Official Statistics Order 2018

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 21 May be approved.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of this draft instrument is to update the list of non-Crown organisations that produce official statistics, as defined in the Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 and within the scope of the Code of Practice for Statistics. Statistics are part of the lifeblood of democratic debate. They are a foundation of society, supporting the decisions we make. The Code of Practice for Statistics plays an essential role in ensuring that statistics published by government command public confidence through demonstrating trustworthiness and providing high-quality data that enhances public value.

The draft Official Statistics Order 2018 will revoke and replace the Official Statistics Order 2013, updating the list of UK non-Crown bodies that may produce official statistics and whose statistical activities will be monitored, scrutinised and reported on by the authority.

The Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 established the Statistics Board, the non-ministerial department known as the UK Statistics Authority, as an independent statutory body to promote and safeguard the production and publication of official statistics that serve the public good. Under the Act, official statistics are those produced by Crown bodies, such as government departments, as well as non-Crown statistics specified by an official statistics order.

The authority will work with bodies designated as producers of official statistics to promote good practice, and will monitor and report on the production and publication of official statistics. The authority will also assess the treatment by producers of official statistics against the Code of Practice for Statistics and publish the results of these assessments. If statistics comply with the code, the authority will designate them as “national statistics”.

There have been four previous UK orders, in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2013. Updating the orders regularly ensures that the scope of official statistics remains accurate and relevant in light of the establishment, abolition and name changes of public bodies. There have been equivalent Welsh orders in 2013 and 2017, Scotland orders in 2008 and 2010, and Northern Ireland in 2012. The Scottish Government are in the process of updating their own order, expected to be completed later this year. Northern Ireland began the process of updating its own order, but this process is currently stalled, pending resumption of the Northern Ireland Executive.

I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is important to designate these bodies as producers of official statistics to bring them within the scope of the Code of Practice for Statistics. The code is consistent with the UN’s Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, which were adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2014, emphasising the high recognition at a global political level and the importance of good statistics for decision-making in democratic society. Compliance with the code of practice provides assurance that the statistics produced are trustworthy, of high quality and of public value.

This statutory instrument makes a small number of sensible changes to reflect changes to non-Crown bodies since 2013. It is important to note that although the order covers a wide range of bodies, the vast majority of bodies were already designated under the previous order, so this order represents a relatively minor adjustment. The statutory instrument adds four new bodies to the list contained in the 2013 order. These are Monitor, the National Health Service Trust Development Authority, the Office for Students and the Service Complaints Ombudsman. Monitor and the National Health Service Trust Development Authority are the main organisations that make up NHS Improvement. The instrument also alters the name of one body contained in the 2013 order, following a legal change to the body’s name. The Rail Passengers’ Council was renamed the Passengers’ Council by order in 2010. The instrument removes no bodies from the existing list. The UK Statistics Authority has been consulted in preparing this order, in accordance with the Statistics and Registration Service Act, and is content for it to be laid.

In summary, the order updates the list of bodies that are subject to the UK Statistics Authority’s oversight. Those bodies listed on the order will be expected to work to the Code of Practice for Statistics, and their statistics will have the potential to be nominated for formal assessment by the authority to be national statistics. This House agreeing the order is a vital part of maintaining public confidence in official and national statistics and the integrity of the official statistics system. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for such a clear explanation, even if he did not manage to make it sound zippy or a lot of fun. It is an important and non-contentious draft order to which we are happy to give our support. Indeed, we welcome the additions to the schedule of organisations providing official statistics; the more, the better, and especially the better-monitored statistics we have, the better for all of us—the public, the press and politicians—so that we can judge the performance of the Government.

The system that has evolved in this country, particularly the requirement that has been mentioned to abide by a code, in how statistics are kept and how and when they are published, is one that we applaud. As mentioned, the UK Statistics Authority, an independent authority, has the statutory objective of promoting and safeguarding the production and the publication of official statistics. That is a key part of the system although of course it depends on all of the organisations on that schedule and particularly the Government abiding by the code.

The Minister described UKSA’s objective of serving the public good so as to mobilise the power of data to improve decision-making. That accountability includes:

“Informing the public about social and environmental matters, assisting in the development and evaluation of public policy”,


and,

“regulating quality and publicly challenging the misuse of statistics”.

This latter task of monitoring, and in particular when necessary challenging, the use of statistics is particularly important when we see the Government sometimes being a little too free and easy over their handling of data.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I too welcome this statutory instrument. We now have a good and robust system of gathering national statistics and it is excellent that this degree of independence has been established and is being maintained. We all know, particularly in the debates on Brexit, that statistics are thrown about and are interpreted and misinterpreted. Given that, having an independent authority which does its best to hold those together is highly desirable. When I read first the Times and then the Daily Mail on the latest economic statistics and I am given entirely opposite interpretations of what is happening in the economy, I realise that it is impossible to reach a completely mutual understanding of the statistics, but at least this gives us a baseline that we must do our utmost to maintain.

I have to admit that when I looked at the full list, I was puzzled by it. The Explanatory Notes explain that some bodies are charities, others are regulatory bodies, while some are agencies of government departments. Some consumer bodies are included but I am aware that other such organisations are not. One research council is on the list, but not others, as is the case with some regulatory bodies. Perhaps the Minister can write to explain the rationale for inclusion on this list and why it is that some bodies appear on it while others do not. Is it because some have higher standards than others and that the standards of the latter bodies have not yet reached this level, or whether there is a different set of criteria because other government regulatory bodies such as Ofwat and Ofcom do not appear on it. That may reflect my limited understanding of the area, but having said that, of course we welcome the order as a way of reinforcing the independence and authority of our statistical system.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for the interest they have taken in this instrument, the time they have spent scrutinising it and for their support. I apologise for my opening speech not being zippy. It would have been a real challenge to make this issue something that will appear on “Yesterday in Parliament”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, produced examples. I am sure that if I wanted to I could have gone back a little further to show that previous Administrations may have made similar mistakes. The important point that she made is that the system is working, all the correspondence is in the public domain for everyone to see and the Government are rightly held to account by an independent body.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about the basis. Part of the answer to that lies in paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“Bodies included in the list are those which produce, or will produce, national-level statistics which (a) inform the public about the social or economic position of the country, (b) are likely to be used to judge government performance or targets or (c) the government considers it is otherwise important that the public has particular trust in”.


I gratefully accept his suggestion that I write to him in more detail about the specific issues he raised. I commend the order to the House.

Motion agreed.

UK Democratic System: Interference by Russia

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom’s democratic system is resilient against Russian interference.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are alert to the threat of subversion and other means of seeking to manipulate the electoral process or undermine democratic institutions. They are committed to defending the UK from all forms of malign foreign state interference, whether from Russia or any other state. We have systems in place to defend against electoral fraud at all levels and have seen no successful interference in UK democratic processes, but we are not complacent.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, there is increasing evidence that there has been interference in 19 elections across Europe and in the United States. That evidence is gathering a head of steam. It shows encouragement of extreme parties across Europe, the funding of them and interference using cyber and other mechanisms to undermine processes. While I am grateful for the reply that there is no complacency from government, I want to hear whether we are going to use sanctions against supporters of Mr Putin who live in this country and make use of it, and whether the Magnitsky Act laws that we have now introduced to deal with money laundering, sanctions and so on will be used. Have any steps been taken to use them? Will we see lists of people who will have sanctions used against them? Will we know which Ministers will handle the Magnitsky Act?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness raises a series of important issues. On the general theme, perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what the Prime Minister said in her post-Salisbury Commons speech. She said that,

“led by the National Crime Agency, we will continue to bring all the capabilities of UK law enforcement to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites. There is no place for these people or their money in our country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/18; col. 859.]

More specifically on Magnitsky, the noble Baroness will recall that the House recently debated the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act, which gives us powers to sanction individuals or entities to promote compliance with international human rights laws. That will allow us to take a range of actions against those suspected of gross human rights abuse such as that committed against Sergei Magnitsky. She will also know that we introduced unexplained wealth orders from the beginning of this year, some of which I understand have already been used where individuals have a standard of living which cannot on the face of it be explained by their declared income. This is an issue that we take seriously. We have introduced a number of other measures, including action taken under other legislation, to bring to justice those who have committed any offence.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, given the open society in which we live, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House which areas of that society are particularly vulnerable to attacks of this kind and what, if anything, we can do to diminish that danger?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, outlined a few moments ago the sorts of dangers that are run. Vulnerabilities could include the covert funding of political parties or movements in another country, the hacking or leaking of emails in order to discredit particular individuals or their parties, and the distribution of fake news. After the Salisbury incident the Kremlin put out 30 different stories about how it happened. Fortunately, the Government’s response, explaining that Russia had the means and the motivation, commanded international credibility, as we saw from the diplomatic response to that incident.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, election law provides for the disqualification of a successful candidate in the event that that candidate is proven to be responsible for serious breaches of election law, and for the setting aside of that election. In a referendum campaign, if there are shown to be serious breaches of election law—for example, through the use of illegal funding from Russia—should not equivalent sanctions apply?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

If the noble Lord is suggesting that we should rerun the European referendum, the clear answer is no. I believe we should respect the result of that referendum. Such information as we have indicates that the influence of the Russian so-called bots was fairly minimal and I do not think it accounts for the 1.3 million more people who voted for leave than remain. The Russians may be clever; I do not think they are that clever.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the greatest threats to the resilience of our democracy is having a Government who are split asunder from top to bottom and are being threatened with all sorts of privations when they have to get together at Chequers this weekend to see whether they can thrash out not only an agreement but a White Paper that was promised the best part of a year ago?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Well, I am not sure what sort of elastic the noble Lord is using in order to stretch a Question about resilience against Russian interference into alleged diversions of opinion within one political party. I say very gently to the noble Lord that perhaps his own party is not wholly united on this issue.

[Baroness Fall (Con)]

I cast noble Lords’ minds back to the tragic events of March last year when a young Muslim woman appeared to pass a dying victim of the terrible events of that day on Westminster Bridge. The image went viral. In fact, it was from a troll Russian account. The damage was done already. Does the Minister not agree that this is a corruption of the outlook of our democracy? Will he not urge that, since some of the cleverest people in the world came together to make these social media giants, they should put their great intellect and large amounts of profit together to help us come up with a solution?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand the point my noble friend is making. There is, in fact, within the Cabinet Office, a rapid response unit that monitors news and information, particularly disinformation, and engages with online media. It provides round-the-clock monitoring on breaking news stories, ranging from chemical weapons attacks in Syria to domestic stories relating to the NHS and crime. I believe that this is the right way forward in order to deal with the misinformation my noble friend refers to. I note in passing that in 1688 the Privy Council passed a proclamation banning the spreading of false news—I am not sure whether it is still in force.

Elections: Electoral Commission Recommendations

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure the continued integrity of elections in the United Kingdom in the light of the Electoral Commission’s recommendations.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government welcome the Electoral Commission’s report on digital campaigning and will consider its recommendations carefully. In line with this, the Government will consult this summer on whether to introduce an imprint for digital electoral material and how such a requirement could be appropriately framed. The Government are committed to increasing transparency in digital electoral campaigning to maintain a fair and proportionate democratic process.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that response, but he will know that the chairman of the Electoral Commission has called for legislation. Will the Government give that careful thought? If so, will they make sure that the legislation also applies to the commission so that it is obliged to respond more expeditiously? More than two years after June 2016, we are still waiting for its comments on the Vote Leave campaign and whether it behaved responsibly or not.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend will know that the Electoral Commission has made requests for legislation, particularly to increase the sanctions that are available to it. He referred to some commission inquiries. Last month, the commission published an inquiry into the activities of Vote Leave during the referendum campaign. He is quite right that there are two outstanding inquiries: one into Better for the Country Ltd and Arron Banks, and one into Vote Leave, Darren Grimes and Veterans for Britain, which commenced in November last year and, as I understand it, will be completed later this year. The Electoral Commission is an independent body so I need to be careful with what I say, but I am sure that Sir John Holmes will read my noble friend’s comments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that our legislation on elections and referendums has not kept pace with technological advances, risks interference from abroad and is generally not fit for purpose?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Yes; and I refer to the reply that I gave the noble Lord when he asked me the same question a few weeks ago. We have an analogue legislative process in a digital age and we do need to bring it up to date. I think it makes sense to wait for the outstanding court cases that are currently before the courts, the outcome of the DCMS inquiry into the impact of fake news on modern democracy and the reports to which my noble friend just referred into the referendum campaign. Once we have those, we can step back and look at the legislative framework and see how it will best be brought up to date.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the excellent report published this week by the Electoral Commission into the need to regulate more properly digital campaigning in elections and referendums illustrates the advantages of having an independent body to advise Parliament on the need to change and modernise our laws to protect the health of our democracy? If so, does he therefore reject the suggestion in a report from the former chair of the Conservative Party a little while ago that the Electoral Commission could be stripped of such powers to advise Parliament?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord refers to the excellent report Securing the Ballot, produced by my then honourable friend Sir Eric Pickles—now, happily, my noble friend Lord Pickles. The noble Lord will have seen the Cabinet Office’s response dated December 2016 to all the recommendations made by my noble friend Lord Pickles, so he will be well aware of the answer to the question that is contained in this document.

[Lord Garel-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, do these recommendations contain any suggestions at all as to what can be done to be vigilant about Russian intervention in the British electoral process?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend raises an interesting question. I think the honest answer is that all countries in the West have to wake up to a new form of conflict where military and non-military weapons are joined together in an integrated and dynamic way in order to achieve political aims. My noble friend is right: Russia is at the forefront of this so-called hybrid warfare, with a wide spectrum of capacity which has the potential to damage political and democratic institutions. That impacts on a wide range of government departments, and we have to make sure they are correctly aligned to see a proper response to this very real threat.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord, Lord Young, agree that it might be helpful for the Electoral Commission to direct its attention to an aspect of our elections in this country, namely the system of by-elections for replacement of hereditary Peers? Can he confirm that there is one taking place next Tuesday in which the statistics are as follows: 31 electors and 19 candidates? To make it even more absurd, the total number of people—that is, hereditary Peers—who can take part constitutes 0.004% of the electorate in Britain. Is there any electoral system anywhere in the world quite as ridiculous as this? Will the noble Lord please do the very simple thing, which is to acknowledge this and to support a Bill to scrap them?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I commend the noble Lord on his persistence and ingenuity in campaigning tirelessly for his Private Member’s Bill. He refers to an anomaly. This was introduced in 1998. If it was so absurd, why, for the next 12 years, when his party was in office—when he, indeed, was Chief Whip—did he allow this anomaly to remain on the statute book?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Have the Government had a chance yet to consider the publication this week by Bloomberg of a report relating to referendum night, when the use by hedge funds of secret, unpublished exit polling created hundreds of millions of pounds of profit, aided and abetted by the lies told by Farage about what he knew about the exit polls and the result? The use of secret exit polls to make money on election nights is a really serious issue that was not raised in the House’s Select Committee, the report of which will be published next week.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord draws attention to a debate taking place next Tuesday, I think, on the Select Committee report on political polling. That, I think, is probably the appropriate place to raise that. I have seen the reports. My understanding is that what happened was not illegal, because the information was not put into the public domain on election day, but I agree that this is an issue that could be raised on Tuesday. The Minister who has the good fortune to reply to that debate will have a slightly longer answer than the one the noble Lord has just received.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, further to the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on the election of hereditary Peers, does my noble friend agree that there is nothing more arbitrary than the appointment of Peers to your Lordships’ House? At least those who are elected, even by a very small electorate, are sifted to some degree.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend makes a valid point: there is a small number of noble Lords who can have some claim to democratic representation. Whether my noble friend would extend that argument to the argument that we should all be elected, I very much doubt.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may pursue the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, on foreign funds coming in to influence British politics. The Minister will recall that the Foreign Secretary suggested last weekend that the CBI’s receipt of EU funds discredited the remarks it was making. The CBI receives I think 1% of its funding from the European Commission. If one were to apply that test to Vote Leave, or perhaps even to the Conservative Party as far as Russian funding is concerned given the donations to it, it would raise awkward questions. Could the Government look at the requirement for even greater transparency in political donations, and donations to think tanks and charities of one sort or another, where foreign Governments and foreign sources, whether in the Gulf states or among right-wing millionaires in the United States, come in to affect British politics and society?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord raises a serious issue. I do not know whether he has had the time to read the Electoral Commission’s report on digital campaigning, subtitled Increasing Transparency for Voters, but it makes recommendations on the specific areas he raised. There are a series of recommendations about foreign involvement in the democratic process and recommendations about transparency on where money has come from, with particular injunctions on the social media to make it clear, when they put advertisements on their sites, who has paid for them. This is an important issue and to some extent it is embraced in the report I just referred to.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, have the Government considered what additional resources and capacities the Electoral Commission may need if it is to address effectively the difficult and complex question of abuses of digital campaigning?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The Electoral Commission is not funded by the Government. As the noble Lord may know from his experience in another place, there is an Electoral Commission committee that sits under the Speaker. That committee in the other place is responsible for fixing the budget for the Electoral Commission. I am not aware that there has been a recent dispute between the Electoral Commission and the Speaker’s committee about resources, so as far as I am aware the Electoral Commission has the resources it believes it needs to do its job.

Legislation: Gendered Pronouns

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will adopt the use of “they” as the singular pronoun in all future legislation in preference to gendered pronouns.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords—if I may so use a gendered noun in defiance of my noble friend’s Question—the Government are committed to gender-neutral drafting in legislation. There are a number of ways to avoid gender-specific pronouns, and the use of “they” in the singular is certainly one of them. Other ways to avoid gender-specific pronouns are discussed in the drafting guidance produced by parliamentary counsel.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer, but does my noble friend agree that the drafting guidance, which followed a debate in this Chamber some while ago, is very much a half-way house? We still permit repeated use of the “Secretary of State” and the phrase “he or she”, which is a binary rather than a unitary gender expression. In view of the forthcoming review of the Gender Recognition Act, and the expectation that that will further ease the ability of people to change gender, should we not be reviewing the whole aspect of gender in legislation and in public practice?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My noble friend highlights the tension between etymological orthodoxy on the one hand and political correctness on the other. I was brought up to believe that “they” was a nominative plural pronoun and “he” or “she” was the singular. But that was a long time ago; popular usage has moved on, and so have the grammar guides. Indeed, the singular “they” is now used in legislation. It was used in the Terrorism Act. But, to go as far as my noble friend has suggested and use “they” in all circumstances would, I think, be a step too far. In many cases, the use of “a person” would do just as well.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, while we are talking of nomenclature, is there anything the Government can do to discourage the growing and irritating replacement of the relative pronoun “which” by the demonstrative adjective “that”? How can we get back to using “which” when we mean it without having so many “thats” all over the place?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

So far as drafting legislation is concerned, I hope I can assure noble Lords that parliamentary draftsmen will use the correct grammar whenever it is possible. The main purpose of drafting legislation is that it should be clear, but I agree that, wherever practicable, we should also use conventional language as long as we do not upset people’s sensitivities.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, my former students would tell you that I care greatly about grammar, but will the Minister explain why using “they” would be a step too far?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The suggestion from my noble friend was that it should be used in all cases. I have conceded that we should use it in some cases, and I cited an example from the Terrorism Act, where we do indeed use the word they in the singular:

“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action”.


But to insist that it should be used in every case would be to deprive parliamentary draftsmen—parliamentary drafters—of the flexibility they need.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, trans activists who I know very well do not wish to stop anybody using gender pronouns; they simply wish to add more ways in which people can use terms that describe them more accurately. Private sector companies are way ahead of us and are latching on to this. Will the Government review gender markers which they use in official documents to stop the practice of asking questions out of habit to solicit lots of information that is never used?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand the issue that the noble Baroness raises. We will soon be publishing a consultation on the Gender Recognition Act, and we will also be publishing the results from our national LGBT survey, which received over 7,000 responses from non-binary people. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness that we take this issue seriously.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, as important as it is to think about language and treating members of each sex equally and fairly, is it not also important to think about the range of experience in Parliament? Is the Minister shocked to learn that while midwives, health visitors and early years professionals provide a vital role of support, particularly for women, there is, according to my Library research, only one qualified health visitor—the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor—in both Houses? I am not aware that there are experienced early years practitioners, health visitors and midwives in Parliament. Does the Minister think that that should be looked at as well?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am sure it should be looked at, but it goes slightly wider than the Question about parliamentary drafting.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the Interpretation Act states that the male embraces the female? Do the Government intend to revisit that Act?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 says that:

“In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—(a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine; (b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine; (c) words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular”.


That remains on the statute book in order to assist the interpretation of legislation before 2007. After 2007, as I said earlier, all new legislation has been drafted using gender-neutral language.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it did seem at that point that the Minister was competing with the Clerk Assistant for long explanations. I return the Minister to grammar, which he mentioned earlier. An area over which he has some authority is Hansard. Whenever I say “the Government has” done something, it is reported as “the Government have”. This is a great inconvenience for a number of noble Lords. Might the Minister look, not at my words, but at all the stuff that we write which is still, I think, grammatically incorrect?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

If there is one group of people who have listened to what the noble Baroness has just said, it is Hansard. I am sure they will take on board the proposal that she has just put to the House.

European Union Referendum: Alleged Russian Interference

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will conduct an investigation into alleged Russian interference in the European Union referendum, including the Leave.EU campaign.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Electoral Commission is the independent regulatory body responsible for ensuring that elections and referendums are run effectively and in accordance with the law. The Government are committed to defending the UK from all forms of malign foreign state interference, whether from Russia or from any other state. To date, however, we have not seen evidence of successful interference in UK democratic processes by any foreign Government, but we remain vigilant.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, do the Government not recognise that this piecemeal approach is potentially quite dangerous? Given that it is the considered judgment of the chairman of the DCMS Select Committee—the Minister’s Conservative colleague—that the leaders of the Leave.EU campaign have been lying, and given that there is ever-rising evidence of illegality, with even Mr Banks admitting that there was Russian collusion in the leave campaign, is it not now urgent that the Government should authorise a comprehensive investigation into what exactly happened? After all, this calls into question the very marginal outcome of the referendum, where for every 17 people who voted leave, 16 voted to remain. Does that not, in turn, raise real questions about the whole Brexit process?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the first question, the noble Lord will know that it is for the Electoral Commission to investigate any alleged irregularities concerning the referendum. It has already published a decision on Leave.EU and fined that body £70,000. Investigations continue into allegations that Vote Leave avoided the cap on election expenditure on the referendum by channelling resources into another, linked organisation, and that is a matter for the Electoral Commission to resolve. As far as the outcome is concerned, 1.3 million more people voted to leave than to remain, and I am not sure that one can attribute that fairly substantial margin to the activities of the Russian bots or, indeed, any other outside agencies.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, there is absolutely no doubt that the Russians are behaving in a dangerous and threatening way in cyberspace: we know that and it is a real threat to Europe. The noble Lord was no doubt celebrating yesterday the victory of 203 years ago, when we thrashed the French, in conjunction with the Prussians, at Waterloo; and the victory of 100 years ago this week, when, with the French, we thrashed the Germans at the second Battle of the Marne. We have expended a huge amount of blood and treasure on European security. Does the Minister not believe, in view of that, that the decision on Galileo is quite extraordinary?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

If I may focus on the first part of the noble Lord’s question, which is about Russian involvement in covert activities, he may know that the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which two noble Lords sit, is currently investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 referendum and the 2017 general election. It makes sense to allow that important inquiry to be completed, and then we will have a clearer view of the impact, if any, of Russian involvement in the election, which is the subject of this Question. So far as Galileo is concerned, I commend the noble Lord’s ingenuity but I have listened to fellow Ministers give very adequate answers on Galileo and I will not attempt to rise to that level.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government are satisfied that the Electoral Commission has access to all the rather complex means—obviously, I do not want to go into intelligence matters in this House—that foreign Governments have to interfere in our affairs? Is the Electoral Commission really equipped to carry out that inquiry in all its aspects?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord makes a very good point in that, obviously, it makes sense for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not the Electoral Commission, to have overall responsibility for our relationship with Russia. It makes sense for the DCMS to have overall responsibility for “fake news” and for the Information Commissioner. It makes sense for the Cabinet Office to have overall responsibility for electoral law and a dialogue with the Electoral Commission. Where all these things come together, which I think is the noble Lord’s point, clearly, we need a collective view. It makes sense to await the outcome of the ISC inquiry that I mentioned a few moments ago, the DCMS inquiry into fake news that is currently under way, and the Electoral Commission inquiries into the referendum campaigns. When we have all that, we can stand back and see whether we have the right resources and the right information in the right place and come up with a collective view on the serious issue raised in the original Question.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, Cambridge Analytica was using so-called online political microtargeting, which involves collecting, often illicitly, huge amounts of personal data, creating personal profiles for voters and delivering specifically tailored, often false messages. Irrespective of the question of expenses—and I have no doubt that this could form part of the many inquiries that the Minister has mentioned—is this not exactly the kind of secret online targeting which is a threat to our democracy? Should it not be made transparent and be highly regulated under our electoral law?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The specific case that the noble Lord mentions—the alleged misuse of data provided by Facebook to Cambridge Analytica—is currently being investigated by the Information Commissioner. So far as the impact of social media is concerned, research shows that social media consistently ranks as one of the least trustworthy sources of information—along with politicians. By contrast, the public continue to see national and regional television, news websites and broadsheets as the most reliable sources of news. This may help put in context the concern just expressed by the noble Lord.

Online Material: Identification of Promoters

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure online material, including that in social media, of a political or campaigning nature carries appropriate imprints to inform recipients of its promoter.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the Government will begin a consultation this summer that will consider whether to extend the rules on imprints on printed electoral material to online electoral material. The consultation will seek views on introducing an electronic imprint and on how such a requirement could be appropriately framed.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, the Electoral Commission recommended this reform as long ago as 2003, since when we have had four general elections and a referendum and the secret influence of the hidden persuaders has been ever increasing. Is this not a time for action rather than for yet more consultation? Is it not necessary for the Government to think now in terms of primary legislation so that we can have proper scrutiny in both Houses? For that purpose, may I offer my Private Member’s Bill to the Government in case they do not have time of their own to deal with this very urgent question?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite right that this was a recommendation by the Electoral Commission some time ago. During the Scottish referendum these requirements were introduced and the commission said that the rules,

“caused some confusion amongst campaigners and the public”.

The commission recommended further consideration on how to make the imprint requirement on online material proportionate and relevant. That is exactly what we are doing with our proposed consultation. In Scotland there was some debate as to whether Facebook and Twitter exchanges needed the imprint if they related to the referendum.

On the noble Lord’s second point, if we did go ahead it would not require primary legislation; it could be done by statutory instrument. On his third point, I am looking forward to the Committee stage of his Bill, which contains an ambitious programme of electoral reform, not all of which may reach the statute book.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, raises a very important issue. Does the Minister agree that the Question highlights that our laws around elections are woefully out of date and unable to provide the necessary framework, and that we urgently need to review, amend and update the legislation to meet the challenges of the digital world?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Yes, I do agree. The Electoral Commission is currently conducting some inquiries into campaigning irregularities, and the results of those inquiries will be published in the next few months. When we have disposed of current cases before the courts, we will then be in a position to address the important issues raised by the noble Lord.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and express my concern about the general state of regulation and legislation, not only in relation to expenses but on a broader range of issues associated with elections. I suggest that when my noble friend considers this broad range of issues, he might consider regulations in relation to bar charts.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I cannot think which political party my noble friend is referring to. On his first point, endorsing what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just said, in June 2017 the Conservative Party made the following statement:

“There is a broad consensus that election law is fragmented, confused and unclear, with two different sets of legislation and poor guidance from the Electoral Commission”.


As I said in response to an earlier question, once we have the information that I referred to we will be in a position to have a dialogue with the Electoral Commission about how changes in electoral law are made.

[Lord Rennard (LD)]

My Lords, there appears to be some consensus on most of these issues. In the 2017 general election, the Conservative Party spent more than £2 million on Facebook advertising. If targeted at 100 marginal constituencies, it would mean an expenditure of more than £20,000 per constituency—yet only a few hundred pounds ever appeared in the constituency election returns. So is it not clear that, irrespective of any case currently before the courts, we need to revamp our election laws to restore the principle of a level playing field, in the way that Gladstone’s Government did in the 1880s, so that thousands of votes count for far more than thousands of pounds?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the noble Lord’s first point, he may have seen that Facebook will now require political advertisements to disclose who has paid for them, and such advertisements will be labelled as political. But the consultation I referred to in response to his noble friend directly addresses the issue of what appears on Facebook and other social media and, whether, if it is relevant to an election, there should be the appropriate imprint. So, irrespective of what happens in the review of electoral law, if we make progress on that, it can be done by statutory instruments in advance of any broader change in electoral law.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, what can be done about instances such as those during recent council elections when I had malicious texts put through my door listed as information for local elections? No one in the area has any idea who did it or knows anything about it, yet it could have been very damaging to the candidate. I wonder whether there is any way of handling that so that people know whether a communication is real or whether the whole thing is simply fake.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am sorry that my noble friend was distressed by some communications during the recent local government elections, but the Law Commission is reviewing online abusive communication, and analysis of that will be published by the end of the year, with recommendations to follow. There are also other initiatives on online safety, with the Internet Safety Strategy Green Paper last year and a White Paper to come later this year. If my noble friend’s communication was on paper and related to the recently held elections, I think that the Electoral Commission would be interested to see a copy of it.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear that propaganda from Russia flooded social media during the EU referendum, as it did during the US election. Can my noble friend tell the House how he proposes to put an imprint on that?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That is a challenging question which will be addressed in the forthcoming consultation. On fake news, tackling disinformation is a key pillar of the digital charter. I have seen no evidence of successful intervention in our democratic process, but the Government are not complacent and are engaging with the social media platforms to make further progress.

Railways: Disabled Passengers

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that all train operating companies are complying with the Equality Act 2010 in providing assistance to disabled passengers.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, we expect all train companies to do everything possible to make travel easy for all passengers, including those with disabilities. Train companies have a legal obligation to make reasonable adjustments and must comply with the Equality Act 2010. They must also publish a disabled people’s protection policy which sets out their plans for disabled access and which must be approved by the independent Rail Regulator. The Government will publish an inclusive transport strategy later this year.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. Last week, Govia Thameslink introduced new formal guidance for staff stating that if the train might be delayed or late the PRM—that is a passenger with reduced mobility to you and me—must not be put on the train, not even if they have pre-booked and arrived in time: the train is now more important. I believe this breaches the Equality Act, and the Office of Rail and Road has said so. What can the Government do to ensure that all train operating companies comply with the Equality Act, and what will they say to Govia Thameslink?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I have seen the guidance issued by Govia. It is insensitive and unacceptable. The Government have made their views clear to GTR. It is withdrawing the guidance and replacing it with guidance that makes it clear that its policy is to assist all passengers safely who need help with their journey. We are keen to see the Office of Rail and Road use its enforcement powers to hold train operating companies to account where they let disabled passengers down. I understand the distress caused by the guidance to which the noble Baroness referred.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister remember that when he took the legislation through the House of Commons to privatise rail services, the late, great Robert Adley said it would properly be described as the poll tax on wheels. Has that not proved correct?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As a matter of fact, I did not take the legislation through the House of Commons; it was taken through by, I think, my noble friend Lord MacGregor. It was my task to implement it, which was as much of a challenge. Despite its criticism, the basic structure introduced in that Parliament has remained the same with the rolling stock companies, the train operating companies, franchising and Railtrack/Network Rail. If it was such a disastrous structure, why has it remained almost intact for 25 years?

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is very difficult if you are a disabled person who has booked assistance, which I have sometimes, and you get delayed, generally by getting stuck in a taxi in the traffic, and cannot get through to the station to warn it that you are not coming on that train? Can he do something about that?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I understand the noble Baroness’s concern. All train operating companies have to sign up to Passenger Assist, which enables people to pre-book to make sure that the right facilities are in place at the right station at the right time. If the station is inaccessible to the passenger, the train operating company should make arrangements, perhaps with an accessible taxi, to get the passenger to a station which they can access. The ORR is reviewing the disabled passengers policy, and I will see that the noble Baroness’s point is passed on to it.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, some disabilities are hidden. I declare an interest as I wear two hearing aids and hear very little. Such people have great difficulty coping with train and bus announcements made audibly to passengers who do not suffer in that way. What progress have the Government made in ensuring that the provision of visual and audio announcements on buses and trains is obligatory?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My recollection is that when the buses Bill went through your Lordships’ House a few years ago an amendment was passed obliging buses to have both audio and visual information available, and my understanding is that the regulations to facilitate that will be introduced shortly. In the meantime, 27% of bus services have accessibility, making it possible for those in wheelchairs to use public transport.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Is my noble friend not being rather modest about his role in controlling the privatisation of the railway services? Surely a great tribute should be paid, given the enormous numbers of extra passengers travelling by privatised rail.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am enormously grateful to my noble friend. Pre-privatisation, when the rail network was in public ownership, I had to go to the Treasury on bended knee to plead for investment in trains, and there was always education, health and defence. One of the key benefits of privatisation was that once the railway industry was in the private sector that constraint fell away, and there was a dramatic increase in investment in the railways after privatisation.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think I have ever heard so complete and satisfactory an Answer to a Question in this House as the Minister’s first Answer. Could we therefore give him a leave of absence from the House so that he can deal with the underlying problem of why all the trains are so late and tend to them each individually?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord himself was once Secretary of State for Transport. I wonder whether he delivered to himself the plea that he has just made to me.

Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole (Structural Changes) Order 2018

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 29 March be approved.

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, these instruments will, if approved by Parliament and made, provide for the abolition of the nine existing local government areas in Dorset and their councils—the existing boroughs of Bournemouth and Poole, the county of Dorset and the boroughs and districts in the county of Dorset—and the establishment of two new local government areas with two new single-tier unitary councils for the area on 1 April 2019.

These instruments provide for elections to these new councils. Elections to the proposed Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council will take place in May 2019 and then every fourth year thereafter. Elections to the proposed Dorset council will take place in May 2019, 2024, 2029 and every fourth year thereafter, as requested by the local area. The instruments also make transitional provisions, including for shadow authorities and shadow executives to prepare for the new councils during the period from when the order is in force until April 2019.

We have had discussions with the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and understand that, should Parliament approve and we make these instruments, the commission will carry out a full electoral review of the areas of the two new councils to ensure that all people are equally represented within the area for each council. As provided for in legislation for previous local government reorganisations, provisions are made for the warding arrangements that would be used for the first elections should the commission be unable to conclude the electoral review in time.

The Government, as made clear in our manifesto, are committed to supporting those local authorities that wish to combine to serve their communities better. We have also announced to the House that we will consider any locally led proposals for local government restructuring which are put forward by one or more of the councils concerned and which improve local government and service delivery, create structures with a credible geography and command a good deal of local support.

We have brought forward these measures in response to a locally led proposal from the area concerned. Eight of the nine councils in the area support the proposals, and eight of the nine councils in Dorset have given formal consent to the instruments being made. Statute requires the consent of at least one relevant authority—in this case, Bournemouth, Poole and, for the two-tier structure of Dorset, the county of Dorset or one of the six districts and boroughs within Dorset—for the instruments to be made.

We told Parliament in February 2017 what criteria the Government would use for assessing locally led proposals for local government restructuring—namely, that, first, the proposal is likely to improve local government in the area concerned; secondly, the proposal has a credible geography; and, thirdly, the proposal commands a good deal of local support. We also told Parliament that our intention is for these criteria to be assessed in the round across the whole area subject to reorganisation and not considered individually for each existing council area. The Government are satisfied that this proposal fully meets those criteria.

The Dorset councils proposal which we are now considering would establish two unitary councils across the whole of Dorset, replacing the nine existing local government areas and their councils in the area with two new local government areas and councils, one covering the areas of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole, and a second covering the rest of Dorset.

Dorset estimates that this has the potential to generate savings over the first six years of at least £108 million and, if the full transformation programme, which unitarisation makes possible, takes place, there is the potential to save over £170 million over that period. Such savings and the larger size of the councils will increase financial resilience, help sustain good-quality local services and cement partnership working in the area. The new structures will also facilitate stronger strategic and local leadership across the area and enable a more strategic and holistic approach to planning and housing challenges.

Having regard to the representations received, we are also confident that there is a general consensus that the two unitary councils are structured around the natural and established sense of identity across the geography of the county. There is clear evidence that this geography aligns well with other public service provision, including health, police, and the fire and rescue service. In short, the area of each new unitary council is a credible geography.

In bringing forward their proposal, the nine Dorset councils undertook extensive engagement and open consultation, including a formal consultation from August to October 2016. The consultation programme, which included an open consultation, a representative household survey, workshops and the opportunity to submit written submissions, achieved well over 17,000 responses. There was clear support for moving to two unitary councils. Seventy-three per cent of residents were supportive in the representative household survey and, in general across all the areas of Dorset, there was an emphatic preference for the proposed option, with 65% of residents in the representative household survey supporting it. Only 15% of residents in the representative household survey opposed this option; 12% neither supported nor opposed it; and 7% did not answer or did not know.

It may assist noble Lords if I say something briefly about the processes which have been followed by government and which have led us to conclude that this proposal does indeed meet the criteria and is worthy of implementation. On 7 November 2017, the previous Secretary of State told Parliament that he was minded to implement the proposal made by the Dorset councils. There followed a period for representations until 8 January, during which we received 210 representations. On the basis of the proposal, the representations and all other relevant information available, the Secretary of State was satisfied that all of these criteria are met and that implementing this proposal would be likely to improve local government and service delivery across Dorset, represents a credible geography and commands a good deal of local support. His assessments of the Dorset proposal against these criteria were made in the round, across the whole area, subject to the proposed restructuring. On 26 February 2018, the previous Secretary of State announced his decision to implement the proposal, subject to parliamentary approval.

We believe that the proposed governance changes for which we are seeking parliamentary approval will benefit people across the whole of Dorset, in every district and borough. Our aim as a Government is to enable the people of Dorset to have as good a deal as possible on their local services. This is not just our view, but a view shared by 65% of residents across the whole of Dorset, 79% of all councillors across the whole of Dorset, and other public service providers and businesses, particularly those responsible for the provision of healthcare, police, fire and rescue, and rail services across the wider Dorset area. It is supported also by a number of my right honourable and honourable friends with constituencies in the area, who, on 29 November 2017, wrote to my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State urging him to support the proposal. They state that,

“the further savings required to be made, if our councils are to continue delivering quality public services, can only be done through a reorganisation of their structures”.

Eight of the nine councils in Dorset support the proposed change and have formally consented to the necessary secondary legislation.

Regarding the one Dorset council that does not support the proposal—Christchurch Borough Council—a third of its elected councillors do support this proposal. These councillors wrote to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State stating:

“We are acutely aware of the constraints on local government funding and the financial pressure that upper tier services are facing. We therefore consider it our duty to respond to these challenges by supporting the restructuring of local government in Dorset”.


I believe we are delivering the commitment that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made in December last year, when she told Parliament that we would seek,

“to ensure that the best result is achieved for the people of Dorset”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/17; col. 1060.]

It may have come to the attention of noble Lords that Christchurch Borough Council has launched a judicial review challenging the Secretary of State’s decision to implement the proposal. However, we are instructing counsel to robustly resist this challenge and are clear that this has no impact on today’s debate.

I am sure noble Lords will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has brought these instruments to the attention of the House for reasons of public policy, namely the level of support in Christchurch from both the residents and the council. In particular, the committee asked how the Secretary of State can deem that the proposal meets the criteria that there is a good deal of local support for the proposal, and the justification for proceeding with a proposal which is opposed by one of the councils affected. The committee also asked about the process taken and why an invitation was not issued to these councils.

Government policy is to,

“consider unitarisation and mergers between councils where requested”.

Accordingly, the Government’s approach to Dorset is that the proposals should be locally led at the initiative of councils in the area, rather than in response to a government invitation. The Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 provides the statutory mechanism for taking forward such an approach. It is this mechanism we are using by bringing forward the regulations and the order we are considering today.

Turning to the consideration of local support, I have already outlined the level of support from residents, businesses, key public sector partners and elected representatives across Dorset. The Secretary of State has had careful regard to the results of the Christchurch local advisory poll, the representations received about the poll and all other information available to him when making his decision. However, as a poll of only 6% of the whole area’s population, we do not see it casting doubt on the evidence that, in the round, across the whole area of Dorset there is a good deal of local support.

During the passage of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill through this House in 2016, my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford explained that it was not the intention of the legislation that one council could block a reorganisation proposal that the rest of the councils in an area had proposed. We have also been clear that our intention is for the proposal to be assessed against the criteria in the round, across the whole area subject to reorganisation, and not to be considered individually for each existing council area.

As rightly noted by my right honourable friend the Member for West Dorset, Sir Oliver Letwin, during the committee debate in the other place to consider these SIs,

“it is the job of the Minister and Parliament to legislate in a way that provides for stable, viable and effective local government”.

He went on to say that this opposition from Christchurch should not,

“in any way justify overturning a set of proposals that have come from the people of Dorset and Dorset County Council. It is not a matter of the democratic tyranny of the majority. Rather, it is a matter of the viability of local government and local government services in our county”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 16/5/18; col. 11.]

In conclusion, in considering the two draft instruments we are assessing the merits of the abolition on 1 April 2019 of the nine existing Dorset local government areas and councils and the establishment of two new local government areas and unitary councils for the area. The proposal is widely supported across Dorset by councils, councillors, MPs, local businesses, town and parish councils, voluntary organisations, public sector bodies and members of the public. The potential to generate savings are considerable—£108 million over the first six years and even more if Dorset councils implement the full transformation programme that unitarisation makes possible.

My honourable friend the Member for North Dorset rightly said in the other place last week:

“The direction of travel is clear. What we are trying to do in Dorset is not eccentric or perverse; it is not in any way weird. It is a democratic response, underpinned by intellectual and academic argument to deliver on that principal propulsion of public service”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 16/5/18; col. 38.]


I have full confidence in the local area to implement the unitarisation by next April, enabling elections to the new councils in May next year. On that basis, I commend these regulations and the order to the House.

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

In speaking to these instruments, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. However, I have another interest in that, from 1993 to 1997, I was the Member of Parliament for Christchurch. I had lived in the area for a long time. I had been to school in Brockenhurst—indeed, that was when Christchurch was in Hampshire and I had friends who came to the school from there.

The present Member of Parliament for Christchurch, Sir Christopher Chope, was elected when I lost the seat in 1997. We have over the years been political foes, particularly since our time in Southampton, but life has a funny way of taking you by surprise. In trying to help his constituents, who do not want the borough of Christchurch to be abolished or to become part of a very big council area, he asked them to write to me in the House of Lords. As someone who has been there before, with the reorganisation of Northumberland, on which local views were completely ignored, and as a former member of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, I was happy to look into what had happened. It is rather a sorry tale, I fear.

Christchurch folk have never really identified with their much larger neighbours, Bournemouth and Poole. Road connection to the conurbation is always a bottleneck, particularly over Tuckton Bridge. There are no high-rise blocks in Christchurch, as there are all along the western side of Bournemouth bay. As was pointed out in debates in another place, Christchurch has been an independent borough since 1215 and, unlike its neighbouring councils, is debt free and financially strong.

Proceedings in the Commons show that the Government’s dealings with Christchurch and the consultation process have not been smooth or satisfactory. The noble Lord mentioned the 26th report of the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, published on 26 April. The report drew the attention of Members to the lack of consent and to the Government’s decision to ignore the clear and democratically expressed wishes of the people of Christchurch, and to choose instead to judge opinion across the whole of Dorset in the round. The people of Christchurch and their MP are rightly devastated by the decision to proceed without local consent, particularly so because the Member for Christchurch had twice received in the other place undertakings by the Secretary of State during the passage of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill 2015 that Clause 15 of the Bill would not be used to abolish any individual council without consent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The order and regulations before the House bring into effect proposals to create two new unitary authorities covering Dorset, Bournemouth and Poole. Generally, I am in favour of the establishment of unitary local government in England. I think that the local government structures in Scotland and Wales are generally more fit for purpose than the patchwork that we have developed in England. In those countries the two-tier approach was abolished at the end of the John Major Government, with 32 unitary authorities in Scotland and 22 unitary authorities in Wales.

On numerous occasions I have raised in this House the issue of how local government reform is evolving in England. Generally, it is confused, with little clarity on the objective, the purpose and how it is right to have four tiers of local government in one area while in a neighbouring county the view is that a unitary authority is best. This lack of clarity does not strike me as very strategic, nor mindful of the council tax payer or the delivery of efficient services.

There is also the issue of consent. Clearly, Christchurch Borough Council has not consented. It has gone further and held a referendum on the issue, where 84% of the borough’s residents—on a 54% turnout—rejected what is being proposed here today. The matter went before the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which highlighted that Ministers will apply the criteria in the round rather than considering whether the criteria should be met in relation to each individual council area. This is all very strange. Perhaps the Minister can clarify what happened during Third Reading of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill in the other place. Did the Secretary of State provide assurance that the council would not be abolished without its consent? I do not know the answer, so perhaps he can tell me.

On 9 May, in Grand Committee in the Moses Room, we discussed local government changes in Suffolk. Having at first been quite complimentary about me, the Minister’s noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth went on to suggest that I was a Stalinist when all I asked for was clarity, certainty and value for money for the council tax payer. He said:

“We have a broad policy of saying these things have got to be locally led … local democracy is the key point”.


I then moved on to Oxfordshire. I was well aware that certain councils there are pushing for a unitary Oxfordshire, which Oxford City Council is opposed to—as I believe are the majority of the citizens who live in that area. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bourne:

“Do I take it from what the Minister said that if councils do not want things to happen, they will not happen?”


His response was:

“That is essentially true. These have to be locally led. If they have not got local support, they will not happen … That does not mean that there has to be 100% support”.


He then clarified further:

“Well, for district mergers, there has to be 100% support from the councils. What I am saying is that there does not necessarily have to be 100% support from the local MPs, for example, and that has not been the case”.—[Official Report, 9/5/18; cols. GC 22-23.]


I think that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and his department are in some difficulty on this one. His noble friend Lord Bourne made it clear in Grand Committee on 9 May that there has to be 100% support from district councils for mergers to go ahead. Christchurch Borough Council does not agree. Furthermore, it held a referendum and, as I told the House, 84% of the residents of the borough, on a very respectable 54% turnout, did not agree either.

Then we have the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House advising us that Ministers decide these things “in the round”, which it is at complete odds with what the Minister’s noble friend Lord Bourne told us on 9 May. As the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, is well aware and has told the House, the Conservative leader of Christchurch Borough Council, Councillor David Flagg, has begun a judicial review of the actions of the Secretary of State and his department. I think that there are fairly good questions that have to be answered before a judge, because this seems to be a little confused. I respectfully suggest that this is a mess, and the wisest option for the noble Lord’s department would be to withdraw these two statutory instruments, sort it out and get the lines clear in the department to avoid a possible court battle and a waste of public money.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I commend the persistence of my former colleague Sir Christopher Chope in garnering support from unlikely quarters to continue his campaign against this merger. I recognise the locus in the area of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Indeed, I remember taking part in the campaign to ensure that she was not elected in the by-election—a campaign in which I and others failed.

Perhaps I may deal with the important issues which the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised. She mentioned that Christchurch was debt free—which it is, as are a number of the other local authorities. However, that is only part of the story, because many services provided to Christchurch are provided by the county council, which does have debt. So the people of Christchurch pay council tax on local authority debt, which is at the level of more than £500 per head.

I have just had news from the front. There was a deferred Division in the other place on these statutory instruments. Had the votes gone the other way, I am not sure that there would have been a lot of purpose in continuing our discussions, but I am happy to say that the ayes were 293 against 19 and 294 against 19 on the other instrument, so we can proceed, the other place having done its duty.

On council tax levels, I think that I am right in saying that Christchurch benefits from harmonisation, as its average level of council tax is higher. Therefore, with harmonisation that level will come down.

I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that there is a difference between the rules for mergers and those for unitarisation. He is quite right that, where we are talking about a merger, there has to be agreement from the councils being merged. But this is not a merger; it is unitarisation, and the rules for unitarisation are different. I read them out. Proposals have to be judged in the round as commanding a good deal of local support in the area. I quoted from what my noble friend Lady Williams said when the relevant legislation was being debated, which made it clear that there was not a right of veto of any one particular council within the proposed unitary; we had to look at the issues in the round.

The noble Baroness mentioned the poll conducted in Christchurch. There have been some criticisms of the conduct of that poll. Dorset County Council referred in its representations to,

“misleading and inaccurate information being circulated, not validated by the County Council or indeed Christchurch Borough Council. This was both before and while the poll was open and must introduce the question of bias in the process and undermine the validity of the findings”.

Poole Borough Council in its representation stated that the advisory poll in Christchurch,

“was supported by privately promoted information which was factually inaccurate and misleading”.

The borough council asserted that in its view the poll was “wholly unreliable” and asked the Secretary of State to “disregard” it.

None the less, we did have careful regard to the poll and its circumstances—but it did involve only 6% of the population of the whole area and we do not see this poll, for all these reasons, as casting doubt on the evidence that, in the round, across the whole area, the proposition has support. This proposal was locally led, developed and consulted on, and submitted jointly by the Dorset councils. The evidence is that nearly 80% of councillors across the whole area are in favour of the proposal, businesses and key public sector partners overwhelmingly support it, and the representative household survey showed that 65% of the public support it. Seven local Members of Parliament also support the proposal.

I have listened to the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I hope that I have addressed them and also dealt with some of the points raised by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That was a very helpful explanation and I thank the Minister, but will he explain a bit further why it is that if you merge two or three district councils, one council can object and veto it, whereas when you have a bigger reorganisation involving the unitarisation of a county, no one has a veto? Potentially, that involves many more services, a bigger area and bigger budgets, yet apparently no one has to be involved in that. Will he explain further, please?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

We made it quite clear that where an area wants to move from where it is now two-tier to unitary, we want to look at the proposal as a whole, and we do not believe it is right for any one component to have a veto. That is different from where two local authorities, as we are about to debate in a moment, want to get together and merge. We think that where they are going to merge—in other words, there is not going to be a wholesale reorganisation—it would be wrong to compel people to merge if they do not want to.

So, locally led proposals for district council mergers are to be assessed against criteria which we announced to Parliament on 7 November 2017, which include both the criterion that to be implemented a proposal should command a good deal of local support in the area and the criterion that the merger is proposed by all the councils to be merged. Locally led proposals for unitarisation are to be assessed against different criteria, announced to the Commons on 28 February 2017, which include the criterion that to be implemented a proposal for an area should, when judged in the round, be assessed as commanding a good deal of local support in the area.

Unlike in the case of mergers, unitarising an area does not need to be proposed by all the councils involved, since that area necessarily includes two tiers of councils, so that even if some councils in the area do not support the proposal, the area of those that do may cover the whole area. I may not have convinced the noble Lord—in fact, I can see that I have not convinced him—but he asked me what the criteria were and I have explained them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Maddock]

Does the noble Lord have any comment on the idea that one way out of this would have been to allow Christchurch to look at going into Hampshire? The Government were less than helpful when Christchurch wanted to do that.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That would have involved a much wider proposal. Basically, what we are interested in are locally led proposals. I am not aware that Hampshire or the other authorities were party to that proposition, whereas the proposition before the House this afternoon is supported by the area as a whole, with a notable exception. Had Hampshire and Christchurch come to us with a proposition which commanded general support, we would of course have looked at it. But they did not.

Motions agreed.

Somerset West and Taunton (Local Government Changes) Order 2018

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 29 March be approved.

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

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, let us see what trouble we have with these. In moving the draft Somerset West and Taunton (Local Government Changes) Order 2018, I will also speak to the draft Somerset West and Taunton (Modification of Boundary Change Enactments) Regulations 2018. These instruments, if approved by Parliament and made, will establish on 1 April 2019 the new local government area of Somerset West and Taunton, together with a new district council for that area, and will abolish the existing local government areas of West Somerset district and Taunton Deane borough, together with their councils.

The instruments also provide for elections to this new council to be held in May 2019 and each fourth year thereafter. This includes providing electoral arrangements—that is, the warding arrangements that would be used for the first elections should the Local Government Boundary Commission for England be unable to conclude in time the electoral review which it is expected to undertake. In addition the instruments make transitional provision, including for a shadow authority and shadow executive, to prepare for the new council during the period from when the order is in force until April 2020.

We have brought forward these instruments in response to a locally led proposal from the area concerned. Both the existing principal councils in the area which submitted the joint proposal continue to support it and, as statute requires, have given their formal consent to the regulations. In line with the Government’s 2017 manifesto, we are committed to consider any locally led proposals for district mergers and, as we told Parliament in November 2017, we will assess proposals we receive on the basis that they will improve local government and service delivery, create structures with a credible geography, and command a good deal of local support. The Government are satisfied that this merger proposal fully meets these criteria.

First, the merger will improve local government in the area. It will secure the current shared service partnership and the £2.6 million in savings that come as a result, as well as generating further savings of £0.5 million. This would improve service delivery across the whole area. The area of the new Somerset West and Taunton district and council is a coherent geography with a population of around 147,000.

Finally, we are satisfied that the evidence shows that there is strong local support for this proposal from the democratically elected representatives of the population as well as the county council, the district and borough councils, and a majority of public authorities, town and parish councils, and voluntary and business organisations which made representations to the Secretary of State.

It may assist noble Lords if I say something about the processes followed by the councils and the Government, which have led us to conclude that this proposal meets the criteria and should be implemented. In bringing forward their proposal to merge, the two councils undertook an engagement programme with residents and stakeholders from December 2016 until February 2017. This included an independent, demographically representative phone poll; a dedicated website with background information and an online questionnaire; a series of eight public roadshow events throughout the whole area; a series of nine consultation events, involving groups of parish and town councillors and representatives of community groups; and various meetings with key stakeholders including businesses, partners, and other local public bodies.

The councils submitted their proposal to the Government in March 2017. Following careful consideration, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State announced on 30 November 2017 that he was minded to implement the proposal. There then followed a period for representations until 19 January 2018. The Secretary of State received a total of 251 representations.

Somerset County Council supports the merger and all public bodies are either supportive or raised no objections. A strong majority of businesses and voluntary sector organisations were supportive or raised no objections. The majority of parishes were supportive or neutral. As to representations from members of the public, 53 were supportive of the proposed merger and 99 did not support it. Although most of these members of the public did not provide any reasons, the most common reasons cited were the perceived reduction in democratic representation for West Somerset following the merger and the concern that Taunton Deane would be financially detrimentally affected. We believe that both these concerns can be addressed.

The first, of democratic accountability, is something we all take seriously. We have had discussions with the Local Government Boundary Commission and understand that, should Parliament approve and we make these instruments, then the commission will carry out a full electoral review of the area of the proposed new district, which will ensure that all people are equally represented on the proposed new council. We also consider that the second concern expressed is addressed by the fact that Taunton Deane also stands to benefit from savings generated by the merger. I will say a little more on this later.

Having considered the proposal and all of the representations carefully, the Secretary of State announced on 22 March this year that he intended to seek parliamentary approval of the secondary legislation to implement this proposal, and the instruments that we are considering today were laid on 29 March.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn these instruments to the special attention of the House as it believes there were inadequacies in the consultation carried out by the councils. That is not a view we share. I have already outlined the extensive nature of the engagement carried out by the councils, including a demographically representative phone poll, an online questionnaire and a number of roadshows, events and meetings.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also mentioned that a number of representations to the Secretary of State from Taunton Deane residents outlined unwillingness to take on West Somerset as a financially unsustainable council. As we explained to the committee, both the councils and the Government consider that Taunton Deane is likely to enjoy financial and other benefits resulting from this proposed merger. The two councils already benefit from shared services and a senior management team and staff team, and considerable savings of £2.6 million per annum have already been generated through the current partnership.

These savings and improvements in service delivery would be safeguarded by the proposed merger being implemented. Should the merger not be implemented, the financial unsustainability of West Somerset District Council is considered to jeopardise the financial benefits of the current partnership, thus forcing Taunton Deane Borough Council to remove itself from the partnership agreement, which for both councils would risk the savings already generated.

The councils’ medium-term financial forecast remains challenging, with both councils needing to reduce annual expenditure: West Somerset by £0.8 million and Taunton Deane by £2.3 million by 2021. The independent auditor notes that,

“if the ‘One Council’ was not to go ahead and TDBC sought to unwind the collaboration the financial gap would be exacerbated”.

I think this helps to demonstrate that the continuation of the joint working arrangements and the additional benefits that a merger could provide will benefit not only residents in West Somerset but those in Taunton Deane. That may be why both councils remain in favour of the merger, consented to the instruments we are considering today and continue to urge us to progress as quickly as possible so that implementation can begin.

Turning briefly to the detail of the two instruments before us today, the regulations modify the provisions of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 in its application to the case concerned. The regulations are made under provisions of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. These regulations modify the 2007 Act provisions to enable a locally led and supported merger proposal to be implemented without the need for a time-consuming boundary review, which can be undertaken only at the discretion of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

The order is to be made under the modified provisions of the 2007 Act which provide for: abolishing the existing local government areas for West Somerset and Taunton Deane; establishing a new district coterminous with the previous areas of West Somerset and Taunton Deane named Somerset West and Taunton; winding up and dissolving the district council of West Somerset and the borough council of Taunton Deane and establish a new council Somerset West and Taunton District Council; providing appropriate transitional arrangements, such as a shadow authority and shadow executive; and establishing, in agreement with the councils, any necessary electoral arrangements. We expect the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to be able to undertake a full electoral review of the new area before the elections in May 2019.

In conclusion, these instruments establish the new local government area of, and council for, Somerset West and Taunton. The proposal was initiated and developed by the councils themselves, the democratically elected representatives of the population. The Secretary of State considered this locally led proposal according to the criteria that were announced in the other place. I have full confidence in the local area to implement the merger by April 2019 and allow for the election of the new council soon after in May. On that basis, I commend these regulations and the order to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. May I just address one point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has raised in both debates? What he describes as a muddle is a reflection of the Government’s approach—which we think is the right one—which is to respect what local communities want. We are responding to locally led proposals. Both the statutory instruments we have just agreed, and this one, are proposals that local people have asked the Government to approve. The alternative, which may be the option that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, prefers, is a top-down approach whereby government states its desired structure and then imposes that uniformly throughout the country. So I reject his description of our policy as a muddle: we think it is locally responsive. We considered the proposals in the round and we think this is a more satisfactory approach to local democracy than the alternative.

Let me deal with some of the points that were raised during our debate. Rebecca Pow is on record as supporting the proposed merger. On the electoral arrangements, the proposals in the order are a back-up option put together by the local authorities. The Local Government Boundary Commission will re-ward the whole area into appropriate wards. Once the number of councillors is reduced, the number of electors to each councillor will remain approximately 1,900, which is the average for the United Kingdom.

So far as support for the proposals before us is concerned, Taunton Deane Borough Council voted in support of progressing the merger at its full council meeting on 26 July 2016: 32 voted in favour, 16 against, and two abstained. Somerset County Council supports the merger, and there is no proposal from the county council or any of the districts for further unitary councils in Somerset. Should, in time, any locally led proposals come forward, we would of course consider them, but there are none on the table.

Looking at the parish councils, the majority of parishes supported the proposition: 10 were supportive and five were against. A strong majority of businesses and voluntary sector organisations—18—were supportive, and four raised no objections.

The thrust of the noble Baroness’s case was that the merger would be to the detriment of Taunton Deane residents. I do not want to go through all the arguments that I rehearsed when I introduced the instruments, but we do understand that, should the merger not be implemented, the financial unsustainability of West Somerset Council is considered to jeopardise the financial benefits of the current partnership, thus forcing Taunton Deane Borough Council to remove itself from the partnership agreement, which for both councils would risk the savings already generated. As I said, the independent auditor notes that,

“if the ‘One Council’ was not to go ahead and TDBC sought to unwind the collaboration the financial gap would be exacerbated”.

The two councils are clear that the merger will safeguard annual savings of £3.1 million—£2.6 million from transformation and £0.5 million from the governance changes.

I have listened with respect to the arguments put forward, but I think there is a strong case for agreeing to the proposition put to us by the two borough councils concerned.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to clarify one point? I thought I heard him say that each councillor in the new council would have an electorate of 1,900. How can that be, when no single-member wards are proposed? In one case, it is a five-member ward.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That would be an average, dividing the number of electors by the number of councillors. I have not drilled it down to an individual ward basis.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for his contribution. I mentioned Scotland and Wales in the previous debate. I think the Minister was in the Cabinet when the Major Government introduced unitary government to both Scotland and Wales in 1996, producing 32 councils in Scotland and 22 in Wales. That has largely stood the test of time. It seems strange, if that was the right thing to do then—it seemed to work well then and carries on to this day—that in England, it is very confused. I accept that the noble Lord has said that is what the policy is, but when we have a unitary council in one place and a district council in another, it all just appears to be a muddle. I recall a discussion with, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who described that he had five councils potentially levying council tax and other demands in Cambridgeshire, but in Cornwall there was only one. It certainly seems to me to be very confused.

Legislative Reform (Regulator of Social Housing) (England) Order 2018

Lord Young of Cookham Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 28 February be approved.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the draft order we are considering today is, I hope, a largely uncontroversial one. Indeed, it passed through the other place without a debate. It seeks to establish the Regulator of Social Housing as a stand-alone body. It implements the recommendation in the Tailored Review of the Homes and Communities Agency to establish a stand-alone regulatory body for social housing. In so doing, it removes any possibility of a potential conflict by separating out the regulatory function from the organisation, which is also responsible for investment. It will not, however, change how registered providers of social housing are regulated or how they operate on a day-to-day basis.

That is not to say that this change is insignificant. The change will ensure the continuation of independent and robust regulation of the social housing sector. At the moment, the regulation of social housing is the responsibility of the regulation committee, a statutory committee of the Homes and Communities Agency. While the organisation responsible for undertaking this function refers to itself as the Regulator of Social Housing, it remains legally part of the Homes and Communities Agency. It is independent from government and is crucial in underpinning investor confidence in the social housing market.

In 2016, the then Department for Communities and Local Government conducted a tailored review of the Homes and Communities Agency. The review was forward-looking and focused on the challenges faced by the agency. In respect of regulation, the review found there was a compelling case for change of the regulator’s structure. In recent years, the Homes and Communities Agency has expanded into commercial investments. This makes the agency, in some cases, both a secured creditor and regulator of registered providers. This potential conflict of interest did not exist when the decision was made to incorporate social housing regulation within the Homes and Communities Agency as, at that time, the agency’s funding predominantly focused on grant-making.

I should make clear that existing governance arrangements and an operational “ethical wall” have ensured that information has not been inappropriately exchanged between the regulation and investment functions. However, the financial landscape of the sector continues to evolve and become more complex. Because of that, it becomes ever more important that the Homes and Communities Agency and the regulator are best positioned to adapt to such changes and that commercially sensitive information is safeguarded. Moreover, it is crucial that the regulator is perceived to be adept at handling such complexities, so as to uphold lender confidence.

The regulator’s role and functions are set out in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, as amended by the Localism Act 2011. As a result, changes to primary legislation are needed to deliver a stand-alone regulator. We have used the powers in Section 2 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 to deliver these changes through a legislative reform order. The order ensures that social housing regulation is made more consistent with better regulation principles by providing for greater accountability and transparency for regulatory activities.

I should also make an important point about legislative reform orders. They are intended to be used either to reduce the overall burden of regulation or to ensure that regulation is carried out in a more transparent or proportionate manner. They cannot be used to create new, or vary existing, regulatory functions. That means the current provisions on the regulatory and enforcement powers of the regulator contained in Sections 192 to 269B of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 remain effectively unchanged by this legislative reform order. These provisions set out the regulatory framework, for example around the economic and consumer standards that can be set and how they are monitored. They also cover enforcement powers at the regulator’s disposal, for example, to impose penalties or to award compensation in the event of failure by a housing association. So—to anticipate points that noble Lords may wish to make—changes to how the sector is actually regulated are better considered as part of the forthcoming social housing Green Paper. What this legislation will do, however, is to put in place the arrangements for a robust and independent regulator ready to adapt to any policy changes that may arise from these reviews.

A crucial part of the process of delivering changes through a legislative reform order is that there is public consultation on both the changes proposed and the use of a legislative reform order to deliver them. The department conducted a consultation in early 2017. While the number of responses was relatively small, they were overwhelmingly in favour of the move, including from the sector and investors.

I turn briefly to the specifics of the LRO. In effect, this order reverses the changes made by the Localism Act 2011 and removes the regulator from the Homes and Communities Agency, thereby making it a stand-alone, independent body. The detailed provisions that do this are set out in Schedule 1 to the order. Part 1 of the schedule establishes the regulator and transfers functions from the HCA to the regulator. Part 2 makes amendments to other legislation consequent upon the creation of the regulator. Part 3 provides for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities from the HCA to the regulator. Finally, Part 4 of the schedule provides for transitional and savings provisions consequent upon the transfer of functions.

To conclude, the creation of a stand-alone Regulator of Social Housing is a necessary change that will ensure that the sector continues to be regulated effectively. This is essential if we are to ensure that the financial markets continue to have confidence in the sector and to allow housing associations to invest in providing the homes that we need. I commend this order to the House, and beg to move.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, the argument over whether the grant maker for social housing and the regulator for social housing should be the same government body has raged for 45 years. I was in the midst of the argument back in 1973, representing the housing associations as chief executive of the National Housing Federation. The Housing Corporation was being greatly enlarged by the Housing Act 1974; it had been created 10 years earlier, but only to promote cost rent and co-ownership housing. My federation concluded that that the Housing Corporation, as the body responsible for paying out housing association grants—which frequently covered 90% of the capital costs in order to keep rents low—should also be the body responsible for regulating these organisations. Regulation meant registering each housing association as fit and proper and then visiting it to monitor performance, ensure probity, and so on. These regulatory processes to ensure good governance were of critical importance to the funding agency before it could allocate substantial government subsidies to the fledgling housing associations. It was natural then for the grant-making and regulatory functions to be combined.

With the arrival of housing benefit—the personal subsidies to tenants—charging higher rents created fewer problems and the Housing Corporation could reduce grants somewhat without those on lower incomes having to be turned away. The Minister was Housing Minister at the time. When it fell to him to oversee cuts to the Housing Corporation’s grant making, he could declare, with some justification, “Let housing benefit take the strain”. Moreover, loans from the Housing Corporation became increasingly less relevant after the Housing Act 1988, under which the housing associations could borrow the money they needed on the private market. So the dominant funding rule of the Housing Corporation was changing.

Increasingly, the combination of funding and regulatory functions within the one agency looked less relevant, and the earlier requirement for combining the roles in one body was becoming strained. The Labour Government, with Yvette Cooper as Housing Minister, in 2007 appointed Professor Martin Cave from Warwick University to review the position. Professor Cave argued convincingly that these were two different roles, requiring different skills. Indeed, Cave pointed out the potential conflicts of interest if the funder and regulator were one and the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The order before the House is one I support. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for reminding us of the history of this and of the bonfire of the quangos—I remember the debates we had in the House about that. Clearly, the phoenix has now risen from the fire and we are back where we started. I am very happy with that and with the explanation that the noble Lord has given us. I am happy to support the order.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I will respond very briefly. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his nostalgic journey through the history of social housing, its regulation and funding. I pay tribute to the key role he has played in a variety of ways in the development of social housing and the role that he still plays today. If I may say so, he made the case for what is before the House even better than I did. I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for their support.

Motion agreed.