West Lothian Question

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that whatever the outcome of the referendum in Scotland, there is a pressing need for a more coherent, balanced and transparent settlement that is fair to England as well as the devolved nations? In the context of the report to which he referred, will he give a commitment that the Government will move forward rapidly, once the outcome of the Scottish referendum is known, to get changes made to resolve these difficulties?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord has not asked me about the Silk commission but he will be aware that we are still discussing the extent of devolution with the Welsh Government. He will also be aware that England is at the moment a highly centralised state. The Government are happily discussing with a number of cities devolution to major city areas within England. I remind the House that the population of the local authority area of Birmingham is slightly larger than the population of Northern Ireland, so this is an important question for England as well.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I am not sure that I do accept that. I am a member of the National Trust. Yesterday I received an e-mail from the trust which talked about the National Trust’s “vital” campaigning and advocacy work. I have to admit that I did not actually join the National Trust primarily in order to support its campaigning and advocacy work, but it regards that work not as an incidental part of what the trust is for. Noble Lords should look at the most recent announcement made by Oxfam. It is changing its internal organisation so as to put more stress on its campaigning dimension. Campaigning is at the centre of what Oxfam regards as its entirely appropriate charitable activities. Part of campaigning is, of course, lobbying Governments. I therefore do not accept that distinction.

We see the Canadian example as one that suggests overregulation, and therefore distinguish between professional lobbyists and consultant lobbyists. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and I were at a conference over the weekend. At one point we were both sitting with a senior executive from BP, and indeed one consultant lobbyist was there. I forgot to ask him precisely who his clients were, and perhaps I should have done. However, when you are talking to a representative of a company, you know who you are talking to and what you are talking about. I came away from the conference much better informed about BP’s involvement in the Southern Corridor pipeline project than I had been, and I trust that that will inform me in future discussions with those Governments through whose territories the pipeline will go.

Transparency is about knowing who these consultant lobbyists are representing. A number of amendments in this group address that point. The Government are not persuaded, but of course we are open to further discussions about particular areas where noble Lords feel that there is an overlap between consultancy and professional lobbying, although I do not entirely see how a particular lobbyist, being employed part time by five or 10 different companies, would somehow get around this legislation, as has been suggested.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

A little earlier, the noble Lord mentioned that the Government favoured a light touch. In case the light touch does not work as effectively as he or the Government expect it to, can he amend the Bill in any way as it goes through to provide for adjustments to be made that do not need further primary legislation? It will be years before we come back to this and if we do not get the outcome that many people wish to see, it will be a lost opportunity.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Horam, on an excellent and thoughtful maiden speech. We were, of course, fellow Members of another place—at least, intermittently so—between 1974 and 2001, during which period he had the highly unusual record of serving as both a Labour transport Minister and a Conservative health Minister. I respected him as someone who followed his personal convictions and was brave enough to do so when that meant reconsidering his party affiliation. He brings a breadth of knowledge with him to the Chamber and has done so today. He will undoubtedly contribute considerably to our debates in future. If he were ever again, in the fullness of time, to feel restless, there is always a warm welcome on the Cross Benches.

Turning to the Bill, I declare an interest as a patron or vice president of a number of organisations involved in campaigning on disability issues, including Mencap Cymru and Autism Cymru, details of which are in the register of members’ interests. I have grave misgivings about several facets of the proposed legislation, which seems to be a jumbled assortment of half-cocked ideas being rushed through Parliament without adequate consultation with those bodies which will be affected by it, particularly in the voluntary sector. It also seems to have a party-political agenda in the way that it aims to impose rules on trade unions in a manner which is perhaps geared to creating some mischief.

I first focus my remarks on the lobbying aspect of the Bill. Let me make two things clear. First, lobbying undertaken in an open, transparent and responsible manner is an essential ingredient of the democratic process. Secondly, it can be of great assistance to those in Parliament who have to address issues about which they may not have detailed personal knowledge or experience. Any restrictions placed on the ability of those affected by government decisions to present their case to decision-makers in the most effective manner is, I believe, an infringement of liberties. In the same way as those wishing to access justice through the courts need the help of professional lawyers, so those wanting to convey to Parliament and the Executive their opinions about proposed government action may need the help of professional consultants who know, from experience, the best way to get a message across to those in power.

I was a Back-Bencher for 27 years, and I know how valuable it was for me to have information presented coherently and concisely from both sides of an argument. It helped me to make an informed judgment on those many matters about which, inevitably, I did not have detailed personal knowledge. For example, when I was serving on a Standing Committee scrutinising European Commission proposals which impacted on economic, environmental and social dimensions in these islands, I could not have done my work without the help of such a consultancy, about whose assistance I obviously had to make a declaration, but that would not be permissible under today’s rules. Without that help, I could not have continued as a member of that committee, as the volume of paperwork that had to be scrutinised each week was enormous. I benefited from its research support, but I always made my own judgments, sometimes contrary to its perspective.

MPs are generalists. If they have specialist knowledge, it will be in only a small area of the wide range of policy on which they have to express an opinion. Responsible lobbying is an essential ingredient to make the legislative system work. However, it has to be responsible, and while the majority of lobbying consultancies no doubt undertake their work in a scrupulous manner, there is clearly scope for abuse. That is why we need a legislative framework within which they can operate, a framework which is open and fair to those wishing to influence decisions, one which applies to all lobbying organisations, one which is fair to the Executive and legislators who have to take decisions, fair to those who work in the lobbying industry and fair also to the general public, including those interests which may not command the resources to access professional lobbying but whose viewpoint may be equally valid. It is against the background of those considerations that I shall approach the details of the Bill at a later stage. However, I make it absolutely clear that I support a rigorous, transparent system of registration, provided that it is equitable and comprehensive. I believe that this is in the interests of lobbyists themselves as well as of the democratic process.

At this point I want to flag up two or three matters which cause me concern. First, there is a differential in this Bill with regard to the constraints placed upon Ministers and Permanent Secretaries on the one hand, and on MPs on the other. What is the position of a Minister who is approached in the context of his or her responsibility as a constituency MP? Again, do these constraints apply equally to Ministers and senior civil servants in the devolved Administrations? I support the point that the Bill should be wider in its application with regard to civil servants and, most certainly, policy advisors—the infamous spads.

Secondly, my main misgiving relates to the way in which voluntary organisations may seek to influence decisions so as to safeguard those on behalf of whom they campaign. To my mind it is unacceptable to regard these bodies as acting in a party-political manner and to constrain their freedom when they put forward a strong opinion on a matter which is in the political limelight, particularly at election time when policies are rightly under scrutiny. The testimony which many of us have received from the Royal College of Nursing is a case in point. I served for three years on its parliamentary panel, which was scrupulously balanced: two Conservatives, two Labour, one Liberal Democrat and one “odds and sods”, which included me. The RCN had a strong opinion, on behalf of its members, on government policy which impacted on the delivery of healthcare and associated services. It is not affiliated to the TUC, nor does it take any part in party-political arguments from a political viewpoint. It says in a briefing document which I imagine has been provided to most of us in this Chamber:

“We are deeply concerned by the provisions in Part 2 of the Bill, which will restrict the activities of organisations that seek to legitimately comment on and influence public policy in the run-up to a general election … As currently drafted, the provisions in the Bill may prevent us from raising important issues on behalf of our members if we reach the spending limit during the regulated period … The legislation would significantly restrict on the freedom of speech of organisations that have an essential and a legitimate role to play in a free democracy”.

Those are telling words that we should most certainly be taking on board.

The NCVO has stated,

“the Bill is incredibly complex and unclear. It may be difficult for charities and other voluntary groups to understand if any of their activities would be caught, and this runs the risk of discouraging campaigning activity”.

I urge the Government to suspend progress on this Bill after its Second Reading in order for there to be serious discussion on the advisability of progressing with Part 2 as it currently stands.

There are also sins of omission in the Bill. I see nothing here that will prevent political parties rewarding generous supporters with honours or even—it is alleged—appointment to this Chamber. When the two parties in government bring forward legislation to hamper voluntary organisations in the manner I have described, I believe it is quite cynical that there should be no tightening on those abuses within the political system. Parties plead that they cannot otherwise raise money to fight election campaigns, but there is a simple answer to that, which is to restrict the amount parties can spend on general campaigning in the same way as there are tight restrictions on spending on constituency levels, but that is not adequately covered in legislation.

Some would even advocate state funding of political parties as the answer to their cash-flow problems. To my mind, that would be an absolute outrage. At a time when vital services to vulnerable people are being cut because of the financial squeeze, it would be quite wrong to divert taxpayers’ money to prop up parties which cannot generate enough enthusiasm among their own supporters to fund their campaigns. Equally, there is a valid case to be argued that we must avoid having individuals and organisations buying influence from hard-up parties by contributing huge sums towards their campaigning costs. That is the balance that has to be struck and to which we shall undoubtedly return at later stages.

There are also questions relating to the way that this legislation impacts on the political process in the devolved legislatures of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the degree to which there has been political consensus with political parties and campaigning organisations in those territories in regard to the Bill. Is it the Government's intention to invite the National Assembly for Wales to introduce its own legislation in this field and, if so, will the Government ensure that the National Assembly benefits from a transfer of powers order to give it the necessary legislative power to deal with those matters? I hope that this House will improve the Bill significantly during its passage and that the Government will listen, particularly with regard to Part 2.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, whose stance on these matters over many years I have come to respect. I join the many others who referred to the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. I hope that the Government will listen very carefully to his wise words.

I speak on behalf of my party, Plaid Cymru, as well as for myself, in opposing any question of military intervention in Syria on the basis of the information—or rather, the lack of it—that we have at present. I would oppose military intervention in any circumstances without a specific United Nations mandate spelling out the legal basis for intervention, the parameters of any military action and the outcome that it was meant to secure.

I will address briefly three dimensions of the issue: the facts relating to the use of chemical weapons, the potential methods of intervention and the possible knock-on effects in the Middle East. We all condemn without reservation the use of chemical weapons. They can be just as gruesome as nuclear weapons—which, if we are consistent, we should also ban in the name of humanity. In the case of Syria, three questions arise. Have chemical weapons been used? The answer to this will be provided by United Nations investigators. Secondly, if chemical weapons have been used, who used them, and can be we certain of our facts in this regard? If we are, can we be equally certain about who ordered their use, and that they were not used on the orders of loose cannons using them for Machiavellian purposes?

With regard to intervention, we must surely be clear as to the specific effects of any proposed military intervention and whether any new scenario after such military action is sustainable. Frankly, when I heard American officials talking of lobbing in 100 cruise missiles—at which targets we were not quite sure—and of Obama talking about a rap across the knuckles, I was driven to the conclusion that the US does not know what it is trying to do. When I heard the Liberal Democrat leader on a BBC programme this morning being cornered into accepting that there may be many further steps, I shuddered to think where mission creep may take us.

Thirdly, there is the whole tinderbox of the Middle East regional fragility into which we may choose to fire those warning shots. One elects to throw a match into a powder keg at one's own peril. There are many extreme elements in that region who are just itching for the opportunity or excuse to fire their own warning shots or massively more at Israel. Goodness knows, there are those in Israel who would be only too glad to fire their own ultimate weapons of mass destruction as a lesson to their hostile neighbours. That scenario does not bear contemplation. One thing is certain. We should not fire random shots into a powder box. We should avoid that in order not to escalate to Armageddon.

Humanitarian considerations drive us to ban chemical weapons—and rightly so. Therefore, should not humanitarian dynamics also guide us in the way in which we respond to such weapons? Will not the course being pursued by the Government make it less likely, rather than more likely, that we can move towards political action and reconciliation? Will it make the Geneva II agenda more or less likely to progress? Will such action not escalate the humanitarian crisis, with a flood of refugees becoming a tsunami, which would cause the aid agencies immense difficulties? The NGOs just could not cope. Those humanitarian factors must surely also come into the equation. Should not any action which we take lead to the greater likelihood of a coherent road map towards negotiations? Do the Government seriously believe that firing cruise missiles as shots across the bow will increase the chances of such a road map emerging?

A child being slaughtered by chemical weapons or by cruise missiles is equally distressing for that child's father or mother. One random catastrophe triggered by a missile intended as a shot across the bow can have cataclysmic consequences, as did one shot in Sarajevo, a century ago. Have we learnt nothing from our mistakes?

Lobbyists: Register

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in lobbying provided that it is undertaken within a proper framework that is transparent and that, if done properly, it can serve the interests of Members of all parties in both Chambers? One thinks of disability lobbying, for example. Is it not in the interests of lobbyists themselves, as well as Members of both Chambers, that a new framework is introduced?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I could not have put it better on behalf of the Government, and I note the consensus on a cross-party basis to that effect. The noble Lord may have seen the story in the Financial Times yesterday to the effect that public affairs consultants are thinking of taking to the European Court of Human Rights the case that to submit them to a statutory register—but only those who are third-party lobbyists—would be an infringement of their human rights. I think that that will be an interesting case to try to get the European Court of Human Rights to take.

EU: Subsidiarity Scrutiny

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I am not entirely sure that I follow the logic of that. We are in an increasingly globalised economy. That economy requires increasing international regulation of one sort or another. We are in a constant situation of tension between international regulators—not just the European Union but many other international bodies as well—wishing to extend the process of regulation and national Governments, national Parliaments, local groups and other lobbies wishing to resist it.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the principle of subsidiarity is in many ways a difficult concept to get hold of, and of course it is highly political. There are those here who think that a number of things should be dealt with in Wales and Scotland and not at the national level, while I wish that the principle of subsidiarity was better applied in England than it is at present. This is part of the way we play politics between different levels of government.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, can the Minister clarify how this procedure works in practice, bearing in mind the comments made by the noble Lord with regard to the power being with the Chambers and not with the Government themselves? As the UK has two votes on the basis of being a bicameral system, one of which is allocated to this Chamber, what would be the outcome if there was a difference of opinion between the House of Commons and this Chamber? Would we have to defer to the House of Commons as it is the elected Chamber?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, no, we would not. It would be interesting if, for example, the House of Lords decided on one side while the House of Commons decided on the other. I think it is unlikely, but I should say that there have been occasions on which some national Parliaments have issued reasoned opinions objecting to particular proposals while one or two others have issued opinions that are strongly supportive.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hart of Chilton]

My Lords, this amendment and those grouped with it make a number of changes to Clause 6, which was inserted by this House in Committee. They are in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Rennard, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard and Lord Wigley. The Government have assisted with the drafting of these amendments to ensure that the meaning and effect of the new clause is entirely clear and effective, and I expect to hear that the Minister agrees with that.

Further, the secretary to the Boundary Commission for England has indicated to me that all four Boundary Commissions would welcome the changes made by these amendments to ensure that the Boundary Commissions are certain about what the legislation requires of them. Therefore these amendments make a number of changes to remove any ambiguity from the meaning of Clause 6 and generally to tidy up the clause while ensuring that it still achieves the intended outcome. There is no change of substance whatever, and I ask the Minister to confirm that he agrees.

In particular, this amendment amends Clause 6 to ensure that there is clarity on which electoral register is to be used by the Boundary Commissions in the boundary review and on by when the commissions have to report. It specifies that the Boundary Commissions must submit recommendations to Ministers not before 1 September 2018 and before 1 October 2018. Taken in conjunction with the provisions in the PVSC Act, it would be clear that the electoral register as at 1 December 2015 would be used in this review. The formulation of the amendment makes it clear that the current review, which is based on electoral register data as at 1 December 2010 is cancelled as the boundary review under the clause would be required to be based on data as at 1 December 2015. Again, I ask the Minister to confirm that this is his understanding.

The amendment seeks to ensure that the effect of Clause 6 is clear and that necessary consequential changes are made, and I ask the House to accept this amendment.

As to other changes made by the amendments, they provide, first, that the Boundary Commissions would not have discretion to consider inconveniences attendant on boundary changes as a factor when drawing up boundary proposals for the review that must report before 1 October 2018. The PVSC Act provides that the discretion to consider inconveniences would be disapplied for the purposes of the first review under the changes made by the PVSC Act. This is because there would inevitably be more inconvenience attendant on the first review under the PVSC Act as it reduces the number of constituencies from 650 to 600 and, for the first time, it applies equality of electors as the overriding principle in drawing up constituencies. As the boundary review under Clause 6 would, in effect, become the first review under the PVSC Act, it is appropriate that we disapply this rule for that review, in line with Parliament’s intention two years ago. Does the Minister agree?

Secondly, it amends Section 14(3) of the PVSC Act to provide that the review that this House called for into the effect into the reduction in the number of constituencies provided for under that Act is now scheduled to take place in 2020 after the 2020 general election, and not in 2015. The Electoral Commission maintains that it would make no sense to review in 2015 a reduction that would not—in the Bill we have to send to the Commons—take place before 2020. I agree with that. Does the Minister?

Thirdly, an amendment would ensure that Clause 6 would amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 on the timing of boundary reviews, instead of the PVSC Act. That is a technical drafting point.

Finally, an amendment would make a consequential change to the Long Title of the Bill to explain that it amends the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, very briefly, I support the amendments moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hart, to which my name is attached. I will not go into the details because they have been well explained.

However, it is quite understandable that when an amendment of the sort that was moved in Committee finds its way through to the Bill there are consequences that nobody has thought out. My understanding is that this will avoid further amendments being necessary in the other place and that this will therefore, hopefully, avoid ping pong occurring with the Bill.

I understand that the four Boundary Commissions—not only for England, but for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—also concur with the amendments. This is clearly a sensible way forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate that our understanding is correct and that this is helpful.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we had a lengthy debate on Clause 6 in Committee. It is well known that there are differing views within this House on the merits of that clause, and I do not wish to reopen the debate on it here today. The purpose of the amendment is to make changes to Clause 6, which this House added to the Bill in Committee, to ensure that the meaning and effect of the clause is clear. I hope that the whole House would agree that we should ensure that there is clarity about the meaning of provisions that we send to the House of Commons, and which could end up on the statute book, and that we improve the drafting of legislation when we are able to do so.

In the interests of ensuring well drafted legislation, we therefore welcome the noble Lord’s amendment, which seeks to remove any ambiguity from the meaning of Clause 6. In a matter as important as the setting of constituency boundaries, which is fundamental to our democracy, we should ensure that there is clarity over the rules governing the conduct and timing of boundary reviews and that the Boundary Commissions are clear on what the legislation requires of them.

There has, of course, been consultation about the drafting of this clause. I confirm, as the noble Lord, Lord Hart, has asked, that the Government’s understanding of the meaning of the amendment is exactly as he has described it. That is agreed.

The amendment would ensure that the effect of Clause 6 is clear, and that necessary consequential changes are therefore made. I urge noble Lords to agree to the amendment.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rennard]

My Lords, in the course of the Committee’s deliberations, it will become clear why I have considerable sympathy with what this group of amendments seeks to achieve. However, it is not right for the Electoral Commission itself to decide whether the arrangements for individual registration have been completed sufficiently well for the new system to be fully introduced and those registered only under the old system to be dropped from the voting registers.

A later amendment, Amendment 58, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tyler proposes to put this responsibility where it belongs—with Parliament. I accept, however, that many of us would in any event be properly guided by the Electoral Commission’s view as to the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register at the time. What is most clear to me is that we simply cannot proceed with elections and boundary reviews based only on the new individual election registration processes if the voting registers resulting from these new processes are significantly less complete than they are now. I discussed this very point with the former Minister, Mr Mark Harper, who said that he understood the difficulties of trying to conduct elections in 2016 if the voting registers were essentially “not fit for purpose” at that point.

There are of course important elections in 2016 to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and many English local authorities, as well as the next review of Westminster parliamentary constituencies, that should, under the terms of this Bill, be based on voting registers exclusively compiled on the basis of individual voter registration as at 1 December 2015. We cannot be sure at present that the new registration system will be working sufficiently by then. I should therefore be grateful if, later, the Minister could tell the Committee what consultation there has been with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Local Government Association over the major changes to electoral processes that are due to have come into effect in full by May 2016.

The debates on this Bill both in the other place and at Second Reading in your Lordships’ House have shown that the timing of full implementation is a matter of intense controversy.

[Lord Wigley]

Is the noble Lord aware of any consultation that there has been with the National Assembly for Wales on the implications of these changes for the next round of elections?

[Lord Rennard]

That is exactly my point. I am unaware of any consultation on this issue. I have asked a number of times by correspondence what consultation there may have been with the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the LGA, which is responsible for local elections. It seems that these bodies are unaware that, through the Bill, there will be significant changes to the electoral arrangements for those elections in May 2016. I believe that they should be aware of them and their view should be part of our consideration of this Bill.

As I said, the principle of IER is not really in dispute between the parties. All the parties agree the principle of it, and they agree that a household-based system is insecure, inadequate and leads to inaccuracy. However, the question is how you get from that system to a more secure and more rational alternative without losing from the register lots of people who are legitimately entitled to vote.

In that objective, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and I are all agreed, but the question is: what if we have not achieved our objective by 1 December 2015? I am convinced—and the Electoral Commission warns us of this—that there is a real possibility that we will not have achieved our objectives by 1 December 2015. Furthermore, I am convinced that the possibility of failure will be lessened if we do not in this Bill sign up to full implementation by then, irrespective of what progress is actually made on implementation in the next few years. In other words, a strong signal will be sent to government if they have to make this system work before it is fully implemented. I think that it would be invidious to expect the Electoral Commission, on its own, to push the “go” button on the final parts of the transition to IER. Therefore, to help to ensure that the stated objectives are met, I would prefer to see provision made to permit Parliament effectively to extend the carryover of voters from existing registers for a further period if, in the judgment of Parliament, the register is not in a sufficiently complete state on the basis of individual registrations alone. On that basis, we do not support Amendment 59, as we believe that there is a better, alternative approach, which we will set out when we reach a later group.

Turning briefly to Amendments 1 and 36, I should like to see the Electoral Commission reporting in this way, as it would inform our future debates. However, these reports themselves would be of little value if there were no possibility of Parliament providing for carryover to continue beyond 2015. Likewise, the capacity of Ministers to give guidance to electoral registration officers is of little value if the law says that electors on existing registers in their area should be removed from future registers, even if Parliament is not satisfied that we have been able to get a proper alternative registration system in place.

In due course, I hope that all concerned will accept that Parliament should have the final say on whether we are succeeding sufficiently well in our aims of having an accurate and complete electoral register before we exclude unnecessarily from the voting rolls perhaps several million people who will still be legitimately entitled to vote. We will not be able to make that judgment until we see how the new system is working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I apologise also for having missed Second Reading, for family reasons on that occasion. I will just throw in two or three examples of the dangers of fraud that have arisen from the comments of several noble Lords this afternoon and which any revision to the system must take into account.

First, whichever way a register is compiled, if it involves a canvass, those who are involved in undertaking that canvass could be open to pressure or could indeed be exerting influence. Forty years ago this year, I won a seat on a local authority by just some 50 votes out of a register of 8,000. To our great surprise, when the next register came out there was a reduction of several hundred voters in our ward. We attempted to see the correlation between our votes and those that had disappeared; there was something like a 70% correlation. What had happened was, yes, that forms had been dropped into every house, as they should have been, but in certain houses the knock on the door to pick them up was very light and they were not picked up. They had a right, of course, to take those forms in or to post them in but people did not do so. That was one avenue of fraud.

Another example, which noble Lords will be well aware of, is the pressure that is put on people with postal votes in a personal manner. In certain elections in my own area, I am aware of a motorcade following the postal van that was going around. As the postal votes were dropped, there would be a knock on the door: “Hello, Mrs Jones, can I help you? Do you want a witness? Do you want me to post this for you?”. The pressure that can be put on in that way obviates all the efforts that are made to ensure that we have a fair and reasonable system.

The third example that I would mention is, again, one that your Lordships will be very much aware of: the pressure that people felt at the time of the poll tax. Many people wrongly thought that there was a correlation between the right to vote and being on the register and there was a massive reduction in the number of people on the register. The outcome of the following general election was held to be because of the reductions in key constituencies that would have made a difference to that outcome. Often, as has been mentioned, those in private rented houses may have thought that they might avoid having to pay so much poll tax and were, in that case, avoiding being on the register. Other circumstances as well could lead to people wanting not to be seen at certain addresses. All these factors have to be taken into account when dealing with these sorts of changes.

I welcome the provision in Amendment 36, particularly its second half, to make sure that there is a relationship with the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly because there is a bearing on the elections that take place there, particularly in 2016. Careful thought needs to be given as to how things roll out in that year. However, we need to look even further at how we can ensure that the system is absolutely watertight.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we have almost been having another Second Reading debate. Since this is the beginning of Committee, perhaps I might be allowed to say a few general things before answering on these amendments. As a number of noble Lords have already said, across the parties we all share an interest in restoring as far as we can the accuracy and completeness of the register as we go through this transition. We also share the principle of that transition: that we should be moving away from a household system of registration dating from the 19th century, when only the head of the household was allowed to vote, to one which is much more appropriate to the more varied households and the different relationship between the citizen and the state which we have today.

Over the summer, I have talked to a number of electoral administrators and read a fair amount. I would like to say a few things on that. I was struck by the strength of feeling that some electoral administrators have about making a faster shift to individual electoral registration than the previous Government proposed. It is faster, cheaper and clearer but we all understand that how we manage the transition is key. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that the transition in Northern Ireland was a big bang; here, we are taking it over more than two years. We all share the interest in getting this right, which is what these and some later amendments touch upon.

I hope that noble Lords will have seen a couple of interesting pieces of research that were published over the summer. There was, for example, the article published by Parliamentary Affairs in August on The Quality of the Electoral Registers in Great Britain and the Future of Electoral Registration.

It states that,

“the estimated level of completeness of the December electoral registers has fallen since 1950: dramatically so over the last 10 years”.

In other words, we already have a problem. The completeness of the register has fallen quite remarkably in the past 10 years. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, said that he did not like the phrase,

“so far as is reasonably practicable”,

but that recognises that we may not be able to get back to the wonderful period of the 1950s when the level was up to an estimated 95%. However, we certainly hope to restore as far as we can a percentage in the high 80s rather than the one in the low 80s to which we are heading.

Another weighty piece of research, undertaken for the Government and published in July, is on Under-registered Groups and Individual Electoral Registration. Among other things, it states that the motivation to register is closely associated with the motivation to vote, which should be sobering for all of us. Those who are not interested in voting are, of course, not interested in registering either. That is one of the strongest correlations in lack of interest or resistance to registration. We all recognise that turnout has fallen during the past 25 years. Party membership has fallen remarkably during the past 25 years. That is a much wider issue, which we again all share, of regaining the confidence of our electorate and persuading people to vote.

Both pieces of research show some interesting things. Age is the biggest single differentiator of registration; social class is not—I say this to Labour Peers in particular who may worry that there is a real differentiation between classes. However, we know that housing tenure and frequency of moving are a major differentiator and that young people in private rented accommodation are the hardest group to get at. There is some evidence that recent immigrants to Britain—people who are not British citizens but are EU or Commonwealth citizens—represent a disproportionate percentage of those who are not currently on the register but should be.

There are also some large issues around social change which I have discovered in talking to people who are concerned with this. Doorstep canvassing was much easier a generation ago than it is now. Fewer people are in; both members of a household are working; or it is a single-member household and that person is out working. People actively resist talking to a doorstep canvasser and think that they are interfering. Among the reasons why we think the annual canvass will in the long run have less utility are precisely those sorts of social change. Gated communities are more common. We were told that 24,000 households in Wandsworth, many of them the new flats going up along the river, are behind gated entrances. All of us who deliver leaflets and canvass know how much more difficult it has become in recent years to get into private accommodation and blocks of flats. That also makes it more difficult to discover who is there.

There are difficulties of communicating with young people. I have been told robustly, not only by electoral administrators but by friends and other parents, that young people do not answer letters. In particular, young men do not even pick up letters addressed to “The Householder” or “The Occupier”; you have to get at them if you can via their iPhone because that is something that they are more likely to answer. That is one of the reasons why among the experiments which we are undertaking is the introduction of online registration. A number of noble Lords came to see the demonstration that we offered. That is clearly the direction in which we have to go, in particular to catch the younger generation.

Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Pupil Information by Welsh Ministers) Regulations 2011

Lord Wigley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, these regulations, which are being considered together with the Statistics and Registration Service Act (Disclosure of Value Added Tax Information) Regulations 2011, are the third and fourth uses of the data-sharing powers under the 2007 Act and the first time that the powers have been used by the current Government. The Welsh school pupils’ regulations make possible the sharing with the Office for National Statistics of data on individual pupils attending schools in Wales. The ONS is the executive office of the UK Statistics Authority, which is referred to in the legislation as the Statistics Board. The regulations follow those made in 2009 that allowed the ONS to access information on pupils attending schools in England.

Access to these data will enable the ONS to improve the accuracy of mid-year estimates and projections of population for local areas in Wales, to develop ongoing research as part of the Beyond 2011 programme, which is to consider possible alternatives to the traditional census in producing census-type statistics and to improve the assessment of the quality of statistics on schoolchildren from the 2011 census.

The other regulations being debated today allow the ONS to receive certain information provided to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in VAT returns. This will enable the ONS to improve its business and economic statistics and to reduce the burden on businesses, some of which will no longer need to supply this information in addition to other information through regular returns to the ONS. The data will also be used for economic analysis and to make improvements to various business surveys run by the ONS.

The regulations permit the sharing of a long run of VAT data submitted to HMRC on or after 1 October 1985 to provide a better economic understanding of the whole economic cycle. Data confidentiality and security arrangements are being assessed as a fundamental part of the preparation of the data-sharing agreement between the organisations concerned. The ONS already works to very tight confidentiality guidelines and has an excellent data security record. It has put the necessary measures in place to protect the data and to ensure that there is no disclosure of any personal information about specific pupils or businesses.

Section 39 makes it an offence for a member or employee of the authority, including the ONS, to disclose personal information it holds other than in tightly defined circumstances. Any unlawful disclosure could result in imprisonment and/or a fine. Both sets of regulations enable administrative data already collected by government to be further utilised but only for the purposes set out in the regulations; that is, for the ONS to improve the statistics it produces on the population and on the economy.

In summary, providing the ONS with access to data on Welsh pupils and businesses’ VAT data will lead to improvements in the accuracy of the statistics that it produces and to efficiencies which will benefit government and society as a whole. Better statistics will inform better policy making. I therefore ask the Committee to support and accept both regulations. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I have no intention whatever of objecting to these regulations, but I should be grateful for one or two points of clarification on the ONS regulations. First, I noted the emphasis placed by the Minister on data confidentiality, which obviously is central to all this. I note that in Regulation 2, the list of details about the pupil that will be made available excludes, of course, the pupil’s home address, presumably because of the dangers that exist. Yet, it includes the postcode. Certainly, with the name of Wigley and a postcode in my area, it would be fairly clear who that person is, although it may be more difficult with the Evanses and the Joneses. Given that, there cannot be a watertight assertion of data confidentiality.

My second point is in regard to Regulation 2(a)(vii), which refers to the,

“ethnic group and source of that information”.

I am not quite sure what is meant by the “source of that information”, but I imagine that it could be a matter for some consternation. Is the Minister in a position to tell me why? If not, perhaps he would be good enough to drop me a note about it because I realise that I may be splitting some hairs on these matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

My Lords, the Minister will be delighted to know that I do not intend to oppose or object to these regulations. I can see the relief on his face at that statement. I will make a few comments on the reasoning and the likely outputs, and just touch on the confidentiality point.

The mood of the Explanatory Memorandum seems to suggest that the Welsh regulation—I will only talk to the Welsh regulation—is to facilitate the Beyond 2011 Programme. It does not quite say it, but the language of the Explanatory Memorandum seems almost to suggest that the decision has already been made not to have the 2021 census. In this day and age there are probably three reasons for having a census. The first is as a source of information for decision making. I have looked at the Beyond 2011 Programme and the sense of trying to produce something of equivalent capability for decision making is there in the terms of reference, and that is good.

We have also moved on in what the census is used for. The census has become highly valued in our society for academics, for what it can tell us about history, for the insights produced by past censuses— I am not sure what the correct plural is—that the academics have been able to glean, and the extent to which many citizens of this country find great value in being able to look back into their past, their families and the history of their surroundings. I hope the Government have not made the decision to abandon the 2021 census yet, and I hope that in making that decision they will take all considerations into account, including those that are of value to individuals as well as to the decision-making bureaucracy. Perhaps I should say administration—I would not call it bureaucracy because I like administrations.

My second question is: what are they going to collect? The terms are probably well defined in some administration Act, but I would be grateful if the Minister would flesh them out a bit. The two things that stand out are the ethnic group and the source of that information, and what we mean for these purposes. My wife was foolish enough to buy some tickets to the Millennium Stadium, so I have to be partly Welsh in this. I am not sure whether Welshness is ethnic or not, but as sure as hell it is sensitive. Is a sense of Welshness or Celticness part of what is being gathered here, as well as other things? Clearly it is an important issue in the country. What do we mean by the “source of that information”?

The second area is what is almost the political correctness around asking about a pupil’s level of fluency in English where their first language is neither English nor Welsh. I see that if your first language is neither English nor Welsh, fluency in English is quite important. However, fluency in English is also important if your first language is Welsh, because in the United Kingdom the extent of fluency in English must be important information about the way people live in the wider community. We move about this land from Wales to England. If one is gathering information about fluency in languages, one should gather it comprehensively. We have a peculiar situation where, as I read it, if you are fluent in Welsh your fluency in English is not even a consideration.

[Lord Wigley]

Before the noble Lord leaves that point, I say that I go along with what he says on the need to ascertain fluency in English. However, given the growing importance of the Welsh language in Wales, would he accept that there would be an equal case for ascertaining fluency in Welsh?

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

I certainly see that the people of Wales might think that there would be an equal case—and because I am not a brave person, I would support that.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to a series of outputs. Paragraph 7.4(ii) refers to,

“differentiating migrants in order to improve our understanding of moves within and between local authorities in England”.

Once again, I am not clear what a migrant is. Is it somebody moving from Shropshire to Monmouthshire, or somebody with no connection to the United Kingdom who finds themselves in Wales as the first place they come to? Does it include somebody who comes from outside the United Kingdom who goes first to England and then to Wales? What level of granularity are we talking about when it comes to migration? Are we talking about small movements or larger ones?

Finally, I must say a word or two about confidentiality. The essence of much of the data-gathering law in this country is that it puts barriers between departments so that they cannot look at each other’s data, in order to maintain confidentiality. We then break down those barriers in order to use the data in a richer way. That is an entirely reasonable thing to do, but it is equally reasonable that whenever the barriers are broken down, as they are by these regulations, we should seek assurances that we are moving forward on confidentiality. It is no secret that there were unfortunate lapses under the previous Administration. I am absolutely sure that they were not in any way malicious. We acted in good faith and I am sure that this Administration, too, will act in good faith. However, have they made progress towards being able to assure us about improved confidentiality? Are there any new techniques, audits or penalties that will allow the Minister to say that confidentiality when this barrier is taken down will be even better than it was in the past? With those few comments, we are quite happy to support the regulations.