfortune to be answering this Question today, given that responsibility for digital identity policy has transferred to DCMS?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Well, it is a question that I may have asked myself a few days ago as I find myself answering questions on a whole range of responsibilities that I never knew were mine. The answer is that although overall responsibility has been transferred to DCMS, the Government Digital Service remains within the Cabinet Office, for which I have responsibility as a spokesman.

Cyberattacks

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the United Kingdom’s critical infrastructure from cyberattacks.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, ensuring that our critical national infrastructure—CNI—is secure and resilient against cyberattack is at the heart of our 2016 national cybersecurity strategy. The National Cyber Security Centre we established has improved our understanding of the threat and provided a unified source of advice and support. We have also strengthened regulatory frameworks across much of the CNI to ensure that cyber risk is managed in the national interest.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

I hear what the Minister says, but I do not think he will satisfy the committee. It defined the Government’s current position as,

“long on aspiration and short on delivery”.

It says that the Government have failed to match the increasing threat with improved cyber resilience in both the public and private sectors and that it finds a lack of expertise to provide credible insurance. It would like to see a Minister appointed to ensure that there is capacity. Putting this right will require a lot more than money and good intentions. Will the Government take steps to carry out the report’s proposals?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord will be aware that this is a substantial report published two days ago by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, with 22 senior Members of both Houses. It has 10 major recommendations and the Government will want to respond to those in due course. The noble Lord quoted a little from the report and, just to add some balance, may I also quote from it? It said:

“Many of those who submitted written evidence … welcomed the step change in Government approach in the 2016 NCSS, with some describing the strategy—and the activity it underpins—as world-leading. This appears to be borne out by the notable level of international interest in the UK’s approach to cyber security”.


That gives a somewhat more balanced response than what the noble Lord quoted. There are many recommendations. One is that there should be one Minister; the committee wants what it calls a collective mind—a somewhat Orwellian concept. If we look at the building blocks of national security, we have GCHQ, which is under the Foreign Office; the Home Office, with overall responsibility for protecting the citizen if there is a cyberattack; the Ministry of Defence, which is in charge of offensive cybersecurity; and the Cabinet Office, which is in charge of CNI. It is very difficult to have a collective mind. What is important is having a collective strategy that all the Government agree to, underpinned by substantial resources and supervised by the National Security Council, chaired by the Prime Minister. That is more important than having what the committee calls a collective mind.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in last month’s debate on cybersecurity, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, in an authoritative speech, mentioned that the former Attorney-General, Jeremy Wright, had made clear that existing international law, including the UN charter, covers the cyber activities of states; this was the view not just of British experts but of Chinese and Russian experts in 2015. In his reply, the Minister outlined some activities round the Commonwealth that sought to exploit this international law but was uncharacteristically undefined about which other institutions the Government are working on. Which other international institutions are the Government working with which are seeking to exploit existing international law to combat this state-sponsored cybercrime?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord cited the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. In that debate, he said that Britain is very fortunate to have a world-leading centre of excellence in the National Cyber Security Centre. We believe that the existing legislation is adequate. We co-operate with a range of international partners— Five Eyes and others. I hope the noble Lord will understand that the Government want to reflect on the recommendations in the report and will respond in due course, including to the legal issues that the noble Lord has just raised.

[Baroness Couttie (Con)]

My Lords, what would be the impact of a no-deal Brexit on cybersecurity in this country?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Government have made it absolutely clear that we want to maintain the broadest possible co-operation with our EU partners. We want to continue to share information with security institutions in the EU. We want to go on, with them, to develop cyber resilience so that we can continue to protect our collective security, values and democratic institutions. We believe that it is in their interests, as much as ours, that this should happen, irrespective of what happens to Brexit.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that GCHQ has recently said that it can no longer guarantee the security of UK circuits that have Huawei equipment in them. How are we to take this forward now, bearing in mind that removing all Huawei gear from our systems is almost impossible, as is moving towards 5G without involving Huawei? We need a Minister in the Cabinet Office responsible for this.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord raises an important issue: how one balances the need for inward investment and to have cutting-edge technology available without jeopardising the security of our institutions. He will know that we have a mitigation strategy to deal with Huawei, which is advised by NCSC—the National Cyber Security Centre. Our approach makes sure that, where we use equipment supplied by overseas countries, our security is not compromised. The mitigation strategy is kept under constant review.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee. Further to the noble Baroness’s question, in the event of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, being unsuccessful and our leaving the European Union next year, will we continue to abide by the EU network and information systems directive? If so, how will we continue to make sure that it is kept in line with the situation in Europe? Will we be part of the intelligence system associated with it?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The answer to the first question is yes. We implemented the NIS directive in May this year, one of the first countries so to do. We will continue to honour the directive after 29 March next year. On the broader question about the future relationship, I can only refer the noble Lord to what I said a few moments ago about the Government’s intention to maintain broad co-operation and that it is in the EU’s interests as much as ours that that should continue.

Tenant Fees Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, it is worth underlining that this part of the Bill is an important measure to prevent what is a pretty common abuse, which is, when there is a change of tenancy, at little or no cost to the landlord, the agents involved making serious amounts of money, which the Bill would prevent them doing in future.

At Second Reading, I cited an illustration from my last intern, whose sister was taking her place in a flat share of three. Each of them, on entering the flat, needed to pay the agent a fee of £275 for the privilege of signing up. When one of the occupiers left and was replaced by her sister, the outgoing one was charged £250 for termination of the tenancy agreement and her sister, who was moving in on the same day with her packed suitcase, was charged £275 as a new tenant. The agents got £525 for this transfer from one sister to another. The landlord received exactly the same amount of rent, because there was no discontinuity in the rent paid.

In such circumstances, paying £50 as a takeover fee for the privilege of signing a photocopied document when one person moves in in place of another sounds quite enough. The guidance may be the best place to put this, but the test must be whether the landlord has suffered a loss of rent. If there is no such loss, surely the £50 should kick in as the maximum which the agents can take. One can understand the need to compensate if there has been a loss of rent because of a gap when one tenant has moved out and no new one has arrived. Otherwise, £50 sounds like a maximum not a floor.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate relating to the charges that can be imposed for variation, assignment, novation or termination of a tenancy where these are requested by the tenant. We have previously set out that it is not fair to ask landlords and agents to pay reasonable fees where these arise from the action or request of a tenant. Following pre-legislative scrutiny, we clarified that both early termination and change of sharer costs were permitted, so long as these were fair. As a result, the Bill provides that a landlord or agent can charge a tenant in these circumstances, but such fees are capped at £50—one-tenth of the fee charged in the case cited by the noble Lord, Lord Best—or reasonably incurred costs if higher.

Amendments 27 and 28 seek to impose a hard cap on the amount that can be charged and to prohibit this charge in relation to a change of sharer. When considering how to manage these amendments, we share the caution mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. We want to ensure that landlords and tenants can agree reasonable requests to vary a tenancy. Although we do not expect this charge to exceed £50, it is only fair that, where it does so, landlords and agents are able to recover their reasonably incurred costs. For example, if a landlord is required to undertake a search, conduct reference checks and amend tenancy deposit protection arrangements for a new tenant with no help whatever from the outgoing tenant, those costs may be higher than normal. Landlords and agents will need to be able to demonstrate, if challenged, that their costs are reasonable. They will have to justify them and, if they cannot do so, trading standards officers may have a case to investigate.

Crucially—this point was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton—we do not want to create a situation where landlords are reluctant to agree to a change of sharer because they do not believe they can recover their reasonable, justifiable costs. This would not help tenants, who would be required to break their contract if they wanted to leave, nor would it help those hoping to move in to replace the sharer moving out. This matter was discussed during pre-legislative scrutiny and tenant representative bodies recognised the need for the ability to charge in such circumstances, provided that the risk of abuse was mitigated, which we have done by imposing a cap of £50 and requiring any additional costs to be reasonable. In its report, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee said that:

“We welcome the Government’s intention to clarify the legislation and to permit charges related to a change of sharer where these are requested by the tenant”.


Amendments 29 and 30 would place an obligation on the landlord to take reasonable steps to re-let the property where they have agreed to terminate a tenancy early. These amendments would also limit the loss a landlord can recover to the period reasonably required to find a new tenant, even if he was unable to find one.

An assured shorthold tenancy is a contract where a tenant commits to pay the landlord rent for a given period of time, the fixed term. The landlord is entitled to the rent for the entirety of that term. If the tenant seeks to leave the tenancy before the end of it, then they would need to seek agreement of the landlord to do so. Where possible, landlords should agree to this, and can ask the existing tenant to find a suitable replacement. We encourage them to do so through our guidance.

Turning to the amendment introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 1 says:

“But if the amount of the payment exceeds the loss suffered by the landlord as a result of the termination of the tenancy, the amount of the excess is a prohibited payment”.


In other words, the landlord can only recover any loss they incur in permitting a tenant to leave early. They cannot double-charge for the same period of time. They are entitled to recover only the sum of any rental payments which would not be met by the start of a new tenancy. If a replacement tenant is found and there are no void periods, we would expect no early termination charge to be levied to the outgoing tenant. This has been reiterated in the consumer guidance for tenants and landlords, and we welcome the constructive comments made by the noble Baroness on our draft guidance.

However, looking at the amendment, we cannot necessarily expect landlords to know how long would reasonably be required to find a replacement tenant. This depends on several factors, including the rental market in the local area. Therefore, we expect landlords and tenants to consider on a case-by-case basis the likely void period and any reasonable charge for early termination. Again, we do not want to harm tenants by disincentivising landlords agreeing to a reasonable request to end a tenancy early or to a variation of a tenancy. That is not what this Bill is seeking to achieve, but there is a real risk of this if the amendments are agreed to. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Grender]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken about these amendments. When the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, talks about how one defines “reasonable”, a good look through the guidance will drive him in the direction of asking that question quite a lot, because quite a lot hinges on “reasonable” on both sides of the argument. The idea that we do not expect landlords to charge more than £50, rather than that they should not charge more than £50, is the issue here. I am trying to ensure a proper balance between tenant and landlord when a tenancy ends. I will seek to discover if there is a better way of drafting my amendment for Report or if there is a better way of clarifying this in guidance, and with that in mind I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lytton]

My Lords, I have great sympathy with this amendment but I would have more were it possible to ensure that utility providers themselves acted reasonably. While I will not name any names, one particular well-known supplier of electricity, with what is generally regarded as an extremely cheap and competitive tariff, has gained for itself an extremely poor reputation because of what happens when one wants to change to another supplier. Indeed, so tortuous are its processes—of which I have had direct experience—that many landlords specify in their agreements that the tenant may not change to that supplier, and with good reason.

I had a situation myself concerning the commercial supply of electricity to an agricultural building. My wife and I were faced with a demand from this company for over £30,000 for a period of some 15 months, when the only thing that happens in this shed is that for a period of about three weeks a series of low-wattage lights are used to assist with lambing, and for a period of about 10 days in another part of the year they are used for a sheep-shearing operation. By no stretch of the imagination could the fee have totalled that amount. When, finally, the company rang up my wife and said, “We’re going to take you to court”, her answer was, “Make my day”. It was not until the matter was referred to its lawyers that it became apparent that there had been a complete muck-up. It had simply not got an initial reading and was trying to steamroller that payment through in the hope that we would crack and pay it. I know that other landlords in the private rented sector are sometimes faced with the same situation.

These people run up the most appalling costs. While I have great sympathy that this should not be laid solely at the door of tenants, it is none the less an occupational hazard that afflicts both parties to this arrangement. That is the only reason why I have a reservation about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—because there is another dimension to this, where certain suppliers are acting utterly unreasonably and unconscionably.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the Countess of Lytton is clearly even more formidable than the noble Earl.

I too have a lot of sympathy with these amendments, but I believe there are already sufficient existing protections—not in this Bill but in other legislation—which address the concerns raised by noble Lords. Landlords who resell energy to their tenants for domestic use are governed by maximum resale price provisions set by Ofgem under Section 44 of the Electricity Act 1989 and Section 37 of the Gas Act 1986. This prevents landlords from overcharging tenants; they cannot charge the tenant more than the landlord has paid. If the landlord does overcharge, the tenant is entitled to have the charge lowered and overpayments refunded. The tenant can also bring a claim against their landlord to the small claims court for the amount that has been overcharged plus interest. In addition, on other utilities, landlords are prohibited from overcharging tenants for the resale of water under the maximum resale price provisions set out in the Water Resale Order 2006. If the landlord does overcharge, the tenant can take legal action through the small claims court to recover any overpayment and the tenant is eligible to recover interest at a rate of twice the average base interest rate of the Bank of England for the period they have been overcharged.

Amendment 31 would specifically require landlords to review any contract held for the provision of utilities and to consider switching provider if this would be beneficial to the tenant. In the majority of cases, tenants will be responsible for paying their own energy bills; they will pay them direct to the supplier and not to the landlord. So in most cases, tenants will already have the right to choose their own supplier. The tenancy agreement will set out who is responsible for paying these charges. Where the landlord is responsible for paying the bills, they may seek to recover these costs through the rent or directly from the tenant but, as I have already explained, they are already prevented from overcharging for this for energy and water.

Through, for example, the How to Rent guide, we encourage tenants to speak to their landlord or agent if they think their utilities payments are too high or if they want to request a change of supplier. In many cases, it may be in the interest of the landlord to move to a more competitive supplier as that may help to market their property in the future.

In addition, the Government’s Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill received Royal Assent on 19 July. This requires Ofgem to implement a price cap on standard variable and default tariffs, which will guarantee protection for the 11 million households currently on the highest energy tariffs.

Against that background, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for his very helpful response. I will withdraw my amendment shortly, but I would like to check something. He helpfully set out the legislation which will prevent people from being overcharged by landlords, but I cannot recall off the top of my head whether this will be clearly laid out in the guidance so that people will be very much aware of their rights and obligations. That would go some way to allaying the fears that are behind these amendments.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Before the noble Lord sits down I would like to say that that is a very helpful suggestion. We will indeed look at the guidance to see whether that suggestion can be incorporated.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

In that case, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 26th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for raising once again this important issue. He has brought these measures forward in a number of guises and is a true crusader for reform in this area. I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to the debate, in particular my noble friend Lord Wakeham for putting the issue in a broader historical context and for explaining the basis of the current settlement. He also stressed the importance, a point underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, of trying to seek a consensus before we make changes in this area.

Every day we say a prayer for the Prince of Wales, prospering him with all happiness. I am sure that nothing which has been said in this debate will go against the daily injunction we are given by the right reverend Prelates. The Duchy of Cornwall is an important institution. Since it was established in the 14th century, the Duchy’s main purpose has been to provide an income that is independent of the monarch for the heir apparent. The land, property and other assets of the Duchy and the proceeds of any disposal of assets are subject to the terms of a number of Acts, including the Duchy of Cornwall Management Acts 1863 to 1982, the combined effect of which is to place the Duchy’s assets in trust for the benefit of the present and future Dukes of Cornwall and to govern the use of the assets.

The current Prince of Wales chooses to use a substantial proportion of his income from the Duchy to meet the cost of his public and charitable work. The Duchy funds the public and private lives of five other adult members of the Royal Family—the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Turning to Clause 1, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and others have raised the matter of the inheritance of the Duchy of Cornwall. The issue of gender equality is a priority for this Government and quite rightly the matter has been raised again today. Noble Lords are correct to say that at present the title can pass only to the eldest son and heir of the monarch. Thus, when the Queen was heir presumptive to the throne, she did not hold the title of Duke of Cornwall and the Duchy lands were vested in her father, the sovereign. The mode of descent specified by the Charter of 1337 is unusual and differs from that which commonly occurs in respect of hereditary titles. The monarch’s eldest son is automatically the Duke of Cornwall immediately he becomes the heir apparent. However, the manner of descent of the Duchy would preclude a grandson who is heir apparent from gaining the title of the Duke of Cornwall if he were heir to the sovereign because he is not the son of the monarch. With the Duchy of Cornwall we have a very unusual piece of English history that does not conform to the standard rules of descent for hereditary titles.

If we look back over recent years, there have been long stretches when there has been no eldest son to be the Duke of Cornwall, in which case the Duchy estate vests in the sovereign who oversees the affairs of the estate in lieu of a Duke. Viewed from today’s perspective, as opposed to that of the 14th century, I can understand why noble Lords have raised concerns about the descent of the Duchy of Cornwall, and indeed the Government have some sympathy with those concerns against the background of the changes made to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 and other moves to increase equality. However, parliamentary time is currently scarce and noble Lords will agree that there are other more pressing priorities. Furthermore, given that currently there are three male heirs to the sovereign—Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince George—I do not believe that the time is right to dedicate parliamentary time to this matter when it is badly needed elsewhere. Indeed, the issue raised by the noble Baroness may not arise until the next century.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised the more general issue of the succession of hereditary titles, on which I am sure a number of noble Lords have different views. However, they are not the subject of this particular legislation. Perhaps I may reassure the House that a female heir apparent will not find herself at a financial disadvantage because the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 broadly ensures that financial provision equal to the income from the Duchy is made for the heir apparent.

I turn now to the amendments on enfranchisement which are of particular interest to many in this House and to myself as a former housing Minister. The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 gives leaseholders the right to purchase a property from the landlord if certain circumstances are met. The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which I put on the statute book, gives the tenants of flats in a building the right to collectively acquire the freehold of that building, again if certain conditions are met. The Act also provides the right for a tenant to extend the lease if certain conditions are met. Both Acts exempt the Duchy of Cornwall and other Crown lands from these provisions. This is because the capital raised from the Duchy cannot be distributed and is reinvested in the Duchy; the Duke of Cornwall receives funds only from the surplus. The general exemptions are important to protect land and property associated with the Crown and to ensure that the Duchy continues to perform its role for future Dukes.

However, I shall turn to what I think is the crucial point: Crown authorities have voluntarily committed, most recently in 2001, to abide by the same terms as private landlords in most circumstances. The Duchy has more than 600 residences, around 20% of which would be subject to these Acts had the Duchy not been exempted. The number of tenancies which the Duchy has sold or granted a lease extension to tenants under the terms of the enfranchisement Acts is around 120. There are some exceptions, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, implied, including the historic Royal parks and palaces, property or areas which have a historic association with the Crown or where there are security considerations.

The Bill would represent a significant change to the legal status of the Duchy of Cornwall. There is a presumption that legislation does not bind Crown lands, including the Duchy of Cornwall. Removing Crown immunity for the Duchy of Cornwall could be problematic in the future. As the Duchy of Cornwall vests in the sovereign when there is no Duke of Cornwall, the sovereign has a residual personal interest in matters affecting the property of the Duchy of Cornwall. When vested in the sovereign, the Duchy of Cornwall would have a different legal status from other lands belonging to the Crown.

I turn to the tax status, again raised by a number of noble Lords. The Bill proposes that the Duchy of Cornwall will be liable to income tax and capital gains tax. Let me start by confirming the current arrangements. The Duchy enjoys Crown exemption and is not in any case a corporation within the charge to corporation tax. The Duke of Cornwall is not entitled to the proceeds or profits from the sales of the Duchy’s capital assets, which are retained in the Duchy to provide income for the Duke and future beneficiaries.

The Prince is liable to pay income tax and capital gains tax on any income and capital gains he may receive from other non-Duchy sources. In line with the Memorandum of Understanding on royal taxation, he pays income tax voluntarily on the surplus of the Duchy of Cornwall after deducting official expenditure, applying normal income tax rules and at the 45% rate. In his annual review, the Prince of Wales stated that he paid £4.85 million in the 2017-18 financial year, although this figure includes VAT, income tax and capital gains tax from non-Duchy sources. If employer’s national insurance contributions and council tax are included, the total tax paid increases to £5.3 million. Of course, the expenditure varies from year to year, as does the value of the surplus.

The tax status of the Duchy of Cornwall reflects that of the sovereign, who is also not legally liable to pay income tax, capital gains tax or inheritance tax because the relevant enactments do not apply to the Crown. The Queen also pays income tax and capital gains tax on a voluntary basis in line with the Memorandum of Understanding. Moreover, the unique nature of the Duchy of Cornwall means that, in order to produce a workable income tax and capital gains tax regime, deeming the Duchy as a settlement would not be sufficient. Further provisions would be necessary to ensure that the legislation would work effectively without unintended consequences.

In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, focused mainly on the Sovereign Grant Act rather than the Bill before us. I will write to him in answer to some of the issues that he raised. In summing up, I again pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for pursuing this important matter.

[Lord Adonis]

What has happened to the tax paid by the Duchy of Cornwall in recent years? The Minister gave last year’s figure. Can he say how that figure has changed?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I have the figures for only the past three years in my brief. I think that the noble Lord’s queries went further back than that, so I will write to him. I would just say that the Labour Party voted for the Sovereign Grant Act.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

I want to make one comment prior to the Minister’s response to my noble friend. There may be good reasons—I can see them in principle and in practice—for insisting on more transparency surrounding the costs at Buckingham Palace, for instance, but the expectation that it will hold costs stable or reduce them is not one of them. Witness the increase in the cost of refurbishing this Parliament and the cost of the Scottish Parliament building, which was overseen by not one but two Parliaments. The cost rose from the estimate of £40 million to more than £400 million. There may be good reasons for the transparencies regarding Buckingham Palace, but the expectation that oversight by this or any other committee will reduce the price is not one of them.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord said that he wanted to make a comment rather than ask a question and he did exactly that.

I conclude by expressing reservations about the Bill. The Duchy of Cornwall plays an important role in providing funds to support the public and private lives of six members of the Royal Family. The Government are keen to ensure that the Duchy can continue to perform that function. Noble Lords have made informed contributions to the debate and given pause for thought. However, the Government believe that now is not the time to attempt this reform. I repeat the valid point made by my noble friend Lord Wakeham: if we make progress, it should be on a consensual basis. Considering other pressures on the legislative timetable, the Government have reservations about the prospects for the Bill in future.

Brexit: Civil Service Impartiality

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Luce]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the impartiality of the Civil Service following recent political criticisms of the Brexit process.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord’s Question on the Civil Service, noble Lords may have heard that Sir Jeremy Heywood has announced his retirement as Cabinet Secretary to concentrate on his recovery from ill health. The whole House will wish that recovery to be swift and complete and we look forward to welcoming him to your Lordships’ House, where the wisdom, patience and humour that marked his career in the Civil Service can be harnessed by this House as it scrutinises legislation and holds the Government to account.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the Ministerial Code is clear that Ministers must uphold at all times the impartiality of the Civil Service. This impartiality is a fundamental tenet of our system of government, set out in legislation and in the Civil Service Code. As always, the Civil Service is focused on doing its duty to implement the decisions and policies of the Government, including on negotiations and preparations for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

[Lord Luce (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. He speaks with authority, having been a civil servant as well as a distinguished former Minister. I am sure the whole House will appreciate the tribute he has paid to Sir Jeremy Heywood. Since a politically impartial and independent Civil Service recruited on the basis of merit, in which civil servants are advised to speak fearlessly in giving advice to Ministers, has been one of the strengths of our unwritten constitution in the last 150 years, will the noble Lord condemn all those politicians—of all political persuasions and different views on Brexit—who blame the civil servants for policy decisions which are the sole responsibility of Ministers? Does he not agree that this is damaging to confidence and trust in the Civil Service?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As the noble Lord has indicated, I have an interest to declare: I was myself a civil servant in the 1960s, working for such agreeable political masters as George Brown and John Stonehouse. But on the serious issue the noble Lord raises, I agree entirely with what he has just said. I think that Oliver Robbins has the most difficult job in the Civil Service; it is quite wrong that he should be the lightning conductor for those unhappy with the negotiations. I deplore the anonymous allegation that he is following his own agenda, against the wishes of Ministers.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this may be a sad day for the Civil Service in losing Sir Jeremy Heywood but it is a happy day for us. I am sure that even the Lord Speaker, having commended us on reducing the size of the House, will welcome this exception for our new colleague. We wish him well. The best tribute to him will be if we can continue what he says in his farewell letter: that he has tried,

“to challenge lazy thinking and … to find solutions rather than simply identifying … obstacles”.

Our tribute should be that the Civil Service can continue to do that without being attacked because, rather like saying “Fake news”, those who attack it are doing so to undermine the words that civil servants say. When the Minister reaffirms the independence of the Civil Service, as I am sure he will, will he urge those Brexiteers to play the ball and not the man?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree with what the noble Baroness has just said and I am grateful for her tribute to Sir Jeremy. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has best summed up the merits of our Civil Service, speaking of its,

“core values of integrity, propriety, objectivity and appointment on merit, able to transfer its loyalty and expertise from one elected government to the next”.

I agree with the noble Baroness’s final point that, whatever one’s politics, one should play the ball and not the man. Ministers bear responsibility for any difficulties in negotiations, not civil servants.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, as someone who strongly supports Brexit, may I say how much I support and agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Luce, has said? I deplore all the attacks made on civil servants. I particularly deplore—and have said this to several people—attacks on Sir Jeremy Heywood. He was my Private Secretary in three separate jobs and is an outstanding civil servant, devoted to giving impartial advice. I am deeply sorry to hear about his illness and wish him all the best.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Like him, I worked with Sir Jeremy. I sat round the Cabinet table for a number of years with him and worked with him when I was Chief Whip and Leader of the House. One of his successes was building on the work of his predecessors and creating a more open, diverse, plural Civil Service that was also more professional but never lost sight of the basic principles of the Civil Service: honesty, openness, impartiality and integrity.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, speaking for all his predecessors as Cabinet Secretary, I share and express our regret that Sir Jeremy Heywood has felt obliged to retire on health grounds. Sir Jeremy served many Prime Ministers and, as we have just heard, many Chancellors of the Exchequer. He served with great skill, unremitting hard work, distinction, impartiality and integrity. He has given the state some service and is well deserving of the gratitude and approval of the Government, Ministers, his colleagues in the Civil Service and both Houses of Parliament.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree with the noble Lord’s every word and gently suggest that there will now be so many former Cabinet Secretaries in this House that perhaps they should form their own group.