General Election: Voting Rights

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I declare an interest as the mother of an expat of more than 15 years.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, legislation scrapping the 15-year rule will not now be introduced in this Parliament. I understand the disappointment of those affected. However, it is my hope that this will be delivered in the next Parliament, so that those who have lived abroad for more than 15 years will be able to participate in future elections.

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but I do not think that hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised British expats will thank him. The Government have been in place for two years now. Why have they not fulfilled their promise in the 2015 manifesto to give votes for life to these people? Is it not because the Government are afraid of how they might vote, given that the Government have ruined the lives of many of them who live in other parts of the EU by choosing a hard Brexit?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, when Members of Parliament, including Liberal Democrat Members, voted overwhelmingly last week that this Parliament should come to a premature close, it was inevitable that certain measures would not be introduced in this Parliament. However, I hope that if this measure is introduced in the next Parliament, it will have the full support of the Liberal Democrats, in view of the interest that the noble Baroness has just shown.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my entry in the Register of Lords’ Interests. Can the noble Lord tell the House what additional resources the Government are providing to enable local government to register more citizens to vote? What representations are they making to the Residential Landlords Association and the Association of Residential Letting Agents to encourage them to bring it to the attention of their tenants that they could be eligible to vote—because tenants in the private sector are one of the most underrepresented groups at elections?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite right that a number of groups are unregistered in the current regime. Over recent years, the Government have devoted resources to trying to increase registration of those groups, particularly students. We have also made it much easier for people to register to vote: you can vote online in about three minutes. A number of initiatives are also being taken by the Electoral Commission, focused on some of the groups that the noble Lord rightly mentioned, to encourage them to vote. Over forthcoming weeks, the Electoral Commission will of course have an additional campaign as part of its responsibility of informing people how and where to register to vote.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

I have asked the Government on many occasions to expedite this important matter, and the disappointment will be widespread and great among our fellow country men and women living abroad. When will the Government reach decisions on the issues set out in their policy statement relating to this area, which was published last October?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend is quite right to draw the attention of the House to the progress that we have made in this Parliament by publishing the Ministerial Statement on 10 October. That Statement made it clear that our plan was to have the policy implemented before the next scheduled parliamentary election. Discussion is now taking place on how to register and who will be eligible to register. I hope that Ministers, if they are indeed returned after the next election, will be able to take this initiative forward.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Government will recall that in the referendum campaign a number of voters living abroad did not receive their postal vote in time to vote. There was much discontent over that. Can the Government make sure that on this occasion, those who wish to vote while living abroad and who are registered are provided with the opportunity to vote in good time?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I understand that I said earlier that people could vote online; I should have said that they could register online. I am happy to put the record straight.

When people tried to register before the last referendum, there were times when the system could not cope. Since then, steps have been taken not only to increase the capacity of the system but to build in extra safeguards against any attempt at sabotage.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, would it not be more important to give the vote to 16 and 17 year-olds, whose future is in this country, than to people who have left this country, do not pay taxes and seem to have no interest in us?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Since the last election, the issue has been discussed on several occasions in the other place. Each time that it was put to a vote, the proposition that the noble Lord has just referred to was voted down. We are in line with most mature democracies in having a voting age of 18, which is aligned with the age for jury service. I do not detect a huge public demand to lower it.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, what efforts are being made by different agencies and government to ensure not only that there is participation in terms of registration to vote but that those people who will be on holiday on general election day can vote?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend takes a keen interest in matters psephological. He is quite right that a large number of people who have retired will be taking their holiday in June. The Electoral Commission is aware of this propensity and, as part of its campaign to encourage people to register to vote, it will be taking on board the necessity to remind people who are going to be away that they should vote by post. I suspect that the political parties will be taking similar initiatives.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Will the Minister explain what principle he is defending? He seems to be saying that someone who has lived and worked abroad and has not paid taxes or lived in the United Kingdom for, let us say, 50 years, and has not even been on an electoral register in the United Kingdom to tie him or her to a particular part of the United Kingdom should have exactly the same rights in determining who the Government of the United Kingdom should be as a lifetime resident of this country.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

British citizens living abroad have been entitled to vote ever since I have been a Member of Parliament. Initially, it was 20 years, which was then reduced to 15 years. So the principle that the noble Lord seems to object to has already been conceded; the debate is where you draw the line. At the moment, it is 15 years. My party stood on a manifesto to increase it. Those who have lived abroad for more than 15 years quite often have families in this country and connections in this country, and in many cases they may want to return to this country, so it is perfectly right that they should be enfranchised for future elections.

Tax Havens

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 6th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to curb the use of tax havens.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to a regime where tax is fair, competitive and paid. The UK is at the forefront of global action to tackle harmful tax practices through implementing the agreed base erosion and profit shifting project outcomes, the OECD’s new common reporting standard and the development of new beneficial ownership information standards.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Last week, Oxfam’s report revealed that last year five UK banks made £9 billion in profit in tax havens, which was 67% of their global profits. Half a billion pounds of this profit was made in UK-linked tax havens, where the banks paid just 7% in tax. What estimate have the Government made of the loss to the Exchequer of profit shifting by UK-based companies?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I do not have the estimate of the amount lost but the noble Lord will know that we are taking steps to avoid the diversion of profits through country-by-country reporting. This means that we tend to tax the activity in the country where it takes place—so, if the activity takes place in the UK, companies will be taxed in the UK. We have also introduced a diverted profit tax, so if people seek to divert their profits to another country, a higher rate of tax can then be paid. Therefore, we are taking measures to plug the loopholes that the noble Lord has identified.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, why have the Government not used the leverage they undoubtedly have to require the British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies to maintain publicly available registers of beneficial ownership? Will the noble Lord accept that the Government’s failure to do so has not only had bad reputational consequences for our country but impeded law enforcement here and in other countries, and it has allowed the huge inflation of house prices in London, which has had very damaging effects on the lives of Londoners who are not rich?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, we had an extensive debate on this subject on Monday on the Criminal Finances Bill, and I suspect that we will be returning to exactly the same subject on Report on, I believe, 25 April. In that debate, the Minister at the Home Office explained why we had encouraged the Commonwealth dependencies and overseas territories to produce central registers, and they will be doing that by June this year. We are not prepared to use the powers that the noble Lord has referred to, which we believe should be used in exceptional circumstances such as the abolition of capital punishment and rules relating to homosexuality. We do not believe it is appropriate to use those powers in this case.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, many of us were willing to give the previous Prime Minister and Chancellor the benefit of the doubt on this issue because they were legislating in the UK and were engaged in international negotiations. However, given that we are now leaving the top table of the European Union, where much of this action could have taken place, would it not be appropriate in the brave new world of new trade agreements and Britain becoming more global for this country to lead the way on this issue by legislating to ensure that all British companies operating around the world report on a country-by-country basis to ensure that countries across the world can tax those companies where they make their profits?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

We already have country-by-country reporting in this country, and multinationals based in this country have to report to HMRC how much profit they make and how much tax they pay in each country. We are encouraging other countries to do this, so we have a multilateral approach, and the Chancellor raises this issue at the G20. In response to the first part of the noble Lord’s question, we have taken the lead on this as a result of our presidency of the G8, and more than 90 countries have agreed automatically to exchange taxpayer information under the common reporting standard. We are also taking initiatives on beneficial ownership and some of the other issues that we have already discussed.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, given the widespread use of Luxembourg by large companies and multinationals to reduce their tax, will our exit from the European Union provide an opportunity to broaden our tax base?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The initiatives we are taking on tax evasion are independent of our membership of the EU, although we are pursuing some EU directives. As I said, this country is in the lead. I do not know whether my noble friend has seen page 9 of today’s Times, which says that:

“Oligarchs must disclose identity as home owners”,


with a register. That is a world first: the people behind anonymous companies that own billions of pounds-worth of property must reveal their identities under new anti-corruption rules. This shows that the country takes the matter very seriously.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, in arguing that they will not use the powers they have to require the overseas territories to make registers of beneficial ownership public, the Government say that they expect the overseas territories to do so when that becomes the international standard. Will the Minister tell me the timeframe within which he expects public registers to become the international standard—and will it be within my lifetime?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness looks younger every day, and so I will not go there.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Young of Cookham]

More seriously, we are going to return to this matter on 25 April. At the moment I do not know the timescale by which we hope all the other countries in the world will have signed up to these central registers. However, I will make sure that if there is another amendment along those lines on 25 April, we have the most up-to-date information.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, is it a breach of our privileges for any Member of this House to avoid paying United Kingdom tax by the use of tax havens?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My understanding is that in order to be a Member of your Lordships’ House you have to be registered as a UK taxpayer. My own view is that everybody should pay the tax which is due to them, and I agree with what the former Prime Minister said about the morality of tax avoidance.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has given his usual charming and reasonable answers, if somewhat unconvincingly in some cases. However, I wonder whether the truth of the matter is displayed by his boss, Philip Hammond, who in an interview with a German newspaper in January said:

“I personally hope we will be able to remain in the mainstream of European economic and social thinking. But … We could be forced to change our economic model, and we will have to change our model to regain competitiveness. And you can be sure we will do whatever we have to do”.


Is his boss threatening to turn Britain into a Cayman Islands-like tax haven?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, we want to remain competitive in a world economy and to attract inward investment. Although we have reduced corporation tax since 2010, onshore corporation tax receipts have gone up by 50% since that date, despite the reduction in the rate. Reducing corporation tax encourages business investment and growth, and one estimate has shown that the cuts announced since 2010 amount to an estimated increase in GDP of 1.3%.

Brexit and the EU Budget (EUC Report)

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 6th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, returns to the pub and resumes the dialogue with his drinking friend, I hope that he will share with him his deep insight into the mechanics of the EU budget. I am sure that he will be fascinated to learn even more about it.

I thank all those who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, who not only chaired the committee but also introduced this debate. I particularly welcomed her peroration with its plea for fair play and an amicable settlement—an emotion that was shared by nearly everybody who spoke in the debate. I particularly recall the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay in that respect. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I came to the conclusion that if only those on this side of the negotiating table and those on the European side of it were all members of the Reform Club, our withdrawal could be settled quite quickly after a decanter or two of very good port.

This committee, together with the others under the umbrella of the EU Committee, continues to inform and influence the Government’s approach to the EU negotiations and I welcome the significant contribution this report has made in that respect. I reread earlier this week one of the first reports on this subject, The Process of Withdrawing from the European Union, which came out nearly a year ago, when withdrawal seemed unlikely. Like today’s report, for those of us for whom the EU is not our special subject, it was clear, concise, eminently readable and cogently argued. I was struck by how perceptive that original report was, particularly on the key role of the European Parliament in consenting to any agreement, and on the process of disentangling the UK from EU law, where the report quoted the chilling comment of Sir David Edward, a former judge of the Court of Justice of the EU who said:

“The long-term ghastliness of the legal complications is almost unimaginable”.


On the report, I certainly take on board the advice from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who said that sweeping assertions should be avoided. Throughout this report on the EU budget, the committee has successfully identified the legal and technical issues, as set out by the negotiation guidelines recently published by the European Council and the European Parliament. I can confirm, in response to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the headings identified in the report as liabilities are the liabilities identified in the EU’s annual accounts. The Government will publish their formal response to this report in the usual timeframe. But I say from the outset that this is a significant contribution to the EU budget discussion in which, so far, much heat but little light has been generated. We have had a very high-quality debate inspired by this report.

As the Prime Minister made very clear in her Statement to the Commons last week, we will begin our negotiations with the European Union with the ambition to be not just a truly global Britain but the best friend and neighbour to our European partners. We have set ourselves a clear and ambitious plan for the negotiations ahead. During these, we will seek to achieve the best outcome, not just for the UK but for our European partners as well.

The Article 50 letter that was delivered last week by our UK representative in Brussels to Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, formally set out what we are proposing to our European partners on the forthcoming negotiations. The Council has responded with draft guidelines which say, on the subject we debate today:

“A single financial settlement should ensure that the Union and the United Kingdom both respect the obligations undertaken before the date of withdrawal. The settlement should cover all legal and budgetary commitments as well as liabilities, including contingent liabilities”.


Therefore, the response to another question from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is yes: both the European Union and the European Parliament are looking for a single financial settlement.

The UK Government will now seek a deep and special partnership that covers both security and economic co-operation with a bold and ambitious free trade agreement, greater in scope than any such agreement before. We should begin these negotiations constructively, in a spirit of sincere co-operation, as indeed has been advocated in today’s debate, and we are confident that, at the end of the day, Britain can secure a deal that works both for us and for the EU. I agree with what a number of noble Lords have said—the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for one—that we want an agreement, but so does the EU.

Before I get into the legal arguments about whether we owe the EU a so-called exit bill, I will briefly set out the Government’s ambition in this area. As the Prime Minister made clear in her Lancaster House speech on 17 January, having been a net contributor to the European budget since we joined the Common Market in 1973,

“the days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end”.

While we remain a member of the EU, the UK will continue to play a full part in EU business, including EU budget negotiations—a matter the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to—and meeting our contributions. We will remain committed to budgetary restraint and ensuring that we live within the current deal on the multiannual financial framework. However, what is important is that, once we have left the EU, control over how our money is spent will reside with the UK Government and Parliament.

Throughout the negotiations on withdrawal, we have to look at the rights and obligations we have as a departing member state, in accordance with the law but also in the spirit of continued partnership with the EU. As the report makes clear, a whole range of issues for the UK and the EU will need to be addressed as we leave the Union. The House will not be surprised, against a background of earlier debates on this subject, if I say little about the Government’s negotiating strategy, not least because the formal negotiations have not started yet. In any case, that was the advice I was given by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, when he spoke a few moments ago. The guidelines are still being agreed and the debate over UK payments according to the rights and obligations of our membership is just speculation at this stage—speculation that has prompted a range of figures from the other side of the channel, which some noble Lords have referred to in this debate.

As the Prime Minister has said, the UK is a country that meets its international obligations. It is in the interests of both the UK and the European Union to agree a new partnership in a fair and orderly manner, with as little disruption as possible. There is indeed no reason why a new deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU should not be achievable.

On the specific issues raised in the report and in the debate, throughout the report there are a range of different opinions about the legal interpretation of potential obligations which the UK may or may not be legally required to pay. Witnesses to the committee are a testament to the complexity of it, and disagreement and uncertainty over the liabilities of a member state under Article 50 are to be expected in an area that has of course little precedent. The legal nuance is interesting. The report concluded that the wording provided under Article 50—in particular,

“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification”—


was sufficient to clear the UK of any ongoing obligations. My noble friend Lord De Mauley said that this was a useful incentive for the EU to seek agreement, and my noble friend Lord Taylor of Warwick made the case for that side of the argument more forcefully.

Other legal experts argued that Article 50 does not expressly deal with the question of financial consequences as a member state withdraws from the Union. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, developed that case, as did the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, made the point that, whatever lawyers on one side for the argument might say, lawyers to support the other side of the argument can fairly easily be recruited. They argued the other side of the argument, that rights and obligations upon the termination of a treaty are governed by Article 70 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This states that obligations undertaken when the UK was still bound by the EU treaties would not disappear at the moment of Brexit.

We are far from exhausting the range of opinions that can, and will, be given on this matter over the next few years. Superimposed on the legal uncertainty over what is or is not a survivable obligation on the UK, there is the additional ambiguity over the size of each obligation and how to calculate the UK’s share—a point the noble Lord, Lord Jay, made in his contribution. As the report makes clear,

“if it were to be accepted that the UK had any financial liability on leaving the EU, no single figure can incontrovertibly represent an amount that the UK might be requested to pay”.

Again, for each potential obligation, witnesses before the committee highlighted various ways in which you could calculate its size and various ways in which you could calculate the UK share. At least four different percentages were given with respect to pensions alone. Reading all this as a lay man—indeed, it has been confirmed by this debate—my conclusion was that a solution will be arrived at not by lawyers but by politicians.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the question of the MFF and what would happen when, without UK funding, the EU 27 would face an immediate decision on how to manage the shortfall in the remaining years of the MFF once we have left. Again, the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Butler, raised this issue. Member states will face a difficult choice between increasing contributions or cutting payments. Increasing contributions will be unpopular with member states that are net contributors, but of course cutting payments will be equally painful for those who rely on receipts. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, referred to a comment from the German Deputy Finance Minister, Jens Spahn, who has already said:

“We shouldn’t be talking about more money for the EU budget, but how to make better use of our resources”.


The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked whether beneficiaries of the UK would continue to receive EU funds. I am sure he is aware of the commitment, given by the Chancellor, that the Government will guarantee funding for projects signed before exit, even if they continue after we leave.

My noble friend Lord De Mauley asked whether it was realistic to try to expect an agreement in two years. We start from the advantage of close regulatory alignment with the institutions of the EU, with an understanding and indeed a trust in each other’s institutions, and with a spirit of co-operation which stretches back some decades. We hope that those attributes will be useful in trying to reach an agreement within that time span.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, asked whether the CJEU jurisdiction would still apply post exit. The UK is leaving the EU, and we have been clear that that means bringing to an end the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK.

On the question of the European Investment Bank, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Shutt and Lord Butler, we remain a full member of the EIB. The EIB has signed and approved new projects in the UK since the referendum, including £60 million for the purchase of new trains, which will improve passenger services in East Anglia, and £800 million for the upgrade of the national grid’s gas network. However, as with other items on the table, as part of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU the UK’s long-term relationship with the EIB will need to be resolved, and we are currently evaluating a full spectrum of options for the nature of that long-term relationship.

During our debate, there was a discussion on the size of the RAL and the liability relating to pensions. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, with agreement from other noble Lords, said that the liability rested with the EU. My noble friend Lord Lindsay said that that may be the case but that we have a moral obligation to make sure that it is happily resolved. Again, I say to your Lordships that we are approaching discussions on all these issues constructively and respectfully, and we are confident that we can achieve an outcome that works in the interests of both sides.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, asked, I think, whether nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. I have in front of me the communication from the Council of the European Union. Paragraph 2 says:

“Negotiations under Article 50 TEU will be conducted as a single package. In accordance with the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, individual items cannot be settled separately”.


That was in the communiqué from Brussels that came out on 31 March, and I hope that that answers his question.

My noble friend Lord Lindsay asked a rather binary question: are we talking about a divorce or cancelling club membership? The honest answer is that we see this process as the UK leaving the European Union. We want to negotiate this withdrawal in good faith and with the ambition of being the best friend and neighbour to our European partners.

To sum up, this is a complicated topic whose complexity the committee has done very well to bring out. Equally important is its reflection—less well reported—on the importance of the spirit of the negotiations as much as the legal issues. That has been one of the themes running through this whole debate: we have to get the tone and the spirit of those discussions right. Therefore, I very much agree with the report’s conclusion, which is worth repeating here in full:

“It is also a negotiation about establishing a stable, cooperative and amicable relationship between the UK and the EU, so as to promote the security, safety and well-being of all the peoples of Europe”.


We want to play our part in making sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats. We want a deep and special partnership, taking in both economic and security co-operation.

This report is a welcome and comprehensive contribution to this debate, as indeed our discussion has been today. It has highlighted critical uncertainties over the legal position with respect to survivable obligations and the approach to exactly what this means for UK finances. Our approach to the budget negotiations is ambitious but grounded in the principle of achieving the best outcome, not just for the UK but for our European partners as a whole.

I hope that the tone of this debate, in which different views have been expressed by Members of different parties and none, is matched by the tone of the negotiations, which are to start shortly.

Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) (Amendment) Order 2017

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 8 March be approved.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to the Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England and Wales) Order 2017, the Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (Scotland) Order 2017 and the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2017. The instruments will help enhance the operation of electoral registration across Great Britain. Noble Lords will be aware that individual electoral registration—IER—was successfully introduced in 2014 and for the first time ever enabled people in Great Britain to apply online to register to vote. Nearly 24 million people have applied to register under IER, 18 million of them online.

Applications to register to vote peak in the run-up to elections and during the autumn canvass, when each household in the country receives registration forms. Noble Lord will be aware that this process, and indeed registration overall, is costly for electoral registration officers—EROs. While the Cabinet Office currently provides direct financial assistance for registration linked to the introduction of IER, the total costs of the annual canvass are high, at some £65 million per year. The current process is inefficient, costly and burdensome for local authorities.

What is more, a large proportion of these costs relate to activities required by law that simply confirm that people are correctly registered. What is needed is a more effective and efficient system that targets resources on reaching out to underregistered groups to add new names to the register, rather than simply confirming names already there. The Cabinet Office is therefore working with EROs across Great Britain to pilot alternative approaches to the current paper-based, inflexible and prescriptive annual canvass. Three of today’s instruments will enable such pilots this year. The fourth instrument will enhance the operation of IER in Scotland to allow cost savings for EROs throughout the year.

I turn, first, to the annual canvass pilots for 2017. Three of these instruments establish pilot schemes under Sections 7 and 9 of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. As noble Lords may already be aware, Section 9D(3) of the Act requires the annual canvass to be conducted in the manner prescribed in the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001. This process requires EROs to send an annual canvass form—the household enquiry form, or HEF as it is known—to every property in their area. The HEF asks residents to set out whether there have been any changes in the composition of the household since the previous year’s canvass, and it enables EROs to identify whether any residents should be removed from the register or be invited to make an application. Response rates to the HEF are significantly lower under IER, as it is no longer a registration tool, yet, where no response is received, EROs are required to issue up to two further forms and to carry out at least one visit to the property.

These three orders disapply those requirements for 23 participating EROs in areas of England, Wales and Scotland. Instead, the orders require EROs in the specified areas to attempt to make contact with a person at each residential address in the area for which they act at least once between the date the order comes into force and 2 February 2018. The manner in which they do so, however, and whether they take further steps where no information is received at a particular address will be at the EROs’ discretion. This will enable EROs to test new and innovative approaches to canvassing—including using data, such as council tax data, the local land and property gazetteer, and internal local authority databases—to determine whether chasing responses to ERO inquiries is necessary. These approaches have been developed closely with the Electoral Commission, which is supportive of the pilots. The commission will be reporting on the schemes and will provide a copy of its evaluation to Ministers and the EROs by 29 June 2018. The order ceases to have effect on 6 July 2018.

The fundamental objective of the annual canvass—namely, the maintenance of a complete and accurate register through regular data collection—is and will continue to be a government priority. However, consultation with EROs and local authorities over an extended period has indicated that the annual canvass in its current form is not a sustainable way to achieve that aim. Many EROs, who are on the front line of electoral registration activity, have told the Cabinet Office that the canvass procedure is time-consuming and expensive. Electors will receive up to three letters and a visit from their local ERO, even if they are already registered, solely for the purposes of information gathering.

Last year, for example, huge numbers of citizens registered to vote in the run-up to the EU referendum in June. This year, many may register to vote in local and devolved elections in May, and perhaps even for a by-election as well, yet, when the annual canvass takes place between July and December, they will receive fresh inquiries in the form of the HEF about their registration status. The reality is that household churn is around 12% per annum—thus the majority of the canvass activity is redundant. Over half of households do not respond to the initial HEF, meaning that EROs are required to chase them up with the further two forms and a visit, despite the fact that 88% of households will be listed as “no change” on the electoral register.

This tremendously bureaucratic process is frustrating for administrators. Having to follow steps prescribed in statute is stifling their capacity to innovate and adopt new approaches to canvassing. Through knowing their local area or having access to local authority data, EROs may well be aware of the registration status of households in their area. However, the current system does not allow them to draw on their own expertise or on other information held by the local authority. This is not an example of “smart working”, and it does not allow citizens to “tell us once” of changes to their registration.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that the recent referendum was conducted using one of the largest electoral registers ever. With the advent of online registration, it is becoming increasingly apparent that electoral events can drive registration to new heights and that the current system of canvassing around six months in advance of a poll, through an inefficient cycle of paper HEFs and household visits, may not be the best approach for the modern world.

It is important to note that the canvass itself is purely an information-gathering process. The pilots will not alter the requirements for the registration process and for invitation to register forms to be sent to individuals. Therefore, what is being proposed—the impetus for which has come from EROs themselves—is to enable local authorities to test alternative methods for conducting the annual canvass that have the potential to be more cost-effective while still securing the same or higher levels of information on changes to the register compared with the current annual canvass process.

Operations along these lines were successfully carried out in 2016. Specifically, during the 2016 annual canvass process, the Cabinet Office ran initial pilots in three areas of England—Birmingham, Ryedale and South Lakeland. In order to broaden the evidence base, however, further pilots, including in Wales and Scotland, are needed to inform a wider change to the annual canvass across Great Britain. Early results from the pilots last year have been very promising, with provisional figures indicating that the costs of the alternative canvasses were substantially lower than those of the legislated canvass due to the reduction in printing, paper, postage and staffing costs. Ryedale, for example, estimated that the new methodology it employed resulted in an 89% saving in staff time and costs. The Cabinet Office and the Electoral Commission are currently analysing the full cost data of the whole process and intend to report initial results in May.

In addition to the pilot areas from last year, the areas selected to participate in 2017 are Barrow-in-Furness, Bath and North East Somerset, Blaenau Gwent, Camden, Coventry, Derbyshire Dales, Dumfries and Galloway, East Devon, Glasgow, Hounslow, Luton, Newcastle, Salford, South Holland, South Norfolk, South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse, Sunderland, Torfaen, Wakefield and Woking.

Although the initial results suggest that alternative approaches to the annual canvass can be at least as effective as the currently prescribed method, the Cabinet Office intends to ensure that applying this learning to local authorities across Great Britain, including Wales and Scotland, generates similar results. If successful, the pilots will demonstrate that the annual canvass does not need to be so prescriptive and that a number of alternative methods are just as effective and more cost-efficient, potentially saving at least £20 million from the cost of electoral registration each year.

The 2017 pilots will take place in local authority areas across England, Wales and Scotland. The areas were chosen using robust research methodology to ensure a spread of electoral register churn, population size, chosen pilot model and region. In each area, the EROs will be operating control groups and pilot groups so that the results of these approaches can be rigorously evaluated.

Four models of piloting activities will run with these EROs in the 2017 pilot scheme. Each model has been created based on proposals from EROs, and each participating ERO has chosen the model they wish to apply to their area based on their local knowledge and expertise. Each model reduces the number of paper communications sent to electors, using means such as telephone and email channels, and one model uses existing local data to determine where best to focus resources. Again, these ideas have all come from the experts on the front line and are designed to improve the citizen experience as well as ease administrative burdens on hard-pressed electoral teams. The elector will benefit from the local authority being able to redirect resources and target canvassing more effectively towards underregistered groups.

I will now give more detail on each pilot model in turn to offer some insight into the innovative approaches being taken to move us towards a more effective and targeted canvass process.

The first model, which is being piloted in areas such as Torfaen, Ryedale and Barrow-in-Furness, tests the use of a household notification letter, or HNL. Under this model, the ERO will send all households in the treatment group a HNL instead of a standard household enquiry form. The HNL lists the details of everyone registered to vote in that household and advises residents to take action only where the details held are no longer up to date. This model allows EROs to reduce the number of paper communications sent to electors and also reduces the number of expensive household visits required.

The second piloting model involves the use of email in areas including Hounslow and Woking. For this model, an electronic HEF will be sent to households by email, chased with a visit if necessary. Where no email is held, households receive a postal HEF followed by a visit. This model further tests the use of email communication between EROs and electors, following the uptake of email invitations to register in England and Wales. This also expects to reduce the number of overall communications with electors including, again, expensive household visits.

The third model uses a discernment step to identity different types of properties, in areas such as Glasgow and Birmingham, so that EROs can take the most appropriate approach. This discernment could involve local data matching using sources such as council tax, or assignment by ward based on the ERO’s expert knowledge. Depending on the assignment, some properties will receive a HNL, while others will be more actively canvassed where a change in household composition is suspected. Where possible, communication will be sent to these households by email before being chased with postal reminders and visits if necessary. This model allows EROs to use the existing data and knowledge they have of their areas to target resources better as well as use digital means to communicate with electors.

Finally, a fourth model tests the use of telephones in the canvass process. Areas participating in this model include Dumfries and Galloway as well as East Devon. Under this model, EROs will send initial postal HEFs but will then be able to chase non-responding households by telephone, rather than by additional canvass forms or household visits. Where no telephone number is held, households will receive two letters followed by a visit. This model allows EROs to test the use of telephone canvassing and should also reduce the number of household visits and postal communications.

The Government have consulted widely, including with the Electoral Commission, on the pilot proposals. The commission has been very supportive of these plans and has been involved from the early stages of their development. The Electoral Commission has also been consulted on these orders, on which it is content, following the Cabinet Office’s confirmation that Section 13 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 remains applicable to participating local authorities during the pilot scheme so that participating authorities are still expected to publish their registers by 1 December 2017, unless exceptional circumstances apply, such as a local election, where they are required to publish a revised register by 1 February next year.

Consultation has also taken place with bodies such as the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, and the Scottish Assessors Association. This is in addition to the work the Government have been doing with interested councils directly and who have helped shape the four pilot models. The Information Commissioner’s Office was also consulted during the development of these pilot orders and is content that they do not raise any new or significant data protection or privacy issues.

Equality impact assessments have been completed to ensure that underregistered groups, as well as those groups protected by virtue of the Equality Act 2010, will not be negatively impacted by these pilot schemes. Privacy impact assessments have also been completed to ensure that no new negative privacy impacts under the Data Protection Act 1998 will arise.

While the purpose of these pilot schemes is to give EROs the space to innovate and test alternative and more effective approaches in relation to the annual canvass, I stress that the integrity of the register will be maintained throughout the pilot schemes. EROs have a duty, under the Representation of the People Act 1983, to maintain their registers and nothing in these orders change that.

I turn now to the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2017. These regulations take steps to allow Scottish EROs to benefit from the same cost optimisation measures as have been available to English and Welsh EROs since last year. This will be achieved by amending the registration application forms for Scotland to allow applicants to identify that they are the only person resident at the address aged 14 or over. It also provides discretion to EROs as to whether to canvass a property within 12 months of an indication of single occupancy. Allowing EROs to make this choice decreases the amount of resources spent processing applications and increases the efficiency and speed of the registration process.

Secondly, the regulations will modernise the system of registration by enabling Scottish EROs to send invitations to register and ITR reminders by electronic means if they wish to do so. This delivers a quicker and more efficient service to the elector, who expects electronic communication in this age, as well as enabling cost savings. The instrument will also allow an attester to an applicant’s identity to be registered in any local authority area in Scotland. At present, both the attester and the applicant must be registered in the same local authority. This provision will assist those applicants whose identity cannot be verified using the Department for Work and Pensions matching process, local data matching or by documentary evidence who have to provide an attestation to verify their identity. This change will result in more eligible applicants becoming registered to vote. In addition, the regulations make a minor amendment to correct an error in an existing regulation concerning the requirement to provide fresh signatures following rejection of a postal voting statement.

The measures were conceived to generate savings from the cost of the annual canvass process to counteract the fact that the introduction of IER has increased the cost and administrative burden on local authorities. These provisions also aim to reduce unnecessary ERO correspondence and contact. Preliminary estimations project that these regulations will reduce the overall cost of IER in Scotland by around £125,000 for the single-occupancy provision and around £400,000 for email ITRs per year. The Electoral Commission was consulted during the development of these measures and on the specifics of this order, and it is supportive of these regulations offering the same provisions to Scotland as already exist in England and Wales.

The Cabinet Office has worked very closely with Scottish Government officials to ensure that these measures can be in place for the 2017 annual canvass, and to ensure that Scottish EROs are able to participate in the aforementioned pilot schemes. The Minister for the Constitution and the Scottish Government’s Minister for Parliamentary Business agreed last year for these instruments to make provision in respect of both the parliamentary and local government registers in Scotland. This will be done before commencement of the relevant provisions of the Scotland Act 2016, which will devolve competence in relation to the local government register in Scotland. This was agreed in order to ensure that Scottish EROs could take advantage of these cost- optimisation measures in respect of both the parliamentary and local government registers this year, and that local authorities in Scotland are represented in the canvass pilot schemes.

With this in mind, the Government believe that the instruments allowing for annual canvass piloting schemes are a crucial step towards improving the annual canvass and wider registration process. I therefore commend them and hope noble Lords will also agree that the statutory instrument relating to cost-optimisation measures in Scotland helps move electors and electoral administrators towards an enhanced IER system for members of the public and for EROs as part of the continued successful implementation of IER across Great Britain. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I make my usual declaration that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The four statutory instruments we are debating today are ones that I accept, as far as they go. I broadly welcome the process outlined by the Minister. Certainly, the entitlement to vote and the accuracy and completeness of the register are the most important things we are debating here. That underpins all this. I have some wider comments and one or two questions for the Minister but generally I welcome the orders and regulations and I am very happy that we are exploring new methods of getting people registered to vote.

On matters concerning elections and electoral registration, it is always desirable to get agreement among the interested parties on the way forward. I accept that that is not always possible but it is a desirable aim nevertheless. Changes should be implemented carefully, should be thought about, should seek to improve voters’ engagement in the electoral process and should command wide confidence. In that sense, pilots are a useful tool to see how certain measures will play out in practice, followed by proper evaluation and informed policy decisions. Can the Minister tell the House why the decision was made to extend these pilots for another year? I cannot believe that the Government have made this decision in isolation. But it is not clear from the papers why they have done so.

There is no mention of the political parties being consulted on the regulations. Will the Minister confirm that neither the Electoral Commission nor the Cabinet Office team that meets the political parties on a regular basis have brought these regulations anywhere near them? Of course, the Parliamentary Parties Panel is a statutory panel set up under PPERA. If that is the case, does the Minister agree that that is regrettable and should be rectified quickly? The political parties use the electoral register for their campaigning, they understand the registration process, and they have a legitimate voice that needs to be heard in any discussions on these matters.

I refer the Minister to page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England and Wales) Order 2017; he mentioned it in his introduction. Referring to the annual canvass, paragraph 7.1 in the section headed “Policy background” says:

“In its current form under IER, it is proving to be an unsustainable cost burden for local authorities to administer”.


I thought that was an interesting comment. I must say, it is not the biggest issue that comes up when we discuss finance and budgets and unacceptable cost burdens at Lewisham Council. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, may have let the cat out of the bag by telling us that these issues were discussed in the coalition Government in 2013. Of course, members of that coalition wanted to bring forward these proposals then.

I had a look at what the Local Government Association was saying and I could not find any mention at all of the unacceptable cost burdens of the annual canvass—not a thing—in its campaigns, press releases or anything else. I then had a look at London Councils and again there was no mention in any of its campaigns or media releases about these unacceptable cost burdens and the problems being caused for local authorities. Both organisations are well known to Members of this House. They are expert at getting their views across to us when they have issues they want to raise with us. But I have had absolutely nothing—not a letter, not an email, not a text message, not a phone call—from these bodies that represent local government.

Of course, there are many issues that these two bodies are interested in: the housing crisis, the social care crisis, education funding, public health budgets, business rates, pavement parking, homelessness and the lack of funding for that, bus funding, and many other issues—the list goes on and on. Many of these issues are putting local authorities in a difficult situation and putting pressure on budgets, but the Government are not the slightest bit interested in dealing with them. I also had a look at SOLACE and the AEA. Again, they are silent on these issues and do not appear to be campaigning on them at the moment.

It really is a bit rich for the Government to hide behind the suggestion that there are all these concerns from elsewhere in local government. The Government do not have a good record here. They sped up IER, against the advice of the Electoral Commission. They reduced the transition period for IER by one year. They threw out the consensus on that point. They moved ahead with reducing the number of seats in the House of Commons by 50. They removed voters from the electoral roll, against the advice of the commission, and of course that helped them in their redistribution of parliamentary seats and limited the scope of electors to get involved in local inquiries. At the same time, we all know that they made a record number of appointments to your Lordships’ House. Their claims about cutting costs just do not hold water.

Democracy costs money. We should cherish it and pay for it. We need an efficient, well-run, properly resourced electoral registration service in every part of the United Kingdom. In comparison with other services, the costs involved are not huge and the Government should be seeing how they can use every avenue of the state to get and keep people registered to vote. They should be learning from other parts of the United Kingdom. How does the Electoral Management Board in Scotland work in getting people registered to vote, compared with what happens here in England and Wales?

Pilots are good to see how we can efficiently and expertly register people to vote. There is nothing presently in force that stops EROs making any innovation, and many EROs do an excellent job of innovating to get people registered to vote. We should be looking at the incentives to get people on the rolls. What are schools, colleges and universities doing? What can we learn from the schools issue in Northern Ireland? Many noble Lords from all sides of the House have raised that and so far the Government have not been interested at all in bringing it into play in England. We should look also at what we can learn from other parts of the world.

I worry that the real agenda is just to cut the need to send out a prepaid envelope and a form and to avoid knocking on the door, with very little else under that. I am happy that we have new procedures and new ideas. We have to be absolutely sure that we are not making it any harder to get people registered to vote. I am not confident that so far the Government have done that.

My noble friend Lord Blunkett raised some very important points. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, spoke about the two local authorities. I do not know that case but if that is the situation, it is regrettable. All the councils that have been invited to be part of the pilot should be part of it when it takes place next year. He made a very important point about savings. I am happy to make savings but, again, the important point in all this is the accuracy and completeness of the register. That must be paramount for all of us. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made some important points about automatic registration. Again, young people and students are a very important group and we must make sure that we get them registered. I know that many councils and EROs have worked closely with universities and colleges. We need to ensure that that happens as well.

I am happy to agree the orders and regulations before us today, although I worry about the Government’s real intention behind these matters.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for their broad welcome for the initiatives that are in the orders before the House.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I am grateful for his welcome for what we are doing, but there were some uncharacteristically partisan comments in his speech. On the size of the House of Lords, I just say, as somebody who was Leader of the House of Commons at the time, that if his great party had supported the programme Motion on the House of Lords Reform Bill, the House of Lords would be a lot smaller than it is now. His party bears some responsibility for the failure to get the numbers down to a more manageable level. I will put that on one side because I know the noble Lord did not mean to stimulate an aggressive partisan debate on these non-controversial orders.

I will try to respond to the issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, raised the issue of privacy. Of course I confirm that the protection of personal data is important. As I think I said, the Cabinet Office carried out a privacy impact assessment which took into account privacy impact assessments commissioned from all the participating local authorities. The provisions before us do not have any significant further impact on an individual’s privacy than the current legislative requirements concerning registration. They simply support the EROs in carrying out their legal duty to take all the necessary steps to maintain registers of electors in their area. As I said, we have consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office on this order and it does not consider that the proposed measures raise any new or significant data protection or privacy issues. The noble Lord also raised some issues about the Digital Economy Bill and I would like to accept his generous offer to pursue those in writing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

No, I am sorry. I meant the political parties panel in PPERA which is drawn from officials.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I will make inquiries and deal with the important questions that the noble Lord has raised about the level of consultation, and of course he is entitled to a reply on that.

I think I have dealt with nearly all the issues that have been raised. If I have not, I will write. We have had direct advice from a range of those in local government—the chief executive of Trafford, the electoral registration officer for Grampian and others—about this initiative. I again thank noble Lords for the time they have spent scrutinising these instruments, which will enable EROs in England, Wales and Scotland to pilot innovative approaches to conducting the annual canvass and also allow EROs in Scotland to make use of email invitations to register and single occupancy provisions. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Lord sits down, the point I was trying to get across is that I am very happy that we have pilots. There is no issue about that. However, when we make changes—and stopping the annual canvass, stopping people knocking on doors and stopping letters going out are very big changes—we cannot assume that everybody is e-enabled. Each change has to be carried out very carefully; otherwise we make mistakes, things go wrong and people lose their right to vote. That cannot be the case. The heart of this is that the Government must take a long period and absolute care when they pilot changes. The decision to reduce the time for confirmation was a mistake. If we had taken a longer time, we might not have needed these measures now. That is the point I am trying to make.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I said, we are not stopping the annual canvass. The annual canvass remains. I will just end on this. The initiative for this has come not so much from the Government as from the EROs. They take their responsibilities very seriously and want to have the maximum number of people registered. They still retain all the powers they have at the moment, as well as the powers they have in the pilots, to continue to knock on doors and send all the forms. I personally have confidence that the EROs will use the powers they have, and which we are giving them today, not just to maintain the current accuracy of the register: I think we will end up with a better register if we go ahead with these pilots and extend the lessons that we have learned.

Motions agreed.

Elections and Referendums: Spending Rules

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for reviewing legislation concerning spending rules in elections and referendums.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, we are considering carefully the conclusions and recommendations of a number of relevant reports on election and referendum spending, including the Electoral Commission’s reports on elections held in 2015 and 2016, and on the EU referendum. While investigations by the police and the Electoral Commission are ongoing, it would not be appropriate for the Government to come to any conclusions.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, reports by the investigative journalist Michael Crick and by the Daily Mirror and others suggest that it was possible at the last general election for political parties to spend several hundred thousand pounds within individual constituencies in order to change the outcome of the election within those seats and avoid previously enforced legislation which prevented the purchasing of particular seats. The defence against this charge is that the law is ambiguous about what is local and what is national spending. If so, should not the law be changed to prevent abuse of the democratic process in this way?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way he put that question. He will understand that I cannot respond to the particular instances that have now been referred to the police and prosecution authorities. The legislation—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act—sought to make a distinction between national spending on the one hand and constituency spending on the other. As I said a few moments ago, I think it makes sense to wait until the investigations by the Electoral Commission and the police are completed. Then, of course, we should stand back and look at the legislation to see whether we need greater clarity for all political parties in interpreting how that distinction should be made.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I welcome what my noble friend just said on this particular convoluted collection of legislation. The process of conducting elections has moved on dramatically over the last 20 years. In reality, the law in all its guises has been in need of reform throughout that period. May I also make a quick reference to the third Question on the Order Paper, and say that that may include treating?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He is right to say that there are a number of reports—the report from Sir Eric Pickles on fraud in local elections, the report from my noble friend Lord Hodgson on third-party campaigning, and the interim report of the Law Commission—which have an impact on the legislation on elections. As I said a few moments ago, it makes sense to stand back, look at all the recommendations and, in consultation with the Electoral Commission and all the political parties, see how best to take this forward in order to restore public confidence in the democratic system.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

Recently, during the consideration of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, the Minister told the House about the willingness of the Government to look at areas where agreement can be reached and incremental changes agreed. Can the Minister update us further in this regard, and will he look at involving those Members of the House who can bring valuable experience to those discussions?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who took part in that debate on 10 March on the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. At the end of that debate, I indicated that the Government were anxious to see if there was a consensus on some of the measures that might be brought forward. I indicated that the Minister for the Constitution, Chris Skidmore, was anxious to meet noble Lords who took part in that debate to see whether we can take incremental reforms forward on a cross-party basis.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, again I thank the Minister for taking this initiative to make sure that these discussions do take place and then fulfil, of course, the promise in the 2015 Conservative manifesto. I remind him that during that debate on 10 March I made specific reference to some of the discrepancies in referendum election expenses, to which he referred just now, because of course those are not subject to the difficulties that might occur with those matters that are possibly going to go before the courts. He will have seen the report from the Electoral Commission yesterday, which has some very good recommendations for looking at some of these issues. Will he confirm that that could be part of the discussion that is due to take place shortly?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite right to refer to the recent report on the referendum by the Electoral Commission, which recommended that some of the provisions made for the recent referendum should be incorporated into PPERA—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act—and would cover all referendums. The report came out only yesterday. He will understand that consideration is at an early stage. But it is perfectly possible to take those recommendations forward on a separate track.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

Will it be possible at some time in one or other of all these inquiries to look at the scale of the spending of public money by the BBC and the gross bias which has been evident to anybody who has listened to its programmes?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I take this opportunity to wish my noble friend many happy returns of the day. The issue he raised falls outwith my remit. I think we are debating the BBC later today and it may be that with this advance notice, my noble friend Lord Ashton may be able to provide more details on the specific question that has been raised.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Does my noble friend feel that enough is being done in schools to familiarise our young people with the full range of electoral issues, particularly in the light of the Institute for Digital Democracy’s recent recommendation that political education might become compulsory?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

It is important that those of us in public life, whether Members of this House or the other House, take the initiative in visiting schools, colleges and universities in order to encourage people to take an interest in public life and joining our democratic system, and explaining some of the parameters. I know that down the other end Mr Speaker has taken a number of initiatives to bring more schoolchildren in to the Palace of Westminster to expose them to the political process. I think everyone in this and the other House has a role to play in encouraging the next generation to take part in the democratic process.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, while we are on referendums, does the Minister agree that a large number of the public were surprised that a decision of such constitutional importance was taken by a simple majority? Is there no precedent in Parliament for it to be altered through legislation?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Earl may remember that during the passage of the relevant legislation amendments were tabled to secure certain thresholds in turnout and majorities, and I think those amendments were defeated after a debate.

Electoral Fraud

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Greaves, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government will continue to provide support to returning officers, who have responsibility for ensuring the integrity of 2017 polls, with a view to preventing electoral fraud. This support has previously included providing funding to the 17 authorities most at risk of fraud allegations to develop best practice that can be applied at subsequent elections. We will work closely with our partners to support the successful conduct of 2017 polls, to ensure a secure democracy.

[Baroness Pinnock]

I thank the Minister for his response. Would he agree that postal-vote harvesting and fraud are the most serious threats to the integrity of the ballot? What steps are the Government intending to take to ensure that postal votes are completed by the individual in whose name they are acquired and not organised and collected by families and political activists?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. On her final point, there is already guidance stating that postal votes should not be harvested by campaigners or activists. We are considering whether we should introduce a ban on handling of postal votes by specified people or groups, which would tackle the inappropriate conduct that she referred to.

The Pickles review considered postal voting and came up with a number of recommendations, one of which is that the offence prescribed for when people vote in person—namely, that it should be in secret and there should be no undue influence—should also be applied to people who vote by post, which it does not at the moment. We are considering how that might best be done. There were other recommendations about postal voting, one of which was that it should not last for ever: it should be renewed every three years. We understand the concern and a number of measures are in train to address it.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, what discussions have taken place between the parties, the Electoral Commission and the police in the 18 areas identified by the review carried out by Sir Eric Pickles with regard to the measures that should be in place for the local elections where those specified areas have local elections this May, prior to the ID pilot scheme coming into force in May 2018?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. The Electoral Commission is concentrating resources on those local authorities where there is seen to be an undue risk of fraud. It is in touch with the single point of contact, which is a police contact in that area, to ensure that it has all the necessary information and, where appropriate, it holds additional training courses. Resources are being applied to the 18 areas identified as at risk by the Electoral Commission to minimise the risk of fraud.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, when I was standing where my noble friend is now standing—he is doing such a fantastic job—I remember talking about pilot schemes that we planned, which I feel would help us decide the way to go. Can he reassure me that they will still take place?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend is much missed at the Dispatch Box when questions are asked about electoral matters. We plan to go ahead in 2018 with a number of pilots to test voter identification. This is a recommendation made several times by the Electoral Commission: that when you vote, there should be some evidence that you are you say you are. We plan to pilot that next year and hope that some of the local authorities which have been identified as being at risk will apply to be part of that pilot.

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work that Estonia has done with the two-step verification process, which it has used with electronic and online voting, dramatically reducing fraud? Someone has to show that they have voted but can also check that the vote is their vote—it is an unusual system. With a population of just 3 million, it seems to me that this would be an effective pilot system, similar to use in a local election?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am not familiar with the electoral system in Estonia. When we pilot a number of projects next year, we will be looking at various means by which the voter can identify themselves at the polling station. This might be a bus pass, a bank card or an NUS card, but in order not to exclude those who do not have those forms of identification, we are also looking at non-photographic identification. I will see that the helpful information that the noble Baroness has given us about proceedings in Estonia is fed into the options.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I wonder whether the excellent Minister will reflect on a practice which involves freepost by a political party, encouraging those who have signed a postal vote to send it back to the party’s local headquarters. Does he feel that that is totally inappropriate, as I believe it was in the 2015 general election, practised on behalf of the former Deputy Prime Minister?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Without getting involved in Sheffield politics, it is certainly inappropriate for postal votes to be handled in that way. As I said in response to an earlier question, that practice is already discouraged in guidance from the Electoral Commission. There have been recommendations that it should be banned for precisely the reason that the noble Lord explained, and the Government are deciding how best to take that forward when legislative opportunities present themselves.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, could the Government ensure that the police take sufficiently seriously examples of electoral malpractice during elections, both local and the 2015 general election? In Bradford, there were a number of allegations during the last campaign across the parties about gatherings of young men outside polling stations and about party workers going into polling stations. The police did not follow these up as fully as perhaps they should have done. Can the Government make sure that the police are aware, for local as well as general elections, that these are serious offences?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite right. This was one of the problems identified by Sir Eric Pickles in his review; he recommended that there should be a sort of cordon sanitaire around polling stations to prevent the intimidation to which the noble Lord refers. My understanding is that the Electoral Commission has taken that recommendation forward in guidance to stop intimidation in polling stations for the reason that the noble Lord has given.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that our first past the post system in local and national elections ensures that their results are democratically fraudulent?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

We do not have first past the post in many local elections. If the noble Lord is familiar with the election of the Mayor of London, for example, he will recognise that there are alternative systems—and likewise for some of the other elections. As for moving away from first past the post, it has been discussed several times, certainly down the other end. Indeed, I think that we had a referendum on the matter, and the country decided that it wanted to remain with first past the post.

Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

I think that the House would like to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)]

My Lords, I support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, to annul the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017. I understand that such a Motion should be used only in exceptional circumstances. I will explain why I think that this is an exceptional circumstance.

People in my position, with a highly visible, severe impairment, tend to find it a lot easier to demonstrate and receive the support we need to get from A to B than those experiencing mental health challenges. To be honest, I probably find it a lot easier to get around than many in your Lordships’ House today. I think that you will all have witnessed those on the mobile Bench whizzing around the Palace estate with ease and speed.

But let us be in no doubt: the impact of panic attacks and anxiety, not to mention schizophrenia, dementia and autism, on being able to,

“plan and follow a journey”,

are equally fraught, if not more so, with profound obstacles than the effects of visual or physical impairments. As Jenna reminded me recently,

“Suddenly, for no reason at all, as I step out of my front door, the prickles in my chest get sharper and my head gets foggier. My heart pounds faster as it tries to defend itself from impending danger. My breathing becomes shallow as I desperately try to get air into my body and brain ... I try to grasp on to something, anything, to keep me tethered and whole”.


“Anxiety” may sound manageable to many, but unexpectedly and unpredictably collapsing in agony in public places can overwhelmingly restrict people’s mobility.

Speaking to a young woman with ADHD and Tourette’s syndrome who lives down my street, I heard about her terrible journey on a train where she suffered a severe anxiety attack. The train had to be stopped and the emergency services called. This expensive scenario could have been avoided if her PIP had not been reduced from the high to standard rate award a couple of months ago, allowing her to continue paying for a travel companion or use taxis. Her life has now been severely restricted.

It is a fundamental tenet of the Equality Act that there shall be no hierarchy of disability: we define a disabled person as someone with a “mental or physical impairment”. We in this House have welcomed the Prime Minister’s commitment to parity of esteem between mental and physical health. The amended regulations, sadly, completely depart from these vital principles. They state, in effect, that disabled people may be equal but, just like in Orwell’s Animal Farm, some disabled people have become more equal than others.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords—

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I think the House would like to hear from the right reverend Prelate.

[The Lord Bishop of Winchester]

My Lords, I have been asked to speak on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and a number of other Lords spiritual who are unable to be in their places today. Like them, I have serious concerns about the impact of the proposed changes to the personal independence payment on people with mental health problems. A number of the Lords spiritual wrote to the Secretary of State on 8 March seeking clarification on the rationale for the new legislation. I am not aware that they have received a reply. I wish to use this debate to reiterate these concerns and urge the Government to reconsider their position.

Our understanding is that the introduction of PIP was intended to create parity of treatment for people with mental and physical health problems by basing the assessment on a person’s ability to carry out certain tasks, irrespective of the nature of their disability. This is a fundamental principle that we strongly support, which has helped counter a long-standing bias within the benefits system against people who suffer from severe mental health problems, such as schizophrenia, anxiety disorders and autism. Explicitly limiting access to the enhanced rate of the mobility component for those who experience psychological distress undermines this fundamental aim by reintroducing an unhelpful distinction between people with physical and mental health conditions.

Crucially for this debate, this change appears to be inconsistent with the primary legislation, which makes it clear, as the Explanatory Notes underline, that people should be entitled to the higher rate of mobility component if,

“a person’s ability is severely limited by their physical or mental condition”.

Furthermore, it appears to be inconsistent with Ministers’ public statements at the time. People who find it difficult to leave the house because of anxiety, panic attacks and other mental health problems can be as restricted in their independence as people with physical mobility problems. They face the same additional barriers and costs as other disabled people, and should be scored accordingly against the same criteria. The amended regulations, however, would mean that people with these conditions would be assessed against only two of the six criteria for “planning and following journeys”, even though they may be unable to make familiar or unfamiliar journeys without the support of another person.

I am aware of the issues through the work of local mental health charities in my own diocese of Winchester. I understand from Jane Harvey, the head of home support at Solent Mind, which supports people with mental health problems in Southampton and across Hampshire, that she is in no doubt about the social isolation of many of her clients. Getting out of the house can be an extremely stressful experience for someone who suffers from paranoia, lacks confidence in social situations or feels unsafe in noisy, crowded environments, such as public transport. But these daily interactions are also vital to their mental and physical well-being, preventing them becoming even more isolated and enabling them to eat properly, pay their bills and attend important appointments. That is why it is so important that we seek to remove as many barriers to their mobility as possible through financial and other forms of support, and that we do not differentiate in a way that seems to be against people with mental health problems, whose condition can be just as debilitating as a physical disability.

I realise that, in practice, many people with mental health problems have until recently missed out on the mobility component of PIP. But we believe that the clarification provided by the Upper Tribunal ruling is more in keeping with the original intent of the legislation than the amendment tabled by the Government, opening up additional support to around 160,000 people with severe mental health problems.

From these Benches we would not want to be seen to be resisting the aims of the original legislation, but we need persuading that the amendments to PIP are not undermining the intended aims of the benefit. I shall be supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock.

Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) and (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2017

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 February be approved.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the business rates retention scheme, which was introduced in 2013-14, allows local government in England as a whole to retain 50% of the business rates it collects locally. These regulations change the regulatory framework governing the day-to-day operation of the business rates retention scheme. The changes, which are highly technical, are necessary, first, to ensure that the scheme adapts to the impact of the 2017 business rates revaluation and, secondly, to reflect the fact that from 1 April 2017 a number of authorities will be piloting 100% business rates retention.

Starting with the changes that need to be made because of the revaluation, the business rates retention scheme currently provides that some of the 50% of business rates that authorities retain is redistributed between them to ensure that no area is disadvantaged by having a small business rates base. This redistribution is achieved through what are known as “tariffs” and “top-ups”. Tariffs take money from authorities which are relatively rich in business rates when compared to their spending needs, and this is then redistributed through top-up payments to authorities which are relatively poor.

Tariffs and top-ups were set in 2013-14 based on the difference between the business rates that authorities were expected to collect in that year and their relative need, as established in that year’s local government finance settlement. Thereafter, they were uprated annually by inflation. Any growth, or decline, in local business rates after 2013-14 has not been taken into account in future years’ tariffs and top-ups—hence, authorities have an incentive to grow their business rates bases, as, by doing so, they keep 50% of the benefits of growth.

However, as a result of the business rates revaluation that will take effect on 1 April 2017, the amounts of business rates that authorities will actually collect in 2017-18 will be very different from what they collected in 2016-17. If, for 2017-18, we were simply to uprate the existing tariffs and top-ups by inflation, as we have done in the past, authorities could find their income from business rates substantially changed for reasons quite unconnected to their efforts to secure growth but due to revaluation.

Therefore, when we set up the scheme in 2013, we announced that we would adjust tariffs and top-ups to strip out the impact of revaluations. During the summer we consulted on the methodology for doing that, and new tariffs and top-ups for each authority were approved by Parliament as part of the most recent local government finance report.

Because business rates can decline as well as grow, the business rates retention scheme, under which local government keeps 50% of locally collected business rates, also provides for safety net payments to authorities that see their business rates income fall significantly. These are paid for by charging a levy on authorities whose business rates income grows. Tariffs and top-ups are used as part of the calculation of levy and safety net payments. The detailed calculations are set out in secondary legislation, which currently sets out the “old” tariffs and top-ups due to and from authorities. Therefore, these regulations amend the regulatory framework to ensure that the new tariffs and top-ups are used in these calculations.

The regulations also give effect to the 100% rates retention pilots, which the Government have set up to take effect from 1 April 2017. These were announced in the summer as a way of testing elements of the new 100% business rates retention scheme that will be rolled out more widely in 2019-20. Local authorities in Cornwall, Greater Manchester, the Liverpool City Region, the West Midlands and the west of England will be piloting the new arrangements in 2017-18 and, as a result, will keep all the local business rates they collect, subject to the normal arrangements in the system which redistribute some of their business rates income through tariffs and top-ups. In return, they will forgo some revenue grants from central government—most notably, revenue support grant—and their tariffs and top-ups will be further adjusted to ensure that the pilots are effectively cost-neutral.

The GLA will also keep a higher share of the business rates that will be collected by London boroughs in 2017-18. In return, it will give up its revenue support grant and take on responsibility for funding nearly £1 billion of grant to Transport for London. The regulations will make the necessary changes to the administration of the business rates retention system to ensure that the sums paid and received by the pilot authorities over the course of the year reflect the new pilot arrangements.

To sum up, the regulations make technical changes to the administration of the business rates retention system to reflect the impact of the revaluation and to allow the 100% rates retention pilots to operate from 1 April 2017. Without the changes, authorities would not receive the income from the business rates retention scheme that they are expecting and for which they have budgeted. I commend the regulations to the House and beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I must first apologise to the Minister for missing the first minute of his speech; I hope it was not full of fresh information that I ought to be aware of. As far as I am concerned, and I think the same goes for my noble friend, there is no particular objection to these regulations. It is interesting, however, to hear about the proposed pilot schemes—I suspect that the good citizens of Surrey will be waiting with bated breath to see whether they will be included in the pilot scheme. Although the Minister cannot indicate the outcome of ongoing discussions with other authorities, perhaps he can tell us when a decision will be made.

Part of the problem faced by authorities, and by the Government themselves, is the delay in this revaluation—I think it should have occurred in 2015. Will the Minister tell us whether it will be possible to decide on and then stick to a regular period for revaluation? The longer the gap, the greater the impact appears to be, and that is certainly part of the current reaction.

There is also a real problem, not dealt with in these regulations, about the appeals process. The Local Government Association—I remind the House, such as it is, of my local government interests—points out that there have been more than a million appeals from business rate properties since 2010, and 200,000 of those appeals are still waiting to be decided. This has led councils to hold back £2.5 billion in reserves in case they have to meet their 50% share in respect of refunds; 50% is payable by councils and 50% is payable by the Government. The system is clearly creaking around what it is capable of resolving in relation to the appeals system. I wonder whether the Government will look at that system and at the funding that is required to be put in place when there are appeals.

Finally, one of the reactions to the announcement was to point out the strange apparent outcome that very large operations such as Amazon and Sports Direct, with their massive out-of-town sheds, get a very low business rate, whereas the shop on the corner and the pub in the middle of town pay a disproportionately high amount relative to those very large concerns. Are the Government looking at that anomaly and, if so, when will it be resolved? It certainly concerns anybody living in a city area, where business rates income will now be crucial to the services that the authorities can provide, and yet these large institutions, mainly outside urban areas, will both compete with those in our towns and cities and themselves have very little to pay by way of business rates. That anomaly should surely be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

I have also been thinking about the position of hospitals. We often hear about hospital budgets being under pressure, but they too have the potential to be affected by the increase in business rates. Again, I do not know whether schools pay business rates, and if so they could well be affected in terms of pressures on their budgets. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could respond to these points. However, I have no issue per se with the regulations before the House and I am happy to agree to them.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been on the whole a consensual debate and I shall try to answer the questions that have been raised. If I cannot, I will write. I did not think that we would get through this debate without Surrey being mentioned. The position is that Surrey County Council informed the Government that it wanted to become a 100% business rates retention pilot area, but was told that that would not be possible for 2017-18. We said that, subject to due process and meeting the necessary criteria, it could participate in the 2018-19 pilot scheme. We explained that other councils had also had discussions with the department about becoming 100% pilots. We went on to announce that all councils will be free to apply to participate in a 2018-19 pilot programme and that the Department for Communities and Local Government would publish more information shortly.

I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said about the need for regular revaluations, both to minimise the turbulence each time you do it and to make sure that we have an up-to-date tax base for local government. We have already said that we are looking at the revaluation cycle with a view to reducing the time between revaluations.

A number of noble Lords mentioned appeals. We are looking at changing the way in which appeals are dealt with under 100% rates retention so that individual authorities do not have to bear the risk of appeal losses. We are currently discussing the mechanics of doing this with the LGA and the sector with a view to removing some of the risks to their income from these appeals. Perhaps I can write on the backlog when I have the most up-to-date figures.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked what would happen if a local authority lost a substantial business rate payer in its area. When I introduced these regulations I mentioned that there was a safety net. There will continue to be one under 100% rates retention. We are discussing the detail of a new safety net with the LGA and the sector and will announce detailed proposals later in the year. The noble Baroness also made the valid point that not all local authorities will gain from 100% business rates retention. That is indeed the case. Redistribution and the timing between resets—in other words, how frequently we assess or reassess the needs of an authority—will be critical. Again, we are discussing the timing of this with the LGA, but we have indicated that we might reset the needs more frequently than under the 50% schemes. I hope that is of some reassurance to the noble Baroness.

We then heard about the anomalies in business rates between large rural businesses and small urban businesses. As noble Lords know, business rates reflect the rental value of the properties that businesses occupying them take. Businesses take decisions on location reflecting those differences. In recent years we have taken a number of steps to reduce the bills of small businesses, including some measures in the Budget and the permanent doubling of small business rate relief. Perhaps I could write about the question raised on the staff of the VOA who are needed to deal with appeals and the resources behind them.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made the point that corporation tax has been going down whereas business rates have been going up. He drew attention to the imbalance. The only point I would make on that is that the rate of corporation tax is important to ensuring that this country remains competitive in an international world. The rate of corporation tax is a barometer of competitiveness in a way that business rates are not.

There was a valid point on Amazon. All businesses pay rates on the property they occupy, including Amazon. It is true that businesses that do not use high-value property or have a high internet profile will reduce their business rates bill, but of course business rates are not the only tax on those businesses. They will pay national insurance contributions on their employees and if they are making a profit they will pay corporation tax.

An issue was raised that is raised in every debate about local government about the Government putting more responsibility on local authorities without giving them the resources to discharge them. I remember making those points back in the 1960s when I was a local councillor. As part of the move towards 100% business rates retention we will give authorities some £12.5 billion of additional resources from which to fund the new responsibilities that they assume. To meet the perfectly valid point raised by a number of noble Lords, we are discussing the functions that will be devolved to local authorities with the LGA and with the local government sector. The new scheme will take account of imbalances through redistribution via tariffs and top-ups, and of the frequency with which, as I said a moment ago, we reassess the needs and reset the tariffs and the top-ups, in response to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy.

We have stressed the importance we place on the fair funding review. We have been discussing the methodology of assessing needs with the LGA and with the sector. Again, we hope to publish further details in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised the central list, which brings in about £2 billion per year. Perhaps I could write to her on the details of exactly where that money goes. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised a number of issues. As always happens when he winds up, I do not always have time to assess the in-flight information in time to respond to him, but he made valid points about hospitals, schools and a number of other issues. Perhaps I could write to him when I have assembled an up-to-date and authoritative response.

These regulations provide for changes to the day-to-day administration of the business rates retention system. The changes reflect decisions already made by Parliament in the Local Government Finance Report for 2017-18 about the percentage share of business rates that local authorities are to keep and the tariffs and top-ups that they are to pay or receive during the course of 2017-18. They deliver on the Government’s commitment to ensure that authorities are not financially disadvantaged as a result of the business rates revaluation that comes into force on 1 April. They also provide for the 100% business rates retention pilots in Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, Cornwall, the West Midlands and in the West of England, and, to a more limited extent, in London. They ensure that the agreements reached with those authorities can be implemented and that the Government can learn lessons from those pilots before 100% business rates retention is rolled out more generally in 2019-20. I commend them to the House.

Motion agreed.

Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) (Amendment) Order 2017

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 February be approved.

Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that this Motion may have a centrifugal impact on your Lordships’ House so let us have a small pause. The draft order that we are considering today, if approved and made, will postpone the mayoral election for the Sheffield City Region, meaning that the mayor will first take office in May 2018, not May 2017; and will set the first mayoral term for a duration of four years, with the next election in May 2022.

In bringing this order before Parliament, we are responding to a request from the Sheffield City Region’s local leaders. On 11 January this year these leaders met as the combined authority and concluded that it was no longer possible to achieve a mayoral election in the Sheffield City Region in May 2017. They agreed and announced that they would now be working towards a mayoral election in May 2018. In their announcement, the local leaders explained that they had reached these decisions due to the need for the combined authority to undertake further consultation before it would be possible for an order to be made conferring the powers on to the mayor and city region, as envisaged in the devolution deal which was agreed between the Government and the city region in October 2015.

Regarding the background to the need for additional consultation, Derbyshire County Council brought a judicial review against the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority, seeking that the public consultation which that authority had undertaken should be quashed on the grounds that it was misleading. On 9 and 10 November 2016, the case was considered by the court, and in December judgment was given that the consultation did not achieve its lawful purpose. While the court did not quash the consultation, as Derbyshire County Council requested, there was a need for further consultation before the statutory requirement on this was satisfied. The city region’s local leaders have decided to prepare and carry out that necessary additional consultation, with a view to starting it after the May 2017 local elections—hence the need to defer the mayoral election until May 2018, by which time all necessary consultation can be expected to have been completed and the devolved powers envisaged in the devolution deal conferred on the combined authority and mayor.

Before turning to the specific provisions in the order before us, it may be helpful if I briefly recall how devolution is to be put in place in the Sheffield City Region. On 2 October 2015, the Government and the Sheffield City Region agreed a devolution deal giving brand new powers over transport, planning and other key policy areas, along with budgets, to the combined authority. The deal also included a commitment to adopt a directly elected mayor covering the whole of the combined authority area. On 21 July 2016, the Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order 2016 was made after having been approved by Parliament, which established the office of mayor for the Sheffield City Region. That order provided that the first elections for this mayor would take place on 4 May 2017 and that the second election would take place on 7 May 2020. Thereafter, there would be mayoral elections every four years.

The next step in implementing the devolution deal was for a further order to be made conferring the powers agreed in the deal on to the combined authority and mayor. Before such an order could be made, the city region combined authority had to undertake a public consultation on the proposed conferral of powers. The Secretary of State is required by statute to be satisfied that no further consultation is necessary before he can proceed with an order conferring the powers. The city region also wished that any order conferring the devolved powers would, in addition, expand the area of the city region to include—with their agreement—the areas of Chesterfield borough and the district of Bassetlaw. The consultation that the city region undertook therefore covered proposals for devolving powers and for this expansion of the city region area.

The consultation started on 1 July last year but before it could be completed Derbyshire County Council, in which the borough council of Chesterfield sits, brought a judicial review against the combined authority. The case brought by Derbyshire questioned the legality of the consultation in two areas: whether it could be considered a public consultation in connection with the proposals in the scheme, and the fairness of the consultation. On 21 December 2016, the court ruled that the consultation did not achieve its lawful purpose as it did not include a question specifically seeking consultees’ views on Chesterfield becoming part of the combined authority.

Accordingly, what is now required before the devolution deal can be fully implemented is for the city region to undertake a further consultation and submit a summary of the consultation responses to the Secretary of State. It is then for the Secretary of State to decide, having regard to those responses, what provision to include in any further order which, subject to Parliament’s approval, would confer functions on the combined authority and mayor. It might also, if the Secretary of State considered it appropriate, provide for any expansion of the city region area which the city region leaders are seeking. Once such an order has been made it would be appropriate for there to be the first mayoral election, which is now envisaged for May 2018.

As to the detail, the draft order changes the date of the mayoral election from 4 May 2017 to 3 May 2018 and also sets the first mayoral term for a duration of four years, with the next election in May 2022.

In conclusion, this order postpones the mayoral election until May 2018. This is in the expectation that by that date, powers and budgets envisaged in the agreed devolution deal can, if Parliament approves, be devolved to the city region, which will have a mayor who can deliver for local people and help the area to fulfil its long-term ambitions. I commend this draft order to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I first draw the attention of the House to my entry in the register of Members’ interests and declare that I am an elected councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

This is one of a number of statutory instruments that we have been considering over the past few weeks in your Lordships’ House. I should first say that I welcome further devolution, although I have concerns with all these deals about the level of funding provided. This order puts the election for the mayor back by one year. There is also an issue about the patchwork nature of the deals and, as many other noble Lords have said today, about the lack of any coherent framework for devolution in England. That is something that we should all be concerned about. In some areas, the devolution deal seems to have progressed well and important powers and functions have been devolved to the combined authority. In other areas, this has not been the case. In county areas in particular, a directly elected mayor perhaps does not feel right. My noble friend Lady Hollis referred to this as a particular concern. There is certainly a question over how these mayors fit in to the vision of future devolution in England. The Government have still been unable to explain their obsession with directly elected mayors—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, will do so now.

I lived and worked in the east Midlands for many years, I know Lincolnshire very well and I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It is a rural county and I just do not see how a mayor would work there at all. The Government should recognise that each area is different.

We need a coherent framework for devolution. The Government should set out what they mean by it so that there can be a proper debate and discussion in England about what it will be. Years ago we used to have things called Green Papers, which would come along and set out the Government’s thinking on where they would like to go and invite that sort of dialogue to get local government and people engaged. That is certainly something that the Government should do. I am also aware that there have been a few changes in the department in recent days. I do not know whether that will have any effect on what will happen, but certainly the Government need to think long and hard about the whole question of mayors and why we have to have mayors in an area if that area does not want one.

As I said, huge changes have taken place in recent years. We have police and crime commissioners, which were referred to, who can now take over the fire service. We have the combined authority models, with or without directly elected mayors. This is not very joined up or coherent. In my view, it is not the best way to move forward.

There is a problem here. A contradiction arises with the drawing of quite artificial boundaries in the spirit of trying to put together a combined authority when they do not necessarily mirror community identities. There has of course been the legal action from Derbyshire referred to by a number of noble Lords. Councillor Anne Western is someone I know very well. I regard her as a friend. She is a very competent leader of the county council. I have known her and worked with her for many years. There is no question that she is pro devolution and believes in the devolution of powers from Westminster to communities. Equally, I agree that the consultation was not organised very well. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Blunkett. I do not particularly agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven; I think that some of them were designed for the front page of the Sheffield Star. We need to look carefully at where we are going with these devolution deals.

We need a proper framework. The Government need to come forward with one now. This is not the only place where we have problems. Other parts of the country have problems with these deals. The Government need to set out what they see for the future and how they are going to get there. That would certainly help the situation we have here today.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who taken part in this debate—some of which went slightly broader than the date of the election of the mayor. I was at this Dispatch Box yesterday having a rather uncomfortable time in connection with a manifesto commitment. Now my noble friend Lord Cormack invites me to break another one. The manifesto commitment is that we will devolve a wide range of powers and budgets to major cities that choose to have an elected mayor. That is the link. I am invited by a number of noble Lords to break that link. I hope that they understand that I am unable so to do. It is entirely a matter for the local area to decide whether it wants to go down this road. This is a choice that it did not have before. It can have a devolution deal and if it wants to it can put a proposal to the Government and then we can make progress. The Government have been absolutely clear that there must be an elected mayor to ensure that there is sufficient accountability, which we believe only an elected mayor can deliver.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I think that is a little unfair. At one point he said that it is up to people in a local area to decide, but then that if they want one thing they have to have another. It is not the case that they can decide. Look at bus powers, for example. The Government are not just leaving it to the local people or a council to decide at all; they are setting conditions.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

With great respect, I disagree with the noble Lord. They have a choice, which they did not have before. They can either stay put, which is what used to happen, or they can have a devolution deal as offered by the Government, but with an elected mayor. That is a real choice. If they do not want to have an elected mayor, for all the reasons that we have heard, they can stay where they are—but at least they have a choice, which they did not have before.

[Lord Cormack]

I am deeply grateful to my noble friend—he is a friend in every sense—but does he really think that one man or woman can adequately know and relate to the sort of area to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred, or to Lincolnshire, or for that matter to this extraordinary collection of towns and cities? How can one person—an elected Gauleiter—really relate?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I would put a different question to my noble friend. Given that we are going to have combined authorities—and I think that there is agreement that that is a good idea—is it better to have one elected mayor as the accountable person or what we used to have with the old metropolitan areas, where there was much less accountability than you would have with an elected mayor? As we have seen in London, an elected mayor increases accountability over and above the other alternatives that you could have in those areas.

I turn to the other specific questions that have been raised, as we are obviously not going to get agreement on that one. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, will understand that, although I do not want to get involved in a dispute between two local authorities—it is always regrettable when there is such a dispute, as it costs taxpayers money—I hope that what we have seen in this case is a one-off, and we do not have similar problems in future. In its judgment, the court did not quash the consultation, and what is needed now is an additional consultation on Bassetlaw and Chesterfield becoming part of the area of the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority. The noble Lord asked a number of questions. It is really for local people to come to a judgment on who has let their electorate down and who has not, rather than for Ministers to pontificate from the Dispatch Box. Local leaders are accountable to local people through the ballot box and, ultimately, it will be for their electorate to judge them.

The question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and other noble Lords—and I am grateful for what he said—was whether Sheffield City Region will still get its funding up front despite this hiccup in the process. The answer is yes. The combined authority is already in existence, and gain share funding, which is the name I understand has now been given to this pot of money, of £30 million a year can be paid to the combined authority once the consultation has been undertaken and it is clear that the councils are committed to the deal and an assurance framework agreed with government is in place. That can take place before the postponed elections of the mayor.

I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was suggesting that Derbyshire County Council should have a veto on whether Chesterfield should join. I am glad that she shakes her head, because I do not think that it would be right for a county council to prevent a constituent district from joining a combined authority if that is what was wanted.

Then we had the point which was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Cormack about whether a mayor could represent such a diverse area. I was around when the Greater London Council was started, which included bits of Middlesex and Surrey. London is very diverse, yet we have a Mayor of London. So I am not sure that I would buy the argument that it is impossible for a mayor to represent an area that has a diversity in it.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Just before the Minister leaves that point, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, was making the point that as we go forward it will be important to keep under review how the provision actually works out in practice. I fully support the order being laid before your Lordships’ House, and the next one, which deals with Liverpool and the Merseyside area, where there is agreement that we should have a combined mayor. But will the Minister have a dialogue in future with local councils about replication, whereby you can end up as Liverpool will with a mayor for the greater region, an elected mayor in the city and a lord mayor as well? That will cause confusion.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

There may be confusion, but this is what local people will have decided through their local councils. That is the system of running the area that they have chosen to have.

The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about turnout. If one looks at the turnout for directly elected mayors, one can see that it has been roughly in line with local elections so far. I hope that she takes some encouragement from that.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said that there was a patchwork. I explained at the beginning that this is basically a bottom-up approach—the Government responding to areas that want to go down this particular road. It is inevitable from that approach that there will be a patchwork. The alternative, which I am sure the noble Lord would not advocate, is for the Government to insist on this regime for the whole country. We do not want to go down that route at all—but that is why there is a patchwork.

In conclusion, this is an important order, which will allow us to progress the devolution for the Sheffield City Region, and once again I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed.

Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the draft Orders laid before the House on 6 February be approved.

Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

Well, let us see if we have less trouble over this one.

The draft orders, if approved and made, will confer important new powers on the mayors and the combined authorities for the Liverpool City Region and the Tees Valley. The Government have of course already made significant progress in delivering their manifesto commitment to devolve far-reaching powers and budgets to large cities in England which choose to have directly elected mayors. In this House, we have now debated and approved a number of orders devolving powers to places including Greater Manchester, the West of England and more recently Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. We have also considered and approved an order enabling the Tees Valley mayor to take steps necessary to establish a mayoral development corporation; that is to be complemented by the order we are considering on Tees Valley today. We are grateful to the House for the attention it has given to these matters. Following our last debates, my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has written to noble Lords, as he undertook to do. I hope that we are now drawing to the end of this first devolution journey, with possibly just a few more orders after those we are considering today.

The draft Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017 brings to life the devolution deal which the Government agreed with the Liverpool City Region constituent councils in November 2015. We are taking that deal forward with the combined authority and its six constituent councils: Halton, Knowsley, Liverpool, St Helens, Sefton and Wirral. The deal agreed between the Government and the Liverpool City Region means that the area will receive: a devolved transport budget and transport powers to help provide a more modern, better-connected network; new planning and housing powers to manage planning across the region; and control over an investment fund of £30 million a year for 30 years.

Noble Lords will want to know that the basis of the draft order is the governance review and scheme prepared by the combined authority and the six constituent councils of the Liverpool City Region in accordance with the requirement in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The combined authority and the six constituent councils published that scheme in June 2016 and, as provided for by the 2009 Act, consulted on the proposals in the scheme. That was a public consultation entirely undertaken by the authorities concerned. They decided the approach, which was a matter for them. The consultation ran for six weeks and was undertaken through a variety of methods and media, including engagement with regional and local media, web content, social media, workshops with elected members, targeted letters to key stakeholders, as well as material available in libraries and local council town halls. As statute requires, the combined authority provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the responses to the consultation. Before laying the draft order before Parliament, the Secretary of State considered the statutory requirements in the 2009 Act, and considers that they have been met in relation to proposals to confer functions on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority.

In short, having regard to the summary of consultation responses, which had been submitted to him, the Secretary of State concluded that no further consultation was needed. He considered that conferring the functions on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority would be likely to lead to an improvement in the exercise of the statutory functions across the Liverpool City Region. In this consideration, he has had regard to the impact on local government and communities. Most significantly, the combined authority and six constituent councils have consented to the making of the order—that is, the democratically elected representatives of the area have agreed to the making of the order, if Parliament approves.

As required by the 2016 Act, we have in parallel with the draft order laid a report before Parliament which sets out the details of the public authority functions that we are conferring on the Liverpool City Region through the order. Noble Lords may recall that the requirement for this report was one of the additions that this House made to the 2016 Act during its passage. If approved by Parliament, the draft order will come into effect the day after it is made, except for the functions which are to be exercised by the mayor. The mayoral provisions will take effect on 8 May this year when the first mayor takes office.

The draft order gives effect to many of the proposals in the combined authority’s June 2016 scheme, which reflects the agreed devolution deal. If approved and made, it will confer the following powers and functions on the combined authority to be exercised by the mayor: a duty to prepare a Liverpool City Region Combined Authority spatial development strategy, enabling an integrated approach to spatial planning; powers on land acquisition, disposal and housing, including a compulsory purchase power—the same powers as the Homes and Communities Agency and councils; power to call in planning applications of potential strategic importance; power to designate mayoral development areas, leading to the creation of mayoral development corporations; powers to work with the combined authority to draw up a local transport plan, leading to a joined-up approach to transport across the area, recognising that efficient transport is fundamental to securing economic, social and environmental objectives; and powers to enter into agreements with constituent authorities, to establish and manage a key route network of strategic roads in the combined authority’s area. In addition to their existing transport and economic development powers, the combined authority will exercise powers and functions of: having the final say on the mayor’s spatial development strategy and local transport plan; promoting road safety; and regulation of traffic.

These new powers will enable the Liverpool City Region to take a strategic approach to driving development and regeneration and stimulating economic growth, supporting effective use of the £900 million devolved budget. The draft order also provides for the necessary constitutional and funding arrangements to support the mayor and the combined authority.

I now turn to the draft Tees Valley Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017. This draft order will be another important step to bring to life the devolution deal that the Government agreed with the Tees Valley in October 2015. The deal agreed means that the area will receive: a devolved transport budget and transport powers to help provide a more modern, better-connected network; control over an investment fund of £15 million a year for 30 years; and new housing and regeneration powers for growth across the region. Noble Lords will recall that the implementation of the Tees Valley devolution deal agreed between local leaders and the Government has already seen three orders made in relation to the Tees Valley. The most recent of these was about devolving powers for a mayoral development corporation. We brought this last order forward in advance of today’s order, as the area is eager to establish a mayoral development corporation in South Tees on which an 11-week consultation had already been undertaken.

This draft order has been prepared on the same basis as I have described for the Liverpool City Region order. If approved and made, the order will come into effect on 8 May when the first Tees Valley mayor takes office, with the exception of the provision relating to the establishment of an independent remuneration panel, which will come into force on the day after the order is made to enable the combined authority to make any necessary arrangements.

Let me turn briefly to the detail. The draft order will confer the following powers, to be exercised by the mayor, on the combined authority: powers to pay grants to the five constituent councils of the Tees Valley Combined Authority, with the condition that the mayor has regard to the desirability of ensuring that the councils have sufficient funds effectively to discharge their highways functions; and powers to produce a local transport plan for the area. The draft order also provides that the functional power of competence, already exercisable by the combined authority, is also exercisable by the mayor. Finally, the draft order confers various powers on the combined authority: powers to provide local passenger transport services—these powers were already delegated to the combined authority by the Tees Valley Combined Authority Order 2016; the duty to review housing need in the area; and funding and constitutional provisions to support the powers and functions conferred, including the establishment of an independent remuneration panel to recommend the allowances of the mayor.

In conclusion, the two draft orders devolve new, far-ranging powers to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and to the Tees Valley Combined Authority, giving effect to the bespoke devolution deal of each area, putting decision-making into the hands of local people, and helping the two areas fulfil their long-term economic and social ambitions. The draft orders are significant milestones contributing to greater prosperity in the Liverpool City Region and the Tees Valley and paving the way for a more balanced and successful economy and improving housing supply across the country. I commend the two draft orders to the House.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I enthusiastically support the remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has just made, notwithstanding the minor caveat that I entered the Chamber as he was replying to the previous order and note the unnecessary duplication and replication which can cause confusion. I encourage him, and the Government generally, to stay in touch with the local authorities that will be affected by the implementation of these orders to see in what ways they impact on them and whether there can be further streamlining and clarification.

It is 45 years since, while I was a student in Liverpool, I was elected to represent an inner-city neighbourhood—a slum clearance area—in the Low Hill ward in the heart of Liverpool. I served that ward on both the city council and on the Merseyside County Council that was created by the then Government, and then abolished by the following Government. During those years, I saw more changes than I cared to see in many respects. I served as deputy leader of the city council and as its housing chairman and had to deal with compulsory purchase orders, which were often imposed centrally with very little say locally on what their impact would be on the neighbourhoods they affected. Therefore, I particularly welcome what the noble Lord said about the devolution of compulsory powers to the city region and the opportunities for development corporations. The great success story on Merseyside, following the riots in Toxteth in 1981, was the creation of the Merseyside Development Corporation. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has recently received some criticism in your Lordships’ House but he deserves great tribute for the work that he did during that period and the achievements that were made. The extraordinary regeneration and renewal of the city of Liverpool had its seeds in the work that he did. In my view the orders that have been laid before your Lordships’ House today with the agreement of the local authorities on Merseyside pave the way for the continued renewal and success story that Liverpool now is. Therefore, I very much welcome what the noble Lord said and commend the orders to your Lordships’ House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, turning first to the Liverpool order, I certainly support the arrangements before the House today. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I obviously wish the Liverpool and the Tees Valley combined authorities every success in the future. But I want to put on record that this is no giveaway for Merseyside local authorities from the Government—nothing could be further from the truth. As we have seen, local councils have suffered huge public sector spending cuts in recent years and Merseyside has not escaped that. Cuts to police and fire services, primary and secondary schools, Sure Start and so on far overshadow the comparatively small investment that the Government are making today. That investment will not deliver the Government’s vision for the northern powerhouse, although we seem to hear that phrase less and less from the Government. The foundations for devolution are being cut away by the Government every year, which is not helpful. It just makes the challenges faced by local government that bit harder. Having said that, I welcome the arrangements before us for devolution.

As I said in a previous debate, however, I am concerned about the whole question of patchwork. I accept that there can be difference, but I still think the Government should set out a framework. We have a messy patchwork, which does not bring the best things forward. We should set out what we want from devolution for England and how we see the country going forward. I certainly recall that in a debate last week on Cambridgeshire, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, referred to four tiers of local government in that part of the country. It is all a bit of a mess. We are not clear where the Government are coming from. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned that in the debate as well. This is all a mess and we need some clarity from the Government about where they want to go in terms of devolution.

There has been a distinct lack of public engagement in the order for the combined authority for Tees Valley. It is important to engage the public in devolution discussions particularly where we propose to have mayoral elections. We want to get the agreement of the public because we will ask them to go out and vote for these people at some point in the future. It would be nice if the public engaged with that and agreed that they wanted this form of government. I think about 2,000 people responded to the local authority’s consultation but only 11 members of the public responded to the Government’s consultation, which from a population of 670,000 seems a derisory figure—0.001%, which is poor by any stretch of the imagination. Of those 11, seven had a negative view of the Government’s proposals. The Government should take account of consultation but also ensure that the consultation is done in a way that engages people and enables them to give their views to us.

As I said, it is necessary for the Government to set out clearly where they are going in England with devolution, and they are just not doing that. That is why we have these problems in understanding what is going on with devolution. However, I certainly wish Liverpool and Tees Valley every success in the future.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate and I shall try to respond to the issues that have been raised. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, we will keep this issue under review. Under the devolution deals, the Government of course stay in touch, and an evaluation of progress is made every five years. As this is a relatively new innovation, we will be particularly interested in seeing how it pans out. The noble Lord reminded me of my time as a junior Minister with Michael Heseltine in the 1980s after the White Paper into the riots, and he is right to point to the transformation that was undertaken in partnership with the local council and local MPs. As a result, substantial investment was made in the city. I am grateful for what he said about that.

My noble friend Lord Deben made a thoughtful comment in which he suggested, I think, that central government should seek to mirror centrally the sort of structure that is being developed locally. I have some sympathy with that. Against that, however, one of the signals we have been getting in central government is a plea for stability and certainty rather than further reform. One has to try to balance a move towards the sort of approach my noble friend has advocated with the plea for stability against a background of several planning Bills which have gone through the House. I say to my noble friend that the White Paper on housing is quite clear that neighbouring authorities should work together constructively. We are also going to look at the NPPF so that authorities must prepare a statement of common ground to work together. I will certainly feed in what he has said as we do that work on the NPPF.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I should point out that there is some tension between the reported views of local residents, which both noble Lords referred to, and the views of the locally elected councillors. Of course, that reaches us only if the locally elected councillors have decided that this is the way they want to go. The Government’s view is that it is legitimate to look to the locally elected representatives to come to a strategic view of where the authority wants to go rather than to a whole series of local opinion polls. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is a vice-president of the LGA—most people who speak in these debates seem to be. A long time ago, back in the 1980s, I was a vice-president of the AMA, but I think I was expelled when I abolished the Greater London Council. However, I think that the view of the LGA would be that it is perfectly legitimate to look to locally elected councils to reflect views.

I turn to the issue of having lots of mayors in one place. In London we have a Lord Mayor of London and a mayor, Sadiq Khan, and some boroughs have locally elected mayors. I think that people understand what is going on and while we could try to find a new name for mayors—the chain gang, or whatever you call them—if this is the way local authorities want to go, it would be a very brave central government that forbade them to do so, even though in some areas this does result in parish, district, county and combined authorities.

These draft orders confer further new functions on to the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the Tees Valley Combined Authority, some of which are to be exercised by their respective mayors. The first ones are to be elected in May this year. I commend this order to the House.

Motions agreed.