Civil Servants: Working from Home
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts(9 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I agree with a lot of what my noble friend says. He and I both have a background in retail and leadership is very important. That is one reason why the new Minister for the Cabinet Office, John Glen—well known to many of your Lordships—set out in a speech how the Civil Service should lead in providing public services. That included spending a minimum 60% of working time in the office, with leaders encouraging that because of the benefits it brings to the workforce.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an academic who has worked from home for at least two days of the working week throughout my career. Email and mobile phones have made it a great deal easier to do so and still be efficient. The introduction of hot-desking in Whitehall and the squeeze on places for staff to work mean that it is difficult for everyone to have a desk if they come in every day. Is that a constraint on the Civil Service bringing people back in to work?
Freedom of Information
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts(10 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Of course not—I am sorry if I misled the noble Baroness—as we do keep these things under review. The latest review was in 2016, when the Information Commissioner looked at whether we should change the rule, which noble Lords may be aware of, that freedom of information requests can be turned down if they equate to more than 24 hours’ work. However, civil servants are advised to narrow down requests so that they do not fall foul of that rule, and I know that they do that in the Cabinet Office. That rule was looked at by the independent Information Commissioner in 2016; there were some advantages to changing it upwards and some to changing it downwards, and the decision was taken not to make a change. However, as I was trying to explain, we take freedom of information very seriously and the number of requests that we are dealing with across the machine has increased. Obviously, individual cases can be a problem.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I know that freedom of information is an embarrassment to government and that, when Governments get their feet well under the table, they regret it. I have just been back to the White Paper which introduced the Freedom of Information Act. It says:
“Openness is fundamental to the political health of a modern state … Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance … and defective decision-making”.
Would the Minister care to say that she strongly agrees with those principles?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I certainly agree with openness wherever we can make things open. Of course, that White Paper goes back to the Labour Government of the early 2000s, and I remember a certain Prime Minister commenting on freedom of information and the problems it had created. Of course, we need open information, but it has to be a combination of using the Act and also bringing in other measures—I mentioned the quarterly transparency returns, and there is the contracts finder and the changes we are making in the Procurement Act—and generally having an attitude of trying to be helpful and open, and not use these things as an excuse.
Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2023
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations are known as the check-off regulations and stem from Section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016. This is the last secondary legislation to be brought into force as part of that Act; each aimed at modernising industrial relations in the UK. I am pleased to take this final piece of legislation through, as I had the honour of taking the Act through the House some years ago.
The regulations define a relevant public sector employer for the purposes of Section 15 of the Trade Union Act. That provision requires relevant public sector employers, which allow employees to pay union subscriptions directly through payroll, to charge trade unions a cost substantially equivalent to the cost that they incur for providing the service. In addition, public sector employers must be satisfied that there is an alternative way of union members paying their subscriptions aside from check-off, such as through direct debit.
Should employers not be able to secure payment substantially equivalent to the costs of providing check-off, or should there not be an alternative payment available to employees, employers must cease to provide check-off. The Government believe that this will ensure that check-off services are provided by public sector employers only where there is no cost burden to the taxpayer and to guarantee members have choices about subscription payment methods.
The regulations will not come into force until a reasonable transition period has taken place to allow everyone adequate time to make arrangements to comply with the regulations. To this end, they will come into force on 9 May 2024, six months after laying. This is a generous transition period, considering that the regulations were previously due to be laid in 2017. Therefore, employers have had a significant awareness of the impending changes.
The Government have also provided to the House the Explanatory Memorandum and a full impact assessment, and we will publish guidance on GOV.UK to be issued to public sector employers to help them to familiarise themselves and comply with the regulations.
I will remind noble Lords why the Act’s reforms to check-off in the public sector are significant. The Government are committed to the responsible and transparent use of taxpayers’ money and so believe that the administration of payment of union subscriptions for public sector workers should not be carried out at the expense of the taxpayer.
During the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, the House debated the original drafting of Section 15 at length. It suggested that check-off services should not be provided by public sector organisations on behalf of their unions, owing to the cost burden on the taxpayer. However, through the legislative scrutiny and amendments made in this House, Section 15 of the Act was revised to no longer require public sector employers to remove check-off services, but rather that the costs associated with doing so should be recharged to trade unions and alternative options should be available to trade union members. The Government were grateful for the scrutiny of the House in refining the provision and continue to believe that this strikes a fair and appropriate balance between providing value for money and fostering good and modern industrial relations in the UK.
The regulations will apply across the public sector to those bodies listed in the Schedule. There was significant engagement in this House on the organisations in scope, resulting in the Government considering the ONS definition of “public authority” too broad. As a result, the Government decided to use the list of bodies from the Freedom of Information Act and its Scottish equivalent as the starting point to define the scope of the regulations, making it clear that the intention was to include only organisations that are funded wholly or mainly from public funds.
Of that list, the Government have removed organisations that do not routinely employ staff, are an advisory body or expert panel, are funded by a levy on a finite or discrete group, or are predominantly commercially focused, to ensure that the scope is proportionate to the aims of the regulations.
The Cabinet Office has also engaged each Secretary of State on the proposed scope, seeking their confirmation that the regulations capture all bodies necessary to deliver the policy aim. In addition, a two-week consultation was undertaken with the Scottish Government to ensure that Scottish bodies were appropriately captured.
The check-off regulations will deliver benefits to the taxpayer. The impact assessment has identified that the intervention will equate to a present benefit saving of approximately £1.5 million per year and just over £12 million over the next 10 years. These benefits arise as the regulations seek to alleviate the burden for public sector employers that offer check-off services but do not yet charge trade unions for the cost of administering them.
I wish to be clear that the regulations we are considering stem from the Trade Union Act 2016, which was introduced, as noble Lords will remember, as a 2015 manifesto commitment. Despite delays owing to other government priorities relevant to the UK’s exit from the European Union and the coronavirus pandemic, this has been a long-term ambition of the Government in our aim to modernise industrial relations in the UK.
The purpose of these regulations is to deliver value for money for the taxpayer and choice for individuals in a balanced way that reflects the discussion in this Committee. They do just that, and I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have seen many Chekhov plays; this is not half as enjoyable an “Enterprise”.
This SI comes here under an Act of 1992, as amended in 2016. The House of Commons briefing on it reminds me that the Conservatives tried it on in 2014 but were blocked by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition. So they brought it back later and it is to come into force in May, a maximum of six months before the next election in the dying days of this dying Government.
The instrument is extraordinary in the sense that it goes through a list of more than 200 bodies, some of which are in any sense autonomous public bodies. I used to work for several universities and I note that they are caught up in the scheme—but, then, so are the Crofting Commission, the Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the Gaelic Media Service, Historic Environment Scotland and even the Scottish Road Works Commissioner. I assume that this must all be compatible with the conventions of the devolution settlement. I note also that, in terms of local government in England, Together for Children—it is based in Sunderland—Slough Children First and the Sandwell Children’s Trust are brought under this umbrella as well. The total amount of public money that this careful enumeration of all these subordinate bodies will save is estimated to be £1.5 million a year.
As I read this SI over the weekend, I thought of the principles that are at stake here: limited government; government that should be as local as possible in order to be as close to the people as possible; and that government should have respect for the importance of autonomous institutions in civil society. These are principles that Liberals and Conservatives used to share, when Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister and Conservatives still read Edmund Burke rather than Ayn Rand and Friedrich von Hayek. This statutory instrument is illiberal and unconservative. Such a degree of detailed centralisation and interference in civil society used to be called socialism. Edmund Burke used to talk about the importance of local communities, little platoons and self-government. This instrument is much more in the style of authoritarian populism, like those right-wing Republicans in the United States who believe that the free market is all that matters rather than a free society.
One of the things that horrified me most as I read the Explanatory Memorandum and the impact assessment were the 40 or 50 references to the TaxPayers’ Alliance as a prime source of evidence for the arguments made. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the TaxPayers’ Alliance. It was founded by Matthew Elliott after a period in Washington attached to Americans for Tax Reform; that was founded by Grover Norquist, who once famously said:
“I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub”—
tax cuts at all costs and to hell with the public sector.
The undue influence of American Republicans on the Conservative Party, the flow of funds to right-wing think tanks, in particular those based in 55 Tufton Street such as the TaxPayers’ Alliance, and the links with hard-right think tanks here are part of what seems to many of us to be going wrong with the Conservative Party. I rather suspect that the Minister, whom I offer the compliment of thinking of as a one-nation Conservative, probably quietly shares a view.
The impact assessment does say that the savings to His Majesty’s Government will be at £1.5 million a year, and it estimates the cost to the trade unions at about £13 million a year, thus enforcing significant increases in membership fees. It also says:
“Costs to public sector employers may include some loss of goodwill with employees and trade unions”.
Well, that is much less important, is it not? It seems to me that that matters. After all, the Government’s relationship with civil servants and public sector workers has deteriorated steadily over recent years. We have seen that in the recent strikes and in the loss of a number of first-class civil servants; I know that some of those with whom I most enjoyed working when I was in Government have now left or taken leave. That raises problems about the quality of how we are governed.
The impact assessment also says:
“The policy will engender taxpayer faith that the Government is spending their money responsibly”.
Well, taxpayers’ faith in the Government spending their money responsibly is currently having to cope with the Government’s failures to deal with the Covid effort and to enquire into that, and with the revelation yesterday that the noble Baroness, Lady Mone, admits to having made £60 million in profit from Covid contracts, rather larger than the £1.5 million we have spent here. I suggest this will not engender much additional taxpayer faith.
The Minister herself said that the Government are committed to the transparency of public expenditure. I hope that is true, and that we will see, as we go further into the question of how much government waste there was on Covid contracts, that the Government are actually committed to transparency rather than to a continuing cover-up.
The Minister will note that there have been changes in the nature of trade unions over the last 40 years. There are fewer manual workers and more professionals—public service professionals above all. The majority of trade union members now have degrees. They are civil servants, doctors, nurses, researchers and teachers. They used to be part of the core vote of the Conservative Party, and I suggest to the Minister that they are an important part of that vote, which the Conservatives have lost and will not regain unless they alter their attitude to the public sector.
The bias against public service and the public sector as such, which we have seen on the right wing of the Conservative Party, is one of the most unattractive dimensions of this dying Government, holding down their salaries and wages while allowing private sector pay to soar. Ministerial treatment of civil servants as if they were servants, and the well-evidenced examples of bullying of civil servants by Ministers, have been a problem in which civil servants need unions to defend them and look after their interests. The public sector does need unions to protect them and good civil servants are vital to the quality of British government.
I find very little to like in this SI; if Labour had wished to move a regret Motion, the Liberal Democrats would certainly have supported it. The only good thing to be said for it is that it will take effect only in the last months of this Government, and I suspect that any Government that come in afterwards will quietly stop its implementation.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I just ask the Minister: are the Government still attached to the role that the Conservative Party has traditionally seen for trade unions in maintaining social harmony? Do they see trade unions as an essential component of a harmonious society, by providing a platform for workers to express their concerns and negotiate with employers, thereby contributing to social cohesion and stability?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, for their contributions to the debate and the good questions that they have asked. I should perhaps start with the noble Lord’s description of the wide-ranging nature of the list. I agree that it is wide-ranging, and that is necessary. However, I am sorry that in a sense he criticised the impact assessment. I was pleased that there was an impact assessment. He and I and other Members of the House have been proponents of the use of impact assessments because they allow the sort of questions that we are asking today, and they are not always used. Obviously, I point out in relation to the costs of check-off that direct debit is an alternative.
The noble Lord asked a number of technical questions on the estimates, as did the noble Baroness. The easiest thing for me to do is to look at them in Hansard and write to them in answer, but I will make two points. First, I understand that the guidance should be online from tomorrow. I am sorry that it is not available today. The normal course of events—the Commons starting on this first and then us getting it—has perhaps meant that we have not had the benefit of the guidance, but I will write and send the link to it because that would be helpful. I also agree with him about the changing nature of trade union membership. He will remember very well that I worked at Tesco, a trade-unionised company, and spent a lot of time working with the union in growing the company. Personally, I work very well with civil servants and their unions. We need to minimise costs, however, which is one reason behind the changes that we are discussing today.
Perhaps I should pick up the noble Baroness’s point about consultation. As she said, the regulations stem from the 2016 Act, which was consulted on as a whole. During the debates on the then Bill, the current policy position on the check-off regulations was set out, which was to charge trade unions a reasonable cost and to ensure that there was access to an alternative method of paying union subscriptions. That was an agreed compromise instead of requiring public sector employers to remove check-off altogether. It is important to repeat that background.
The Government have upheld the commitments that they made to engage, rather than consult, with affected bodies. That has included four consultations with government departments and the Scottish Government on the schedule of scope. The Cabinet Office has also engaged trade unions’ workforce policy leads and some employers on the impact assessment and for views on the guidance. There is no single source of information of cost of check-off to the taxpayer. That is one reason why the TaxPayers’ Alliance report was used, but we have supplemented it with more recent data from the BEIS management and well-being practices survey. We also conducted consultation with employers in each of the public sector workforces, including the NHS, local government, police forces, maintained schools and academies and the Civil Service. I acknowledge that a lot of this is anecdotal, but it has provided some more recent data as a comparison and means of testing the assumptions made in the two reports. However, as I promised, I will look at the points that the noble Lord made.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Just to add, the disgust with which we saw the depth of dependence on the TaxPayers’ Alliance relates to the position of this body, which received an E—the bottom range—from Who Funds You? for the opaqueness of its funding. It is clear that some of its funding comes from very right-wing bodies in the United States; it has held public, open conferences with, I believe, the Heritage Foundation. It seems deeply improper for the Government to depend so heavily on such a very partisan think tank. The Tufton Street group in particular is doing its best to pull the Conservative Party very much to the right, against its former traditional conservatism.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I cannot just accept that, I have to say; I believe that views from all different directions can be valuable in debate, and that includes the TaxPayers’ Alliance. I explained why it had done some work in this area. It was used in these estimates—entirely transparently—and we have also taken data from other sources. I nevertheless thank the noble Lord for his comments.
House of Lords Appointments Commission
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
First, on the question of hereditaries—a subject on which I know the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is a great expert, with his various Bills—the truth is that the hereditary arrangements involve a by-election process that was established as part of the deal on House of Lords reform in the 1990s. It would clash with the by-election process to introduce a vetting system for hereditaries—but in any event I see that as part of House of Lords reform and we have made it clear that there are no plans for piecemeal reform.
On the issue of numbers, I have more sympathy. It is true, however, that although the Conservatives now have a lot more Peers than Labour, we still do not win all our votes and we still only have 34% of Peers, partly because of the number of Cross-Bench Peers that we now have. I think the numbers are well known and well understood; of course, if the House of Lords Commission wants to publish them, that is very much up to it. But I do have some sympathy on the point in relation to numbers.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, can we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire? There is plenty of time for my noble friend.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Could the Minister consider changing the status of the House of Lords Commission? There has been a range of reports from think tanks and committees in the other place which have suggested that what we need to do to these bodies, which are in effect constitutional guardians—the Committee on Standards in Public Life, ACOBA, the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests and others—is to put them in statutory form so they are able to stand up to Prime Ministers who do not wish to observe the conventions of public life, as Boris Johnson so clearly did not. Is this part of the Government’s agenda?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not see it that way. We are very glad we have a new chair of HOLAC, but we should be wary of giving even greater powers to bodies, however great and good, which are not necessarily democratically elected. That is why Prime Ministers and leaders of both parties put forward candidates.
UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I wish I could be as optimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that Keir Starmer will be able to make Brexit work.
I congratulate the committee on this excellent report. It is useful to focus on the non-commercial aspects of this broad relationship: foreign policy, defence, energy co-operation and the mobility of people.
I found the government response disappointingly thin on content. Its preference for the Turing scheme over Erasmus+ is specifically stated to be because Turing does not offer reciprocal benefits. Searching issue by issue for arrangements in which the UK gains and others give is no way to rebuild a close relationship with the EU and our neighbouring states. Good relations depend on mutual trust and broad reciprocity.
I read the article in yesterday’s Telegraph by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on relations with the EU. As he was the Minister who negotiated the trade and co-operation agreement, it would have been valuable for the House to have heard his comments on this report, and he was in the Chamber earlier today. I was puzzled that he claimed in the article that his negotiations on fisheries and on security had been successful, and I was astonished that he made no reference to the impact of the Ukraine conflict on UK relations with the rest of Europe and on European security as a whole.
I agree with the report that UK participation in the loose framework of the European Political Community—alongside 20 other third countries, including Andorra, San Marino, Monaco and Liechtenstein, as well as the European Union—is a useful but small step forward. No doubt its coming meeting in Spain will focus on support for Ukraine and the spillover of conflicts and migrants from north Africa into Europe. I hope that preparations are now well under way for the UK to host the fourth meeting in spring next year, but I note that the Government have already recognised that this is not enough by joining the PESCO Military Mobility project. We need to move much closer towards regular and frequent consultations on foreign and security policy, multilaterally in Brussels as well as bilaterally in national capitals.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that successive British Foreign Secretaries, from Lord Carrington and Sir Geoffrey Howe onwards, were architects of the development of the common foreign and security policy mechanisms, and I can think of no Foreign Secretary, Labour or Conservative, since the beginning of that process under Jim Callaghan who has not regarded that as an invaluable contribution to British foreign policy.
The article in yesterday’s Times by the noble Lord, Lord Hague, provided another powerful argument for foreign and security co-operation with EU members. We cannot rule out the possibility that Donald Trump might win the next US presidential election. If that happens, the British Government will need to respond with the closest possible co-operation with our European partners, as well as Canada and Australia, and we need to build that relationship now.
The chapter on energy policy restates what everyone following energy policy already knew, but which the proponents of leave denied: our energy supplies are already dependent on interconnectors with other neighbouring states and will become more so as we and others move further towards renewable energy. One might add that these Governments are all now painfully aware that the interconnectors are vulnerable to hostile sabotage and that defence co-operation in protecting the network from attack is a security interest that we share with states across the channel and the North Sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, mentioned extra-European migrants in his Telegraph article but had nothing to say about the current confusion over mobility between the UK and the EU, which the report sets out. Policy here is incoherent, with the Home Office wanting to keep as many people out as possible, and DSIT and DfE proclaiming that we are open to foreign workers, foreign researchers and talented students. Some EU states are now imposing restrictions on the number of weeks that British businesspeople, academics and lawyers can work in their countries in return. I fear we will have to wait for a different Government before any reciprocal arrangements can be agreed that will allow a freer flow in both directions across the channel.
The report also recognises the flimsiness of any European strategy or framework for co-ordination across Whitehall. It has not helped that we have had six Ministers for Europe since the 2019 election, one of whom served for two months and another for five months, with the post now downgraded to a Parliamentary Under-Secretary. It is a great contrast with the coalition period from 2010, when David Lidington was in office for five years as a senior Minister of State, with real influence across Whitehall.
The Government are making almost no effort to get their act together in managing the complex relations with our nearest and most important partners, which cover most of the important interests across Whitehall. Furthermore, the cadre of expertise on the EU—its regulations and institutions—that had been built up in Whitehall is shrinking, at a time when even right-wing Conservatives admit that we need to rebuild political and policy links. We need to rebuild the networks of co-operation among officials, Ministers, political parties, schools, universities and civil society that have been so badly damaged in the past five years. I welcome this report’s contribution to making such arguments.
Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete: Public Buildings
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That was a huge array of questions more suitable for debate, but perhaps I can make clear that the Government have agreed to fund extensive RAAC mitigation works across the NHS and the education estate by capital funding allocations. We will consider the approach to any RAAC funding in other public sector estates on a case-by-case basis. As regards the MoD, the programme of surveys is ongoing, given the size of the estate, and I know that my right honourable friend the new Defence Secretary takes this matter very seriously.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Comptroller and Auditor-General wrote yesterday in the Times that the problems were caused by “underinvestment” in the physical estate and
“by the lack of a robust long-term programme of building maintenance and replacement”,
and suggested that that needs now to be urgently addressed. Can the Minister assure us that the Government are now willing to develop such a long-term programme and raise the level of investment in the public estate, or are they going to give in to the continuing demands from right-wing newspapers and their own Back Benches to cut taxes first and not put the money in?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The Government are investing and will continue to invest in public sector buildings. Take education: the Government have allocated £15 billion since 2015 to keep schools safe and operational. In this area, professional advice has evolved over time. Successive Governments since 1994 have managed the risk of RAAC and will continue to do so. I have explained the central advice given to help individual public sector bodies manage their responsibilities in the way that all building and property owners need to do.
Electoral Commission: Data Breaches
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I do not have available any commercial information. It would be a matter for the Electoral Commission, and no doubt there is some information in its annual report. I am afraid I am new to this subject, but legislation sets out which individuals and organisations are entitled to receive copies of the open electoral register from local authorities. The commission, of course, uses the register for various purposes because it is a regulator. There are other organisations, as the noble Lord suggested, such as credit reference agencies, political parties and the Office for National Statistics—which does such an important job—which are entitled to receive copies of the register.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Elections Act extended voting rights to overseas citizens for their lifetimes. As it is implemented it will have to rely on a great deal of electronic communication, as the postal service will be far too slow. Have the Government considered that this lays our electoral records more easily open to hacking? Has thought been given to the problems of managing a system such as this? We want a great deal more people who live in distant countries to vote, but the time allowed in the electoral campaign for that will be very difficult to manage without the use of electronic systems.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Preventing interference in future UK elections is an absolute priority for the Government—we have to protect our democratic processes. The Government have set up a Defending Democracy Taskforce to drive forward work to protect UK democratic processes, which I hope will be of some comfort to the noble Lord. The taskforce works across government and with Parliament, the intelligence communities, the devolved Administrations, local authorities, the private sector and civil society—a whole of society approach. It has recently set up a new enduring election security capability: the joint election security and preparedness unit. This will make sure that we are fully prepared for the next general election and that there are not attacks on the integrity of our systems.
UK Government Resilience Framework
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The statement is still in preparation. I take note of the noble Lord’s points and thank him for the contributions that he has made, notably on the debate that we had on resilience in January, which was very helpful. The Deputy Prime Minister has committed to giving a statement to Parliament this year. Both Houses will be given the opportunity to scrutinise this, and the Government intend to update both Houses in the appropriate way.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the resilience framework statement is full of calls to involve the whole of society:
“we need a shared understanding of the risks we face … We are committed to working with partners, industry and academia from across the UK to implement this Framework … including UK Government departments, devolved administrations, local authorities, emergency services and the private … and community sectors … so we must be more transparent and empower everyone to make a contribution”.
I am not aware of any great public information campaign having started yet. Is that also planned?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the developments in openness that there have been. We now have a UK Resilience Forum, which was established to bring together the voluntary and community sectors, emergency responders, business and so on. We have published a very chunky National Risk Register, which is available for public comment—and, of course, we are gearing up the local resilience forums, which are led by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. We have announced new pilots this summer to work out how best to engage local communities, develop community risk registers and so on.
Cabinet Manual
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to submit a draft revised Cabinet Manual to the appropriate committees of both Houses for their comments.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s current intention is to share draft material for review in the autumn. The Cabinet Secretary wrote to the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in June to set out this plan. Since then, officials have been engaging with the clerks of the committees, and they will continue to do so over the summer to provide the latest information.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that welcome confirmation of news that progress is at last being made. It is now 18 months since the noble Lord, Lord True, in answering the debate on the Constitution Committee’s report, said he regretted that there had not yet been a revision. There have been five revisions of the Ministerial Code since 2015 and four of the special advisers’ code, but none of this code. Does the Minister agree that it is extremely important to have these consultations completed and the draft published in final form before the likely date of the next election, to ensure that the constitutional transfer of authority after the next election—to whichever Government are then formed—is conducted according to the rules laid out in the Cabinet Manual as revised?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. The Cabinet Secretary made it clear in his letter to the committees that the plan was to complete the work so that the new and revised Cabinet Manual could be published in good time for the next general election.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, to return to the general point, the Minister may have considered that we might be changing from one Government to another after the election, which will overlap with the United States doing the same. We have seen, painfully, from the last transfer of power in the United States that one should never take the constitutional transfer of power for granted. The Cabinet Manual is most useful during a change of government, as many of those who have commented on it have said. Is the Minister conscious that one needs to push to ensure that it is therefore available for all those who might be Ministers after the next election, well before the campaign starts?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. I said that we are looking ahead to timing, bearing in mind the general election, and I repeat that undertaking. I am glad that he mentioned the United States, where there is a very different system, involving a written constitution. One of the strengths of our constitution, and indeed of our history, is its flexibility and ability to evolve according to changing circumstances. Since the last Cabinet Manual, we have had a lot of changes in circumstances—Covid, Ukraine, Brexit and so on.
Official Statistics Order 2023
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, on the care and attention he has dedicated to this. I regret that I was not as thorough, although I did discover what JISC was, and one or two other things, as I looked at the list. I start with a confession: I do vaguely remember that there was a point when I understood the difference between national statistics, official statistics and other statistics, but I think I have forgotten. There were some very subtle, but nevertheless significant, distinctions between them. I was a Minister at the time, so I had to understand it.
I echo the recommendation made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, that we might have a fuller briefing when we return. It would be very helpful to know what the Government’s overall strategy on statistics is. I would also welcome, and I think quite a number of us would welcome, a government briefing on where we are now on the use of statistics across departments, as the Government go through the digital transformation.
I recall from my time in the Cabinet Office that there were tremendous barriers to sharing statistics across government, because the laws under which the Department for Work and Pensions operated were different from those of the Home Office. Therefore, when it came to something such as the Windrush scandal, where it was quite evident that there was material in other departments which would have showed whether or not the people concerned had been in Britain, in employment and registered with a doctor over the previous 20, 30 or 40 years, it was not carried through.
The digital strategy within government is extremely important to the future of government. It is also very much a non-party issue. It would be very helpful to have a briefing for all Peers to say where we are with that now. How far have some of those legal barriers been overcome? Is there now appropriate sharing across Whitehall? How far have some of the hesitations that so many people have about privacy and the use of their personal statistics been overcome?
I recall, at the time of the last census, a number of people, including the then Minister, Francis Maude, now the noble Lord, Lord Maude, saying that the question of whether we need future censuses ought to be moot, because one agency or other of our Government is collecting most of those statistics all the time. If one were able to put them all together, it would save us the effort and expense of a census and would provide us with a moving interpretation of what is happening in our schools, our ethnic communities, our ageing population, et cetera. So there were some very large, important questions there.
I welcome what the Minister said about providing a firm evidence base for government. We have, after all, been through a period in which a number of people, including at least one Prime Minister, were not entirely sure that evidence mattered, and one rather senior Minister decried government by experts as something we should get away from. I am very glad that the with the current Government we are getting back towards a concern with evidence-based policy-making.
I too was puzzled by the list of inclusions and exclusions. We would welcome a letter at some point to explain what that might be about, without delaying where we are now much further. From these Benches, we welcome the greater use of statistics. We welcome the wider publication of statistics, and we recognise that effective government for all British citizens precisely does depend on accurate information on what is happening, and on where there are problems which need to be identified. Good governance depends on that.