Immigration Statistics

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their objective to maintain authoritative immigration statistics to allow the development of sound policies and plans for the future.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are fully committed to complete and authoritative migration statistics. These are produced by the independent Office for National Statistics following best international practice and are overseen by the UK Statistics Authority. The ONS has embarked on an ambitious programme of work to improve migration statistics and the Government are supporting this programme, including by providing the ONS with access to data held by government departments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is good to hear that the Government are trying to improve matters but does the Minister agree that, as the Brexit vote showed, the public do not have confidence in UK immigration policy? If this is to change, we need more reliable statistics, not least to inform the need for investment in housing, schools, medical infrastructure and even benefits. Can the Minister confirm that the forthcoming White Paper will address this issue and include honest forecasts?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree that the public should have confidence in the statistics produced by the ONS, particularly on migration. These are an important input to policies on housing, health, education and other public services. The ONS will use powers in the Digital Economy Act, which has recently passed into legislation, to access data from other government departments. This will complement the information it already has from the IPS. By accessing not only exit data from the Home Office but information from HMRC, from the DfE on school rolls and from GPs on GP lists, it will be able to strengthen and enrich—the word it has used—the statistics on migration, and in turn this will enhance confidence. The Government do not make forecasts on migration but the ONS produces what it calls estimates.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

Is there any serious member of Her Majesty’s Government—with the possible exception of the Prime Minister—who does not believe that overseas students should not be included in immigration statistics? Is it not time that this change was made and a message of hope given to our universities?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord will recall that this issue was debated extensively by your Lordships when the then Higher Education and Research Bill went through this House. When the Bill left this House an amendment was carried to delete overseas students from the migration figures. When that legislation hit the statute book, that bit was omitted. In the meantime, the ONS will continue to follow the UN standard, which is to count anyone who is here for more than a year as a long-term migrant. That practice is followed by the USA, New Zealand, Canada and Australia. There is an impact on services if people stay here for longer than a year, and the ONS, which is independent, has decided to continue to use the United Nations definition.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

Does the Minister recognise that his description of the Bill that left this House was not entirely accurate? It required the Government to change not the statistics but the policy; and to stop treating students as economic migrants, not to stop counting them. Would he further recognise that defective statistical methods have been used to count students leaving after the end of their student visas—one of the false reasons the Government have used to justify their policy?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

It is not the case that the Government’s policy has deterred international students from coming to this country. According to the latest figures, study-related visas were up by 8% in 2017 to more than 220,000. The Government have made it absolutely clear that there is no cap on the number of genuine international students coming to this country—they are welcome. We are the second most popular destination after the United States for such students and roughly 40% of our overseas students now come from China, in a competitive market.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

Does the Minister recognise that for more than 25 years immigration statistics have been neither authoritative nor accurate either in their generality or in their specifics? When will the Government finally recognise that only an accurate system of counting people in and out will give us such authoritative and accurate statistics, and the only way to do that is through biometric ID cards and visas?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The point made by the noble Lord was also made by the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place. One of the recommendations echoes what he just said:

“We also recommend that the Home Office examine how all entries and exits from major ports in the UK, including for non-visa travellers, can be recorded and that all entry and exit information is then used to aid the analysis of migration flow and to better inform policy decisions”.


The Government will respond to that recommendation before Easter and I am sure that they will take on board the support expressed for that policy by the noble Lord and indeed by others.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that statistics do not exist in a vacuum and that it is important to work on them to show a clear picture both of the contribution made by immigrants and of the competition, if that is what it is, that they may present to UK nationals in the labour market. The noble Lord mentioned information from HMRC. Does he agree that it would be useful to be clear about how much tax immigrants working in this country pay towards our society?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am sure that the noble Baroness is right. Speaking from memory, I think that tax revenue from the cohort that she mentioned exceeds the amount of benefits paid to those people. I do not have the exact statistics in front of me, but I am sure that one can make available the net contribution of migrants to this country to the labour market.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that reliance on the International Passenger Survey is totally inadequate? The chairman of the public administration committee said recently that the immigration figures are little better than a best guess, while the Royal Geographical Society has said that they are not fit for purpose. Asking less than 0.6% of people who arrive in this country about their intentions without any corroboration or follow-up is surely a wholly inadequate way to measure these statistics.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The IPS interviews 800,000 people per year, which is quite a broad base for a sample. When I asked the ONS about this, it confirmed that the IPS survey continues to be the best source of information to measure long-term international migration. However, as I said in response to my noble friend, it will strengthen that information by accessing data from other government sources which it could not access before. That will enhance the credibility of these figures, and the ONS plans to use the system I have just outlined by the end of 2019 with regular updates. As I have said, this will produce a richer set of statistics.

Digital Forensic Services

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they propose to take any action in relation to the outsourcing by police forces of digital forensic investigation work to unaccredited private laboratories.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, individual police forces decide which providers they use to carry out digital forensic science services. The Government have been clear that accreditation should be an important factor when procuring these types of services, and continue to support the police to develop and share best practice in this area. The Government welcome the introduction of the Forensic Science Regulator Bill, which will put the regulator on a statutory footing.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, at least 15 police forces have outsourced digital forensic work to unaccredited private companies, some of which are subject to no regulatory oversight. One with accreditation had it withdrawn law year but continued to perform work for the prosecution, while another serving 30 forces collapsed in January, costing those forces millions of pounds. Only 15 out of 43 forces achieved minimum standards in their in-house laboratories by the deadline of last October. Given the importance of forensic evidence in the justice system, what steps will the Government take to ensure that the quality of the work is improved and that concerns about the failure to disclose key digital evidence cited by the head of the criminal Bar, the Justice Committee and a joint report by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are met?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord that police forces should use accredited service providers when they outsource digital forensic services. I mentioned a moment ago that the Forensic Science Regulator Bill, which was introduced last week, will give the forensic science regulator the statutory powers that she needs in order to enforce high standards in this area. In the meantime, I have looked at the report of the forensic service regulator. She referred specifically to some of the problems mentioned by the noble Lord and went on to say:

“Although the impact of these issues has been large, they arose from the actions of a very small number of individuals and should not be taken as a reflection on forensic scientists more widely … the vast majority of forensic science practitioners, whether working within commercial organisations, government-funded organisations (including policing) or elsewhere, are committed to providing high-quality scientific work to support the Criminal Justice System”.


The Government are also sponsoring research in order to drive up standards in this area.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware of the issues surrounding disclosure of evidence, particularly to the defence in criminal prosecutions, because of the sheer volume of digital information in many cases. Will the Minister say whether setting in law a police bail limit of 28 days—as has been done recently, against the unanimous advice of academics and practitioners—and the relentless reduction of police officer numbers because of a real-terms cut in central government funding, leaving police officer numbers at a 30-year low, is likely to make that crisis better or worse?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the specific issue of disclosure, which is important, the noble Lord will know that the Attorney-General has instituted a review, which will examine existing codes of practice, protocols, guidelines and legislation, as well as case management initiatives and capabilities across the whole criminal justice system, including how digital technology is used. Alongside that, the CPS and police forces are looking at any current cases to see that no cases go forward where there is a doubt about the disclosure process. The Government continue to monitor progress to ensure the police and the CPS deliver on the actions they have committed to undertake on the important issue of disclosure.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, have any doubts been raised or thrown against the findings of any one of these laboratories? Will the Attorney-General consult the Criminal Cases Review Commission, whose job it is to investigate miscarriages of justice, so that assurances can be given that no one has been wrongly convicted on the basis of evidence of this kind?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble and learned Lord raises a very important issue. Where a laboratory is suspected of having fallen short of standards, procedures will be under way to ensure that retesting takes place. I understand that that is happening as we speak. I will draw to the attention of the Attorney-General the suggestion the noble and learned Lord just made.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, it is probably not something that many in the House know, but the vast majority of cases coming before the criminal courts involve looking at social media for the assistance it gives in prosecutions and, indeed, in defence. It is often a signifier of the nature of relationships and often shows the extent of contact. Sometimes it shows that there is contact with certain people immediately before the commission of a crime. The quality of that assessment is very serious. It is clearly the position that there are just not enough people with the technical know-how being recruited to resource and to do this work to assist the prosecuting and defence authorities. We are talking about a serious piece of work being done in our universities and so on to create forensic skills for this purpose. As we now know, technology is widely used. Will the Minister tell us what efforts are being made to find recruits for this purpose?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The review I referred to, asked for by the Attorney-General, will identify solutions to some of the problems that the noble Baroness just referred to. It is the case that in recent years there has been an explosion in the use of social media in court cases. This has put enormous pressure on the digital forensic services. The regulator is aware of these issues. I hope that the review I have outlined, which is looking at these very issues, will come up with proposals and solutions that the Government can then take forward. I entirely agree that no one should be convicted because inadequate research has been done into relevant email and social media sources.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, more than 20 police forces have had to bail out key forensic science services because of the decision of the Government in 2012 to close the highly regarded national Forensic Science Service. Will those police forces be compensated, and precisely what benefits have accrued from the decision to break up the national Forensic Science Service?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Forensic Science Service was closed in 2012. It was losing £2 million a month. Although this was not the reason for closure, there were real issues about the quality of some of its work, with multiple requests for case reviews and retesting. Increasingly, police forces that did not have their own in-house capacity were going to alternative service providers other than the FSS. It is not the case that the closure of the FSS has led to some of the issues that we have been discussing today.

Cannabis

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have plans to revisit the inclusion of cannabis in Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, in the light of claims regarding its medicinal significance.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Young of Cookham]

This is a bit like “Mastermind”, but on somebody else’s specialist subjects.

The World Health Organization’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence has committed to reviewing the scheduling of cannabis under the United Nations 1961 convention. This is due to consider the therapeutic use as well as dependence and the potential to abuse constituent parts of cannabis. This will be a key report to inform the Government’s position on this issue, which, as with any government policy, we will keep under review.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, when most of the western world recognises that cannabis has significant medicinal value, and when Germany recently legalised cannabis for no fewer than 57 indications, in the UK, which remains miles behind everybody else, we have cannabis in Schedule 1 and therefore defined as a dangerous drug with no—I underline no—medicinal value. Will the Minister work with his colleagues to bring this issue forward as a matter of urgency rather than waiting years for the WHO report—I know the WHO somewhat and it takes a little time? That would save the incredible suffering—I have met so many people suffering deeply—of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people up and down the country.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness is a long-standing campaigner for drugs reform. I listened to her exchange a few days ago with my noble friend Lady Williams on this very subject. When I saw officials last week, I pressed them hard on the medical advice. The professional advice of medical experts in this country is that cannabis in its raw form has no medicinal value, which is why it is a Schedule 1 drug and subject to strict controls. I am very reluctant as a layman to second-guess those officials. However, the noble Baroness referred last time to the moving case of Alfie Dingley. The Home Office will do all it can within the framework of the current legislation to ensure that Alfie gets the treatment he needs

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, some 15 years ago, the Science and Technology Select Committee of which I was chairman at the time had a six-month inquiry on the medicinal uses of cannabis. We found and reported overwhelming evidence of the value of cannabis, that people taking cannabis did not get high on these drugs and that they were not dependent on the drug but it eased their symptoms, particularly with neurological conditions. As a result, we got at least one drug licensed for market. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that there is great urgency. It is 15 years, and it is about time the Government did something about this.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I will report back to the Home Office the strong views expressed by two noble Lords—I gather they are impatient and not anxious to wait for the outcome of the WHO review, which I think will be completed in 2019. Any decision will be evidence based. On the general use of cannabis, I note that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs said in its last report that,

“cannabis is a significant public health issue. Cannabis can unquestionably cause harm to individuals and society”.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s acceptance that perhaps it should be a Health Minister standing at the Dispatch Box. Even so, is he aware that doctors in the UK are allowed to prescribe heroin to addicts in certain circumstances? How does he square that with the fact that they are not permitted to prescribe most effective cannabis medicines to patients in pain, even though these are available legally in many other countries? Is it not time that we stopped criminalising patients?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the specific issue the noble Baroness raises, the Home Office would consider issuing a licence to enable trials of any new medicines, including cannabis, subject to appropriate ethical approvals. There is the possibility of a specific licence in the case that the noble Baroness raised and if necessary the normal 12 to 16-week timetable could be expedited.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister encourage his ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to review the present policy of the department in relation to patients who have been prescribed dronabinol, the active ingredient in various pharmaceutical cannabinoid preparations, which requires that they travel abroad to obtain it, even though dronabinol is in Schedule 2 and is internationally recognised as having medicinal value? Why do the Government not allow these patients, who if they do not have their cannabis-based medication suffer chronic and severe pain, to collect their prescription from a local pharmacy instead of forcing them to make this exhausting and costly journey every three months?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am very happy to respond to the noble Lord’s opening question, namely to pass his request on. We are guided in this country by the MHRA, the authority that advises government on whether medicines should have a licence.

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

My Lords, we have a vast number of drugs that are strictly controlled and regulated here in the UK. I have no wish to change the law in respect of the general use of cannabis but I think the noble Lord has heard from around the House that the Government should surely move on it with a bit more speed and look at whether there is a genuine case for the medical use of this drug. I have no idea what the answer is; I will listen to the medical professionals on that matter.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree with the noble Lord’s last sentence, that he will listen to the medical evidence. I say to noble Lords that I have listened to the exchanges over the last seven minutes and there is a clear view that we should try to make progress, not on legalising cannabis but on making it easier to prescribe cannabis in certain circumstances where it may have some therapeutic or beneficial value. I am very happy to take that message back to the Home Office and I hope that, next time, somebody more qualified than myself will be able to answer these questions.

Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2018

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 January be approved.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, these draft regulations, which have passed in the other place, make no changes to the structures of the national insurance and benefits systems, and are a routine annual exercise to account for the rise in prices. As noble Lords know, this Government are committed to a welfare system that is fair to the taxpayer while also protecting Britain’s most vulnerable.

To put the regulations in context, the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 legislated to freeze the majority of working-age benefits, including child tax credit and working tax credit, for four years—in other words, up to 2020. The Act helped to put our welfare system on a sustainable long-term path. Exempt from the freeze are the disability elements of the child tax credit and working tax credit. The guardian’s allowance is also exempt. As in previous years, we are now legislating to ensure that the guardian’s allowance and the disability elements of child tax credit and working tax credit increase in line with the consumer price index, which had inflation at 3% in the year to September 2017. Alongside our commitment to fiscal discipline, the Government, through the draft regulations, are exercising their demonstrable commitment to protecting those who need protection the most.

What the regulations mean in practice is that we will maintain the level of support for families with disabled children in receipt of child tax credit and for disabled workers in receipt of working tax credit. The regulations also sustain the level of support for children whose parents are absent or deceased. To add further context to these regulations, universal credit is replacing a number of means-tested working-age benefits, including tax credits. Once all tax credit claimants have migrated on to universal credit, the uprating of tax credit elements will no longer be necessary.

The social security regulations make changes to the rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions and make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the National Insurance Fund if required. These changes will take effect from 6 April 2018. Re-rating increases these figures by inflation to protect taxpayers from rising prices and increases to the costs of living.

These regulations will result in around £130 billion of national insurance contributions to the Exchequer, working directly to support the NHS, pensioners and the bereaved. On class 1 national insurance contributions, the lower earnings limit is the level of earnings at which employees start to gain access to contributory benefits. These include the state pension, contributory employment and support allowance and contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance. The lower earnings limit will rise in line with inflation from £113 to £116 a week, or £6,032 on an annual basis.

Employees have to pay class 1 NICs at 12%. The primary threshold is a level of earnings—£8,424 on an annual basis—above which class 1 NICs have to be paid. The threshold will rise with inflation to £162 a week. The upper earnings limit is the level at which employees start to pay class 1 NICs at 2% instead of 12%. The Government have committed to align this threshold limit with the UK’s higher income tax threshold of £46,350 on an annual basis.

Employers have to pay national insurance at a rate of 13.8% from an earnings level called a “secondary threshold”. This threshold will also rise with inflation to £162 a week, as it has been aligned with the primary threshold for employees since April 2017. The Government are also committed to reducing the cost to businesses of employing young apprentices and young people. The level at which employers of people under 21 and of apprentices under 25 start to pay employer’s contributions will therefore rise from £866 to £892 a week.

Class 2 NICs provide access to contributory benefits for the self-employed—in other words, the state pension. The weekly rate of class 2 NICs that has to be paid will rise in line with inflation to £2.95—a flat rate for all the self-employed. The small profits threshold is the level of profits above which the self-employed have to pay class 2 NICs. This threshold will rise with inflation to £6,205 a year.

The self-employed also have to pay class 4 NICs, at a rate of 9% on profits above £8,164 a year. That limit will now rise with inflation to £8,424. The self-employed then pay 2% instead of 9% above what is termed an upper profits limit. That limit will rise from £45,000 to £46,350 a year. Finally, class 3 contributions allow people to voluntarily top up their national insurance record. This allows access to the state pension. The rate for class 3 will increase in line with inflation from £14.25 to £14.65 a week.

The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant of up to 5% of forecasted annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the National Insurance Fund, if needed, during 2018-19. This would be a routine transfer with no wider fiscal impact. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.

I trust that this has been a useful overview for noble Lords of the changes that we are making, and I commend the draft regulations to the House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Primarolo (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long today but I want to ask the Minister some questions specifically about the tax credits and guardian’s allowance regulations. I should say that I asked a Minister similar questions in a debate last week on social security. I had asked her some questions about the freeze on tax credits, child benefits and child tax credits, and she responded by saying:

“I respond by simply saying that the Treasury is responsible for these benefits and it announced the 2018-19 rates”,—[Official Report, 27/2/18; col. GC 13.]


and so on. I decided that as a former Treasury Minister it was a good idea to come today to ask a former Treasury Minister, and a current Treasury Minister in this place, some questions about child benefit.

I am grateful for the noble Lord’s introduction of the orders, but I want to focus on the question of rising inequality and poverty among children in our country. According to the Resolution Foundation, inequality is projected to rise to record highs by 2022-23, and it says that this is a sad,

“story of the poorest working-age households being left behind”.

The driver of this is the freeze in most working-age benefits. According to the Resolution Foundation, by 2020, child benefit beyond the first child will be worth less than 32 years ago and child benefit for the first child will be at its lowest level in real terms in the past 20 years.

Child poverty is on the increase, and absolute child poverty, in particular, is rising. Yet we see the shocking prospect, in a country which has the sixth-largest economy in the world, of more and more children’s and families’ lives being blighted by poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group says that as a result of the cumulative cuts to social security, we are pushing more children into poverty. Its analysis is that 1 million more will be in poverty, two-thirds of them in working households.

Does the Minister accept those figures as correct? Does he accept that as a result of the freeze, 10.5 million households will see their average yearly income cut against a backdrop of rising food prices, now standing at 4.1%, at exactly the same time as the Treasury is saving £4.7 billion, more than originally estimated, by the freeze in those benefits?

I am sure that the Minister will say, and I would not disagree, that the best way out of poverty is work, but he knows as well as I do that families face precarious work situations, zero-hours contracts and rising inflation. It is a heady cocktail that they cannot fight by themselves, and the Government need to step in.

The Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies the orders makes it clear that the Treasury was not required to review the impact of the freeze on child benefit, as the decision had been taken before. I ask the Minister three simple questions. How will the Government stop the rise in child poverty? Will he agree to publish an assessment of the benefit freeze and its impact on child poverty? Finally, will he go back to the Treasury to persuade it that it needs to reconsider the decision to freeze child benefit, bearing in mind the vast amount of money that it has saved, to share some of it with mothers by giving it to them as an increase in their child benefit so that they can spend it on their children in times of desperate challenge for families?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not having a good afternoon. The Minister stole my speech on the previous set of regulations and my noble friend on the Back Benches has stolen most of my speech on these regulations, so I will not repeat her remarks.

I largely agree with the general point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that these regulations, together with the measures we discussed last week, are part of a very big debate. We should have that debate. I shall certainly press through my channels for a day’s debate in government time on the whole issue of the charges, the uprating and the overall problems. As the Minister well knows, there is not the slightest chance of this Front Bench opposing these regulations because, if we did so, we could win a vote. That would produce a constitutional crisis for which I would be drummed out of the House of Lords so, of course, we will not object. However, I have a technical question: to what extent are any of these regulations, and the parts thereof, anything more than a formality, because as far as I can see they simply approve measures that have already been announced and do not include any discretionary decisions that would alter previous government statements.

These regulations are, of course, a small part of the total picture and a small part of a massive and highly successful programme, to which I think the Minister referred as fiscal discipline and I refer to as a programme to take from the poor and give to the rich. As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said, the four-year freeze has not been debated: that is, the four-year freeze on child benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit, women’s state pension age, local housing allowance rates, child tax credit, working tax credit and universal credit. These regulations contain only one substantive element—namely, that CPI inflation is 3%, which is a great deal higher than the 1.7% figure which I believe was envisaged when the freeze was first introduced. Indeed, for the people concerned, for whom food is a very high proportion of their expenditure, food inflation was 4.1% over the period when CPI inflation was 3%. Therefore, the people in the freeze zone are getting substantially poorer. Indeed, the Resolution Foundation takes the view that the freeze will save the Government some £4.7 billion by 2020, and this saving will fund tax cuts for middle and higher-income earners. Austerity has not worked. The Government—be it the coalition Government or the present Conservative Government—have missed every fiscal target they have set. In fact, I am not quite sure where we are now; it is possible that the Government have given up setting targets, which at least aligns with reality. Our failure to oppose these regulations does not mean that we in any way support the evil policy of which they are part.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am genuinely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. We have had a thoughtful debate, with no specific objections —on the contrary, with welcome for the measures in the regulations before us. However, noble Lords have pegged on to that some broader issues which deserve a response, and I will do my best to address them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, and I have been debating these matters for over 20 years. Sometimes she has been the Minister and I have been in opposition, and sometimes the roles have been reversed. However, it is good to see that dialogue being maintained in this House, in the same cordial way that it was in the other place.

It may be helpful if I first put in the broader context the reasons for the freeze on certain benefits, because that is the backdrop, then address specifically the points that fall within that of the impact on child poverty, and then address some of the issues that have been raised during the debate.

First, I quite understand the points noble Lords made about the impact of the freeze of in-work benefits on families now that inflation is higher than it was, although I note that it is predicted to fall back to 2% next year, having peaked at 3% in the final quarter of last year. However, just to put that decision in context, spending on welfare had trebled in real terms between 1980 and 2014, and had contributed to a record level of debt: 83.7% of GDP in 2015-16. This was unsustainable. Also, in 2013, the UK had the highest spending on the family out of all OECD countries as a percentage of GDP. That is the backdrop.

Secondly, between 2008 and 2015, average earnings went up by 12%, whereas most working-age benefits, such as JSA, increased by 21%, and child tax credit rose by 33%. A four-year freeze helped to reverse that trend and reinforce the incentives to work.

Thirdly—this has not been mentioned during the debate—the Government have taken steps elsewhere to help the incomes of those in work by raising the national living wage to £7.83 per hour and by making progress on the manifesto commitment to raise the personal allowance to £12,500. Put in that overall context, and with the exemptions we are debating today, the policy is defensible.

I will address some of the issues raised during our debate. Real household disposable income grew at its fastest rate in 2015 to reach its highest-ever level. On the specific issues around child poverty, the noble Baroness quoted the Resolution Foundation; other reports by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Child Poverty Action Group focused on the issues raised by the noble Baroness. Since 2010, there are 200,000 fewer children in absolute poverty, before housing costs, and 608,000 fewer children living in workless households, which is a record low. We are committed to taking action to help the most disadvantaged, with a focus on tackling the root causes of poverty in workless households. As the noble Baroness anticipated, it is indeed our view that work remains the best route out of poverty. In 2015-16, 9% of children were in households where all adults were working with relative low income before household costs, compared with 48% in workless households. Since 2010, there are over 3 million more people in work and 954,000 fewer workless households. Therefore we are taking action to ensure that work always pays.

The noble Baroness asked whether we could publish an assessment of the benefits freeze. I understand that it is quite difficult to isolate its impact but, when the freeze was announced, an impact assessment was published, and the Treasury publishes a wider distribution analysis at the Budget.

It seemed to me that some of the strategic issues that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, raised could be dealt with by the Select Committee in the other place that he chaired so ably. In another place one could have Opposition day debates on the more strategic issues, but I take his point, which was raised by others in the debate, that there might be value in a broader debate about social security. I am more than happy to raise that issue with the business managers to see whether that might take place.

We do not consult on the specific measures. They are routine and everybody expects them. I am not sure that it would be a tremendously valuable exercise to consult on the rather narrow annual uprating each year.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, said that the whole range of benefits is subject to the freeze. However, I am sure that he knows that pensioner benefits and benefits for the additional costs of disability and care are exempt from the freeze and continue to be uprated as part of our commitment to protect the most vulnerable.

He mentioned the quinquennial GAD report, which estimates that the NIF will run out of money in the 2030s. Looking to the foreseeable future—to 2024-25—we expect the fund to have a surplus. However, in the long run he is right: life expectancy and other demographic trends will continue to pose a challenge for the public finances. He mentioned my noble friend Lord Willetts, who came up with his own solutions to how those challenges might be responded to. Again, that is the sort of issue that might be raised in the broader debate that he would like to get under way.

We are committed to the triple lock for the duration of this Parliament. It has been an invaluable element in addressing the issue of pensioners living in low-income households. That peaked in the late 1980s at over 40% but the proportion of pensioners living in low-income households is now down to 16%.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, complained that he had been robbed by the first-class speeches from those on the Opposition Benches. He asked whether there was an element of discretion in the measures before us. The Explanatory Memorandum says that Section 41 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 requires a review of certain monetary amounts in each tax year to determine whether they have retained their value in relation to prices. Therefore, we have to do that. We discovered that they have not retained their value, so the Government have taken the action that they have. In one year, we did not uprate because inflation at the time was negative. It is government policy to uprate in line with the regulations before us, and I suspect that if we did not, we would be before the courts.

I have tried to answer all the points raised and commend the regulations to the House.

Motions agreed.

Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 December 2017 be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 27 February.

Motions agreed.

Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2018, and the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

The purpose of the draft regulations is to make registering to vote anonymously more accessible for those who need it most. They will also strengthen the integrity of the electoral register and improve the registration system for electors. The changes affect both the parliamentary and local government registers across the UK, with the exception of the local government register in Scotland. As local government electoral registers are a devolved matter in Scotland, the Scottish Government have brought forward similar legislation in the Scottish Parliament.

This year we celebrate 100 years since legislation was passed to give some women the right to vote in the UK. This was the first step to equal franchise in the UK, but the journey to maximise electoral registration still continues. For some, the fear of having their name and address appear on the electoral register is a barrier to registering to vote and engaging in democracy.

Anonymous registration was first introduced in Great Britain by the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and provided for the overall structure of the scheme. It was extended to Northern Ireland in 2014. The scheme protects those whose safety would be at risk if their name or address appeared on the electoral register: for example, victims of harassment or stalking, as well as some witnesses in criminal court cases.

An applicant must provide evidence to their local electoral registration officer which demonstrates that their safety would be at risk. The evidence accepted is prescribed in legislation as either a live court order or injunction from a set list of orders and injunctions or an attestation. An attestation is a signed statement certifying that the applicant’s safety would be at risk if the register contained their name or address. It can be made only by professions listed in the legislation as qualifying officers, such as a police superintendent or a director of social services.

About two years ago, Mehala Osborne, with the support of Women’s Aid, started a petition to make anonymous registration more accessible for those who need it most. After consultation, the Government proposed changes that make the scheme more accessible to those who need it.

The draft regulations update the list of court orders and injunctions which can be provided to an electoral registration officer as evidence to demonstrate that an individual’s safety would be at risk if their name or address appeared on the register. As evidence, applicants would be able to use domestic violence protection orders made under the Crime and Security Act 2010 or the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, once that is in force. They would also be able to use female genital mutilation protection orders made under the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003. These are new and relevant orders that have been created since the anonymous registration scheme came into force.

The draft regulations will also broaden those who can provide attestations that an individual’s safety would be at risk. The seniority required for an attestation from a police officer would be lowered from the rank of superintendent to inspector. Medical and health practitioners registered with the General Medical Council or the Nursing and Midwifery Council and refuge managers would also be able to act as attesters. Including these professionals will make it easier for applicants to obtain an attestation, as they are frequently in contact with survivors and are qualified to assess the level of risk to an individual’s safety. These changes make the evidence required to register to vote anonymously more reflective of the experiences of survivors of domestic abuse.

The Government have consulted widely with stakeholders and there is general agreement that the changes being brought forward are desirable to ensure that those whose safety would be at risk if their name or address appeared on the electoral register are able to engage in our democratic system. Women’s Aid strongly welcomed the changes made by this statutory instrument, saying:

“The proposed new measures send out a clear message to all survivors of domestic abuse: that their voices matter, and their participation in politics matters ”.


I turn briefly to the changes to the wider registration system, which relate only to Great Britain. The first two changes address recommendations 12 and 14 in Sir Eric Pickles’s review into electoral fraud. The others have been identified through extensive consultation with the electoral community. The first proposed change adds a statement to the application form which states that persons who are not eligible electors are ineligible to register to vote and that in relation to nationality, applicants may be required to provide additional information or checks may be carried out by the electoral registration officer against government records. This change seeks to enhance the deterrent against applicants providing false information in respect of their nationality.

The second proposed change adds another statement to the application form which informs applicants that their application may be delayed if they do not provide the previous addresses at which they have ceased to reside within 12 months of the date of their application. This statement aims to minimise the number of incomplete applications being submitted on paper forms to ensure that electoral registration officers can remove redundant entries from the register, thus maintaining accuracy.

The third proposed change brings England and Wales into line with Scotland by ensuring all the publicly published monthly changes to the register will be taken into account when an electoral registration officer is checking the eligibility of an attester. This change is being made only in the regulations that cover England and Wales and ensures consistency across the registration system.

The fourth proposed change expands the number of sources of information which an electoral registration officer can use to remove deceased electors from the electoral register. Where electoral registration officers have not been able to obtain a death certificate or a registrar’s notice, they will be permitted to use four further sources of evidence to support their decision to remove a deceased elector. They are: information from a close relative; a canvass form; a care home manager; or other local records. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that using this information is an appropriate response to avoid unnecessary distress for the relatives of any deceased elector. It balances the need for evidence with the sensitivity of providing a service to the citizen that they would expect. It also helps effectively to maintain the accuracy of the register.

The final proposed change to the registration system streamlines correspondence that electoral registration officers are required to send to electors. These changes are designed to reduce the cost of the registration system and provide greater discretion to electoral registration officers to tailor their approach based on the needs of local electors.

The draft regulations make sensible and proportionate changes to the wider registration system. Making it easier to register to vote without a name and address appearing on the electoral register may be a small thing, but it makes a big difference. It means the freedom to live your life, cast your vote and make your choice. As Mehala Osborne said:

“Survivors in the future will not be denied their voice and democratic right to vote”.


I commend the draft regulations to the Committee and beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome these provisions as far as they go. Clearly, it cannot be right that survivors who face a physical, emotional and psychological impact from abuse are then silenced from our democratic process because it is too dangerous for their names and addresses to be listed on the electoral register and too difficult for them to register anonymously under the current provisions.

I take this opportunity to thank Women’s Aid, which has been at the forefront of shaping and co-ordinating the responses to domestic violence and abuse for over 40 years, including the legislation before us. The question is whether these measures go far enough. One of my concerns is that survivors will have to re-register to vote anonymously year on year, and those who move home will have to repeat their applications. For many survivors, anonymity is a matter of life or death, and they will often be on the run from domestic abuse for the rest of their lives. I know that Women’s Aid has been calling on the Government to use the domestic violence and abuse Bill to pass legislative changes to make anonymous voter registration for survivors valid indefinitely so that they can vote in safety for life. What is the Minister’s position on that proposal?

I also want to raise a point that Mr Stephen Doughty raised in the other place about credit reference agencies. His concern was the interaction of individuals with credit reference agencies once they had registered anonymously. From examples in his constituency, he knew that individuals who had registered anonymously had then had significant difficulty in getting agencies such as Experian, Core Credit and others to acknowledge their anonymous registration without going through cumbersome processes. Many of the people we are talking about today are in a vulnerable situation; they need to be able to access credit and to do so without being disadvantaged. Will the Minister say a little more about whether the Government will work with the agencies to ensure that the process is as transparent and easy as possible? We know that in some cases agencies have refused to accept anonymous registration certificates, and clearly that is not right.

I would also like to pick up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I welcome the proposals to remove entries from the register as a result of death—clearly that is a sensible measure. However, I would also have liked to see some provision for taking steps to increase voter registration and turnout. A question I put to the Government is this: why can they not examine the use of government data to automatically place eligible electors on the electoral roll, given that the integrity and accuracy of that roll is so important? In welcoming these provisions, I hope that we will hear a bit more about how the Government are going to increase the number of eligible people on the electoral register.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the general support for the measures before us and for all the contributions. I will try to respond to the points that have been raised, starting with that of my noble friend Lady Seccombe. She rightly pointed out that, if you look at the latest figures from the ONS, you will see that 1.9 million adults between the ages of 16 and 59 experienced domestic abuse in the past year—1.2 million women and 713,000 men—a statistic that many people will find surprising. When I first became involved in this issue, back in the 1970s, I was on a Select Committee dealing with violence in the family. That was in the era of Erin Pizzey and the first refuges. At that point, the focus was almost exclusively on women who had suffered physical violence. Over the past decades, the definition of domestic violence and abuse has broadened: it now includes psychological as well as physical abuse; sexual, financial and emotionally controlling behaviour; and coercive behaviour. That has broadened the range of people who might be susceptible to domestic violence. Men are victims, and the new provisions that we debate this evening cover both men and women—and rightly so.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson was worried that broadening the range of people who can attest might open the scheme to some abuse. It is important to keep this in perspective. At the moment, 2,300 people are anonymously registered—an infinitely small proportion of the total voting population. The estimate we have made is that, as a result of the changes we debate this evening, that figure might triple to 6,900. If one puts that in the perspective of the millions of people who are entitled to vote, one will see that the possibility of abuse is relatively small.

We consulted the Electoral Commission about the process. My noble friend asked whether refuge managers have to be in the directory. The answer is that they do not. However, the definition was restricted by being narrowed to managers of refuges, in direct response to the Electoral Commission’s concerns.

On the issue of telling people whether they have been removed from the register, the statutory instrument gives the electoral registration officer the discretion to include in the first communication information that they will not get a further one later on. It is discretionary and it is open to the electoral registration officer whether to follow it up, and there will be guidance from the Electoral Commission on how that discretion should best be used.

My noble friend asked also why one had to provide a national insurance number, given that, if one registered online, one did not have to. My noble friend is certainly different from me in having his driving licence and his passport information as accessible as his national insurance number. As far as I am concerned, all three have to be looked at in some database. I will write to him, if I may, about why there is that discrepancy between the information you have to provide if you register in person and the information you have to provide if you register online.

My noble friend raised some broader issues, which were touched on also by others who contributed to the debate, about the progress that the Government are making in their review of electoral law. I am not sure that my reply this evening will take my noble friend much further than the reply that I gave him but a few weeks ago, but we are working closely with the Law Commission in bringing forward a programme of reform using secondary legislation. It is hoped that the work can lead to the consolidation of 10 statutory instruments and 25 amending instruments into two, an affirmative and negative SI respectively. These will cover local, PCC and mayoral elections as well as local planning and council tax referendums. The Law Commission will then utilise its in-house parliamentary counsel to oversee the drafting process. On top of that, Cabinet Office staff will form part of an inner circle alongside representatives from the Electoral Commission, Solace and AEA—the Association of Electoral Administrators—to oversee the drafting process and participate in necessary policy decisions. So work is under way on broader reforms.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, asked about GPs and whether they would charge those who want the attestation form signed. I entirely agree with him that those in a vulnerable position should not have to pay. The Electoral Commission will provide revised guidance in the light of the changes we debate. We hope that GPs will choose not to charge for attestations but, as the noble Lord said, other avenues will remain open for electors to seek attestations. It strikes me that somebody who perhaps has just moved into a new refuge will have to go and see a GP anyway to register. That is the point at which the patient could provide the attestation form and just ask the GP to sign it. If it was in that context, I honestly do not see that the GP would need to charge.

On automatic registration, I think that this was looked at some time ago; it may even have been when there was a coalition. The Government did not introduce automatic registration, as it went against the underlying principle of IER—namely, that individuals should take ownership of registering to vote and deciding where they want to register. I shall come in a moment to what we are doing to improve take-up. There are no plans to introduce a system of compulsory registration; that has been looked at before. It is up to all of us to explain to people the importance of registering to vote.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised a question asked in the other place about why those who register anonymously have to re-register each year. It is a valid question. The provisions on yearly renewal are in primary legislation and could not be addressed through the SIs before us today. The intention of Parliament when the scheme was introduced in 2006 was to enable individuals with a current risk to register anonymously. If one had it automatically carrying forward year after year then, by definition, the risk might not be “current”. However, I think that the principal reason was that you simply cannot do it by secondary legislation; you need primary legislation.

The noble Lord then raised the valid point that, if you are not on the register, credit reference agencies cannot check that you are who you say you are. There is a certificate of anonymous registration, which can be used as evidence to overcome some of the restrictions to which the noble Lord referred. He implied that this was bureaucratic and not always acceptable to the credit reference agencies, and that again is something that I would like to take away and reflect on.

I have tried to answer all the points that were raised. If I have not answered all of them, I shall write to noble Lords.

Motions agreed.

Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun Freezing Order 2018

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the Order laid before the House on 19 January be approved.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the 2018 order was laid before both Houses on 19 January of this year and came into force on 22 January. This was to ensure that there was no gap in the freezing measures enforced against Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun the day after the publication of the Litvinenko inquiry report on 21 January 2016. The order was debated and approved in the other place on 8 February.

Noble Lords will not need to be reminded that the independent inquiry, chaired by Sir Robert Owen, concluded that Alexander Litvinenko was deliberately poisoned in 2006 by Lugovoy and Kovtun through the use of polonium-210, a radioactive isotope. The inquiry also concluded that there was a “strong probability” that Litvinenko, an ex-KGB and ex-FSB officer and a critic of the Russian Government, was murdered on the order of the FSB, the Russian domestic security service. Furthermore, the killing was “probably approved” by the then head of the FSB, Nikolai Patrushev, and the Russian President, Vladimir Putin.

In response to the seriousness of the report’s conclusions, the Treasury imposed an asset freeze on Lugovoy and Kovtun on 22 January 2016 by making a freezing order under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The 2016 freezing order had the effect of freezing any funds or assets that these two individuals held in the UK or with any UK-incorporated entities, denying them access to the UK financial system and prohibiting UK persons from making funds available to them. The Treasury routinely monitors information provided on financial sanctions on all designated persons. During the two-year period, no relevant information was received in respect of Lugovoy and Kovtun.

Under Section 8 of the Act, the duration of a freezing order is limited to two years. During that two years, the Treasury is required, by Section 7 of the Act, to keep the order under review. In order to maintain the asset freeze, the Treasury was required to review the case and to decide whether to make a new order. The Treasury has conducted such a review and has decided to make a new freezing order.

The Treasury believes that making a new order remains an appropriate and proportionate measure to take. It will ensure that any assets discovered in the UK that belong to the two individuals are immediately frozen, and it will prevent the men trying to access the UK financial sector. The relevant conditions required to be met, in accordance with Section 4 of the Act, are still being met today—the Treasury reasonably believes that action constituting a threat to the life or property of one or more nationals of the UK or residents of the UK has been or is likely to be taken by a person or persons resident in a country or territory outside the UK.

The freezing order is one of a limited number of measures available to the UK authorities as a means of acting directly against Lugovoy and Kovtun. The other actions include Interpol red notices and European arrest warrants, which also remain in place. The Russian authorities’ refusal to accede to extradition requests following the murder of Mr Litvinenko and their lack of co-operation with the inquiry have blocked progress being made by the Metropolitan Police investigation into Lugovoy and Kovtun. There is therefore little prospect of bringing them to trial in a British court.

However, we continue to believe that the freezing order acts as a deterrent and as a clear signal that this Government will not tolerate such acts on British soil and will take firm steps to defend our national security and rule of law. Failure to renew the asset freezes against Lugovoy and Kovtun would, I believe, risk reinforcing a damaging signal that the consequences of murder carried out in the UK are few and time-limited, and that it is possible to evade the UK justice system by fleeing overseas.

Noble Lords will be aware that the UK’s relationship with the Russian Government remains strictly limited as a result of the Litvinenko assassination and the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia. We continue to engage with Russia on a guarded basis, defending UK national security where necessary. We will continue to pressure the Russian Government to do more to co-operate with the investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s death. This includes the extradition of the main suspects, the provision of satisfactory answers, and an accounting of the role and activities of its security services.

This new freezing order maintains the asset freeze originally imposed by a similar order passed in 2016. It acts as a deterrent and a signal that the UK will not tolerate such acts on British soil and that we will defend our national security and the rule of law. I beg to move.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, following the protocol to declare such interests, I do so, informing the House that I am a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Russia.

It is the nature of the challenge—the noble Lord, Lord Young, touched on this—that UK/Russia relations can charitably be defined as fraught. However, for ever wishing to see justice adhered to, and given that Russia is highly unlikely to agree to the extradition to the United Kingdom, not least because under the Russian constitution no Russian can be extradited if it undermines their citizens’ rights—in addition to the concern that in the UK the proceedings were, I understand, held in camera, thus suggesting to the Russians that this process is all being conducted in secrecy—I understand that there is a willingness by Russia to make these two men available for interview or for a process through a mechanism such as Skype or some other such means.

I want to make one point about something that troubles me. The Foreign Secretary travelled for a bilateral meeting in Moscow with his opposite number, Foreign Minister Lavrov, on 22 December, but I understand that the Foreign Secretary failed to discuss this case with Minister Lavrov. Since the case of Mr Litvinenko is a plank of UK foreign policy towards Russia, this is surprising to me, to say the least, as it sends conflicting messages to the Russians.

Given that background, would it not be more practical to consider encouraging other jurisdictions to assist—for example, by calling on the International Court of Justice to play a role and, in effect, lend good offices to allow for a fair hearing to be conducted? That would in no way suggest that the individuals in question would not receive a fair hearing here in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, we on these Benches accept and believe that the order is an appropriate, commensurate and proportionate response in relation to the specified persons. In coming to that conclusion, we have of course looked at the order with care. I also looked up the time when the first order was initiated—two years ago—only to discover that I was in fact the Opposition spokesman then. Time has not changed much.

The noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, answered all my questions at that time, except one. I quote him:

“As the noble Lord may know, Mrs Litvinenko’s lawyers provided a list of people who she felt should have further action taken against them. Some are members of the Russian authorities who are already under sanctions relating to Crimea and activities in Ukraine. The rest of the list is being considered by the Home Secretary, but so far no action has been decided upon”.—[Official Report, 10/2/16; col. GC 228.]


Has any further action been decided upon for individuals on that list?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for their broad support for the order. I will try to deal with the points that have been raised, but I may have to write in respect of some of them.

To the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, I say that the Russian authorities should be in no doubt about the position the Government have taken in relation to Litvinenko. We have reinforced our message several times: we have made very clear our profound concerns to the Russian Government in Moscow, we have summoned the Russian ambassador to the Foreign Office in London and we continue to demand that the Russian Government do more to co-operate with the investigation into Mr Litvinenko’s death, including extraditing the main suspects, providing satisfactory answers and accounting for the role of their security service. The noble Viscount raised the issue of the ICJ. I think that is probably a matter for the ICJ but I will make further inquiries.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I speak from an intelligence background. Does the Minister agree that when one looks at patterns of operation, the way in which this whole affair has been dealt with by Russia is exactly the same way as it dealt with similar things when it was the Soviet Union—particularly its normal, KGB-type way of reacting and acting when these sorts of things happen?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree with the noble Lord. It is very disappointing that these practices have reappeared in the Soviet Union and have damaged our relationship with that country.

My noble friend Lord Robathan asked what we were doing to stop Russian criminals from exploiting the UK financial system. He may know that we passed the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which introduced criminal offences relating to companies that failed to prevent tax evasion. We made a commitment at the 2016 Anti-Corruption Summit to publish an anti-corruption strategy, setting out a work plan through to 2022. We have created a new National Economic Crime Centre within the National Crime Agency to bring together all our capabilities to fight economic crime, including the specific instances mentioned by my noble friend.

My noble friend may also know that we recently introduced unexplained wealth orders, so in addition to the action we have taken to deal with money laundering—such as the register of beneficial owners—we have taken powers to require people who own property that would ordinarily be beyond their obvious means to prove how they lawfully acquired it. On 31 January this year, the regulations that introduced UWOs came into force. A UWO requires a person who is reasonably suspected of involvement in—or connection to someone involved in—serious crime to explain the nature and extent of their interests in a particular property and to explain how the property was obtained where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the respondent’s known, lawfully obtained income would be insufficient to allow the respondent to obtain the property.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked whether cryptocurrency was included. In Schedule 2 of the order, “funds” is fairly embracing, meaning,

“including (but not limited to) … gold, cash, cheques, claims on money”,

et cetera, and Schedule 4, which deals with freezing prohibitions, refers to,

“making available the proceeds of realisation of property belonging to a specified person, and … making a payment to or for the benefit of a specified person”.

So my advice is that the order includes cryptocurrency. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is unlikely that these individuals will come to the UK or indeed that they have any assets in the UK.

The freezing order applies to overseas banks. The noble Baroness asked a more specific question about shell companies. I would like to write to her about that, but if the money from a shell company went through a bank, it would be caught by the order. She also asked about the delay in introducing the freezing order. She will know that there was a sequence of events—the inquiry that culminated, eventually, in the Sir Robert Owen inquiry. It was some time before we knew who to go for after the tragic death of Litvinenko. I agree with what she and other noble Lords said about the widow, Mrs Litvinenko.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has had to wait two years for an answer to the question that he asked last time. The Government decided not to implement asset-freezing orders against those individuals mentioned in the letter under this legislation with the exception of Lugovoy and Kovtun but, as was indicated in 2016, a number of individuals on the list provided by Mrs Litvinenko’s lawyers have been designated for other reasons under sanctions relating to Crimea and activities in Ukraine. There is an ongoing police investigation into the two individuals that we discuss this evening.

I will have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in answer to his questions about the total volume of assets frozen under freezing orders. I think he went just beyond the order that we debate this evening and his question applied to all freezing orders, so I will write to him. I am sorry if I have not answered all the questions raised by noble Lords. I will write in respect of those that I have not been able to answer.

Motion agreed.

Housing Associations

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my entry in the register of interests and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the coalition Government secured more social housing by prioritising homes for affordable rent over homes for social rent. This enabled more than 357,000 new affordable homes to be built since 2010. We are providing more than £9 billion of funding for the affordable homes programme to March 2021 and £1 billion housing revenue account borrowing freedom for local authorities. This will support social landlords to build more affordable homes including homes for social rent.

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He will be aware that the loss of housing association homes for social rent reported at the end of last week reflects in part a move from social rented homes to affordable rents but also the sale of some housing association homes. We have been waiting for the Government’s Green Paper on social housing for many months. When is that Green Paper due? Do the Government actually believe in social housing?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Of course the Government believe in social housing, which is why, as I said in my reply, more than £9 billion has been allocated to it. In the last seven years, more affordable homes have been built than in the last seven years of the last Labour Government. We are committed to more social housing. The Green Paper on social housing is expected in the spring.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, with some 40% of council homes that were sold under right to buy now owned for rent by private landlords, does the noble Lord not agree that the sale of council houses has ceased to be a policy promoting low-income home ownership and that it would be wise, given our shortage of affordable homes, to suspend right to buy and allow sales only if they can be replaced on a like-for-like basis?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The stock of social housing fell by 420,000 under the last Labour Government. More council houses—social houses—were sold than built. We have reversed that: more social houses are now being built than sold and the stock has increased by 86,000 since 2010. The receipts from right to buy are reinvested in social housing. Far from the policy of generating receipts disadvantaging those on the housing list, by generating more receipts for local authorities to reinvest it increases investment in social housing.

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister believe that there is a crisis in this area, given that last year saw more homeless children than we have seen in a decade? Does he recognise that it is hard to believe that this Government see it as a crisis if expenditure is 79% on private housing and 21% on affordable housing? As he well knows, “affordable” is not really affordable for families on low incomes.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness will know that, for any given sum of public investment in housing, you can build either more houses at slightly higher rents or fewer houses at slightly lower rents. In 2010, her party and mine decided to go for the higher-output option. That was the right decision at the time to make faster progress in adding to the stock of good-quality, permanent homes for rent. In October last year, the Prime Minister announced an extra £2 billion for affordable housing and made it clear that a big chunk of that should be redirected towards social housing, as the noble Baroness suggests. We have listened to the representations from housing providers. The £2 billion will be available for social rents as opposed to affordable rents, and by lifting the cap on what local authorities can borrow we are enabling local authorities to build more council houses.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister knows that tens of thousands of affordable homes have been produced by requiring the housebuilders to include a percentage of affordable housing in all their big new developments. He will also know that over recent years the housebuilders have found a loophole—the so-called viability test, a specious argument—to renege on those obligations. Can he reassure the House that the Government are going to close this loophole, which is just a scam to enable the housebuilders to get out of the agreements that they have already made and increase their profits?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. We are concerned at the way in which certain housebuilders use the viability test to reduce the percentage of homes on their sites for social housing. We are reviewing the viability test with a view to increasing the original intention on these sites to have a fixed percentage of social housing units.

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

My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests in the register. Does the Minister agree that the loss of more homes for social rent, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, is making a difficult situation even worse, and that as people move into more expensive rental properties the taxpayer ends up paying more for the increased housing benefit bill for those tenants who claim that benefit at the higher cost?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

No, I do not agree, for the reason that I gave a few moments ago. Houses built on affordable rents are available at roughly 20% below market price, and of course housing benefit is available to help those on low incomes to pay the rent. As I said a moment ago, you have a choice to make: you can get either more houses at slightly higher rents or fewer houses at slightly lower rents. We went for the option to build more houses. On the noble Lord’s final point, he keeps reminding us of his connection with Lewisham as an elected councillor of that borough. He might like to know what Sir Steve Bullock, the Mayor of Lewisham, said about our housing policies:

“This specific cash injection for affordable homes will allow the Mayor of London, boroughs and other partners to carry out and extend ambitious plans to properly tackle the capital’s housing crisis”.


I hope the noble Lord agrees with his colleague.

Brexit: European Arrest Warrant (European Union Committee)

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity first to thank the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee for producing its report, Brexit: Judicial Oversight of the European Arrest Warrant. I am grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for securing it. The Government welcome the next inquiry, which he referred to in his opening remarks. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, implied delicately that I am a newcomer to this subject and as such I welcome the clarity of the report, its sharp focus on the key issues, and the outline in the concluding paragraphs of a possible way forward. During the debate other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested their possible solutions and ways forward. However, I am a former Member of Parliament, and some of my constituents were on the receiving end of EAWs and occasionally sought my advice as to how they might possibly evade their reach, and of course as a member of the Cabinet I sat around the table when we opted back into the EAW in 2015, so I am not wholly unfamiliar with the issues raised today.

A range of views have been expressed across the Chamber, but I am reassured by the broad consensus across the House, first, that the EAW is the most effective means available to apprehend individuals wanted by other member states and to ensure that those who have fled the UK are returned to face justice; and, secondly, that the Government should look to sustain as close a partnership as possible with our EU neighbours on security, law enforcement and criminal justice matters after we leave the EU, and that effective extradition arrangements should form part of that new relationship. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jay, quoted the Home Secretary, who said that she regarded the European arrest warrant as “an effective tool” helping us to deliver,

“effective judgment on … murderers, rapists and paedophiles”—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/17; col. 550.]

and that it is a “priority” for the Government to ensure that we can maintain those arrangements. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others said, these are arrangements of major importance to the country.

In the future partnership paper that we published on 18 September last year, we indicate that we will look to reach an agreement with the EU that provides for practical operational co-operation, facilitates data-driven law enforcement and allows multilateral co-operation through EU agencies. We believe that such an agreement would be in the interests of the EU and its member states, as well as the UK. We are confident that our EU partners share our view on the importance of reaching an agreement that protects the safety and security of citizens and upholds justice in the UK and across the EU. The guidelines adopted by the EU 27 at the December European Council reaffirmed their readiness to,

“establish partnerships in areas unrelated to trade and economic cooperation, in particular the fight against terrorism and international crime, as well as security, defence and foreign policy”.

Previous examples of the EU’s co-operation with third countries—which is what we would be post Brexit—on security, law enforcement and criminal justice have so far generally been limited to agreements covering individual measures, such as Europol or passenger name records, but our assessment is that other approaches are legally viable. The UK’s geographical proximity to its European neighbours, the volume of cross-border movements between the UK and the EU—including, for the purposes of this debate, the volume of extraditions to and from the UK, which the committee highlights in its report—as well as the high degree of alignment in the scale and nature of the threats that we face, call for a new, more ambitious model for co-operation than those that currently exist.

With this in mind, the Government see a strong case for developing a new, dynamic treaty that provides a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation between the UK and the EU. This treaty would provide a legal basis for continued co-operation between the UK and the EU in this area.

To function properly we need dispute resolution, as referred to by many noble Lords during the debate. An arrangement along the lines that we have proposed will need to be supported by a means of resolving any disputes between the UK and the EU. It would be in the interest of both sides to ensure that the rights and obligations contained in the agreement can be relied upon, that both parties have a common understanding of what the agreement means, and that disputes can be resolved fairly and efficiently. This has been to some extent at the heart of the debate.

Dispute resolution mechanisms are common in EU third-country agreements and other international agreements, including those agreed by the UK. A number of examples are set out in the future partnership paper Enforcement and Dispute Resolution, which the Government published last August. They illustrate the range of ways in which the parties to international agreements, including the EU, have obtained assurances that obligations in those agreements will be enforced, that divergence can be avoided and that disputes can be resolved.

[Baroness Ludford]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but how is that relevant to an individual disputing the execution of a European arrest warrant? How does state-to-state dispute resolution apply in the circumstances of a judicial process?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I will come in a moment to the distinction between how country-to-country agreements are enforced and how individuals enforce any rights they might have in the countries concerned.

One common feature of most international agreements, including all agreements between the EU and a third country, is that disputes are not resolved by giving the courts of one party direct jurisdiction over the other. Noble Lords will be aware that one of the Government’s key commitments in leaving the EU, as set out in our future partnership paper Enforcement and Dispute Resolution, is that we will bring about an end to the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK. I know that that is particularly unpalatable to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but it is a clear statement of government policy.

Previous examples of the EU’s co-operation with third countries on security, law enforcement and criminal justice demonstrate that direct CJEU jurisdiction is not a requirement for such agreements. Even the more ambitious and strategic relationships that the EU has adopted—for example, the Schengen association agreements and the European Economic Area agreement—do not involve direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in those third countries.

There is no precedent, and indeed no imperative driven by EU, UK or international law, which demands that enforcement or dispute resolution of future UK-EU agreements should fall under the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU, or indeed that UK courts should have direct jurisdiction over the EU. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and others that if you do not have the CJEU, you need some other mechanism for resolving disputes. We will therefore look to engage constructively to negotiate an approach to enforcement and dispute resolution that meets the key objectives of the UK and the EU in underpinning the effective operation of a new partnership in this area. We do not underestimate the complexities involved in negotiating our future relationship with the EU, but we are confident that there is recognition on both sides of the importance of addressing them and reaching a robust agreement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned some of the problems with the EAW, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, touched on them. Noble Lords may recall that, in 2014, we reformed the operation of the EAW to make sure that it worked effectively and better protected UK citizens. As has been mentioned, individuals will not now be extradited where a case is not trial-ready or where it is disproportionate so to do.

The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, put it graphically when he said that the EAW has enabled us to get rid of the bad guys we do not want and get hold of those we do. The EAW has enabled the UK to surrender more than 10,000 individuals accused or convicted of a criminal offence to other member states, including those accused or convicted of murder, child sexual offences, terrorism or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, mentioned, human trafficking. During the same period, the EAW has been used to surrender more than 1,400 individuals back to the UK.

As the committee noted, we are a net contributor to the EAW system: for every one person arrested on a UK-issued EAW, the UK arrests eight on EAWs issued by other member states, so in the balance of trade of those under arrest, we are net exporters. For all these reasons, agreeing effective extradition arrangements will be an important part of negotiations and of mutual interest to both the UK and member states.

Perhaps I may touch for a moment on transitional arrangements, which the committee also raised in its report and were referred to in our debate. The Prime Minister was clear in her Florence speech that an implementation period should be based on the existing structure of EU rules and regulations, and that the UK would take part in existing security measures during such a period. The Prime Minister was also clear that we may start off with the CJEU still governing the rules we are part of for that period. We therefore do not anticipate the cliff edge that the committee was keen we should avoid and which was touched on during our debate. We hope that we do not see the ghost of Banquo, though I am sure he would be familiar with the panelled rooms of this stone building. That commitment was confirmed by the Minister for Immigration, Nick Hurd, when he gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 23 January. As I said a moment ago, it is in the interest both of the UK and the EU to agree the precise terms of the implementation period as quickly as possible, and we are confident that we will come to an agreement on this in March.

On the case of O’Connor, I am somewhat limited in what I can say as this is a live case. We are monitoring what is going on and we cannot speculate on the outcome. My understanding is that the Irish Supreme Court has yet to formally refer the matter to the CJEU or, indeed, to determine what the question should be. We will continue to work with our counterparts in the EU to ensure that those who have fled justice in the UK return to face it.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the time it took to negotiate the extradition agreement between Norway and Iceland and the EU. With respect, we are starting from a slightly different position, in that they started from a position of total divergence whereas we are starting, in this case, from a position of total alignment. The starting point for negotiations will be different from that of either of those countries: we start, as I said, from a position of total alignment since we operate the same EU tool, the EAW, and that was not the case for Norway or Iceland.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, asked whether we would be able to get an agreement on this without accepting the CJEU as ultimate arbiter. I have made it clear that we do not think that that is acceptable and I outlined other scenarios where that was not the case. Indeed, the EU has extradition agreements with a range of third countries, as noted in the committee’s report. None of those involves the CJEU having jurisdiction in those third countries, nor is there another common court between the parties, although I note that in our debate there was a very strong view that there should be some judicial oversight over how disputes are resolved.

Where agreements between the UK and EU give rise to rights or obligations for individuals—the case raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—those rights or obligations will be enforced by the courts in the UK, and ultimately by the UK Supreme Court. Individuals operating within the EU should similarly be provided with means to enforce their rights or obligations through the courts of the remaining 27 member states, with interpretation by the CJEU where that is appropriate. On facts and figures, table 1 in paragraph 10 has some key statistics, but if the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, wants more granularity I would be more than happy to provide that for him.

There was a comment about the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, will have heard what my noble friend Lord Callanan said in winding up the debate on the withdrawal Bill last week. Our intention has always been that, in itself, not incorporating the charter into UK law should not affect the substantive rights that individuals already have, because the charter was never the source of those rights.

I should emphasise that the Government are committed to maintaining and strengthening the co-operation that keeps all European citizens safe, a point that noble Lords have made, and that the desire to do what is necessary to keep our people safe is not one-sided. My ministerial colleagues have spoken to their counterparts in other EU countries and I am reassured to hear that there is a shared understanding of the importance of effective, ongoing co-operation. For our part, we have made clear that the UK’s responsibilities, as a good neighbour, for the security of European citizens as well as our own, will remain on leaving the EU. We will be looking for a future partnership that ensures that those responsibilities can be met.

We recognise the challenges around negotiating a new relationship, including those around designing a new mechanism for resolving disputes between the UK and the EU. The Government are grateful to the committee for its report and its observations about the complexities involved in negotiating new arrangements. We are committed to addressing them and ensuring that we can continue to uphold justice in the UK and across the EU. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and to all noble Lords who have taken part in this afternoon’s debate.

Civil Service Impartiality

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Ministerial Code says:

“Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service”.


Our Civil Service is envied the world over and, as the Home Secretary said over the weekend, has the complete confidence of the Government. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 enshrines in legislation the core principles and values of the Civil Service, which include impartiality, integrity and objectivity. These values are set out in the Civil Service Code, which states that civil servants,

“must not … knowingly mislead ministers, Parliament or others”.

I do not believe that they do.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Of course, he more than anyone has upheld the Ministerial Code during a very long and distinguished ministerial career. However, in the last few days we have had assertions made, both by Ministers and by Members of Parliament, that officials are deliberately frustrating Brexit or fiddling the figures. Those civil servants cannot defend themselves in public. Does the noble Lord agree that officials must have confidence in being able to provide robust and dispassionate advice without fear of intimidation? Given that No. 10 Downing Street and the Prime Minister have failed to slap down those Ministers and MPs in his own party who have made these disgraceful slurs, is it too much to ask of the Prime Minister that she finally show some leadership?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

So far as Ministers are concerned—I answer for Ministers, not for Back-Bench Members of Parliament—the Minister concerned made a fulsome apology in another place on 2 February. He said:

“I accept that I should have corrected or dismissed the premise of my hon. Friend’s question. I have apologised to Mr Charles Grant, who is an honest and trustworthy man. As I have put on record many times, I have the highest regard for our hard-working civil servants. I am grateful for this opportunity to correct the record and I apologise to the House”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/18; col. 1095.]

The noble Lord generously referred to my experience as a Minister. I think I have done 20 years on and off—probably more than anyone else in this House—but with many discontinuities, and I have never had occasion to question the impartiality or objectivity of civil servants. They have spoken truth unto power. They have quite often said things that I did not want to hear, but I would never accuse them of some of the things that have recently been levied against them. I think we should be proud of our Civil Service, and I reject the smears that have been made against it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will recognise that this is not just a British issue. The current attack by the President and his Administration on the FBI in the United States raises rather similar issues. Can the Minister assure us publicly that, when we say that civil servants are expected to be impartial, they are not expected to be impartial between evidence and supposition, and that when Ministers prefer faith or fantasy to evidence, civil servants have the right to point out that good governance depends on paying attention to the evidence, wherever one can find it?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I quoted a moment ago the Civil Service Code, which includes objectivity. Objectivity is defined as,

“basing your advice and decisions on rigorous analysis of the evidence”.

It is these standards for which our Civil Service is renowned.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, can I ask my noble friend’s honest opinion? He will be familiar with this document: the Treasury analysis of May 2016 forecasting a complete collapse of the British economy if we were to vote to leave. I have maintained that this document is propaganda from top to bottom, and it turns out to be utterly untrue in reality. My noble friend has praised the objectivity of those who produce government statistics. If I continue to criticise the mandarins and the Ministers who approved the statistics and this document, does that make me a snake-oil salesman or a 1930s German Nazi—or maybe a bit of both?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I think my noble friend should distinguish between criticisms of Ministers and criticisms of civil servants. The document that he has in his hand was publicly presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. Any criticism should be directed at the politicians who presented it. I think it was also endorsed at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Darling. They are the ones who should be criticised, rather than the civil servants.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister says that the Minister concerned has already apologised but has faced no sanction. Does that now mean that a civil servant can break the code and not face any sanction if he apologises later?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That would be a matter for the Civil Service Code. There are penalties levied against civil servants who break the code. Depending on the severity of the offence, they can lose their job, as has happened in some cases, or they can apologise. In this case, the Minister has apologised. He has explained the circumstances. He had no reason to believe that what was being said at the time was not true. When he discovered it was not true, at the first opportunity he came to the House and apologised. I think that was the correct thing to do.

[Lord O'Donnell (CB)]

My Lords, I had the pleasure of working with the Minister in his many guises and, if ever there was a Minister who lived by the code he has just talked about, it is the noble Lord. Does he believe that those making allegations without supporting evidence against serving civil servants, who will not respond, are undertaking a form of bullying that, to be honest, actually diminishes those making the attacks but, more importantly, damages our democracy?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Well, whether the accusations made in the House of Commons last week constitute bullying, I am not quite so sure. I think they were ill-advised, given that the evidence did not stack up for the accusations that were made. But I agree with what the noble Lord said in his final remarks that the people who come out of it worse are those who make the accusations, rather than those they are levied against.

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

Does my noble friend believe that those MPs and Ministers who impugn the impartiality and good faith of our civil servants are behaving very much as President Trump does in the United States with regard to the FBI?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am not sure I want to open up a fresh front from the Dispatch Box, but I hope President Trump will read what my noble friend has just said.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that every sane business carries out an investment appraisal before it embarks on an investment, that every sensible person will always produce a business plan before starting a business, that responsible and sensible Governments must engage in cost-benefit analyses and policy analyses and that, if we gave up those habits, it would be deeply damaging to the future of the country? That is the logic that some of these people are trying to drive us to: that we should not have any experts, we should not have any studies and we should not have any analysis at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I have not seen the documents that are the object of this exchange, but I understand that they were looking at a number of post-Brexit scenarios from an economic point of view. I also understand that the Prime Minister subsequently said that they were looking at off-the-shelf options, and she has made it clear that she is not looking at off-the-shelf options.

[Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)]

My Lords, nearly every political generation experiences a reprise of this question. In the early post-war Treasury, Hugh Dalton was given some unpalatable advice and denounced his officials as “congenital snag-hunters”, but surely that is what we pay them for. Does the Minister agree that it would be pointless to hire ciphers for the beauty of their political opinions because that would be the road to a politicised Civil Service which would be ruinous for this country?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree. It is the job of civil servants to bring to Ministers’ attention the consequences of their policies and to argue forcefully against them if they believe they are misguided but, once the decision has been taken, to go out and deliver them as best they can. My experience with civil servants is that that is exactly what they do, and I agree with the noble Lord.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that disparaging remarks were made in a debate 10 days ago in this House by a Member of the Opposition Front Bench who impugned the integrity of the civil servants in our Library because she did not agree with the brief that they produced? I went straight to the Library, apologised on behalf of the House and said that no one would agree with her.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I hope my noble friend will understand if I pass on that one, not having been privy to the accusations that were made or the evidence, but I am sure my noble friend did what he felt was right in defending the Library.