Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 18th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I came here this afternoon intending to support my noble and learned friend Lord Judge. However, something said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—who also had the sagacity to promote me—has given me a slight worry. I was going to support my noble and learned friend Lord Judge on the basis that clarity is all important, but I now wonder whether his amendments are sufficiently clear.

It is made plain you do not have to answer the question, but what if you answer it untruthfully? I confess that I have not sufficiently explored the overall legislative context in which this happens, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, says that it is made plain elsewhere that not only do you not have to answer a question but also, if it is one of those questions that you do not have to answer, whatever answer you give, however misleading or absurd, will not expose you to prosecution. However, the formulation in Amendment 1, and equally in Amendment 2, begs rather than answers the question: if you choose to answer, must it be a truthful answer? That itself could give rise to a difficulty which may not exist absent these amendments.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for tabling his amendments, and thank all those who have taken part in this debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that the census is an important civic event; we should all discharge our responsibilities and complete it. I will try and deal with the various issues that have been raised during the debate.

We had a useful and informed debate on this in Committee, when the noble and learned Lord did not press his amendments which sought to clarify whether removing the penalty also removed the offence. He did that after an offer to have further discussions before Report to see if there was a way through. I am very grateful to him, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who I saw having a discussion outside the Bishops’ Bar last week; I realised that if I joined it I would not understand a word that was exchanged, but I noticed that a cloud of white smoke emerged. They subsequently agreed to come to a meeting with Ministers and officials last week, where I hope we found a way through which satisfied all concerned. I hope that this afternoon we can validate this great meeting of minds.

In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, raised an important issue on ensuring that there is no ambiguity as to the voluntary nature of certain census questions in the minds of those who will answer them. By removing the penalty attached to a failure to answer, the clear parliamentary intention is to remove the criminal offence. I agree with him that from the point of view of the respondent—the most important person—this must be clear. So far as the guidance on the front of the form is concerned, we have no issue with his proposal. I can confirm that the Office for National Statistics is committed to the inclusion of wording on the front page of the census for England and Wales, as proposed in the amendment. This will make it clear that the census is compulsory, that some questions are voluntary and that not answering these voluntary questions is not an offence. I hope this commitment will meet the shared objective of the noble and learned Lord and others, and of the Government, on ensuring clarity for the public.

I also confirm that the voluntary questions in the form will be clearly marked as “voluntary”, as the amendments would require. This has been the case for the voluntary question on religion since its introduction in the 2001 census for England and Wales, and it has been effective. In each of the last two censuses, 4 million people in England and Wales—over 7% of the population—have chosen not to answer the religion question. This suggests that the public clearly understand this question to be voluntary.

To best fulfil the intent of the noble and learned Lord’s amendments, the wording on the form should be tested with the public to ensure that the messaging is as clear as possible, ahead of finalising the census questions. Stating the precise wording in the Bill would mean that it could not be amended in the light of that testing. The ONS is committed to carrying out this testing, following which the census forms for England and Wales will be put before Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, respectively, in census regulations. While the regulations are not amendable the ONS will engage with interested parties, including noble Lords, as it finalises the form and guidance.

The census is a devolved matter. Decisions on the questions, questionnaire and guidance to be issued in the 2021 censuses in Scotland and Northern Ireland are for the relevant authorities in those Administrations, through a similar secondary legislation process. I hope your Lordships agree that it would be inappropriate to make a decision for Northern Ireland, although we will of course make that Administration aware of the changes we propose for England and Wales through the ONS.

The secondary legislation for the 2021 census in England and Wales will begin to be brought forward later this year. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay said, an Order in Council will set out the detail of the questions to be asked in the England and Wales census. That order is in part subject to the unusual amendable affirmative procedure before both Houses. It will be laid in the autumn and the regulations, to which I have already referred, will follow in 2020.

I will try to deal with some of the questions raised during the debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, asked about the questions being voluntary and whether the penalty for a false response should be removed. The answer is no: Parliament rejected an amendment to this effect in 2000 and it was right to do so. Not wishing to provide a response and wilfully providing a false response are different issues. Removing the penalty for providing a false response would pose a risk to the quality of census data in a way that allowing people not to provide an answer does not.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about military service—as she said, I wrote to her on it. The Armed Forces question is there to help public services serve those who have served their country and is underpinned by the Armed Forces covenant. No one in the household will know whether an individual fills in their own return; it will overwrite the household return. She was concerned about a lodger who might not wish to disclose their previous service to their landlord or landlady. The landlord would fill in the form for the household, but the lodger could apply for their own census form and fill it in without the knowledge of the householder. That would override the household return. No alternative data source fully meets the data that we need.

I think that I have answered all the questions that were asked. I recognise the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and remind all noble Lords that we are happy to do a drop-in session to explore these points in more detail. Finally, I repeat my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for his help in this matter and express the hope that, as a result of the commitments that I have given, he will not press his amendments.

[Lord Judge]

My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken today. I shall not put down an amendment to an amendment but, when we come to look at this matter again, we could add “or if you give any false answer” after “if you fail to do so”. That should not be a problem. There is time for reflection on these matters. The Order in Council has to be drafted; we can all have an opportunity to look again. In the meantime, I am grateful to the Minister for the assurances that he has given. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Referendums

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soley, my constituency neighbour in another place for many years, on securing this debate. He has chosen a highly topical subject, the tension between parliamentary democracy on the one hand and referendums on the other, a subject which will engage the attention of my noble friend Lord Norton’s politics students at Hull for generations to come. I commend the noble Lord’s opening speech and the contributions of all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief but high-quality debate.

To answer the question the noble Lord posed, I refreshed my memory of the two- and-a-half-hour debate held in this House on 19 July last year, not just to remind myself of my views on the matter but to pick out some of the key messages. I was struck by what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said:

“Binary questions do not resolve complex matters of public policy”.—[Official Report, 19/7/18; col. 1352.]


My noble friend Lord Norton also spoke in that debate, using words which seem identical to those he used today:

“referendums are in conflict with responsible government … Decision-making through referendum is, strictly speaking, irresponsible”.—[Official Report, 19/7/18; col. 1356.]

I was struck by what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said. He contrasted the Good Friday referendum, when everyone knew exactly what was proposed, with the EU one, when they did not. The latter point was made today by the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Pendry. A point made in that debate, re-emphasised just now by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was that democracy is a conversation, a dialogue between Parliament and people, not an instruction from one to the other. Many noble Lords suggested then, as my noble friend Lord Cormack did today, that referendums should be a final step not the first step. If it is the first step, it should be advisory.

I do not know if any noble Lords listened, as I did, to Lord Sumption’s insightful Reith Lectures on law and the decline of politics. His assessment of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Soley, is well worth quoting:

“A referendum is a device for bypassing the ordinary political process. It takes decision making out of the hands of politicians, whose interest is generally to accommodate the widest possible range of opinion, and places it in the hands of individual electors who have no reason to consider any opinion but their own”.


He went on to say that:

“A referendum obstructs compromise by producing a result in which 52% of voters feel entitled to speak for the whole nation and 48% don’t matter at all”,


and that this was,

“the authentic language of totalitarianism”.

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, mentioned the role of dictators in referendums.

I do not go as far as Lord Sumption and, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and many noble Lords have argued; I believe that there is a role for referendums in our democracy. What is crucial is the relationship between the two—a point just raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. It was interesting that half the speakers in today’s debate served in another place and are well able to judge and comment on this tension. I believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, that there is a valid case for referendums on certain issues, for example on self-determination—whether people want to stay under the jurisdiction of this Parliament. A recent example of this includes the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, or, if it were ever called, a referendum in Northern Ireland on a united Ireland.

More generally, in a representative democracy it is important that citizens are engaged in politics. We rely on citizens to vote for their elected representatives in Parliament, Assemblies and councils. Referendums can take this engagement with citizens to a higher level. Citizens can directly vote on matters and see that their participation has real policy implications. They can see direct changes on issues that matter to them. Referendums can indicate public support for policy decisions and, if well-managed, can maintain the public’s faith in democracy. If less well-managed, they can have the opposite effect. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, mentioned the damage to our reputation overseas and to our cohesion domestically. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said that referendums can be a safety valve, but they can be the opposite if they are not well managed.

Turning to the 2016 EU referendum, the subject of the noble Lord’s speech, I note with interest that recent statistics show that public support for referendums has fallen from 76% before the 2016 referendum to 55% now, possibly because referendums, as the report from UCL published in July last year concluded,

“cannot replace the institutions of representative democracy. Citizens do not have the time or the resources to participate in all the policy decisions necessary for the functioning of a complex modern democracy”.

Many noble Lords have this afternoon displayed their discontent with referendums, and about the one in 2016. There have been accusations of “wrongdoing”, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and that the referendum was “ill-informed” or “irresponsible”. My own view is that there was in fact a case for the EU referendum and I believe the result was valid.

This important constitutional issue of our membership of the EU has divided our two main parties and our nation for 45 years and, in the two most recent elections for the European Parliament, the party that won wanted us to leave. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, pointed out, none of the major parties at general elections have provided an outlet for that view, so seeking to resolve it through a referendum seemed eminently sensible, and Parliament agreed. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 was fully debated and approved by both the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House. There was a high level of engagement from the public, with a 72% turnout. My criticism of David Cameron is not that he called the referendum, but that he did not win it. As a foot soldier, I accept some responsibility for the outcome, but I say in passing that under any other Labour leader the result might have been different.

What has subsequently happened has shown the risk of running referendums alongside parliamentary democracy, as Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out, has so far been unable to convert the referendum result into actually leaving the EU. A majority remain Parliament finds itself at odds with a predominantly leave country, possibly because, as my noble friend Lord Norton implied, there is a debate about why exactly people voted as they did. On this impasse, I refer again to the report from UCL’s independent commission on referendums. This highlights that referendums must be used as supplementary tools alongside the institutions of representative democracy; they should not bypass or replace the democratic institutions that exist in our representative democracy.

That committee went on to argue, as many noble Lords have argued this afternoon, that there must be appropriate time for debate and political discourse, and the questions put to the public should be carefully considered. The UCL report suggests, as noble Lords have done, that referendums should be held at the end of the decision-making process, so that eligible voters can choose between developed alternatives. This seems to me a sensible ideal, even if it is not always possible to achieve and certainly did not happen with the EU referendum.

I was interested to read the conclusions of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place:

“Confusion as to the possible consequences of a referendum result serves only to heighten the potential tensions between referendums and representative democracy and risks increasing the public’s disenchantment with politics”.


I think that provides a useful one-sentence response to the question posed by the noble Lord at the beginning of our debate.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Soley, asked why a supermajority was not required in the EU referendum. The referendum did not include a threshold requirement or a supermajority requirement and although I was not in the House at the time, I understand that no amendments for such requirements were debated during the passage of the Bill. That was in keeping with previous referendums in the UK, the only exception being the 1979 referendum on devolution. Without going into great detail, I draw the attention of the House to the UCL’s report on referendums, which set out in more detail why such thresholds are not necessarily a good idea.

A number of noble Lords asked for a referendum Bill before we embark on any further referendums. There will of course be an opportunity to scrutinise a referendum Bill before any future referendum, because any referendum requires a new Act of Parliament. This Government have made it clear that they have no plans for any more referendums—though the policy of the Opposition on that subject remains as yet unclear—but I say in conclusion that should any future Government think of holding a referendum, today’s debate will have provided food for thought before they finally push the button.

Preparing Legislation for Parliament (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, in her absence, and the members of her committee for their excellent reports, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for introducing them. They have provided the basis for a well-informed, thoughtful debate on a specialised subject that may not feature on “Yesterday in Parliament” but which is vital to the effective holding of the Executive to account and, as a result, the operation of our parliamentary democracy—a point well made by my noble friends Lord Hunt, Lord Cormack and Lord Dunlop. That is the context in which we should approach this debate: these documents are essential to what Parliament is all about.

Some of the recommendations—such as for a legislative standards committee, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Dunlop—are for the House to reflect on. I shall try to address the recommendations directed to the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and I have much in common when it comes to the subject, both of us having held the office of Leader of the House of Commons, and so chair of the PBL Committee, and that of Government Chief Whip, who has a key role to play in the deliberations and conclusions of PBL. Although I am standing here in my capacity as spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, I hope to respond to the debate with the experience I just mentioned at the forefront of my mind. I hope this means that I can address the issues from a similarly well-informed position to that of the noble Baroness who chaired the committee.

I will start with the committee’s fourth report, The Legislative Process: Preparing Legislation for Parliament. The Government considered the report carefully and provided a written response addressing specific areas of interest. I will set out some of the steps we are taking to improve the preparation of legislation for Parliament, and respond to some of the suggestions made in the debate. The committee said that the decision to legislate should not be taken lightly, and I could not agree more. At the moment, we find ourselves in atypical times in which it would be hard to say that we are overburdened with legislation. When I recently appeared before PBL with a Bill in my hand, the committee was actually pleased to see me.

In normal times, the PBL Committee remains a very strict gatekeeper. Demand for legislative time greatly exceeds supply—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. I am sure that any Minister, former or current, would agree that appearing before PBL is one of the most challenging experiences of being in office—a point made by my noble friend Lord Dunlop. It is a rigorous cross-examination, conducted without the Minister having recourse to any professional advice from his or her department and in which ignorance of the details of his Bill can result in delay or loss of the slot. Ministers have certainly left empty-handed, and any Minister looking to use legislation as a way to shine or to introduce legislation that is purely declaratory would have a very hard time. I can also say as a former Chief Whip that failure to impress PBL can also have an adverse consequence for the career of a Minister, however senior.

I was asked whether pre-legislative scrutiny was just an option. PBL asks all Ministers whether they can publish a draft of a Bill or go through pre-legislative scrutiny, so it is much more than an option: it is infinitely preferred. As the committee also observed, legislation is only ever as good as the policy development underpinning it. Evidence is vital—a point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. As acknowledged, this Government are placing renewed importance on ensuring that their policies have a sound evidential base. The case was excellently made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay when he spoke about how the Children Act was improved by access to expert evidence and experienced social workers, and that legislation has endured the test of time as a result.

We are now placing renewed importance on ensuring that our policies have a sound evidence base. For example, the What Works Network, set up in 2015, provides government departments, Ministers and front-line professionals with independent assessment of the available evidence in specific policy areas. There is now a central team in the Cabinet Office that helps bring these findings to the attention of policymakers. In its first five years, the What Works centre has produced 288 evidence reviews, including 48 systematic reviews on a wide range of topics.

I was interested to read the complaints by the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association—here I want to settle some old scores—that,

“the loss of in-house departmental expertise as a result of central government retrenchment … has led to a situation in which policy development is informally contracted out to other organisations”,

leading to what it describes as,

“regulatory capture by politically-oriented and often taxpayer-funded campaign groups”,

That drew a hollow laugh for me as I recalled that when I was a Health Minister 40 years ago, public health measures to reduce the number of deaths caused by smoking, supported by the health department, were systematically blocked by the TMA’s lobbyists and its supporters in the House of Commons, but I must now move on to the serious issues addressed.

The committee welcomed the Government’s commitment to a greater use of Green and White Papers —a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. The committee’s report notes that the Prime Minister recently indicated that,

“she would normally expect a Minister, before having legislation, to have gone through a Green Paper stage for discussion and then a White Paper stage to set out policy”.

I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that we remain committed to that process and agree that it is a feature of good and proper policy development. However, time pressures to deliver legislation do not always make it possible.

Recent examples of such documents include the domestic abuse and online harms White Papers, and Green Papers on our integrated communities strategy and mental health provision for children and young people. Not only do those papers show the Government’s workings for their legislative proposals, they facilitate vital engagement with stakeholders, including parliamentarians. Many noble Lords have made the point that you cannot develop legislation in a vacuum, and the committee stressed the value of consultation, both formal and informal, as well as pre-legislative scrutiny by parliamentarians.

I was slightly surprised by what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, just said about the regard that Ministers have for consultation. She has been a Minister, as have I. I have certainly paid attention to the results of consultation on policy areas for which I had responsibility, be it housing, transport or taxation. One advantage of modern technology is that it is now easier for government to reach stakeholders and the general public and engage them in consultation.

The noble Baroness asked me a number of detailed questions, and I will of course reply to her, but the report noted that the Government now collate all open consultations on a single webpage and that this is an important step in attracting extensive, diverse and expert input. This was a point raised by my noble friend Lord Dunlop. Our consultation principles stress the importance of targeting a full range of stakeholders. The committee notes that the department should consider targeting specific groups and suggests tailoring consultation to the needs and preferences of particular groups.

The committee rightly attached great importance to pre-legislative scrutiny. I reassure noble Lords that the Government hugely value Parliament’s scrutiny and the contribution it makes to the development of draft legislation. Noble Lords will be aware that in this Session, Bills that have undergone this scrutiny include the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill, the draft registration of overseas entities Bill and the draft domestic abuse Bill. So far this Session we have published 10 Bills in draft, nine of which have been scrutinised by either a Joint Committee or the relevant Select Committee in the other place; the 10th is the draft finance Bill. We hope to do even better. I thank all noble Lords who have been involved in the process of pre-legislative consultation. The hours of detailed scrutiny have led to the introduction of better legislation and an easier passage through both Houses.

A number of noble Lords mentioned post-legislative scrutiny. As noble Lords will know, departments produce post-legislative review memorandums for every Act three to six years after its commencement, as my noble friends Lord Norton and Lord Cormack mentioned. This is an initiative of the committee whose report we are discussing today and is now embedded practice. These documents provide a valuable opportunity to improve our process further by reflecting on whether legislation is operating as intended. If I could express a personal view, I am sorry that these memorandums, which the Government take very seriously, do not attract greater attention from those who follow the legislative process.

Finally, on this report, I would like to say a few words about the quality of legislation, an issue raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and my noble friend Lord Dunlop. The committee stressed the importance of clear, well-drafted and accessible legislation, to which the Government also attach great importance. We have come a long way in the clarity and accessibility of our legislation. My noble friend Lord Cope welcomed that improvement. The skilled lawyers within the OPC are constantly working to improve on this. For example, they have revised and updated their drafting guidance, strengthened their internal quality assurance processes and invested heavily in training new counsel, operating an apprenticeship model so that experience is shared. I place on record my thanks for their ongoing efforts to achieve this goal. Progress is still needed, particularly in the area of taxation, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cope.

Many noble Lords mentioned the work of the Law Commission, which has pointed to the particular value of reform and consolidation in the fields of immigration and sentencing law in England and Wales. Our commitment to tidying up our statutory landscape is reflected in the recent introduction of the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Norton. This legislation is the first step towards making this complex area of law simpler, fairer and quicker to operate. First, we need to deal with the Bill; the sentencing code will be announced in due course. I note the suggestion that in this lull in parliamentary activity, we might use any spare capacity to make further progress with consolidation.

My noble friend Lord Cope mentioned the online statute book, which is delivered by the National Archives and is free to access. This is continually being updated to consolidate textual amendments into existing Acts. I am pleased to say that the update of primary legislation is almost completely up to date.

While we sometimes disagree on the content of legislation, our aspirations for the process are well aligned. We have come a long way in how we prepare and bring forward legislation, and remain committed to producing good law. As the committee’s fourth report set out, it is in everyone’s interest for our legislation to be evidence-based, influenced by diverse and expert input, scrutinised effectively and of the highest quality in drafting.

On skeleton Bills, the Government agree that Bills that contain vague powers because policy decisions have not yet been taken are usually not acceptable. However, a Bill setting out policy framework clearly, but using delegated powers to fill in details or implement part of it, may be justifiable in some cases.

Turning to the other report, on the delegation of powers, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blencathra and his Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I take on board his warning about the Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill, on which he has proposed summoning the author before his committee to discover exactly what is going on with it. The committee made a number of recommendations on the important role of delegated legislation in the legislative process. We have carefully considered the committee’s report and provided a detailed written response to each of its recommendations. As a Government, we very much endorse the committee’s emphasis on the valuable role we all play here in scrutinising delegated powers.

I will briefly set out some of the key points from the Government’s response. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, expressed surprise that no statutory instruments had been rejected. I think he will find that quite a lot have been withdrawn and then resubmitted. This is probably a better process to go through than actually having them defeated. I know that some have been introduced, subsequently been found to be incorrect and a separate SI introduced to put them right. So it is not quite as black and white as the noble and learned Lord implied.

The committee observed that all involved in the legislative process have a responsibility to uphold what it referred to as “constitutional standards” in relation to delegated powers. The Government agree that a number of broad principles can be applied when considering delegations of power, although ultimately, it is for this House and the other place to consider whether a particular delegation is appropriate. It is impossible to prescribe a hard and fast set of rules to be applied uniformly to all delegations of power, as each delegation must be considered on its merits. In this respect, the Government agree with the committee’s observation that it is the constitutional obligation of Parliament to decide whether a proposed delegation of power is acceptable.

One of the committee’s key concerns is that delegated powers are increasingly being used by the Government for the purposes of legislating for policy and other major objectives, whereas they should be reserved for minor and technical matters. The Government agree that delegated powers should generally be reserved for prescribing matters of detail. I note my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s comment that it is not always possible to draw a clear dividing line between policy and detail. He takes the opposite view, and we will reflect on that particular point. I assure your Lordships that the Government always seek to ensure that the balance between what is contained within primary legislation and what is left for secondary is struck in an appropriate way.

A further concern expressed by the committee is the Government’s perceived use of broad, or even vague, powers on occasion. The Government agree that vague powers are to be avoided and we make every effort to ensure that proposed powers are formulated with a sufficient degree of precision and certainty. In any given case, it is for your Lordships to determine whether they are satisfied that the Government have justified the level of detail in a proposed power. As for broad powers, there may be some occasions where these are unavoidable. In these cases the Government aim to assist your Lordships by producing draft secondary legislation alongside the proposed power so that noble Lords can better assess how the power may be used in future.

The committee raised particular concerns over powers enabling the creation of criminal offences and the establishment of public bodies—a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. The Government agree that the cases for such powers are likely to be rare, although they may be appropriate occasionally if their use can be justified to your Lordships.

The committee also raised concerns over Henry VIII powers, and stressed the need for these to be fully justified. It is worth reading out what the committee said about Henry VIII powers. Henry VIII powers are,

“a departure from constitutional principle. Departures from constitutional principle should be contemplated only where a full and clear explanation and justification is provided”.

The Government agree that such powers should be taken only where they are strictly necessary. We are committed to providing a full and clear explanation to the House when taking such powers through information provided in the memo to the DPRRC. Each Henry VIII power needs to be considered individually on its merits. Sometimes, use of Henry VIII powers will produce a clearer legislative result than prescribing things in secondary legislation. Paragraph 19 of our response makes that point.

A number of noble Lords suggested that it should be possible to amend statutory instruments. That is not proposed by the committee, but the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made a suggestion that the committee might like to reflect on—that it look again at the “take it or leave it” position of SIs. I would be interested in its reflections on that.

I am conscious that time is running out, but if I was asked to provide one example from my short time in your Lordships’ House—and to answer a question posed by my noble friend Lord Norton about what has changed—it is the effectiveness of scrutiny here. I would point to our recent debates about Henry VIII powers. I personally have no doubt that the trenchant criticism we have received, often from members of the Select Committee and usually from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has caused us to be more considered and cautious in our approach to utilising Henry VIII powers. I bear the scars of some of those debates and I believe that they have altered the terms of trade between primary and secondary legislation, and certainly business managers and the PBL will look carefully at any proposed Henry VIII powers even more so than they do at the moment. I think someone said that it was all a rubber stamp. Certainly, when taking these SIs through, the only thing that is stamped on is usually the Minister.

Finally, perhaps I might say a quick word to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and thank the SLSC for the work it does. As he said, we will be providing a response to his report in due course, but we have gone further than any previous Government in being open and transparent about our plans regarding secondary legislation.

The Government’s responses to the reports have met with some headwind from noble Lords, and criticism of the Government is not unusual in Select Committee reports. However, the subject of these reports is different in some respects from others in that it focuses on a continuous process—namely, legislation—rather than, for example, a controversial policy decision that is difficult to reverse. To that extent, it is possible for the Government to take on board the gist of the criticisms in these reports, and indeed in our debate today, and seek to do better. That is what the Government propose to do and we will be incentivised in so doing by the threats from the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Beith, my noble friends Lord Hunt, Lord Cormack and Lord Norton, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that the patience of your Lordships’ House is not unlimited. The Government have been warned.

GDP per Capita

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the latest figures for the gross domestic product per capita for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; and what is the percentage increase for each such figure since 1999.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the latest figures published by the Office for National Statistics show that in 2017 gross value added per head was £28,096 in England, £19,899 in Wales, £25,485 in Scotland and £21,172 in Northern Ireland, with nominal growth since 1999 of 75% in both England and Wales, 84% in Scotland and 70% in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, those figures speak for themselves. They reflect the failure over 20 years of successive Governments, in both London and Cardiff, to close the yawning income gap between Wales and England. Does the Minister accept that they would have been significantly worse were it not for the EU structural funds, of which Wales gets 22% of the UK allocation, compared to only 6% of UK-originated regional funding? As the Government are committed to replacing EU funding with a UK shared prosperity fund, will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that Wales will get a needs-based share of that new fund and not a Barnett-type, population-based share, which would see Wales lose £2 billion over the next six years compared to the funding we would have expected were we to remain in the EU?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord has been a tireless campaigner for 45 years, in the other place and now here, for reducing the inequalities between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. He cited income; the figures I gave were for gross value added. If you look at gross disposable household income, which is slightly different, the gap is slightly narrower but still there. Since 2010, Welsh gross value added per capita has grown by 24%, faster than in Scotland and Northern Ireland. To address his question, he is quite right that when the EU structural funds expire as we leave the EU, the shared prosperity fund will take their place. The size of the shared prosperity fund is a matter to be resolved in the current spending review. There will then be consultation on how it is allocated. However, I have received a very strong message from the noble Lord and from the Welsh Government that they want the replacement to be at least the same size as the structural funds and allocated primarily on the basis of need, and they want the devolved Assemblies and local partners to be involved in that decision. While I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee, I have given one with green tinges round the edge.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not true—perhaps the Minister could confirm this—that the England figure hides the most enormous disparity between London and the south-east and the rest of the country? That gap in GVA, GDP and productivity can be met only by a proposal put forward by the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, equivalent to the kind of investment and programme put in place by West Germany when it combined with East Germany. That would overcome not only the disparity described this afternoon but the deep alienation and division that exists in our country.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord makes a powerful case for a generous shared prosperity fund. The Government have tried to do what they can to reduce the disparity; extra funds were allocated to Wales in the 2018 Budget, giving the Welsh Government a £550 million boost. The GVA figures for London are slightly distorted by including people who commute into London but do not live in London. None the less, there is a regional imbalance. Public expenditure per capita is much larger in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland than it is for England. That is one of the ways that the Government seek to redress the imbalance the noble Lord just referred to.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, the impact of the 2008 financial crash and the economic troubles that followed it was far greater outside London and the south-east than it was in this area. Since we are going into a period where the economy is weakening—we have had very poor first-quarter figures and the US economy looks like it is beginning to move into recession—what measures do the Government have in place to make sure that regional imbalance is countered? Have efforts such as the northern powerhouse and the Midlands engine actually delivered, or are they largely discussion and the creation of institutions that are not yet having any impact?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I challenge what the noble Baroness said about the economy weakening. The economy has grown continuously for nine successive years. Employment is at a record level. Real wages are rising. The public finances are now under control. We are in the middle of the pack for future growth in the IMF forecast. Some of the issues she raised are matters for the spending review—both the amount of grant for local government and the shared prosperity fund—but she is unduly pessimistic in painting that scenario.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, is not the example of Germany, given by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, very relevant? Despite the billions spent by the West Germans on East Germany, it is largely emptied of business and people.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I think the comparison was not direct, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, will recognise. The disparity between the west and the east of Germany was far greater economically and in almost every other consideration, including socially, than the gap between England and the rest of the United Kingdom. While I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, the parallel he gave is not one that should be followed too closely.

Banks: Cash Withdrawals

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bryan of Partick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that banks provide free withdrawals from current accounts at cash machines.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the government-established Payment Systems Regulator regulates LINK, the scheme that runs the UK’s largest ATM network. The regulator is using its powers to hold LINK to account over LINK’s public commitments to maintain the broad geographic spread of free ATMs across the UK. The UK has one of the most extensive free-to-use ATM networks in the world. Around 80% of the UK’s ATM estate is free to use and 97% of transactions occur on free-to-use ATMs.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer and welcome the Government’s recent attention to this problem, but we have to bear in mind that the number of free-to-use ATMs that are closing is escalating. The report by Access to Cash Review, published a few months ago, warns that we are sleepwalking into a cashless society that will leave millions behind. Banks are encouraging a cashless economy because they can save on staff and property costs, but these savings are not passed on to customers. Instead, those who use apps and computers become unpaid workers of the bank, and those without access to technology are finding it harder to access bank services. Will the Minister support the proposal by Ged Killen, MP in the other place to ban charges for using ATMs and make banks responsible for giving their customers free access to their own money within reasonable distance from their homes?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand the noble Baroness’s concern for those who do not have access to free-to-use ATMs. I hope she will be reassured that the number of free-to-use ATMs in Scotland increased by 85% between 2008 and 2018, from 2,800 to 5,200. But the noble Baroness’s Question encapsulates a real challenge for Governments today: how do we respond to technological change which is cost-effective, popular, cheap and embraced by the vast majority but, for whatever reason, is not used by a minority? The use of cash fell by 16% last year. Only 28% of transactions were in cash—that figure is forecast to fall to 10%—and 5 million adults apparently did not use cash at all last year. The Government’s policy is quite clear: we want the Payment Systems Regulator to hold LINK’s feet to the fire—to its public commitment to maintain the broad spread of free-to-use ATMs. It has powers of direction and can levy fines to deliver that commitment. On her final question, if you ban charges you lose the pay-to-use ATMs, of course, and might prejudice the existence of the free-to-use ATMs by reducing the revenue stream for ATM owners.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

Does my noble friend not agree that it is very important to remember that ATMs do not just dispense cash? They are increasingly available for a range of banking activities, and very usefully too. Does my noble friend agree that when branches of banks close, we should encourage as much as possible that those important facilities are retained somewhere in the community—whether a village or town—that is losing its bank branches? Is that not a good thing which we should be encouraging?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend is quite right; they are used not just for cash withdrawals but often for deposits or balance queries. I very much hope that banks respond to my noble friend’s suggestion that if they have to close the last branch in a town or village, they ensure that they leave behind a free-to-use ATM that will replace at least some of the facilities that it used to provide.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, at the end of March there were 924 deprived areas without access to free-to-use ATMs, and this was a 12-month high. On 1 April LINK promised to address the problem by increasing payments to operators. It also said that if that did not fix the problem in two months, it could directly commission free-to-use ATMs in these deprived areas. The two months are up. Have the increased payments worked? Has LINK commissioned any free-to-use machines in these 924 deprived areas?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite correct that LINK is directly commissioning ATMs in areas that do not have one but need one. If he has a particular area in mind that needs an ATM but does not have one, I am sure he will let LINK know. The company has tried to ensure the viability of free-to-use ATMs in deprived areas by increasing the transaction fee that the ATM owner gets to £2.75 per transaction, against the standard fee of 25.9p. LINK’s policy is that where it has to shrink the estate, it does so by removing ATMs that are close to another one—73% are within five minutes’ walk of another one—but maintaining free-to-use ATMs in remote or deprived areas.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will appreciate that the banks owe wider society a great deal after 2008. How is it, therefore, that somewhere like Hebden Bridge—and I do not always quote Yorkshire with enormous favour—has no bank and only six ATMs at present? Those six are being reduced to two, and the two are so busy that they run out of cash. How is this system, which the Minister has just commended, working?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I will certainly draw LINK’s attention to the problems the noble Lord has just outlined in Hebden Bridge. I hope that Hebden Bridge also has some post offices. We have invested £2 billion in post offices since 2010 in order that they can provide access to cash and other banking facilities. However, I will contact LINK to see whether we can ensure that those cash machines in Hebden Bridge are fully charged, in view of the pressing demands of the residents of that town for cash.

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

My Lords, this is certainly a long-standing problem. The Minister may be interested to know that my maiden speech in this House many years ago was during a debate about the LINK network’s policy on charging for access to cash, and that it was one thing if you could withdraw £200 but something else if you could only afford to withdraw £50. Despite all the technological advances in how we access money, it seems to be a case of plus ça change. My concern was for bank customers who might lack transport or have mobility restrictions. Does the Minister understand that this can sometimes mean that they are unable to reach a fee-free cash machine? What reassurances can he give me, all these years later?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I commend the noble Baroness on her maiden speech and I am sorry that her ambitions have not been fully fulfilled. As I said a few moments ago, LINK is directly commissioning ATMs in areas that do not have an ATM but need one. In view of her question and that from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, it is now incumbent on those who champion the cause of free ATMs to bring to LINK’s attention those areas that do not have an ATM but need one, or those that have only a chargeable ATM.

National Health Service: Pensions

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am aware of concerns raised by NHS doctors about the impact of annual allowance tax charges. Although there are no plans to have a public consultation on the tax rules, on 3 June the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced his intention to consult on introducing a new pension flexibility for high-earning NHS clinicians affected by annual allowance tax charges.

[Lord Naseby]

The Answer that my noble friend has just given is most welcome, but it is perhaps a little tardy in the sense that this problem has existed for some time. The people who suffer are NHS patients, as consultants do not feel able to take on extra work. Is it not time that there was a total review of NHS pensions, as a whole lot of anomalies have developed over time? I now declare a second interest, as my wife is a retired GP. Prior to 1988, there was equality of contributions for men and women and equality for the beneficiaries, whether they were widows or widowers. However, for 24 years, despite having paid equal amounts, the future beneficiaries of female doctors—their husbands or partners—have had no benefit. Against that background—there are other examples—instead of a short-term review, is it not time that the NHS looked at all the anomalies that have arisen over time and tried to put them right?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, in the interval between my noble friend tabling his Question and today, the Government made a significant announcement on 3 June aimed at addressing the very problem that he addresses in his Question, and no doubt he can claim some credit for that chain of events. On the point about the impact on patients, between 2018 and 2019 57% of GPs who retired took early retirement. Some consultants are unwilling to take on extra sessions because of the impact on their pensions, and that has an impact on the quality of service that we can provide. On his more detailed question, I understand the sense of injustice that he feels about the circumstances that he has described. I will see whether the consultation that begins at the end of the month can be stretched to include the broader review that he has just proposed.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, are not the Government being more than a little tardy in response to this situation? After all, they introduced the pension arrangements in 2015 and it is clear that they made a right mess of them in some respects. In addition to the range of people whom the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, spoke about a moment ago, both ends of the medical profession—younger doctors and consultants—are greatly aggrieved at the provision of pensions under the 2015 legislation. I just wonder why the Minister can say with equanimity that we are getting round to a consultation.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

It is important that noble Lords understand the background to the changes. One of the most expensive tax reliefs is pension tax relief. It costs £50 billion per year—roughly half the budget of the NHS. Two-thirds of that goes to additional, or higher-rate, taxpayers. The reforms introduced over the last two Parliaments were aimed at targeting the relief more effectively and saving £6 billion that could be redirected towards other priorities. Less than 1% of taxpayers will be affected by the taper of £40,000 that was introduced, and more than 95% of those approaching pension age will not be affected by the lifetime allowance.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a past president of the BMA, and as someone with an NHS pension whose husband does not stand to gain particularly by my death; so be it. Do the Government recognise the seriousness of the situation, given the open letter from the BMA to the Prime Minister published in the Financial Times today? The 50:50 suggestion that came from the Secretary of State is not the solution to the problem. Clinical services are already being severely jeopardised by consultants who drop their additional sessions; waiting lists are therefore already rising and those facing retirement have decided to carry on with leaving the NHS, thereby worsening our workforce problems.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

We join the noble Baroness’s husband in wishing her a very long life. So far as the issue she raises is concerned, the BMA asked us to introduce this flexibility earlier this year. The chair of the BMA council said:

“This is a step in the right direction”.


The Secretary of State is willing to discuss other models for pension flexibility; we very much hope that, if we make these changes, high-earning clinicians will be able to attend to more patients while saving for their retirements without incurring significant tax charges.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, senior officers in the armed services face the same problem. I raise this because I know that the Minister will follow up on it. One showed me his tax returns: a £5,000 increase in income led to an additional tax payment—in just the first year—of just under £17,000. This is driving away not only senior officers but especially the high-fliers who, with early promotion, get into this conundrum very early in their careers.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, the Armed Forces Pension Scheme continues to be one of the best available defined-benefit occupational schemes. Service personnel on the AFPS are not required to contribute towards their pension throughout their career. However, we continue to monitor the differences between the various schemes to ensure that they are fair and provide appropriate support to the workforce.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not recognise that this is not a problem confined to the NHS or indeed the armed services? It arises because the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, reduced the size of the pension pot from £1.8 million to £1 million over a short period of time. As a result, if people with final salary pension schemes reach the age of 55 and do not retire but continue, they are taxed at an outrageous 55%. The remedy lies in the Treasury undoing the mess that it created in the first place.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

There are a number of contenders for the leadership of our great party at the moment. If my noble friend feels this is a cause which will gain currency in my party, no doubt he will pursue it with one of those candidates. However, I return to what I said a few moments ago. The changes we made were progressive, to ensure there was not an inequity in the tax relief benefit.

House of Lords: Gender Equality

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to promote gender equality in the composition of the House of Lords.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, in the past 20 years the percentage of women in your Lordships’ House has increased from 17% to 26.5%. In this Parliament, seven of the 17 party political appointees were women. The Prime Minister considers factors including skills, expertise, party political balance and diversity. Progress has been made, but there is still more to be done.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

There is much to be said on this question, as the Minister has said, but I want to focus on just one issue. As long as we have seats for hereditary Peers, women continue to be ineligible for almost all of them. Succession to the Crown has been changed to allow women to succeed equally, and we even have women bishops. To add to the unfairness, eldest daughters are specifically forbidden under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to change sex for the purpose of succession. Will the Government back the simple Bill put forward by Philip Davies MP to remove all remaining obstacles to equality and allow daughters to seek seats here? Our composition should be based on equality and fairness. We have to set an example. Saying it is complicated is no answer to such a question. We must end the inherent androcentric nature of this House.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I understand the noble Baroness’s wish to remove the barrier to women entering your Lordships’ House via the hereditary by-election principle by allowing the title to pass to the eldest child. I believe there are better ways to reduce the current imbalance. The noble Baroness’s solution involves, first, getting primary legislation through this House on the right of succession. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, will tell the noble Baroness just how difficult it is to get legislation through this House that tampers with the hereditary principle. Secondly, it would then depend on a marked increase in the mortality of hereditary Peers, something which I know the noble Baroness does not want. Thirdly, it would depend on women winning the by-elections. I honestly think it is better to make progress and get more women in your Lordships’ House by continuing to drive up the percentage of life peerages, rather than by going around the course I have just enunciated.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, can I persuade the Minister to support my Private Member’s Bill, which arranges for hereditary peerages to go through the female line in certain circumstances?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand that my noble friend has been round this course before. He submitted a Bill in 2015-16, 2016-17 and again in the current Session. The main purpose appeared to be to revive and maintain peerages rather than to pursue female succession as an end in itself. The Bill received a Second Reading in the 2015-16 Session but did not in the 2016-17 or current Sessions.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, every woman in this House bar one, to whom I pay great tribute, wants to be here on the basis of our own skills, our own experience and our own political and non-political background; we do not want to be here because of our fathers, our grandfathers, our great-grandfathers or other wonderful people who have come before us. I know that the Minister tries but can he undertake to continue, with his party, to try to move on the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Grocott? In the meantime, can he also ensure that everything that the Government do in advising the Appointments Commission, as well as in relation to political peerages, means that we move towards a 2:1 ratio in favour of women?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has had more time than any other Private Member’s Bill this Session, and many of us have spent enjoyable Fridays making progress on it. It is open to the noble Lord, if his appetite is unquenched, to ask my noble friend the Chief Whip for yet more time to progress with his Bill. I know that the current chair of HOLAC, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, takes this matter seriously. Since 2012, HOLAC has appointed seven women and five men.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, yesterday I read the recently published UK Gender-Sensitive Parliament Audit 2018, which made the point that the noble Baroness has just made. The number of applications that HOLAC receives from men far exceeds the number from women. I agree that there is a role for all of us in driving up the number of applications from women. Perhaps I could write to her on her question about the percentage of senior appointments.

[Lord Grocott]

I am greatly encouraged by the Minister’s suggestion that I ask the Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for more time. I therefore ask him for more time.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I may be in some trouble with my noble friend but that was actually in my brief.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, as the last hereditary woman left standing, I ask the Minister to ask the Chief Whip to support the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in their requests.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, my noble friend the Chief Whip will have heard both those bids and they will be discussed through the usual channels.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the question of diversity is one commonly asked when we are speaking outside of this House. It is important for the public to know more about the membership of the House. On approaching the Library, it surprised me to learn that there has been no voluntary monitoring form sent out to Members to collate information on other protected characteristics, such as geographical diversity, education and employment backgrounds. Will my noble friend ask the House authorities to send out a comprehensive monitoring form—the staff do this—so that we can tell the public more about who we are?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I believe that one of the recommendations in the report that I referred to was that there should be more monitoring. That would also be relevant to the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which produces an annual report that describes its progress in making appointments. It would be up to HOLAC to include more details along the lines suggested by my noble friend.

European Parliament Elections: Non-UK EU Citizens

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the other place yesterday by my honourable friend Kevin Foster, Minister for the Constitution. The Answer is as follows:

“The Government took all the legal steps necessary to prepare for the European parliamentary elections and put in place all the necessary legislative and funding elements to enable returning officers to make their preparations. We worked with returning officers, the Electoral Commission and other agencies, such as the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers and the Association of Electoral Administrators, to support the smooth running of the polls. The Government are greatly appreciative of electoral administrators’ hard work inside and outside of election periods, which resulted in a higher turnout than for previous European parliamentary elections.

Electoral registration officers are under a statutory duty to ensure that people who are eligible to vote in elections have the opportunity to do so. For the recent European parliamentary elections—as for all previous such elections—this included making sure that EU citizens who are resident in the UK and registered to vote in local elections were made aware that they needed to complete a voter registration and declaration form, commonly referred to as a UC1 or EC6, so they could vote in the UK. The Electoral Commission supported EROs in this and encouraged them to take additional steps to raise awareness of this requirement locally, through social media channels and other means.

The UC1 form implements a requirement under EU law. EU Council Directive 93/109/EC requires all member states to send the details of any EU citizens’ declarations to the state they are a citizen of, “sufficiently in advance of polling day”, to ensure that an EU citizen does not vote twice in the same European parliamentary election. This is not a new requirement and has been in place for previous European parliamentary elections. Similar provision applies to UK citizens living in other EU member states. The UC1 form was accessible on the websites of the Electoral Commission, local authorities and Your Vote Matters.

On 5 April, the Electoral Commission published guidance for local returning officers and EROs on the upcoming European parliamentary elections. In it, the Electoral Commission reminded EROs to prepare and issue UC1 forms to EU citizens on the electoral register. On 3 May, the Electoral Commission published guidance advising EU citizens to avoid registering to vote using unofficial registration sites. The guidance further stated:

‘Any EU citizen who wants to vote in the European Parliamentary election in the UK must also print, complete and return a declaration form stating that they will only vote in the UK’.


The guidance also included a link to the Your Vote Matters website, where the form could be downloaded”.

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

My Lords, I join the noble Lord in thanking returning officers and electoral staff for all that they do, and obviously I make my usual declaration as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Does the noble Lord accept that this is a very unsatisfactory situation where people were denied their right to vote? Is it not another example of why we urgently need to review, amend and update all the laws on elections, electoral registration, campaigning and, of course, the functions and purpose of the Electoral Commission?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I am sorry if anybody who had done the right thing was thereafter denied the right to vote. As he knows, the Electoral Commission will undertake its normal inquiry into this election, as with any other election, and of course we will reflect on the results.

On the noble Lord’s general point, I repeat what I have said on an earlier occasion—probably in response to a question from him—that we have an analogue system in a digital age. We are taking some steps: for example, imprints on digital communications; and the Electoral Commission is issuing statutory guidance to distinguish between candidate expenditure and national expenditure. But I repeat my acceptance of an offer that he made earlier to have an all-party meeting with the Minister for the Constitution to see whether we can find a consensual way forward to make sure that we have an electoral system fit for the digital age and fit for purpose.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, given that the Prime Minister dithered for four weeks between the agreement to extend the Article 50 process, on 11 April, and the official go-ahead for the EP elections, on 7 May, should not the Government take the principal blame for the foreshortened period and the consequent problems that were left in the hands of the electoral authorities? This was also, of course, the main cause of the difficulties with postal votes for UK citizens overseas. Does the Minister accept that this major democratic deficit would not have occurred if the Government had accepted the recommendations made by the Electoral Commission four years ago as a result of difficulties with the previous European parliamentary elections?

As the Minister has just said, and as he has repeated on a number of occasions, we are now faced with a legislative hiatus. Would this not be a good opportunity not just, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, to look at the overall problems with electoral law but particularly to look at the problems that occurred with the last referendum so that we can get it into a better shape before we have the next one this autumn?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord raises a number of points, and I shall try to deal with all of them. We were working with the Electoral Commission on streamlining the process following its recommendations after the last European elections, but given the result of the 2016 referendum it was not the Government’s policy to take the reforms forward because our policy was to leave the European Union before the end of March 2019 and therefore before the next election was due.

On his accusations of dithering, I think I can rebut those. On 5 April, when it was clear that we would not be leaving the EU as planned, the Electoral Commission issued guidance that EROs should identify all EU citizens on the local government register and send them the UC1 declaration form accompanied by relevant information about what to do if they wanted to vote for a UK MEP. It also asked the EROs to take additional steps to raise the profile of this requirement. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord about the arrangements for postal votes.

On the noble Lord’s final point, were there to be another referendum later this year, as he implied, he will know that there would be primary legislation to bring that into effect, and he would have the opportunity to propose any amendments that he wished to the current regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Balfe]

I apologise. There are a number of points, but I will leave it at that.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

At the beginning of his questions, my noble friend generously suggested that I might write to him. It is an offer which I accept with alacrity.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords, could the Minister resist any temptation to spend too much time, energy and public money on dealing with all these questions? Of course, the simple way to avoid all the difficulties that Members have identified with these elections would have been to observe the decision of the British people in 2016 to hold no more of them. Can he help the House, at least in one respect, to avoid any further waste of money? There was a reference in his Statement to the fact that full funding was provided to returning officers for all their needs; I am sure that is the case. Can he tell us precisely what the cost to the taxpayer has been for holding these totally unnecessary elections; or, if he does not have the information available now, can he put it in the Library?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree with the noble Lord that, had the other place agreed the withdrawal agreement that was put before it, we could have avoided these elections. It so happens that I have in front of me some information relating to his question. The cost of the last European elections was £109 million, but that was shared with local elections. The amount of money set aside this time, when they did not coincide with local elections, was £159 million.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, would it not help to calm those who were understandably upset by recent events if this House used much of the time we have at the moment, while we are treading water, to take the moral high ground and pass legislation giving full rights to EU nationals living in this country?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I believe that was part of the agreement reached by the Prime Minister, which she put to the other place. I hope that however this matter is resolved, what my noble friend has suggested will indeed be the case.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, was part of the problem the fact that some of the electoral advice given to the various returning officers was not accurate? Many local authorities used discounted mailing, rather than Royal Mail. This made a massive difference to the number of days that posted items took to reach those eligible to vote. Should that not be put right in instructions from the Home Office to the electoral returning officers?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the Electoral Commission will carry out its normal review and inquiry into the European elections. It will certainly look at the issue raised by the noble Lord that some of the forms do not reach the people eligible. The Government will of course take notice of any recommendations made.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will recall that, at the weekend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer suggested that the Conservative leadership election makes it now practically impossible for us to leave in good order on 31 October. Mr Michael Gove, as a candidate for that leadership, has also suggested that we might take rather longer. This begins to open up the prospect that we could indeed have the 2020 local elections before we get to the point of deciding whether we finally leave. We need to make absolutely sure that the position of EU citizens resident in Britain and their right to vote is clarified before we come to the next round of elections in which they are entitled to participate. Can he ensure that the Electoral Commission has that fully in mind?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Is the noble Lord suggesting that there is a scenario where we have another round of European elections?

[Noble Lords]

Local elections.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Yes, indeed, we will take account of any recommendations made by the Electoral Commission regarding what has recently happened and implement them before 2020.

Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill [HL]

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 4th June 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I have very little to add. I concur absolutely and reinforce the importance of the census, not just as a purely numerical thing but as rather more. I am sure the Minister will not have heeded too much the pleas of one of his predecessors, the noble Lord, Lord Maude, or the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. We should question whether we have this.

As was clear at Second Reading, we support the census and the initiative in this Bill. However, everyone agrees—this is not new—that it will be key for it to be done correctly with everyone’s confidence, particularly the populations who will now be able to answer questions deeply relevant to them. I also think it means that there should be no surprises when the census appears, either for the relevant groups, for whom this will be a welcome move forward, or for the rest of the form-fillers. There should be no surprise—or, if you like, antagonism—and I do not think there will be from the non-involved groups when these questions appear.

While we need to have the questions tested on those with a particular interest in answering them, we also need to test that they are understandable to those to whom they do not particularly apply. I am sure that the consultation on the questions will take account of this so that even those not interested in answering these questions will understand why they are there. We should not confuse people so we need to test the questions with all those who will fill in the forms.

My second point goes beyond my amendment in this group. We need to make sure that we see a very high completion rate of the census as a whole as well as on these additional questions. A lot of good PR will be needed to achieve that. Explanations and preparations need to be made well before the census form arrives, whether online or through people’s letterboxes. While I realise that this is beyond the scope of the amendment before the Committee, it would be useful if the Minister could say a little about the publicity covering the questions once they have been agreed.

I want to raise only one other point, perhaps a little cheekily because again it is not part of the amendment. At Second Reading we asked about the additional question on military service. Is there any update on how the consultation on that issue is taking place?

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Hayter, for their amendments. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said about the census. It is an important civic event and we recognise it as exactly that. The amendments relate to the guidance on how census questions on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity should be answered. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that we need to approach this matter with sensitivity, and I think we have done so.

Before we turn to the detail of the amendments, perhaps I may clarify a point regarding the questions for Armed Forces veterans, a point just raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, pointed out the difference between a note circulated by the Royal British Legion and the proposal in the White Paper on the Armed Forces question. I said that the ONS will consult the Royal British Legion and others on the detailed question or questions. I can confirm that they have indeed been consulted during the preparation of the ONS proposals for the Armed Forces question. The RBL has confirmed that it is content with the question and the guidance proposed. It accepts that as the census is a household questionnaire, it can capture only dependants who actually live with a veteran.

Perhaps I may also take the opportunity to clarify a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, at Second Reading on the guidance to accompany completing the sex question in the next census, an issue that she has raised again today. The guidance accompanying the 2021 census is already in development. I can confirm that draft guidance for the sex question makes it clear that people do not need to answer according to the sex on their birth certificate, and that that is case whether or not they have a gender recognition certificate. This is consistent with the guidance that accompanied the 2011 census. The draft guidance for 2021 states that you can fill in whatever you prefer. I hope that gives the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, the reassurance she seeks on the question she posed. I have written to her to clarify the point and copies of the letter are available in the Library. I have also had the pleasure of meeting the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to discuss the issues. The proposed guidance for the sex, sexual orientation and gender identity questions has been shared with those noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised the importance of intelligibility. These questions must be understood by everyone. There are four key guiding factors in the terminology that the ONS is using. First, the census form must be understood by the whole of the usual resident population. Secondly, it must be inclusive of the whole of the population of interest; that is, those whose gender is different from the sex they were registered with at birth. Thirdly, it should be publicly acceptable to the whole of the usual resident population. Finally, it should allow individuals to identify as they wish and should not be limited by overarching terminology.

I turn to the probing amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Hayter. As I have just set out, the proposed guidance is already in development. This House need not wait for the Act to be passed to consider this guidance, and it can be assured that we are consulting on it. I can confirm that the ONS is in the process of sharing the proposed guidance for the sex, sexual orientation and gender identity questions with interested parties, including LGBT, equality and women’s groups. These include Stonewall, the Equality and Diversity Forum, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In all, the ONS is consulting with over 50 organisations. The Scottish Trans Alliance is among these organisations and I can confirm, further to my meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that officials from the ONS have held a constructive meeting with it to discuss the research informing the questions, design and guidance. I know that officials will be happy to continue that dialogue to answer any further questions they may have. Of course, the views of noble Lords as the Bill passes through this House will also be taken on board. The ONS has offered to host dedicated sessions for noble Lords to discuss the guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that—does he wish to add a further point?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I have received some in-flight refuelling about the pertinent question the noble Baroness asked about the campaign and publicity. She is absolutely right that we have to inform people about what is happening. The ONS will undertake a national campaign as well as local campaigns. It has been working closely with the GEO on the campaigns and it will also work closely with local authorities and the third sector to reach out to all communities to help them fill in the census and to identify as they like.

[Baroness Barker]

I thank the Minister for that; it is extremely helpful. It reflects, albeit in a condensed form, a longer and rather more detailed conversation that we had about these matters.

I stress that this is not only an important matter of civic engagement. As officials from the ONS have been at pains to point out to us in briefings, this is an opportunity to gather data not otherwise available. Therefore, it is extremely important that the data gathered is as true, full and inclusive as possible. Apart from anything else, this data will inform public policy for decades to come. It is therefore important that we enable people. The people I have talked to often struggle to know how to fill in a form. They wish to fill in forms honestly but they struggle to do so, because it is not always clear. Therefore the more that can be done to include people, the better. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that it is important that, in seeking to make this as good as it can possibly be for a minority population, we do not end up confusing everyone else as well. That is not the intention. I welcome the offer to look at this in greater detail over the summer and the autumn as the census rehearsal happens—what an exciting prospect that is.

This is an important matter for us all. I thank the Minister very much and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, talk of crime and penalty; I expected him to talk about crime and punishment—the more commonly used word.

I have two points. The secondary one is that, hearing this, I have a slight worry about the issue I raised before, about military service. Albeit that it is not in here, it is nagging at me. It is possible that some people would not want to declare that they had served in the military. I know we have not exempted that in the Bill. It does not come under the voluntary category. It will be added, and will be a compulsory question. There is something vaguely nagging at me. Maybe this is not the point at which to raise it, but perhaps a letter could be sent about what consideration was given to why that was not an area where people could choose not to declare. It is not just about old cases from Northern Ireland; there may be other reasons. I have a slight nag about that distinction, which I raised at Second Reading.

I hope that if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, does not get a satisfactory answer on this issue, he will bring it back on Report. It is something we would want to support. When I walked into the room, I thought this would take just a second and assumed that the Government would accept this. Not having seen the letter, I was absolutely astonished to hear that they were not. I hope there will be a change of heart by the Government and, if not, that the amendment will be brought back on Report.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, let me try to deal with the very serious issues raised by the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, has trumped my Second Reading story of having moved the 1981 census order by going back to 1975.

I take very seriously any amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He will not remember this, but two years ago we crossed swords on the Higher Education and Research Bill, when he tabled an amendment which it fell to me to answer. It was on a legal matter, so it was a home game for him and an away game for me. I gave what I thought was a very considered, detailed and lengthy response to his amendment. I just looked up what he said in response:

“My Lords, we have just heard an utterly reasonable argument but, with great respect, it is wrong”.—[Official Report, 8/3/17; col. 1419.]


With a judicial flick of the wrist, in a few sentences, my argument was disposed of; a Division was called and the Government lost. Therefore, I take this amendment very seriously and I hope to set out the reasons why we have real difficulty in accepting it.

The two amendments insert two new subsections after Clauses 1(3) and 2(3), seeking to clarify that omitting to provide particulars concerning sexual orientation or gender identity is not an offence. Amendment 2 applies to England and Wales and Amendment 3 to Northern Ireland. A similar amendment was debated in another place during the passage of the Census (Amendment) Act 2000, which noble Lords may recall added the possibility of asking a question on religion to the census Act in England and Wales, and removed the penalty for non-response. That amendment was rejected, following reassurances from the promoters of the Bill, and I hope to provide similar reassurances to noble Lords today.

The short point is that the current drafting already achieves what these amendments aim to do. Unlike the amendments, they do so in a way consistent with the existing law. By removing the penalty attached to a failure to answer, the clear parliamentary intention is to remove the criminal offence. This reassurance was given in 2000, and I give it again today. “No person shall be liable to a penalty” is tried-and-tested legislative language. It was used in the National Insurance Act 1911 and the National Health Insurance Acts 1924 and 1936. It was used in the Census Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 in respect of religion. Most recently, it was used by this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament in the Census (Amendment) Act 2000. Its meaning is clear.

I shall quote what is in the letter, which some noble Lords may not have seen. It is an extract from Hansard by the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, speaking on behalf of the Government against the amendment similar to the one we are debating now. It says:

“I can assure the House that the legal opinion that my officials have taken on this matter confirms the view … that the removal of the penalty for anyone failing to provide particulars on religion makes the census question on religion voluntary, as only the criminal sanction in section 8 of the 1920 Act makes it statutory to comply with the census in the first place”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/7/00; cols. 1150.]


On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I am not aware that there is any doubt in the public’s mind at the moment, since the 2001 or 2011 census, about the status of the voluntary nature of answering those questions.

I will go on to some other reasons why we have real difficulty with the amendments. They would—inadvertently—land a pebble in what we regard as clear water. They are limited to the questions on gender identity and sexual orientation, as required by the scope of the Bill. However, the effects would go far and wide. They would imply that where the law removes the penalty alone, the intention is to leave in place the offence. That would cast doubt on what was previously clear. In this way, they would risk the voluntary nature of the religion question being called into question, both now and historically. They would entail the same risk for the Scottish census. This risk would extend to other law, historical and current, which uses the same language.

I am grateful for the close and proper attention to and scrutiny of this measure by the House, particularly the Constitution Committee. It is right that we ensure that the law is clear and coherent, and that the public are clear, as the noble Baroness said, that in refusing or neglecting to answer questions on sexual orientation or gender identity they will not be committing an offence. The Bill, consistent with the Northern Ireland Parliament’s approach in 1969, and the approach of this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament in 2000, achieves that.

If the noble and learned Lord has doubts, I am more than happy to arrange a meeting with relevant officials and other noble Lords between now and Report, to see if we can find a way through, given the narrow scope of the Bill and therefore the limitation in impact of any amendment such as the one we are debating. Against that background, and in good faith, I hope the noble and learned Lord feels able to withdraw his amendments.

[Lord Judge]

I am very grateful to everyone who has spoken, and to the Minister—I sometimes think of him as a sort of ministerial Hercules. Getting this right is not a Herculean task, and I should certainly welcome the opportunity to talk to him about it. I shall withdraw the amendment for the time being, on a wait-and-see basis.

Public Procurement and the Civil Society Strategy

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith for initiating and introducing this important and timely debate, and thank all noble Lords who have taken part. It is has been a well-informed, consensual and thoughtful debate on a subject that, as many noble Lords have said, is not often discussed. It has been particularly helpful to the Government, since our policy is, as I shall explain, in the process of development.

To sum up the debate, the view is that what we have done is good, but we need to do more, and do it better and faster; that is the message I shall take away. My noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith produced an ambitious menu of reforms, which we take seriously. If I do not address them all, I shall write to her. I know that this subject has been one of her special interests for some time and I very much welcome her input.

My noble friend Lord Maude should be answering this debate as he knows much more about it than almost anyone else. I would like to say how much I welcomed his input when I was working with him. He secured very real changes, reforms and savings in public procurement when he was in office. He reminded me of how things have changed since I was first a Minister some 40 years ago. I remember the narrowly focused, time-consuming, bureaucratic tendering. What a contrast that is with the changes he has introduced: the more flexible, market-oriented approach, which enables the taking account of social value. As he said, he has put this into the DNA and the genes are doing well as they flow around the system. He identified the barriers to entry: the performance bonds, the tender documents and the three-year requirement to produce accounts that have historically stopped some of the SMEs getting involved. I will say a word about that in a moment.

My noble friend mentioned public service mutuals. I remember him championing these in the health service when he was in office. They have an important role to play in delivering high-quality public services. At the moment there are 115 mutuals operating in diverse sectors from health to libraries, delivering approximately £1.6 billion of public services. In January last year, the DCMS launched a package of support worth £1.7 million to help new mutuals to emerge and existing ones to grow and flourish.

My noble friend also asked about the Commissioning Academy, a development programme for senior decision-makers across the public sector. It supports participants to learn from best practice across the country and is a key component in the culture change that many noble Lords have been advocating. We continue to provide leadership through the Commissioning Academy, working with the social enterprise PSTA—the Public Service Transformation Academy. The DDCMS has worked with the PSTA to ensure good commercial practice, promoting early engagement with the market, contract management, and social value.

I was interested in what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said about local commissioning and a cross-government approach. Again, perhaps I have been in government too long, but I remember the Property Services Agency, which owned the government estate and the Government Car Service. That was able to look at a town such as Horsham, then look at the totality of the government estate—the DHSS and all the other departments—and engage local contractors. After a time, government departments thought this was a remote, bureaucratic and expensive organisation and demanded autonomy, because we charged them quite a lot to change a lightbulb. It was devolved to local departments, which then discovered that they were all having to replicate particular skills and were losing the ability for local commissioning. We now seem to be moving back towards the PSA model, on which I have an enormous wealth of experience.

My noble friend and one or two other noble Lords mentioned the liquidation of Carillion. That has been used by some, although not in this debate, as a case for stopping the outsourcing of the delivery of public services to the private sector. The Government’s view, and that of previous Governments, is that the private sector has a vital role to play in delivering public services in this country, bringing a range of specialist skills, world-class expertise and deeper knowledge to bear. As we have heard, the public sector is the largest purchaser of goods and services in the UK, spending over £250 billion on procurement. Central government alone accounts for £49 billion of that figure.

As we have heard, there is so much more that the Government could do to create and nurture a vibrant, healthy, innovative, competitive and diverse marketplace of public service suppliers, with values at its heart, where wider social benefits matter and are recognised. This is reflected in the Civil Society Strategy, mentioned by my noble friend, which was published last year. It commits the Government to use their huge buying power to drive social change by championing social value through their commercial activities and levelling the playing field for all types of businesses, including small businesses, voluntary and community-sector organisations and social enterprises—a theme mentioned by many noble Lords in this debate. In turn, that would encourage employment opportunities, develop skills and improve environmental sustainability.

The Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 already places a requirement on relevant contracting authorities to consider in respect of procurement for services: first, how the economic, environmental and social well-being of the relevant area may be improved by what is being procured; and secondly, how, in conducting the procurement, they might act with a view to securing that improvement. Contracting authorities must also consider whether to consult the market on these issues before the procurement process starts. There have been a number of suggestions during our debate about how that Act might be amended.

I confess to noble Lords something that may already be apparent: that this is a subject with which I was less than familiar before my noble friend tabled the Motion and it fell to me to reply to it. I am a lot wiser after this debate. To get my mind around what was going on, I asked officials for an example of how incorporating social value in the tendering process would lead to a different outcome. They came up with a Ministry of Defence contract with Future Biogas and the energy company EDF to develop an electricity supply for RAF Marham in Norfolk. The MoD could have taken the conventional lowest-price approach, without considering the social, economic and environmental benefits that could flow to the local area, but did not. Instead, it engaged up front with the supply market and developed an ambitious social value plan.

The airbase will now get 95% of its electricity from biogas generated by fermenting crops grown by local farmers, an option which did not exist before the engagement. This will directly save £300,000 a year on electricity costs, but there is more to it than that, which is what struck me. The fuel is a green and sustainable solution, helping to tackle climate change. Locally grown crops will power the plant, supporting the local rural economy and ensuring continued business and employment in the area. Building, running and maintaining the anaerobic digestion plant supports skilled, long-term employment opportunities in Norfolk. Future Biogas employs five highly skilled engineers on site and an apprentice who started a four-year apprenticeship at the end of 2018, and an agricultural contracting business supporting the plant has increased its full-time employees by five and seasonal staff by a further 10. As part of an improved crop-rotation regime, soil quality is boosted and the weed and pest burden lessened, and the digestate output from the plant is a sought-after organic fertiliser, improving yields of food crops and locking up carbon in the soil.

I found that a very helpful illustration of the case for social value and it is that sort of lateral thinking that we want to promote. Other cases were included in the helpful briefings sent to noble Lords for this debate. My noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith mentioned Crossrail, as did my noble friend Lord Pickles. The important thing about RAF Marham is that it is in the Chief Secretary’s constituency. There have been one or two comments about the potential inflexibility of the Treasury in taking social value on board. Perhaps she has now been persuaded by that local example.

In June last year, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced the Government’s intention to extend the application of the 2012 social value Act in central government. While the Act currently requires commissioners to only “consider” social value while awarding contracts, the new proposals will strengthen this further by making it an explicit requirement in central government contracts with the private and third sectors. This work to extend the application of the Act across all central government procurement represents one of the most significant changes in public procurement in recent years. It will ensure that contracts are awarded on the basis of more than just price, looking, as all noble Lords have suggested, at a contract’s social impact too, and giving firms much-deserved recognition for their positive actions in society.

The objective for the Government’s commercial activities will always remain achieving good commercial outcomes for the taxpayer. However, it is right that commissioning and procurement should support social outcomes as well, providing that these outcomes are relevant and proportionate to what is being procured.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Stevenson, wanted the Government to increase the minimum weighting for social value in central government procurement awards from 10% to 20%—or up to 50%, in her case. As mentioned, we launched a consultation paper in March. One of the areas on which we are seeking feedback is whether a minimum 10% weighting is appropriate. The 10% weighting was developed with input from supplier representatives; we are genuinely consulting on this and have an open mind. It is important that we change at a rate that suits each sector. In particular, we want to prevent barriers to entry for SMEs.

The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith were worried that public procurement favours large companies. I will say a word about that in a moment. The expanded use of the social value Act is widely recognised as a measure that will encourage greater diversity in public sector supply chains.

The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, warned me that he would raise BSI 95009. The standard is aimed at public and private sector buyers, and proposes a framework for those in procurement to demonstrate or assess trustworthiness, transparency and ethical practice. The Cabinet Office is in discussions with the BSI. We have not yet endorsed the standard, but will consider it most important to ensure that we do not burden suppliers unnecessarily—a point I made earlier—and create barriers to entry for SMEs.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked if we would show leadership on social value by committing to producing an annual social value budget, showing how much social value has been created by central government procurement each year. On 25 January last year, the Chancellor of the Duchy announced the Government’s intention to extend the application of the social value Act in central government departments. This included a requirement to report on social value.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked if we would expand the social value Act to cover goods and works as well as services, so that the value of every penny of public money is maximised. As part of the joint Cabinet Office and DCMS programme of work, central government departments should apply the terms of the social value Act to goods and works, as well as services. There will be markets common to both central government and the wider public sector so it will have a broader impact.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked whether the social value criteria were compulsory and whether the Government will be using them. The new social value framework will be mandatory for central government departments, their executive agencies and non-departmental bodies for procurements subject to Part 2 of the Public Contracts Regulations.

[Lord Shipley]

My query specifically related to whether it was simply advisory for local government or whether local government should be required to do what central government departments do.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My understanding is that it is advisory, because it was not included in the mandated list I just read out. If I am wrong I will write to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord asked why the strategy guidance has not been issued and whether we will produce a quick guide on it. We actually published guidance on how to work with central government, including social value, working with the VCSE Crown representative Claire Dove. The DCMS and the Cabinet Office are working with the advisory panel to understand the needs of the sectors and to prepare for the changes to social value. We will work with the sector representative bodies to produce the guidance the noble Lord just asked for.

The noble Lord asked for an annual report on social value procurement. Again, in his announcement in June last year the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster included a requirement for central government departments to report on social value.

I was asked why large government contracts are out of scope for social value procurement. The answer is that the balanced scorecard is already in place to cover procurement of over £10 million. That already covers socioeconomic factors. The new social value framework covers everything below £10 million and above the Public Contracts Regulations threshold.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

On that point, use of large construction contracts was particularly mentioned. Could the noble Lord take that back and consider it further? The point is not so much the value of the goods and services concerned, but the point made by the Equality and Human Rights Commission—that the impact on employment and the way it is inclusive of a diversity of employees and on apprenticeships and training is so great that the sheer numeric value cut-off was limiting the effect of the social value Act. Would he consider that again?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I will reflect on that. I understand exactly the point that the noble Lord makes and that there would be value in extending it upwards. Perhaps I will write to him when I have taken advice on that.

We would be very happy to discuss the network of social value champions with partners in the sector.

One of the main themes emerging from the debate has been the need for the Government to encourage as wide a range of suppliers as possible to deliver the objectives we have been discussing. We remain fully committed to supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, and indeed helping the mutuals that my noble friend referred to. Our work with sector bodies and individual companies through the Crown representative network will continue, unlocking more opportunities for smaller businesses and those owned by underrepresented groups, as well as mutuals and charities.

Initiatives around prompt payment, simpler bidding processes, better visibility of opportunities in the supply chain and the Public Procurement Review Service have all been established to stimulate SMEs and VCSE organisations as the lifeblood of the economy. Our approach underpins this. I understand the point made by my noble friend Lady Finn and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about prompt payment. I believe prompt payment is a condition of any public sector contract. If a contractor does not promptly pay he runs the risk of being removed from the list of approved contractors. I was interested in the noble Lord’s suggestion that the Small Business Commissioner might have his energies harnessed in this area. I will certainly reflect on that.

With the Crown representative for VCSEs we are producing supporting guidance for smaller organisations bidding as part of consortia, and have helped buyers to better understand how they can level the playing field for SMEs and VCSEs in our introductory guidance on the social value Act. In line with best practice in policy-making, we are piloting the outline framework to see how it will be applied in practice and to help formulate the guidance on evaluating bids fairly and consistently. Two of these pilots are for major national contracts and one is a national framework agreement. Let me be clear that, in doing so, the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring it does not add complexity or cost to the procurement process. We do not want to restrict markets or exclude small businesses and voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations from government contracts.

It is always the misfortune of the Opposition spokesman to have the answers to his questions arrive right at the end of a debate. I am afraid that misfortune has fallen once again on the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I will convert the handwritten notes I have in front of me into something legible and typed up and write to the noble Lord to deal with the issues he raised about instilling social value procurement, what steps we are taking to create a standard definition, how this will link to the public sector equality duty, which is an important point that he raised, and how we will make Whitehall a leading partner in social procurement.

We want to see more good practice and to accelerate the opportunities available for the UK’s small businesses and VCSEs. In the words of I think my noble friend Lady Finn, we want to put social values at the heart of service delivery. This new approach is the next step in our journey of transforming how the Government are delivering smarter, more thoughtful and effective public services. We will utilise our huge purchasing power to deliver on our promise of a fairer society that works for everyone.