House of Lords Appointments Commission
Debate between Baroness D'Souza and Lord True(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D'Souza
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of recent press comments, what plans they have to alter the role or composition of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the minister for his Answer.
The Burns report, commissioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was warmly received in this House and by the Government of that time. Its recommendations included a limit to the number of Peers appointed to the House of Lords and changes to the authority of the House of Lords Appointments Commission. Will the Government now undertake to be guided by these recommendations, or are they to be abandoned?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have answered on a number of occasions in relation to the Burns committee. On the specific question of whether the Government have plans to alter the role or composition of HOLAC, I repeat: we have none.
House of Lords Reform
Debate between Baroness D'Souza and Lord True(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, reducing the size of the House is clearly the most urgent issue. That said, would the Minister agree that there has been a fall-off in the courtesies normally observed by the House, including in participants’ failure to attend the greater part of debates, the conventions of respect towards the Lord Speaker and Deputy Speakers and forgetfulness about registering relevant interests? Furthermore, does he agree that these issues contribute to the public’s negative view of the work of this House?
Lord True (Con)
I would not agree with those generalised comments. I believe that all of us should be mindful of our manner of behaviour and our manner in referring to and engaging with each other. I do not believe that making comments in general terms about the weakness of this House necessarily improves its reputation. One of the most remarkable things about this House is that last night 467 of your Lordships were following and voting in a debate on the Republic of Cameroon, rather than watching the England and Germany match. Nothing can be wrong with a House with such a deep attachment to its public duty.
House of Lords: Size
Debate between Baroness D'Souza and Lord True(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
I am certain that my right honourable friend respects the role and place of your Lordships’ House, as, I believe, for all the difficulties that there have been at times, previous Prime Ministers of all parties have. It is reasonable that the House of Lords has been refreshed. As long as it is a nominated House, that should remain the case. On the question of 600 Members, which is often mentioned, I remind your Lordships that there have only been two Divisions in your Lordships’ House since 2015 in which more than 600 people voted.
Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is long accepted that the House of Lords is a self-regulating Chamber. Does the Minister therefore agree that the House can itself implement its collective wish that the number of participating Peers be limited?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, this was brought up in a previous exchange, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme. The problem with the proposition posited by the noble Baroness is that an unelected House should determine who should become its Members and how many there should be. I am afraid that this is a House of Parliament, not a gentlemen’s club and the membership of the House must, at the end of the day, have political accountability. The line of political accountability goes to the Queen’s principal adviser, who is the incumbent Prime Minister.
Constitution, Democracy and Human Rights Commission
Debate between Baroness D'Souza and Lord True(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
I think that on reflection the noble Lord will think that he does a disservice to those serving on the Independent Review of Administrative Law, those reviewing under Sir Peter Gross the operation of the Human Rights Act and indeed Members of both Houses on the Joint Committee when he characterises them in that way.
Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, the broad and radical mandate of the proposed commission would indeed be better managed in bite sizes, as the Minister has suggested. Do Her Majesty’s Government have plans to expand the deliberative democracy initiatives that they have so far sponsored in Dudley, Cambridge and the Test Valley?
Lord True (Con)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s support for the approach that I have outlined. On her specific question, I cannot give a commitment on that at the Dispatch Box now, but I will repeat what I have said to the House: other workstreams on constitutional review will be announced in due course.
House of Lords Appointments Commission
Debate between Baroness D'Souza and Lord True(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend. The question of the resourcing of political parties is a vexed one, as noble Lords know, and has affected all political parties. I cannot comment on contact between the Prime Minister and HOLAC but I can say that the chairman of HOLAC has written to the Public Accounts Committee on the matter—that is on the record—and the Prime Minister, with full transparency, has placed his own letter on the public record.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, having long supported a statutory Appointments Commission, I accept that it may be difficult to define criteria such as propriety in precise legal terms. Certain financial transactions, for example, while reprehensible, may be entirely legal. So would the Minister agree that extending the remit of the independent commission to include a thorough assessment of the competence and/or appropriateness of a political nominee would be helpful to regain public confidence?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, I do not accept the charge of a lack of public confidence in this relation. The role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission is unchanged; it makes observations and gives advice. The commission’s role is advisory, and the Prime Minister has said that he places great weight on its careful and considered advice and will continue to do so.
Summit of Democratic Governments
Debate between Baroness D'Souza and Lord True(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D'Souza
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for convening a summit of the governments of the 10 leading democracies in spring 2021.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, our G7 presidency will convene a number of democratic nations next year, building on the G7’s shared values as democratic and open societies. This is part of a year of UK international leadership. The Government do not currently plan to convene an additional summit of 10 democracies in spring 2021.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. It is likely that global Britain will be in want of an international role following the end of the transition period. The UK still has considerable convening power, as shown by the recent joint letter signed by the UK, Canada and Australia on events in Hong Kong. Surely a transatlantic and transpacific democratic alliance could have a synergistic effect in tackling major problems such as climate change, building 5G, security, corruption and human rights. This would aim to be not an “anti” group, but rather a co-operating bloc to deal with specific issues and become something positioned between liberal naivety and the Cold War. Will the Government consider establishing an informal but influential network of democracies such as the G7, together with India, South Korea and Australia, to present a common front in upholding the rule of law?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, of course I agree with the sentiment of the noble Baroness. As she says, the UK works as part of a vast range of different multinational organisations, from the G7 and G20 to the Commonwealth, NATO and dozens of others. The membership of each group individually is limited, but taken collectively they mean that the UK partners with a great number of countries in one format or another. That will continue to be the philosophy guiding us forward
Council Tax Valuation Bands Bill [HL]
Debate between Baroness D'Souza and Lord True
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to make two things absolutely clear. The first is that the question before us is not whether there should be a principle of higher rate bands within the council tax system. There are perfectly legitimate arguments either way on the point, and this Bill specifically does not address it, although it touches on the question. In my submission, any such proposal should be brought forward as part of a wider reform of council and property tax proposed by whoever is in government at the time, so that is not a principle or a reason for either opposing or supporting the Bill.
The second point is one I made clear at Second Reading. It is also not really about the narrow principle of whether the point of sale of a house should be used for upgrading council tax or changing the banding of a property. That is an interesting and ingenious proposal by my noble friend which might or might not be considered, but again it would have to be considered in the light of all the consequences and in the context of reform. My noble friend has perfectly understandably put forward a Bill that touches on those questions, but from my standpoint there is an unfortunate issue. I declare an interest as the leader of a local authority in London with an extremely high number of higher banded properties and higher value properties. I saw in the Evening Standard earlier this week that 400,000 properties in London alone are valued at more than £1 million, but they are not necessarily occupied by wealthy people. I can testify to that in my area, where property is very highly valued.
I have made the point in other debates in your Lordships’ House that at the moment we have a very artificial market in property where, because of the policy of effectively printing money and depressing interest rates, capital values are excessively high, and even more so in London because of a huge inflow of capital from abroad. Therefore a lot of people, particularly in the London area, find themselves trapped in high-rated properties which was not necessarily the case when they moved in. That is another factor in the background.
The question before us is whether it is wise to put on the statute book this Bill and its proposed mechanisms. In my submission, the answer is no, and I shall seek to persuade noble Lords of that, although I am sure that they will be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say. In seeking to remove subsection (1), I am addressing a number of questions that are serious and problematic.
The first is in a sense a minor point, but it has been drawn to the attention of noble Lords by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. What regulations does my noble friend have in mind? The committee has pointed out that the Secretary of State already has the power to alter valuation bands and proportions. This point needs to be clarified, and I agree with the committee that if orders are laid under this Bill, they should be considered under the affirmative procedure. That is because the way the Bill would work would be strange and very difficult for local authorities to operate.
I know that my noble friend disagrees with me on this, but the introduction of legislation that takes a value from 2000—the worst-case scenario that he cites—to replace a value set in 1991, as under the current system, is retrospective and perpetuates the anomaly. If council tax is based on 1991 values, I am not sure how that issue is addressed by introducing a system based on values at 2000. That was 16 years ago and over that period there have been many changes in housing values both up and down. At the moment we are in a boom. I am therefore unhappy about the idea of enhanced bills plonking through the letterboxes of people who bought a house 16 years ago; some may well be elderly widows. I know that elderly widows always come up in our debates, but they actually exist: property rich but cash poor. I see this proposal as retrospective and potentially very troublesome.
The second point arising from Amendment 1 that I would like my noble friend to explain is this. What does he mean by “bought or sold”? We touched on this briefly at Second Reading. As it is written, the Bill would apply simply to the act of purchase or sale, whereas the Explanatory Notes refer to “changing hands”. Properties can change hands in many ways other than through being bought or sold. They may be inherited. If a spouse or partner dies, a new title of ownership may be issued when, as happens in most cases, the property is transferred to the surviving partner. For inheritance tax purposes, a value of that property would be established and would have to be vetted. Does my noble friend see that sort of transfer or one for inheritance tax purposes being captured by his Bill, or not? As drafted, the Bill simply refers to purchase and sale. This needs to be clarified by amendment on Report if this Bill is to go forward.
It may not be necessary to go through all my amendments because it might be possible to cover several of them in this debate. However, my third point is that the proposition of the Secretary of State setting out the new set of bands in the Bill would sit alongside the existing set of bands, so all local authorities would need to operate two sets of council tax bands, which is an administrative burden in itself. To operate the second band, they would have to access real-time data from the Land Registry. I do not know whether my noble friend has consulted the LGA—it would be interesting to hear in his response—but the technical capacity for scooping those data for every real-time sale from the Land Registry does not currently exist. There would be administrative costs and, potentially, IT costs to make this double system operate.
I have a further point. These are all practical points that need to be addressed—we are making proposals for legislation here; this is not a jolly idea that one discusses over the farm gate. My noble friend’s proposition would produce a system where people living next door to each other could pay wildly disproportionate amounts of council tax at the upper ends of his register. That is not a justifiable or sensible way to go forward.
If we are to reform council tax—I repeat, that is not the subject before the House on this Bill—it surely cannot introduce more anomalies and more perceived injustices, as this would. Personally, I have spoken strongly against the excessive rates of stamp duty we have at the moment. My right honourable friend the Chancellor is going too far in that and it is having a distorting effect on the market. Where people risk going into a much higher rate of council tax simply by moving from one road in one area, from the preserved band into the new band, my noble friend risks creating even further distortions in the property market, which is already absurdly rigged by the many interventions of the Government, and there are obviously risks of fraud, disincentives and all the other things that happen. That can also apply to the transfer of title.
I hope that my noble friend will not proceed with this legislation. I understand the principles, but I had hoped that he would have been persuaded of this after Second Reading. If he wishes to proceed, this will need very radical amendment that will go into much greater detail than I have been able to set down in Committee to enable debate in your Lordships’ House. We would need very substantial amendment on Report after having benefited from advice from the Government and the local government bodies.
I understand where my noble friend is coming from, but this is not a good Bill to put on to the statute book. I do not intend to divide your Lordships’ House—that is not something one would wish to do—but I hope that my noble friend will be able to give a little more clarity and may be prepared to reflect on some of the points I have put forward. As I say, I am not ruling out a debate on higher bands, nor discussion on one of the mechanisms he has put forward. I just think it is difficult in the way he proposes it will operate. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 2, 3 and 4 by reason of pre-emption.