Carer’s Leave: Government Departments

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, that is a matter for colleagues across the Government. I have reported to the House the current situation. It may be no accident that the Bill has come forward but I undertake, as far as I can on behalf of my colleagues, that we will be as accommodating as we can be to that Bill.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the reason we see ambulances stacked outside hospitals and people unable to get ambulances is that there is inadequate provision of care for people at home, whether from their family or from elsewhere? Would it not be a good idea for the Cabinet Office to look at how we resolve this problem, which is resulting in people not being treated, blocking beds and not being able to access emergency services?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I think the Government should give attention to that. Regarding my being responsible for the Civil Service in this respect, it is a collective responsibility. The problem my noble friend refers to is one of which too many people are all too aware.

Houses of Parliament: Co-location

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My Lords, I was with the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, almost up to the end, when he proposed a retirement age for the House of Lords.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Declare your interest.

[Lord Fowler (CB)]

My interest is well known.

Seriously, first, I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on the way he proposed the Motion. I also congratulate him on the way that, over the years, he has fought, week by week for a long time and consistently, for the importance of this House. His contribution has been extraordinarily important.

After the Great Fire in 1834, there was year after year of delay before work seriously began on a new House. One reason for the delay was the shoal of alternative proposals that were continually made. We seem to be going down exactly the same path again, leading to exactly the same destination of indecision and delay. We should perhaps remind ourselves that the original official consideration of the renewal and restoration position was in 2014. There has never been any dispute about the action needed to be taken—the faults, the omissions, the appalling electrics in this place; the dispute has all been about how it is to be done, with every known solution put forward, the latest, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said, coming from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.

It is worth pausing on that because his proposal comes in two parts. The first is to change—“veto” is a better word—a proposition made by independent committee after independent committee that, if there is to be a total decant as changes are made, the House of Lords should find temporary accommodation in what is now the Queen Elizabeth II Centre. Years after the proposal was made and repeated in debate after debate, the current Secretary of State says that he is not content and will not allow it. Why? Well, one reason is that he has a commercial interest. That small section of the vast Environment department makes an income from running the building as a kind of convention centre.

It reminds me of one of the first decisions I had to make in the Government of Margaret Thatcher when we found that a nationalised body, the NFC, was running a removals company called Pickfords. We dealt with it, as my noble friend on the Front Bench will remember, but what is a public body doing running what is in essence a private-sector undertaking? It is a question that might be asked but, here, the question is even sharper. There is a limited number of venues where the Lords could take up temporary accommodation. It is not up to one Minister to put his department’s interests in front of what could be a national interest, and certainly a parliamentary interest.

We should think very clearly about what is being proposed here. Having set out on his path, the Minister had no option but to propose an alternative, and it appears to be to go for a permanent solution and move the House of Lords to, probably, Stoke-on-Trent. For 31 years, I was a Midlands Member of Parliament. I have nothing against Stoke as a city, although I must say for constituency reasons that I would favour Birmingham or Nottingham. I can see only one argument for such a system: that I would love to be there when the noble Lord, Lord True, goes up to Stoke to explain the hereditary by-election system to the people there. I am sure that they would listen with great interest.

What is proposed does not add up one bit to a levelling-up agenda. The public are not fools. They would see such a move as an empty public relations measure with a range of practical drawbacks, as has been set out in various papers. How would we organise Joint Committee meetings effectively? How would we organise all-party parliamentary group and party-political group meetings? Of course, I have no interest in such things any more, being on the Cross Benches, but there are all sorts of practical reasons that amount to the life of this Parliament, but which have not been considered one little bit. A vast number of questions require answers.

All kinds of public bodies have given their views on the proposal, and they have predominantly been against it. It is not just us in the House of Lords; it is those outside. The argument I found most convincing was put by an independent voice: Mark D’Arcy, a BBC political correspondent whom I think many of us know to be both independent and an objective observer of the House of Lords. He said that Parliament should not be divided by relocation, and that:

“Those moments in the chamber where a minister faltered and opinion crystallised against them are much more elusive if the minister is on a screen rather than standing at the dispatch box.”


I think we all recognise that as being the truth of the situation. He also said that

“question times with online participants are necessarily more scripted and less searching”,

leading to less effective challenging of Ministers. It all adds up to the fact that the major beneficiary of the change being put forward seems to be the Government—not just one Government but all Governments.

My fear is basically this: far from increasing the influence of the second Chamber with government, it will, by the policy of separation, decrease it. Out of the way, out of sight—that is the danger. It will make it much more difficult to hold Ministers to account and the only people who will be happy with that result are Ministers. Let us be clear: Governments, it is reasonably safe to say, do not like independent voices to cast doubt on their policies or oppose their plans—I hope that it is not too controversial to say that; the noble Lord, Lord True, might even agree with that one —especially plans that might have been forced through in the other place by Whips exercising the power of a big majority.

Current Ministers say that restoration of the Parliament building is of course purely a matter for MPs and Back-Bench Lords. One wonders, then, why Ministers such as Mr Rees-Mogg and Mr Gove are so eager to intervene and put their case on the record—and in one case close policy options. We started this process in 2014. A few days ago, eight years after that date, we had a new document, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster: A New Mandate. So we start again.

Basically, my view is this: for goodness’ sake, let us stop messing about. We need to keep to one course. What we do not want is to make this a botched project that shows the world—and make no mistake, the world will be watching our progress on this—how difficult it is for this country to make decisions and stick to them. Above all, we should recognise that we are one Parliament, not two.

Restoration and Renewal: Location of House of Lords Chamber

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the location of the House of Lords Chamber during the restoration and renewal programme.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)]

My Lords, restoration and renewal is a parliamentary programme and decisions on how to proceed are for Parliament. Both Houses are reviewing the programme’s shape and the commissions will jointly consider options and seek a revised mandate from both Houses. Further decisions, including on decant and location, would need to be considered by both Houses and debates are currently planned for before the Summer Recess. I repeat: the Government are clear that these decisions are a matter for Parliament.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend, so can we take it that Mr Gove was off doing his own thing at the weekend when he wrote to the Speaker on Friday evening to indicate that the Queen Elizabeth II Centre would not be available for us? Would the Government be kind enough to ask him to put in the Library the analysis of how he thought this would enable Parliament to function, if one House was sent to Stoke or somewhere else? Will my noble friend indicate what consultation Mr Gove carried out before he made this statement and just remind the Secretary of State, as he did in his Answer, that the location of this House is a matter for this House and not for the Executive?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I will not be tempted to follow speculation about what might have been the motives of a colleague in the Government in relation to a particular letter. The Secretary of State is always inventive, but I will repeat what I have said: that these are matters for Parliament.

Constitutional Reform

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat that we seek ongoing friendly and close relations with the devolved Administrations. Indeed, even in this regard, I know that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister for Levelling Up, the Union and Constitution met with the commission set up by the Welsh Government on constitutional matters. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that these contacts will continue.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, given that under the Barnett formula, Scotland receives very substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money from the rest of the United Kingdom, why are we not allowed to ask Questions in the Table Office about the huge losses—in ferries, airports and all kinds of weird and wonderful schemes—of hundreds of millions of pounds by the SNP Government? Why are they not accountable for taxpayers’ money in this House?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot answer that question: it is a matter of procedure. As to the Table Office, that is a matter for the House authorities. I agree with my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that the politics of the current Administration in Scotland leave a lot to be desired. It is notable that the Scottish nationalists do not send Members to your Lordships’ House, so we cannot hold them accountable in this Chamber, which is regrettable.

Lobbying of Ministers

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an allegation under privilege; perhaps she would like to repeat that outside the House.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend take this opportunity to pay tribute to the trade union movement and the fantastic job that it has done in lobbying Labour and Conservative Governments?

[Lord True (Con)]

I would indeed; I am quite old fashioned and I greatly respect the trade union tradition. I also respect the freedom of politicians such as Mr Ed Davey, who became a lobbyist immediately after losing his ministerial job in 2015.

Veterans’ Strategy Action Plan: Gambling Addiction

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

I am sure that my colleagues will take note of everything said in this House; I certainly promise the noble Baroness that. I remind the House, if anyone doubts this Government’s commitment, that it was this Government who set up the first ever dedicated Office for Veterans’ Affairs, to champion veterans in every respect, at the heart of government. We have an action plan and we will have a veterans strategy refresh, drawing on all the wise advice given by your Lordships and others, but I think the Government deserve some credit for what has actually been done here.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that the explosion in gambling addiction is a consequence of the Labour Government’s decision to change the law which previously prevented people promoting and stimulating demand for gambling?

[Lord True (Con)]

My noble friend puts me in a dangerous place. The Government’s answer—and it is right—is to undertake as comprehensive a review of the Gambling Act as there has ever been, and that will be pursued. My personal view, as a sports fan, is that I am sick and tired of gambling advertising being thrust down viewers’ throats.

Devolved Governments: Public Expenditure

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, as I said in my opening Answer, the Scottish Government are accountable to their electorate and to the Treasury here for how they spend their money. They have had a very generous settlement in the SR—an additional £8.7 billion went to the devolved Administrations, of which £4.6 billion per year has gone to Scotland. I encourage the noble Lord to keep his scrutiny up.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend realise that there has been a series of major financial scandals in Scotland, such as two ferries for the price of five? There is a whole series of examples of complete mismanagement of public money, and there seems to be no consequence. Following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, about the Barnett formula, the Scottish Government have the gall to blame Westminster for cuts in the health service where they fail to spend the Barnett consequentials on health that they have been given. There is no transparency. Surely the Treasury has a responsibility to ensure that transparency is given.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend that any wastage in government is extremely distressing, certainly to me. In October of last year, we reached an agreement with the Scottish Government to jointly commission an independent report covering the block grant adjustment arrangements. The independent report will inform a broader review of the Scottish Government’s fiscal framework later this year.

Health and Social Care Levy Bill

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

2nd reading & Order of Commitment discharged & 3rd reading
Monday 11th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who speaks with such authority on this subject. I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s determination to fix social care. However, this Bill does not do that. It is a bit like going into a restaurant and being presented with a bill for the meal before you have even seen the menu. I have to say to my noble friend the Minister, whom I admire enormously, that to speak for less than five minutes on a Bill of this importance to the economy and to millions of families—a Bill which has been rushed through for reasons that I still do not quite understand—says something about the relationship between government, the Executive and Parliament itself.

The Bill certainly will not fix social care but it will massively increase the regressive nature of the taxation system, because, as has been made clear, it will place the burden on those who have least, not those who have most. Way back in 2006, when we were in opposition, George Osborne and David Cameron asked me to spend a year of my life with some very able people of all political persuasions to produce a tax reform document. One of the recommendations was to look at merging national insurance with income tax. This is an absolute missed opportunity for those of us who believe we need a simpler, fairer, flatter tax system in our country.

I have a number of questions on the tax aspect. What measures will be in place to prevent people getting round these national insurance increases? I can see even now—well, I cannot actually see it, but I can imagine it—people in the City thinking, “Those bonuses we were going to pay in April, perhaps we had better pay them in March.” How will we avoid the loss of expected revenue? Will measures be brought forward to avoid forestalling?

I will concentrate on social care. The Economic Affairs Committee, which I chair, produced a report more than two years ago called Social Care Funding: Time to End a National Scandal. We set out a series of arguments. Since then, we have had a number of debates in this House on this subject. There has been unanimity across the House on the need to deal with this urgently. Since then, and in the run-up to the publication of that report, demand for social care has grown and grown—and not just among the elderly. One of the really frustrating things about this debate is that everyone seems to focus on the elderly. We are told that it is not fair that young people have to pay for the needs of the elderly, yet half the budget goes on people of working age; the demand from that group is growing as well.

Our report set out a number of questions for the Government. I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Bethell will speak later in this debate. At each and every debate, he has said that the Government will produce a White Paper but that they want to follow the recommendations of the Economic Affairs Committee and find a solution on an all-party basis, so that it is permanent and so we can move forward. This is certainly not an all-party solution. In case people think I have gone native, I also think it is a bit rich for the Opposition to keep criticising what the Government are doing, without putting forward their own proposals on social care.

In this context of increasing demand, our committee reckoned that it was necessary to spend £8 billion on social care just to get back to the standards of care that existed in 2010. This Bill aims to raise £12 billion, but that will not touch the sides of the problems which face the social care industry and the people who depend on it.

My right honourable friend the Chancellor said that it was a moral duty to ensure that the costs of this were met by an increase in taxation and not by borrowing. Personally, I think we need to think about how as a nation we can generate the wealth to meet our obligations to the elderly. If we are going to talk about moral duties, it is certainly a moral duty to ensure that there is a safety net below which those vulnerable people will not fall. And they are falling.

This Bill, and the Government’s proposals set out in that document, do nothing to address immediate needs. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, said, it is not clear how much of the £12 billion will actually go to social care. Last time we had an emergency payment for the National Health Service, it was £20 billion, and it disappeared into the health service. How much of it went to social care? Almost nothing. The entire cost of social care then was £20 billion. Some people refer to social care as the Cinderella service, but in this case, Cinderella never gets near to going to the ball. That is true of these proposals.

We are told that this will happen in 2023 and we are told that the Dilnot report is the answer. When our committee looked at Dilnot, we were concerned. If you have a cap on spending, the level at which the cap is set is very important, and £86,000 is quite high. Most people will, sadly, spend only three years in nursing care, so you would have to go pretty hard to spend £86,000. Does it apply then only to those who might spend a long period in nursing care? That is okay, but how will the £86,000 cap be calculated? Will we have an army of bureaucrats going through every invoice and every type of care provided in the course of a lifetime? No. I suspect—and the Government’s own publication hints at this—that it will be calculated on the basis of what the local authorities would have paid. But we know, and our report pointed out, that the local authorities’ rates are being subsidised by self-funders, who are sometimes charged as much as 40% more than the going rate for the local authorities. That is not to blame the local authorities; they do not have the money, so they try to squeeze.

What is the solution put forward for this? It is that everyone, even if they are a self-funder, can have their place found by the local authorities. That will not provide the revenue for the people who run the nursing homes. As a result, the nursing homes are going to disappear. Indeed, it is already happening that they favour self-funders because of the differential.

When we started our report on social care, I was attracted to the idea of a cap because the insurers would then be able to come in behind it. It will not work, however, because of the size of the cap and because, on the whole, people will not buy insurance for something they think will not happen to them. It is hard enough to get them to invest in pensions, when they know—or hope—that they are going to get old. They do not hope that they will require care in a nursing home or elsewhere.

The most chilling thing of all—because none of this money will be allocated to social care in the short term—is that it will all be left to local government. Over the weekend we heard the hints that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, mentioned: that local government will need to pick up the strain here. It does not have the money. If it goes on the council tax, that will be even more regressive and damaging and will introduce a postcode lottery for care. The sad thing is that some of the local authorities with the broadest tax base have the least demand, and those with the narrowest tax base have the most demand. There would therefore be inequality. Building up? This is building down. A postcode lottery would be the consequence.

What will the Government do to fulfil the Prime Minister’s promise to fix social care? I have been watching the Brown-Blair films, and there is a bit where Gordon Brown is alleged to have said to Tony Blair: “You have stolen my”—expletive deleted—“Budget”. I have a feeling that the Chancellor’s Budget has been stolen a bit here, because we have a commitment in this respect, but where are we on local authority funding? If we are really to fix social care, I assume that the Chancellor will make a very generous settlement to local authorities in order for them to provide the means they need to deal with this problem now. I hear someone saying it is unlikely—have faith.

If the Government really want to fix social care and are committed to the Dilnot solution, why on earth are they not doing it now? The legislation that provided for Dilnot was passed in the Care Act 2014—seven years ago. It is there on the statute book; they could do it now. What we are seeing here is a bit of: “I need money for the health service and I need money for social care. Let’s think of a number that’s not quite big enough, and we’ll say that we’ll do it first for the health service and then social care will get it.” If you believe that, you will believe anything, because the truth is that the National Health Service needs that £12 billion and, three years on, the money will not be available—just like the £20 billion put in before, as I mentioned.

I have a question for my noble friend: is domiciled property to be included in the means test for domiciliary care? At the moment it is not. If it is, it will create a huge incentive for people to go into nursing homes and a real unfairness for people who wish to be cared for in their own homes.

I did a few calculations, in case my noble friend thinks I was being unfair about the regression. If you are an average worker on an average wage and are paying the basic rate of income tax at 20%, and you work that little extra to create that extra £1 of value, 20% of that disappears in income tax, 13.25% disappears in national insurance and your employer has to give up 15.05%. In other words, 48.3% of every £1 disappears—and we wonder why our productivity is low when those are the incentives. I do not believe that national insurance was the right tax to use to achieve the purpose that the Government intend.

Of course, it is too late to say that now. We cannot change it in this House; we have to leave it to the House of Commons. A decision has been taken, but it is for the Government to fulfil the Prime Minister’s promise to fix social care and that means looking at the resources provided to local authorities, which have been absolutely heroic. My bins get emptied once a month now. Almost every service has been cut to the bone in order to try to help those people needing care. We look forward to the Budget at the end of the month and the fulfilment of the promises that have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, more detail will be set out in the Budget and spending review in the next two or three weeks to address the noble Lord’s question.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, my noble friend Lord Bethell and the right reverend Prelate asked about help for carers specifically.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

I apologise. My noble friend was about to answer the question on domiciliary care.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

Yes, sorry. I lost my thread. There will be no changes to existing procedures.

Noble Lords asked about support for unpaid carers. Of course, they play a vital role in the care system. I suspect that there is hardly anyone here in the Chamber who has not been involved in the care of their parents at the end of their lives on an unpaid basis. I certainly had to—but luckily I am one of seven siblings and we all live in the same county. None the less, it is a considerable burden.

The Care Act encourages local authorities to support unpaid carers and to provide preventive care to stop people’s early care needs escalating. A new cap on care costs will offer greater certainty to unpaid carers and support informed decision-making and planning for the overall costs of care.

The Government will take steps to ensure that the 5.4 million unpaid carers have the support, advice and respite they need, fulfilling the goals of the Care Act. We will work with the sector, including unpaid carers, to co-develop more detail in our plans and will publish further detail in the White Paper for reform later this year—and on the matter of the White Paper, I say to noble Lords that it is not long now. It is only a couple of months; it has been promised before the end of the year, and I am perhaps a little more optimistic than some Members of the House.

Devolved Administrations

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords, I do not agree, and I do not believe we should accentuate divisions within our United Kingdom. We are working with the devolved Administrations to develop an approach to how we consider the UKIM Act’s market access principles. For the union to thrive, we must respect devolved Administrations and their powers—but this Government will not abdicate their responsibility for the United Kingdom as a whole.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, since 2007 health spending in England has gone up by 25% in real terms. In Scotland it has gone up by 10.8%, because the Scottish Government have not spent the Barnett consequentials of health increases on health. At the same time, they are blaming Westminster for so-called cuts in health expenditure. How is it possible to have a constructive relationship with a Government who are so dishonest and are determined to destroy the United Kingdom?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, as a proud and passionate native of Scotland, my noble friend brings pertinent facts before your Lordships’ House. I cannot answer for the actions of the Scottish Government, but I say to them—and indeed to everybody—that now is the time not to stoke divisions but to focus on what unites the people of Scotland and all of us around the rest of the United Kingdom.

Standards in Public Life Report

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I have already indicated to the House that the Government will study very carefully the interim findings of this report. I underline what I say every time I come to this Dispatch Box: I, and indeed the whole Government, attach the highest importance to high standards of probity in public life.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend share my concern about the precedent created by a former special adviser making money by selectively leaking, on a subscription website, inside information obtained while he was employed by the Government and trusted by colleagues? How can good government continue if this kind of outrageous behaviour is to be tolerated?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I think that many will pay attention to my noble friend’s words, as ever. I will not comment on individuals but, as we set out last week, we expect all current and former advisers to act in full accordance with the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. This includes full accordance with its ACOBA provisions. Both the Cabinet Office and ACOBA are able to offer advice to current and former employees to help fulfil these requirements.