Future Generations

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord makes a helpful suggestion. There will be an opportunity later today to debate the net zero carbon emissions policy under the SI. The remit for the commissioner in Wales is slightly broader than just climate change. However, the elements that relate to climate change can be transposed, as I said earlier, into the environmental Bill, with an office not dissimilar to that of the Future Generations Commissioner in the Office for Environmental Protection, which will have roughly the same remit as Sophie Howe has in Wales.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, one way of ensuring that public bodies think about future generations is to ensure that they hear their voices. Today’s 16 year-olds are the parents of babies born in 2037, who will themselves vote in 2055. Is not the best way of ensuring that decision-makers consider future generations to give 16 and 17 year-olds the vote, both in any referendum and in electing the people who govern the country?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand the noble Baroness’s proposition. She will know that the current position of this Government is not to extend votes to 16 year-olds—but who knows what may happen in the future?

Boards of Public Bodies: Representation

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for his report and this debate. His report includes some notable quotes, including about his public “dis-appointments”—which I thought was particularly apposite when, although 13% of the economically active population are disabled, they make up just 3% of public appointments. There is also the absence of the Government’s response to the report, but I hope that we will hear from them shortly, together with their refreshed Public Appointments Diversity Action Plan, which the Minister promised us this month when he spoke in this House on 9 May.

I have been on a journey over the past 50 years. Initially, I saw this issue as an equal opportunities matter: why could not we—women, working-class, BAME, or disabled people—get on to the top boards? When I started work, it was mitigated to some extent, particularly on the class basis, because trade unions were able to nominate to various public sector boards and, in doing so, were able to sweep up those of great ability who had learned via the experiential route about people management, responsibility, representation and some listening and decision-making skills—those who had made their way in life, as my noble friend Lord Brookman, put it recently or, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, had valuable lived experience. As the noble Lord pointed out, when selection criteria favour sector experience or seniority and put less emphasis on skills, output and lived experience, those with more interesting, non-standard CVs tend to lose out.

That is why I started thinking about the issue of representation. Then I noticed something more fundamental: the loss of talent through those groups being unrepresented. We all miss out when people of ability are denied a rule in important decision-making in public bodies. Thirdly, I realised that organisations simply could not be effective if they did not reflect the groups that they were set up to serve. The most obvious example was the lack of disabled representatives in organisations that existed solely to meet their needs. Without their voices, such bodies were almost bound to fail.

It took longer for society to recognise the role that patients should play in the health service, parents in education or users in other sorts of service provision, and to realise that unless boards reflected the variety of the relevant user group, the most important voices would never be heard when decisions were taken. On NHS boards, where the whole of society needs to be represented and where, although I am guessing, more than 50% of patients are female, although the representation of women on boards has made progress, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, it peaked on NHS boards in 2002 and has since fallen from 47% to 38% in 2018.

Much worse, and almost unbelievably, just under half of NHS trusts have no BAME board members. The appointment of BAME candidates as non-execs has actually fallen over the past eight years. That is nothing short of shocking.

In the report of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, the first recommendation stands out. It states:

“Government should adopt an interim target of … 11.3% disabled public appointees by 2022”.


Similar figures could be chosen for women, BAME people or indeed those from a working-class background. But what is key is that the Government must first set a target and then take responsibility for achieving it.

The earlier Grimstone report’s first recommendation similarly spelled out:

“Public appointments are the responsibility of ministers and they are accountable for the decisions that they take and the processes that are followed”.


They cannot shy away from that, and the lack of concrete progress must be laid at their door. Any other worthy proposals, from selection criteria, procedures, improved outreach, mentoring or role models, would then follow, were the Government to take responsibility and with it the required action—not just talk—to make change happen.

However, in all this, as Sir Gerry Grimstone writes:

“Good people won’t come forward … if the appointment system appears irrational”,


or,

“blatantly biased”.

I fear that his other recommendations made the system worse rather than better by giving a “much fuller role” to Ministers at the cost of potentially overriding the attempts of others to create a fairer and encouraging system. The 2017 code on public appointments required that:

“Ministers when making appointments should act solely in terms of the public interest”—


which seems to fly in the face of some highly political nominations that we have witnessed. That is not about equal opportunities.

We all agree that, as Sir Gerry wrote:

“Public appointments should be representative of our society”.


Of course they should—but that is not the reality. These bodies cannot speak for or on behalf of, nor serve, the needs of the relevant community if their boards come from a parallel universe.

As the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, said, my gender has seen some progress—especially in Scotland, where the 50% target for non-execs has been met—but for the disabled and black and ethnic minorities there is still a very long way to go. We are wasting their talent. They are denied the opportunity to serve and our public bodies are less effective.

In December 2017 the Government set an “ambition”—so much woollier than a target, with much less a promise—of 50% female and 14% BAME public appointments. It remains, sadly, a distant hope. So I look forward to some real commitment from the Minister so that we do not have to keep returning to this year after year. I trust that he will not disappoint.

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

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

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

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I see many people are leaving. This is not riveting stuff so I do not recommend that your Lordships all stay.

In Committee in June I moved an amendment to the Bill that is rather difficult to follow unless you have the original 1920 Act before you, and I shall not bother the House with it. In summary, it required that there be an express provision in the Bill that if you elected not to answer questions to do with sexual orientation or gender, you would suffer no penalty. My amendment wanted to make it express that that would be no offence. We had a very interesting argument, to which I listened. I was told that the Commons had rejected such an amendment when it was considering the same provision in relation to religion in 2000, and that it would certainly complicate proceedings if the problem were dealt with in one way in relation to religion but differently in relation to sexual orientation and so on. I understood. Actually, there should have been a Bill covering the whole proceedings.

Then I was told that it might put us in England and Wales out of step with Scotland, then I understood that it worked perfectly well and then I was told that I was wrong as a matter of law. I did not agree that I was wrong as a matter of law, but the Minister had rather a powerful weapon up his sleeve: he asked me in a conversation after the Committee had concluded its discussions whether I would have a word with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. Everyone in this House knows that the noble and learned Lord is the oracle. When the noble Lord, Lord Young, suggested I speak to him, I thought, “Well, that’s the oracle”. What the noble Lord did not know, and there is no reason he should, is that the noble and learned Lord is also the Lord Chancellor who appointed me as a judge, so this was a real double whammy.

So of course I spoke to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. We had a conversation and we did not agree. I saw the force of what he was saying and he understood the point I was making, but our discussion revealed that we are doing a bit of a Don Quixote and tilting at windmills. Who will read the Census (Return Particulars and Removal of Penalties) Bill? No one. The form will simply arrive in your letterbox. What seemed to me—and, if I may say so, to him and, when we spoke to the Minister, to the Minister—to matter was that the form should be clear and unequivocal so that the individual citizen reading it should understand what it meant.

That is the purpose of this amendment: to forget, if I may say so, about esoteric points of law and concentrate on the practicalities. The amendment I have now tabled would deal with the front page of the census form so that it stated in terms that you would not commit any offence if you did not answer any of the questions. Within the census form itself, there would be a headline saying “Voluntary” and an explanation that the question was voluntary. I respectfully suggest that this would be a practical way of dealing with a rather refined legal problem, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to speak at this point because I want to leave another question with the Minister and give him time to respond.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for his amendment and his explanation. I remain puzzled by the Government’s view on this, because I have now had the chance to consider their letter of 31 May. It seems to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, “Yes, you’re probably right, but as we didn’t do it properly in 2000, it might prejudice that, so we should remain consistently with a less-than-perfect form of words”.

There are two aspects to this, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said. One is the legal aspect and whether it is absolutely clear in law that “no penalty” means “not criminal”; I will leave the two noble and learned Lords to adjudicate on that. The other aspect, which was just touched on, is whether it will be clear enough to all respondents that, unlike the rest of the form, they do not need to answer these questions. We non-lawyers want absolute clarity on this second point, to ensure that no one should feel compelled to answer these questions, nor to expect to have to answer on behalf of those for whom they are completing the form. They should not even be nudged to ask someone for the answer to these questions. We would want to see some real guarantees on that not to support these amendments.

I turn now to another matter regarding voluntary and compulsory questions: military service. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his letter of 10 June, a copy of which he has placed in the Library, in response to my concern that, for whatever reason, somebody may not want to disclose their history of service in the Armed Forces to other members of the household. I am probably not alone in wondering about this. Indeed, only 88% of veterans and their families thought this question was “publicly acceptable”, which is interesting. One-fifth had doubts about whether it was publicly acceptable, which I think is significant. In Northern Ireland, the question was found only “generally acceptable” and the Minister’s letter says that,

“some veterans may be unwilling to disclose this information”.

The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency thought:

“This could be mitigated by providing assurances about privacy and through additional guidance”,


although it said it would look carefully at the 2019 census rehearsal before making a final recommendation for the 2021 census.

Obviously, members of households can request their own individual census form if there is information they do not want to disclose to the person completing the census on behalf of the household. However, by opting out of the household, one might be looked at slightly askance and it could raise questions as to why one is doing that. This is as true for the gender and sexual orientation questions as for the military service one I have in mind. I do not wish to pursue this separate issue now, but I ask the Minister, who I hope will be able to reassure us that, in all the guidance and testing, the sensitivities about military service, as well as those related to the areas that are the subject of this Bill, will be borne in mind.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, it is plain in the fundamental Act that you can be punished by a fine only if you fail to answer a question which you are required to answer, or if you give false information in answering such a question. Therefore, if the question is not compulsory, there can be no penalty.

I do not want to discuss further the fine detail of the legal side of this. I leave it on the basis that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I agree that what the people getting the form need to know is that the questions addressed by the Bill are voluntary. We want people to understand that, and know that there can therefore be no penalty, or anything else in the way of harm, if they do not answer them. That is the principal point and a matter the Government can undertake in the light of the Office for National Statistics having a point in this—it has to be satisfied with the poll.

Referendums

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, suggested, in contrast to an election, where a political party stands on a manifesto and then has responsibility to implement it, with a referendum, there is no responsibility on those proposing change either to offer something viable—in the words of my noble friend Lord Adonis—or to take the reins afterwards and implement the decision. Yet the public expect a referendum to be implemented. But when proponents of change make unachievable promises, such as Boris Johnson’s,

“There will continue to be free trade”,

after we leave, or David Davis’ UK-German deal including,

“free access for their cars … in exchange for a deal on everything else”,

and then wash their hands of how to fulfil those promises, even when appointed to do so, we are in trouble.

Worse, Boris Johnson is now threatening not even to pay the money we owe—although he agreed to it when he was in Cabinet—and says that he would take us out on 31 October, deal or no deal, whatever the cost to our economy, to our citizens across the EU or, indeed, to peace in Northern Ireland. All this is on the excuse that the promises he made in 2016 were blessed by the public so must be honoured. That is a bad example of taking a decision by referendum. As the House has heard, these are highly complex, non-binary issues: not just whether to leave, but how to leave; whether to retain a competitive, non-protectionist economy based on environmental, worker and consumer protection or to move to an unrestrained, low-standard economy of the Trump variety. The referendum never discussed the “how” question, with the range of options, and the time needed to plan and adjust. That is partly the nature of the beast of a referendum, but it is partly due to the dishonesty—I have to use the word—of one side, which either misled the public and pretended it was easy or were too thoughtless or stupid to find out or care.

This particular referendum, on a complex economic, political, diplomatic and security issue, is testimony to the clash with our normal parliamentary democracy, where normally Governments are responsible for implementing the promises that they made in a general election. In this case, the costs to the economy are enormous. The uncertainty for business is costing billions. Reduced investment and preparations for no deal are costing hundreds of millions. Manufacturing representatives said today that a no-deal Brexit would be “commercial suicide”. The Cabinet has been warned that we are unprepared for a crash out. There is bewilderment among the CBI, BCC and Federation of Small Businesses at home and, as we have heard, Governments across the globe.

This referendum, and government incompetence, could lay waste to our economy. It is hardly a good advertisement for governing by referendum.

House of Lords: Gender Equality

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[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.

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

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

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

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, it is good to be back on this small but none the less important Bill. After Second Reading, I found myself reflecting on the importance of the census. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said about the fact that these days there are many more sources of data that the Government can call on to establish various aspects of citizens’ identities. She, largely I think on economic grounds, questioned whether there needed to be a census at all. That is a legitimate debate to have, and no doubt we will have it at some later stage. However, from talking to people who watched our debate, there is agreement that the simple process of the Government engaging in an exercise to establish information about their citizens is in itself important. It is an aspect and example of citizenship that has quite a lot of meaning for individuals. However we may come to do this in future, and in whatever mode, for the moment it is important to recognise that, for all citizens, having the right to engage in a meaningful exercise of registering the details of one’s existence with the state is important. That is why, for the very small group of people we are talking about today, it is important to take great care.

In the Bill we are primarily talking about making whether one registers one’s gender identity voluntary and making sure that anyone who wishes not to do so will not face a penalty, as they would for failing to answer mandatory parts of the census. However, we are going into this new area for the census of questioning people about their gender identity, which is a sensitive matter, so we need to do so with great care.

The purpose of the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire is, in essence, to get to the heart of what is important about the Bill—not the legislation but the guidance that will accompany it and will inform or assist people when they make their return. I should tell the Minister at this stage that I have no intention of pressing my amendment, the purpose of which is to enable us to clarify one or two points on which there may not have been sufficient understanding from our debate at Second Reading.

The first thing I want to establish is whether the question asking a person to say what their sex is will remain binary, as it has been since 1801, and whether it will be the case in 2021—as it has been for the two censuses in the past 20 years, if not before—that people answer on the basis of their lived identity: that which they present to the world. I have to say that I hope that is the case. If not, and we go for a far more limited definition, we run the risk of requiring people to give answers that would contradict those given in good faith in the censuses of 10 or 20 years ago because they have changed their gender and recognise their new gender. If we were to require them to go back to an earlier iteration of their existence, we would confuse the matter. Can the Minister confirm these things?

As I have just demonstrated that these are enormously complicated matters in practice, the second thing to ask is whether the officials testing the questions on sex and gender identity—who have, I believe, consulted civil servants in Scotland engaged in a parallel exercise—might engage quite widely with a number of different groups who have been working on these sorts of issues for some considerable time. There are questions for officials about what they have discovered during the extensive testing already done, and perhaps about the further testing that will need to be done leading up to 2021. That is the basis of my amendment; I hope the Minister will be able to clarify. I beg to move.

[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 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.

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

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for repeating his 1981 gig. I do not know whether he will do this every 10 years from now on. I also congratulate the Government on using our spare Chamber time on a useful piece of legislation, for once. Perhaps we could also now have the public service ombudsman Bill, the Grocott hereditaries Bill or some Law Commission Bill to put our otherwise rather idle hands to good use.

We on this side of the House welcome and support the Bill for the very reasons the Minister articulated. We believe that the timing is right to include the two new questions, not only to ensure that services and policies are appropriate but to help with the development of rights and the removal of discrimination. I say this particularly as an old campaigner—first and foremost, one needs good evidence to measure problems and monitor progress in order to formulate responses and make a strong case.

However, I confess that my enthusiasm for the census comes also from speaking as an historian. A plethora of data going back more than 200 years provides us historians with a rich treasure trove. Along with other noble Lords, I am delighted that the Government still believe in the census given that, in July 2010, the then Cabinet Office Minister, Francis Maude, called it,

“an expensive and inaccurate way of measuring the number of people in Britain”,

and planned to replace it with existing public and private databases, including credit reference agencies. That would have been awful for historians and today’s users of data, since those sources are neither as comprehensive as the census nor as rich in detail and depth. We are delighted that the Government did not follow that idea.

Planners clearly need extensive data, including on children, if they are to cater for future needs. The census is the only time when everybody in the country is counted; it is therefore used by the Government to determine spending priorities and track population movements. Without accurate data, it is nigh on impossible to distribute resources effectively or target them where they are most needed. As the Minister reflected on, it is similarly important for those monitoring the impact of legislative, demographic or policy changes. Whether for campaigners, historians, faith leaders, planners or politicians, the census must be comprehensive, consistent and credible, and provide confidence that it will be used correctly, that personal data will be kept private and that its oversight will be thorough and in the public interest. To achieve accuracy, we need very high compliance. That requires confidence in the process and a willingness to participate, so the questions must have public acceptance. Their wording therefore needs extensive consultation and testing, as well as explaining nearer the time to build trust in the process.

We on these Benches consider that the White Paper and the Bill have correctly judged that the moment is right to add these two questions and to ensure they can be voluntarily answered. We might discuss some details in Committee and seek assurance on the degree of consultation, but we are very supportive of the proposals. However, I will ask a couple of wider questions about the 2021 census.

The first is about the homeless. For the census to be complete—that is, a picture of everyone in the UK on that Sunday in March two years hence—it needs to count those who are homeless as well as those who are housed. This is important both to measure the impact of demographic or policy changes and to plan services for this vulnerable group—to say nothing of the future needs of historians—but, as we know, this group is currently underrepresented on the returns. Last year Shelter met the relevant ONS team and made suggestions to improve the situation. In particular, it argued that the key to achieving an accurate count by including homeless people is really just trying harder to reach them. That might mean providing extra reassurance to the homeless about dealing with officials and stressing to every local authority the importance of that. Without accurate numbers, there is little chance that services to help those experiencing homelessness will be fairly and adequately delivered. This issue is particularly important and relevant to the debate today, given that the Bill is about groups that we know have a higher propensity to homelessness. Particularly given the broader move to an online approach, what discussions has the Minister’s department had with the ONS on ensuring that the census captures those experiencing homelessness?

Secondly, I want to ask the Minister about the Royal British Legion’s “Count Them In” campaign, which seeks the inclusion of a question to make good the patchy data on the Armed Forces community, which leaves statutory and voluntary service providers unable fully to meet the needs of that cohort at the moment. Parliament would need to approve such an addition. At the moment, nobody knows the size or demographics of the Armed Forces community resident in the UK. The legion estimates it to be about one in 10 of the population: some 2.8 million veterans, perhaps 2.1 million dependants, another 1 million dependent children and perhaps up to 250,000 hidden ex-service personnel in care homes. In 2007 the MoD estimated that there were 2.4 million veterans. These are large numbers to be left so vague, especially five years after the Armed Forces covenant was enshrined in legislation. That covenant recognises the sacrifices that the Armed Forces community makes and pledges that no one should face disadvantage as a result of their service. Local authorities have promised to deliver the principles of the covenant, but they need data to do that.

Of course, the other recommendation in the White Paper was that there should be such a question. I know the Government have agreed to add something about past UK service. While the wording has yet to be decided, it would be helpful if the Minister could update the House on this. If I have understood it, it would not be in the voluntary section and that is why it is not included in this Bill. What thought was given to not excluding it and dropping it into the voluntary section?

I will just check with the Minister whether a couple of things that appear to be from a previous era remain. Is the approach taken in the census still that there is a “head of household”, which sounds a little not of our time? I hope the question on “issue born in marriage” is no longer there. Maybe the Minister can just update us, to make sure that the language and questions are appropriate for the 21st century. For the moment, though, we very much support the Bill and look forward to its helping to produce useful and relevant data on important human rights issues in due course.

Conduct of Debate in Public Life

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

A non-partisan plea from someone who has attacked every party except the Lib Dems—you could not make it up. I am sorry; I said I would resist doing that, but it was just too much of an open goal. Apologies.

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Harris for tabling this timely—indeed, all too topical—debate. It is sad that we need it but, as he said, we need to detoxify political debate and heal divisions being fostered within society. The dual contributions from our Bishops were noteworthy—I was about to say “interesting” but, having heard from my noble friend Lord Winston, I think “noteworthy” is a better word to use—but when the churches witness the depth and effect of what is going on, I think we should take heed. Acknowledging the scale of the problem is a necessary start to addressing it.

As we have heard, evidence to the Committee on Standards in Public Life put it starkly:

“The tone of modern political discourse permeates through society and normalises abusive and … aggressive language”.


As my noble friend Lord Harris said, the Met Police chief revealed that abuse of MPs is hitting unprecedented levels, with near-daily reports of crimes. It is not just MPs, as he also said. Our brilliant—and mostly unpaid and unsung—local councillors are in the firing line too, with worrying long-term consequences. If fewer start a political career there in local government because of abuse, our pool of talent and experience, from which we draw future MPs and Ministers, diminishes.

Perhaps more than this is what this toxicity means for our democratic systems and assumptions. A Daily Mirror poll showed that three-quarters of the public feel that the country is more divided than ever before, with four in five having lost faith in British politics. This arises from more than just the tenor of debate, of course, but our very language, the lack of respect for the other and simplistic promises of quick fixes for complex problems—described by my noble friend Lord Liddle—all diminish trust in the political class. Both sides lose: the politicians and their families at the receiving end of some of the vilest material I have seen, but also the public, for whom a stable political world—albeit with its democratic swings between parties—forms part of the comfort blanket of our “common life”; I think those were the words used by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester.

Political parties of left or right, which strive to represent their communities, heed problems, find solutions and act with honesty and integrity, are part of the fabric of life that gives people some grip over their futures, a say in how they are governed, some shared values and an understanding of how things can change. Politics has, as my noble friend Lady Morris said, improved life immensely and should have strengthened democracy.

However, of late we have witnessed, from activists seeking votes as well as from anonymous, unaccountable bloggers, in addition to the evidence-free assertions mentioned by my noble friend Lord Winston, a level of abuse, vehemence and spite that has undermined faith in politicians. That is the “danger to our democracy” in the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds.

As we have heard, female politicians are more often the target, with vile misogyny and sexual aggression displayed in horrific detail. For ethnic minority targets, the abuse is similarly distasteful, alarming and shocking, with particular fears for our Jewish community with its echoes of earlier and, we had thought, long-forgotten pogroms, or Kristallnacht, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, whose film “Swastika” I recommend.

It behoves all of us—activists, Governments, parties, faith bodies, broadcasters, press and social media companies, as well as schools and universities—to face up to what is happening to public discourse, and examine our own role in it, even if it is simply by turning a blind eye or doubting its scale, and to prioritise action to end the harm. As my noble friend Lord Haskel reminded us, this is not just about what is said, but why it is said. What causes these feelings of alienation, of being dispossessed or marginalised? My noble friend Lord Parekh identified inequality. For my noble friend Lord Haskel, the hollowing out of the economy is a direct cause of the hollowing out of our politics and we will need a more equal distribution of wealth and of income so that people feel included. On this, we look to the Government to act.

More widely, though, on the question of language and tone, as my noble friend Lord Harris said, we must start by putting our own House and political parties in order—a plea with which I concur. More is needed from all of us. We should look to the Government to take a lead and use their influence, whether over education, electoral law, the BBC, company regulations in the digital world, police training or myriad other ways to get every part of our life to face up to the challenge facing us. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, quoted from A Tale of Two Cities, which is how this country sometimes feels. But I think of the longer quote:

“it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness”.

How well that former Hansard writer, Charles Dickens, somehow understood our century.

My noble friend Lord Harris reminded us how we all vowed “never again” after Jo Cox’s tragic death. But it will be never again only if each of us is willing to play our part in putting an end to the corrosive atmosphere that has invaded the political sphere. On that, I am sure the whole House would concur.

National Security Council Leak

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 2nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer on such a serious matter. There are two issues here. One is the potential provider of 5G, where Ministers can argue their corner in Cabinet, in the NSC or with the Prime Minister; if they still do not like the decision, they can resign and make their case from outside the Government. However, what is not acceptable is to leak from the National Security Council to further one’s argument. This is a breach of trust and, probably, of the Official Secrets Act, as well as damaging to our relationship with close allies. Can the Minister reassure the House that our Five Eyes allies will not withdraw any support as a result of the leak? Can he explain on what basis the decision was taken not to refer this to the police, given that the Prime Minister believes there is compelling evidence that the Secretary of State for Defence was responsible for the leak and that we have heard this morning that the Met Police would not investigate this without such a referral?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. On the first issue that she raised, the 5G decision will be made public in due course and will of course be subject to the usual scrutiny. On the question that she raised about the confidence of our allies, the action that the Prime Minister has taken shows how seriously she takes the leak from the NSC. We are now in touch with our allies to reassure them about the steps we have taken to remain confident in the security of NSC discussions, so that they can continue to have confidence in us.

On the second question, I said a moment ago that the Prime Minister considers the matter closed and the Cabinet Secretary has judged it not necessary to refer the matter to the police. However, Ministers and officials would co-operate should the police want to investigate. The Secretary of State for Defence was dismissed for a breach of the Ministerial Code. I believe that the Prime Minister is entitled to have in her Cabinet colleagues in whose judgment she has confidence and whom she can trust. In this case, that confidence and trust have clearly gone.

Elections: Online Interference

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that we take these issues seriously. We are now actively considering the recent report and recommendations of the Electoral Commission, the recent report of the Information Commissioner on digital campaigning and the role of Cambridge Analytica, and the recent report of DCMS on fake news. The Secretary of State will give evidence to the Select Committee next week. We hope shortly to have the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on Russian interference in the referendum and the 2017 election. We will then take steps to ensure that we have a robust framework for our election process, which is resistant to corruption and enhances public confidence in our democratic institutions.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Perhaps the Minister would like to congratulate the Observer and Carole Cadwalladr on her Scoop of the Year award from the London Press Club for exposing the Cambridge Analytica scandal. It is worth seeing her TED talk on this, if noble Lords have not. It was investigative journalism, not our regulator, that identified these problems. Given that we are likely to have the European elections soon and that, because of their international implications, there is even more temptation for interference from outside, will the Minister agree to meet people in this House with particular expertise in campaigning and digital matters to look at the evidence he referred to and see whether we can get some assurance on this issue?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I recently attended one such all-party meeting to discuss these issues and I have no hesitation in accepting her suggestion that there should be another. I have said before from this Dispatch Box that we have an analogue legislative framework seeking to operate in a digital age. We are determined to update that framework to make it fit for purpose and I welcome the suggestion of all-party talks.