We’re getting close to the end of the Parliamentary cycle now, as the Labour Government strives to get as much of its legislation through as it can before the House rises in anticipation of a King’s Speech in early May. And there’s much to keep Peers busy this week.

Bills

Today sees Day 3 of the Report Stage of the Pension Schemes Bill. Monroe Palmer will seek an amendment requiring the Government to report on the impact of market consolidation on competition and new market entrants within a year. Also, John Thurso seeks to make provision for lump sum payments from the Pension Protection Fund to persons who qualify for an increase in periodic compensation for pre-1997 service to compensate for unpaid increases in the years since the failure of the pension scheme.

On Tuesday, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill has the first day of its Report Stage. As a parish councillor, I fret about Section 60 of the Bill, which talks about “effective neighbourhood governance”. Given this Government’s seeming lack of respect for Town and Parish Councils, there is a fear that such arrangements will circumvent an existing and continuing tier of government, in favour of their fetish for “strong leaders”. Cathy Bakewell has an amendment in to make “rural affairs” as an area of competence of strategic authorities, whilst John Shipley wants to insert a requirement for Community Empowerment Plans. In addition, Robin Teverson is moving amendments to effectively ensure that Cornwall isn’t merged with, say, Devon under one combined authority. There will be a second day set aside for the Bill on Thursday.

Peers will be busy on Wednesday, with the Third Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill, plus “ping pong” on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, where Opposition Peers will decide whether or not to have another go at persuading the Government to accept their attempted amendments.

In addition to the second day of the Report Stage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, Thursday is set aside for any extra time needed on the Pension Schemes Bill.

If it’s Friday, it must be the now surely doomed Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Despite the accusations of filibustering, this isn’t quite as simple as that. One Peer has described what is happening not as a small group of individual Peers talking out the Bill, rather it is a significant number of Peers wanting to speak despite often making the same points. The only real positive I could draw from this is that the House of Lords is never actually going to get to a point where it votes down the legislation.

Oral Questions

There are currently three Oral Questions scheduled from the Liberal Democrat benches:

• Robin Teverson on steps the Government are taking to facilitate the repowering of onshore wind farms;
• John Lee on what assessment the Government have made of the effect of companies holding their annual general meetings solely online on individual shareholders’ ability to hold directors to account.; and,
• Caroline Pidgeon on the Government’s plans to make public transport fully accessible.

Debates

Two Liberal Democrat sponsored Debates take place in Grand Committee on Thursday:

• Paul Scriven on ask the Government’s assessment of (1) the use of reasonable adjustments for, and (2) the safety of, people living with learning disabilities when accessing health and social care.
• Angie Harris on their assessment of the United Kingdom’s civil preparedness for war.

And finally, something from last week. Following a statement from the Government on the launch of a national conversation on how we will build and use digital ID as the means to access public services digitally on a mobile phone or computer, Tim Clement-Jones outlined the Liberal Democrat response;

The Chief Secretary told the Commons on Tuesday that he was continuing the proud Labour tradition of building public services for the many. He invoked the NHS, the Open University and Sure Start. It was a stirring lineage. But there is history he omitted: Verify, which wasted over £220 million; GOV.UK One Login, for which the Cabinet Office sought up to £400 million; and now this national digital ID, which the OBR estimates will cost £1.8 billion over three years. This, indeed, is Verify 4.0.

The Government have confirmed that possession of a digital identity will not be compulsory. We on these Benches opposed mandatory digital ID at every turn, and I am pleased to say that the Government have listened. My honourable friend Lisa Smart MP pressed the Chief Secretary directly in the Commons last week and received his wholehearted assurance. He continued to claim that using digital ID will be entirely optional. So, I ask the Minister in this House, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in the Bill the Government intend to bring forward later this year? How can we trust any Government on how personal data, once surrendered to the state, will actually be used?

* Mark Valladares is the Monday Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and its occasional Lords Correspondent.