EU Referendum: Conduct

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have received reports or information about (1) outside interference, and (2) irregularities, in the conduct of the European Union referendum.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have not received any reports or information about any successful outside interference in the European Union referendum. We nevertheless remain vigilant and are committed to defending the UK from all forms of malign state interference in UK democratic processes. The Electoral Commission’s report on the referendum, published in September 2016, stated that the poll was delivered without any major issues and that there was a clear and timely final result.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

I don’t believe it. Everyone knows the irregularities, the fraud and the corruption that took place. The Electoral Commission declared that there was illegal spending by Vote Leave. A whistleblower at Cambridge Analytica showed that Russian money was pumped into the Vote Leave campaign through Aaron Banks and others. This result was obtained by fraud and corruption. The Government have an opportunity to put this right and to satisfy the wishes of at least 700,000 marchers on Saturday by giving the British people the opportunity to decide whether they want to accept the deal, once the terms are known, or to stay in the European Union through a people’s vote.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has made her position quite clear on a second referendum: she does not want one. The Electoral Commission is investigating whether Mr Banks was the true source of the loans reported by a referendum campaign in his name and whether any individual facilitated a transaction with a non-qualifying person. But it is important to keep this in perspective. The Atlantic Council and the Oxford Research Institute, both of which have researched this, found that the impact of the Russians on the referendum was at best marginal. One estimate was 0.3% of tweets. I was as disappointed as the noble Lord with the outcome of the referendum, but unlike him I do not believe that it was lost because of what I might call the Zinoviev Twitter.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, this is the Act of Parliament that set out the conditions under which the referendum was fought. This is not a minor matter of rules or regulations; this is the law of the land. Can the noble Lord confirm that the Electoral Commission passed files detailing what had happened in terms of lawbreaking by the leavers during the campaign to the Metropolitan Police several months ago? Can he reassure the House that the police will never halt or delay an investigation because it is claimed that there are political sensitivities?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I think it is a malign slur on the police to imply that they would defer to political pressure in that way. It is indeed the case that the responsible person for Vote Leave has been referred to the police, as has Mr Grimes, in relation to false declarations of campaign spending. A number of pro-remain organisations were also fined by the EC for breaking referendum law, including the Liberal Democrats.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the most irregular aspect of the EU referendum was the £9.5 million the Government spent on a deceitful little brochure which went through every letterbox in the land in an attempt to mislead the British people into voting to stay in the EU?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Government followed the precedent of earlier referendums, including those from the 1970s and 1990s, in distributing a leaflet setting out the Government’s view.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the DCMS Committee in the other place has just published alarming evidence of a so-called “Mainstream Network”, which appears to have spent £250,000 to reach 10 million Facebook users, urging them to lobby their MPs to “chuck Chequers”. Could the Minister ask the Electoral Commission to investigate this because it could fall into a pre-election period, or get his own department to consider whether, if this is not against the law, some regulation is needed if we are not to have just millionaires putting money into our political system?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand the concern expressed by the noble Baroness and, indeed, by DCMS. It might be a matter for the Information Commissioner, who has been given new powers under the Data Protection Act, which has recently been passed. She is already investigating the possible misuse of data held by Facebook and used by Cambridge Analytica. We will shortly publish a White Paper on online harm setting out our objective to make the UK the safest place in which to be online.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Foulkes spoke with passion and eloquence on behalf of the 700,000 people who marched. If I can say a word on behalf of the 17.4 million people who voted leave, it is this: ever since the referendum result was declared—this just another step along the way—there has been an unremitting campaign to try to discredit or, at best, reverse the result of the referendum on numerous different fronts, of which this is just the latest example. Can the Minister put this all in perspective and recognise that the 17.4 million people who voted leave were not all duped by the Russians and were not all ignorant about the issues which were before them? All they asked was this simple request, which we want the Government to get on with: to leave the European Union.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord will know that after the referendum the relevant legislation was passed through both Houses. Legislation will shortly be introduced, following a successful negotiation with the European Union. I share his wish, as much as anybody else, that this whole matter be brought to a conclusion swiftly and cohesively, and we can then move on to other matters.

Historical Allegations:Operation Conifer

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the replies by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 11 October (HL Deb, cols 177–9), what steps they are taking to ensure that investigations into historical allegations do not damage the reputations of the people against whom the allegations are made in cases where such investigations are not resolved conclusively.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, decisions on how to conduct investigations are the responsibility of the force concerned following guidance issued by the College of Policing. The college’s recently updated guidance makes it clear that the names of suspects, including those who are deceased, should be released only where there is a legitimate policing purpose. Operational advice to senior officers investigating allegations of more recent child sexual abuse involving institutions or people of public prominence is also being updated.

[Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)]

My Lords, as the Government persist in refusing to commission an independent review of Operation Conifer, perhaps they will muster the courage to express a considered view themselves. Operation Conifer produced not a single shred of credible evidence that Sir Edward Heath might have been guilty of child abuse, and a lot of credible evidence to show that he was not. Of the 42 allegations investigated by Wiltshire Police, 35 were dismissed. Of the remaining seven unresolved allegations, four can be shown to be without foundation. The other three are probably equally baseless, the product of a conspiracy to create and disseminate false allegations of child abuse by national figures such as Lord Bramall, Lord Brittan and Sir Edward Heath. Does the Minister agree that Operation Conifer’s report falls far short of the standards of probability required to justify the institution of a criminal prosecution, if Sir Edward Heath had still been alive to be prosecuted? Does justice not require us to accept that Sir Edward Heath was not a child abuser and to consign Operation Conifer to the dustbin of history?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

No one could have done more to safeguard and defend the integrity and reputation of Sir Edward Heath than the noble Lord. On the Government’s role, the noble Lord, together with my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord MacGregor, went to see the Home Secretary on 10 September. Their meeting lasted 40 minutes and they deployed, with all the force and eloquence at their disposal, their concerns and proposals for the Government to intervene. The Home Secretary said that he would reflect on it; he has previously overturned the decisions of his predecessors where he felt that the case was made. In this case, a month after that meeting and having taken advice, he wrote to the noble Lord on 10 October. He said: “I do not think there are grounds to justify review or intervention by Government”. He then set out his reasons. Unless something has happened in the past month, I do not believe that the Home Secretary will change his decision.

On the broader issues, I find it compelling that those who knew Sir Edward personally do not believe that there is one scintilla of truth in the accusations that were made. The noble Lord asked me to state from the Dispatch Box that in my view, had Sir Edward lived, the case would not have reached the level at which the CPS would institute a case. I hope that he, as a former Cabinet Secretary, will understand that it would not be right for a Minister to make such a pronouncement.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

The House will appreciate the tone of the Minister’s reply, which seemed very fair, but the excellent Question from the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, refers to historical allegations. These are not, of course, allegations by historians. We have a tradition in politics in this country of allowing these accusations to fester over decades, with the result that it is very difficult to form a clear view. If we were addressing matters that were, let us say, medical or scientific we would have authoritative and qualified people to deal with them. Could we not have appropriate scholarly authorities deal with this matter?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

This whole episode illustrates the problems confronting the police. On the one hand they are conducting thorough investigations and taking complainant’s allegations seriously, and on the other avoiding unfair damage to the reputation of people who can no longer defend themselves. The College of Policing has reflected on this challenge as part of its review of guidance in this area. The previous Home Secretary asked Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary to see how this guidance is working. I hope that as part of that review, HMIC will take on board the very strong views expressed on many occasions by those on all sides of the House about the way the guidance is operating.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, this House has consistently urged the Government to take action. No action has been taken. The reputation of a great statesman has been trashed and traduced. The reputation of a fine Field Marshal has been questioned. The reputation of an admirable colleague and former Home Secretary has been trashed. What do we have to do to persuade the Government to set up an independent inquiry under a judicial figure to look at these things and to report back to Parliament? Why cannot this be done?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

This was precisely the proposition in respect of Sir Edward that was put to the Home Secretary at the meeting on 10 September. In his reply on 10 October the Home Secretary set out his reasons. I quote from the final paragraph: “The problem that the police encountered was their inability to interview Sir Edward himself in order to secure his account of events. I have every sympathy, but that problem will of course remain and it is not clear to what extent a further review of the existing evidence by a judge or retired prosecutor would resolve this”. For those reasons, the Home Secretary decided not to intervene. As my noble friend will know, there have been a number of independent inquiries into Operation Conifer. They concluded that the investigation was proportionate, legitimate and in accordance with national guidance. I know that it comes as a disappointment, but the Government do not believe that there are grounds for another independent inquiry into Operation Conifer.

Cyber Threats

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and I thank all the speakers who have brought a wide range and depth of experience and expertise to it, not least the mover, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, who made a thoughtful introduction and crammed 15 helpful suggestions into three minutes at the end of his speech. A number of themes ran through the debate, in particular the need for partnership. I hope I have not misunderstood the tone of the debate when I say there has been no fundamental disagreement about the thrust of government policy, but some severe warnings and some very helpful suggestions about how we might do better. Some of them were on a highly technical front, and some were based on broad common sense.

I say to the noble Viscount that this is a very timely debate, following the second anniversary of the National Cyber Security Centre and the publication of its 2018 annual review this week, which was launched by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the director of GCHQ and the CEO of the NCSC. It is one of the best annual reports I have seen as a Minister, although I have not risen to the challenge on the last page,

“Can you find the secret codeword?”


As this debate has made clear, protecting the British people, the systems that we rely upon and our very democracy itself is a central responsibility of government. As our digitally connected world has rapidly expanded, so too has the scale of vulnerabilities and the frequency of attacks that we face—a point well made by my noble friend Lord Lucas. It is for this reason that cybersecurity remains a top priority for the Government, because it impacts on our national security and our economic prosperity. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said when he outlined the cost to the economy of lax cybersecurity.

We recognised the need for a comprehensive and active response when we launched the National Cyber Security Strategy in 2016, where we defined a cyberattack—this is in response to the request from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for a definition —as a,

“deliberate exploitation of computer systems, digitally-dependent enterprises and networks to cause harm”.

We set out ambitious proposals to defend our people, deter our adversaries and develop the capabilities we need to ensure that the UK remains the safest place to live and do business online. Those proposals will be supported by £1.9 billion of investment over five years, which was mentioned by many noble Lords, to drive transformation. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked whether I thought that that was enough. He will know that there is a spending review for 2020 onwards, and I am sure that the concerns expressed in this debate will be taken on board as colleagues move to a decision on future spending patterns.

One of the most visible elements of the strategy was the formation of the National Cyber Security Centre to bring together our very best intelligence and technical expertise in a world-leading authority—the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, described it very aptly—that will be our single centre of excellence to innovate and create, to work in partnership with industry to block attacks on a scale of tens of millions per month, which was mentioned by several noble Lords, and to blend behavioural science with technical expertise to provide the best advice and guidance for people and organisations to protect themselves.

On our response when attacks get through, the NCSC brings everyone together to reduce the harm from significant incidents, whether that is an attack on Parliament, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Borwick, or disruption to health services. On the attack on Parliament, I understand that it is unlikely to recur. I have had a note from the chief technology and security officer in Parliament that says that the correct people now get the required detail from Parliament’s Apple account manager to make sure that such a delay does not happen again. Our response is calibrated by the severity of the attack, and the National Security Council will consider the full range of security, diplomatic and economic tools at our disposal.

How we set up the National Cyber Security Centre reflects the single, clear message that underpins our strategy, which has been echoed throughout this debate, that we need not a whole of government approach but a whole of society approach, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, described it. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked how we are delivering it. The national strategy binds all of government into delivering a set of cross-cutting objectives which require a collective response that reaches out to the private sector and beyond—and, indeed, to other countries, because while we can lead the way, we know that we cannot solve these problems alone. This point was made by nearly every noble Lord who took part in this debate.

On the key subject of skills, which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lords, Lord Ricketts and Lord St John of Bletso, we are already developing a pipeline of talent and inspiring and developing cybersecurity experts and entrepreneurs, whether through our programmes in schools and universities, our work with industry to figure out the best way to retrain career changers with aptitude and ambition and by promoting cyberapprentices. On the specific recommendations of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy—a question raised by the noble Viscount—the Government have recently submitted their response and we look forward to its publication.

We also are building on our world-class universities and ground-breaking research to establish a pipeline of cutting-edge cybersecurity companies with a range of interventions to incubate and accelerate and to support our innovative companies to export overseas, turning many great ideas into global businesses. This in turn will help other countries to become more secure and will boost the UK cybersecurity industry, which is now generating more than £5 billion for the economy.

[Lord Fox]

Before the Minister moves on from skills, I asked whether the right ministry was carrying accountability for skills at a national level. All the examples he gave referred to ministries other than the department that has it.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I was referring to the responsibilities of the Department for Education. The relevant Minister is sitting at my side and will have heard that. We will write to the noble Lord, giving a more detailed reply on the role of that department, if that is what he wants.

The Government actively manage potential risks to UK infrastructure—a point on CNI raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. This includes risks related to foreign equipment used in our telecoms industry. This important issue was raised by the noble Lord, Lord West, who expressed concerns about our telecoms structures. I want to make it clear that the Government have not banned ZTE. The NCSC has raised its concerns about the ability to manage the risk of having more Chinese-supplied equipment on UK infrastructure undermining existing mitigations, including those around Huawei. The noble Lord is right that we cannot ban our way out of this, but I can confirm that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, with the NCSC, is leading the review into the security and resilience of our telecoms supply chain.

[Lord West of Spithead]

Has this been debated at Cabinet level? Bearing in mind that it has an impact on so many departments, it really needs to be looked at in the round, so I would be grateful for an answer.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am sure the noble Lord would be grateful for an answer, but I do not have one. I do not know whether it has been debated in Cabinet or in a Cabinet sub-committee. However, within the constraints of what happens within the machinery of government, which the noble Lord will be familiar with, I will see whether I can shed some light on the important issue he has raised.

The noble Lord also raised the issue of Chinese investment that meets stringent legal and regulatory standards. At the heart of this is the recognition that we need confidence in our ability to get the right balance between security in our critical infrastructure and the growth, productivity and inward investment opportunities. The findings of the review will report to the Prime Minister and the National Security Adviser. It is right that in the face of these shared threats the UK works alongside its international partners and allies to expose, confront and disrupt hostile or malicious activity.

[Lord West of Spithead]

Is the Minister concerned about H1K and the fact that CCTV will now have sound and that when it is 5G enabled every one of those things will be able to take down data and pass it on? Where do we stand on this?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

When we discussed this yesterday, the noble Lord was concerned about the installation within the Palace of Westminster of this capacity, which could indeed read stuff that was on my desk. I think this is primarily a matter for the authorities within the parliamentary estate. I will share with them the noble Lord’s concerns and get a considered reply, possibly from the noble Lord, Lord McFall.

It is right that in the face of these shared threats the UK works alongside its international partners and allies to confront, expose and disrupt hostile or malicious activity. Noble Lords will have seen recently our attribution of a range of indiscriminate and reckless cyberattacks to the work of Russian military intelligence, and 21 other countries stood with us to call this out. That builds upon a host of cyberattacks that we and our international partners have attributed to North Korean actors, including the WannaCry incident, one of the most substantial to hit the UK in terms of scale and disruption.

We are absolutely clear that we must work together to show that states attempting to undermine the international rules-based system cannot act with impunity. The Foreign Secretary pressed this point with his counterparts at the Foreign Affairs Council earlier this week, and the Prime Minister is today encouraging the European Council to accelerate work to strengthen the EU response to malicious cyber activities, including a new regime of restrictive measures.

When necessary, we will defend ourselves. We are continuing to develop our offensive cyber capabilities as part of the toolkit that we use to deter our adversaries and deny them opportunities to attack us both in cyberspace and in the physical sphere. My noble friend Lord Borwick referred to this. If he looks at page 51 of the National Cyber Security Strategy 2016 to 2021, I hope he will be reassured by what we say about enhancing sovereign capabilities and offensive cyber, ensuring that we have at our disposal,

“appropriate offensive cyber capabilities that can be deployed at a time and place of our choosing, for both deterrence and operational purposes, in accordance with national and international law.”.

It is also vital that we continue to reaffirm our shared vision for an open, peaceful and secure digital world based on the rule of law and norms of behaviour. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, was right to refer to the speech by the previous Attorney-General saying that international law applied to cyberspace. It seems to me that if a foreign state were to drop a bomb on our airports we would have a right to reply, and likewise if our airports are immobilised through cyber we should equally have such a right, though of course that should be proportionate and legal. We do not concede ground to those who believe that existing international law does not apply, or who seek to impose controls through international fora as a means of restricting basic human rights.

Our work with international partners goes beyond joint operations and influencing. For example, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked about the work that we are doing with the Commonwealth. We have been scoping and piloting projects to date, but we are now accelerating delivery and expect to have spent £2.3 million by the end of this financial year. Much of this is in partnership with the private sector—for example, we are working with Citibank, an American bank, to build resilience in the Commonwealth finance sector.

I did not think we would get through the debate without Brexit being raised by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord St John of Bletso. The cyber threat that the UK and its European allies face from state actors and cybercriminals remains significant and, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, says, it knows no international boundaries. That is why the UK is seeking to maintain the broadest possible co-operation with our EU partners so that we can continue to share information with EU security institutions, deepen industrial collaboration and work together to develop cyber resilience in support of our collective security, values and democratic processes. Continued co-operation with the EU is not only in our interest; it is firmly in the interest of the EU as we look to respond to hostile state and non-state actors in cyberspace.

At this halfway point in the delivery of our national cyber security strategy, we have put in place many of the building blocks to transform the UK’s cybersecurity and resilience, already demonstrating results. However, we can never become complacent. Just as the threat from cyber criminals and nation states continues to evolve, so too must we continue to innovate and respond at scale and pace. We are therefore stepping up our protection of government systems, from the NCSC’s excellent active cyber defence measures to models adapted from those used by the finance sector to test the security of public services.

On the subject of defence, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, a previous Secretary of State, raised some important issues about the security of our defence systems. We have well-established processes in place to address cybersecurity and the protection of our weapons systems. We are continuing to invest—for example, through our £265 million programme of cyber vulnerability investigations for military equipment. On the specifics of responding to the report published in the US, I will happily write to the noble Lord. To allay his concerns on the UK’s use of equipment supplied by the United States, I refer him to the details of the NCSC’s support of the MoD’s Modernising Defence programme in its recent annual review, where examples include stringent testing of the new F35B fighter planes.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I am sorry to ask the Minister to give way again. I do not always share the views of my noble friend Lord Browne on some of these issues, but on the Dreadnought programme, which is crucial, could the Minister maybe go back to the Secretary of State for Defence and say, “There really is a need for red-teaming regarding the threat of cyber to the Dreadnought programme, as it is in-build”?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I take very seriously such a warning coming from the noble Lord. I will share of course his concerns with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and get him to write to him.

While it is difficult to avoid headlines about attacks and breaches, doing something about it is still often seen as too technical, too difficult or someone else’s problem. However, one of the themes that has emerged from our debate is that cybersecurity is everyone’s responsibility. We consider it vital that all organisations embrace and embed cybersecurity, from the boardroom down. That is why we have targeted efforts at driving long-term change, starting with helping boards to better understand the risks they face and to invest appropriately. This year’s cybersecurity breaches survey revealed that only 30% of businesses have a board member with responsibility for cybersecurity, and that is not good enough. We must ensure that boardrooms provide active leadership to ensure that cybersecurity is ingrained into organisational cultures and mindsets—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, who also drew attention to the substantial fines that companies are now exposed to under GDPR if they do not comply with the new legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, highlighted, understanding exactly how secure data and systems are in complex organisations has never been more important.

I am conscious that I am not going to be able to get through all the points that have been raised within the allocated 20 minutes, so I will write to noble Lords to deal with the issues that I have not been able to address today. In conclusion, I hope I have been able to demonstrate not just that we understand the scale of the challenge that we face but that we are seeking to create the environment for everyone to be at their most collaborative and agile to respond, a point well made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. As we face new challenges in the year ahead, we need to ensure that we remain focused on reaching across organisational, political and geographical boundaries. As we face those challenges, I will ensure that we take on board the valuable suggestions that noble Lords have made in today’s debate so that we can continue to protect the economic and individual freedoms that make us stronger together.

Employee Shareholding and Participation in Corporate Governance

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 11th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on getting this short debate on a topic that is suddenly topical again, quite rightly. The Question refers to two different ways to involve employees in the bodies they work for: greater employee shareholding and participation in corporate governance, which together might loosely be called industrial democracy. I believe they go together.

If we believe in the importance of individual people’s ability to control their lives autonomously but co-operating with other people in society in communities—this is fundamental to my political beliefs as a Liberal—this is a vital issue. Discussion of it has waxed and waned during my lifetime. Unfortunately, there has been a long period of quiescence, both in my party, the Liberal Democrats, and more generally, but in my lifetime it has ranged across the political spectrum, from the Liberal party, the Industrial Co-partnership Association, now the Involvement and Partnership Association, the Co-operative movement generally, the Institute for Workers’ Control, the Employee Ownership Association—I mention that as a plug for a wonderful pamphlet that has just been written by my noble friend Lady Bowles; perhaps she will refer to it in her speech—and, most recently, the announcements from John McDonnell, which have plonked this issue firmly back on the political agenda. He is to be congratulated on doing that.

I have some quotes that show how it has spread across the political spectrum. The Institute for Workers’ Control marched under a banner saying:

“No man is good enough to be another man’s master”.


Who can disagree with that? But look at the way we run society. The foreword of a report on the Liberal co-ownership proposals in 1948 was written by that great Yorkshire Liberal Elliott Dodds, who referred to,

“the saving sense of proprietorship”,

which says the same thing in rather different language. He goes on to write:

“This can be done in one way and in one way only—by laying it down that they shall have the opportunity to share in the direction and fortunes of the enterprises”,


in which they are employed. The motion passed at the 1948 Liberal Party assembly—before even my time—said that the employee is,

“to be entitled to elected representation on the board of directors”.

So the idea has been around for a long time, across the political spectrum.

At the first election I fought, unsuccessfully, in February 1974, the Liberal Party election manifesto said:

“Firstly, employees must become members of their companies just as shareholders are, with the same clearly defined right. Secondly, it must be accepted that directors in public companies are equally responsible to shareholders and employees. Employees must be entitled to share in the election of the directors on equal terms with shareholders”.


The high-water mark of the campaign for this kind of thing was the Bullock report in January 1977, the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Industrial Democracy, chaired by Lord Alan Bullock, which included such luminaries as Jack Jones, Clive Jenkins and one David Lea, now the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, who I look forward to hearing later. This was a thoroughgoing statement of co-partnership. The politics of that time meant that it did not succeed, but the majority report, at chapter 9, paragraph 13, reads:

“Our conclusion is therefore that there should be equal representation of employees and shareholders on company boards”.


There are lots of questions in the modern age relating to multinational companies, the global economic and financial environment, the flexible economy, the gig economy, bogus self-employment and all the rest, and how you deal with the public sector. I believe that this is a topic whose time has come again, both for employee share ownership and involvement that way, and involvement in the institutions of the companies. We had a letter this morning from the noble Lord, Lord McFall, the Senior Deputy Speaker, asking for ideas for a special inquiry committee for 2019-20. This is a brilliant topic on which the House of Lords could do a lot of useful work and I invite everybody here who is interested in the topic to write to the noble Lord, Lord McFall, and suggest that he put it forward.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, we are constrained on time and I urge all noble Lords to participate in the corporate governance of the House and stick to four minutes.

Infrastructure and Projects Authority

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty's Government what action ministers are expected to take when they receive adverse reports on costs or progress from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority provides confidential and independent reviews of major projects being delivered by government departments. While primarily aimed at project leaders, Ministers monitor delivery confidence in projects and intervene where necessary.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the two departments with the biggest spend on the Infrastructure and Projects Authority list are the MoD and Department for Transport, with about £130 billion each? HS2 is by far the biggest project on the Department for Transport’s list. In my book, it is coming up to between £50 billion and £100 billion. The IPA’s red/amber/green traffic light analysis on HS2 says that for six years it has been amber/red, which means:

“Successful delivery of the project is in doubt, with major risks or issues apparent … Urgent action is needed to address these problems and/or assess whether resolution is feasible”.


What have the Government been doing over the last six years with HS2 being at amber/red? Did they talk to the Department for Transport and what was its answer?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for trailing his supplementary question in the House magazine. To put this into context, the IPA was formed in 2015 to help the Government to deliver critical national infrastructure projects. It does this by commissioning independent reviews, which the noble Lord referred to. It then gives a rating to the relevant projects. Those ratings are taken very seriously, as I said in my initial reply, by the project leaders in the departments and by Ministers, who take action when necessary. After the rating has been allocated to a particular project, the IPA and the relevant department have an ongoing dialogue to ensure that milestones are met and that projects meet their commitments. The noble Lord mentioned £50 billion. That is not a figure that the department recognises. The estimate is roughly half that.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has given a very interesting answer, but he did not address the central question that my noble friend asked: what did Ministers do in response to those red/amber ratings in this case?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As I said in my initial reply, the reviews are primarily aimed at the project leaders. They give them advice on how to identify risks and take mitigating action to ensure that those risks are circumvented to ensure that the project hits the relevant milestones. There might be occasions when Ministers have to intervene, for example, if some legislative change is needed or if fresh estimates and more money are required from the Treasury, but for the most part the reviews are aimed not at Ministers but at departmental leaders. As someone who has been a Minister, if I was in charge of a project that had a red tag attached to it by the IPA, I would take a very close interest in its progress and make sure that it was delivered.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that if he were in charge of a project and he saw an amber/red, he would find within his department very few resources with the kind of expertise, training and coalface experience to be able to come to grips with these large, complex and high-risk projects. Will he take back to the Government the need to completely relook at resources and staffing against these projects? It is not the standard civil servant, nor the management consultants who are required; it is hard-bitten folk with real experience of the relevant industries, and the Government should start to put that rapidly in place.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness raises a very important issue. If she looks at the annual report of the IPA, she will see the action it is taking in order to make sure that the Civil Service has exactly the skills and resources it needs. There is a fast-stream process and it is recruiting graduates and providing leadership programmes in order to ensure that the Civil Service does indeed have the capacity to manage these very large and costly projects.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

If my noble friend’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is that this signalling system, whatever it is called, is for the project managers, then the question perhaps ought to be reformulated: what have the project managers been doing while the lights have been flashing?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The project managers are frequently asked to appear before the PAC or the NAO in order to answer precisely those questions. If my noble friend looks at the relevant recent reports of the PAC and the NAO, he will see that they,

“recognise the steps it has taken to strengthen project assurance, improve transparency and introduce project leadership training”.

More recently, in a recent report on property acquisitions by the Department for Transport in relation to HS2, the NAO noted that positive steps have been taken,

“to develop capability and provide greater assurance on improving project delivery”.

No one would be happier than me if civil servants were to answer this question rather than Ministers.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that if any management techniques such as red, amber and green flags were available in the 1830s, the London to Birmingham railway would never have been built and there would have been red flags against pretty much everything? Will he ignore the Jeremiahs and get on with the project of building HS2, which is of huge importance to the West Midlands? It is a clear statement of confidence in the future.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I say to the noble Lord that I was around 20 years ago during the gestation of HS1 and precisely the same arguments were adduced against that: it was environmentally unsustainable; it was not value for money; there were other, greater priorities. I do not think that anyone in your Lordships’ House today would now argue that we should not have gone ahead with HS1. My own view is that in 20 years’ time, or whenever HS2 is complete, the same view will be taken of HS2.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware, of course, of the IFG report entitled What’s Wrong with Infrastructure Decision Making? produced in 2017. I hope he has had the opportunity to look at its recommendations and will explain to the House which of those recommendations the Government have implemented. Also, when he talks about the skills needed by civil servants, will he accept that in these long-term projects the turnover of project managers is far too frequent? There is a stop–start approach, when what is needed, as well as the skills, is that civil servants, or whoever is in charge, should undertake a project from beginning to end so that we can see some continuity.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I concur with that observation. There is a strong argument for having continuity of leadership within departments when you have these projects that run over many years. But as I said a few moments ago, the IPA is seeking to address that problem by building up the skills within the Civil Service with a new leadership programme and other initiatives. But I take the point, and I will feed it back to the IPA and the departments, that continuity within project leadership is essential if these projects are to be delivered within budget and on time.

Third-party Election Campaigning

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, on his choice of subject and on the speech that he made in introducing it. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part; they have brought to the debate not just their experience of when the legislation went through but their experience in many voluntary sectors. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned his experience at Nacro and Oxfam as well as some of the umbrella bodies that speak for the voluntary organisations. Many other noble Lords drew on their own experience of working in the voluntary sector. I cannot hold a candle to what some noble Lords have done in this field, although I chaired a housing association for some seven years before I became an MP.

I also thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his significant contribution to the development of third-party campaigning rules, including as chair of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which closely monitored the changes to third-party campaigning and published a series of useful reports before and after the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 was passed.

We have heard much today about the important role that third-party organisations play in society. The Government recognise the invaluable contribution of third-party organisations and will continue to provide support and guidance to ensure that such organisations can meet their charitable aims. As a number of noble Lords rightly pointed out, the charitable aims include not just meeting the direct needs of the group that they seek to help but raising the profile and seeking to change the law. As the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Ramsbotham, and others have said, that is absolutely in line with their charitable objectives.

The Government published the Civil Society Strategy on 9 August, setting out how they will support charities and social enterprises. This includes plans to create a cross-government group to work with civil society and a renewal of the Government’s commitment to the compact principles. These are the principles that govern the relationship between the social sector and the Government. We are committed to embedding open policy-making across departments, giving civil society significant opportunities to achieve policy change, and are currently developing a commitment to this as part of the UK’s next national action plan for open government. We have also provided additional funding for third-party organisations. In 2018 the Government have doubled charitable donations through the UK’s Aid Match scheme, which pledges £1 for every £1 donated. Twenty-five charities across the UK will have their charitable appeals for 2017 and 2018 boosted, raising a total of £66 million.

When preparing for this debate, I read all four reports from the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. I found them highly informative, providing a comprehensive insight into the key concerns around third-party campaigning. I also reread the significant contributions by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, which I will come to in a moment. I also read the contributions which both of them have made to our debate on the subject, including when the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, tabled amendments to the Act.

I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his significant contribution to the third-party campaigning rules. His report has been referred to by many speakers, and I reread it last night. I understand that my noble friend has been in regular correspondence on third-party campaigning rules with Cabinet Office Ministers and will shortly be meeting the Minister for the Constitution to further discuss his report.

Third-party campaigners play an important part in the political process. Our democracy is strengthened by people campaigning for what they believe in, whether or not they are a candidate or political party. Voluntary organisations, charities, civil society and trade unions all play their part. I say that as someone who fought 10 general elections which were informed and enlivened by third-party campaigners. I recall, in particular, the campaign against the Newbury bypass, when I was Secretary of State for Transport and the candidate for North-West Hants. Digging a small bypass across my lawn was, I think, taking enthusiastic campaigning a little too far.

Much of the campaigning undertaken by such third parties is conveying their views about policies and issues. Under charity law, charities have the right to undertake campaigning and political activity where it supports their charitable aim, where trustees consider it to be an effective use of charitable resources, and provided that they do not engage in party politics. Electoral law does not change this. I listened with interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Suri, but it is of course for the Charity Commission to act if there is a breach of charity law in the way that he implied.

The rules on third-party campaigning apply only to expenditure undertaken for electoral purposes. These rules exist to give the public more confidence in the way third parties interact with the political system. They ensure that campaigning is transparent and prevents any individual, company or organisation exerting undue influence on an election. Without these rules, our political system would be open to unknown groups spending unknown amounts of money on unknown activities to influence an election. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said: that it was not difficult to see where the line should be drawn. I am grateful for his broad support for the legislation which he helped to put on the statute book.

The Electoral Commission has a duty to provide advice and guidance to third-party campaigners to ensure that they understand the rules and are confident about campaigning. The commission has a series of guidance documents for third-party campaigners on its website. This includes information on registering as a third-party campaigners and guidance on reporting expenses to the commission.

The commission is currently working on a new guidance document with the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the NCVO and Bond, the UK network for international development organisations. That guidance will cover areas of particular concern to smaller, issues-based campaigners. This includes the application of the purpose test to issue-based campaigns and the application of the third-party campaigner rules at an unscheduled UK parliamentary general election. The commission aims to publish this guidance early next year, and I can tell noble Lords who have taken part in this debate that I will ensure that all the contributions and suggestions they made during this debate are taken on board by the Electoral Commission.

Regulation of third-party campaigning at the constituency level has existed for a long time. The Representation of the People Act 1983 brought together in one place the legislation regulating third-party expenditure in parliamentary and local government election campaigns in individual constituencies.

The regulation of expenditure on campaigning activities by third parties on a national level has been a more recent occurrence. In 1998, the Committee on Standards in Public Life was tasked with reviewing the funding system and recommended reforms to political funding and spending. These recommendations were introduced by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

PPERA contains provisions on the regulated activity and registration of third-party campaigners, the spending rules for third-party campaigners, the rules on donations to third-party campaigners and the reporting of third-party campaign spending to the Electoral Commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace said, that provided the framework for Part II of the 2014 Act, which was introduced in response to a 2013 Electoral Commission review of political parties and election finance law. I do not think that any noble Lord has suggested that Part II should be repealed. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said: that a lot of thought went into the construction of that Act, although they may not have got everything spot on.

The review suggested that the rules on third-party campaigning should be changed to reflect the scope of rules for political parties. It also called for a review of the implications of the campaign spending limits set by PPERA. These proposals become Part II of the 2014 Act.

The Bill’s passage through this House was paused for six weeks between Second Reading and Committee, to enable further consultation on the Bill. The Government made a number of amendments on Report—including, significantly, raising the threshold for registration, and therefore taking a number of smaller organisations outwith its scope, and requiring a review to examine the functioning of the whole system of regulating non-party campaigning. Subsequently, my noble friend Lord Hodgson was called upon to produce his review on third-party campaigning regulation, published, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in March 2016.

The 2014 Act brought greater transparency to when third parties campaign in an election. It required relevant expenditure on such campaigns to be recorded and disclosed more fully. A number of reports evaluated the effects of the 2014 Act on third-party campaigning. In September 2015, the Commission for Civil Society and Democratic Engagement published its report, Non-Party Campaigning Ahead of Elections. In his report, my noble friend reviewed the campaigning rules and found that it was,

“far from clear the extent to which it was the reality of the legislation’s provisions rather than the perception of what restrictions they imposed, which affected organisations’ behaviour”.

This makes sense. Nothing within the 2014 Act was intended to change the basic way in which third parties campaign and register with the Electoral Commission. In its briefing for this debate the Electoral Commission said:

“We continue to work with the charity and voluntary sectors and other campaigners to ensure that they understand the rules and are confident about campaigning. In particular we are working on addressing the misplaced perceptions about the rules that might cause a ‘chilling effect’ amongst campaigners”.


The Electoral Commission commented on the rules in one of its reports on the 2017 election. In November last year it published its report, Political Finance Regulation at the June 2017 UK General Election. The Electoral Commission said:

“For the most part, we are pleased to observe that parties and other campaigners intended to, and did, comply with election spending and funding rules”.


I shall try to deal with some of the points made during our debate. The rules for joint campaigning were raised. Working together with other organisations on common causes is a well-established feature for most civil society organisations, charities and trade unions, and it is important that when it happens at an election, the rules on third-party campaigning capture this activity.

The rules on joint campaigning prevent undue influence by ensuring that spending limits are respected and that they cannot be evaded by a joint campaign falsely claiming to be separate campaigns. My noble friend Lord Hodgson spoke about those who were not angels and what he called outliers, who are all too ready to abuse the spending rules. Joint campaigning rules are important to ensure transparency about which groups are campaigning together on a particular issue and what they are collectively expending.

The issue of snap elections was raised. Whether we will have more snap elections after the result of the most recent one, I am not sure. The regulated periods for elections are clearly set out in PPERA. Also, with the passing of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the start date of regulated periods in advance of scheduled general elections should be known with greater certainty than was the case before, so unexpected general elections—it says here—should be less frequent.

I was also asked whether the regulatory period should be changed from 12 months to four months. The regulated period for third parties is the same as for political parties, and having any difference between the two is likely to increase the complexity of election law. If one did that, one would need an amendment to require an anti-avoidance provision to prevent third parties being used as fronts for a political party or campaigner during any period where third-party campaigners were not regulated but political parties were.

The noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Kennedy, raised the issue of transparency of income for campaigning charities. Your Lordships’ Select Committee on Charities published a report in March 2017 called, Stronger Charities for a Stronger Society. It stated:

“We do not believe that significant additional regulation of the sector through increased mandatory reporting requirements would be desirable, as this would be a substantial bureaucratic burden on smaller charities”.


Of course, the Charity Commission has done much in recent years to improve the information publicly available about charities and is now consulting on changes to its annual return, which would further increase charities’ transparency.

In a nutshell, the 2014 Act did not target charities and has never prevented charities or other organisations from campaigning in line with the law. In the 2017 general election, 68 charities registered as third parties with the Electoral Commission, which was an increase from 2005, when 25 charities registered. The Act, piloted so capably by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is about giving the public more confidence in the way third parties interact with the political system. It makes the political system more accountable and prevents opaque and unaccountable groups spending large sums of money attempting to influence the political system.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson suggested a number of changes to the 2014 Act. I am happy to say that we are making progress with one of them: the suggestion that imprints should be required for electronic material as well as on printed material for third parties. We recognise the growing number of campaigners using social media to convey their message to the public—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. On 29 July this year, the Cabinet Office launched an open consultation, Protecting the Debate: Intimidation, Influence, and Information, which seeks views on proposed changes to electoral law, including the inclusion of imprints on digital campaign materials. The consultation will close at midnight on 22 October. We have doubts about implementing my noble friend’s package of recommendations and we have made it clear—I understand my noble friend’s disappointment—that we will not legislate on this. During our debate, a number of noble Lords have suggested that we need to further revisit the legislation in the light of the experience in recent elections. My noble friend was keen that his recommendations be taken forward as a single package.

To take one of those recommendations, a principal one, perhaps—to amend the definition of “regulated activity”—the Government agree with the Electoral Commission that no amendment to this definition is required. The commission believes that the current definition works well. It covers spending which can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success. I say to my noble friend that I have made detailed inquiries about this and I am advised—and I am bound to say that I agree—that moving to a test of actual intention would be difficult to regulate and enforce. He made the point that this phrase occurs within the Representation of the People Act 1983 and asked why it could not simply be moved across. The intention test in that Act is appropriate for candidate spending and referendum campaigning since, in those cases, it is obvious that the candidate or campaigner has that intention. It is not suitable, however, in the case of third-party campaigners, who have a different background. Their campaigning may be issue-based and one cannot simply transpose that provision across.

A number of general points were made by the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Kennedy, about broader confidence in the electoral system. I say to both of them and to the House that the Government will be working towards a comprehensive programme of reform over the next few months and years to ensure that our electoral system is fit for purpose and enhances confidence in our democratic institutions. Finally, I assure noble Lords that we are committed to ensuring that third-party campaigners can continue to play a meaningful role in the democratic process. We need to strike a balance between, on one hand, the rights of people and organisations to campaign and, on the other, maintaining the integrity of the electoral process by having transparency of expenditure. We believe that the current legislation does this, but we will continue to work with the Electoral Commission, voluntary organisations and charities to ensure that the legislation is fully understood and clarified, where necessary, so that the crucial balance that I referred to is maintained.

Non-Domestic Rating (Nursery Grounds) Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Motion agreed.

Advisory Committee on Business Appointments

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that all former Ministers seek advice from the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments before taking up appointments within two years of leaving ministerial office.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Ministerial Code was updated in January 2018 to underline the importance of the business appointment rules to both current and former Ministers, and reiterating the requirement to seek advice from the independent advisory committee before announcing or taking up any new appointments. In addition, the Minister for the Cabinet Office has recently written to ministerial colleagues reminding them of the importance of the rules in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of our public servants.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response but he will know that the committee so ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, is an advisory committee, not a statutory committee, and can impose no sanctions on any former Minister who does not seek the committee’s approval. Essentially, it remains as a code of honour. We should not be surprised, I suppose, that the latest transgressor of this system is Mr Boris Johnson, who perhaps seems to have a rather distant acquaintance with the notion of honour. When will the Government agree to make this a statutory committee and be able to impose sanctions in order to make the system work?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Browning, who chairs ACOBA. Until I read its annual report, I had not realised quite how much work it did—some 230 appointments in a year—or how complex some of the cases were. The noble Lord suggests that the system should be statutory. ACOBA has been non-statutory since it was established in 1975. I see two problems in making it statutory. First, it would be much more difficult to amend it and bring it up to date—it would become less flexible; at the moment it can be updated overnight. Secondly, if you make it statutory I suspect that decisions would take longer to deliver but, crucially, they would then be justiciable: they could be challenged in the courts. I think there is a real risk of crystallising a potential conflict between the rules of ACOBA and the common-law right that individuals have to earn a living in their own right.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Ministerial Code clearly states that,

“Former Ministers must ensure that no new appointments are announced, or taken up, before the Committee has been able to provide its advice”.


It goes on to say,

“Former Ministers must abide by the advice of the Committee which will be published by the Committee when a role is announced or taken up”.


Of course, there is a minimum three-month waiting period on resignation. Boris Johnson breached all these elements of the Ministerial Code, which explains the very strong tone of this letter. Should there not be some comeback when Ministers who have signed the Ministerial Code breach it within days of leaving office?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord refers quite rightly to the stern rebuke from my noble friend in her letter to the Foreign Secretary:

“The Committee considers it to be unacceptable that you signed a contract with The Telegraph and your appointment was announced before you had sought and obtained advice from the Committee, as was incumbent on you on leaving office”.

The former Foreign Secretary should not have treated with such insouciance the rules, which had been brought to his attention and which he acknowledged he had read as recently as January this year. I am not an apologist for the former Foreign Secretary—that requires a portfolio of skills that I do not have. However, in his defence, the rules are designed to prevent a Minister, using the knowledge he acquires and the relationships he develops in the department, from rolling the pitch for a lucrative job subsequently in a related organisation. In the case of the former Foreign Secretary, after two years he reverted back to a career in journalism, a career for which his qualities are perhaps better suited. Therefore, while I do not in any way undermine the seriousness of his offence, what he did was not quite the revolving door that one normally sees—and the revolving door ended up with him back where he started.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My noble friend will be aware that the full ACOBA rules were appended to the Ministerial Code at the request of the ACOBA Committee. The point about honour is very well made: any non-statutory body, whether it involves the Ministerial Code or the ACOBA rules, will only work if it is dealing with people of honour. I commend to my noble friend the definition of honour made at the funeral of the late Senator John McCain. Perhaps my noble friend could communicate to the Cabinet Office that as far as the Ministerial Code is concerned, for which I have no authority whatsoever at ACOBA, consideration should be given to in some way debarring people who do not behave with honour, or a penalty should be imposed so that they cannot hold public office for a limited amount of time—two years would probably be a good idea—after they have flagrantly ignored both the Ministerial Code and the ACOBA rules?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend makes a good point about honour. When one joins your Lordships’ House we subscribe to the Code of Conduct, and part of that is an injunction to act,

“always on … personal honour”.

Those words have been used for centuries to describe the conduct that one should follow in the House. The former Foreign Secretary seems to defy the laws of political gravity. I certainly take my noble friend’s point: once you are no longer a Minister you are not subject to the Ministerial Code, so there is no formal sanction. However, as my noble friend suggested, I will certainly pursue her suggestion with the Cabinet Office. But at the end of the day, a Prime Minister is free to appoint whomever he or she wants, but I hope that whoever may hold that office will take into account the behaviour of Ministers when they defy the Ministerial Code.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, some years ago I served on this committee and grew increasingly frustrated by the revolving doors, but could not interest the then Prime Minister in any changes. Is it not the time to have an independent and thorough review of its workings; to tighten things up and lengthen the period before which officeholders can take up new posts—and, better still, to warn them early in their careers that they will not be able to glide as quickly into new posts; and to have sanctions where there are breaches?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I take very seriously the suggestions of the noble and learned Lord, who served on this committee. The ACOBA is monitored closely by a Select Committee in the other place—the so-called PACAC committee—which has produced a series of reports making a number of recommendations, to which the Government have responded. We propose to tighten the current non-statutory scheme with increased transparency, awareness and monitoring, and we are also sharing any letters with prospective employers so that they are aware of any restraints on those who join their organisations. Finally, most of the people who come before ACOBA are people in public life with a high profile—indeed, many of them are Members of your Lordships’ House—and I suspect that many will not want to take the reputational hit of being publicly criticised by ACOBA. The prospective employer may wonder why they should take on somebody who has so recently flouted the rules of their previous employer.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) (Abolition of By-Elections) Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 7th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to set out the Government’s views on the Bill in general and on the amendments in particular. While we have reservations about the Bill, it is difficult, as has just been said by my noble friend, to reconcile it with the undertakings given at the time of the abolition Bill. Despite the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, he has not achieved consensus on his measure. Despite that, we have no plans to block the Bill or impede its progress, which is why I may not intervene on every one of the subsequent amendments. I say in passing that most Private Member’s Bills do not get this second bite at the Committee cherry.

On the amendments we are debating, I gently point out that previous Labour Governments never introduced the comprehensive reform called for in both amendments, but that the coalition Government did. It got a large majority at Second Reading in the other place, but the Bill then stalled because there was no agreement on the programme Motion, and without that the Bill was dead. As the then Leader of the other place I accept some responsibility for the failure to get my colleagues to agree to that Motion, but I gently point out that had other parties agreed to it—and other parties were committed to the policy—the Bill would have proceeded.

Once bitten, twice shy. We made it clear in our manifesto last year that such legislation was not a priority. Indeed, why risk wasting a large amount of time on a measure that had so recently failed? Instead, we said we would support incremental reforms that command consensus across the House. We can argue as to what is “incremental” and what is “consensual”. I note that at Second Reading there were 13 speeches in favour of the Bill and eight against, and that on our first day in Committee a number of my noble friends made it clear that this is a measure about which they feel so strongly that they are prepared to do whatever is necessary to delay progress, notwithstanding the fact that the Bill has no prospect of getting through the other place and on to the statute book.

Looking at the amendments today, concerns about the Bill are not confined to my party. The Government’s view is that the energies of the House may be better employed in implementing the recommendations of the Burns report, where all parties are committed to reducing our numbers. Burns was silent on the question of these by-elections, although it noted that the proportion of hereditary peers in a reduced House would increase if no action were taken, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and that by-election winners would pre-empt the appointments that would otherwise be made, impacting on my party and the Cross Benches.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

May we infer from what my noble friend has just said—I hope we can—that Burns will be given a fair wind so long as this House demonstrates again its overwhelming support for Burns?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Noble Lords demonstrated their support for Burns in the debate that took place last December. It was also confirmed in a debate that took place a year earlier, which I think my noble friend introduced, where the House voted to take steps to reduce its size. As my noble friend knows, the Burns committee has been reconvened and I hope that progress can be made.

The Prime Minister has maintained her policy of restraint so far as new appointments are concerned, with the lowest number of dissolution honours since 1979 and a smaller House than when she took office. Having restated the Government’s position, I propose to listen with interest and patience to the exchanges on the amendments, intervening only when absolutely necessary or when provoked beyond endurance.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we will try not to provoke beyond endurance. I regret this amendment to the Motion that we should go into Committee. In a sense, it is another Second Reading and that really is not the way that we deal with Bills. I will say only two things. First, 1999 is nearly 20 years ago; in that time, much has happened and much is happening now. Just down the corridor they are reducing the number of MPs by 50, as if that has no impact on the size of the Government or of this House. It seems extraordinary that when the Government are putting a lot of pressure into doing that, they now sit and say that they will do nothing on this issue. That is regrettable. It is something that we could do.

Secondly, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is wrong to say that it is not for us to do. In the very wise words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, this is our way of showing that it is for this House to begin to do something. If we take a lead on this, it will help to give a fair wind to Burns. If we cannot even do this minor thing—this just puts more men into this House; a very small number—and begin to reduce the numbers, it does not seem to me that we are very interested in bringing this House into the current century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

I was too concerned about filibustering my noble friend’s Bill.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Perhaps I may gently remind your Lordships that we are debating Amendment 17 onwards, which relate to the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lord, perhaps I may have a little clarification on what I understood the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to say. We are looking at the point that this Bill would not affect the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, but in discussing that element, I thought that the noble Lord said that these two gentlemen are not required to be Members of this House. When they come to perform their ceremonial duties, I wonder whether they do not have to be Members of the House in order to stand in the areas where they are required.

Prisons: Rehabilitation

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, let me add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for this debate. Prisons have four major purposes: retribution; incapacitation; deterrence, although over 60% of offenders reoffend within two years; and rehabilitation, on which we do not even meet the requirements of the Trade Descriptions Act.

The past two months have seen a series of reports from the Prisons Inspectorate that highlight truly dreadful conditions in a number of our major prisons. On 13 July, the inspectorate published a report into Wandsworth prison which stated that it was one of the country’s most overcrowded prisons, filled with many men with drug and mental health problems, many of whom were locked in their cells during the working day. On 20 August, we learned that the public sector was taking immediate direct control of Birmingham prison from G4S after the inspectorate had found the prison in an appalling state with high levels of violence, widespread bullying, squalid living conditions and poor control by staff. Then, on 4 September, the inspectorate published a report on High Down prison which found increasing levels of violence and a very low level of purposeful activity, with 47% of prisoners being locked in their cells during the working day.

These reports followed the publication on 11 July of the inspectorate’s annual report for 2017-18 in which the Chief Inspector said that his inspections during the year had documented some of the most disturbing jail conditions the inspectorate had ever seen, with violence, drugs, suicide, self-harm, squalor and poor access to education being prominent themes. Incidents of self-harm in prisons are at the highest level ever recorded. Serious assaults in prison are at the highest level ever. Assaults on staff have risen by 158% in the past four years. Sexual assaults in prisons have more than tripled since 2012. It is impossible to ignore the fact that the deterioration in conditions in so many prisons has followed a swingeing cut in the budget of HM Prison and Probation Service of nearly a quarter between 2011 and 2015. That led to a cut in the number of front-line staff of 25% between 2010 and 2017. I welcome the recent increase in spending and recruitment of prison officers, but the fact remains that our prisons are struggling to cope, with far too many prisoners with too few resources to provide them with safe, decent and rehabilitative regimes.

There are two main reasons why so many of our prisons are severely overcrowded. The first is that we use prison too much for minor offences. In 2017, nearly half of the 65,000 sentenced prisoners entering prison were given sentences of six months or less. Research shows that community sentences are more effective than prison in reducing reoffending, yet the number of community sentences has halved in the last decade. The second reason for overcrowding is that sentence lengths are getting longer. For indictable-only offences, the average sentence length is now 57 months, compared with 32 months a decade ago. The result is that we have 141 prisoners for every 100,000 people in our general population, compared with 78 in Germany. We are not twice as criminal as the German people, so why do we need to imprison twice as many people as they do?

I would be grateful if the Minister could answer a number of questions. What plans do the Government have to reduce the unnecessary use of prison? Will they consider legislation to introduce a statutory presumption against the imposition of short prison sentences? Will they consider legislation to require sentencing guidelines to take account of the capacity of the prison system? Will they consider removing prison as an option for low-level, non-violent crimes? Will they consider prohibiting courts from using prison, except for dangerous offenders, unless they have first tried an intensive community supervision sentence? Finally, will they legislate to convert the sentences of existing IPP prisoners into determinate sentences once they have served a period equivalent to double their tariff? If not, what other plans do the Government have to eliminate prison conditions that have no place in any civilised society, let alone a developed country in the 21st century?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, this is a popular debate taking place within a challenging timeframe and there is a noble Lord who wishes to speak in the gap. If the Minister is to have adequate time to respond to the many important points that are raised we need to keep well within the four-minute time limit.