English Premier League Football

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I speak as an occasional supporter of Forfar Athletic and as a season ticket holder of Birmingham City. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, talked about the joys. Supporting Birmingham City mainly teaches you to come to terms with the disappointments of life—except for one game against the Arsenal.

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, is right that we should celebrate the magnificence of the Premier League. The excitement is clearly palpable; the statistics quoted by the noble Lord are indeed impressive. I have no doubt that he is right about the contribution that it makes to the image of our country and to its coffers. He is right, too, to celebrate some of the successes. However, there are also some downsides and I thought that some of the points put to the House by my noble friend Lord Lipsey were very pertinent.

I share with a number of other noble Lords real concerns about issues to do with governance in football that go beyond the Premier League to other league clubs as well. I commend the fantastic work in this area of Supporters Direct. Its concern is that so many sports clubs are being put in jeopardy because of vested interests, poor financial management and inadequate standards of governance. This has been backed up by the CMS Select Committee, which has done some magnificent work in this area. It has real concerns about the ownership of clubs and about the fact that the ability of league authorities to investigate ownership issues seems to be very limited and at risk.

The Select Committee found, for instance, that while the Premier League was able to invest more in procedures and specialist assistance to find out the identity of the ultimate owners of some of the clubs, the Football League was not in such a good position, relying only on information provided by the clubs themselves which is then checked against records in the public domain. Remarkably, neither league is prepared to provide to fans the information that it holds and put it in the public domain.

I mention this because it is extremely relevant to the plight of two clubs in the West Midlands. They are not in the Premier League at the moment—so I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me—but they have been and aspire to be again, although when is a matter of some conjecture. I refer noble Lords to Coventry City, who won the FA Cup, remarkably, some years ago. On Saturday, thousands of supporters marched through the city centre protesting at plans for the club to play its home games at Northampton Town, 30 miles away. No wonder the fans are angry at the contemptible way in which they have been treated by the club owners. I refer noble Lords to a debate in the other place on 12 March in which Mr Bob Ainsworth raised this issue and talked about the financial difficulties of Coventry City. He said:

“Five years ago, when it had lost its ground … and most of its assets, the club was sold to the hedge fund Sisu … Sisu specialises in acquiring distressed assets, and under Sisu the club’s ownership is multilayered, opaque and partly offshore in the Cayman Islands”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/3/13; col. 63WH.]

It is clear that the interest of supporters is right to the last as a priority.

My own club, Birmingham City, is owned by a holding company based in Hong Kong and registered in the Cayman Islands. We have a major shareholder, Carson Yeung, who is at the moment on trial in Hong Kong on charges of £60 million of money laundering. The holding company, Birmingham International Holdings, was censured by the Hong Kong stock exchange for breaching rules in September 2012. There have been major delays in presenting the audited accounts of the club. Very recently, the Birmingham Mail reported that the parent group of Birmingham City has been told to demonstrate its plans to sell the club or it will not be allowed to trade on the Hong Kong stock exchange again. Stock market chiefs demanded to know what plans Birmingham International Holdings Ltd had for the club and how it was going to deal with “management integrity concerns” regarding Mr Yeung, who, as I have said, is now standing trial for money laundering.

While this dreadful ownership problem has been going on, the club has been relegated, the players have been sold and there is real concern about the future. The supporters, who turn up through thick and thin—or thin and thin, as it sometimes is—seem to be considered least. They are the heart of the club yet they are treated with absolute contempt by just about everyone concerned. What are the football authorities doing about this? Can one turn to the authorities to intervene? The answer is no. They do not intervene and they do not disclose information about ownership. They do not seem to respond to the needs of the supporters at all.

What is the Minister going to do about Birmingham City? More generally, the Select Committee recommendations are right in relation to ownership and the involvement of supporters on the boards of clubs in the future. The Minister for Sport has made some excellent responses to this issue but the football authorities are completely unable to govern themselves. That has been staring us in the face for years. I do not want to see statutory regulation in sport but in relation to football they are not going to be able to sort it out for themselves. They cannot see that their interest, first and foremost, should be the supporters or the interest of the national team. I am afraid that the time has come for statutory regulation.

Civil Service: Permanent Secretaries

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they accept the advice of the Civil Service Commission that the final decision in the appointment of Permanent Secretaries should be made by a selection panel independent of ministers, to safeguard a non-political civil service.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, in view of some of the exaggerated comments in the press in the last few days, it is perhaps best if I quote the statement by the First Civil Service Commissioner earlier this week:

“We agree that Ministers should have significant influence on the appointment of senior civil servants with whom they work closely; and, as more senior jobs are opened up to competition, we have developed a more active role for Ministers in top appointments than is generally understood”.

In paragraph 8 of the accompanying explanatory note on Recruiting Permanent Secretaries: Ministerial Involvement, it says:

“Under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 the final decision whether or not to appoint the recommended candidate rests with the Prime Minister”.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord for reading extracts, but he has been rather selective. The fact is, his right honourable friend Mr Maude is essentially bullying the Civil Service Commission and threatening new legislation in order to give Secretaries of State the power to appoint Permanent Secretaries. Why are the Government going down that route? Do they not accept that it puts the political neutrality of the Civil Service at peril?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we do not. I quote the right honourable Jack Straw, who said:

“I welcome his proposals for greater involvement by Secretaries of State in the appointment of their permanent secretaries”.

He went on to say,

“in each of the three permanent secretary appointments that I made”—

that is, Mr Straw—

“in the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Justice—I insisted that there was a shortlist of at least three candidates from which I should choose. There was not the least allegation that I had acted in a partisan or cronyist way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/6/12; col. 749.]

House of Lords: Appointments

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 9th October 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether further appointments to the House of Lords are expected to be made during the remainder of the current Parliament.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, any appointments will continue to be made in line with the commitment in the coalition programme for government to reflect the share of the votes secured by the political parties at the most recent general election.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, yesterday the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, made it clear that, regrettably, he and the Government will not support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in the other place. Given that, and given the size of this House, is the Minister really saying that the Government are determined to make dozens more appointments, to increase the size of the House and to shore up the political majority of the Government? Surely not.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the idea that we are packing the House with coalition Peers is a little idiotic. Of the 122 appointments made since May 2010, nearly one-third, 39, have been Labour Peers. That is not packing the House on one side. The largest group in the House remains the Labour Benches.

One of the ways in which we wish to maintain a vibrant House is to refresh the House from time to time. The committee on retirement has proposed that the statutory retirement scheme is now available. We regret that only two Peers have so far availed themselves of it. However, 20% of this House is now over 80 and, as we know that life expectancy in this House is very good, we encourage others to consider that scheme.

House of Lords (Cessation of Membership) Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Friday 29th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, warmly welcome the Bill and I hope that we can agree to send it to the other place as soon as possible after due scrutiny. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on explaining to the House in his introductory remarks that his Bill is neutral concerning the Government’s Bill in the sense that it is neither complementary nor competitive. It should be treated on its merits as a stand-alone piece of legislation. I very much support that.

As for the three provisions, it seems very sensible to allow voluntary retirement. It builds on the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. We had some very interesting comments from my noble friend Lord Soley and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds about the benefit of retirement. Given that the average age of your Lordships’ House is 69, I am not sure that the precedent of bishops retiring at 70 is one that we altogether warm to. I certainly agree that there may come a time when some noble Lords may feel it is time to move on to other places. I do not think it should be forced on Members of your Lordships’ House, but it should be an option.

On non-attendance, it seems absolutely right that unless there are sound reasons, due perhaps to illness, for a Member not attending for a whole Session, he or she ought no longer to be a Member of your Lordships’ House. I very much take the point raised by a number of noble Lords that some Members have been appointed who have hardly come here at all. It raises the issue of what conversations take place between the Prime Minister, Downing Street and some noble Lords about the commitment that they were asked to give.

I know we are not really meant to talk about—as my noble friend Lord Soley said—the war, but the Government seem to have got themselves rather mixed up about whether they actually want noble Lords or Members of the House in future to attend. Any noble Lord who has carefully gone through the calculation on the cost of the proposed new second Chamber will note that, remarkably, the Government seem now to want Members of the reformed House to be part-time Members. Indeed, in the calculations that they have made, they are calculating that elected Members would attend only 75% of the time. This goes along with the other remarkable suggestion from the Government that elected Members of this House would not seek to represent their constituents. Seeing that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is here today to answer this point, I would like him to comment on the Government’s expectation for attendance, either in your Lordships’ House now or in an elected House in the future.

There is general agreement in relation to the forcible retirement of those convicted of serious offences, but my noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Wills have raised some important points. Will the noble Lord, Lord Steel, agree to meet my noble friends between Second Reading and Committee so that these matters may be satisfactorily resolved?

On retrospection, the wording of the noble Lord’s Bill follows the terminology in relation to the Commons. I understand what he is saying, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord, either in winding up today or in discussions after the Committee stage, could clear up that point to make it absolutely clear that retrospection is not to be applied.

I come to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and my noble friend Lord Wills about whether we prefer omnibus change or incremental change. Your Lordships’ House has not been very good at omnibus change since it has never been able to achieve it. Certainly, there is a persuasive case that if substantive reform is unlikely, then sensible incremental change ought to be made. No one sitting here today could say with certainty that the Government are going to get their Bill through or in what form they are going to get it through. Even the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that champion of democracy in your Lordships’ House, has been heard to say in recent weeks that he thinks the Government have only a 50% chance of getting the Bill through.

[Lord Dobbs]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I seem to remember the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, standing manfully at the Dispatch Box week after week calling for consensus and, looking around the House, it seems to me that he has achieved it. It is just not the consensus that he wanted.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, having sat in the place where the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is now sitting on many debates on House of Lords reform when my party was in government, the only compensation I ever got from defending our position was looking at the faces of the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.

The argument that incremental change is important and should take place in this context is persuasive. None of us knows what the outcome of the Government’s proposals will be. The proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, are entirely sensible and I hope that we can give them support.

The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, raised Mr Clegg’s rather pejorative remarks about your Lordships’ House. Well, we are grown up, and I think we can take them. I saw the video clip of him speaking to a group of young people in which we were being condemned for our age, if not for other sins. I wonder why Mr Clegg does it. What is it that he hopes to achieve? Whatever one’s views on whether the second Chamber should be elected, surely no one could doubt the integrity of your Lordships’ House in the effective scrutiny of legislation. I hope that, whatever our views on Lords reform, we will hold our heads up high about the quality of the work that we do.

On the question that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, raised about conflict between two elected Houses, I know that we are not really talking about the substantive Bill, but I think I should put it to the Minister that the claim has come from the Deputy Prime Minister that the primacy of the Commons is not affected by the Bill. I refer him to the new Clause 2, which is actually worse than the old Clause 2 because it removes the preamble to the 1911 Act. The significance of the preamble is that it recognises that the Parliament Act was developed to govern the relationship between an elected Chamber and an unelected Chamber. The preamble also states that when an elected Chamber arose, the powers of the second Chamber would essentially have to be codified and restricted. In taking away the preamble, the Government are saying that an elected second Chamber would have all the legitimacy to be as assertive as possible within the constraints of the Parliament Act. Therefore, it could reject every piece of legislation that was brought here. It could take huge chunks out of legislation that was brought here. It could veto every piece of secondary legislation. Given that and given that the reformed House would be elected by proportional representation, how long would it be before the conventions died and the claim came from elected Members that the second Chamber had more legitimacy than the Commons because it more neatly matched the votes cast at a general election? As someone who has supported reform and an elected House, I think the Government owe it to this House and to the nation to set out exactly how their proposals will not eventually challenge the primacy of the House of Commons.

Finally, does the noble Lord not concede that his Government’s proposals are a substantial constitutional change to this nation? Given that, what are they so frightened of that they refuse to call a referendum? Surely, in the end, the people should decide. In the mean time, we wish the noble Lord’s Bill godspeed.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, this is the sixth sitting day since Easter for us to enjoy being able to discuss aspects of Lords reform. It is a pleasure to hear a number of positive speeches about some degree of Lords reform being made around the House. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, opened up the wonderful prospect of a whole series of extremely modest Bills carrying on for several years, slowly and gently putting through little bits of Lords reform. I am not sure whether that would take more or less time than one comprehensive Bill but it is at least an interesting prospect.

The right reverend Prelate is a very brave man to raise the question of age limits and whether one’s relevant and current expertise and responsibilities should be taken into account when considering continuing membership of the House. I have sometimes wondered whether, if the possibility of retirement were put to a vote, the proposal that 95 should be the age limit would pass the House. No one has yet tried; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Soley, will try it with a Private Member’s Bill in the next Session if it is needed at that stage.

I intend to take to heart the opening comment of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that the less said about the other Bill in this context the better. We are discussing a Private Member’s Bill and this is an extremely modest proposal. I will simply answer a few of the questions that have been raised, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

The Government’s response to the Joint Committee does indeed say in paragraph 53:

“The Government agrees with the Joint Committee that allowing individuals to maintain relevant professional expertise and attracting individuals who would not want to commit to a full-time role would strengthen the reformed House, as it does the present House. The Government therefore accepts that it is desirable that appointed members should not necessarily be expected to attend every sitting day of the reformed House”.

I do not have to hand the figures for how many Members of the House of Commons attend every day. Of course, Members of the House of Commons often argue that constituency work is more important than attendance at the House every day.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Government have also said that they do not expect elected Members of your Lordships’ House to dabble in constituency work. The whole purpose of these elected Members is to be here in Parliament. The calculations do not show 75% attendance by the 20% of appointed Members; they show 75% attendance by Members of the reformed House. It is quite remarkable that the expectation is that elected Members will attend your Lordships’ House 75% of the time when their sole purpose will be to be here to scrutinise legislation.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, that is precisely the point that the Government’s response deals with. We have a House that consists of a large number of Members who continue to have other aspects to their lives outside. The point has frequently been made on the Labour Benches that the last thing that we want is for Members of a second Chamber to spend a great deal of their time on constituency work. This response deals with that area. However, at present, I do not wish to be drawn further into discussion of a different Bill from the one before us. I merely draw attention to the excellent article by a Conservative—

Queen’s Speech

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

I agree that it would be difficult for Parliament to say no in that event. I do not totally rule out the idea.

Let me first refer the noble Lord back to the report on referendums by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. In the debate in this House on that report, it appeared to be generally agreed by almost all noble Lords present that referendums should be rare and that there were significant problems with holding them—not least the propensity of the electorate to vote in response to a different question from that which appeared on the ballot paper. However, the report concluded that it would be appropriate to hold a referendum if abolition of either House of Parliament was considered. It is probably on that basis that some noble Lords consider the justification for a referendum. Yet when we look back to the 1911, 1949, 1958 and 1999 Acts, they were never considered to be Acts of abolition, even though they significantly changed both the powers and the composition of the House.

Gradually reforming composition does not amount to abolition. The draft Bill and the proposals of the Joint Committee suggest a transitional period that would not be complete before 2025—some 114 years after the 1911 Act and 15 years after all main parties promised in their manifestos to work for such an outcome. Ending the hereditary principle, removing patronage from party leaders and allowing people to choose their legislators do not amount to abolition of this House, so I do not see any case for a referendum before 2015. In the mean time, I believe that in 2015 we should begin the first phase of real reform by electing a small proportion of the membership of your Lordships’ House and finally ending completely the hereditary basis for membership. There may be more of a case for a referendum later, on proceeding to the second or final stages of reform.

I also want to address briefly another important constitutional issue in the gracious Speech—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Can the noble Lord clarify that? Earlier in our debate, the proposition was made that the coalition is now considering a new option, which is essentially to go for a small number of elected people in 2015—rather following the Wakeham and Irvine proposals at the beginning of the previous decade—and then pausing to ponder whether we move on from that position, perhaps by referendum. If the noble Lord is saying that, it is important, given that he speaks with a great deal of authority on those Benches.

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, I hope to speak with authority, but I have to say that I speak for myself on this issue. It is logical that if we were to consider a reform which meant that 92 hereditary Peers were no longer Members of your Lordships’ House—which was of course the aim of the 1999 legislation—and if, for the sake of argument, we were to elect 120 Peers in 2015, that would not be a great change. It would not be revolutionary and it would not justify a referendum. We might consider it at some point in the following Parliament—perhaps on the same day as the country was voting in the European elections in 2019, to minimise the cost of a referendum. Then, when people saw the House working effectively without an hereditary element—although I have great respect for many hereditary Members of this House—with a small elected element of, say, 120 Members, that would not be dissimilar to the initial proposals of the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. We could then say, “That is how it is working. Do you want to proceed with the remaining life Peers going in phases and a wholly elected House?”. We could vote on that at some point. Complete change is abolition of this House. I suggest that if we were proceeding along that way by 2015, there would be no need for a referendum before then.

I have spoken a number of times about the important issue of individual voter registration. I would like to say little about that as it was also referred to in the gracious Speech, but I will be brief. It is of considerable importance in all elections that we have a complete and accurate electoral register.

Draft House of Lords Reform Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 1st May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Andrews is right to say that this has been a fascinating debate. I, too, pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Richard, his committee and the clerks for the work that they have done. However, we are also indebted to those members of the Select Committee who produced the alternative report. Taken together, they provide an invaluable reference point for our future debates on reform of your Lordships’ House.

In this excellent debate many noble Lords have questioned the priority that the Government are giving to Lords reform when our economy is in such a perilous position. I agree with that. Over these two days of debate some noble Lords have argued that reform of the second Chamber cannot be considered in isolation from other constitutional issues such as a referendum in Scotland and other changes that the Government are making or have made. I agree with that. However, we will have further ample opportunity to debate those wider issues when we discuss the Queen’s Speech. I would like to focus my remarks on the role and powers of an elected second Chamber and its relationship with the Commons. The Joint Committee has identified this, as have most other noble Lords, as going to the heart of the controversy over Lords reform.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, teases me about my position and that of the Opposition. I make it clear that the Official Opposition support reform of your Lordships’ House. We are proud of the legislation that we introduced in 1999, which removed most of the hereditary Peers. In the years since, this House has become ever more effective as a House of scrutiny and revision. It is this House that has held Ministers properly to account and has so often saved Governments from themselves. Would the other place have acted similarly? I want to see reforms make us better still. The Official Opposition support an elected House. However, that must not be at the expense of primacy of the Commons, nor must it threaten gridlock or detract from our role as an effective revising Chamber. Further, these changes should take place only with the specific consent of the British people.

Mr Clegg told the other place on 20 March 2012 that nothing in his plans would change the primacy of the Commons. Remarkably, he denied that there was an automatic link between changing the composition of the Lords and changing the balance of power between the two Houses.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I would like to refer to the noble Lord’s work on this issue as we have been through so many of these discussions together. The 2008 White Paper on an elected second Chamber states:

“There is no reason why any further increase in the authority and effectiveness of the second chamber following elections should undermine the primacy of the House of Commons”.

I suspect that the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are quoting the noble Lord. If he would like me to go through all the other ways in which he has endorsed what is now in the draft Bill—for example, as regards the 80:20 ratio—I would be very happy to do so, but he should reread his own work.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of the heroic efforts that I, other noble Lords and Members of the other place made in producing that White Paper. However, that was work in progress. We tried to reach consensus. The problem we have is that when Mr Clegg took over responsibility for this matter he convened a joint group of all the parties and when my noble friend raised the issues of powers and a referendum, that group met no more. We now have the benefit of the work of the Select Committee and of the alternative group, which has taken the debate on powers and primacy further than it has ever been taken before. We need to listen to what those reports say.

We should remember that very few noble Lords agree with Mr Clegg’s view. There is now an overwhelming consensus that an elected House would affect the balance of power. Whether it affects primacy is another question but it would certainly affect the balance of power between the two Houses. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, say yesterday that he would like an elected second Chamber to be able to veto the UK going to war. We heard a statesmanlike speech from the noble Lord, Lord True, but even he, too, talked about Houses that are co-equal. The problem that we have comes back to Clause 2 of the draft Bill, which states:

“Nothing … affects the status of the House of Lords … the primacy of the House of Commons … or the conventions governing the relationships between the two Houses”.

The problem, as the Select Committee itself pointed out, is that, “a major difficulty” with Clause 2 is that it,

“seeks to establish a series of negative propositions”,

in relation to “key terms”, such as,

“status, primacy, powers, rights, privileges, jurisdiction and conventions”.

There is no existing body of statute defining these key terms.

The Government have clearly rejected at this point proposals to set out in statute the powers and relationships between the two Houses, and to amend the Parliament Acts. The reason is that a complete statutory codification would lead to tensions as to where the boundary lay between Parliament’s own processes and the courts’ interpretation of statute law. I understand that argument, but my point is this: those tensions will be nothing as to the tension between two elected Houses vying for supremacy—and they will vie.

We are clear that Clause 2 will not do. My noble friend Lord Richard tells us that Clause 2 will not do. I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will not simply say that we can tinker around with Clause 2. The overwhelming argument put to him in this debate is that the Government have to go away and think again about how to define the powers of and relationship between the two Houses.

I should like to come back to the Parliament Acts and the preamble to the 1911 Act. It suggested that for a Chamber constituted on a popular basis new proposals would be needed,

“limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber”.

Why have the Government not made such proposals for limiting or defining those powers? What does the Minister have to say in response to the evidence of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the drafters of the 1911 Act did not intend its provisions to apply in the event of a second Chamber being constituted on a popular basis? The Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, rather ducked that point in his opening speech—but it is a crucial point. It is perhaps the most crucial point of all. Yesterday, my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon regretted the absence of the Attorney-General’s advice to the Select Committee on the Parliament Acts. I ask the Minister why that advice was not made available, and will it be put at the disposal of Parliament if a Bill is introduced following the Queen’s Speech?

I turn to the conventions. The committee of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, said that in a formal sense the Lords has equal status with the Commons as a House of Parliament in initiating Bills and passing them, subject to financial privilege and the Parliament Acts, and equal status in approving delegated legislation. In reality, as that committee said, the formal position has come to be moderated by conventions reflecting the primacy of the Commons, and those conventions are “flexible and unenforceable”. Indeed, the Joint Select Committee comments that:

“It is paradoxical and self-defeating to refer to conventions in statute”,

as the draft Bill does. The report continues,

“once the meaning of a convention had been legally determined, it would no longer be a convention”.

The committee’s solution is that the two Houses should, following reform,

“establish a means of defining and agreeing the conventions … by the adoption of a ‘concordat’”.

However, by that time it will be too late. What if there were no agreement? In any case, do conventions have anything to offer between two competing elected Chambers, each claiming equal legitimacy?

Meg Russell, of the Constitution Unit at UCL, said that,

“elected chambers … feel free to use their powers to the full, in a way that the House of Lords currently does not”.

The Joint Committee said that if the Lords,

“chose to use its powers, it would be one of the most powerful second chambers in the world”,

and that the reformed second Chamber,

“should have an electoral mandate provided it has commensurate powers”.

However, few would want to see both Chambers locked into endless conflict, and the logical outcome of this is that the role, functions and powers of the House should be determined and agreed before any change is made to its composition.

On the question of a referendum, surely the British people should have the final say. An elected second Chamber would be a major constitutional change. Surely no one could disagree with that. It is rather more important, I suggest, than decisions on mayors—even on the Mayor of Birmingham—or the minutiae of European legislation. It is as important as voting systems for the House of Commons. On all these matters, the Government have recognised the need for the people to decide through a referendum. The Joint Select Committee has so recommended, yet Mr Clegg dismisses it out of hand. What is the Deputy Prime Minister so frightened of?

[A noble Lord]

Democracy.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Democracy, ah! He told the House of Commons on 20 March that a referendum was not appropriate because he proposed to reform the composition of the House, rather than abolish it. Surely that is disingenuous. Whatever our arguments about reform, elections or non-elections, these proposals are fundamental and change the second Chamber. In fact, Mr Clegg’s arguments have moved on since 20 March —understandably perhaps. We are now told that we cannot have a referendum because Lords reform was in the three party manifestos at the last election. However, my party’s manifesto said that we would have a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, reminded us that the Conservative Party manifesto pledged to work towards a consensus for a mainly elected House. I imagine that it related to a consensus in the normal sense of the word, rather than the interesting interpretation made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, yesterday. The coalition agreement, to which we all dutifully pay obeisance committed only “to bring forward proposals” on Lords reform. Mr Clegg’s arguments are as thin as his draft Bill.

As for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about his own heroic role on this question, I refer him to page 163 of volume 1 of the Joint Committee’s report, which records the vote that took place on the issue of whether the Government should submit to a referendum the decision on changes to the second Chamber. There were 13 contents and 8 not-contents, and the not-contents included the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.

[Lord Tyler]

The noble Lord is really kind, but it was quite clear from the discussion—and of course he was not present—that that was intended to refer to a referendum on the Government’s proposals. I have always said, in common with most of the other decisions taken by this country in referenda, that they should be post-legislative. That was what I was referring to very clearly in my speech today.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, what the report says is:

“The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change brought forward by an elected House of Lords, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum”.

That is pretty clear. The noble Lord is being rather pedantic on that point.

Time moves on. We have debated many other issues and I wanted to pick just three from our debates. First, on the question of representation, the noble Lords, Lord Trimble and Lord Dubs, made some excellent points that elected Lords will expect to represent their constituents and should be resourced to do so. That must be part of their accountability to the electorate. We cannot have a situation whereby elected Members of Parliament are discouraged from direct contact with their constituents and almost inhibited from helping them with constituency cases.

On hybridity, I sense strong concern in our debate. One can see why it would be attractive to retain an independent element in an elected House, but I suspect that the 20 per cent appointed Members would feel increasingly uncomfortable and isolated in a House dominated by elected politicians. If the votes of the appointed Members helped to thwart the views of a majority of elected Members, I doubt that they would last very long. I well remember when we were in government, particularly in the early days, that when we lost votes, we put out press notices which showed that it was because of the way that hereditary Peers had voted. The temptation for any political bloc to do that would be overwhelming. Hybridity is a nice idea. One understands why it is being put forward, but I sense that in two days of debate, the argument has fallen.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, let me be clear about what the noble Lord is saying. Is he saying that the Labour Party’s position is that it would not support a Bill unless it was for a 100 per cent elected second Chamber without the Cross-Benchers?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we have always said that we would support a 100 per cent elected House.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Consistently in the new Parliament we have argued for a 100 per cent elected House.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, the noble Lord says that we have consistently supported a 100 per cent elected House. I have to tell him that I part-authored a book many years ago in which I called for a two-thirds elected House and a one-third nominated House. I have never resiled from the principle that the majority should be elected but that a minority should be appointed. I do not want to go on about this, but I have always been in favour of what the late John Smith used to call a predominantly but not exclusively elected House of Lords. If the Labour Party’s position has now changed, I would be upset.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his contribution and for his long campaign and support for democratic reform of your Lordships’ House, but I am absolutely clear. I advisedly said that, since the election, the policy of my party is to support a 100 per cent elected House.

[Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon]

My Lords, it is important that we are clear on this—by the way, of course I agree with that position. Is the noble Lord saying that the Labour Party would not support 80 per cent elected, 20 per cent appointed?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Our position is very clear. If there is to be an elected House, it should be 100 per cent elected. Of course, we also believe that we have to sort out the powers issue, because the two go together.

I come back to the issue of costs. I thought that my noble friend Lord Lipsey put forward some interesting evidence. I thought that it was a bit unfair for the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—his interventions are always enjoyed by your Lordships’ House—and Ministers to dismiss his work as highly speculative, because the Government will not put their costings into the public domain. This can be sorted very quickly if the Minister will offer to the House today to put those costings in the Libraries of both Houses so that we can study them with great care.

As for the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on salaries, I would have thought that that meant that only rich people need apply, but that is a rather familiar refrain from some parts of the coalition Government at the moment.

We come to the end of our debate. I, too, hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will provide some reassurance that the Government will reflect on this debate and study both reports with great care. I say again that I hope that the Government will not rush to produce a Bill with minor tinkering around Clause 2. That would be very disappointing.

I also hope that the Minister will explain why, when the country faces so many challenges, not least on the economy, Lords reform is apparently to be a centrepiece of the Government’s legislative proposals in the Queen’s Speech. That is a rather strange sense of priorities. Last night, my noble friend Lord Stevenson referred to the observation of the late Lord Bingham that there is simply no solution to the problem of Lords reform. That is why, Lord Bingham said, despite an immense outpouring of time and talent, no solution has been found. I do not go that far, but I think that in a non-federal state, working out the relationship between two elected Houses is very difficult. The charge that I put to the Minister is that the Government have not begun to think this through.

I hope that the Government will agree to allow for the role, functions and powers of an elected second Chamber to be determined before proposals on membership are made. Above all, I hope that the Government will agree to such proposals being put to the British people in a referendum. In the end, should not the people decide?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to almost the entire debate and particularly to my noble friend’s contribution. Many within the Government will be reading the debate in Hansard. As I said at the beginning, I did not hear much with which I was not already familiar. I suspect that that may be true of many noble Lords. Of course we shall be reflecting on matters and, if proposals are brought forward in the Queen’s Speech, a great deal of what has been said will be reflected in those proposals.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Minister says that he has not heard anything new, but would he not accept that in both reports the argument particularly about powers and legitimacy have been developed in a way that we have not seen before? Can he assure the House that we will not simply get another version of the Bill showing marginal changes? He owes it to the House to say that the Government will consider the reports carefully.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, of course, this is a debate to take note of the Richard report. It has been read extensively within the Government as well as outside. I trust that all noble Lords have read all three volumes, including the splendid compliment made by my noble friend Lord Cormack to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, in which he commented on her extreme youth. The conclusions will be considered within the Government, but the proposals on the table are those on which the Richard report commented.

I recognise that many noble Lords would like some entirely different proposals. Undoubtedly, if the proposals are brought forward, they will be modified by comments made in this House and elsewhere. That is the nature of the to and fro of democratic debate and those are the efforts that we all make in attempting to reach a consensus.

The question is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, remarked: what is our central problem? Part of the central problem, which the Government aimed to address, was how to increase the legitimacy—

Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Social Security and Revenue Information) Regulations 2012

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

These regulations enable administrative information already collected by government to be further utilised, but only for the purposes as set out in the regulations—that is, for the improvement of population statistics.

In summary, allowing access to information in relation to individuals associated with certain benefits and Revenue payments will lead to developments in the production of census-type statistics under the Census 2011 programme. Ultimately, it will lead to more accurate resource allocation, policy development and service planning and delivery. Simply put, better statistics will inform better policy-making. I therefore ask the Committee to support these regulations.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am sure that we are very grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive description of the regulations before us. Of course, as he said, the context in which these regulations are being debated goes beyond the 2011 programme established by the UK Statistics Authority, which is testing and establishing alternative models for census-type statistics. Obviously, there is a great deal of interest in that and in the programme, and I should like to come back to that in a moment. However, the Explanatory Memorandum very helpfully says that the effect of sharing social security and Revenue information will be subject to internal review after 12 months and that the legislation may be amended accordingly. Will the outcome of that internal review be made public?

I also take this opportunity to ask the Minister to explain what will happen to the 2021 Census. Can he also say whether there will be parliamentary scrutiny in the event of the Government deciding to replace the current 10-year Census? Will it be subject to a legislative order or primary legislation or to a debate? It would be helpful if he could clarify that for me.

My understanding is that the UK has carried out a Census every decade since 1801, with the exception of the 1941 Census during World War II. It is of course the only time that everybody in the country is counted and the information is used by the Government to determine spending priorities and to track population movements. In addition, academics, charities and religious organisations all use information gathered in the Census, because it asks wide-ranging questions in relation to people’s households, nationality, faith and marital status. The information is also of great interest to many members of the public. The online publication of the 1911 Census, for instance, was a very great success and hugely popular. I understand that 3 million people accessed the data within a few months of its being established.

I would just like to ask the noble Lord to comment on the remarks of Geoffrey Robertson QC, a constitutional barrister, who said the news was regrettable since some sort of count had been carried out by the monarchical government for almost 1,000 years. He said that future historians will be less able to interpret Britain in the Cameron-Clegg era as a result of this decision. He actually went on to say that perhaps that is the reason for this, but I do not accuse the noble Lord of that. I would also refer him to the remarks of David Green, the director of the Civitas think tank, who said the decision was a terrible mistake. It is a question of whether alternatives are reliable. The Census is expensive but he thinks it is worth the money for historic continuity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments and can tell him that the Beyond 2011 programme regularly reports to Ministers and these reports will be published on the ONS website, so they will reported in a form that will be easily accessible to noble Lords and others who are interested. The most important question which he posed is what will happen to the 2021 Census. My clear understanding is that the decision will not be taken until 2014 or later, and the purpose of these data exchanges and this data-sharing is to discover, first, how accurate the 2011 Census has been and, secondly, whether there are alternatives to continuing to conduct a Census of this sort.

There are costs, benefits, advantages and disadvantages to maintaining the traditional Census. As I understand it, the first Census was conducted in 1841. I say this from my historical knowledge since I can trace my family back to 1801, precisely because one of my ancestors was 40 in 1841 so one could get him back to where he had been born.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, rather like the sixties, does the noble Lord’s memory go back that far?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I hope so. It is possible that censuses have gone back further. I have at the back of my mind something that says a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. That, of course, was a census of some sort which I think was just before they managed to conquer this country, so “all the world” was a bit of an exaggeration.

The problem of the future of the Census is this: the Census of 1911 and earlier ones are tremendously interesting in their historical information for all of us. I have certainly looked at the 1911 Census and in our hall in Saltaire we have lists of everyone who lived in the house every 10 years from when the house was built to 1911. Yet how much money should one spend to provide historical information to the next generation but one? That is one question with which the Government have to be concerned.

We are somewhat impressed that Census information has got less accurate as family circumstances have become much more complicated. Children live in two houses because their parents are separated and people move around much more rapidly. With a much more mobile society in which young people, particularly young males, do not register with doctors or fill in forms, there are substantial problems in counting population. As we all know, for Government and particularly for local authorities, accurate assessment of how many people are living in your area is of considerable importance, so the purpose of this entire ONS programme is to see whether there are better alternatives to provide efficient and differentiated population statistics. It brings together a range of information now available to different government departments under very strict conditions.

In the discussions that I have had with officials on this, I said that it is quite clear that we will need a Green Paper for 2014 to allow Parliament and the public to discuss the costs and benefits of retaining the traditional Census or of otherwise moving towards a different rolling programme. After all, the data revolution is making life astonishingly different from what it was. There are enormous advantages in the amount of data that can now be collected about us. However, we are all conscious that there are enormous dangers in allowing the state to collect too much information, and that is why this statutory instrument and the others in the programme are wrapped around with so many conditions.

I hope that I have provided sufficient reassurances to enable the Committee to accept the statutory instrument.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

The purpose of the amendment is self-explanatory and I do not intend to detain your Lordships on it. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I apologise to the Speaker but it would be helpful to have the view of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on the amendment before we move to a vote on it.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I think it is perfectly reasonable, but my noble friend said that he was not moving it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Trefgarne]

I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, should explain to the House the consequences of changing “shall” to “may”. It may be of some significance. The House is owed an explanation.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, as I am ordered to explain, it is simply for clarity and the avoidance of doubt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I know that we are on Report but that will not do. The noble Lord’s Bill is very clear on when the House may deem that a Member has taken permanent leave of absence. If we substitute “shall” for “may”, surely that leads to a rather confusing picture. I rather resist this.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I do not wish to delay your Lordships. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, I do not have a clue because luckily I am not a lawyer. As it seems that we have rather a long time available to us, and as I suspect that we will be very short on the remaining amendments, I am briefly moving my amendment to get some elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Steel, and indeed anybody who is more qualified than I in the legal world. I have no qualifications at all to explain whether I am right in this concern. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, will resist any sense of moving away from Clause 15, which is absolutely right and makes it clear that a,

“person found guilty of one or more offences”,

and who is sentenced to imprisonment,

“for more than one year, shall cease to be a member of the House of Lords”.

That is a very important point of principle on which I know almost all noble Lords agree, and it is very important that this goes forward. Surely, on the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, it is a different issue in relation to elections to the other place. Obviously, there are disqualification provisions in relation to Members of Parliament. In fact, I believe that Clause 15 essentially follows the provisions in relation to Members of Parliament who may be sentenced to prison. However, if a person has served a prison sentence and then puts themselves forward for election, surely that is a matter for the electorate to decide—certainly not this House.

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I undertook in Committee to look at this matter and discuss it with the Ministry of Justice. I have in my hand four pages of brief from the Cabinet Office. I do not propose to weary the House with it but its essential conclusion is that the Bill merely brings the House into line with the rules in the House of Commons. The suggestion is therefore that we should resist the noble Viscount’s amendment, but if he is still anxious about it we can have a discussion outside the Chamber and he could raise it again at Third Reading. But, at the moment, I think we should resist the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I hope that I may say a word on this. We had this discussion some weeks ago. My own position on it was very simple; there should be a mechanism for deciding whether or not the non-payment was intentional or was due to circumstances beyond the individual’s control. If the noble Lord, Lord True, persists with this amendment, I am afraid that I will have to oppose it. If, on the other hand, he wants to talk about it and withdraw it, that would be a very good result indeed.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I echo the words of my noble friend and the Minister. To get consensus on a short Bill that has a chance of going through the other place, we should focus on matters on which there is clear agreement. However, as the Minister was tempted to speak at this point, I will pursue the point that my noble friend has made. In light of the consensus that is likely to be reached today, will the Government find time for the Bill to be discussed in the other place this Session? If he is able to confirm that, it would be much appreciated.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, having been in government himself, I am sure that the noble Lord on the opposite Bench will understand that it takes a little time to get consensus in the Government. I can promise that consultations will continue within the Government but I cannot take matters further than that for reasons he will well understand.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I understand why the Government will take a little time to find consensus. However, I remind him that the Government have made an announcement. The Deputy Prime Minister made yet another of his speeches on the House of Lords. He said that the Government were minded finally to come round to the view that action should be taken in relation to Members of your Lordships' House who find themselves sentenced to imprisonment. Here is a vehicle to allow that to happen. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister does not think much of this place, but it is actually offering him an early vehicle with which to put his policy into action. Surely he ought to take it with open arms.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I hear very clearly what the noble Lord says. He understands the restrictions under which I must operate. We will take this back and of course consult. This is part of a process that is already under way, as all noble Lords here understand, and that some of us hope will go rather further. This Government are a formal coalition—rather different in shape from the informal and sometimes bad-tempered coalition of our predecessor Government, but we must therefore necessarily discuss this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True]

My Lords, I rather agree on constitutional principle with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, but I do not think it is that significant a matter. I thought that one of the few advantages of becoming a Peer was that when a general election was called, canvassers representing my noble friends did not come to my door any more. It appears that, after this, they will.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Steel, will consider this point. Clearly it is an important principle whether Members of your Lordships' House should vote in general elections. In the context of wider reform, noble Lords need to consider very carefully what are the implications of your Lordships' House saying that Members of this House should have a vote for the other place. Members of the other place might take that as being an invitation, when the substantive Bill comes, to think about parity. That has wider implications.

Secondly, we surely agreed just now that if the Bill is to proceed in the other place, it has to be as simple as possible and to provoke as little debate there as possible. I worry that this issue might provoke a great deal of debate. The noble Lord might consider that between now and Third Reading.

[Lord Dubs]

I am rather disappointed by what my noble friend is saying. How many Members of the other place has he discussed this with? Every Member of the Commons I have talked to says that it is an anomaly that we do not have the right to vote; they do not object to that change at all.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, we speak of nothing else in Telford or in Kings Heath but this very important matter.

I caution the House that there are wider implications. It is all very well some MPs saying, “I don’t see why you don't have a vote”, but we need to see it in the context of wider reform. Secondly, if the House wants to get the Bill through the other place it needs to think whether this is likely to provoke wider debate in the other place. That is my fear. I entirely understand why my noble friend wants to pursue this, and of course he is open to do so, but we need to think about how we can get the Bill through in this Session.

House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Friday 10th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, I was not going to be grateful to my noble friend, but I am. I should have pointed out that I have been promised that if we get through the Report stage today, a day will be given for Third Reading. After that, the Bill can go to the other place.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Steel, for his helpful explanation. Can he confirm that the point he made about allowances is, as I think he put it, in formal discussions? Can he say whether that was a commitment entered into by the Government? Can he further confirm that the Bill does not deal with the issue of allowances?

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

I said that. There is absolutely no undertaking from the Government as to what kind of scheme they would introduce. However, as the committee of the other noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made clear, we need a statutory provision in order that a scheme can be introduced. My discussions have simply been speculative about what kind of scheme might be introduced. It will be for the Government to come forward with a scheme, which the House can then approve, disapprove or amend in due course.

Transparency

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for opening this debate. I echo his comments about the modest contribution that your Lordships’ House can make to this. I also refer him to the decision in the last Parliament in the other place to establish Public Bill Committee procedures for legislation. The open evidence sessions that take place before a Bill is considered in Committee and gone through amendment by amendment is a welcome introduction.

I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Gold, to your Lordships’ House. He made an excellent maiden speech and his point about transparency in international business affairs was important. It echoed the point of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about transparency in international aid. By definition, more transparency in international affairs will lead to better governance and perhaps more democratic processes. There are some signs of that. Perhaps in what has come to be known as the Middle East spring, there is an indication that greater transparency can have a beneficial effect.

The previous Government, of which I was a member, committed themselves to transparency and like my noble friend Lord Prescott I am proud of the freedom of information legislation. As far as transparency and good governance are concerned, the House of Commons Committee report of 2008-09 on good governance made the point that transparency is a vital prerequisite for any stem of ethical regulation and is the best way of ensuring that office holders have the broader public interest in mind when they spend public money or perform other public duties.

I welcome this Government’s commitment to transparency. However, it is one thing to say that you are committed to transparency; the question is, do you actually do transparency? I have to say that this is open to question. For example, in the case of the Public Bodies Act, which has closed down many public bodies and brought functions back into central departments, transparency is being lost. We are moving from public bodies with open board meetings, where a lot of information comes into the public domain, back into government departments. Transparency will be lost. Nowhere is this more evident than in the ludicrous proposal to abolish the Youth Justice Board. The idea that the protection of young people in our prisons is best done by officials, rather than by a board that brought focus, accountability and transparency, is to be very much regretted.

I was very interested in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, relating to diversity and equality in the Arts Council and Ofcom. She asked the Government whether they would agree to an amendment to the Communications Act. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, will be able to be positive on that point. I also hope that she will accept the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, to establish a new project—the second Waldegrave project or the first Warsi project. It seems well worth having a further trawl through the papers that were not released under the 30-year rule. I am glad that the noble Lord acknowledged the previous Government’s efforts in relation to the 20-year rule. I reckon that means that the ministerial office of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was covered by the 30-year rule but this means a speed-up. I am sure he will be delighted that all his actions will come into the public domain very soon.

My noble friend Lord Wills made a very important point on the Freedom of Information Act. The Government have been slow to make further progress with FoI legislation. We are now told that there is a consultation. I should like the noble Baroness to say when she expects improvements and reforms to be made. I hope we will not go into a two or three-year consultation period before any change is made. I hope the Minister will answer my noble friend on the issue to do with the Localism Act and awarding contracts to other bodies. If we are moving to a situation in which, essentially, local authorities become enabling authorities but cease to run many services themselves, it is essential that the bodies to which they contract are fully covered by FoI legislation.

It is the same in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill. I will come to the decision announced today about Hinchingbrooke. It is clear that we are moving into a situation where many more private sector providers will be providing services to the NHS in the future. It is also clear, as my noble friend said, that the current Bill does not allow much information about that to come into the public domain. I am sure that my noble friend will table an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill; I certainly hope so. It is not good enough to say that we will simply wait to see how the legislation pans out. By the way, I can tell the Government that I know how the legislation will pan out: it will not pan out very well for the NHS or its patients.

On the NHS, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the outcome information that came from the initiative taken by heart surgeons, led by Sir Bruce Keogh, who is now medical director at the Department of Health. There is no doubt that it had a hugely positive impact in improving the outcome of coronary care services. What concerns me about that is how few other specialists in the health service have followed that example. We need to ask some of the other specialties why they have not followed the example of their cardiac colleagues.

I welcome the Government’s intention to institute a duty of candour on the NHS. I am the chair of an NHS foundation trust that has just opened its board meetings to the public. It is invigorating and means that real issues about staffing and quality are out there. I welcome that; it leads to a much improved relationship with our public and, incidentally, our staff. However, I come back to the issue raised today by my noble friend Lady Thornton. Why did the noble Earl, Lord Howe, not answer her Question about contact between ministerial circles and the company involved in the Hinchingbrooke contract? It was a straight question. If this Government were really transparent we would get an answer.

My noble friend Lord Prescott mentioned the personal e-mail addresses used by Mr Gove, the Education Secretary, and his staff, bypassing FoI rules. What about Dr Fox and the grey area over ministerial meetings with lobbyists? What about the delay in setting up a register of lobbyists? Clearly, my noble friend Lord Prescott has identified this problem of a redefinition of private activities by Ministers to get around the rules. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to respond to the points that my noble friend put to her.

In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for securing this debate, I do not know whether he is happy with how it has turned out. It has certainly been very interesting. We welcome the Government’s commitment to transparency. However, I fear that their message to other parts of the public sector is, essentially, “You be transparent but we as Ministers will exclude quite a lot of our activities from the public domain”. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to respond to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warsi]

The Government’s recent open data consultation consulted on an extension to the types of organisations to which the open data policy could apply. The Freedom of Information Act will also be subject to post-legislative scrutiny to see how it is working in practice. Further policy in this area will be developed. At this stage I do not have a specific timeframe, but I can write to the noble Lord once I have further information.

My noble friend Lady Byford asked some important questions about how what we are trying to achieve appears to be hindered by how we achieve it. The Government are committed to achieving the very benefits that she highlights and will give serious consideration to the challenges she raised, which could stand in the way of those benefits. She also raised an important point in relation to privacy, and I can assure the noble Baroness that we will not extend transparency at the expense of privacy. Personal data will be handled in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, raised some important points about politicians. All politicians, all of us who are in the public sphere, must be committed to the very basis and essence of this agenda; otherwise, we will be accused of hypocrisy, not just by each other across these Benches but by the public. I can assure him that all those in this Government are committed to that very basis of transparency and openness. Our goal is for participation and engagement—

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am glad she said what she said, but does she accept that if Ministers redefine some of their meetings as private that is not being transparent?

[Baroness Warsi]

I completely take the point that the noble Lord makes. I repeat that we all bear the responsibility to make sure that what we say is what we do. I hear what he says, and indeed comments made by other noble Lords, and I will make sure that they are heard by all of us who are in this Government.

Our goal is for participation and engagement from an engaged society that knows it has a role to play in shaping the world in which we live. This is what open government means. Noble Lords may remind me that this is not a new idea, but what makes it a timely one is the increasing focus on how society works and how public services are actually delivered. What makes it achievable is the continuing democratisation of technology, with almost 80 per cent of households now having access to the internet. The fact that some households do not have internet access was raised in this morning’s debate and I will take that back.

Providing easily accessible data allows people to choose what services are right for them, localities to determine what their communities need and the public sector monopoly on provision to be opened up. This is a sea change in the relationship between the state and the individual. We are moving from a “We give, you get” approach to public services, to an “I choose when and where” approach.

This Government have every intention of putting into practice the ambitions they stake out on the global platform of OGP. We have an obligation to continue to lead this agenda and to use our successes to bring others with us. I hope that I have whetted noble Lords’ appetites in relation to our joint chair of the OGP, for the role we have to play in the growth review later this month, for the White Paper due in the spring and for what I think is an exciting and fast-developing agenda.

I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his earlier remarks and for giving us the opportunity to discuss the range of possibilities that our transparency agenda offers to all of us.