Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Grand Committee

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of the regulations is to allow information sharing between specified bodies for the specific purpose of identifying and targeting funded early learning and childcare for families with eligible two year-olds in Scotland. They seek to amend the Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2018. The public service delivery power supports public bodies to improve or target the important public services that they provide. The power is designed to give public bodies the information needed to provide early intervention and vital support for those who need it or, where possible, to prevent the problems that reduce people’s life chances.

The regulations seek to establish a new objective for data sharing under the public service delivery power in the Digital Economy Act 2017, for identifying and targeting funded early learning and childcare for families with eligible two year-olds in Scotland. The Scottish Government identified that there was low uptake for eligible two year-olds in Scotland and seek similar data-sharing arrangements as those already in place with English and Welsh local councils. Although Section 34 of the Scotland Act 2016 allows sharing of information between the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers, this has to be for the purpose of their respective social security functions. Regulations can expand on what those functions are but early learning and childcare does not relate to social security. Furthermore, HMRC has neither Secretary of State nor social security functions. For this reason, the Scotland Act 2016 is not a suitable vehicle to implement these powers and we are using the data-sharing powers in Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017.

The objective created through this regulation would enable data sharing from DWP and HMRC to the Scottish Government and allow for this to be forwarded to Scottish local councils. It would allow Scottish local councils access to the necessary information held by DWP and HMRC to enable them to identify households most in need, and then directly contact these families to inform them of the support that they are likely to be eligible for. To exercise the public service delivery power, the Government must set specific objectives for data sharing via regulations. Those objectives must meet specific criteria defined in the primary legislation. For the avoidance of doubt, these regulations do not create a new Henry VIII power. Instead, we are adding a new objective to the current tightly controlled Digital Economy Act powers, which make it possible to add or remove specified objectives and persons.

The current power to make amendments of this nature was subject to robust scrutiny by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and, as a result, the power to add this early learning and childcare objective must be scrutinised by Parliament via affirmative regulations. The territorial extent of this regulation is Great Britain and the territorial application is England and Scotland.

This regulation must be taken through the UK Parliament by the UK Government because information sharing under the proposed objective would involve disclosure and processing of data held by UK departments: HMRC and DWP. The Scottish Parliament can approve proposals only for new objectives which solely involve specified Scottish bodies permitted to make use of the public service delivery power. Legal gateways already exist in England and Wales to enable data sharing to support delivery of early learning and childcare. This draft regulation will bring Scotland parity of service provision that families in England and Wales already enjoy.

Data sharing is a vital and effective way of identifying individuals and households experiencing problems that reduce their life chances. Access to high-quality early learning and childcare is a key factor in determining life chances.

There are safeguards in place to protect personal data from misuse. The objective has already been subject to scrutiny by the Public Service Delivery Review Board, which oversees the use of the public service delivery power as set out in the underpinning code of practice. The review board comprises specialists working in the UK Government and in the devolved Administrations, as well as public representative bodies and civil society groups. Officials from the Information Commissioner’s Office also attend as observers. The board is tasked with considering proposals for new objectives for data sharing under the public service delivery power and making recommendations to Ministers. The board’s recommendation to take forward these draft regulations was approved by the relevant Minister as it meets the criteria set out in Section 35 for objectives under the public service delivery power: enabling the sharing of personal information to support “the improvement or targeting” of public services to individuals or households to improve their well-being.

Furthermore, the objective has been subject to public consultation. Respondents to the statutory public consultation have been decidedly positive, with up to 94% agreeing that the proposed data share would improve and target a service to eligible households, and 88% agreeing that the data sharing would improve well-being for these households. Some 86% also agreed that the data sharing would deliver tangible benefits to households, including early stage support to promote education, health and social equalities. Importantly, the majority of respondents, 87%, agreed that the personal data items to be shared, specifically including the customer—parent or carer—name, address and national insurance number for unique identification, as well as a child or children indicator to confirm the existence of a child or children, are appropriate for early learning and childcare service delivery.

Parliamentarians have already approved the code of practice and the previous Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2018, which I referred to and which established existing public service delivery objectives. Sharing personal data will, understandably, tend to attract attention and scrutiny. However, the power—as with the other data-sharing powers in Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017—must be exercised in compliance with the data protection legislation and UK GDPR.

The data being shared is strictly limited to the names and addresses of parents and confirming whether they are eligible for qualifying benefits. This does not involve the sharing of data held regarding the child, nor does it involve supplying further information than is necessary or confirming which benefits the parents do or do not claim. Scottish local councils also have arrangements in place to identify children in care or with guardians who may be eligible.

There is an underpinning code of practice, which sets out how the power must be operated. This includes setting out how any data shared under this power must be processed lawfully, securely and proportionately, in line with data protection legislation. Anyone making use of any objective must have regard to the code. The code of practice also requires that information-sharing agreements are included in a public register of information-sharing activity under the powers.

I hope colleagues in this Committee will join me in supporting the regulations. I apologise for a bit of technical information but, in the meantime, I beg to move.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that introduction and explanation. There is very wide support for the extension of childcare. Indeed, I have always believed that structured play and social engagement for young children is beneficial. Very early on in my political career, I campaigned successfully for increased funding for playgroups and for the extension of nursery-year schools in my area—I might say against campaigns from other political parties that were less supportive.

The basic understanding of the consultation is that it is overwhelmingly supported because of the objective, but there are perhaps one or two wrinkles worth pointing out. First, in that context, all children and all families are different, so there should not be a presumption that every child must or should go to childcare or nursery education between the ages of two and five. It should be a choice for the family and the parents, and sometimes there is pressure that is not appreciated.

Looking at some of the responses to the consultation, they were, I accept, overwhelmingly supportive across the piece—as the Minister pointed out—but large statistics still cover small minorities of concern. Taking one section as an example, 55% of respondents said that they saw no risk of loss of benefits; that means a pretty substantial minority were concerned that there might be. Does the Minister have any information on how that could come about and what the risks were? In the same category, 64% of respondents saw no risk of a loss of access to services, but that leaves a significant minority concerned that there might be. While in no way detracting from the very targeted purpose and desirability of this overall, and the general support for it, there needs to be recognition that there will be people for whom this raises some concerns.

Coming on to the specifics of the actual data-sharing, the Minister was careful to acknowledge that, by definition, data collected for one purpose being used for another is very much of concern. When people give information, they need to know what it is for and not to find it has been used for something they did not expect. In that context, it seems that the relationship between the Government, local authorities and all the relevant agencies needs to be sensitively handled. Think of a family who are struggling: if somebody rocks up at their door saying, “We have data to suggest this”, it could create a sense of threat or concern because we are, by definition, talking about vulnerable communities. What provision is there for ensuring that there is co-ordination and the best networking to get the most sensitive application of this and the desired result? The desired result should surely be that every child whose parents wish it and who qualifies should be found and given the opportunity to benefit from the care and support that is on offer and paid for.

Finally, it is interesting that devolution lives within this instrument, and I have no problem with that. But there was a point in a debate last week, which I unfortunately could not attend because I was speaking in the Chamber, where the Scottish Government were again asking the UK Government for assistance in collecting data. Again, I have no problem with it but it raises the question of what the capacity of the Scottish Government is or should be, or, indeed, why on earth they need a separate capacity if there is a perfectly adequate UK-wide system that they can access, subject to the appropriate safeguards.

The people of Scotland have voted more than once for devolution. They have never voted for independence, but you would hardly know that when you talk to Scottish Government Ministers, who have a great reluctance to admit publicly that devolution has any merit—never mind that it applies the will of the Scottish people, while they frustrate that will by promoting something the people do not want. In the meantime, this co-operation across the UK in data-sharing for legitimate purposes seems efficient and sensible and, in that context, I am happy to support the instrument from these Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am pleased that there is broad support for the regulations, so I will start with that and endeavour to answer as many questions as I can.

I will go straight in by speaking a little more about the consultation. A letter might need to be written to give further details about this, particularly the numbers of people involved, but I will have a bash. As I said, the responses received were broadly positive. No significant issues were raised during the consultation and, as a result, no changes were made to the proposed objective or the draft regulations. That is a start to understanding.

The UK Government carried out the consultation together with the Scottish Government, who engaged with specialist learning and childcare organisations, as well as Scottish councils. That takes us a little further. Further numbers than those I have given on responses that were negative rather than positive is probably a matter for a letter, so that I can get the technical details to noble Lords. It is understandable that those questions were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman. I have statistics in front of me that I have already read out, so I do not think they are particularly helpful.

Moving on, a question was asked about to what extent the devolved Administrations are engaged with this in general. As mentioned, the UK Government are taking this objective forward at the request of the Scottish Government. The territorial extent of the regulations is UK-wide and applies in England and Scotland only, as I mentioned. Under Section 44(4) of the DEA, the UK Government are required to consult the devolved Administrations—plural—on our proposed objectives. A formal consultation was carried out with the devolved Administrations at the time of the public consultation. Furthermore, ongoing liaison has taken place at official level to ensure that the views of Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues have been fully accounted for. I help that is helpful, particularly in answering the question from the noble Lord, Lord Jones.

A very fair question on safeguards was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie. It focused on misuse, which is a fair point. I alluded to this in my opening speech, but I will try to go a little further. The data-sharing provisions in Part 5 of the DEA include a number of robust safeguards, the most important being compatibility and strict adherence to the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. The DEA goes further and includes a number of additional safe- guards, including sanctions for unlawful disclosure. That includes custodial sentences. Furthermore, public service delivery powers are permissive, which means that public authorities listed in Schedule 4 can choose whether or not to do so. This safeguard prevents inappropriate data sharing.

Finally, as the new public service delivery objectives are created by affirmative secondary regulations, new objectives are defined for use before data sharing can commence, following public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked what provision there was to ensure co-ordination of the desired results. I think this is more about dissemination. The Scottish Government are keen to ensure that those families who wish to take up the early childcare offer can do so. They plan to co-ordinate the update and use of the objectives, which will be reviewed after one year. It is quite important to mention that.

I listened carefully to the short speech from my noble friend Lord Holmes. If I have got it right, his focus was really on the openness and transparency of data. He also spoke of the importance of the opposite, which I have already covered. We are committed to being open and transparent by making information about data shared under the DEA easily available for all to find out and understand. This helps citizens, the Government and the Information Commissioner’s Office to understand what data sharing is taking place.

Public authorities using the public service delivery, debt, fraud and civil registration powers must add data shares to a public register. The Cabinet Office is responsible for this and for maintaining the register, and the Public Service Delivery Review Board oversees strategic consistency. All accredited research projects and researchers are published on the UK Statistics Authority’s website, along with Research Accreditation Panel meeting minutes, to uphold the transparency requirements set out in the Research Code of Practice and Accreditation Criteria.

Finally, for statistics purposes, a list of data sources is available on the ONS website to maintain transparency of the data sources that the ONS holds to support its statutory functions, including data sources obtained under the statistics powers. That was quite a long answer but I hope it helps my noble friend.

I shall try to answer two or three more questions, if I may. I was asked what more is happening to enable the right level of data sharing across the UK. I think it may also have come from my noble friend—I see he is nodding. The Cabinet Office is working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that more data sharing takes place across the UK. It is rather outside the scope of this debate, but I will consider the replies I have given and may well add to a letter that may be coming the noble Lord’s way. I shall copy in all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.

One final response that has just come to me may be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. It is about the responses. I can confirm that we received 69 responses. That is the only response I have. As I said, I think we should look at the full consultation details and I will furnish the noble Lord with more information, should we have it.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I was trying to see whether I could get the detail. There is an appendix list of who has submitted, and some of them have published their submissions. My council, Aberdeenshire Council, has provided a submission, but I could not find what it was, so if the Minister is able to point us to where submissions can be sourced—if they are published or publishable—it would be helpful.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I will be in touch with the noble Lord outside the Committee to do so.

I finish by saying that the regulations will benefit an estimated 14,000 of Scotland’s most disadvantaged children by giving them access to a high-quality service that would cost families £5,000 a year per child if they were to purchase it themselves. I hope that, having heard the benefits spelled out, noble Lords will join me in formally supporting these draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Prime Minister: Meetings with First Ministers of the Devolved Governments

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Monday 10th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I can say that, in terms of Northern Ireland, which is the gist of the question, there are some significant issues to resolve and people and businesses in Northern Ireland are facing these daily. The Foreign Secretary, who has taken over from my noble friend Lord Frost, is committed to finding a resolution and proceeding talks with renewed urgency on matters such as those that my noble friend has raised.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, given that the difference in policy applications across the nations has not led to much difference in outcomes, is not the reality that we need a more co-operative approach across the UK? The Prime Minister said that devolution was a disaster. Does he not have to work twice as hard now to show that it can be a constructive and co-operative partnership and that the devolved Administrations are valued as part of the team?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Yes, indeed. The review, which is due to be published shortly, sets out a fit-for-purpose system that allows for meaningful and effective engagement between the UK Government and the devolved Governments. As I said earlier, this was achieved by discussions occurring at the portfolio level, where possible, and within the particular groups. The package also contains commitments to transparency and a robust dispute resolution mechanism founded on the principle of dispute avoidance.

Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2021

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Grand Committee

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, this draft order was laid before the House on 18 October 2021. It will support the Scottish Government’s decision to raise the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland from eight to 12 by making cross-border provisions necessary for the implementation of this change.

This order, known as a Scotland Act order, is made in consequence of the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019, which I shall now refer to as the 2019 Act. Scotland Act orders are a type of secondary legislation made under the Scotland Act 1998, which has formed the foundation of the devolution settlement with Scotland for over 20 years.

The 2019 Act raised the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland from eight to 12. The Act also established the role of the independent reviewer. This is a position that oversees the disclosure of convictions, and other relevant information, related to when a person was under the age of 12. The 2019 Act provides specific powers for the police to investigate instances of serious harmful behaviour by children under the age of 12.

To support this change, amendments are required to UK legislation to ensure that the 2019 Act can be implemented fully. The order is designed to protect and support children. With this in mind, I first want to explain the disclosure provisions set out in Part 2 of the legislation.

While the 2019 Act made it possible for Scottish Ministers to request certain information from chief police officers in Scotland relating to the behaviour of children, the Act also created the position of the independent reviewer. In their post, the independent reviewer will be responsible for determining whether this information ought to be released if it relates to a time when the person in question was under the age of 12.

This Scotland Act Order will ensure that the powers of the independent reviewer apply across the UK, so that information provided by chief police officers from other forces will be reviewed by the independent reviewer before it is released to Scottish Ministers.

The order also extends provisions of the 2019 Act, which currently apply to Police Scotland, to constables of non-territorial forces operating in Scotland. This will ensure that consistency in policing is achieved across Scotland, with equality of treatment for any child in that jurisdiction regardless of the situation. That said, it is not expected that these non-territorial forces will use these provisions often, if at all.

Police across the UK are also supported by this order. Section 75 of the 2019 Act has made it an offence in Scotland for a person to obstruct investigations into behaviour of a child under the age of 12 who is believed to have caused serious harm to another person. The order will extend this offence to include obstructions that occur elsewhere in the UK. Similarly, the order facilitates the cross-border enforcement of court orders made under the 2019 Act for the collection of information from a child under the age of 12 in other parts of the UK. This may be necessary if a child has returned home to another part of the UK following a serious incident in Scotland.

Let me offer a real-world example of the changes that the order seeks to make. Let us consider what might happen if a child who lives in England is involved in a serious incident while on holiday in Scotland. The order provides that a Scottish court order authorising collection of information from that child can be enforced in England. This will enable the incident to be effectively investigated so that the right support can be put in place for the child and any person involved in the incident. Through the changes made by this order, children in Scotland will be better supported.

This order will also enable appropriate bodies such as Police Scotland and local authorities to engage with their counterparts across the UK to ensure that harmful behaviour is addressed proportionately and accurately. Court orders sought and granted in Scotland will be enforceable by police forces across the UK in relation to a child whose behaviour causes harm and who then leaves Scotland before Scottish police were able to enforce the order.

It is important to point out here that the number of children affected is very small. In Scotland, data provided by the Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration shows that, in 2016-17—those are the most recent figures—only 16 serious cases involving children under 12 resulted in an interview. Police Scotland also advised that only 10 children under 12 were searched during that same period.

In summary, this instrument will ensure that the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 can be fully implemented, with necessary cross-border provisions put in place. We believe that this order is a sensible and pragmatic step to assist the Scottish Government. I commend it to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the circumstances; indeed, I thank him for the Explanatory Notes, which make this clear. However, they raise some interesting questions.

First, it is perhaps worth recording that, prior to the 2019 Act, the situation in Scotland was anomalous in quite remarkable ways. The age of criminal responsibility was eight, yet we had a well-developed set of children’s panels and children’s hearings which were designed to ensure that children were not treated as criminals and not subject to the criminal process. The surprise is how long it took to address the age of criminal responsibility.

Secondly, the rest of the UK is now out of step with Scotland: the age of criminal responsibility is 10 in the rest of the UK and 12 in Scotland. This raises the question not of the enforceability of this order but of whether the relevant authorities will understand, engage with and be fully conversant with the differences. I think we all recognise that, sadly, children, including very young children, are capable of quite wicked acts, acts that are by definition and in their characteristic criminal. However, if they are under the age of criminal responsibility, they will not be subjected to the criminal process.

So, when there is an issue of questioning, following up on or investigating children, will the authorities in other parts of the United Kingdom approach it in the same way as the authorities in Scotland, given the different background? Will this lead to children who have crossed the border being treated differently and adversely through a lack of appreciation and understanding of the differences between the two regimes? Although we do not expect many cases like this, that issue could raise an anomaly.

On a broader issue that is perhaps a matter for the United Kingdom Government, at 12, the age of criminal responsibility is still considered by many authorities to be too low. I think the Council of Europe suggested that it should be at least 14, while the United Nations thinks that it should be 16. Is any consideration being given to the rest of the United Kingdom raising the age of criminal responsibility? Also, because the final stages of the Act will not come into force until next month, are any issues likely to arise from the transitional arrangements—that is, will children under the age of 12 who committed a crime or were engaged in the system before the Act came into force still be subjected to the old regimes both north and south of the border? How might that play out? Of course we understand the need for the order—that is not in question—but I hope the Minister recognises that some issues could arise out of the differences in both the age of criminal responsibility and the procedures applied in Scotland compared with England.

As a final footnote, the children’s panel and children’s hearings have generally been recognised as a highly progressive mechanism for dealing with young offenders below the age of criminal responsibility, yet they have not been replicated. With the wonders of our United Kingdom, I wonder why we do not pursue best practice. This is one area where Scotland, having lagged behind, certainly on the age of criminal responsibility, has now overtaken England and has a much more constructive, progressive system for handling young people who get into trouble. Having read the guidelines for the child interview rights practitioners, which are quite thorough, I wonder whether there will be people in other parts of the United Kingdom who have conformed to the same sort of guidelines that have been established for the Scottish process.

I hope the Minister understands what we are talking about. I accept that it is very few cases, but despite the law trying to ensure that there is a common practice across the United Kingdom, the differences might lead to a situation where the law and the practice do not coincide.

Ballymurphy Inquest Findings

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, first, I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who has long experience of the situation in Northern Ireland and this particular case. Given the long and bitter history of the Ballymurphy killings and Operation Demetrius, which was the genesis of the events of 9-11 August 1971, I agree also that the Prime Minister’s apology appears somewhat graceless and inadequate. Sending a stereotyped collective letter, rather than making a public statement and apology in Parliament, falls short of the sensitivity and compassion required following such a clear and stark verdict.

It has taken almost 50 years to get to this point— 50 years during which, as the verdict confirms, the victims were slandered and vilified, including by the most senior members of the Armed Forces. As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, pointed out, Mr Johnson’s predecessor, David Cameron, whatever his faults, came to the House of Commons and made a sincere and unqualified public apology over the Bloody Sunday report. This event surely required nothing less. Once again, it reveals a dangerous lack of understanding of or consideration for the raw wounds left by the Troubles and the delicate path Northern Ireland is now treading as a result of the Prime Minister’s reckless haste to get Brexit done without adequate concern for its impact on the Belfast agreement.

The Ballymurphy killings were among a larger number of deaths that occurred during Operation Demetrius, when the Army was systematically rounding up terrorist suspects for internment without trial. Internment, a deeply controversial sanction, was made worse by poor intelligence leading to innocent, non-violent members of the nationalist community being targeted—often brutally, according to reports—by soldiers who perceived almost anyone as a potential terrorist. Not surprisingly, for such a draconian course of action, it was resented and provoked demonstrations and, in the heightened tension this created, the Army reacted by firing living ammunition and, as is now confirmed, killing innocent citizens. Despite the fact that loyalist paramilitaries also perpetrated acts of violence, it appears that Operation Demetrius was focused entirely on the Catholic community. Paddy Murray, the solicitor who represents the families of nine of the 10 victims, has said that following the verdict further legal action is being planned.

Before the verdict, the Government appeared determined to press ahead with legislation to limit the scope for future prosecutions on crimes related to the Troubles. The Secretary of State trod carefully around the issue in the other place on Thursday but, nevertheless, made it clear that the Government are still planning legislation. He talked about finding a solution that can work for “families in Northern Ireland”, but if the Government are really committed to finding a solution that works for families, does the Minister agree that the victims of Ballymurphy, and indeed of all the atrocities committed during the Troubles, and their families must come first? They must have confidence in any process that is established going forward; otherwise, the peace and reconciliation that everybody wants for Northern Ireland will be more difficult to achieve.

I remind the Minister of the key principles set out in the Stormont agreement. These are:

“promoting reconciliation … upholding the rule of law … acknowledging and addressing the suffering of victims and survivors … facilitating the pursuit of justice and information recovery”

and that the agreement is

“human rights compliant … balanced, proportionate, transparent, fair and equitable.”

Can there be any justification for setting these aside? Are the Government reassessing their position on any limitation? Is it possible or acceptable to exempt veterans from prosecution without denying recourse to victims of terrorism? Is there any support for the Government’s approach within the Province? Is it helpful or necessary to introduce this into the mix at a time of such volatility and uncertainty? Without clear cross-community support for any government proposals, will the Government accept that pressing ahead would be insensitive and unwise, and should not be imposed?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Bruce, for their comments and their points. As is now apparent from the inquest verdict from Mrs Justice Keegan last Tuesday, we can all agree that the deaths of 10 entirely innocent people in Ballymurphy over three days in August 1971 was one of the most appalling events of all the years of the Troubles. It was a new and particularly dark low, the results of which may have—or are likely to have—exacerbated further incidents in subsequent years. Noble Lords will have read the Statement. In normal times in the House, I would be repeating it. A Statement such as this, one of such gravity and sensitivity, deserves as much.

I start by emphasising that my thoughts are with the families of the Ballymurphy victims. It is sobering for me to consider that I was 15 in 1971. The deaths left no fewer than 57 children—as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy said—without a parent, with all the tragedy, the loss of loved ones, and the permanently changed lives that stemmed from this. I want to put on record again today the Government’s acknowledgment of the terrible hurt that has been caused to the families of the victims: Francis Quinn, Father Hugh Mullan, Noel Phillips, Joan Connolly, Daniel Teggart, Joseph Murphy, Edward Doherty, John Laverty, Joseph Corr and John McKerr. The events at Ballymurphy should never have happened. The families of those who were killed should never have had to experience the grief and trauma of the losses, or the decades of waiting for last Tuesday’s verdict.

The noble Lords, Lord Murphy and Lord Bruce, raised issues around the Government’s apology to the Ballymurphy families. I start by saying that it cannot change what they have endured. The PM, on behalf of the UK Government—the state—has apologised by writing to the families. He has also spoken to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. My right honourable friend in the other place, Brandon Lewis, also apologised in his Statement last Thursday and, today, I add my own heartfelt apology, as I address the House.

The results of Mrs Justice Keegan’s report and the apologies given will be followed by action to prevent others who have lost loved ones, from all communities, whether civilians, paramilitaries or solders, continuing to go through the same lengthy and traumatic experiences. To answer the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, that is why the Government are committed, as spelt out in the recent humble Address, to address the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. We are doing so in a way that allows all individuals or families who want information, including those from Ballymurphy, to seek and receive answers about what happened during the Troubles with far less delay and distress.

Again to answer a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, it is important that we do this with all parties involved in Northern Ireland, from the parties themselves to civic society and victims organisations, to ensure that we bring everybody along with us in what is being proposed.

Trade Bill

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like others who have spoken, I recall that I have spoken several times on similar amendments to this Bill, the then Agriculture Bill and the then United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I do not intend to repeat previous speeches, but rather to challenge the Government to wake up and smell the coffee. Because, in spite of paying lip service to the contrary, Ministers have been careless or dismissive of the concerns of the devolved Administrations and clearly disregard the impact of this insouciance, coupled with incompetence, on the mood across the devolved Administrations, which has hardened. If they had a voice, mind you, I suspect that that mood would be articulated by a number of English regions as well.

Before we got here, the interconnection of the EU, the UK and devolved decision-making worked pretty well, but the transition to the UK outside the EU is clearly having a disruptive effect. The rise in the support for separatism, which has been commented on across the devolved Administrations, has been driven by the combination of incompetence and scathing indifference to the concerns of a growing number of our citizens. The combination of Brexit, the Covid pandemic and an ideological, right-wing Government has created a toxic mix that is putting the future of the UK as a working enterprise at grave risk.

I believe there is a positive case to be made for the United Kingdom, and for the benefits to all its parts of staying together, but it will not be achieved by London-centric English exceptionalism. All the peoples of the UK benefit from both our own achievement in developing the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine and the UK’s ability to secure significant quantities of this and other vaccines and begin the process of distributing them fairly, on a pro rata population basis, to all corners of the kingdom. The resources of the UK have delivered furlough to millions and survival support to businesses to try to get us through the crisis, and that has reached all corners of the UK.

Our security and defence capacity and diplomatic reach across the world may not be appreciated on a day-to-day basis by the average citizen, but they would certainly be missed if they were disrupted by the break- up of the UK. So that is a warning. It is the case, unfortunately, that much of this has been compromised by the Government’s cavalier disregard for international law, the surrender of many of the hard-won advantages and influences we had secured through the EU and the cut to our aid budget—much of it administered, as it happens, from Scotland.

The defeat of President Trump and the election of the new, more constructive and engaging Administration in the United States surely demonstrate that we should not lightly throw away the things we share across the United Kingdom just because we dislike or even despise the current Prime Minister and his self-serving cronies. However, with elections in Scotland and Wales in May, the Government need a desperately urgent reset of their stance towards the devolved Administrations. As has been said, the fact that trade policy and, more pertinently, trade treaties are reserved does not justify excluding Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from having a say in shaping them.

The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, may be right in saying that the negotiation of these treaties is a reserved matter exclusive to the Executive, and that this amendment is unhelpful, but I say to him very gently that I think he is totally failing to understand the mood that is growing in the devolved Administrations about this approach. If the UK Government could secure more preferential access, for example, for Scotch whisky into India, it would be a cause for rejoicing—but not if at the same time we saw a relaxation of standards for imported beef. So the devolved Administrations would first want to have a positive input into the things they wanted to secure, as well as a protective input and concerns about agreements that might damage significant parts of their interests in the economy. Surely the UK Government should seek to represent the whole of the UK in their approach to trade negotiations and agreements.

So I support the basic aims of this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. It is, I believe, weakened by proposed new subsection (5) which, although requiring the UK Government to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations, allows that to be set aside. However, I understand that that has been put in in a spirit of compromise. Personally, I would prefer some form of qualified majority voting, and also a way of testing the interests of English regions. Unless the Government respond to the spirit of this and similar amendments, by engaging much more positively with the devolved Administrations, they will face a constitutional crisis on top of the pandemic and Brexit—a perfect storm.

I say to Ministers that they should recognise that this has been a growing movement since the Brexit scenario has developed and the legislation relating to it has come forward—on agriculture, trade and the internal market. As has been clearly stated, we have tabled and supported a series of amendments seeking to secure the role of the devolved Administrations in the decision-making process. If the Government choose to disregard that, they will only be fuelling the centripetal pressures on the future of the United Kingdom, and I plead with Ministers to recognise that it is not just about the terms of the legislation, it is about the mood, the spirit, the language and the body language of Ministers when they speak to and about the devolved Administrations. Because, right now, that body language is driving support away from the future of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that is the Government’s intention, but it is the effect of their behaviour and I think they should really reflect on that.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for Amendment 24, as it provides a further opportunity to talk briefly about the important issue of the devolved Administrations’ role in our new international trade policy.

The UK Government are committed to working closely with the devolved Administrations to deliver an independent trade policy that works for the whole of the UK, and this has been reflected by statements from the devolved Administrations. For example, as I noted earlier in previous debates, the Counsel General for Wales, Jeremy Miles MS, recently said in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 19 November that the department has listened to the devolved Administrations and established a new ministerial forum for trade, which we have used to consult them on all our trade agreements. The forum met four times last year, most recently on 9 December, and regular engagement will continue in 2021. I listened to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and do not entirely agree with his version of how the continuing talks are going.

This engagement has meant that the devolved Administrations’ views have already begun to be reflected in our free trade agreements. For example, the devolved Administrations made it clear that they supported high ambition for the mobility of professionals in all our FTAs. With regard to the Japan FTA, the UK Government delivered this by securing more flexibility for Japanese and British companies to move talent into each country, covering a range of UK skilled workers to enter Japan, from computer services to construction.

I also listened to the brief speeches by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on their concerns over Welsh lamb. As noble Lords will know, the Bill does not give the UK Government powers to implement future trade agreements with partners, including New Zealand, but we will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations on all our current FTA negotiations, so that their interests and priorities are reflected through negotiations.

However, while it is absolutely right that we engage meaningfully with the devolved Administrations, we must do so within our existing constitutional framework. That is why the DIT has sought to strike the proper balance between engaging with the devolved Administrations and respecting that, under our constitutional settlement, international trade is both a reserved matter and a prerogative power.

My noble friend Lord Trenchard spoke at greater length—and in my view, very wisely—on these points. I agree with him that, unfortunately, this amendment would upset that balance. It would require the UK Government not only to consult but to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations for FTAs covering areas of devolved competence. This goes far beyond what is appropriate, given that international trade is a reserved matter and would have significant implications for the strength of the UK’s negotiating position. I believe that my noble friend Lord Trenchard also made that point.

The principle that the UK Government have sole responsibility for decisions on international trade negotiations is not just long-standing constitutional practice but is critical in ensuring that the United Kingdom can speak with a single voice in our international relations, providing certainty for our negotiating partners and the strongest negotiating position for all the regions and nations of the UK. The amendment would undermine this unity and could lead our negotiating partners to try to play different Administrations off against one another. This is surely one of the reasons why the UK Parliament decided that international relations should remain a reserved matter and enshrined this in the devolution settlements.

The UK Government have worked hard with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the Bill is already drafted in a way that respects the devolution settlements. The Minister of State for Trade Policy has undertaken a significant programme of engagement to achieve this, including regular meetings with devolved Ministers, bilateral calls and attending the devolved legislature committees to discuss their views.

As noble Lords will know, the Scottish Government withheld consent from the previous Bill—the Trade Bill 2017-19. For this Bill, we therefore made additional amendments to address their concerns, such as removing restrictions on Scottish Ministers’ use of the Bill’s delegated powers. As a result, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee changed their position and recommended that the Scottish Parliament consent to the Bill. On 8 October, a legislative consent motion—an LCM—was formally granted.

Northern Ireland: Commission for Victims and Survivors

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I can understand the noble Lord’s interest and frustration. I am unable to give him a timetable, but I give further reassurance that we are committed to bringing forward legislation that focuses on reconciliation, delivers for victims and ends the cycle of reinvestigations into the Troubles in Northern Ireland. This is on the back of the consultation that he will know about.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, when the commissioner, Judith Thompson, retired at the end of August, she said that legislation needs to be passed that has

“the full support of Victims and Survivors and is not a Westminster solution to a Northern Ireland problem.”

Does the Minister accept that sound advice and recognise that, as she has not yet been replaced, a continuing role for a commission is needed? Do the Government support that, and will the Minister use his office to ensure that a commissioner is appointed and that the commission is properly supported?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Lord echoes the wise words of the previous commissioner. Though he will know that the appointment of a new commissioner is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, I understand that the First and Deputy First Ministers are currently considering the options for the post of the Commissioner for Victims and Survivors.

Trade Bill

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 8th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The strength of argument he has put behind these amendments and the analysis that he always brings to bear are very forceful. I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate, because the Minister should be clear that they have articulated not only a very clear strength of feeling but a really strong force of argument behind all these amendments and the need to maintain the devolution settlement. Of course, all these amendments have devolution at the heart. How it is handled by the UK Government requires a huge sensitivity which, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, has not always been displayed.

I shall speak specifically to my Amendments 27 and 76, and to Amendment 30, which I have signed. I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Humphreys and Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for signing Amendment 27, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who certainly indicated some support for Amendment 76.

Far-reaching decisions under the Agriculture Bill, the Trade Bill and the forthcoming Internal Market Bill put the devolution settlements and the integrity of the United Kingdom under immense strain. This has been stressed by pretty well every speaker in this debate. It has come about because the umbrella of the European Union, which set the framework, is being removed, so powers that revert to the UK have to take account of the devolution that took place while we were in the EU. Some of the powers are fully devolved and come to the devolved Administrations. Some are reserved. All this requires that the powers that come back to the regions are not overridden. Those that are reserved, are reserved. That is clear. Those that are hybrid are clearly open to debate. But what is emerging is that some that are theoretically devolved are being clawed back by the Government’s interpretation of what is reserved.

These amendments seek to test the Government’s good faith and ensure that decisions that may radically alter the terms of trade for companies, the public sector or individuals within any or all of the devolved Administrations are taken in a fair and objective way. Amendment 27 requires the Government to secure the consent of the devolved legislatures to any regulations under the Bill, and proposed new subsection (6B) suggests that if two of the three devolved legislatures do not consent, the regulation should not proceed. Effectively, this is an exploratory amendment to see to what extent the UK Government respect the settlements and wish to achieve unanimity—or at least, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, suggested, qualified majority support. I think most of us accept that it would be unreasonable to allow one devolved Administration to have a veto, but it is equally unreasonable to allow the one devolved Administration which is also the UK Government to have a veto over the three devolved Administrations, which is what the Government are proposing in the Bill.

Amendment 78 seeks to embed the role of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which has been underregarded to date. It has brokered the agreement on common frameworks, which will be subject to this House’s new committee, of which I am a member. However, it has not been the vehicle for negotiation and compromise that some had hoped for. It was envisaged by many that it would be the vehicle by which consensus could be secured. The amendment requires it to meet prior to concluding a free trade agreement and to secure the consent of the devolved Administrations.

What we are talking about in practice here is that trade agreements are treaties and treaties are reserved. Under the EU, our devolved Administrations could not, at least before we left, make common cause with subnational Parliaments and Governments across the other 27 member states. We are all familiar with the role of Belgium’s provincial Parliaments in ratifying EU treaties, and nobody in these amendments is seeking to give any of the devolved Administrations in the UK a comparable power—but once the power lies with Westminster and Whitehall, there is no Europe-wide constituency to pursue. There is no consensus to be built up across like-minded legislatures elsewhere, other than the three devolved Administrations, which have different priorities but common values and common concerns.

If the Government chose to conclude an agreement that lowered food standards, perhaps compromising Scotland’s prime beef sector, it would surely be essential that this was agreed by the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, I challenge the Minister to say under what circumstances the Government could justify that without securing such consent. If public procurement was amended to allow elements of the health service to be available for foreign investment, or for previously non-approved drugs to be allowed, or financial regulations to be lowered or changed in ways that were detrimental to Scotland’s important financial services sector, should the people of Scotland and their representatives not be consulted in a meaningful way?

I take on board the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about whether it should be Ministers or legislatures—but, as he said, that is a matter of detail. The principle is that the voice of Scotland should be taken into account, and the same would apply on comparable issues in Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course, England needs devolution, and if the Government could find a democratic way of consulting the English regions, it could add a valuable balance. But the fact that that has not been done should not be used as an excuse to say that the devolved Administrations cannot expect to have their views given the weight that these amendments are trying to secure.

Ministerial insensitivity and indifference are, frankly, turbocharging nationalism and separatism. Next year’s elections will be hard fought between the extremes of what to me is a fantasy independence agenda and a UK Government cavalier about their claim to be unionist, and another crisis may engulf us all. I therefore urge the Government to wake up, think and engage, and at least to adopt the spirit of these amendments and show respect to the devolution settlement and an understanding of how to secure a positive way of working.

Dispute resolution will be required. The Government should accept that, ideally, we would like to see government amendments which take the spirit of the amendments that have been debated today and put it on the face of the Bill. That would ensure that any disputes are properly handled in an objective, fair and independent way, and that it is not just a matter of the assurance of a Government who, in the Bill, are saying that ultimately, in the event of disagreement within or across the devolved Administrations, the UK Government, representing the English devolved Administration and the UK, will override the wishes of the devolved Administrations. If the Government seek to do that, they will put a huge explosive under the continuing functioning of the United Kingdom.

It is important that the strength of feeling and the strength of argument that these amendments have demonstrated to the Government require a clear vision from government, and for it to be put on the face of the Bill before it is enacted.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, as I respond to this continuing debate today, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important issue of the devolved Administrations’ role in international trade and to demonstrate the significant strides that the Department for International Trade has taken on this matter since the passage of the Trade Bill 2017-19. I have listened to the arguments, and the essence of this debate has been a discussion on the balance between devolved and reserved, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said, its link to the test of good faith. There are bound to be differing views on what that balance should be.

During the passage of the previous Trade Bill, the UK Government conducted a significant programme of engagement with the devolved Administrations and your Lordships’ House to ensure that the Bill delivered for all parts of the UK, including regular meetings with devolved Ministers and attending the devolved legislative committees. As a result of this engagement, the UK Government made a number of amendments and commitments to address the devolved Administrations’ concerns. This led the Welsh Parliament to consent to the relevant clauses of that Bill. We are conducting a similar programme of engagement for this Bill and have included all the amendments and restated all our commitments that we made to the devolved Administrations. As a result, the Welsh Government have once again recommended consent to the clauses that were contained in the previous Bill.

However, we have also gone further on this Bill and have made an additional amendment to remove a restriction on the devolved Administrations’ use of the powers in the Bill which the Scottish Government previously objected to. As a consequence, I am pleased that the Scottish Government have now also recommended consent to the Bill, and—to be helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie—we are working very hard to ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive also feel able to do so. That the Welsh and Scottish Governments have already recommended consent demonstrates that the Bill is already drafted in a way that respects the devolution settlements. Indeed, in its report on the Bill, the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House welcomed the progress that we have made on this matter and made no recommendations for changes to devolution aspects of the Bill, which it might otherwise have done.

On Amendments 26, 27, 31 and 99, as many noble Lords have highlighted already, international trade is a reserved matter under the devolution settlements. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, rightly noted at Second Reading and today, in line with the noble Baroness, Lady Humphrey, on Tuesday, that the implementation of international obligations in devolved areas is a devolved matter. We absolutely recognise the devolved Administrations’ competence in this area, which is why the Bill confers powers on them so that they are able to implement our continuity agreements where they touch on devolved matters.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, also noted at Second Reading, these are concurrent powers that also allow the UK Government to legislate in devolved areas. We have sought to put in place concurrent powers to provide greater flexibility in how transitioned agreements are implemented, allowing each devolved Administration to implement the agreements independently in some cases, but also allowing the UK Government to legislate on a UK-wide basis where it makes practical sense to do so.

We understand that those powers should be used appropriately, which is why the Government have committed that we will not normally use the concurrent powers to legislate within devolved areas without the consent of the relevant devolved Administration, and never without consulting them first, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said. We have also put in place a five-year sunset provision on the concurrent powers in Clause 2, which can be extended for further periods only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament. We recognise that this would also extend the devolved Administrations’ and the UK Government’s ability to use the powers in devolved areas, and have therefore committed to the devolved Administrations that we will consult them before extending the sunset.

Northern Ireland: Payments to Victims of the Troubles

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right when she talks about the review. The judge made a clear ruling that the Executive Office was acting unlawfully in not designating a department. This is now happening—this process is now taking place. I cannot tell the noble Baroness precisely what is happening at this moment, but I reassure her and the House that the Northern Ireland Office continues to regard this as a priority. It is doing its best to work with the parties to take this forward and to get the payments made at the earliest opportunity.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has pointed out, Naomi Long, the Northern Ireland Justice Minister has—to her great credit—volunteered her department for this challenging task. She says that she is determined, if possible, to progress this by an earlier date than March. But surely the Governments need to work together to overcome these challenges. This is a UK scheme. Does the Minister recognise that UK Ministers cannot walk away from either the funding or the delivery of the scheme? They will be held accountable. If funding or operation are not adequate, they will not escape the blame.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Lord’s question is unnecessary. The funding is there; it has never been a block. It comes through the block grant. In the background to the funding through the block grant, the UK Government have provided very generous financial support to the Northern Ireland Executive since the start of this calendar year. This has included an additional £2 billion through the NDNA financial package and £260 million from the Budget.

Northern Ireland: Paramilitary Groups

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Monday 15th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I have certainly answered the question on victims’ payments. The noble Lord is right: there is absolutely no place for dissident terrorists or paramilitary groups to exert control over communities through violence or threats, or to exploit those communities for their own ends. Those involved in these groups offer nothing but harm to communities.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

There is absolutely no justification for any threats to journalists or politicians that raise the prospect of a descent back into the spectre of violence that the Good Friday agreement sought to end. I am a member of the National Union of Journalists, and journalists and politicians must be free to report facts and express opinions right across the political and community spectrums, while avoiding amplifying inflammatory statements that could encourage conflict and violence. Does the Minister agree?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I agree, and the noble Lord will know that the campaign by the National Union of Journalists is important. Journalists play a vital role in Northern Ireland, and I say again that they must be free at all times to do their jobs without fear of violence. The Secretary of State made that clear last month when he signed the public statement issued by the National Union of Journalists.

Victims of the Troubles: Payment Scheme

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Monday 8th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord is right: we must put the victims of the Troubles at the forefront of what we are trying to do. However, I reiterate that it is up to the Northern Ireland Executive to take matters forward. I also reassure the noble Lord that, since we spoke about this subject last week, further urgent talks have been taking place between the Secretary of State, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and all parties. All parties, including Sinn Féin, must work closely together to take the payment processing forward.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]]

The Government say that funding is not the issue, so can the Minister identify what part of the block grant was identified for victims’ compensation? If he is unable to do so, can he urge the Secretary of State to engage constructively with the Northern Ireland Executive to break the deadlock? Given that the scheme applies to victims across the UK, should he not use his authority to ensure that the scheme is started without any further delay or debate about the definition, for which guidance has already been provided, and given that Naomi Long the Justice Minister has indicated that her department is ready to put it into operation?

Northern Ireland: Victims Payment Scheme

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I acknowledge the noble Lord’s experience in these matters. I am not in a position to give any guarantees but, again, I wish to assure all concerned that this is a matter of great urgency.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

In January, the then Secretary of State, Julian Smith, said that the

“discussions and delay of the past few years have gone on long enough … The time has come to get this done and deliver for those people who will benefit most.”

Yet here we are. This House has a real stake in this issue. Does the Minister recognise that this is a UK-wide issue, as the commissioner pointed out today, because terrorists have murdered and maimed people right across the UK? Surely that reinforces the need for the UK Government to take a lead on funding, to break the deadlock and to ensure that compensation is delivered at the earliest opportunity in the next few days.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Lord is right. Different parties have been involved in this. I want to make it clear that the UK Government have played a strong role in taking this forward, and I reiterate that the Northern Ireland Executive made certain pledges back in 2014. I also reiterate that it is now up to the Northern Ireland Executive to take this matter forward.

Covid-19: Ireland

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Yes, absolutely. I will take that back to the department. The Isle of Man is part of the common travel area, so we should bear in mind its interests in relation to Ireland and Northern Ireland in tackling this dreadful virus, and we do.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

Is it not imperative that the lifting of restrictions in Northern Ireland takes full account of the Province’s unique position in relation to the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the common travel area? Is it not also desirable that testing and tracing practices should be closely aligned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has said? We should not require cross-border travellers to operate two systems—indeed, to have two different apps on their phones, as the Health Minister suggested. Is this not pursuing difference for difference’s sake?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Lord is right in that, as I said earlier, we are developing an integrated test-and-trace programme. The details are rather sparse at the moment and conversations continue. It could be app, web or phone-based. I reiterate that this is a key way of helping us to work more closely together on getting out of this virus.

Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2020

Debate between Viscount Younger of Leckie and Lord Bruce of Bennachie

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to debate this order, which is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to devolution. I will begin by providing background to the order, which is made under the Scotland Act 1998. The 1998 Act devolved powers to Scotland and legislated for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. The Scotland Act 2016 was the second major update to the settlement, making amendments to the 1998 Act and delivering the cross-party Smith commission agreement, which was established following the 2014 Scottish independence referendum. As a result of the 2016 Act, a wide range of powers, including welfare powers, has now been transferred to the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament.

Scotland Act orders are used to implement, update or adjust Scotland’s devolution settlement. The order before the Grand Committee today is a Section 63 order, which provides for functions to be shared by Scottish Ministers concurrently with a Minister of the Crown. This is commonly known as executive devolution. Section 63 orders are Orders in Council and are subject to approval by affirmative resolution in both Houses of this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, this order was approved by the Scottish Parliament on 4 December last year.

I will now turn to the instrument itself and explain exactly what it does. The Scottish Government have committed to introducing a grant, known as job start payment, for young people aged 16 between 24 who have been out of paid employment for six months or more and who make an application. The Scottish Government do not currently have the executive competence to provide assistance to this cohort of young people to help them retain employment. This order is therefore required to enable the introduction of the Scottish Government’s job start payment.

To be clear, the order only gives Scottish Ministers the necessary powers and does not set policy. Furthermore, the powers of the UK Government will not be reduced as a result of the order as the functions are simply being shared with the Scottish Government. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has agreed to share the function of making arrangements to provide assistance to this cohort concurrently with the Scottish Government.

The order will achieve this by amending the Employment And Training Act 1973 to make certain existing powers for the Secretary of State exercisable concurrently by Scottish Ministers. Section 31 of the Scotland Act 2016 created exceptions to the reservation of the subject matter of the Employment And Training Act 1973 in order to give the Scottish Parliament certain powers in this area. However, those exceptions did not extend to providing assistance to retain employment to this cohort of young people. The amendment is therefore required to enable the introduction of the job start payment as without it, Scottish Ministers would not have the necessary powers.

I will now explain what the Scottish Government intend to do with the powers transferred through this order. I previously explained the nature of the grant. In targeting young people, the Scottish Government are targeting the people who need support most. Evidence suggests that the unemployment rate for young people is higher than for those over 25. The unemployment rate for young people in Scotland was 9.1% from October 2018 to September 2019, compared with an overall unemployment rate in Scotland of 3.9%. The proposed payment will consist of a one-off cash payment of £250, or £400 for young people who have children. This will help with the initial costs associated with entering and remaining in work. It could be used to pay for food and clothing and to help towards travel costs, thus removing some of the initial pressure of starting a new job.

Young people will have a three-month window from receiving an offer of employment to apply for the benefit. Upon receipt of a job start payment application, the Scottish Government anticipate that it will take 21 working days and a further three working days for payment to be made. Care leavers will be able to apply for an additional year compared with other young people and will have to be out of paid work only on the date of the job offer, rather than for the previous six months, to be eligible.

The job start payment is expected to be introduced in spring 2020. This is of course dependent on the order being made. Job start payment will be administered by Social Security Scotland, the Scottish Government’s benefit delivery agency. Any costs associated with delivering the payment will fall solely on the Scottish Government. In the Scottish budget 2020-21, announced on 6 February, £2 million was allocated to fund the benefit expenditure for job start payment.

The UK Government do not view the order as controversial and are fully supportive of the Scottish Government’s plans to support young people to retain employment through the introduction of the job start payment. Indeed, we take no issue with the Scottish Government using their budget to support young people in this way, in addition to the support provided across the UK by the UK Government within reserved competence.

The order demonstrates that the UK Government remain committed to strengthening the devolution settlement and shows Scotland’s two Governments working well together. I commend the order to the Committee, and I beg to move.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that introduction and explanation. As he said, this is a relatively small measure, it is not contentious and it is clearly the wish of the Scottish Government, so in that sense we do not need to detain the Committee for long. I commend the basics of the grant, accept that there are circumstances in which young people might find it difficult to get work if they have been unemployed for a long time, and accept that this would be a benefit, but is there any accountability for this money, or is it simply cash in hand for young people to do with as they wish?

My second point concerns perhaps a more general characteristic of the Scottish Government’s campaign to secure control over social security and welfare payments in Scotland—they proceed very slowly and with some timidity in implementing them. We know how big the welfare bill is, and the Minister has put a maximum figure of £2 million on this measure. I know that this is a very small cohort of people and that is probably as much as it deserves; nevertheless, against the big picture of welfare and social security it is a very modest measure. When we compare that with the profligacy with which the Scottish Government have managed to nationalise, at great expense, significant sections of the Scottish economy—shipyards that cannot complete ships, airports that do not run planes and trains that do not run at all—one would like to think that they might be a little more ambitious in saving money on those projects and using it for more radical welfare benefit measures in Scotland.

Many of us had hoped that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government would use the transferred powers to show how Scotland and its needs are different, and possibly to develop different ways to deliver welfare and social security peculiar to those needs, but in ways that also might influence delivery methods in other parts of the UK. It is disappointing that the Scottish Government do not seem able to show a great deal of imagination and vision. While one would of course not object to the transfer of these powers and to the processes whereby it is co-determined—I guess that means that each decision is sanctioned by the appropriate Minister in the UK Government—it is nevertheless worth putting on record that the Scottish Government need to show a little more vision and imagination if they really want to demonstrate that their campaign to get these welfare powers was worth the effort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Baroness makes a good point. I will need to write. On how wisely the £2 million is being spent by the Scottish Government, the assumption is that the £250 grants will go to the right people at the right time for the right reasons. I will write if we can get some more information on that point.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie]

Do the Government have any plans to monitor this? It may well be a very good idea and prove to be very effective, and that is fine, but it may be found that it is just cash in hand and is not really used for good purposes. It is presumably worth doing some systematic modelling. It may not be an awful lot of money, but simply handing out money for a purpose without seeing whether it is used for that purpose seems not entirely right.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I feel sure that we should be able to get some information for the noble Lord. I asked these questions as part of my briefing, but I will see what more I can get. That leads on nicely to take note of the points the noble Lord made about the Scottish Government. He made the point that it is a modest measure that lacks imagination and vision. The only thing to say is that I have noted that. I think it is a fair point, but I should be careful not to criticise the Scottish Government. Again, if there is something I can put in writing on that I will certainly do so.

Moving on, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked why there is an order for such a minor provision and why it was not in the Scotland Act 2016 in the first place, which is a fair question. The intention to develop the job start payment first appeared in the SNP manifesto in April 2016 and the Scotland Act 2016 completed its passage through the UK Parliament in March 2016. The 2016 Act devolved the competence to legislate for new benefits, but only for benefits which were not connected with reserved matters. The relevant powers relating to assisting persons to retain employment are reserved under the Scotland Act 1998 under the job search and support reservation. The message is that it just missed the cut, if that is the way to put it.

The noble Baroness also asked where the money for the job start payment is coming from. The Scottish Government announced their budget last week and committed money from the Scottish Consolidated Fund. I cannot say which source of money goes to which expenditure. The Scottish Consolidated Fund comes from a range of sources, including the block grant from the UK Government, Scottish taxes and borrowing. That includes the Scottish tax-raising powers as well, which, as the Committee knows, the UK Government gave the Scottish Parliament.

The noble Baroness asked whether I am concerned that the SNP Government are not properly addressing the high level of youth unemployment. She made an extremely good point. I am concerned that my colleagues in the Scottish Government are more focused on constitutional conflict and their own agenda for independence than on using the powers that they have to address the issues that people in Scotland badly need to be addressed and which they care about. That is not just youth unemployment but failings in education, healthcare and a range of other devolved responsibilities. I suspect that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, would probably agree with me on that front.

The noble Baroness asked what consultation exercises the Scottish Government have undertaken. To be fair to them, they ran a public consultation on the proposed format and the key eligibility criteria of the job start payment between 16 January and 9 April 2019. The analysis of 96 responses showed that the majority of individuals and respondents believed that the job grant, as it was then called, met policy intent.

The noble Baroness also asked what support was in place for unemployed young people across the UK. The people receiving the £250 would not lose out on the benefits that they might receive in addition. There are existing UK-wide benefits that support unemployed people while they search for work. Young people may also be able to access funds from other sources to support them with some of the costs associated with applying for and starting a new job. These include the flexible support fund, which is not just for young people. It is offered by jobcentres across the UK at the discretion of work coaches, who have the flexibility and discretion to make awards that will enhance the employment prospects of the claimants and other customers with whom they are engaged, if there is a need. The difference is that, unlike job start payment, the flexible support fund does not specifically apply to young people; it extends further.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked whether UK Ministers sanction decisions. The answer is no. Scottish Ministers will have discretion as to how to use the power once it is shared. It is just that UK Ministers also retain the competence.

I hope that covers all the questions. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for their support in principle for this.