Home Secretary: Allegations of Bullying

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the process is independent, but I can only repeat that, to protect the interests of all involved, the Government do not comment on the specifics of this kind of ongoing process. I repeat that the Prime Minister will make any decision on the matter public once the process has concluded.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the last inquiry into the conduct of a Cabinet Minister in 2017 took one month. This has taken eight months so far, although at the beginning, Michael Gove said:

“It is vital that this investigation is concluded as quickly as possible.”


Does my noble friend agree that it is fair to neither the complainers nor the Home Secretary for this matter to last so long? Can he also confirm that the separate case being brought against the Home Office by Sir Philip Rutnam for constructive dismissal is not responsible for this delay as that case is not to be heard until September of next year?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend so far as the timing is concerned. However, it is not possible to comment on an ongoing process. What I can say in relation to the other matter he has raised is that he will know that they are separate legal proceedings and that, unfortunately, I cannot comment on ongoing legal proceedings either.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

6: Clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out “As soon as reasonably practicable”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments at page 2, line 26 and line 38 ensure that a draft Order in Council implementing the reports of the Boundary Commissions must be submitted to Her Majesty in Council no later than four months after they have all been laid before Parliament unless there are exceptional circumstances.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 6 in my name, which is reinforced by the names of my noble friend the Minister and the three noble Lords who supported my original amendment in Committee.

Noble Lords will recall that, as Second Reading, I drew attention to the following words in Clause 2:

“As soon as reasonably practicable”.


This refers to the requirement for Ministers to lay the draft Orders in Council giving effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission reports. Without repeating those arguments, I will say that this lack of precision could enable the Government to delay implementing those recommendations, thereby negating the objective of the Bill, which is to put this issue out of reach of political mischief.

We debated this further in Committee in relation to my amendment to require the Order to be laid within three months, in my case, and in a more exacting six weeks in a similar amendment from my noble friend Lord Cormack. The principle was supported by all those who spoke, and my noble friend the Minister made an emollient reply while reiterating the Government’s preference to leave the words as originally drafted. We had further discussions, as promised, in the interval between Committee and Report, the outcome of which are Amendments 6, 7 and 8.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for listening and then seeking and ensuring collective agreement to the amendments. They are a compromise and, like all compromises, each side ended up with slightly less that they would have liked but enough to be satisfied with. May the negotiations on the EU treaty have a similar outcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I need to add anything, except to say that I share my noble friend’s affectionate remembrance of Viscount Whitelaw, whose general election tour I managed in 1979. I had to learn to drink quite a lot of whisky in a short time.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I can be brief. I join the Minister in thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I suspect it is one of the more consensual debates that the House will have on the Bill. I thank noble Lords for their kind words about my role in the amendment. That approbation needs to be shared with the Minister.

Two issues arose in the debate: four months rather than three, and exceptional circumstances. It would be impossible for me to improve on the excellent explanations on both issues given by my noble friend in his reply to this debate so, without further ado, I beg to move.

Amendment 6 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

7: Clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) The draft of an Order in Council must be submitted under subsection (1)—(a) as soon as reasonably practicable after all four reports have been laid before Parliament as mentioned in that subsection, and(b) in any case, no later than the end of the four month period unless there are exceptional circumstances. (1B) “The four month period” means the period of four months beginning with the first date on which all four reports have been laid before Parliament as mentioned in subsection (1).(1C) If the draft of an Order in Council is not submitted under subsection (1) before the end of the four month period, the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay one or more statements before Parliament in accordance with subsection (1D) specifying the exceptional circumstances.(1D) A statement must be laid—(a) before the end of the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the end of the four month period, and(b) before the end of each subsequent period of 20 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the previous statement was so laid, until the draft of an Order in Council is submitted under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to the amendment at page 2, line 20.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th September 2020 Grand Committee

My noble friend Lord Young has become a pretty good poacher since he ceased to be a gamekeeper but, because of his long experience in Executives, he still has an innate partiality for them. I hope that, on Report, an amendment along the lines of this one, or that of my noble friend, or maybe a combination of the two, will be incorporated in the Bill. It would be very wrong if this seminal piece of legislation—which is what it is—went on to the statute book leaving ultimately untrammelled power to the Executive to choose the moment. That they must not have the opportunity to do, and I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that build-up. I will speak to Amendment 7 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Randall and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. Like the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cormack, it puts a time limit on the interval between the submission of the reports by the Boundary Commissions and the order being laid before Parliament. My noble friend has outbid me by shortening my proposed interval of three months to six weeks, but otherwise the objective is the same; six weeks might be too tight. Amendment 9 is a consequential one, applying the same time limit to Clause 3, which deals with the statement of modifications.

The objective of the amendment is to deliver the Minister’s commitment in his Second Reading speech that,

“the recommendations of the Boundary Commissions, developed through the meticulous and consultative process I have described, should be implemented without political influence or interference”.

In the next paragraph of his speech, my noble friend reinforced the point by saying that,

“the purpose of this measure is straightforward: to bring certainty and confidence to the citizen and the elector that updated constituencies will be implemented without interference and further delay.”—[Official Report, 27/7/20; col. 38.]

My noble friend’s point about delay is apt, as we have seen two years pass after the Government got the last recommendations in 2018 and there is still no Order in Council. Any future Government could do the same.

I know that many noble Lords want Parliament to have the final say, and we have had that debate. Crucially, my amendment is neutral on that issue. Indeed, the amendment is essential to those who want Parliament to have the final say because, unless the Government lay the order, there can be no debate or vote in Parliament. So those hostile to automaticity should support this bridge-building amendment. I should say at this stage that I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for two virtual meetings, one in July and one at the end of last week. They were courtesy itself in explaining the practical problems with time limits, but I have not so far been persuaded: hence the amendment.

I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading, when I gave two examples of political interference in the implementation of Boundary Commission recommendations, one in 1969—to which my noble friend the Minister has just referred—and the other following the report in 2018. In a nutshell, without a time limit, the objective of the Bill could be neutralised. I will come later to the argument about “as soon as practicable” being liable to challenge in the courts if the Government delayed.

After Second Reading, I contacted the Electoral Commission, whose remit includes promoting public confidence in the democratic process and ensuring its integrity. I enclosed a copy of my Second Reading speech and asked for its views. This was the response:

“The Commission has not made any comments in regards to this legislation, as it doesn’t directly relate to the administration of elections or the regulation of political finance. However, we can see how greater clarity about the timescales for implementing any recommendations from the Boundary Committees would probably be helpful for Electoral Registration Officers, Returning Officers and campaigners ahead of any election that will use the new boundaries, so that they can confirm their plans in good time.”


I think it is fair to say from that that the Electoral Commission supports the principle of the amendment. I have permission to quote the email.

I also contacted the Boundary Commission, drawing attention to my amendment and asking what the length of time had been between receipt of reports by the Government and the laying of Orders in Council. I emailed them at 18:52 on 30 July. At 21:17 the same day, the acting secretary to the Commission, Tony Bellringer, replied. I mention him by name because of the promptness and detail of his reply, long past any reasonable working hours. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I quote from his reply:

“The last General Review to be implemented … was the Fifth General Review which reported to Government on 31 October 2006. The Order to implement the recommendations that it contained was subsequently made on 13 June 2007. The report of the Fourth General Review was dated 12 April 1995 and the subsequent Order to implement was made on 28 June 1995. The report of the Third General Review was dated 1 February 1983 and the subsequent Order to implement its recommendations was made on 16 March 1983. As you will probably be aware, these Orders are actually laid in draft and subject to debate in both Houses, under the draft affirmative procedure, so the date of laying the draft of the orders will have been some time in advance of the “Made” date. (In other words, the gap is even shorter than the dates I have just given.) Unfortunately we do not have records of when the Government actually laid the draft Orders in each case. Either the Government itself or the Parliamentary authorities may possibly retain the records.”


So I went to the Library and am most grateful to Edward Scott for the following information about the gap between report and the order being laid, rather than made, as this is the time necessary to check the recommendations. The first periodic review for England was submitted on 10 November 1954, and the order was laid eight days later, on 18 November. The second periodic review was in 1969, when the unhappy sequence of events already referred to took place, so it is not representative. The third periodic review for England was submitted on 1 February 1983 and the order laid on 14 February, 13 days later. The fourth review for England was submitted on 12 April 1995 and the order laid 55 days later on 20 June. The fifth review took longer. It was submitted on 31 October 2006 and laid 118 days later—just outside my three months. The one for Scotland was submitted on 30 November 2004—perhaps that was what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes referred to—and the order was laid 14 days later on 14 December. It is not clear why the fifth report took longer, because the legislation was the same.

So it is not at all clear why an open-ended commitment is necessary. It is worth noting that all the other processes in the Bill have time limits attached to them. The Boundary Commission, local authorities, political parties and individual electors all have time constraints on their involvement, some tighter than at the moment. The only party not subject to time constraints are the Government. My noble friend Lord Hayward, psephologist in residence, may develop this point.

I will now deal with my noble friend the Minister’s response at Second Reading. In his wind-up speech, he chose his words carefully in responding to my suggestion. Noble Lords will have their own unhappy experiences of their amendments being unacceptable to Ministers. What my noble friend said was the mildest possible put-down:

“We are not minded to go in that direction.”


I put that in the same category as that well-known ministerial response: “We have no current plans”, often a precursor to a change in policy.

My noble friend had two arguments. The first was that the current words were needed

“purely in order to maintain some flexibility for the necessary work in preparing the draft boundary order and the associated order that designates the returning officer for each newly drawn constituency. Time would be needed to allow for this preparatory work and setting hard time limits can cause practical difficulties down the line.”

The second argument was:

“Any Government who sought to drag their heels over the submission of a draft Order in Council would be at risk of legal challenge. With something as high profile as a boundary review, it seems likely that the move to challenge would be swift.”.—[Official Report, 27/7/20; col. 94.]


So far as the first argument is concerned, I will quote from an article published by the LSE on 1 May 2019 by Ron Johnston, professor in the School of Geographical Sciences at the University of Bristol; Charles Pattie, professor of politics at the University of Sheffield; and David Rossiter, an independent researcher. This is an extract.

“The Minister was then asked about progress on the preparation and tabling of Orders in Council to implement the Boundary Commissions’ recommendations.”


They quote the Minister’s reply—not this Minister, but a Minister in the other place—that

“once the orders are prepared, they are ready to go before the House. It is a complex motion, given that it covers every street and house in the United Kingdom, in terms of ensuring that they are appropriately represented in this place. It will be submitted in due course.”

Of course it was not, but this is what the academics say about this alibi:

“This is an odd statement … The Parliamentary Constituencies Order (England) 2007 is a lengthy document but all but two pages comprise a schedule listing the new constituencies and their component wards. That list was in the Commission’s report and could have been compiled and checked relatively quickly. The same is the case with the Commissions’ reports delivered in 2018; it is difficult to understand why Orders implementing the four sets of recommendations could not have been prepared and tabled within weeks of delivery.”


My amendment allows three months.

I have the relevant two pages of the Parliamentary Constituencies (England) Order 2007. It is 27 lines: Citation and commencement; Parliamentary constituencies in England—which refers to the Schedule from the Boundary Commission; Electoral registers; and Revocation. There would be no difficulty in drafting that in a day. As for checking the work of the Boundary Commission for England, its work and decisions would have been trawled over by the political parties—all only too anxious to spot inaccuracies—during the process set out in the Bill. Again, my noble friend Lord Hayward might amplify this point.

I will make one related point: it is not the case that when the report lands on the Government’s desk its contents are a total surprise. The vast majority of the recommendations will have been put to bed months before, with only a few cases going to the final stage. There is ample time for the department to scrutinise the bulk of the work if it wanted to before getting the report.

As to my noble friend’s second point about legal challenge, I make two brief points. First, in the two years since the last recommendations were submitted, there has been no legal challenge, despite it being manifestly obvious that there has been ample time to lay the orders. Why was progress not made? It was because the Government did not want progress to be made. That is exactly the sort of interference that the Minister has made clear it is the object of the Bill to prevent. Secondly, if that is the long-stop, it does confidence in our democratic system no credit if the Government have to be dragged through the court to deliver the orders, with legal arguments as to whether or not it was reasonable and practicable so to do. It is far better to have the clarity of a time limit in primary legislation as with the rest of the Bill. Finally, I ask my noble friend to think again about this between now and Report and see whether there is the possibility of some movement in the Government’s position at Second Reading.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill so ably introduced by my noble friend, even though the 1986 Act that it amends abolished the Ealing Acton constituency I represented for 23 years, making me politically homeless until the good voters of North West Hampshire offered me their hospitality.

The most controversial aspect of the Bill is its so-called automaticity. Some Peers do not like this because it goes too far; my concern is exactly the opposite —that it does not go far enough. The Government contend that this change will

“provide certainty that the recommendations of the independent and impartial boundary commissions will be implemented without political influence or interference from either government or Parliament”.

This is a worthy objective. Many noble Lords will remember—my noble friend Lady Pidding referred to it—how the Labour Party and the Lib Dems, here and in another place, joined up to postpone the boundary recommendations in 2013, even though they implemented legislation put on the statute book by Nick Clegg. Noble Lords with longer memories will recall, in 1969, Jim Callaghan laid the necessary order in the Commons and then invited his party to vote it down, described by Callaghan’s official biographer as a “a cynical partisan manoeuvre”

and

“pragmatic delay, untrammelled by principle”.

He was said in later life to have regretted what he did.

Those two examples show the importance of insulating the Boundary Commission from political interference, but the Bill does not do this, because Clause 2 retains the words

“as soon as reasonably practicable”,

referring to the interval before the Government lays the Order in Council to give effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. This was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Any Government could undermine the purpose of the Bill by simply not doing this.

We have a recent example of exactly this happening. The Boundary Commission submitted its last report in September 2018 and, under the law, Ministers should have laid the order “as soon as practicable”. It still has not been laid nearly two years later. No one could argue that it was not practicable to have done so, but there has been no legal challenge. What would prevent a future Government, who find the recommendations not to their liking, simply not laying the order?

I ask my noble friend whether he will look kindly on an amendment in Committee to replace the words “as soon as practicable” with a specific time limit to remove the possibility of gerrymandering and achieve the objective of the Bill, as set out in the quotation I referred to. That would thereby achieve objectives that I otherwise wholeheartedly support.

Finance Bill

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & Committee negatived (Hansard) & Committee negatived (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 17th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I applaud my noble friend the Minister’s opening remarks, and the comments of my noble friend Lord Hunt.

I will make three points: one minute each. First, as it addresses the challenges that noble Lords have been talking about, the Government should make it clear that they are not bound by their manifesto commitments. One was:

“We will not borrow to fund day-to-day spending,”


which is already out of the window. Another was that the national debt would be

“lower at the end of the Parliament”.

It would be insanity to pursue that. On 16 June, when I asked whether the Government would review these manifesto commitments, my noble friend Lord True replied that

“this Government are still fully committed to meeting all commitments made in the 2019 manifesto.”—[Official Report, 16/6/20; col. 2046.]

The opportunity should be taken at the end of this debate for my noble friend to clarify that remark and make it clear that the Government will not have their hands tied by those commitments.

My second, related point, is that at some point—not now—taxes will have to be raised, the difficult part referred to by my noble friend the Minister and others. I will ask your Lordships a pub quiz question: who made this statement?

“In principle, there is little economic difference between income and capital gains, and many people effectively have the option of choosing to a significant extent which to receive. And in so far as there is a difference, it is by no means clear why one should be taxed more heavily than the other. Taxing them at different rates distorts investment decisions and inevitably creates a major tax avoidance industry.”


It was my noble friend Lord Lawson, in his March 1988 Budget Statement; my noble friend Lord Lamont may have been Financial Secretary at that time. He went on to say:

“In other words, I propose in future to apply the same rate of tax to income and capital gains alike.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/3/88; col. 1005.]


That policy was subsequently watered down. If reintroduced, the IPPR estimates that it would raise £90 billion. It is worth another look.

Finally, along with other noble Lords, I spent 90 minutes on Zoom last week with Stephanie Kelton, author of The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People's Economy. To those of us who learned economics in the 1960s, modern monetary theory is John Maynard Keynes on steroids. It asserts that there is no budgetary constraint on government spending, that we should not be fixated on debt and deficit, that the only constraints on government spending are the limits of real resources and the threat of inflation, and that we should aim at full employment. The new director of the OBR is moving in this direction with his work for the Resolution Foundation, asserting that we should stop worrying about national debt and instead focus on increasing net worth, looking at both sides of the balance sheet.

Although I have two economics degrees, I venture no comment on either of those theories, but will make this point. In the 1920s, we clung to an outdated economic theory. We stayed on the gold standard and did enormous harm to the country. A century later, we should avoid the same mistake. We should be open to fresh thinking that may help us navigate our way out of this crisis.

House of Lords: Relocation

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to relocate the House of Lords to York.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords will know that, in light of the principle of exclusive cognisance, this is ultimately a decision for a sovereign Parliament.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]]

My Lords, in the words of an exasperated Lord Speaker, “Here we go again.” It is all very well to say that it is a matter for Parliament, but it is the Executive, not Parliament, that keeps this hare running. Government policy was set out in May last year:

“We agree with the Committee that the R&R programme should ensure that the Palace of Westminster is fit to serve as the home of the UK Parliament in the future.”


Has government policy, now in primary legislation, changed? Have Civil Service resources been considering moving your Lordships’ House to York? If so, who authorised it and what is the remit and the costs so far?

[Lord True]

My Lords, I can only repeat the position that I have stated: this is a matter which would, in the end, be resolved by Parliament and in Parliament. I say to my noble friend, whom I greatly respect, that, given the circumstances, I think it is reasonable for all of us to examine how every part of Parliament may find itself closer to the people.

Manifesto Commitments

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review their manifesto commitments as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, the coronavirus pandemic is an unprecedented crisis. The Government have rightly focused on providing stability and support to the people, families and organisations most affected by the outbreak. However, as the Prime Minister confirmed at the end of May in his evidence to the Liaison Committee in another place, this Government are still fully committed to meeting all commitments made in the 2019 manifesto.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for that reply, but one of the commitments in the manifesto said:

“We will not borrow to fund day-to-day spending”.


Another promised that the national debt

“will be lower at the end of the Parliament”.

Sticking to these commitments in circumstances that no one could have foreseen, as my noble friend just said, would prevent the Government continuing on their commendable path of doing what it takes to mitigate the recession. Will my noble friend encourage the Prime Minister to modify that statement?

[Lord True]

My Lords, my noble friend recognises that we are living through un unprecedented crisis at the moment but, as he will well know, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that later this year there will be a Budget Statement, which will address a number of the concerns raised by my noble friend.

Census (England and Wales) Order 2020

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister who took the Census Act through your Lordships’ House last year—I am grateful to the Minister today for his kind words—I have a paternal interest in this order, which I hope will secure the same broad support that the Act received last year.

I have a number of issues for my noble friend. He suggested—and other noble Lords have referred to this—that this could be the last census of its type, as other, more timely sources of information become available. As he said, it is too soon to say whether this is indeed the last census, but can he say what is happening in other countries that like us have relied on censuses such as this and which, I understand, may be moving away from them?

Secondly, I understand that, before the census next March, there were—or are—to be some trials. Can the Minister say how those trials went, if they took place, and what lessons have been learned from them, particularly in respect of the new voluntary questions?

Thirdly, we all hope that, by next March, we will have put this pandemic behind us, but we do not know whether there will be a second wave, or whether social distancing will have been entirely phased out. While most people will complete the census online, there was concern during the passage of the Bill about, for example, the homeless and rough sleepers; forms were to be made available in shelters and night centres. What contingency arrangements are there in case, by any chance, life has not returned to normal? Has the pandemic in any way impeded the arrangements in the run-up to the census? Are there any circumstances in which it would be necessary to postpone the census, as has happened this year in other countries?

Finally, there was a loose end in our discussions last year, referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was concerned that, while we had abolished the penalty for not answering questions, we had not abolished the underlying offence. I was delighted to hear from both noble and learned Lords that white smoke has now emerged and that that loose end has now been tied up.

Income Equality and Sustainability

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the House is grateful to the most reverend Primate for this debate. It is timely because the Government are about to embark both on a spending review and a Budget which between them will shape the nation’s response to the pandemic, as well as setting out the Government’s response to the competing priorities we debate this afternoon.

On 12 March, the Prime Minister said, “I must level with the British public.” He was talking about the impact of the virus on the nation’s health. We now need the same frankness about its impact on the nation’s economy. Six months ago, a number of commitments were made in good faith by my party in its manifesto:

“We will not borrow to fund day-to-day spending … We promise not to raise the rates of income tax, National Insurance or VAT”,


and

“debt will be lower at the end of the Parliament”.

Those commitments are unsustainable, and we should say so now. In particular, leaving untouched the most progressive tax we have makes it impossible to respond to the compelling case made by the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.

I have two practical suggestions. First, we should abolish the universal winter fuel allowance, and roll the savings of up to £3 billion into social care, which has had a raw deal in recent settlements.

Secondly, we should introduce at least one new council tax band on top of band H. In a recent report, the IFS described council tax as

“increasingly out of date and arbitrary, and highly regressive with respect to property values. It is ripe for reform.”

It is absurd that the most valuable properties pay only three times as much tax as the least valuable. Ideally, there should be a revaluation, but that will not happen. However, a new, higher band would make the tax more progressive and bring in more resources for local government.

Clarity on the manifesto; replacing an untargeted benefit with help for social care; and a more progressive local tax. Those are the building blocks towards the fairer society advocated by the most reverend Primate.

House of Lords: Membership

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, he will know that a year after his original report, he produced a progress report, which set benchmarks or targets for each of the main groups, for the remaining years of the 2017 Parliament. Since then, we have had a general election. Would it not make sense for that committee to be reconvened and new benchmarks for the current Parliament to be set, so that we can see what progress is being made towards the target of 600? Do the Government accept that 600 is a realistic target to aim for?

[Lord True]

My Lords, on the first point, it is a matter for your Lordships’ House. We have had two follow-up reports from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the Lord Speaker, which have been very informative and helpful. As far as a specific number is concerned, the previous Prime Minister did not commit to that; nor I think will this one.