Elections Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I will make three brief points in support of the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. The first follows a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has just made a forceful speech. As my noble friend Lord Cormack mentioned in an earlier debate, I was my party’s spokesman and I was in the shadow Cabinet of William Hague, now my noble friend Lord Hague, when the Bill establishing the Electoral Commission went through. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, implied, had the Blair Government sought to include these two clauses in that Bill, my party would have strongly opposed that. They conflict with the recommendation of the Neill commission’s report that

“An Election Commission in a democracy like ours could not function properly, or indeed at all, unless it were scrupulously impartial and believed to be so by everyone seriously involved and by the public at large.”


If it was right for my party to oppose those clauses then, it is right to oppose them today.

Secondly, I respectfully disagree with the argument in defence of the Government’s position put forward by my noble friend the Minister on March 10:

“It is entirely appropriate for the Government and Parliament to provide a steer on electoral policy … By increasing policy emphasis on electoral integrity … the Government are seeking to prevent interference in our democracy from fraud, foreign money and hostile state actors.”—[Official Report, 10/3/22; col. 1643.]


It is not the Electoral Commission that requires a steer, for example, on the importance of protecting our democracy from foreign money; it is the Government. The steer that my noble friend described—the statutory requirement to

“have regard to the statement”—

should be in precisely the opposite direction to the one in the Bill.

My third and final reason is related to the first. I have left the Government five times, which is more than anyone else in the Chamber—even the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Once was at the request of the electorate in 1997 and three times were, sadly, at the request of the then Prime Minister, but the last was of my own volition, one month after the current Prime Minister took office, when he illegally prorogued Parliament. That was the first of a number of steps that injure out democratic institutions—in that case the House of Commons. It was followed by the failure to defend the judiciary from the “Enemies of the People” attack by the Daily Mail, the attempted interference with the verdict on Owen Paterson, the resignation of the Prime Minister’s independent adviser Alex Allan—instead of the Home Secretary—and the evident disregard, shown from time to time, for the role of your Lordships’ House and the Ministerial Code. These clauses are another step in the same direction; they are disrespectful of the ground rules of our constitution, and they should not be in the Bill.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard three splendid speeches, and I intend to be very brief. I will pick up on a comment made by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who is of course quite right that the public will not be interested or involved in the details of this legislation. But I have no doubt whatever that they have an acute sense of fairness. In Committee, I suggested that, for the Government to give instructions to the Electoral Commission is akin to a party in a football match—one of the two teams—giving instructions and guidance to the referee prior to the match. I do not think that anyone in Britain would think that that was a fair situation. I do not think that anyone could seriously contend that that is not what would happen if these two clauses become law.

What I find particularly persuasive is that this letter from the Electoral Commission, which many of us have, is, unsurprisingly, signed by every single member bar the Conservative nominee—I make no criticism of the fact that he did not sign it, but it was signed by everyone else. It argues against these two clauses. As they say,

“It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement – enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission – is inconsistent with the role”


of an “independent electoral commission”. If anyone is wavering on this, just substitute the words “Conservative Party” for “Government”. It is nothing to be ashamed of, and I strongly support political parties; I have been in one all my life and I would go as far as to say that they are the lifeblood of our democracy. I do not regard as superior human beings those people who have not joined political parties. If we substitute the word “Government” with “Conservative Party”—because of course Governments consist, in the main, of one political party—it reads as follows: “It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement – enabling the Conservative Party to guide the work of the Commission – is inconsistent with the role of an independent electoral commission.” Is there anyone here who could possibly dispute that statement? Forgetting about the Government for a moment, for one political party in a contested situation—which is precisely what elections are, which is why they can get fraught and need adjudicators—to give an instruction to the referee, or the Electoral Commission in this case, is clearly inconsistent and unacceptable as part of our electoral procedures. I urge everyone to see the fairness of that argument and to support the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.

Elections Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th March 2022 Lords Chamber

Parliament has agreed to a regulatory body such as the ICO being able to regulate organisations through the imposition of penalties on this scale. I believe the political parties must also be respectful of election law rules and, in particular, those concerning donations and election spending. The present limit of £20,000 for a regulatory body is clearly woefully inadequate. Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, proposes what I consider a modest increase, to £50,000, in the level of fines that can be imposed by the commission. Amendment 18 in the name of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire would put the regulation of political parties more in line with that imposed by other regulatory bodies such as the Information Commissioner’s Office. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 19 in my name, which has been grouped with Amendment 18. When I tabled my amendment, I did not realise I had been gazumped by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who had the same objective as me but had put a significantly higher price on it, of £500,000 instead of £50,000. I will add a brief footnote to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.

I have two interests in this. The first is that I was the opposition spokesman on the original legislation to set up the Electoral Commission over 20 years ago. My party fully supported the establishment of an independent body to monitor elections in this country and, as a corollary, the need to give it powers to carry out its functions and to deter behaviour that undermined the integrity of the electoral process. My view is the same and, although the Electoral Commission has not got everything right, I do not join those who seek to undermine its independence, as we heard in earlier debates.

My second interest is as the immediate predecessor to my noble friend as Minister with responsibility for the Cabinet Office in your Lordships’ House and, in particular, responsibility for answering questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and others, about the powers of the Electoral Commission. Indeed, my DNA may still be on the folder in front of my noble friend.

Both experiences lead me to the view that the original powers to fine, untouched since the Act was passed, need updating to reflect what has happened in the intervening period, not least the erosion in the value of money.

Looking through the exchanges on which I took part on this very subject, I see that on 28 March 2018, in response to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I said:

“On the specific question of the £20,000 fine, the noble Lord is correct that the Electoral Commission has expressed concern in the past that this might be regarded as simply the cost of doing business, and it is making representations that it should be enhanced to a higher level. The Government are considering those representations and, alongside any other recommendations that come out of the investigation currently under way, we will then consider what further action to take.”—[Official Report, 28/3/18; col. 833.]


On 28 June that year in response to a Question from my noble friend Lord Cormack I replied:

“My noble friend will know that the Electoral Commission has made requests for legislation, particularly to increase the sanctions that are available to it.”—[Official Report, 28/6/18; col. 240.]


Also, on 17 July that year in response to Lord Tyler—whose participation in these debates we all miss—I said:

“On the question of legislation, as I have said, we are currently considering whether the Electoral Commission should have more powers; we know that the commission wants the maximum fine to be increased from £20,000 to a higher level”. —[Official Report, 17/6/18; col. 1141.]


I am now free to express views that were at the time constrained by the rules of collective responsibility—which I stretched from time to time but I hope never broke. I fully expected on the briefing I had received that, when we legislated on the Electoral Commission, we would increase the maximum fine available.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reflects the recommendation of the CSPL. We should attach weight to that body because its first report led to the establishment of the Electoral Commission, and it has a paternal interest in its well-being. It recommended a maximum fine of £500,000 or 4%, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has generously rounded up to 5%. My amendment is more modest, seeking simply to retain the value of £20,000 to take account of inflation and rounded up modestly.

It is worth digging into the CSPL report to find out why it came to this decision. The Electoral Commission itself gave written evidence, saying:

“Recent research indicates that the public believe that fines for breaking political finance laws are too lenient, given the amount of money that could be spent on campaigning. More than half of the respondents (52%) in our regular tracking research carried out in early 2020 said that a £20,000 maximum fine was not high enough. Only 27% felt that it was about the right amount”.


Although my party gave evidence the other way, the Committee on Standards in Public Life was robust in its conclusion.

My noble friend quoted with approbation the views of the CSPL in an earlier debate, and I will quote what it said on this subject, at paragraph 9.79:

“We consider that an effective regulatory system must be backed by strong sanctions. The prospect of significantly greater fines will act as an incentive to ensure that parties and campaigners put in place robust systems to ensure that the requirements of electoral law are complied with. For anyone contemplating deliberately breaching the law, it should give pause for thought. It seems that the Commission’s powers have fallen behind equivalent regulators such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and we have concluded that this should be redressed”.


I agree. Finally, it went on to say:

“We support the recommendation made by the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technology Committee that the maximum fine the Electoral Commission may impose should be increased to 4% of a campaign’s total spend or £500,000, whichever is higher”.


I do not want to hark back to earlier debates, but it seems that this is further evidence of government antipathy towards the Electoral Commission. I hope my noble friend will be able to persuade me that this is not the case.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is quite sweet to have these two amendments in the same group. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, knows which one I prefer.

Clearly, you have to make the political parties pay attention. At the moment political parties face higher fines for data protection breaches than they do for breaking election law, which is really inappropriate. The risk is that fines for breaking election law just become part of the cost of doing business for political parties, especially those with the deepest pockets and richest donors. That is clearly not the Green Party, but it could be other political parties represented in this Chamber.

Amendment 18 would mean that the penalties for breaking election law would actually hurt the law-breakers. It follows the same logic as the general data protection regulations by implementing proportional fines so that big organisations have to pay attention.

Ministerial Code

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am not certain what specifically the noble Baroness is referring to. This Government respect the judgment of the courts and that is a principle of our polity, but any Government are entitled to review the existing law and submit to Parliament proposals for changing it.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend read paragraph 9.1 of the Ministerial Code? It says:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance, in Parliament.”


Does he agree that in the last 20 years that paragraph has been widely overlooked? Would he agree that it should either be abolished or enforced—with Ministers who breach it losing their passports?

[Lord True (Con)]

That would be a novel sanction for Ministers; obviously I welcome the proposals made this morning on another matter. I have read that, and I personally take it very seriously. As a Minister in your Lordships’ House, I believe that the first duty is to your Lordships’ House. Like my noble friend, I am advancing in years and I remember the days when news was news and not spin disseminated aforehand. We should all aspire to respect for Parliament.

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

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I begin with a declaration of interest. In last month’s by-election, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, my cousin, Thoby Young, alias Lord Kennet, stood unsuccessfully for the Labour vacancy. He may well want to stand again in future by-elections, though for which party he will want for stand next time, I cannot say.

I believe that I am one of a small number of noble Lords, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who have sat through every single minute of the previous discussions on his Bills over the past six years. This was not a wholly voluntary decision. I did so mainly in my capacity as government spokesman on the Bill—a job discharged today by my noble friend Lord True, clutching a folder that bears my fingerprints and may well contain a similar form of words. However, I am now free to express my own view, rather than the Government’s —although, when I did express the Government’s view, I confess to stretching to its limits the concept of ministerial responsibility by toning down some of the passages that were hostile to the Bill and eliminating others.

To those who criticise the Government for not being more supportive of the Bill, I refer, as I have done before, to Hansard. On 30 November 2007, the House was considering a Bill introduced by Lord Steel, which, among other measures, intended to abolish hereditary by-elections. The then Government set out their objections to that proposal and, referring to the pledge given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, that the hereditary Peers should remain until the second stage of reform, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said:

“I do not believe it can be argued that the Bill could be considered to meet the terms of that pledge.”—[Official Report, 30/11/07; col. 1479.]


I support the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, but the decision is a more balanced one than he implied. Of course, Conservative Peers attach more weight to the pledge given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, than do Labour Peers. It was a commitment sought by our former leader, Viscount Cranborne, and reluctantly conceded via the Weatherill amendment by the then Government. It means more to us than it does to other parties, and not just because we have more to lose.

By-elections in my party are unlike by-elections in the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrats’ party, in that there are a wide range of prospective candidates, whereas there are sometimes only one or two from opposition parties. In my party’s case, the by-elections are serious, with hustings and many strong candidates. Those who win tend to do more heavy lifting in your Lordships’ House than the life Peers, and they hold more ministerial positions than their numbers would indicate. As with the original 92, these are noble Lords who want to be here to work and must convince an electorate that they will do so. Many of those appointed recently through the by-elections have shown more commitment to your Lordships’ House than those who have arrived here by appointment.

However, on balance I find the arguments the other way more compelling. The Irvine pledge was meant to be a short-term fix before the second stage of Lords reform. When I was shadow leader in another place, I was told that the first round of elections for a reformed second Chamber would take place by 2001. What was meant to be a short-term fix has become a long-term anomaly. The position is clearly discriminatory against women, as we have just heard, and has no place in modern legislation.

What exposes the House to criticism is not just the by-elections themselves but the ingenious methods to obstruct the clear will of the majority of the House. Frankly, I was embarrassed when listening to some of the arguments adduced by my noble friends, and in fairness to them, I suspect that they were embarrassed as well. We should have no more delaying tactics. The Bill has been examined ad nauseam by your Lordships’ House. It is an incremental reform, like other Private Members’ Bills, which does not preclude other reforms, should the time come for them. I support the Bill, and we should get on with it.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, it was a real pleasure for me to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, reversing the pattern of some 40 years in the other place when he had to sit and listen in silence to me. While I support this legislation, I confess I do so with mixed feelings. As Leader of the House in the other place in the 2010 Parliament, I had hoped to leave behind an important legacy of constitutional reform with three pieces of legislation. The first was reform of your Lordships’ House, which secured a large majority on Second Reading but bit the dust when the Labour Party refused to agree to a programme Motion. The second was reducing the number of MPs and equalising the constituency boundaries, which was scuppered by the Liberal Democrats when they broke the coalition agreement. The third and final piece of my legacy was the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, now being repealed by my own party. So when my grandchildren ask what I did in that Parliament, the answer will now be “Very little”.

In agreeing with repeal, I think it important to put the Act in a slightly different context from that which we have heard so far in this debate—at times a rather cynical context. I think there is common ground that, over recent years, the Executive have claimed for themselves more and more power at the expense of Parliament with the extensive use of Henry VIII clauses, the introduction of guillotines, programme Motions and deferred Divisions in the other place and the extensive use of patronage—a theme developed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his excellent speech, although I got off his train before it arrived at the destination.

In 2010, we tried to redress the balance and shift the terms of trade away from the Executive and back to Parliament. We introduced elections for the chairmen of Select Committees, breaking the grip of the Whips, we introduced a Back-Bench Business Committee, breaking the monopoly of the Government on the business of the House, and, as part of that package of restoring power to Parliament, we took away the right of the Prime Minister to dissolve and gave it to Members of Parliament. I prefer to put the Act in that context, assigning slightly better motives than the more cynical ones perhaps ascribed by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act had other advantages. It enabled me, speaking purely selfishly as Leader of the House, to plan a package of Bills over a five-year Parliament, rather than, as previously happened, finding that in year three of four, half way through, the Prime Minister would dissolve and a whole series of Bills would be lost. In 1983, I had to introduce the same Bill twice because Parliament was dissolved half way through. The fixed-term Parliament was popular in financial circles—they do not like uncertainty—and, as has been said, it brought us into line with other democracies. However, as noble Lords have explained, it clearly has not worked. At the foot of the bed of the 2107 Parliament was a notice saying “Please Do Not Resuscitate” —but the Fixed-term Parliaments Act officiously kept it alive. So I accept that we should repeal the Act, but I put that plea of mitigation in context.

However, I paused when I reached the ouster clause in the Bill which, to use an economist’s phrase, hit me right on my indifference curve. On the one hand, I understand why the Government are concerned about judicial activism. The Minister mentioned the direction of travel of legislation and the Supreme Court decision in Miller, and I see why my noble friend and the Government want to insure themselves against such intrusion when it comes to this Bill. I see from the helpful report from the Joint Committee ably chaired by my noble friend Lord McLoughlin that the Government’s view has support from, for example, the former First Parliamentary Counsel, Sir Stephen Laws.

But there are a number of arguments to the contrary, which we have heard, and I shall mention just two. First, as the report says, non-justiciability is determined by the courts themselves and is not imposed by statute. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and Sir Malcolm Jack pointed out in their evidence,

“the courts will themselves interpret clause 3 of the draft Bill.”

So to that extent it seems to be self-defeating.

Secondly, on judicial activism and the Miller case, Prorogation could not be more different from Dissolution. The Executive’s decision to prorogue a sitting Parliament against its will so that the Executive could not be held to account during a critical time in the nation’s history was outrageous—so outrageous that it obliged me for the first time in 23 years as a Minister to leave the Government, and I had swallowed quite a lot of indigestible stuff before. The Supreme Court rightly held the action to be illegal, and it was an affront to democracy—but that is totally different from a decision to dissolve Parliament so that Parliament can be refreshed by the electorate. Indeed, what could be more democratic than such a decision? I am not a lawyer, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, is and he said it would be inconceivable for the courts to intervene. Far from being an affront to democracy, as in Prorogation, it would be the very assertion of democracy.

So, while I am supportive of the Bill, the Minister will have some work to do to persuade me of the necessity of Clause 3.

UK Cash Network

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point—though perhaps he meant “cyber” attacks—and it is certainly part of our responsibility to ensure that the banking system is resilient to attacks. We have convened the banking system and ensured that operational resilience is a key part of protecting the UK’s financial system, institutions and customers.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, is there not a levelling-up issue behind my noble friend’s Question, in that areas that are left behind have more people without bank accounts and fewer ATMs? Will this be addressed in the forthcoming levelling up White Paper?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My noble friend is right that access to cash can be more difficult for those less well off. However, as he will be aware, LINK has committed to protect free-to-use ATMs more than one kilometre away from the next nearest free ATM or post office and free access to cash on high streets. It remains a priority of this Government to ensure that cash is available.

Homes: Affordability

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome this debate, so forcefully introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, whose work to help the homeless in the 30 years that I have known him I commend, in particular his work to help those sleeping rough to rebuild their lives. He referred to those speaking in this debate as his “posse”. A posse, I think, is a body of men—they are nearly always are men—summoned to enforce the law by the sheriff. I would be the first to pin the appropriate badge on the noble Lord, following his introduction to the debate this afternoon.

I confess that I am one of the Ministers who had a dialogue with the noble Lord, Lord Bird—I think some 30 years ago—and allocated what he described as “crumbs” to help the Big Issue. He may have thought they were crumbs, but they were quite difficult for a spending Minister to extract from the Government’s coffers. We now celebrate, I think, the 30th year of the Big Issue, and I commend all the work that it has done to help those sleeping rough.

I want to focus on the aspect of the noble Lord’s Motion that refers to people’s ability to stay in their homes. I agree that we should do all we can to avoid the disruption and trauma of people having to leave their home against their will. The Motion identifies three factors that are highly relevant, referred to by the noble Baroness, but I want to refer to others that have an equally important role to play in preventing homelessness.

In 1991, the year the Big Issue was founded, 75,500 home owners had their homes repossessed because they could not keep up with their repayments. In 2019, the figure was 4,580. The difference is principally accounted for by the historically low interest rates that we have enjoyed for some time, which have kept home ownership affordable and reduced repossessions and homelessness. That is why the section of the Budget yesterday which emphasised responsibility with public finances and the commitment to low and stable inflation was important, and highly relevant to our debate this afternoon. As the Chancellor said yesterday, higher borrowing today is just higher interest rates and even higher taxes tomorrow. This will help reduce homelessness if, as we hope, the Budget succeeds in the ambition of keeping interest rates low.

It is not just home owners who will benefit. The growing number of families renting from landlords who have bought to let have an interest in seeing low interest rates too, to avoid any upward pressure on rents. With low interest rates, registered social landlords are able to build more affordable homes at lower rents, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, thus enabling that movement to make a greater contribution to meeting housing needs. So, although it might not seem directly relevant, fiscal responsibility can take pressure off housing budgets and homelessness.

Moving from the macro to the micro, I am concerned, like both of the previous speakers, about the 7% of private renters, some 78,000, who are now in arrears, the majority of whom had no rent arrears before the pandemic began. We have had the six-month stay of eviction and extended notice periods and, while many landlords have done all they can to help their tenants, landlords themselves, many of them private, cannot provide such support indefinitely.

I understand the concern about the ending of the UC uplift, which one hopes will be softened by the taper reduction yesterday, but I wonder if more could be done to help those now in difficulty with their rent. Government figures show that more than 190,000 renters who are receiving universal credit are at least two or more months behind on their rent, a rise of 70% in six months. That figure includes social tenants. Should there not be wider publicity about the help available to those facing potential homelessness and, if possible, an assurance that the Government will consider topping up the funds if they prove inadequate?

There are a number of sources of help—possibly too many. We have the funding announced yesterday of £65 million for councils to support vulnerable tenants in arrears, and then there is the £310 million already available through the homelessness prevention grant—and then there are the household support fund and discretionary housing payments, as well as the welcome £640 million a year announced yesterday to address rough sleeping and homelessness. Is there a case for rationalising and simplifying these sources of funds and possibly trying to standardise them, rather than leaving them to the postcode lottery of local discretion, as well as publicising them all far more effectively and making them more accessible to those threatened with eviction, so they know help is available? As I have said, if necessary, might the Government also consider topping up the funds if local authorities are under pressure? There is a precedent for this, as the discretionary housing payments were topped up six years ago, after the bedroom tax, or spare room subsidy policy, came in.

I turn briefly to rough sleeping. The Everyone In scheme meant that by January 2021 a reported 37,000 people had been supported out of rough sleeping, or situations such as sofa surfing or staying in shelters, into emergency accommodation with their own room and facilities. In addition, thanks to the work of local authorities and voluntary organisations, 26,000 people helped by Everyone In have now moved into “move-on” accommodation, providing a step forward out of homelessness for good. But there still remain far too many at risk of going back on to the streets.

I hope the funds announced yesterday can expand the Housing First programme. Analysis by Crisis shows that the 9,400 people who were supported through Everyone In face multiple challenges, such as mental ill-health, alcohol or drug dependency. They are at high risk of returning to the streets if the only support available to them is spending time in hostels or other forms of temporary accommodation. Housing First meets the challenge posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, when he asked what works; it has proven to be successful in helping homeless people facing multiple challenges, as the Government’s pilot schemes have shown, and it now needs a boost from the funds announced yesterday, instead of facing a cliff edge next year.

More broadly, and finally, can my noble friend say when the Government will bring forward their White Paper on rental reform, saying how they will bring an end to no-fault evictions, including putting protections in place for renters in arrears due to delays in benefit payments? The Government are also committed to what are called open-ended tenancies, instead of the standard six-month assured tenancy agreement, with all the uncertainty that goes with that. So-called open tenancies will give people moving on from homelessness more control not just of their future housing but other aspects of their lives, making it easier to seek and retain work, plan for childcare and schooling, and end the cost of frequent unwanted moves.

I share much of the concern that has been expressed about homelessness in this debate and, while welcoming the steps the Government have already taken, I believe more can be done along the lines I have suggested, so I look forward to my noble friend’s reply.

Government: Leadership Training

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lord Norton on his timely choice of subject and his speech. Yes, more should be done to train Ministers, but for some jobs there are no readily available courses. For Government Chief Whip, for example, you need a PhD in behavioural psychology, some time as a regimental sergeant major and a spell as director of adult services in a local authority in special measures.

More seriously, we all speak from our own experience. I started my ministerial career in 1979 and made many mistakes; it ended 40 years later in 2019, hopefully with fewer. I did 22 ministerial years in eight different departments under five different Prime Ministers. Like others, I had no formal training whatever. I bought Gerald Kaufman’s book How to be a Minister and learned by watching Ministers in the Chamber and in the media when we were in opposition. This can give one a basic grounding in some of the qualities needed to do the job, but it does not cover everything.

If I had to select one piece of advice, from many, for prospective Ministers—which may not be mentioned by anyone else in this debate—it would be to understand exactly how government accounting works. One of the most vital tasks of any Minister is negotiating your department’s budget, now under way in Whitehall. This can determine the success or otherwise of your department’s policies and sometimes your own future.

In the 1980s, that meant understanding the intricacies of the so-called Ryrie rules. Ten years ago, it meant knowing exactly what the DEL/AME switch was, DEL being departmental expenditure limits and AME being annual managed expenditure. Yes, one can rely on one’s civil servants for much of the briefing, but when it comes down to a bilateral with the Chief Secretary or a solo appearance before star chamber, or indeed an interview with a well-briefed journalist, you need to be right on top of your department’s finances. It may not be the most exciting part of the job, but it is crucial. If you are forced to make concessions, do not expect a Treasury Minister to appear on the “Today” programme to defend the cuts you are obliged to make.

Much of my party’s emphasis has been on getting the number of civil servants down, and when I became a Minister in 1979 there were certainly parts of government where sheep could safely graze. But I want to make the opposite point and argue that there are now too many Ministers in the Commons; Lords Ministers are overburdened. As a former Chief Whip, I understand the attraction of a large payroll and extensive patronage, but I believe the numbers are too high.

In 1979, when the Department of Transport was responsible for the nationalised airlines, railways and airports, it had two Ministers, my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. There are now six. In 1979 I was a Minister in the DHSS, which combined the responsibilities of the DWP and DHSC. There were five of us. There are now seven in DHSC and six in DWP. It may not make me popular with the Government, but I believe the numbers could usefully come down. It would enable us to reduce the cost of government and do away with the inequity of unpaid Ministers, not least in your Lordships’ House.

Related to that, Ministers are moved too soon and too often. In my first nine years as an MP there were two Housing Ministers, Reg Freeson and John Stanley. Between January 2015 and July 2019, there were six. I know from my own experience that it takes time to build up a relationship with social housing providers, local authorities, planners, architects and other stakeholders, and to understand the legislative and financial framework in which you operate. It took me two years before I was really confident in the job—and I was lucky; I did it on and off for nine years. There are too many other examples of swift turnovers. Between May 2015 and July 2019, there were five Lord Chancellors. Between March 2016 and September 2019, there were six Secretaries of State at the DWP.

I have a lot of respect for the Civil Service, but it is not only Ministers who move too quickly. Read my noble friend Lord Freud’s recently published book, Clashing Agendas: Inside the Welfare Trap, in which my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham stars. Of the introduction of universal credit, he writes: “In practice, I found that I was the only senior figure with an institutional memory for the totality of what we were trying to do … there were no fewer than six senior responsible owners and six programme directors in the first five years of building Universal Credit”. That is the other side of the coin, reversing the usual picture of transient Ministers and permanent civil servants.

He makes another point about the Civil Service with which I agree. The capacity of the Civil Service has been reduced by contracting out. My noble friend Lord Freud suggests bringing some of that capability back in-house. He says:

“Purely in terms of IT, the lessons learned imply bringing development capability back in-house; building big integrated teams to adopt agile technology”.


This debate is about becoming a Minister and I end, appropriately, with a wish that Ministers learn when to stop. More should resign when their behaviour is unacceptable or, as my noble friend Lady Sugg did, to her credit, when they disagree with government policy. Far from detracting from the authority and credibility of government, more resignations would actually enhance it.

Standards in Public Life

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 9th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on his choice of subject and the way he introduced it. He demonstrated that this topic is best discussed in your Lordships’ House, rather than the other place. My experience there was that the exchanges resulted in the political currency being debased, as each party tried to portray its rivals as the more corrupt and the collective reputation of politicians was further tarnished. Here, we are an offshore island to the mainland of political controversy. We benefit from Cross-Benchers, not least the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and the politicians taking part are, for the main, men and women whose reserves of partisan venom have been drained by the passage of time—although the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, still had a drop or two left.

Each speaker approaches this issue from their own perspective. In 1997, I thought I had the least attractive job in public life as Secretary of State for Transport, charged with privatising the railways in a Government with no majority. Then I became chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges in 2001, charged with enforcing the Code of Conduct for MPs, sitting in judgment on my colleagues and friends, and occasionally bringing their careers to an end. That was not why I became a Member of Parliament. My first point, from that experience, is to welcome the trend of removing politicians from decisions about their conduct and pay; I believe that process has further to go. There are now voting lay members on the committee I used to chair, but perhaps they could go further and have an independent chairman.

On the Ministerial Code, again, we need to go further. Gordon Brown appointed an adviser on ministerial standards in 2008, a post now held by the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, but he can suggest areas for investigation only privately to the PM. This falls short of what is required—namely, full discretion to launch inquiries, as with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, along with the ability to publish findings in full.

Related to that are decisions on pay and allowances. Again, these decisions should be distanced from beneficiaries. Here, I make a suggestion which will not be greeted with acclaim. Normally, your Lordships’ House is ahead of the other place on internal reform—televising proceedings and having iPads in the Division Lobby—but on pay and allowances I would argue that we lag behind. In 2010, the other place contracted out decisions on both to IPSA. It was a baptism of fire, as the organisation was set up at speed and made mistakes. Your Lordships decided not to join, and I understand why, but now we are the only national body that fixes its pay and allowances. IPSA has been up and running for over 10 years; it has authority, credibility and experience of fixing pay and allowances for parliamentarians. The annual controversy over MPs’ pay has been largely defused.

I happen to think that our present system of allowances is our Achilles heel, generating bad publicity and unfair on those who do not have a home in London, but we are too terrified to risk controversy and change it. We should follow the other place and contract out. To those who think that IPSA would dress us in hair-shirts, the evidence points otherwise. Since I joined this House in 2015, our allowance has gone up from £300 to £313, or by 4.3%. Over the same period, that of MPs has risen from £67,060 to £81,932, an increase of 22.2%.

I move on to what I hope is safer territory to make a final point. While there are no grounds for complacency, I believe standards in public life here are among the highest in the world. Nicolas Sarkozy, the former President of France, has been sentenced to three years in jail, two of them suspended, for corruption. Silvio Berlusconi, the former Prime Minister of Italy, was convicted of tax fraud in an Italian court and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Jacob Zuma, former President of South Africa, is now in prison for contempt of court and facing trial for corruption. Ex-President Trump was impeached twice, and he and his company face a range of civil and criminal actions while, in 2018, the ex-President of Brazil, Lula da Silva, was the front-runner for the presidency, even though he was in jail serving a 12-year corruption sentence. So yes, we can do better; but we are not bottom of the class.

Government Departments: Non-Executive Directors

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

On the gravamen of the noble Lord’s rather lengthy question, I repeat that I believe, and I think successive Governments have believed, that there is benefit in bringing the experience and knowledge of people from outside the Civil Service into supporting and assisting the public service. I think that that is agreed by many senior people in the Civil Service. I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that the system of non-executive directors be done away with.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the appointment of NEDs to government departments, but can my noble friend explain why, according to the GOV.UK website, there are seven NEDs at HMRC and eight at the Home Office, but only three at MHCLG and only two at BEIS?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the code of practice which I referred to sets out at point 3.3:

“The board should be balanced, with approximately equal numbers of ministers, senior officials and non-executive board members.”


The Home Office has eight Ministers and has appointed eight NEDs. MHCLG has five Ministers; it currently has six. There is an effort to ensure that there is a broad balance.