Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for setting that out so clearly. It brings me to the question I hope he might be able to pick up later, so that I can really understand how this works. We have a public authority, which publishes a set of policy criteria relating to disinvestment in cases concerning contravention of human rights. As he has just set out—and certainly implied by what he just said—it would not be required, for example, to adopt the ECHR in full; it could highlight certain things.

What would happen if a local or public authority decided to say, “We are not going to disinvest or have a policy of disinvesting from countries which do not, for example, allow gay marriage; we will not have a policy of disinvesting from countries that discriminate against women, but we will have a policy, which we will apply consistently throughout the world, of disinvesting from countries that are in control of occupied or disputed territory”? Under the noble Lord’s approach, would that be permitted?

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

Will the noble Lord give way for a moment? This discussion is extremely important, because I do not interpret Amendment 19 as the noble Lord is interpreting it. He says that there could be a statement, and it would have to be applied consistently to all countries. But the amendment also says that it must be in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord has not mentioned the fact that guidance to underpin what a local authority was doing would be in place.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Forgive me, but I think I did mention the guidance right at the beginning of my remarks. Indeed, I made the point that I did not understand that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, had identified what that guidance would, should or might contain—so I think we are on the same page.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, to bring us back to Amendment 19, I thought it was a probing amendment—but it seems that perhaps it is a serious one, given the endorsements of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, so let us think about it. I am querying it only because, if it comes back, it might allow the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to refine and consider it further.

I would add to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. For example, let us assume that there is an egregious gay rights violation in some country, and a local council gets very agitated about it, responds to pressure and announces that it will no longer do business with, or procure works or services from, this country, because it abuses gay rights. Under this amendment, it would then have to apply that to every country that does not fully respect gay rights, so if it wanted to buy product from the Middle East then the only place it could go to would be Israel.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an extremely helpful debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Mann, identified, there is a conundrum in the Bill. The Minister may wish to reflect on the discussion that has taken place. She said after the first group that she valued the expertise of this House and would go away and think about how the Government would respond. I took that to mean that they may make changes on Report, which is theoretically likely to come in about three weeks’ time, but may take longer.

I have concluded, having listened to so many opinions—I am not a signatory to Amendments 19 or 48, though I have huge sympathy with them—from my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, that it would be useful if the Minister would consider trying to bring all those opinions together into one place to talk further. That is the only way in which progress on this Bill will be made.

I think that I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, say that you cannot have local authorities setting foreign policy. I do not think local authorities want to do so, are doing so or have any ambition to do so. However, they are concerned about human rights and doing the right thing in their procurement and investment policies. Nevertheless, the issue must be discussed.

I took Amendment 19 to mean simply that a statement of policy relating to human rights would need to be considered by those seeking procurement or making investments, and that the statement may not single out individual nations and would therefore have to be applied consistently, as has been confirmed. However, it would have to be in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State. I find the concerns we have been hearing against Amendment 19 unfounded. The only solution I can see to this is that the offer made at the outset by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, should be taken up by the Minister. It would be really helpful if that could happen, because otherwise the passage of the Bill on Report will get more and more difficult.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I invite the noble Lord to look at proposed new subsection (4D) because, with the greatest of respect, it is not correct to say that the policy would have to be “in accordance with” the Secretary of State’s guidance. The amendment says only that they must “have regard to” the Secretary of State’s guidance. This is not nitpicking; there is a really important distinction in law between having to follow guidance and merely having to have regard to it. That is one of the reasons why I was asking the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, those questions.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

I understand the noble Lord’s point. I am quoting from the Member’s explanatory statement which is part of Amendment 19 in the Third Marshalled List of Amendments.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint your Lordships’ Committee after so many questions asked of my noble friend the Minister. But I am the Minister representing His Majesty’s Government on this group of amendments. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friends Lord Wolfson and Lord Leigh for refocusing the House on these two amendments. I will answer as many of the broader questions as I have time for after addressing these myself.

Let me begin with Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a review of the Bill’s compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within six months of Royal Assent. As my noble friend the Minister has set out, the Bill will apply to public authorities as defined in Section 6 of the Human Rights Act. In the exercise of their public functions these bodies do not have their own rights under the Human Rights Act or the ECHR, including under Article 10. The Bill does not apply to individuals and their private functions; therefore, it will not infringe on any individual’s rights under the ECHR.

As for the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about compatibility, the Government remain strongly committed to the UK’s long and proud tradition of free speech and to the ECHR’s Article 10 right to freedom of expression. The Minister has signed a statement of the Bill’s compatibility with ECHR rights. On sharing legal advice, His Majesty’s Government do not share legal advice, but we do act on it.

Nothing in the Bill goes against the European Convention on Human Rights. The ban will apply only to bodies that are public authorities under the Human Rights Act 1998—

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for telling us that. I had not heard that and I will check it out. None the less, she was dismissed for anti-Semitic behaviour, so it is suggested. We know what lies behind much of BDS. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and my noble friend Lord Johnson, the BDS movement, as he said, has taken credit and claimed it scored a victory in respect of divestments by Manchester and procurement by King’s College Cambridge and Southampton. It is true that the UJS’s previous president raised objections to the Bill, but that was before 7 October and before the heat turned up so dramatically. It certainly voted unanimously against BDS.

Most recently, we have seen student demands that Goldsmiths College rename a hall after a Palestinian, give scholarships to Palestinian students and participate in BDS. It looks like the college has agreed to all these demands without carefully considering the impact this might have—again showing absolute failure of leadership. Where does this lead? I am told today by people at Goldsmiths that there is now a movement to prohibit students entering the library unless they sign up to supporting BDS.

In my opinion, this Bill will help those in leadership positions in the above examples and at other universities. It will help them stand up to these outrageous demands by making it clear that intimidation is no longer allowed, and they have no choice but to refuse to enact BDS because the law now demands this. Universities cannot hide from their responsibilities. They should of course be focusing on their core public duty of providing quality higher education and undertaking excellent research while protecting those on campus who are currently threatened by the proponents of BDS with intimidatory anti-Semitic behaviour.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will have listened very carefully and I hope concluded that she has heard several notable contributions on this group, to which the only conclusion, in my view, is that this amendment should be accepted by the Government. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. In the case of the noble Baroness, I think her argument was that the problem of anti-Semitism on campus is too high, and one would agree. The problem I have with her conclusion is that this Bill would actually make it worse. It would make community cohesion more difficult. It would be worse.

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, talked about institutional behaviour and said that the institutional behaviour in universities would be improved by this Bill. He gave a number of examples, and one has to take those seriously and look at them. I will just say that it is a very dangerous policy to generalise from the particular and to say that across all our universities and higher education institutions, that pattern of behaviour is being followed, because I do not actually believe it is true.

I take very seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said. I think he made an extremely important contribution. He basically said that the Bill does nothing in the context of universities. There has been no successful BDS campaign, he said. The Union of Jewish Students does not want the Bill, I recall him saying.

UK Population Growth

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree that we must tackle our abysmal productivity rates. It is something I have focused on, I have to say, since long before I came to this House. There are things that we can do with skills. I look forward to the Budget on Wednesday and hope that the word “productivity” will feature in the speech by the Chancellor.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said a little while ago that net immigration figures were much too high. She went on to say that the Government were taking action. Yet today’s Times reports a surge in foreign candidates for teaching jobs that Britain cannot fill. Why are the Government not capable of training more UK teachers? This would suggest that the effort is not behind teacher training for UK residents.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I saw that piece as well and I was pleased to see teachers coming in specialisms such as physics, where it is very difficult to get people to come into teaching at the sort of salaries that are on offer. Of course, the Government have made a big investment in trying to get more people into teaching. Whenever people come to me for careers advice and say that one of their alternatives is to be a teacher, I say, “Go and be a teacher and don’t think about any other options”.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a most instructive Second Reading and I very much look forward to the Minister’s response to the many detailed points that have been raised. I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and that I have a small local authority pension.

I also make it clear that I support the long-term security of the State of Israel but think that a broad Bill of this kind should not be built on a single country, nor should it include the Occupied Territories—as we have heard from several speakers. No doubt when we are in Committee or on Report, we will pursue that in greater detail.

I have concluded that the Bill is disproportionate. It runs counter to the basic principles of civil liberties, human rights and upholding international law. As my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said:

“This Bill is ambiguous, confused and contradictory”.


It has been claimed that the Bill will assist community cohesion, but it will not; it will make community cohesion more difficult. As my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill said, it

“could have a negative effect”

and, as my noble friend Lord Oates said, it will not “combat anti-Semitism”.

Three tests should be applied to any proposed Bill: what problem are Government are trying to solve? Is what is proposed a solution to that problem? What consequential problems might arise if the Bill becomes an Act? In my view, the Bill fails all three tests and we have heard compelling evidence of that from many speakers. I have reached the conclusion that the Bill is too complex, too unwieldy and, in practice, unworkable. It would require a huge bureaucracy to underpin it, at huge cost, with enforcement authorities with powers to issue monetary fines and all the judicial reviews arising from that process. The Bill is not proportionate.

The Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill says:

“The number of actual or attempted boycotts or divestments inconsistent with UK foreign policy is relatively low”.


The Minister has referred to six; in the impact assessment, six are mentioned. But attempted boycotts or disinvestments are just that—unsuccessful attempts. How many have actually happened? How many have actually been successful? It would help if the Minister, when she replies or perhaps later, gives the House a list of all the public bodies and public authorities which have boycotted or disinvested from an overseas country, including Israel, on political grounds, so we can understand the true extent of the problem the Government have identified.

Universities UK has expressed concerns about the unintended consequence for the higher education sector. Universities are not public bodies, and I have concluded that universities should not be part of the Bill, as indeed we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Johnson of Marylebone, and others. I say that for three reasons. First, it could influence the outcome of the ongoing ONS review into universities’ status and whether they should or should not be defined as public bodies. Secondly, Clause 4 contradicts duties placed on universities via the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom; I have concluded that Clause 4 should be deleted from the Bill. Thirdly, it would give significant new powers and functions to the Office for Students, but is it able to take those on, given all the other duties it has?

I turn to pensions. It is not necessary for the Bill to apply to pensions. The Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 already gives the Secretary of State powers to issue guidance to pension schemes not to make investment decisions that conflict with UK foreign and defence policy.

In terms of the Local Government Pension Scheme, in a Supreme Court judgment in 2020 the Government were criticised for thinking that the scheme administrators were

“part of the machinery of the state”.

They are not; they do not manage public money. It is a funded scheme, paid for by contributions made by 15,500 participating employers and 7.1 million pension scheme members. Legislation already exists which prevents the Local Government Pension Scheme decision-makers from expressing political disapproval of a territory in making an investment decision. It contains sufficient enforcement mechanisms. Regulations exist which require administering authorities to publish an investment strategy statement, which must be in accordance with official guidance from the Secretary of State. Why do we need this Bill?

The Local Government Pension Scheme is a well-funded scheme with very few regulatory cases for a scheme of its size—with over 7 million members and assets of over £360 billion. The Government’s role is to provide clear guidance to the Local Government Pension Scheme, setting out their foreign policy aims and objectives so that scheme managers can undertake their duties investing in and stewarding global markets.

More broadly, existing legislation is sufficient. I am very grateful for the excellent Library briefing on the Bill. Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 already prohibits local authorities from taking non-commercial considerations into account in procurement decisions. They cannot take into account considerations of country or territory of origin of the contractor or their supplies. The Bill would then extend restrictions to cover investments as well as procurement, so I will comment on local government investment policy. Treasury management investments by councils are made largely within the United Kingdom. Where there are investments internationally, the key considerations are return and risk, rather than non-commercial considerations. The Bill will make no significant difference to that process.

Many speakers have pointed out that the Bill would restrict free speech of both public bodies and elected representatives. Clauses 4 and 7 would block discussion of actions against any foreign state. They would impact on freedom of speech and extend the powers of the state to inform itself about discussions within autonomous bodies, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire pointed out. Do the Government really mean for that to happen?

Finally, the Constitution Committee has done a very good job in suggesting to the House that it may wish to consider whether Clause 4 should be removed from the Bill. It said:

“In our view, clauses 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) unduly limit freedom of speech by preventing public bodies from stating that they would or even might make a procurement or investment decision in contravention of clause 1 had it been lawful to do so”.


There are other conclusions that the Select Committee has made which I support, and which I hope we can debate in Committee.

I say to the Minister and the Government more generally that I wish central government would trust local government a bit more. As my noble friend Lady Janke said, local government is not an outpost of central government.

We shall investigate all these issues in Committee, but I will just point out that if we were to take out Clause 4; if universities were not to be part of the Bill; if the pension problems the Government think exist and which I think do not exist are also taken out; if the role of local authority procurement policy is properly understood; and if we recognise that there is not much overseas investment by local authorities as part of their investment portfolios, there really is nothing much left in the Bill for us to talk about. For that reason, the Government should take a long, hard look at what they are trying to do.

Veterans Welfare Services

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for reading the Statement presented yesterday by the Government. I must admit, though, that I was expecting something a bit more meaty when I saw the Statement was to be made because, as far as I can see, there is a bit of rebranding, a job title change and a commitment to explore some options about the gateway, but we do not yet have the full response referred to in the Statement. We are told that it will come before the end of the year, but we are almost at the end of November and we have about three and a half weeks left of parliamentary time, so what was it that the Government were hoping to signal by making the Statement yesterday? It is really not very clear.

Having said all that, we on these Benches are deeply proud of our veterans, of the enormous contribution they have made and continue to make to our country, of their service in the Armed Forces and of their ongoing contribution to our community and the economy throughout their lives. The skills, knowledge and experience gained while serving is immense and is a solid foundation on which to build a successful career. However, there are well known challenges too, and this is something that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs was set up to address. That is why, given the extent of the need and the remit the office has, this Statement is such a non-event. It is virtually empty, with a bit of rebranding and nothing of substance—nothing for our veterans, who are really struggling with the cost of living crisis. We know that the number of veterans claiming universal credit has gone up by one-third in the last year alone: the Statement has nothing to say about that.

Yesterday, the Veterans Minister failed to answer a single question. I hope the Minister this evening can do a little better. Rather than getting into a dispute over which government department is responsible for which demarcation—if I did not know better, I would say one might be going on between the Veterans Minister and the Minister in the MoD who has just had his job title changed—perhaps we could hear how many veterans are still without a permanent roof over their head.

The findings of the review of the Armed Forces compensation scheme stated that the claimant process is “overly burdensome” and even “distressing” for particularly vulnerable claimants. How does the Minister plan on improving confidence in that scheme? There is nothing about that in the Statement. Some 1.5 million veterans still have not received the ID card they were promised. What has gone wrong? These cards are important, as they speed up access to services for veterans. There is nothing about that in the Statement.

The veterans action plan celebrates the success of the veterans Civil Service guaranteed interview scheme pilot, so can the Minister explain why more than half of all the veterans who applied did not get an interview? There is nothing about that in the Statement, either. While we are at it, can she let us know when the Government plan to respond fully to the Etherton report? I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for reminding me about that this afternoon. The apology from the Prime Minister really was welcome, but the Minister will be aware that there were a number of other recommendations and that many veterans are keen to learn whether the Government intend to implement them.

Our veterans deserve the very best. They need to see the full government response to the Independent Review of UK Government Welfare Services for Veterans. To be honest, that is what I thought we would get yesterday. Can the Minister tell us when we can expect the full response? Yesterday’s Statement was hollow and a bit of a disappointment. Of course Governments can present whatever Statements they like, but this was an unusually thin event. Next time the Veterans Minister comes to the Dispatch Box in the other place to make such a Statement, it would be really helpful if we could have some solid answers to the questions that we and veterans up and down the country would like answered.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, I pay huge tribute to all our Armed Forces for their work and to all our veterans and their families. We have 1.8 million veterans in England and Wales, according to the 2021 census. I welcome the ambition of the welfare services independent review to improve and simplify welfare provision, with its 35 recommendations mostly supported by the Government. We will see more of the detail in the next few weeks.

I also welcome the fact that the Minister is giving us an update—even though there is not much detail in it —so we know that the next step, when we get the formal response in a few weeks’ time, is the one that is going to matter.

It is good that responsibility for veterans policy across government will lie clearly with the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. It is at the heart of government, in the Cabinet Office, and not isolated in the Ministry of Defence. Help for Heroes has wanted a single port of call for veterans, and it is clearly going to help that the Government are planning to do this.

When I had the privilege of leading Newcastle City Council, I was pleased that several housing associations in our city took action to assist veterans in need of specific help with housing and personal support, offering supported housing with personal advice on site about jobs, training, the development of life skills, form filling and so on. As so much is provided inside the Armed Forces, some veterans can struggle with managing for themselves when they are outside. The work of the voluntary and third sector organisations in support of them is of increasing importance. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, the numbers claiming universal credit are rising. Veterans and their families are twice as likely to be unpaid carers or in receipt of sickness or disability benefits.

There was a sentence in today’s Autumn Statement in which the Chancellor said:

“I will extend National Insurance relief for employers of eligible veterans for a further year”—


that is welcome—

“and provide £10m to support the Veterans’ Places, Pathways and People programme”.

I think that this is a new £10 million—I see the Minister is nodding, so it is new. I am not entirely sure why it is a figure of 10 million and not something higher since, clearly, the work done particularly in relation to mental health is very important. One might have thought that a higher sum of money could be spent, so anything the Minister can tell us about that would be helpful.

There are issues around the availability and affordability of supported housing and helping those veterans who are at risk of homelessness. My noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham asked a question a few weeks ago about whether the Ministry of Defence was willing for empty MoD houses to be used in bad weather by veterans who are homeless. I hope the Government will continue to look at the possibility of doing that.

The Minister mentioned the digitalisation programme, backed by some £40 million of government money. I hope it will be accessible to all veterans in need of advice. What help will be given to those who will find difficulty with the Veterans’ Gateway? The Government have said:

“We will be mindful throughout of the need to simplify how veterans access support, and ensure that veterans who are unable to access services online, or who have more complex needs, are still supported”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/23; col. 215.]


That is very important indeed and anything the Minister can tell us, now or later in writing, about what is going to be done to assist those not able to access services online would be helpful.

The Minister cited the Government’s desire for the UK to be the best place in the world to be a veteran. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, pointed out, it would help to be clearer about exactly what benefits they will have that will make it the best place in the world. Finally, I wonder why the Government do not place themselves under a duty with the Armed Forces covenant to be the best in the world, rather than simply anticipating the possibility that they might become so?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I should first say that it is good that we all agree on how deeply proud we are of our veterans, and on the importance of doing the right thing by them.

I will start by talking about why we made the Statement yesterday. We wanted to provide an opportunity for the Government to welcome the review’s findings, to say that we were accepting the vast majority of its recommendations in principle, and to demonstrate progress against some of them. Some are obviously complicated and need a bit more time. I confirm that we will address the full range of strategic and tactical recommendations made in the review in our full written response, which will be published later this year. By making the Statement we are demonstrating where we have got to after decades of too little being done, and the difference we now have with a Minister devoted full time to veterans’ matters sitting in Cabinet meetings and reporting to the Prime Minister. That has made a great deal of difference. Of course, the change to the title is meant to show that clearly and will help externally, making the priority clear and making clear who is doing what. It is a break from the past, as is the rebranding of Veterans UK. There have been some issues of trust and confusion as to what Veterans UK stands for, and that will help us to move ahead.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about housing. As they will know, we are working towards ending rough sleeping and homelessness via Operation Fortitude, which is a new referral scheme to provide a single central point to support veterans into stable housing. The reducing veteran homelessness programme has provided over £7.2 million of funding for specialist help. I note the question about MoD accommodation; I will come back to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on that, if I may.

Compensation was mentioned. Of course, the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme provides compensation for injury or illness caused or made worse by service, or where death is caused by service in the UK Armed Forces, after April 2005. The quinquennial review by the MoD ensures that as time passes, the scheme is scrutinised and remains fit for purpose. We will respond to the veterans’ welfare report by the end of the year, and the MoD will also be responding to the quinquennial review, so we have these various things coming together at that time. The noble Baroness mentioned the Etherton review on LGBT veterans, so I should perhaps add that we are also hoping to respond to that by the end of the year. So these things are coming together well.

ID cards were mentioned, and they are very much regarded as a good thing by veterans. They help to make sure that they have eligibility for lots of different things. Of course, the first ones were issued by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs at Gosport in September. The team is working very hard to ensure we meet the users’ needs on that. Some 10,000 are due to be made available in January. We are moving forward on that and look forward to people finding it easier to identify themselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly raised the issue that it is all very well having a much better system online—which we will have, and are spending £40 million on digitalising—but we also need to think about those who cannot access things online. We debate these issues quite a lot, and I think we all feel that this is important. Making sure that people who are not able to access our improved encyclopaedia of support are helped in other ways is certainly part of our plans. I take that point very well and I am glad that he made it.

I was obviously delighted to hear, unexpectedly, the Chancellor’s announcement on veterans today. He announced an extension to the national insurance relief scheme for companies that hire veterans in their first civilian job. That is the sort of thing that makes a difference. Noble Lords will know that I am a retailer, and we used to try to take on veterans. This kind of thing helps to spread a willingness to do just that, so I am so glad to see it extended.

I am also delighted to see the £10 million additional support for mental health. It is in addition to the work under Operation Courage, and it is over and above the NHS’s charitable support, which is brilliant in this area. That is good news, and I am delighted to be able to confirm it from the Dispatch Box.

The noble Lord also mentioned the Armed Forces covenant, which is very important. When I answer questions for my right honourable friend Mr Mercer on veterans, I cannot help but feel how important veterans are and how we have relied on them when all else has failed, not only in war but often in disasters, too. The Armed Forces Act 2021 introduced a new legal duty on specified persons and bodies to give due regard to the covenant when exercising functions such as healthcare and housing. That was very important.

I am grateful for noble Lords’ comments and look forward to coming back around the end of the year, after we have been able to take forward one or two of the slightly knottier problems.

Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, two crucial matters relating to growth were missing in the Minister’s introductory speech. I was surprised, because she said we must get the economy growing again—I think the whole House would agree with that sentiment—but there was absolutely no admission of, first, the impact of Brexit, which, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, has damaged the country’s growth prospects. Will the Government admit that the forecast by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research that the reduction in GDP as a consequence of Brexit will lie between 4% and 5.5% is correct? It clearly matters in relation to growth.

The second issue, immigration, has been raised by a handful of noble Lords, but in particular my noble friend Lord Fox. Do the Government have an immigration policy? I ask because a major difference of opinion is clearly emerging between the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary. This matter needs to be explained. As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, there is a huge need for a bigger labour force in agriculture and a number of other industries, but what is the Government’s policy in relation to that, and to the number of students? I understand that we have record numbers of international students in the United Kingdom, which I welcome. This is a good thing, but they clearly count as part of the immigration numbers. Who is in charge of immigration policy? The problem we have is a problem now, while we address the skills deficit and the lack of productivity we have suffered from in recent years.

I look forward to the Minister’s reply on both those matters, but I will say this on the growth plan: you do not drive growth by making poor people poorer, by making rich people richer or with huge unfunded tax cuts. You do not drive growth by losing the confidence of the markets through a mini-Budget that was not subject to independent scrutiny, leading to the pound crashing, interest rates rising and a pensions crisis requiring £65 billion of emergency intervention. You do not drive growth by cutting corporation tax when it is investment incentives that drive growth, not the exact level of corporation tax.

The Prime Minister has called for “growth, growth, growth”, as though this is something only the libertarian right believes in, but good, clean, green growth is surely central to our future security. Yet achieving net zero seems of no interest or concern to the present Government. That is very worrying, because our country can grow as we deliver net zero.

The mini-Budget has worsened the cost of living crisis, particularly for aspiring home owners. From next year, the average mortgage bill on a new deal will increase by £1,500 a year on a £200,000 mortgage. We face major cuts in public spending. The Government have not said where these might fall—maybe we will find out on 31 October. The Government must drive fairness. We have heard of the number of children who will be pushed into poverty if benefits do not rise with inflation.

The Government have lots of proposals for which the detail is not yet clear. There are investment zones, very similar to enterprise zones, but what is the impact on those areas immediately outside them? Finally, what can the Government do to increase foreign direct investment, bearing in mind that it has increased 72% across the north of England in the last five years whereas in the rest of the country it has dropped?

Elections Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to support my noble friend Lady Ritchie’s amendment, to which I have added my name.

Constitutional issues are never easy in Northern Ireland—nothing is ever simple—and this lies in that category too. We live, as it happens, in very troubled times in Northern Ireland. We are but weeks away from a complicated and difficult election for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Issues which might to us seem relatively unimportant are magnified a dozen times when we cross the Irish Sea.

I add my plea to the Minister: can he persuade his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, or himself—whoever decides to go—to meet the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission? They have jointly put forward a submission. Both those bodies were set up 25 years ago at the time of the Good Friday agreement—for obvious reasons, because they were major planks in that agreement. Therefore, if they say that this is going to cause a problem, there is a very strong case for the Government to meet them.

In Scotland and in Wales, local government elections are devolved, so they take their own decisions on this. I am not quite sure why this has not been devolved in Northern Ireland, but it is not, and it lies in the purview of the United Kingdom Government. As it happens, of course—given that this relates to European Union citizens—the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. But that is not the main issue.

The main issue is that there is a problem with regard to the Good Friday agreement and Article 2.1 of the protocol—all difficult issues. But I think that a meeting would be absolutely final, in the sense that it would mean being able to talk to the two commissions about the issues which my noble friend has raised—at least, I hope it would be final. We will know in a second what the Minister will say, and whether he will go ahead with this proposal or could delay it a little until he has met with the two commissions. But I repeat: this is a difficult issue in difficult times. We look forward to what he has to say.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I shall make a brief comment in support of Amendment 44. In Committee I proposed an amendment to give those liable to pay council tax the right to vote in local elections. The Government said no, but I still believe that to be right in principle. I see it in part as an issue of consumer right—in other words, the principle is, “No taxation without representation”.

We are now in a position, it seems, where the Government have decided to extend the franchise to long-term emigrants from the UK, so that they can vote in parliamentary elections, but they have so far denied the right to vote to those nationals of other countries who live and pay tax here. I think that is a very serious anomaly. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to

“the tangle of voting rights left by imperial history”,—[Official Report, 28/3/22; col. 1284.]

which gives the franchise to some but not others. I find it regrettable that the opportunity has not been taken by the Bill to correct the many anomalies that still exist. I hope the Minister and the Government will be prepared to reflect on that.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I made quite a lengthy contribution in Committee and I have no intention of repeating it—although I think there are some points that are worth emphasising.

This is not a matter of principle. In fact, the Government and Opposition are agreed that people under the settled status scheme should retain the vote they had under the EU membership we had previously. It is just that new entry to the country will stop on 1 January 2022. That is the real issue. What we have been arguing about is the fact that those who put down their roots in this country and have lived here for 25 years—or even 15 years, to use the comparison with others who are going to get the vote—have made their home here, pay their tax here, and in the main pay their council tax here are not going to have the vote if they come here and achieve settled status.

Of course, one of the things about settled status, ILR and ILE is that they all require five years of continuous residence in the UK. Is that not a good basis for offering the vote? Is that not the connection that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned? I am hesitant to quote him, because he says that I sometimes get it wrong, but I heard him say “close connection”. We should surely afford someone who has lived here continuously, made their home here and paid their tax here the right to vote and be part of the local community they live in.

I can hear the Minister say, “They can become British citizens” but, as I said in Committee, there are people who make their home here who may not wish, for many reasons, to take out British citizenship. For some, like my husband, it is because they do not want to give up their Spanish citizenship, for example, where other countries do not afford the right to dual nationality. This country does, but there are many others that do not. These people do not want to break that relationship, particularly if they have family or parents there.

This is not a matter of principle that divides us. It is something that I fear this Government have done on many occasions, which is to say, “We’re not going to give the vote to people who make their home here unless the Governments from the countries they came from give our nationals the vote”. It becomes a bargaining issue. Again, I do not think that is right. It should be a matter of principle, which we have already conceded; under the agreements that we have, EU nationals with settled status will continue to have the vote. If the Government can agree to that, why can they not agree to this amendment?

Elections Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I will introduce this amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. I hope that we can avoid what we incurred in Committee, which was a detailed and long debate about the merits of proportional representation versus first past the post. I do not think that what we are dealing with here is about removing proportional representation. The supplementary vote system that has been introduced, particularly in London, is not about proportional representation. I hope that we can therefore avoid a detailed debate about the merits of the respective positions. Nor is this amendment about undermining the principle of first past the post. In introducing this amendment, our concern about the Government’s late action is that they failed to consult those affected, particularly in London, properly. The failure to consult undermines the introduction of this element into the Bill.

I know that, in Committee, there was a strong focus on spoiled votes in London. They can be properly addressed through, for example, the design of the ballot paper and the information that is provided. However, as I say, I am not concerned about the principle here so much; I accept that the Minister has made compelling arguments for why we should maintain first past the post. I do not object to them—my position is not necessarily that of other opposition parties here—but I do think that the Government have made a big mistake in undermining the supplementary vote system. In the past, my noble friends have referred to it as a way of ensuring, when we introduced the mayoral system, that somebody who is elected has a broad acceptance given the unique powers they have been given, particularly in London.

I hope that we can have a relatively short debate about this, and that we get commitments from the Government that they recognise that the introduction of this measure undermines the principle that you should first consult those who are most affected. I hope that the House will support this amendment; I should say that it is our intention to test the opinion of the House on this important principle.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment, together with those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and I fully support it. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, many of which I agree with, and there are some outstanding issues of principle which we debated earlier in your Lordships’ House but need to be restated.

Let us remember that Clause 12 was a late change; it did not appear until Committee in the other place. It changes the voting system without consultation, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said. I recall that when the referendum on the establishment of the Mayor of London was held, the voting system was part of that consultation, and it is dangerous when a Bill introduces at a late stage a change to the voting system which has been approved in a referendum of the people in that place. I urge the Minister to use great caution in doing that.

This is not just about London; it is about the elected mayors of combined authorities—of which there are an increasing number—the elected mayors of local authorities in England, and police and crime commissioners. Because it changes a system of support from the supplementary vote system, which requires more than 50% support at the ballot box, to first past the post, which does not require 50% support, there is a fundamental issue of principle. Why do the Government think it proper for an elected mayor to have such widespread powers over resources, but to be elected by possibly as low as under a third of those voting? When one considers the structure of our parliamentary democracy, with the number of MPs and the desire of political parties to win general elections with the majority of the seats—or if you think of the election of a council leader, who has to have the majority support of all councillors at the council’s annual meeting—it seems strange that, in England, mayors who do not have majority support at the ballot box are to be elected, yet they have substantial control over resources and policies in their area. In London there is at least an assembly, but in the other mayoral combined authorities there are no assemblies. The scrutiny function is not well undertaken within combined authorities in England. The Government may or may not push this through. When the noble Lord, Lord Collins, moves this to a vote, I hope the House will ask the Government to think again, because major resources should not be allocated to mayors on the basis of a minority vote in the ballot box, and almost certainly on a low turnout.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, pointed out that the Government have made much of the fact that 4.3% of ballot papers were spoilt in the last London mayoral election in 2021. That was up from 1.9% in 2016, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, identified the reason for the increase: the ballot paper had 20 candidates and it ran to two columns, and it was confusing. Had it been designed differently, the level of spoilt ballot papers would not have been as high as 4.3%. I hope the Government will think again.

The control of public money needs to be at the front of our minds. We could find that someone with a very low proportion of votes cast on first past the post ends up with substantial power and control over the spending of resources that exceeds his public support, and we might begin to wonder why.

Elections Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, this is a small group of technical amendments, and I will speak to Amendments 88 and 91 first. When I quoted Richard Mawrey of the elections court on Tower Hamlets earlier today, I referred to Mr Kabir Ahmed. He had actually changed the spelling of his name to ensure that it was impossible to trace him from his previous electoral background from one borough to another. It is not a common case. I checked with the AEA, and it said there was no requirement that people should use a standard name. This is a probing amendment to establish how we can go about ensuring that people validly put in genuine nominations and do not try to hide their background.

Equally, Amendment 91 concerns an anomaly which has already been dealt with by the Senedd in Wales—the use of commonly used names. It makes sense as it stands but in this regard I give credit to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, my colleague in room 23. Where somebody uses their given name, as per christening, they are not entitled to use it in terms of nomination papers. For example, Harold Wilson would not have been allowed to give his name as Harold Wilson and James Callaghan would not have been entitled to give his name as James Callaghan, because they were not “commonly known as” names but their middle names, and this is currently illegal. Therefore, all I am trying to do is to set right an anomaly which I am sure was never intended.

Moving on to Amendment 89, as my noble friend the Minister knows, during Covid we reduced the requirement for nomination signatures from 10 to two. I wrote to him on 17 January raising the possibility of extending this allowance—that we stick with two signatures rather than 10. If there are objections based on the fear that there will be large numbers of candidates because you have reduced the required signatures from 10 to two, first, it did not happen last year, and secondly, a better way of imposing a restriction would be to require a deposit rather than 10 signatures. I am dealing with these amendments briefly because I am conscious the House wants to make progress.

Of the two other amendments in this group, one deals with the curious anomaly of incorrect declarations. If, by chance, an inaccurate declaration of a result is made and the wrong person is declared elected, it is necessary to hold a by-election. That happens surprisingly regularly, virtually every year, even though people are aware of it. It is an unnecessary expense, and I am working on the basis that all parties would come to an agreement at the count that there had been a declaration error. I am conscious that even in a general election—as in West Bromwich at the last election, where we came very close to an error—incorrect declarations are regularly made. It is an anomaly that these declarations cannot be corrected at a count where all parties are in agreement. I just wanted to put on record that there ought to be a solution to that.

My final amendment in this group concerns something I touched on at Second Reading: the mess we have in electoral law, in that there are exclusions for police and crime commissioners which do not apply to local councillors, and which do or do not apply to Members of Parliament when standing for election. It seems logical to me that we should have the same exclusions for any election, not just a hotch-potch in terms of the requirements of exclusions.

I have covered the five amendments very quickly, and I hope I have done it sufficiently satisfactorily for people to understand the objectives. As far as I am concerned, most of them are probing amendments, but on Amendment 89, I really do believe that the reduction in the number of signatures from 10 to two for local government elections should continue to apply. I beg to move.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to comment on Amendments 88 and 89 because for me—and I have read quite a lot of the background—I fear they represent solutions in search of a very significant problem.

Amendment 88 requires the production of a birth certificate or a passport to secure nomination as a candidate. It is not clear to me what widespread problem is being solved by this, nor what problems might actually be created by introducing such requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has given one or two specific examples, but it seems to me that a solution which then requires every candidate to produce a birth certificate or a passport when they put in a nomination form is excessive. It is also not clear to me why a passport and a birth certificate have been selected as forms of identification but not a driving licence, which contains a name, or a national insurance number, behind which exists a name. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, because it does seem to be a proposed solution to a problem which is not that significant.

Amendment 89 would reduce the number of signatures for local nomination from 10 to two. I understand the circumstances in which, during Covid and the pandemic, the reduction to two was wise, because there were difficulties with people speaking to each other. However, in general terms, reducing the total number of signatures to two seems insufficient for nomination to elected positions that carry substantial responsibilities. I remain of the view that 10 is a better number than two.

Elections Bill

Lord Shipley Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a compelling Second Reading. I too extend a very warm welcome to the House to the noble Lord, Lord Moore, and congratulate him on his maiden speech.

Like many, I find this a worrying Bill. Some things in it are helpful and important, but it represents a missed opportunity. It seems to originate more from the self-interest of the Conservative Party, when it could have been about widening engagement and introducing significant constitutional reform.

In Germany, part of the new Government’s programme is to introduce votes at 16. Here, this was rejected in the other place on grounds that sound very similar to those used by the opponents of reducing the voting age from 21 to 18.

There is no attempt in the Bill to learn from Scotland and Wales, nor to discuss ways in which electoral divergences across the UK might be reduced by England learning from the positive experiences of the other home countries. That should include proportional representation for local elections in England.

Despite what the Minister has said, the Bill contains clear attacks on the Electoral Commission through the Government’s attempts to damage the standing and the independence of the commission from what seems to be its own narrow, party-political interests. We should not allow any Government to control the commission’s strategy, nor its policy priorities. It must be independent of any party and any Government, otherwise it simply becomes a government-controlled quango.

I said earlier that a few things in the Bill would be helpful in principle and subject to further discussion in Committee. I support proposed limitations on proxy voting. Digital imprints and online application services seem right. A three-year period for a signature on a postal vote to be valid before it is renewed seems right. I support the principle of regulations on undue influence and on preventing postal vote harvesting. However, we should reject voter ID at polling stations because, as many have said, it is a disproportionate response lacking evidence of the problem needing to be solved but which will, in turn, create other problems by denying some electors who do not have photo ID from exercising their democratic rights. I hope that the Minister will pay close attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said on this matter, because it could offer a way forward.

I am concerned by the Government’s wish that new EU citizens in the UK should be able to vote in local elections only through reciprocal arrangements. That means that most will not be able to do so unless the Government pursue reciprocal agreements more actively. If new EU citizens pay council tax, they will face taxation without any right to vote on the policies of their local authority. There is an issue of principle here, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, drew our attention. I would like to explore it further in Committee. Do we believe in the principle that there should be no taxation without representation?

Like many speakers, I have a very major concern in the late addition in the Commons of first past the post voting in mayoral elections and police and crime commissioner elections. The levelling-up White Paper talks of a further devolution of decision-making powers to local leaders, where it says that

“decisions are often best taken”.

It says that there will be a “new devolution framework” and a “revolution in local democracy”. That revolution seems to be mayors elected by the first past the post system, because the Government want an accountable local leader—one person with powers over a big geographical area and a large population. If that happens, I forecast that they will end up as part of Whitehall, because control will stay in Whitehall. There will be funding settlements with elected mayors forced to compete for funding with each other through a process which will be centrally managed by Whitehall and the Treasury. Crucially, there will be no powers over taxation, yet real power requires those levers.

So much for the revolution in local democracy. The Government have been keen to cite Medici Florence as an example to emulate. I can think of several very good reasons why this might be a problem, so I suggest that the Government consider instead the Basque Country and its success in regeneration, which results from very full devolution of responsibilities and decision-making involving private and public sectors working together, and with substantially more powers than the Government are currently proposing for England.

Let me ask the Minister a very specific question. Why do the Government think that a third of those voting being enough to elect a mayor with such significant powers but with no evidence of majority support is the right thing to do? London at least has an assembly. Why do the Government deny this opportunity to other parts of the country? In Committee we will have an opportunity to explore some of these matters further.