House of Lords
NHS: Walk-in Centres
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many NHS walk-in centres have been closed or had their opening hours restricted since May 2010, and how many are scheduled to close or have their opening hours restricted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, since 2007, the local NHS has been responsible for NHS walk-in centres. It is for primary care trusts to decide locally on the availability of these services. No information on walk-in centre closures or opening hours is held centrally.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I was expecting that response. Will the Minister acknowledge that these closures will channel, unnecessarily, patients towards accident and emergency departments at times when GP surgeries are also closed? This will almost invariably increase NHS costs in the medium term. Or is the Government’s strategy to blame local clinicians for cuts in NHS services?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Government’s clear policy is that people should be able to rely on high-quality, 24/7 urgent and emergency care that is right for them, when they need it. That is our starting point.
I say to the noble Lord that since walk-in centres were invented the array of services available to patients has been considerably enhanced. It is not just a case of going to an A and E department as an alternative. There are now many GP health centres, minor injuries units, urgent care centres and, in the extreme case, ambulance services, so I do not necessarily accept the premise of the noble Lord’s question.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have a colleague who went to the Victoria walk-in centre and found it closed? She went, in the end, to St Thomas’s. The whole procedure took her four hours. She had a urinary infection. Many of the people who go to these centres are working people who come up to cities and are away from their home environment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the experience of the noble Baroness’s friend. I asked my officials to let me know which walk-in centres were available within striking distance of this building. There are, in fact, five NHS walk-in centres in or very near central London. I am aware of another privately run centre as well. A quick search on NHS choices will bring you to a menu of options.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, will the Minister tell me whether all general medical practitioners have surgeries where you can walk in at some time of the day? That would take quite a load off people. Is that an obligation? My practice has this and it is marvellous. You can go in at 8.30 on any morning and will be seen if you are an emergency. Is that common? Is there a need for more of that?
Lord Harrison
Does the Minister share my surprise that data are not available for the number of closures of such walk-in centres in the past two years?
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, no one doubts the worth of walk-in centres or minor injury units. It is well established, but we need to know where they are. Will the noble Earl tell the House how often the information on the Department of Health website is updated? Who is responsible? Will he please pass on the message that it is woefully out of date and inaccurate, thus defeating its object?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, reverting to the earlier question about access to GPs, I hope that the NHS and the Minister will have information on the length of waiting times for patients to see their doctors. Indeed, we had questions on this issue earlier in the year. What steps have been taken to reduce the ever-increasing length of waiting lists to see doctors, particularly in the London area?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. I am aware that in certain parts of the country there is considerable concern about the length of time that patients sometimes need to wait for a GP appointment. However, that is not the case all over the country. We expect GP practices to configure themselves so as to ensure that the waiting time is kept to a minimum. It is an area on which we are working closely with the profession to resolve.
The Earl of Sandwich
The Minister knows that there are patients who are suffering acute symptoms from prescribed-drug addiction and withdrawal, as well as from taking illegal drugs. Some of those people are in great distress. Where should they go now in the NHS if they suffer these acute symptoms?
Police and Crime Commissioners: Elections
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the likely turnout in the elections for police and crime commissioners.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, the election of police and crime commissioners will be one of the most significant democratic reforms of policing in our lifetime. We want and encourage everyone to have their say and we are confident that come 15 November the public will not only be aware of the elections but will have the information that they need to make their choices.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to his new role at the Dispatch Box and look forward to many long and interesting discussions with him. However, I found his Answer somewhat disappointing. The Reform Society fears an 18.5% turnout for these elections. That is not surprising, given that the elections will be held in November when it is cold, wet and dark, and that the candidate information has been made available online instead of in the normal leaflets for every household, as in similar elections. May I press the noble Lord on this point and ask him what level of turnout he would accept as evidence that the Government have respect for the police and the candidates and that this is a serious policy and not something dreamt up on the back of an envelope?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The noble Baroness is very kind in her welcome, and I am grateful for that. The whole point of the information campaign is to make sure that the public are in a position to make a proper choice. For this election, the Home Office is setting up a website on which all candidates will be able to post an election address—and, if they wish, there is a call-line as well. All this information and the contacts will be on the poll card. They will in a position to get a hard copy, should they wish to do so.
I am not going to answer the question about turnout. No one would do that. The success of this campaign will be in the effectiveness of the policy, which is to bring democratic accountability to the police force in a way that has not been the case up to now. I am sure that the noble Baroness supports that.
Baroness Browning
I welcome my noble friend to his new position at the Home Office. Would he agree with me that, if November was such a bad time to go to the polls, no political party in this country would move by-elections at that time of year, which of course they have all done? You do not hear the Americans whingeing away about how cold and wet it is in November—they go out and vote.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank my noble friend and predecessor in this post for making that point. The noble Baroness will be aware that future elections will be in May, when we hope that the weather will be so much more pleasant. Meanwhile, the Government and Parliament decided that they wanted these elections as soon as possible, which is why we are having them on 15 November.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper asks how many people are likely to vote. Does the Minister not agree that perhaps a more pertinent, or even impertinent, question might be how many people should vote, bearing in mind that this ill conceived piece of legislation creates a situation in which a lay commissioner is there to interfere with the hierarchy of a disciplined service that has served this community magnificently well for a century and three quarters?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I respect the noble Lord’s point of view, but I am afraid that he has got it wrong. Police and crime commissioners are not there to interfere with the operational responsibilities of the police force. As for turnout, we do not have compulsory voting in this country; what we do have is the opportunity for people to go and exercise their vote. I am very confident indeed that there will be a good vote on 15 November.
Lord Tomlinson
Would the Minister agree with me that there is a fair amount of inconsistency of thought when members of the same Government justify low turnouts for important elections and yet demand of people who have nothing to do with government, such as the trade unions, that they should get 50% turnouts in their ballots?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that is a different matter altogether. Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not comment directly on his question. We had good debates on this matter in this House, and we will be scrutinising all Home Office legislation in this House. But after all, at the end of the day, we all believe that an expression of the people’s voice is important, and I hope that Members on all sides of the House will support these elections. Indeed, there may even be candidates from this House standing in these elections.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to his no doubt uneventful and boring post. Does he agree that the positive attitude taken by those Labour politicians who are standing is the more constructive one? In other words, is it not better to talk the elections up rather than talk them down?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving that advice to some Members on the Benches opposite who appear to have rather negative views on these elections. The candidates for these elections are first class; there will be a good choice before the electorate. The role that police and crime commissioners will play is important to bring transparency to the police in this country. That is why the Government have made changes to the law to bring about this arrangement.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
The noble Lord may be reluctant to give a figure but does he at least agree that there is a correlation between the turnout and legitimacy, credibility and respect?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That has not been the pattern of elections in the past. Many noble Lords will have participated in elections where turnout has been quite low. I do not believe that that will be the case in these elections. It is interesting that the electorate as a whole are not particularly aware of the role of police authorities and their relationship with police forces. This is a new opportunity to make people aware that there will be direct links between their wishes and the way in which the police force operates in their area. I think that people will take advantage of that.
Lord Condon
My Lords, does the noble Lord share my disappointment that very few genuinely independent candidates are standing for the post of police and crime commissioner and that the overwhelming majority of them are locally nominated political nominees?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is premature to judge whether many independent candidates are standing. Nominations have not closed. They opened only on Monday and do not close until 19 October. Therefore, we should judge that question nearer the time. Meanwhile, noble Lords—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We should judge the question when nominations have closed. We cannot say at this stage that too few independent candidates are standing. Noble Lords will understand that when they think about this question. Meanwhile, no doubt, the political parties will work to secure the return of their own candidates.
Television: Listed Sporting Events
Lord Grocott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy on the availability of major national sporting listed events on free-to-air television.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The Government remain committed to the policy of ensuring that key sporting events can be made available to as many television viewers as possible on free-to-air television. That is why some events are protected by law as listed events or the crown jewels, as they are commonly known. As we have seen only recently, the whole nation comes together for events such as the Olympic and Paralympic Games as well as Wimbledon and the Grand National, reflecting our rich and diverse national heritage going far beyond the sport itself.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, is it not crystal clear that one of the principal reasons for the spectacular success of the Olympics nationwide was precisely because they were available live on free-to-air national television? At the very least can we be assured that, as regards future Olympics, which so far are assured to be on free-to-air television only until 2020, the Government will work to secure that they are available beyond that? However, we should go a little further, as the David Davies committee recommended a couple of years ago that the listed events should be strengthened and, indeed, extended. Will the Government implement that committee’s recommendations? In particular, would it not be great to have a few test matches back on free-to-air television?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I should clarify that at the moment we have no plans to reopen the list. In 2010, the Government announced that they would not pursue the recommendations made by the David Davies report in 2008 but that they would review the position after the completion of digital switchover. Having said that, I have taken note of the noble Lord’s comments about the Olympics, the coverage of which was hugely successful, and about the cricket.
Lord Addington
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when sporting bodies are offered large amounts of money for the exclusive coverage of events, it is often very difficult for them to turn it down in the short term, and that it is the job of government to make sure that those bodies look long-term at issues such as participation and information about their sports, as well as at short-term funding projects? That should be put into the crown jewels process.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend makes a valid point, but I should say that the sale of sports rights is a commercial matter between the broadcasters and the rights owners, and the Government do not intervene in this process.
Lord Tebbit
Does my noble friend not agree that the intellectual property, if one might call it that, of a test match, hockey match or any other match belongs to those who have organised it and are playing that game, and it should not be the business of the Government to seek some means of lowering the income to those people by pushing and shoving them on to a free-to-air channel? After all, we do not do that with films, do we? We do not say that the film maker must give his film free to the local cinemas. Why should those who play football or cricket be pushed around in that manner?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I do not think that the noble Lord is right about people being pushed around. However, this is not particularly an issue for government but more an issue between sporting rights-holders and the broadcasters themselves.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right to say that one of successes of the Olympics was due to the television coverage on the free-to-air channel. Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to the BBC for the quality of its broadcasting of the Olympics, which in my view, and I imagine the view of many Members of your Lordships’ House, was absolutely outstanding?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am delighted that the noble Lord brought up that point. I said on Tuesday, in answer to a different Question, that I thought the coverage on television was absolutely outstanding, including the previews and reviews of past Olympics. The editing was outstanding, and I take the noble Lord’s point.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Paralympics were broadcast on Channel 4. Seeing them opened the eyes of many of us to a number of exciting sports. Is the Minister aware of any plans, spurred on by government or among the broadcasters, to broadcast more of those sports?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Again, I cannot comment on the future of the list itself, but I absolutely take note of the fact—it has been said elsewhere—that a number of sports from the Olympics have received a much higher profile. That includes the Paralympic sports and sport for women. We should remember the likes of Jessica Ennis, Ellie Simmonds, Kath Grainger and Sarah Storey. I have no doubt that these sports, Paralympic and women’s sports, will be included if there is a review in 2013.
Abortion
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to legislate to reduce the time limit for abortions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to review the Abortion Act 1967. It is parliamentary practice that any proposals to change the abortion laws come from Back-Bench Members and that decisions are made on the basis of free votes. The current time limit for an abortion is 24 weeks’ gestation.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. He must forgive me and others for being worried about this matter after recent statements from his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and other senior members of the Government, who of course have a perfect right to their personal views, but we also need to know how that might influence public policy. For clarification, does the Minister mean that the Government will not support any change to the abortion time limits for the duration of this Parliament? Indeed, when will the Department of Health publish its sexual health policy document, which has been delayed for the past 18 months? Will it include any reference to abortion time limits, availability and funding?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for acknowledging that my right honourable friend is entitled to express his long-held personal view, which he did the other day. With regard to her first main question, however, successive Governments have taken the view that they should rest on the evidence. There is currently no call from the main medical bodies for a review of the Act in relation to time limits, and the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists support that view. I hope that the noble Baroness regards that as a clear enough answer in support of my initial Answer. As regards the work that is being done in my department, it is expected that the sexual health strategy will be published within a few months.
Lord Laming
My Lords, can the noble Earl assure the House that he will use his very well respected skills to persuade colleagues across government and indeed more widely that this matter needs to be handled with great care and sensitivity for the well-being of children and women and indeed for the well-being of all the adults involved in the process? This matter can have a life-long effect on everyone involved and it needs to be handled with care.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
We have an Abortion Act today because a Private Member’s Bill was introduced by David Steel—now the noble Lord, Lord Steel—in another place. I voted for that Bill, although I am not sure that I voted for abortion on demand, which we now have, but surely that is the right way to deal with these matters—a free vote in the House of Commons and in your Lordships’ House—and that should continue.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, further to the Minister’s reply, some time ago the Government set up a parliamentary committee, of which I was a member, to look at counselling for abortion. For some time we have had no idea whether that will go ahead. Can the Minister tell us whether the consultation planned at that time will go ahead? Further, can he indicate the outcome of the review of abortion services conducted by the Care Quality Commission?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the department is currently considering the best way to make progress with pregnancy options counselling in the context of improvements to sexual health as a whole. As regards the noble Baroness’s second point, the Care Quality Commission looked into the allegations that were made about the pre-signing of HSA 1 forms and found that a number of trusts were non-compliant. The CQC is working closely with these trusts to ensure future compliance, but we are awaiting the conclusions of the investigations by other agencies, including the police, the GMC and the Nursing and Midwifery Council.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the comment on this issue made by my colleague the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that every abortion is a tragedy? I think that that is the context in which this matter features in people’s lives and why counselling is important. Further, will the Minister consider whether there should be a proper debate in this House about the social and moral issues surrounding the enormous increase in the number of abortions?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will greatly respect the moral authority that the most reverend Primate carries in all quarters of our community. As regards the law itself, however, we must remember that it was a measure passed by Parliament as a whole. Abortions in this country are carried out legally under the terms of the Act and that must remain the position until Parliament decides otherwise.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, will the Minister accept that the introduction of the Act by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, was to head off the horrifying numbers of back-street abortions? Whatever the view of this Chamber and another place may be on the matter in general, we must avoid by all means reverting to that possibility.
Lord Elton
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hamilton referred to abortion on demand and the right reverend Prelate referred to the great increase in the number of abortions. Can my noble friend tell us how many abortions there have been in the past 12 months for which he has figures and, if possible, how many of those were for mothers who have previously had abortions?
Earl Howe
My Lords, in 2011 in England and Wales there were 189,931 abortions. On the question of repeat abortions, I can tell my noble friend that there is a mildly encouraging statistic in that the number in the very young is going down. I am happy to write to my noble friend with further particulars.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, is not the issue here the concern about late abortions at 24 weeks when children are possibly coming to a point of independent viability? Can the Minister tell us the most recent statistics for abortions that take place between 23 and 24 weeks, as it is the issue of late abortions that is causing so much concern?
Earl Howe
My Lords, 91% of abortions in England and Wales were carried out at under 13 weeks’ gestation and 78% were at under 10 weeks’ gestation. The under-10 weeks’ percentage has risen since 2002, when the figure was 57%. Returning to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Elton, the proportion of repeat abortions for all women having abortions in 2011 was 36%, which is slightly higher than the previous year; 26% of women aged under 25 undergoing abortion had had one or more previous abortions, which was slightly higher than the proportion in 2010.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, perhaps I may remind your Lordships' House about time-limited debates. For the next debate we have 21 speakers and, except for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, who will speak for Her Majesty’s Opposition, and my noble friend Lady Garden, all speeches will be limited to five minutes. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that we wish to keep reminders-of-time interruptions to a minimum, as gentle as they may be.
Child Development
The Lord Bishop of Chester
To move that this House takes note of child development in the United Kingdom and its bearing on national well-being.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I was delighted when I heard that I had been successful in the ballot for today’s debates. The Motion was tabled in part in order to follow up the debate on marriage which I introduced 18 months ago. On that occasion, the debate coincided with National Marriage Week. Today’s debate occurs on the first International Day of the Girl, sponsored by the United Nations. It is of course not my purpose to claim that these coincidences have any metaphysical basis—I merely draw them to your Lordships’ attention.
The importance of children to the overall health of society has been a particular theme in political debate in recent decades. There was an early focus on child poverty. In March 1999, Tony Blair announced that the Government’s goal was the abolition of child poverty by 2020. In the subsequent decade, no less than £134 billion was redistributed to families through the tax credit mechanism alone, and I welcome that. I have seen the beneficial impact on clergy families, which are mainly dependent on a single stipend. Yet even without the recession and the need to cut and limit public expenditure, the previous strategy, which was essentially one of throwing money at the problem, was in trouble.
The central issue can be stated quite simply. The problem is not so much a lack of financial resources, although that can remain a significant issue. The greater problem is the widespread neglect of children in our society. This was the central conclusion of the independent review on child poverty and life chances that the Prime Minister commissioned from Frank Field in June 2010. In the evidence that the review gathered was a report from Tesco on the changing aspects of shoplifting by children. The report stated:
“Children were now far less inclined to steal sweets. Instead, the targets were sandwiches, to assuage their hunger, and clean underwear”.
Frank Field added the comment:
“Does anyone any longer believe that this modern face of neglect will be countered by simple increases in child tax credits?”.
The point can be illustrated by the problems that primary schools often face when children begin school. A head teacher of a large primary school in Birkenhead listed the skills that were often lacking in children when they entered school. They included the ability to sit still and listen; to be aware of other children; to understand the word “no” and the borders that it sets for behaviour; to be potty trained and remember their own name; to speak to an adult to ask for something; to be able to take off their coat and tie their shoelaces; and to talk in sentences.
Frank Field’s report called for the recognition of an initial phase of child development, from pregnancy to age five, to be called the “foundation years” and given the same level of priority and resource as is currently the case for primary and secondary education. The Field report has to be taken with other recent reports by Graham Allen and Clare Tickell and others, as summarised in the helpful Library Note prepared for this debate. I am grateful for the Government’s response in supporting families in the foundation years, and for the increased attention that this neglected area is now receiving.
I welcome the trend away from the approach that was based too narrowly on boosting the level of financial income for poorer families and hoping that somehow that would do the trick. Two recent reports show that there is much more beyond improvements in short-term family income that determine the life chances of poor children and children who for one reason or another face particular challenges. Parental attitudes and hopes matter much more. It is parenting above all that needs the support of wider society—not to be taken over by the state but neither to be regarded as essentially a private matter for the parents concerned. The stakes are too high for society as a whole.
When the Minister responds, I hope that she will explain the Government’s current thinking in this area, and comment in particular on the proposed greater involvement of voluntary and charitable providers in the local delivery of support for parents and children. For all that I welcome recent developments, there is still too much emphasis on pushing children and preparing them as soon as possible to enter formal education. The continental approach that delays formal education until a child is six or even seven is fundamentally healthier.
Our current practices too easily lead to later mistakes in criminalising children at too young an age or dealing with them through adult rather than special youth courts. So much has been said and written in recent decades that it can be quite hard to identify the key underlying issues. In many ways what we need is nothing less than a culture change in how children are viewed in our society. That was required by the UNICEF report of 2007, which put us at the bottom of the child welfare league on various markers and stimulated much of the research of more recent years.
The old Judaeo-Christian view is that children are to be seen as a precious gift from God. We seem to have lost the positive part of that tradition by seeing children as essentially mini or potential adults. The early sexualisation of children illustrates this, and I must acknowledge the devastating tragedy of child abuse by some ordained representatives of the Christian church that has so disfigured the Christian landscape in recent years.
How as a society can we work towards a rediscovery of an understanding of children as a precious gift, irrespective of whether we wish to add “of God”? This will be an uphill task. Reverting here to the Question for Oral Answer we were considering just now, can a society which has virtually embraced abortion on demand really continue to regard its children as precious gifts? I say that as someone who acknowledges that mothers and fathers can face difficult dilemmas, and I have never taken an absolute stance on abortion. But when nearly 25% of recognised pregnancies are deliberately ended, what culture towards children does that promote? This is not the subject of today’s debate, but I cannot avoid a passing reference. We need a wider discussion about this whole matter.
There are wider issues too. We rightly admire the extraordinary power and cleverness of computers, iPhones and so on, but a human being represents a centre of potential and of sheer sophistication way beyond any human invention. We may admire the Mars exploration device, “Curiosity”, and the systems that got it there, but it does not stand comparison with a single human life and its own intrinsic marvel. An illustration that reflects my misspent youth as a scientist will point up our endemic tendency to underestimate the potential which a single life represents. Take all the DNA molecules out of the cells of a typical human body and string them together. How far do you think they might stretch? The extraordinary answer is that they will stretch to the moon and back, which is about half a million miles, and will do so about 8,000 times, which is 4 million billion miles—and that is from a single human body. We should seek to treasure and protect each human child as the miracle and mystery that they are, recovering a tradition that to a significant degree, in our rather pragmatically orientated society, we have lost.
Recent years have seen a growing awareness that child poverty is not just a material or financial problem, and there is a growing body of research into the wider aspects of child well-being, often based on the views and hopes of children themselves. The message from children is that what is most important to them are the relationships which surround and nurture them. Yes, having sufficient money is important, but only in order to sustain the relationships that matter to them. The success of Facebook illustrates this so well, and in particular shows us how young people value a range of relationships both within and beyond their biological family.
As I mentioned, 18 months ago I introduced a debate on marriage, and I would hold today to everything I said then about the importance of marriage for the general well-being of children. I accept that stable relationships matter most rather than marriage per se, and I gladly pay tribute to single parents, who have such a challenging task. Anyone with the responsibility for the care and nurture of children deserves our fullest support. Marriage has to be seen as part of a broader context of relationships in the extended family or too much stress and pressure will be placed on individual marriages. But we can look at it from the other side too. Good marriages are not just a benefit for the couple themselves and for their children, they serve to strengthen the wider society of which they are a part. A strong respect for marriage will actually support single parents and others with the care of children who are in different relationships, and indeed society as a whole in all its aspects. That is because marriage is first and foremost not a contract between two individuals, but a social institution. It is not merely a convenient and helpful way in which two people may choose to relate to each other and thus to be encouraged on that basis. This, if I can make a passing reference to another issue that will come before us again, is the problem with much of the current discussion of same-sex marriage, that it is framed in too individualistic a way and fails to see the wider social setting in which marriage has traditionally been seen. To declare civil partnerships to be marriage is actually unlikely to help us to recover a deeper sense of the honourable place of marriage as the natural and best context for the nurture of children; it will just further confuse a confused society. No doubt we will return to these issues in due course if the Government bring forth their proposals. Indeed, the Prime Minister made this point back in 2007, when he said:
“I want to see more couples stay together, and we know that the best way to ensure this is to support marriage. Not because it matters how adult men and women conduct their relationships. But because it matters how children are brought up. Nothing matters more than children”.
It might be said, and rightly, that the role of government in promoting marriage, stable relationships and good parenting is limited, but there are certain things that only a Government can do. In the coalition agreement there is a commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system through the introduction of transferable allowances between partners. Such a move is sometimes criticised on the grounds that it should not be necessary to offer financial incentives for couples to marry—or, for that matter, to establish a civil partnership—but I believe that that is to miss the point.
A recognition for marriage in the tax system would send a powerful symbolic message from government into society. At the end of the day, Governments cannot simply wash their hands when moral issues are presented, because government is intrinsically a moral activity. To recognise marriage in the tax system would say something important about the wider importance of marriage to society.
It would be possible to limit such transferable allowances to parents with children or even, in line with Frank Field’s recommendations, initially to parents with pre-school children. Can the Minister please tell us when this pledge—I underline the word pledge—in the coalition agreement will start to be implemented? Given the associated IT changes that would be required, if it is not introduced or balanced for introduction in the next Budget, it will simply become an unfulfilled pledge when we get to the next election.
There are many other issues that I could have touched upon in these introductory remarks. I am very much looking forward to the rest of the debate.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester in his very fine opening of this important debate. I congratulate him on having secured it. In the time available I am going to talk on only one point, which the right reverend Prelate has already referred to: namely, the situation in the tax system. Of course, I am married and have been for some considerable time, and have long passed any obligation of a legal character to support children of my own.
Back in February 2007, the fact that Britain came at the bottom of the UNICEF league for child well-being was, very rightly, a matter of considerable concern. This was picked up in an important speech on 16 February 2007 by the then leader of the Opposition, David Cameron, called “Nothing Matters More than Children”. The right reverend Prelate has already quoted from that but I think the quotation is probably worth repeating, particularly as I would like to see it acted on. He said:
“I want to see more couples stay together, and we know that the best way to ensure this is to support marriage. Not because it matters how adult men and women conduct their relationships. But because it matters how children are brought up. Nothing matters more than children”.
This fed into the Conservative manifesto and, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, the key coalition agreement commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system and the wider Conservative Party commitment to make Britain the most “family friendly in Europe”.
We always used to recognise marriage in the tax system but in 1999-2000 that changed. To take statistics a little into account, only 20.9% of people in the OECD live in countries that do not recognise marriage in the tax system. Of that number, nearly all are in either Mexico or the United Kingdom. It would be extraordinary if our tax system penalised marriage. It is not so much a question of giving an incentive to people to become married as of removing difficulty that the tax system has created for people who live together as married and there is only one major income coming into the house.
The latest available figures demonstrated that the tax burden on a one-earner married couple on an average wage with two children, as a percentage of that placed on a single person on the same wage, was 73% whereas the OECD average was just 54%. There is plenty of evidence that the institution of marriage is the best possible environment for bringing up children. Many statements have been made by Ministers and others to that effect and I shall not take up time by repeating them here, except to say that they are of great importance.
That does not mean that single parents find the task of bringing up children any less challenging. Many of them, particularly those who have lost a spouse by death early in their marriage, have done tremendously well and they should incite the admiration of us all.
As the right reverend Prelate has said, if this situation is going to be corrected, it will require time, first in drawing up the relevant legislation and secondly in making the accompanying IT arrangements which have to be put in place. Time is running out, and it is highly important that before the next general election the Government fulfil the commitment which is in the coalition agreement.
Lord McFall of Alcluith
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester in raising this debate and I congratulate him on his speech. In an article for a national newspaper in April 2009, I castigated the Labour Government for their first ever omission from the Budget of their pledge to halve child poverty by 2010 and to eliminate it by 2020. I said that, at a time of economic crisis, their efforts had weakened. However, tackling child poverty is more important than ever in such times.
The background to the Labour Government’s attempts has to be analysed. During the 1980s, inequality rose faster in the UK than in any OECD country other than New Zealand. By 1997, we had the highest level of child poverty in the EU. The respected Institute for Fiscal Studies looked at the record of the Labour Government and said that they had halved the number of children in relative low-income poverty in the United Kingdom from 1998 to 2010, taking the figure down from 3.4 million to 1.7 million. Moreover, the number of children in absolute low-income poverty had fallen from 3.4 million to 1.4 million. It noted that, if the Government had just uprated benefits in line with inflation, more than 1.7 million children would still be living in poverty.
That is our record, which is a commendable one. In fact, the IFS said that it was the best record since it had started keeping records in 1961. However, the target was still missed by a substantial margin of 600,000 children. The question that the Labour Government asked at the time was: is ending child poverty a right or a responsibility? Correctly, they assumed the latter. That was why the Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, set the ambitious target of halving child poverty by 2010 and eliminating it by 2020. In doing so, the Government had both a narrative and a target.
That was reinforced by the Child Poverty Act 2010, which the coalition signed up to before entering government. However, to date we have neither a narrative nor demonstrable targets from the Government. Indeed, where the coalition is retaining income-based 2020-21 child poverty targets, there is absolutely no realistic chance of meeting them under current policies. The IFS, another respected institution, has said that.
If the Government believe that their targets are inappropriate, they should be both honest and explicit about it and set themselves objectives that they want to pursue. The question is still begging: how do we live up to the commitments that the Government have entered into? I said at the time of my article that we should dispel the false debate that is taking place over national debt because it is distracting us from the human face of the crisis. Those of us who have worked at community level, and witnessed the obstacles and impediments faced daily by low-income families, have heard parents express high aspirations for their children; but in our hearts and in our minds we realise that those aspirations will only lead to low life chances for these individuals, because they are deprived of opportunities given to the rest of us in society.
I know that ending child poverty is both a right for the individual child and a responsibility for society and government. I hope fellow Peers realise and accept that proposition. However, do not forget that tomorrow’s world starts with today’s children. I remind the House that at the Making British Poverty History event in April 2008, the Prime Minister said, quite simply and boldly:
“We can end child poverty—I mean it”.
This Chamber is still waiting for an answer as to when and how the Government are going to achieve that.
Baroness Walmsley
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for introducing this important topic. Our people are our national capital, which is why I agree with the premise of the right revered Prelate’s speech that child development has a major effect on national well-being and, of course, the economy. If we were manufacturers, wanting to produce a high-quality product, we would not start our quality control when the gadget was finally put together or packaged. We would start at the very beginning and ensure that we have the best components we could get. In the same way, a child starts its development in the womb and that is why we need to pay attention to its development right from nine months or so before birth. Well-being starts before birth—during pregnancy—and has a lifelong effect on the baby. We all know it is easier to get a thing right from the start than to get it wrong and put it right later, which is always more expensive.
A stressed mother means not just a stressed woman but a stressed baby. Since the baby is developing in her womb, all that is happening to her has an effect on her child’s development. I often think that I became a singer because my mother sang all the time while she was carrying me. Research has shown clearly that how we treat nought to two year-olds affects the whole of their lives, and society, and that money spent preventing problems at that stage is money well spent and the most effective use of our resources.
Let us look at what we can do during pregnancy. I am going to concentrate on mental and emotional development rather than physical development because I think we have to get those right first. Research has discovered that up to 20% of pregnant women experience mental or emotional illness requiring referral for psychological therapies. More effective measures to reduce stress, alcohol and tobacco use, drug use, malnutrition, poverty, and domestic violence could improve child IQ and reduce mental health and social problems later, and also reduce ADHD.
Antenatal depression is a predictor of postnatal depression. There is a high risk to baby from antenatal depression because of the effects of stress chemicals on brain development. Postnatal depression risks the effective attachment between mother and baby. The magnitude of the risk is clinically significant, so health professionals need training to spot the risk factors and symptoms and refer to services early.
In the UK, 144,000 babies under the age of one live with a parent who has a common mental health problem, but many children’s centres do not provide services that promote infant mental health. Perhaps we should do something about that. The benefits of improving the situation are many. Improving attachment and bonding prevents the baby being at risk of emotional disturbance later. Secure children are resilient, able to regulate their emotions, experience empathy and able to self-repair when stressed or challenged, so secure attachment can prevent all sorts of problems later.
Are all health visitors trained to detect attachment problems and identify the attachment types? I do not believe so. The anti-violence charity WAVE has recommended that, as well as the routine six-week assessment after birth, there should be a pre-birth assessment of the risk factors for infant mental health and another at three to five months to look at the parent-child interaction, which is so important for development.
Domestic violence is a very big factor here. It is reported that about one quarter of all children witnessing domestic violence develop serious social and behavioural problems themselves and sometimes repeat the cycle of violence. Also, it can seriously impact the parenting capacity of the victim. So domestic violence support services should prioritise pregnant women, particularly because there is evidence that domestic violence increases during pregnancy. Most of the services to address those issues are multi-agency, but in many parts of the country multi-agency working is said to be poor. There are good examples, such as the highland region’s streamlined rapid reaction system. How are the Government identifying such successful models and disseminating their expertise?
The staffing of early years services is very important. What is important is not just the qualifications of the people who go into that work but their personal qualities. Are those personal qualities—which I do not have time to go into—looked at during recruitment? What is being done to nurture and develop those desirable personal qualities among the staff of children’s centres and all those who work with very young children?
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on the appositeness—even if fortuitous—of holding this debate on the occasion of the first United Nations International Day of the Girl Child. I strongly support the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, but I wish to go down a wholly different route from earlier speakers. I declare an interest as the co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Human Trafficking and as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation, because I want briefly to speak about children trafficked within England and those who are brought to this country and exploited by traffickers in conditions of modern-day slavery.
The Council of Europe’s expert group, GRETA, recently reported on the United Kingdom response to the Council of Europe convention, which we signed before we accepted the European Union directive on human trafficking. In its report, on page 12, GRETA expresses particular concern that there are, “indications that THB”—trafficking of human beings—
“within the UK is on the increase, in particular of girls for sexual exploitation”.
That leads me to the cases in Rochdale and Rotherham, both exposed by the Times newspaper. All I know is what I have read in the newspaper, but we know that teenage girls, some as young as 12, have in each area been exploited by men, mostly of Pakistan origin, who have groomed them and then passed them to other men for sexual exploitation. That is human slavery and human trafficking, of course, because the girls had no choice. No doubt some of them were raped, behind locked doors. In Rochdale it appears that this situation may have lasted for something in the region of five years but in Rotherham for over 10 years.
What, to me, is particularly shocking has been the response of the agencies involved. These girls in Rotherham appear to have been labelled, in effect, as child prostitutes who chose this way of life. For many years, no steps were taken to deal with the offenders—but the offenders were not the girls. There appears to have been a culture of non-interference because they were seen as bad girls but this was a form of human trafficking. The law against exploiting children is particularly there to protect children from themselves. A man who has sex with any girl under the age of 16 is committing a criminal offence and some offences are probably rape. I cannot understand why the criminal aspect was not recognised and effective action taken. The accounts of the plight of these girls in Rochdale, Rotherham and no doubt elsewhere are a disgrace. As a nation, we should feel ashamed that we cannot protect our teenage girls. It is a distortion of national well-being.
On 18 October, it is Anti-Slavery Day and another area of concern is that of the children who are brought into this country and, once here, are exploited for benefit fraud, by Fagin-style training for thieving and through begging, sexual exploitation, domestic servitude and the tending of cannabis farms, of which there are about 9,000—mostly, probably, in private houses—with well over 3,000 in London. The Vietnamese boys who come in to tend the cannabis plants work a seven-day week, do not of course go to school and do not get paid. If caught by the police, they are prosecuted and the traffickers are not caught.
GRETA, to which I referred earlier, has had some cogent criticisms of the response of the United Kingdom Government to human trafficking. The Government have an excellent strategy document and are undoubtedly committed to reducing and trying to eradicate this scourge. I hope that I am not being unfair in saying that the Government are a trifle complacent about the effectiveness of their response. We are principally a country of destination to which men, women and children are brought and, when here, treated as slaves. Among the justified criticisms of GRETA are those in respect of children; 390 children were identified as having been potentially trafficked in 2010 while 109 were accepted by the NRM as victims. We do not have an effective database. Local authorities, which have expertise in child welfare and child protection, are not given an opportunity to identify children and decisions as to whether a child has been trafficked are made by the staff of UKBA, who may not have the requisite expertise in relation to children.
I appreciate the time, so I will make two quick points. Significant numbers of children go missing. There have been two reports by the Children’s Commissioner about children arriving in this country and being bounced back to France within 24 hours, without any child protection or social work intervention. My most important point is that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and I withdrew an amendment asking for a legal advocate on the basis that the Children’s Commissioner would investigate. That was a government promise. I would very much like to know from the Children’s Commissioner what progress has in fact been made and to have some positive indication from the Minister, because in paragraph 245 on page 57 of its report, GRETA has said that,
“a social worker or a voluntary advocate fall short of providing”,
legal guardianship and of upholding, “the child’s best interests”. On page 58, its recommendation is to,
“ensure that all unaccompanied minors who are potential victims of trafficking are assigned a legal guardian”,
and that is not happening at the moment. I apologise for taking a minute too long.
Baroness King of Bow
My Lords, in the short time available, I shall concentrate on two areas: the link between positive child development and early intervention strategies, and the link between early intervention strategies and reducing the economic deficit. I also wanted to discuss the link between poor housing and stunted child development, but time limits mean that will have to wait until another day.
I start with the most fundamental issue of all: early intervention. I have mentioned this issue in virtually every speech that I have given in this place because in my view the future of our children and of our country depends on it. One organisation that has always instinctively understood this is Community Links in east London. Last year it launched the Early Action Task Force, which publishes its keenly awaited report on 28 November. When the task force was launched in January 2011, its chair, David Robinson, described its mission as building,
“a society that no longer needs the resources to respond because it has developed the strengths to prevent”,
and has built,
“fences at the top of the cliff rather than running ambulances at the bottom”.
Despite lip service, the way we run country and the way we invest in our children just does not add up. We invest in their failure, and in the failure of their families, rather than investing in their success and keeping families together. As the task force points out, early intervention may be common sense but it is not yet common practice. Children and families are the cornerstone of this country’s well-being and, as Graham Allen highlights in his often-quoted report, Early Intervention: The Next Steps, the consequences of ineffective support for families and children and poor parenting, as we heard earlier, have an impact way beyond the individual and family concerned. Every taxpayer in Britain pays the cost of low educational achievement, poor work aspirations, drink and drug abuse, teenage pregnancy and criminality, which lead to social disruption, fractured lives, broken families and sheer human wastage.
Another organisation that works hard to reverse this downward spiral of family breakdown is 4Children. Its research findings show that what happens in pregnancy and the early years of a child’s life has a profound impact on the rest of his or her life as they grow through primary school and secondary school and into adulthood. 4Children undertook two years of research that highlighted three issues that must be tackled urgently as a nation if we are to reduce family crisis and improve well-being: maternal depression, as we heard earlier; family violence; and parental alcohol abuse and, I would add, other drug abuse. These issues often have an impact way beyond the individuals concerned.
For families experiencing five disadvantages—depression, alcohol misuse, domestic violence, periods of homelessness and involvement in criminality—the cost to the state is between £55,000 and £115,000 per year. The cost of post-natal depression is around £45 million for England and Wales, and treating physical injuries and mental health problems as a result of domestic abuse costs the NHS almost £1.4 billion a year. For looked-after children the costs are much larger indeed; indeed, they are eye-watering. For foster care, the cost per child is £25,000 per year, while for children in children’s homes it is £125,000 a year and children in secure accommodation cost £134,000 per year. We spend that money on vulnerable children when they have already gone completely off the rails. If only we could invest a fraction of that on preventing children and their families from falling apart, we would reduce the economic deficit rather than increase it.
I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, say that nothing matters more than children. I could not agree more. Could he and others who form part of the coalition Government, particularly the Minister, explain why the Government have announced that they are scrapping the early intervention grant from next April? This truly beggars belief. Councils have warned that the move will lead to cuts of up to 20% in their early-years and family intervention programmes, and could put Sure Start networks and other innovative projects at risk. I am sure that the Minister will reply that much of that money is going to pay for the ministerial commitment to provide free nursery care for two year-olds—so basically we are robbing one year-olds to pay for two year-olds. This seems to be the definition of a short-term approach, and I implore the Government and those who can most effectively influence them to think again on that issue.
We know that addressing these issues with a proactive, early intervention and family-focused approach has the potential to ensure proper child development in order to pay huge dividends to families and the national well-being as a whole. Only if we make these changes can we move government resources from the ambulances ranged at the bottom of the cliff to more strategic thinking at the top of the cliff so we stop throwing families and children off that cliff-face.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for securing this important debate. I want to take this opportunity to spare a thought for April Jones, her family and all children who are being abused.
Childhood lasts a lifetime, and everything we do affects children directly and indirectly, so their development must be society’s highest priority. The well-being of society has always depended on the way we bring up the next generation, but never before has there been such a profound and significant change in the way human beings interact with each other.
We have entered an age where technology is so influential on our lives that it seeps into our daily existence and governs the way we live, think, speak and, above all, communicate, and for some it has altered their thought processes. There are dangers and hidden consequences of the digital age, and we do not yet know how it will affect the way our children’s brains develop and their thought processes. Children are at the forefront of this techno-social revolution of instantly accessible information.
To children the internet, social media and all that goes with it are a fact of life. They are the norm and without question they are a major influence on their development and their way of thinking, and some people are beginning to worry. A planned conference, hosted by YoungMinds and the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, is chillingly entitled, “Young People in the Internet Wilderness: A Psychological Time-Bomb?”. The conference proposes to highlight and discuss the effects of the internet on the mental health of young people.
Many have highlighted the risks of uncontrolled, unregulated use of the internet and other screen media by children. The latest, and perhaps the most damning, is a report by Dr Aric Sigman which states that the average 10 year-old has access to five different screens at home, that many children are suffering from screen addiction and Facebook depression, that prolonged screen time can lead to reductions in attention span because of its effects on the brain chemical dopamine, which is linked to addictive behaviour and the inability to pay attention, and that the use of screen technology has been linked to obesity problems and heart disease. The report concludes that the average child spends a full year glued to screens by the time they reach the age of 7. This is not good.
For years, I have spoken out and pleaded with parents not to allow children to watch television or access computers in their bedrooms, especially late at night, but just last week I visited several schools across the country and was shocked to learn how many children still have televisions in their bedrooms. Apart from children being tired and unable to concentrate in school, they are being exposed to psychologically damaging material, including violence, pornography, cyberbullying, sexual grooming by online predators and manipulative content, as well as self-harm and suicide websites, all on a daily basis. Worryingly, we have no idea of the long-term implications for how all this will affect their personal and social development into adulthood. Sadly, many children are having to face peer pressure to conform and are made to feel inadequate if they are not part of this techno revolution.
The value of making computer technology and the internet accessible for all cannot be underestimated, but the challenging question is: what are the long-term effects on children? Perhaps one day long in the future we will look back at the way the internet and mass media took over our lives and speculate that it was the ultimate Pandora’s box which forever changed the world and—dare I say?—unintentionally harmed it.
There are, of course, many who will profoundly disagree that the internet and our growing use of social media might have an adverse effect on society but, one way or another, there is no doubt that it is already having some effect on the way in which our minds work.
We must view the internet techno-genie with extreme caution, and ensure that we put in place measures to protect against the potentially harmful long-term effects on our children and, in turn, society. I ask my noble friend: what consideration is being given by the Government of the effect of the internet and social media on children’s social and psychological development, and the implications for the future of our society?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Low, stands up, I offer a gentle reminder that we are in a time-limited debate. Even the odd 30 seconds or minute eats into the Minister’s time and, obviously, the time for the response of the opposition Front Bench.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate. At a time of long-term and deepening austerity, it gives us a good opportunity to consider the impact that it is having on child development, and how far public policy may be contributing to this.
Over the summer, I was asked to address a conference on the subject of childhood disability and social disadvantage. This was not something that I knew a great deal about, so I had to knuckle down and look at the evidence. Fortunately, a research team at Warwick University has done some very interesting work on this subject, so it was not as difficult as it might have been.
The association between disability and social disadvantage is unmistakable. Just to summarise, disabled children are more likely that non-disabled children to live in households with lower-than-median incomes, live in families experiencing debt and with greater dependence on benefits, live with families that are less likely to be able to afford things that they consider necessary, live in rented accommodation and in houses with fewer rooms, live with other disabled children, live with a disabled adult, live in lone-parent families and be born to single mothers. How is society tackling this challenge? Well, 3.6 million children—rather more than one in four—are living in poverty. Poverty has consequences for children’s health and education in the form of increased infant mortality, chronic illness and lower levels of literacy. Twenty-four per cent of children in the poorest fifth of households are in families who cannot afford to keep their house warm, compared to just 1% in the richest fifth. As Justin Forsyth, chief executive of Save the Children has said, growing up in poverty in the UK means children being cold and going without a winter coat, going to bed hungry and not being able to join in activities with friends.
Child poverty reduced dramatically between 1998-99 and 2010-12, with 1.1 million children being lifted out of poverty. Today, however, it is clear that policy is driven by economic rather than social considerations, and welfare is a prime target for public expenditure cuts. This cannot fail to impact negatively on rates of poverty. In a recent interview on the “Today” programme, John Humphrys appeared to have difficulty understanding that it is the poorest in society who are hardest hit by benefit cuts. It goes without saying that the poorest are disproportionately affected by benefits cuts because, by and large, it is the poorest to whom the benefits go. Thus, under current government policies, child poverty is projected to rise from 2012-13 with an expected 300,000 more children living in poverty by 2015-16. This upward trend is set to continue with 4.2 million children living in poverty by 2020.
Howard Reed, in a study entitled In the Eye of the Storm, commissioned by the Children’s Society, Action for Children and the NSPCC, has tried to estimate the number of vulnerable children and families in Britain and the impact of the current economic context on them. His conclusion is that, by 2015, there will be significantly more vulnerable families than there were in 2010. They will be significantly worse off in terms of disposable income, and public spending cuts will hit them particularly hard compared with the population at large.
Furthermore, the number of children living in families with five or more of the vulnerabilities used by the Government to identify troubled families or families at risk is predicted to increase by around 17%. The number of extremely vulnerable children in families with six or seven vulnerabilities will almost double. Taking into account tax and benefit changes, spending cuts, macroeconomic trends and long-term trends, Howard Reed suggests that the number of families with five or more vulnerabilities will increase by 14.5% to 150,000 by 2015, with the number of children in the latter situation increasing by 17%.
The centrepiece of the Government’s reforms is the so-called universal credit, which combines a number of key means-tested benefits into a single entitlement. The Government estimate that about 2.8 million households will gain from that, but 2 million will lose. However, it is necessary to treat these estimates with some caution as the impact of the cuts may not be fully understood by viewing specific cuts in isolation. I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is reviewing the overall impact of universal credit on support for disabled people. I look forward to her report, which is to be published next week, with considerable anticipation.
It is clear that no group will be more affected than disabled people. That is because not only will key benefits for disabled people be incorporated into the new benefit but changes will affect the rates at which some key benefits are paid. Others will not be mirrored in the new system at all. While some disabled people will gain, many more will get significantly less help. Cuts, such as those to support the most disabled children and disabled adults living alone, will make the future considerably bleaker for many of the most vulnerable households in Britain.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I add my thanks to my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for introducing this debate and laying out the ground so carefully and comprehensively. We have had some thoughts about early intervention, the importance of pregnancy and an important emphasis on parenting. I want to look at another area: children who at the moment simply fall through the provision and are struggling in our society with the odds against them.
In recent months, I have been privileged to chair a commission for the city of Derby, bringing together politicians, voluntary workers, businesses, educationalists, young people and many others for a conversation about how we can best order life in the city to encourage the well-being of all its citizens. We have had a lot of input from young people. I should like to share some words from a rap that a 15 year-old offered to our commission. He said:
“You don’t understand what I have seen.
Your shoes haven’t walked in the places I’ve been.
Life is a struggle, that’s what I’m trying to say.
Live your life in the light and never run a colour grey.”
He is someone who has fallen through the net and is a struggling, disadvantaged child who has been excluded from school.
From young people, we heard some very challenging things about the context in which they live, such as peer pressure and the power of the drug and gang cultures. Sadly, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, we heard about predatory sexual exploitation by individuals and organised networks, and about a real disconnection with many young people and children from school. Probably the most challenging problem for the future of these young people, as well as our future, is disconnection from the world of work. That is a major issue because they are not living in environments where work or that kind of lifestyle feature.
Clearly the Government and local government have a role, but the commission has shown that local people of good will and concern can come together to try to create the right kind of opportunities to allow children to recover from these setbacks and disadvantages. In Derby, I came across an organisation called Baby People, which is where our young rapper came from. It uses music and arts to reintegrate people who have dropped through the net into creative activities and making a contribution. We should not underestimate the importance of going to meet children on their own cultural ground, rather than expecting them to conform to how we think that they should behave.
Also in Derby we have Business in the Community, which the Prince’s Trust supports in many places. It is proactive in going into schools. For instance, in years 10 and 11 it gives people mock interviews and feedback. It helps to supplement what parents and single parents are trying to do by encouraging them to be responsible, thoughtful and reflective about themselves, the possibility of work and what their lives are about.
I urge that we take seriously the cultural setting in which children grow up and that we meet them there. I also urge that we take seriously the fact that many of the most needy children—we are trying to take preventive action to help future generations—are challengingly disconnected from the mindset of the world of work. That is a real challenge for local organisations as well as for the Government and local government.
I will finish with the words of a rap that another 15 year-old gave to our commission. He said:
“I started to get my life back on track.
The past is the past, ain’t ever looking back.
Being in a bad gang ain’t being cool.
Got to right my wrong and study at school.
Going to be up on my feet, not lazy.
Getting an encore just like Jay-Z.
Music is going to be part of my life.
Put me through the pain and the struggle and strife.
This is the present, what’s with the fighting?
The only war I’m happy with is the spits and the rhyming.
Words are the only weapon that I need.
Listen to my bars, I am going to succeed”.
That is wonderful creativity from someone who has been right on the wrong side of the track. He was a 15 year-old child who came into an adult forum to challenge the commission to think creatively about a cultural milieu where a person is allowed to flourish. We need to take that challenge seriously and the challenge of connecting people like that to the world of work and its disciplines.
Lord Sacks
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for initiating this important and timely debate. I wish that I could follow my predecessor, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, and rap my speech. Instead, forgive me if I say simply that the timeliness of this debate is that we have heard much talk in recent weeks about the phrase “one nation”.
I believe that in the space of half a century we have become two nations that are divided into those who, as children, have and do not have the gift of growing up in stable, loving association with the two parents who brought them into being. According to copious research, those who have not will be disadvantaged in many ways. On average, they will do less well at school and have less chance of attending university. They will be less likely to find and keep a job. They will be less well off and less likely to form stable relationships of their own. They will be more prone to depression and its syndromes. They may even be less healthy. All that will be through no fault of their own but through the circumstances of their early childhood.
The result is a deep and dangerous divide between two cultures, in one of which children are growing up without the support and presence of their natural fathers and often without constructive male role models. They are at risk of being robbed of the habits of the heart, the security and self-confidence, the discipline and restraint that they will need safely to negotiate the challenges of an ever-changing world. Too many of our children are being robbed of hope.
The depth of this divide has been hidden from public attention by a perfectly honourable desire not to sound judgmental, not to condemn any freely chosen way of life and not to add further to the immense burdens of being a single parent. I respect those scruples. But we have seen in recent weeks—the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to it—how an equally honourable wish not to offend certain sensitivities allowed young girls in Rochdale and Rotherham to be ruthlessly exploited. There is a price to be paid for silence and it is usually children who pay that price.
We cannot change the past but we can change the future. Many years ago, in the course of making a television documentary on the state of families in Britain, I discovered the work of a speech therapist, who was teaching five year-old children and their parents a set of skills—listening, problem-solving, praising, negotiating and contract-making. They were intended to help to cure the children’s stammers, but one after the other the parents told me that they helped to save their marriages. I suddenly realised that there are easily teachable skills that can transform young people’s ability to make and sustain relationships. I wonder why we have not explored the possibility of introducing them into the curriculum. They are not cognitive or judgmental; they are learnt by playing games. They are transformative and they are fun.
We as a society have a duty to see that our children are given the best chance of success that we can give them. That means, in part, doing all that we can, especially through the educational system, to train children from the earliest possible age to develop the skills and sensibilities that will help them to become loving, caring and responsible parents. I urge the Government to consider new and creative ways to do just this.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for introducing this debate, although I did not always agree with his analysis—but that is what the debate is about. I do not bring any particular expertise to this debate, other than the fact that I have been a parent for what seems a large chunk of my life, and now also a grandparent. When I look back on it, it seems that I came from a somewhat dysfunctional family. I retain an interest in education, because I am still a school governor at my local primary school. One thing that impelled me to enter into this debate was a conversation I had following a school governors’ meeting, when we walked around the school, looked at a lot of good improvements made in the playground area, and talked about the school’s achievements and tasks that were still to be done. This school had an outstanding Ofsted assessment a year before last, so we are making progress. However, the head teacher’s comment to me was, “The problem is that the damage is done before we get them”. That was just an aside, but it really had an impact on me and made me think that I would enter into this debate even if I offered only that comment. It is an important comment.
A problem with entering this debate at this stage is that a lot of the best points have already been made. The noble Lord, Lord Sacks, focused on asking why we do not have parenting as part of the citizenship curriculum. He said that it was an important skill and that we all enter it as amateurs—and those of us in this Chamber who have been parents know how true that is. When you are confronted with that little screaming bundle of joy, when the child has come home from hospital or the midwife has departed, you wonder what you are going to do next. So I hope that the Minister will think about that particular idea.
It has been a good and rounded debate, but when the right reverend Prelate said that the last Government just threw money at the problem I thought that it was a less than fair comment. We actually did a lot more than that—and I am not saying that everything that we did was right or that every pound spent was absolutely rightly directed. My noble friend Lord McFall set the record straight when he talked about the progress that had been made on child poverty.
I, too, congratulate the House of Lords Library—there is a mine of information in its notes. There is a comment from the Children’s Society, authors of the Good Childhood Report, that:
“Children from the poorest 20% of households in England have much lower wellbeing than average”.
Of course, throwing money at it will not be the answer, but neither will it help children’s development if they live in poverty. We know that this is a multi-faceted problem and that it has to be addressed in a variety of ways.
I listened carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who always has something interesting to say. Far be it from me to disparage the holy state of matrimony—I enjoyed it so much that I embraced it twice—but we know that a large proportion of people in this country are not going to get married and do not want to; they have a principled reason. So even if we do as he suggested, it will address only part of the problem, and then there will be a vast array of single parents or parents going through multiple relationships, some good, some bad and some extremely damaging.
This has been an absolutely fascinating debate. My noble friend Lady King talked about investing in failure. It costs us an enormous amount of money if we do not get it right in the early years. I was also very sympathetic to what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said about the early years services and the impact of drugs and alcohol and ante and post-natal depression. We know that the earlier that we address those problems the better.
I end by reiterating the point made by my noble friend Lady King. I welcome some of the Government’s actions. The pupil premium is having a positive impact in our schools, and I welcome the free nursery education, but not at the expense of other schemes. That is the bit that worries me, the bit that my noble friend brought to the Minister’s attention. I give credit to the Government for encouraging Graham Allen to produce an independent report. However, he said himself that although the free nursery scheme was a good idea, funding it by taking cash out of other preventive social programmes “flew in the face” of ministerial promises and could lead to disproportionate cuts in services.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, my inspiration to speak in this debate came from a presentation that I saw a while ago by Professor John Stein, which he gave to the Westminster Food and Nutrition Forum. I declare an interest as I chair that forum now, following in the very large and hard-to-follow footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Professor Stein’s presentation on the effect of nutrition on the development of children’s brains and how early that begins, from conception right through, made a very deep impression on me. I have followed the work of the Institute for Food, Brain and Behaviour, of which he is a member—and of which two Members of your Lordships' House, the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, are also very respected members.
Along with the other issues that your Lordships have mentioned this morning, we need to continue the battle about good nutrition. There is a danger that because a lot has happened with regard to breastfeeding—and I agree that it is in a much better place than it was at the end of the 20th century—and because there has been a lot of action on school meals, there may be a misconception that the battle about nutrition is won. But far from it—the biggest gap occurs between the moment when breastfeeding or bottle feeding finishes and the child goes to school. In those years of toddlerhood those habits are formed that are critical for what the child chooses to eat later. So the moment when the child may develop a sweet tooth and a liking for various foods, such as fruit, and an addiction to fairly salty foods, is critical. That happens between the age of nine months and three years. Even giving your young toddler lumpy foods affects their ability later on to accept very different foods. If they always receive food of the same sort of texture, their liking for different foods will be diminished.
My first question to the Minister concerns the Early Years Foundation Stage, which is the framework that sets the standard for all early years providers. Is my noble friend satisfied that nutritional standards and eating habits are adequately addressed? We all know the statistics around not sitting down for meals and not having the sort of portions that a child will finish and be satisfied with. Those are all things that early years providers need to address.
An interesting question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in a debate in this House on 13 June 2012 when he talked about a trial of nutrient supplements in a comprehensive school in Dagenham. The Minister responding to the debate undertook to invite his department’s scientists to discuss the implications of the findings of the Institute for Food, Brain and Behaviour. I am sure that my noble friend will not have that at her fingertips today but I would be grateful to her if she would ask the department to look into how that matter is progressing.
The importance of knowing whether children have an adequate diet and the consideration of whether supplements should be added to foods are live issues. The debate over the status of nutraceuticals and the pros and cons of supplementation is not merely academic. I am sure that we have all heard about the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids in foods or about the lack of that substance. As that debate livens, the supplements industry will push for supplements to be added to foods in place of a healthy diet. We may not have enough fish in our oceans to provide us with natural fatty acids but that is the sort of question we must address. We must not forget the importance of nutrition to children.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, I thank and congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this timely debate. In 2007, UNICEF published a report on child well-being which made for troubling reading. As noted in the opening pages of the report:
“The true measure of a nation’s standing is how well it attends to its children—their health and safety, their material security, their education and socialization, and their sense of being loved, valued, and included in the families and societies into which they are born”.
In this report the UK was ranked lowest of all the countries scrutinised and was in the bottom third of the rankings for five of the six dimensions of child well-being that were assessed. The report went on to highlight the disgraceful way in which we had failed to discuss and develop policies which meet the needs of children and improve their lives. While we have made progress in some areas, we must not pause until we are sure that we have in place the very best public policy framework. I am far from convinced, five years later, that this is the case.
The social science evidence clearly demonstrates that, on average, children do best in stable two-parent homes and that the public, lifelong, “till death us do part” commitment, recognised by law—that is, marriage—provides, again on average, by far the best environment for securing this. To this end I congratulate the Government on their commitment to end the current arrangement whereby, unlike most developed countries, our tax system does not recognise marriage or indeed family responsibility. It is certainly right that it should be no harder to marry here than in other comparable developed countries. Given that this commitment needs to be implemented within the 2010-15 period to which the coalition agreement pertains, the Government really need to start taking action, especially in the run-up to the next Budget. In a speech given in the run-up to the general election in 2010, David Cameron did just that, saying,
“that marriage matters is something we should not say quietly but something we should say loudly and proudly. What is so backward looking in a country where we have social breakdown and social problems of saying that committed relationships, encouraging people to come together and stay together is a bad thing?”.
In the same speech, he continued,
“if you look around the European Union, if you look around the OECD, we’re almost alone in not recognising marriage in the tax system. And why do we think, why do we think that with our appalling record of family breakdown that somehow we are in the right position and everyone else is in the wrong position; we’re not, they’ve got it right and we have got it wrong”.
Just this week, a report published by the Centre for Social Justice, Forgotten Families? The Vanishing Agenda, painted a less than rosy picture of the coalition Government’s support for the family. The opening sentence reads:
“In the vital area of family policy, the Coalition Government has been characterised by a lack of boldness and clarity of purpose which contrasts sharply with their approach to education and welfare reform”.
The same paragraph concludes with the shocking assertion that,
“48 per cent of all children born today will see the breakdown of their parents’ relationship”.
Given that, as we have heard, any implementation of a transferable allowance policy recognising marriage in the tax system will take some time to carry through as HMRC makes necessary IT changes, the Government must act now. I recognise that the coalition agreement provides scope for Liberal Democrats to abstain and that therefore the noble Baroness may not be the right person to respond. However, perhaps a Conservative Treasury Minister could do so and update us on the progress being made on implementing this important policy commitment. Two and a half years later, can a timeframe be provided for when this promise will be acted on?
Another issue of particular concern has been raised today and that is child trafficking. Today, which is the first United Nations International Day of the Girl Child, the need to ensure that children are protected and supported and allowed to develop free from oppression and fear must be driven home. By now we know the statistics but we cannot allow ourselves to become numb to them or to the young children the statistics represent. Between 2007 and February 2010, of 942 trafficked children rescued in the UK, 301 were subsequently lost from local authority care. Put another way, one-third of rescued children went missing. Progress must be made on this issue.
I end by again thanking the right reverend Prelate for securing this debate and simply say that where we can take action to right wrongs and to ensure that children are protected and afforded the best possibility to succeed in life and to thrive and contribute meaningfully to our national well-being, we absolutely must do so.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, warmly congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on securing this very important debate. I start by emphasising the vital importance of the Government providing sufficient resources for all those early intervention strategies which have been mentioned, such as those of Graham Allen, Frank Field and many others, for which there is a growing pressure and total cross-party support. These are particularly relevant for those children who are trapped in what, many years ago, Keith Joseph called the cycle of deprivation. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will reassure us on that issue.
I wish to focus the rest of my comments specifically on the subject of child safety online. In doing so, I should declare an interest in that I am the sponsor of the Online Safety Bill, which had its First Reading in your Lordships’ House on 11 May. A great deal has happened in this subject area during the past two years with the publication of the Bailey review and the report of Claire Perry MP on online safety and the safety-net petition, which received well over 100,000 signatures from concerned parents. In this context I was delighted when, at the end of June, the Department for Education sought to engage directly with the issue, launching its parental control mechanism consultation, which closed on 6 September.
The consultation considered three possible parental control mechanisms: active choice, active choice plus and the opt-in system, which is proposed in my Bill. While I very much hope that the Government will adopt the opt-in system, it is not my intention to get into detailed discussion about the pros and cons of the three options today. What I want, however, is to express my concern that the consultation did not mention age verification in relation to any of the options. Without age verification, the effectiveness of any parental control model will be very limited. If the Government are to advance serious proposals, they must engage with age verification.
I am, of course, aware that some might try to suggest that age verification is not possible and that it does not work. This, however, is flatly contradicted by the evidence. Tanya Byron in her review states,
“One of the most effective methods of age verification is requiring the user to register using a credit card. Even if registration is free, a process can be put in place so that a debit and re-credit is shown on the cardholder’s bill, so that parents know when a child has borrowed their card for this purpose”.
This system does not tell you the exact age of the person but confirms that they should be 18 or over. Moreover, I should point out that the law already requires age verification with respect to the online sale of alcohol and online gambling, where the provisions have proven to be successful.
I am aware that the Department for Education and the other departments with an interest in the consultation, such as DCMS, will be examining the responses to the controls consultation and considering the best way forward. If the Government are to take seriously the need to care for our children and provide the best public policy framework to support optimal child development, far from avoiding mentioning age verification, they should put it at the front and centre of their proposals. The technology is certainly there. The question is: is the political will there? I very much hope that the Minister is able to reassure me on that point. I also ask her to provide us with an update on the Government’s projected timetable in terms of the publication of the analysis of the consultation responses and their aspirations in terms of next steps.
In closing, like the right reverend Prelate and other speakers, I think it is very appropriate that we should be discussing these matters on the first ever International Day of the Girl Child, mindful of the fact that the objectification of girls through pornography is one of the main online safety challenges we face. I hope that we can develop a public policy framework that increasingly celebrates girls as people, not as objects.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for introducing this debate on such an important issue.
I returned to teaching when my children went to school and I was asked to teach a CSE subject called child development, as well as French and English. It may be that they thought that, having been a mother, I knew all about child development, and of course no one ever does. As part of this course, pupils—sadly, only girls—learnt about healthy pregnancy, language development, physical development, diet, emotional development and play. They had to do a case study by watching a child for a month and spending one afternoon a week in a playgroup. I hope that those girls learnt that if a child has love, social and emotional skills and the opportunity to play, their development will be off to a good start. I hope that it helped them to become better and more confident parents. Of course, every pupil of every ability should learn about child development. Sadly, the Government do not seem interested in citizenship education or personal, social and health education. I doubt that we shall see these important skills given any emphasis—at least for a while.
There is nothing new about what children need to flourish. If we look along the shelves in bookstores at any section relating to bringing up a baby, we see that despite varying fashions and diverse gurus—mine was Dr Spock—the basic message is the same: children need love, social skills, a good diet, language and play. Sadly, some children enter primary school without this attention and they are unable to learn. They do not know how to play or socialise, do not know what a book looks like and have no sense of how numbers work. Such children are likely to have difficulty in achieving and in contributing productively to society. Some will end up in the criminal justice system, have early pregnancy or seek solace in drugs or alcohol.
Other noble Lords have spoken eloquently about internet safety. I, too, am concerned, and I support the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I am particularly concerned about pornography and other unsuitable material. I am concerned about mobile technology, which is of course wonderful, but how often do we see parents or carers absorbed in a mobile phone call, with a child alongside getting no attention? We have the problem of balancing these new technologies with effective child development.
The Government have expressed good intentions on child development—many reviews have already been cited. We are blessed with an extraordinarily committed and active voluntary sector for children. However, the first child development begins with parents and in families, and I am aware that many organisations are seriously worried about the impact of government austerity on families. I am not saying that poverty or austerity are the only problems here, but deprivation is a serious issue. Research by the Family and Parenting Institute points out that,
“families with children are shouldering a disproportionate burden ... equivalent to an annual reduction of £1,250 for a couple with two children”.
Deprivation does count and it affects families.
We have already heard about the early intervention grant and subsequent cuts to Sure Start programmes. There are now 124 fewer Sure Start centres than there were when the coalition Government came to power. What does the Minister have to say to all this? Surely, in order to encourage positive child development and break cycles of poverty and underachievement, we need investment in high-quality support for parents, childcare and schooling. Stressed and exhausted parents often find it difficult to cope with, let alone support, the learning and development of their children. Having children is expensive and demanding. Parents should not be bearing a significant proportion of tax and benefit reforms. How can the Government speak of their support for good child development, yet punish parents and children in this way?
Lord Storey
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for this debate. As someone who studied his degree in education at Chester I think it appropriate that I should speak now.
We all know that children’s early experiences are important in affecting health, behaviour and development outcomes. In their first three years children develop physically, cognitively and emotionally at a faster rate than at any other time in their lives. We need to respond to and support children as they learn to walk and run, speak and communicate, relate to others, play and explore the world. We need to provide children with the balance of child-initiated play and focused and structured learning to ensure that they enjoy learning to read, write, use numbers, think mathematically, explore their world and become creative. For children, the interaction with their environment, especially with their parents, ultimately determines how these characteristics are manifested as they grow and develop into complete adults.
All research—I repeat, all research—has shown that nurturing in the form of parents or carers spending sufficient quality time with their child leads to happy, healthy and successful children. Parents—yes, parents; surprise, surprise—are the key to helping the child’s development, self-discipline and positive character traits. Of course it is important for parents, particularly working mums, that schools have breakfast clubs and after-school clubs, and sometimes even Saturday clubs at the local school. However, often a young child can be in school from 7.30 in the morning to 6 at night, five days a week. They have a daily diet of often 10 and a half hours of school without their parents, and of course parents often come home from work tired and exhausted after a hard-working day. Maybe we need to accept that pattern in the complex society in which we live, but any maternity or paternity tax break or incentive scheme which gives more time for parents or carers to be with their child must be welcomed. Children love the opportunities that parents have to interact with the school.
I want to talk about three important ways that schools can support child development but, first, let us recognise the part that successive Governments have played in the approach to child development, their understanding of the importance of early years and the need for high-quality early years provision, which is well funded. It is hard to believe that less than 10 years ago the pupil-weighted budgets gave half the amount for under-fives as for secondary children.
Often the problems that children face in their schooling, and indeed in their personal development, are down to a failure to identify those problems at an early stage and for the child to be supported with the necessary professional guidance and resources. Early intervention does work but only if we have the resources to make it happen. Often the best-intended bureaucratic processes get in the way and provide delay after delay when early intervention should mean what it says. That is why the pupil premium has the potential to be really important in this field, giving a school the additional finance to just get on and support the child without having to wait. I do have concerns about the pupil premium—not with the policy itself; more with how schools use the additional resource. Do we allow complete freedom of use or do we earmark it? A school with, say, falling rolls might well use the money to plug budget deficits rather than support children with developmental needs. There is real evidence that many schools see it as just an additional budget line rather than using it in a targeted manner, which can really make a difference to children.
Secondly, thank goodness we have recognised that child development in schools cannot be about constant form-filling, endless reports, assessments, profiles and observations, with paperwork on top of paperwork. It has to be about quality teacher or teacher assistant time with the pupil. Yes of course we need a record or profile of an individual pupil’s progress but it needs to be light touch and the teacher should not become a slave of the recording process.
Finally, young children develop through play, and children develop at different rates. Yes, we want our children to be able to read, write and be numerate but we do not want to put them in a learning straitjacket. Some children are not ready for a formal educational approach but of course some are. Let us recognise and understand that. Let schools be equipped and supported to develop the learning to suit the child and the child to suit the learning. We need to understand that some children are not ready to access the national curriculum. We need a personalised learning approach.
Child development is of course important not only to the child but to the family, community and society in which we live. Policymakers must not be dogmatic or demand a one-size-fits-all or “we know best” approach. They must constantly be prepared to listen, to understand and to support.
Lord Northbourne
My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for introducing this important debate and for giving us such a broad canvas on which to explore the enormously important issue of child development. It is a time-limited debate and I, like the rest of your Lordships, must stick to only one aspect of this very important problem.
Speaker after speaker today has referred to the importance of parents. For my part, I believe that we are not doing enough to prepare our young people while they are in secondary school for the opportunities and challenges of adult life and, in particular, of parenting. In many schools today, they do not learn what used to be called the “soft skills”. Too many schools are “teaching to the exam” rather than giving their children what we used to think of as a balanced education.
I am a strong supporter of Michael Gove in his drive for better academic results but I am concerned that too many of our secondary schools have become crammers for getting young people into university, rather than places of education in the true sense of the word. What is often missing is what have been called the soft skills—relationship skills, social skills, emotional literacy, the skills of leadership and the ability to work as a team, as well as a sense of belonging, consideration for others and many other life skills which, we all know, are extremely important if one is to succeed in the adult world today.
Many of us were lucky enough to learn those skills in the family but some children today are not so lucky. In this country today most parents do a good job but there are some who, for a variety of reasons, are failing. It may be because they have an addiction problem or suffer from mental ill health, as has been mentioned by a number of speakers. It may also be due to family breakdown, domestic violence or a parent being in prison. Some cannot give their children the parenting they need because they themselves never enjoyed supportive parenting or a loving family.
I want to speak for a moment about the early years—a subject on which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and I have spoken before. Parenting is important because in recent years neurological science has taught us much more about brain development. The latter part of pregnancy, as the noble Baroness mentioned, and the first three years of life are crucial in the development of the child’s brain. By the child’s third birthday, the brain is 80% developed. During those first three early years a child should learn to love and to be loved; it should learn to feel safe and valued so that it can begin to develop an identity and the self-confidence to value itself; and it should be beginning to develop relationship skills with peers and adults. It might even learn to sit quietly, to listen and to do what it is told—at least for some of the time.
In these first three years, the role of loving attachment to one or more principal carers is crucial. That is why mothers and fathers are important. Girls need to be prepared for parenting long before they become pregnant—effectively in secondary school, where they should also learn about developing good interpersonal relationships.
I dare say that the Minister is going to say that these matters are covered by the PSHE programme. However, the reality exposed recently by Ofsted is disappointing. It shows that in most secondary schools today PSHE is either badly taught or not taught at all. Where it is taught, it tends to be treated as a Cinderella subject, often being taught by teachers with no specialist training in the subject. What are the Government doing about publishing their new PSHE policy, which has been deferred time and again? Will their new policy do anything to improve the chances of this subject being taken seriously in secondary schools?
I believe that our education system needs a cadre of well trained teachers with the confidence to teach PSHE and similar subjects in an interactive way, following and guiding the interests of their pupils. I believe that Ofsted should include in all its reports on schools a section on the development of the soft skills or life skills and on the quality of preparation for adult life. I also believe that one or more of the major teacher training colleges should start an experiment in developing courses for teachers who are keen to become specialists in the interactive teaching of the skills required for adult life.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate for bringing this important debate to the House and for the way that he described child development issues and the encompassing issues of marriage. However, time does not permit me to elaborate on that.
I should like to make some general points today. As has been said, one way of judging a civilisation is the manner in which it invests in the nurturing and development of its children. The moral responsibility involved in ensuring that the well-being of our children is maximally catered for is very much related to how we envision our future. If our aspiration is to grow old in a society that is compassionate to the elderly, brimming with harmony and at ease with itself, then investing in the well-being of our children becomes a utilitarian task. We must ensure that our children are not only properly fed, clothed and housed, but that they are also properly and adequately trained to be well integrated human beings who are sensitive to others, able to cope with changes and eager to be of service to family, community and the nation. In a world dominated by inequality and social and economic injustice, the danger of alienation and marginalisation of children who become problematic adults are all too well known to us, as has been mentioned.
When it comes to parenting, our society has moved dangerously close to making one of life’s greatest pleasures an unnecessary burden financially, psychologically, physically and environmentally. Sadly, we exist at a time when the project of bringing up children is not so much a collective effort that is rewarded but a burden that depends on your socioeconomic conditioning and the postcode lotteries for education and prejudice, and where the struggles facing parents, teachers and community organisations are all-pervasive. Hard-pushed parents, to whom reference has been made across the House, are trying to make ends meet in difficult economic conditions, and they find themselves with little time and few emotional resources and skills. My noble friend Lady King and I have both noted occasions when we were on the phone while our children—in my case grandchildren—are struggling to get our attention. A real concern is that needy young people are left to be influenced by the dominant street culture of “I want” and “I want it now”. They lack opportunities and are influenced by the “increased privilege” that seems on offer on the streets. It is a real concern which was referred to earlier this week.
As other noble Lords have said, our television screens have been dominated by deeply depressing news of children who have been abducted, impacted by domestic violence or raped. Social networking throws up a complex set of values the impact of which the Government must consider and deal with. Among the Muslim communities, the twin evil forces of Islamophobia and racism continue to marginalise and blight the lives of thousands of children and young people. Urged on by the youthful imperative of being rebellious and confrontational, these young people are perilously vulnerable to being recruited to drugs, violence and, sadly, to militancy. That is a threat to all of us.
In this context I commend the work of Radical Middle Way and the London Muslim Centre which, with many other groups, continue to try to address these issues despite struggling to find sufficient financial resources. Some commentators and analysts saw last year’s London riots as reflecting our lack of investment in our young people. The exemplary way in which young people participated and were involved in the Olympics was explained in the same terms. Surely the lesson is that there are winners or losers. The destiny of our children and that of our society lies in our ability to invest in, respect and honour our children as we ourselves would wish to be honoured and respected. I asked the Minister what if any work is being undertaken to address the impact of Islamophobia and racism on children particularly in the early years.
Lord Eames
My Lords, a disadvantage of coming at the end of a long list of speakers is that you can run behind the scene saying, “Everything that is worth saying has been said”. Today that is true. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester and I do not envy the Minister in having to respond to this debate because we have covered so many things at great speed. I know that the Minister has taken this occasion very seriously and, therefore, we look forward to her response.
Among the reports that have been mentioned today, one has received scant mention. That is a report of Reg Bailey, which had the wonderful title, Letting Children be Children. As I have listened to the debate, I have become convinced that that title says so much about what we have been saying to each other. The tragedy of so much of what we have discussed today is that children cannot be children; society does not allow them to be children. Society puts pressures and demands on them, and a lack of opportunity prevents them experiencing the idealistic childhood that so many of us have enjoyed.
When the coalition announced that the bedrock of society would be the stable family, we all rejoiced. Those of us who, in our careers, have been involved with families and with society’s problems down the years welcome that. Unfortunately, for many of us the conditions under which the coalition has had to address the economic ills of our society has meant that some of the glint has disappeared. It has been eroded for one simple reason: so often we have wonderful ways of expressing the vision of what needs to be done by the Government, by Parliament and by those with a responsibility to address a situation such as our present economic one, but we lose sight of the fact that we are not talking about principles or society in general but about individuals.
Many of the measures that we now know will be implemented to try to meet our economic situation will have a knock-on effect on those who are least prepared to face them. Among that category are those about whom we are talking rather scantily in this debate. Not everyone in our society has enjoyed a stable home; not everyone in our society has enjoyed the strength of caring parents. I think of my own experience when, during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, my clergy brought to me, time and time again, their worries about what was happening to the young people in that society. I am certain of one conviction: in a society such as mine, it will take a generation to understand the depth of the scars that have been forced on young people. I am not highlighting this as characteristic of the United Kingdom—of course I am not—but I am saying that some of the lessons that we have learnt apply to those who have been displaced by society, those who have been denied by society and many of those who have been mentioned in this debate, who have been denied the stability of that family that I picture.
One example that I can give in the time allowed to me today is this: do we honestly understand, not the opportunity, not the burden, not the difficulty, but the privilege of childhood? As a society, have we yet realised that, even if there is a knock-on effect in what we have to do in the economic area, that the most vulnerable in this picture are children? It will be another generation before we can honestly understand the scars that we are allowing to be placed on them. That is why this debate has been essential. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for introducing it.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, for that most eloquent speech in an amazing debate. I feel that I have learnt a huge amount today. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester on securing this important debate.
I will start with a quotation which states:
“The best thing you can do for your child is to provide them with loving parents who are happy, healthy and at ease with themselves so that they can grow up with that as their idea of ‘normal’ and be likely to adopt the same approach to life”.
That is from the psychologist, Dr Amanda Gummer. The most challenging aspect of the debate is the question of the extent to which Governments can help or hinder the achieving of the ideal of happy, loving parents who are at ease and who can bring children up in that image.
We have touched on a wide range of topics in today’s debate. Some of them are at a softer end of the spectrum, where we try to influence society as a whole; and some are much more specific and cover the role that Governments and legislators play in helping foster this ideal. I will touch on a few.
We heard very eloquently from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, about the role that nutrition plays. That fundamental bedrock of a child’s development is something to which perhaps we do not pay enough attention.
Early intervention was definitely a theme that came out of the debate. A number of noble Lords quoted the excellent resources that were made available by the Library and that covered the need for early intervention. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friends Lord Young and Lady Massey mentioned the need for early intervention to ensure that we do not end up spending far more as a society on trying to solve the problems that will arise from not tackling the early problems in a child’s development. I was taken with my noble friend Lady King’s analogy that we have ambulances waiting at the bottom of the cliff, rather than trying to take more preventive measures to prevent people falling through the cracks. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby talked about what happens after perhaps 15 years of falling through the cracks; it then takes a big intervention to get people back on track.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of internet safety. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who has a Private Member’s Bill on this topic. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lady Massey also mentioned it. Clearly we are going through something of a new age in children’s access to information. I am at the other end of the spectrum from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay; I have a toddler under two at home and know that he is already using the iPad. That concerns me because, as we heard in the debate, by the age of seven you may already have spent a year in front of a screen. It is a troubling statistic. I do not have any solutions. I wonder whether the Minister might have some because I would like to know what I can do to get it away from him.
I will return to slightly more serious issues. The debate touched on a range of topics. What was interesting was the way in which it intertwined with debates about marriage. There are many ways of addressing this. Personally I think that having stable parents who are loving and in a warm and supportive relationship is perhaps more important than the piece of paper that gives the relationship legal status. Nevertheless, a number of noble Lords raised this and it is an important aspect of the debate. We also heard about a troubling aspect that threatens children’s development: namely, child trafficking. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was very eloquent in raising this important issue.
I will wrap up and make my points because I know we are time-limited. There is a role for legislation, legislators and policy-makers in this very important and broad-ranging debate. Our role must be to ensure that there is a support network in place for parents and families who find themselves struggling through no fault of their own. It is absolutely true, as many noble Lords mentioned, that if parents struggle, children will struggle—and we will end up in a cycle of repeated problems. The problems that parents experienced in their childhood are repeated and reproduced in subsequent generations. We must try to find a way of breaking the cycle.
One thing that we should be very proud of in Britain is sustaining and maintaining the very valuable network of social services that help families break the pattern of negative cycles and protect the most vulnerable from harm. These services are not perfect—nothing is—and they tend to hit the headlines when something goes wrong, but I will take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those people out of the glare of the media spotlight who spend their working lives trying to improve the situation of families who are struggling. It is not easy work. It is mentally and emotionally draining, it is not highly paid and it is not glamorous, and yet it is extremely rewarding for those who do it. The social services are a great asset of British life, and a constant reminder that there is more to life than simply pursuing money, fame and privilege. Helping people in need, leaving things in a better state than they were when you found them and improving the lot of the most vulnerable people in society are noble endeavours that provide dividends to those who undertake them that cannot be measured by pounds in the bank.
As we struggle to reboot our economic growth we must recognise that recession hits the most vulnerable hardest, and social services feel the direct pressure that comes from more and more people slipping from the position of just about coping to being suddenly overwhelmed and then desperate. We cannot, in our zeal to decrease our debt and address our economic problems, sacrifice the welfare state that helps prevent people reaching that point of desperation. I am sorry to say that the Government do not understand that this is a fundamental aspect that must be maintained. In the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments to his conference last week, because he lacked a comprehensive strategy on the economy, he made policy suggestions that have potentially very serious negative consequences for the well-being of families and children.
Why is it that in a time of economic difficulty we suddenly point the finger of blame for our slow economy at those hard-fought-for employment rights that are maintained because we want a civil society that helps support families and children? Why should they be brought into the frame as being part of the problem? The idea that we should invite employees—it will probably turn out that we will insist on this—to drop their rights to parental leave in return for shares is a miserly, short-sighted policy. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how it would help engender safe and secure parenting and families if parents were pushed into a situation where they had less parental leave than they otherwise would have enjoyed.
We tend always to look to America as a shining beacon of how we should pursue economic growth—although America’s economy is not doing well—rather than to some of our more progressive European neighbours. The UK’s record on parental leave is pretty poor. It is not yet quite as bad as that of the US, but if George Osborne’s proposals take off, we will see parents who will have no parental leave. In Germany the situation is far better for parents. There is much greater flexibility and extended periods of leave that apply to both the mother and father. Why can we not look to Germany rather than the US when we consider how we might build a strong economy while maintaining our social fabric?
I am conscious of the time. Other noble Lords mentioned concerns raised in the media and elsewhere about money being taken away from very important programmes such as Sure Start. Not only do we have fewer Sure Start centres, but announcements about increasing access to education for two year-olds are robbing money from the Sure Start programme. Surely that cannot be the answer.
It is likely that we will see more children falling into relative poverty. We are not the only ones saying that. The Government’s analysis in the Autumn Statement forecast concluded that changes would increase child poverty by 100,000 in 2012-13. Surely that is not the right time to cut services for our most vulnerable children.
This is a huge debate and we could talk at great length. I will end by echoing the contribution of my noble friend Lord McFall, who pointed out Labour’s excellent record in this policy area. We passed the Child Poverty Act 2010. It creates important targets and we were making great progress towards them when we lost the election. I echo my noble friend in asking the Government to be honest about whether they think they will be able to meet those targets and, if not, to set more realistic ones that take into account everything being done to the welfare system and other policy changes.
Labour is the party that introduced the minimum wage and used tax credits to create a system of welfare back to work. That is how you create happy, stable homes with parents who are at ease with themselves and able to bring up healthy, happy children. Labour’s record is excellent on this. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in regard to the Government’s policies.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for giving us the opportunity to explore this very important matter in such depth. The number of speakers and the quality of the contributions mean that I may not be able to respond to all the very significant points that have been raised in the debate, but perhaps I may reassure noble Lords that none of them will be lost and that, where appropriate, a written response will follow. I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, to the Dispatch Box in this debate. I do not think that she has faced us on education matters before.
I have listened with great interest to all the views expressed, and I shall set out briefly the Government’s position. We agree completely with the premise behind this Motion, that a good childhood is key to our national well-being. We must do all we can to ensure that our children and young people develop as individuals, as members of their communities and as citizens to reach their full potential. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, reminded us, we should be mindful of the privilege of childhood. To do this successfully, it is important to get a strong evidence base so that our policies can be fully informed. A considerable amount of work has already been done by a great number of distinguished people, including many here within your Lordships’ House. I should also like to acknowledge the contribution of the previous Administration and all the work they did in this regard, as well as their promotion of the concept that every child matters.
Building on that, the Prime Minister has asked the Office for National Statistics to devise a new way of measuring well-being in Britain, the Measuring National Well-being Programme. This is in recognition of the limitations of GDP as a measure of the country’s progress, and indeed many noble Lords referred to that in the course of the debate. We want to develop a wider suite of indicators covering not only economic development but the state of the environment and, crucially, the quality of people’s lives. One strand of the work is to develop questions on subjective well-being, in essence how people think and feel about their own lives. So far, the ONS has developed four self-report questions to measure universal well-being among adults aged 16 and above, and we intend to do something similar for children and young people aged under 16.
Yesterday, the ONS published a report on 16 to 24 year-olds that has some interesting results. It shows that young people’s subjective well-being is higher than for older age groups. Young people aged 16 to 17 rated their life satisfaction on average at a higher level than all other age groups, while average ratings for all young people show lower levels of anxiety than for older age groups. The details for children aged under 15 are still to be finalised, and we expect the ONS to report on 26th of this month. More recent research suggests that the well-being of young people in the UK is broadly in line with international averages. We have seen a range of surveys in this area that, in the interests of time, I will not go into in great detail, but perhaps I may pull out one from the University of Essex. Its Life Satisfaction and Material Well-being of Children in the UK survey shows that, overall, children appear to be satisfied with their lives. In relation to a point raised by a number of noble Lords, it also found that children’s happiness and well-being is not entirely linked to family income. A stable home life with a network of friends, a healthy lifestyle, a sense of community and good behaviour in their classmates matter more to children’s sense of well-being than their parent’s earnings.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, children who live with both their parents are generally happier than those living in single families and stepfamily relationships. But this is not to suggest that such families are somehow failing their children, it is just that they face greater challenges. We heard a valuable contribution on this subject from the noble Baroness, Lady King, who also linked it to the cost of failure in telling detail. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester raised the importance of marriage, while the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, talked about male role models and the importance of fathers, as well as the joint parenting that is so vital to the well-being of children. There is absolutely no complacency and the Government are already acting to address these issues.
We are working to support families and improve parenting. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, I, too, pay tribute to those who work in those areas that deal with families, and sometimes families in the greatest need who can be in the most stressful situations. We have the Family Nurse Partnership Programme, which is a preventive programme for first-time mothers. It offers intensive and structured home visiting delivered by specially trained nurses from early pregnancy until the child is two. The Government are also committed to turning around the lives of 120,000 troubled families in England by 2015 through getting children back into school and reducing youth crime and anti-social behaviour. We are working with local authorities to deal with each family’s problems as a whole, with a single caseworker to provide intensive help and promote long-term change. We heard the powerful contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby on this, and indeed his passage in rap which set a standard for the rest of us to deliver our speeches in a slightly different fashion.
We have provided funding for Family Support Services, which contribute to children and young people’s development and well-being by supporting parents with advice, guidance and intensive support on issues such as child mental health and behaviour. The services support parents and families when and where they want it and in a form that suits them. We are also taking forward policies that will enhance children’s development by promoting their self-confidence and sense of responsibility. The contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, posed a challenge to educators for parental education. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and my noble friend Lady Walmsley also spoke passionately about good personal, social, health and economic education. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, spoke of his own experiences in this connection, while the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, emphasised the importance of soft skills in this area.
PSHE contributes to children and young people’s development and well-being by enabling them to make safe and informed choices. In spite of what may have been said earlier in the debate, Ofsted reports that PSHE continues to be well taught in over 75% of schools, and we are looking to improve the remaining 25% through a review of PSHE education. We expect the review to report early in 2013. Citizenship education is a compulsory part of the national curriculum in secondary schools. As part of the national curriculum review, we are considering what the secondary national curriculum should look like, and we will set out our proposals in due course. We also have the National Citizen Service, which gives young people the confidence and skills they need to get involved positively with their local communities and increasing the number who want to stay on in education. It gives them the chance to try new activities and mix with other young people they would not normally meet. It supports their successful transition to adulthood. An independent evaluation report showed that 95% of the young people involved said that it had given them the chance to develop useful skills for the future.
Positive for Youth, a briefing published on 19 December 2011, is a radical new approach to youth policy that puts young people in the driving seat. It has been developed with and for young people and sets out a vision in which they all have the supportive relationships, strong ambitions and good opportunities they need. It includes nine outcome measures to be reported on annually. The first of these is a new national measure of young people’s subjective well-being that will be recorded as part of the ONS’s Measuring National Well-being Programme.
I should also like to take the opportunity to mention the Cadet Forces and similar uniformed organisations such as the Scouts and Guides. They make a major contribution to young people’s development by building self-confidence, promoting a sense of personal responsibility and teaching skills of leadership. I have seen at first hand, for example, how the Air Training Corps can provide a forum for young people with few home advantages to blossom when faced with leadership challenges, to speak in public with confidence, often to the astonishment of their close family, and to take pride in their behaviour and their appearance, as well as to demonstrate social responsibility and care for their neighbours. Further, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby pointed out, they get preparation for the world of work.
There is no contradiction between academic attainment and well-being. Research from the Centre for the Economics of Education has found that pupils with higher levels of enjoyment of school at age 14 go on to have relatively higher levels of attainment at age 16. Our policy is to allow good schools to continue to play their vital role as promoters of well-being in their local communities, and to do so as far as possible without central government prescription.
Perhaps I can pick up on some of the points that were made in this very varied debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester, my noble friend Lady Walmsley and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, all asked about parenting. We have the CANparent trial project which aims to stimulate a private sector market in parenting education by encouraging parenting programme providers to offer a range of universal parenting classes. Most of the providers offering classes within the trial are charitable or not-for-profit organisations. The right reverend Prelate also mentioned the vital role played by the charitable, voluntary and not-for-profit organisations in this field. He also asked what progress had been made with the pre-school pledge. The new entitlement for two year-olds will be introduced in two phases. From September 2013, 20% of two year-olds will be eligible; from September 2014, this will be extended to 40% of two year-olds—around 300,000 children.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asked what we were doing to support marriage. Family support services contribute to children and young people’s development and well-being by supporting parents with advice, guidance and intensive support on issues such as school admissions, appeals and exclusions, child mental health and behaviour, and disability and special educational needs.
The question of marriage and tax was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lords, Lord McFall and Lord Browne. The Government remain committed to recognising marriage in the income tax system. We want to show that we value commitment. We are considering a range of options and fully intend to come forward with proposals at an appropriate time.
The noble Lords, Lord McFall and Lord Low, mentioned the child poverty benefit reports. The Government are indeed committed to tackling child poverty but believe that it is key to tackle the causes rather than to treat the symptoms. We remain committed to the target set out in the Child Poverty Act, but want to find new measures better to reflect the reality of living in poverty today. We are launching a consultation on this shortly and would very much welcome input from noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley raised a range of issues. I will, if I may, write to her in response to some of those. She asked about identifying problems early and the training of children’s centre staff. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges has introduced compulsory training on sexual health and domestic violence in the foundation programme curriculum for children’s centre staff, and there is ongoing work to ensure that children benefit from informed and qualified people at the earliest stage. I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s contributions about music and so on at a very early stage, which is proven to have some beneficial effects.
The issue of child sexual exploitation and trafficking was raised movingly by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne. On 3 July, the Government announced that urgent action would be taken to help protect young people in residential care who may be particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation, and that will report by the end of the year. Obviously, we hope that the dreadful cases that happened in Rochdale will be prevented from happening again.
Combating human trafficking is a key priority for this Government. We are committed to tackling the organised crime groups that profit from this human misery. The response to trafficking should be primarily about protecting the victims of crime and bringing those who exploit them to justice. An immense amount of work needs to be done on this because it is an extraordinarily serious issue, and we benefit from co-operation with European partners and cross-border organisations, which help us to treat this as the international problem it is. We acknowledge that this has been a particular issue in some areas of the country. The current figures of potentially trafficked children who go missing from care remain too high. It is encouraging to see the year-on-year decrease in numbers of missing trafficked children but of course we are in no way complacent about this issue.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady King and Lady Worthington, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, talked about the early intervention grant being reduced. It has become clear that local authorities and others believe that £534 million will be removed from the early intervention grant in 2013 and transferred to the dedicated school grant, but this is not the case. The department consulted earlier this year on the proposals to transfer funding from the EIG to the dedicated school grant, and the change was supported in the consultation, but the two year-old offer is funded with £760 million of new money, as announced in the Autumn Statement. So it is not true to say that it is being funded through cuts to children’s centres, which indeed is not what we would wish. We pay tribute to the report of Graham Allen MP on these issues.
My noble friend Lady Benjamin, who has a long record of championing children’s rights, particularly through television and radio, mentioned the effects of children’s television—or rather the effects of sitting children in front of the television at too early an age. I know that she is also very active in ensuring that the quality of children’s television and radio programmes remains high, and remains a proper informative and positive experience for children. She also referred to cyberbullying, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who has been so actively involved in this area, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. The problems of cyberbullying are totally insidious. It is a very complex problem but we have got co-operation, particularly in response to Reg Bailey’s report on this, to try to keep children safe online.
One problem is that very often the children actually know rather more than the parents. Indeed, hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, about her two year-old already being proficient with an iPad, one feels that this is a problem that may become less as that generation grows up to be responsible parents. Today’s parents have slightly more of a struggle sometimes in matching the skill in technology of the young people. We have been consulting and have had a wide range of responses. We are drawing on a wide range of people from the industry as well, from businesses and regulators, to try to make it easier for parents to block adult and age-restricted material or to find other ways in which exposure to such totally unsuitable material can be managed. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, mentioned Islamophobia. Of course, that itself is a form of bullying, which needs to be addressed as well for children.
My noble friend Lady Miller raised the issue of good nutrition. The Government are certainly committed to promoting the health and well-being of infants, children and young people, and supporting them to eat a healthy and balanced diet. There is a range of initiatives, including the “eat well plate”, which shows the types and proportions of food needed for a healthy and balanced diet, and Healthy Start, which is a statutory scheme providing a means-tested nutritional safety net to pregnant women and families with children under four in very low-income and disadvantaged areas. We hope that those programmes will continue to improve children’s nutritional health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, asked a number of questions. I may need to write to her on some of those. She talked about child development in initial teacher training. That is down to the ITT providers, but we would certainly expect that to be part of training, and for child development to be fully taken into account during the recent review of the national curriculum. She also referred to the Sure Start centres. It is for local authorities to determine where those cuts should fall. There has been only a small net reduction in children’s centre numbers and only 18 outright closures to date. The vast majority of the reduction is accounted for by organisational changes such as mergers of children’s centres to make efficiency savings.
My noble friend Lord Storey made reference to play, which of course is such an important factor, and paternal leave. The Government have consulted on more generous and flexible parental leave and an extension of the right to flexible working to all employees, to support mothers and fathers to develop positive patterns of shared caring from the start.
As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, said—indeed, reference has been made throughout this debate—all these efforts are constrained by the financial situation in which we find ourselves and trying to ensure that we can operate as effectively as possible in this important field. Of course, the pupil premium is one measure that we have been able to take, and it is having a tremendous impact in schools. It is for schools to decide how it is spent, and schools must be accountable for that, but it is one of the things that we have been able to implement.
In conclusion, once again, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful and thought-provoking contributions. I apologise if I have not referred to all the contributors to the debate. All the contributions were valuable and wide-ranging. Most especially, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester for initiating the debate, and giving us the opportunity to explore these very complex issues so fully.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, which has been as fascinating as it has been wide-ranging. I thank the Minister for her response. On those points to which she did not respond—and the coalition pledge is one of them—a letter to me, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and others might be a helpful addition to the store of human wisdom and understanding in the weeks to come.
The UNICEF report was a wake-up call, and it is encouraging to see how it is being recognised as such. There are issues of encouragement. I go into a lot of schools and, generally speaking, find myself encouraged after doing so. A lot of good things are happening, but we need to go a lot further. It is particularly important that children are seen not just as proto-adults and that we see something again of the dignity of childhood, which is encroached on in so many ways, as noble Lords have mentioned, not least by the internet.
I was reflecting on the irony of your Lordships’ House discussing childhood when 20% of our Members are over the age of 80. The answer is for more of us to cast our speeches in the form of a rap, which my noble friend gave us earlier.
Constitutional Settlement
(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
To move that this House takes note of a potential break-up of the United Kingdom and of the case for considering an alternative constitutional settlement.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to raise broad constitutional issues that it is timely for us collectively to consider. The referendum proposed on Scottish independence is without precedent since 1707 and the Act of Union. I know it is widely considered that the majority of Scots in Scotland who will participate in this test of opinion are unlikely to take such a self-damaging step, but there is no ground for complacency.
The fact that the Scottish National Party, which is committed to the break-up of Britain, won a majority of the seats in the Scottish parliamentary elections is not a political outcome to be taken lightly. To my mind, the likeliest explanation of that outcome was that the three United Kingdom parties at the time of that election were not in good standing because of the economic downturn in the United Kingdom and the proposed means of dealing with it. Unfortunately, the prospects for Britain emerging from these difficulties by the date which I understand is proposed for the referendum in 2014 are not good. Consequently, it is to be hoped that the Scottish people will draw a clear distinction between supporting a party of protest and weakening the voice and influence of Scotland by separation from the United Kingdom.
In the world in which we live, it makes no sense to lift the drawbridge and retreat into an embattled redoubt. With the global advance in economic power of countries such as China and India, and the rapid development of such countries as Brazil, we should recognise that decisions affecting the citizens of this country will not all be taken at the level of the nation state. Trade, the utilisation of scientific discovery, the protection of the environment, the regulation of global finance—in these, and in many other areas of policy, Governments should move in the direction of integrating systems of political decision-making, not towards fragmentation. Too much navel-gazing is going on around the United Kingdom without proper recognition of our inevitable diminution in global power if we do not associate ourselves with other like-minded countries. If we in Britain want to have a continuing voice in such decisions, we need to enable our representatives to be seen to be speaking with democratic authority—and with a broad democratic consensus that o’erleaps national frontiers. That is the actual strength of the European Union, and it could become even greater if we recognise the need to develop and reform the Union’s constitutional structures to achieve that goal.
To my mind, competition among nation states is not always wise and it is not necessarily the way ahead for the United Kingdom. As that highly successful entrepreneur, Henry Ford, once said:
“Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress. Working together is success”.
I am sure he was right.
A glance back at Scotland following its parliamentary integration with England demonstrates that the national culture, the national identity, was not adversely affected by the union. Not only did the age of enlightenment that followed hard on the heels of the Act of Union bring Adam Smith, David Hume and Allan Ramsay to the forefront of Great Britain but they were seen as giants on the world stage. At the same time, in the professions, the Adam brothers in architecture, the Hunters in medicine and Lord Stair in the law could be seen as fundamental to Scotland’s reputation.
It is surely right, however, to recognise that representative democracies must adapt to changing circumstances. The key is to recognise that the tiers of government must be structured to enable them to accomplish what the people want. Decision-making by government in this country has become more extensive with every passing decade. The weight of the volumes of statutes that we have as a result of our legislative activities grows with every year. The executive arm is ever more stretched. The Better Government Initiative, in which distinguished Members of this House participated, made valuable suggestions. Parliament has already accepted significant changes to our ways of governing and discreet constitutional reforms have been effected that have improved our system of governance. I shall not go back to the period of the beginning of the Labour Government, which I think was very profitable, involving as it did the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into our law, but I would mention in particular the steps to strengthen the judicial system by ensuring the separation of legislative and judicial roles in the forming of the Supreme Court.
The time is now ripe, however, to open a national discussion on the modernisation of our British constitution. What is happening in Scotland will have a difficult fallout and impact on other nations of the United Kingdom. It has already led to discussions in Wales, which have been considered in this House, the Silk commission and other reports on devolution and additional decentralisation. However, I believe that an ad hoc approach to constitutional reform is no longer enough, and that we must look at these issues in the round and recognise that what we choose to do in one area may have a ripple effect in other areas, which were not necessarily considered because that was not what gave rise to the reforms.
The House of Commons made a very important step with the consideration given by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee to the possibility of establishing a nationwide United Kingdom convention on the future structures of our Government. Graham Allen has personally followed this debate and led it with considerable distinction. I have been in favour of piecemeal reform in the past, but it seems to me that the time is ripe to bring together the issues that are causing unrest, discontent with politicians and a sense of failure of Governments and come to conclusions that enjoy a broad consensus. The Scottish convention was very successful in that respect in Scotland. It is not a precise model to be followed, because some consideration ought to be given to whether citizens should be individually elected to participate in such a convention, but it is clear that decisions should not be taken in a partisan way to benefit individual groups of politicians around the country; and that they should enjoy widespread non-partisan support if they are to be brought forward in Parliament.
A deliberative constitutional convention could be informed by the best and wisest heads who have considered these things, many of whom have been giving evidence to the committee in another place. It would assist greatly the achievement of consensus if we aspired to that solidity of approach. I do not believe that Parliament itself, constructed as it is in a partisan way, or the executive arms of government, can achieve these needs without the wider participation of the interested and informed public.
If we are to build that wider consensus into a coherent constitutional framework for decision-makers that allocates responsibility to the appropriate levels, we need the input of our citizenry. That is the sensible way to distil the best options and obtain wide-reaching consensus. We have seen some very helpful deliberations initiated around the country by, in many cases, non-politicians. We have, for example, had very perceptive criticism of the Barnett formula on the distribution of central government funds, and ways out of that dilemma, from Professor Iain McLean of Nuffield College, who has drawn particular attention to the Australian federation system of distributing central government funding. We have had sensible evidence—and again this was part of the Graham Allen approach—that led to the view that a process internal to England would be appropriate in order to establish a clear regional model, ensuring that no single unit within the United Kingdom was too large to participate in what might be seen as a modern federal structure.
There is much to be said for such a structure, but it is not my purpose in opening this debate today to advocate particular solutions to the need to obtain accepted subsidiarity. My purpose is rather to open the discussion in this House about the possibility of a nationwide convention, which I believe should take years, and not months, to deliberate, so that the people of Scotland recognise that the choice is not between separation and the status quo and so that they can see, like everyone else in the United Kingdom, that there is a range of opportunities that would lead to better governance.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, for securing this debate. His consistent and very considered contribution over the years to debates across the United Kingdom on matters relating to the UK’s role in Europe, Scottish devolution and a whole host of other constitutional issues has earned him the right to open this debate and he did so in some style. However, although I welcome the fact that the debate covers both the potential break-up of the United Kingdom and the case for considering an alternative constitutional settlement, it is vital that we do not just propose the need for a debate on an alternative constitutional settlement in response to the current situation in Scotland. Our objective should be to seek the best constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom and for the people of the United Kingdom—and, from my perspective particularly, for the people of Scotland—not just that which is tactically helpful for those of us who believe that the United Kingdom has a role in the modern world at this time.
I believe passionately that Scotland is best placed inside the United Kingdom—the most successful voluntary union of nations the world has ever seen. The success of Scotland since 1707 in making probably the single biggest contribution to global development and thought per head of population of any nation anywhere in the world is one that we should be proud of, not one that we should reject. However, I am not wedded to the union itself as a value or a principle; I support the union because of values and principles and believe very much that membership of the United Kingdom is in the best interests of what I regard as my homeland, Scotland, and of the future of the people who live, and will live, there in the years to come. I also believe that it is best for the people of the rest of the United Kingdom and that we are—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said in respect of the United Kingdom’s relationship with other nations, whether in the Commonwealth, Europe or elsewhere—better when we work together than when we divide apart.
As I may have said in this Chamber before, my first vote was cast in 1979, in the unsuccessful devolution referendum. I remember the debates well. They had a lasting impact on my political outlook and my attitude to the conduct of politics. One of the many reasons for the outcome of the vote in 1979 was that there was no consensus on the best form of devolution or home rule for Scotland. There were doubts about the motives of even some who supported that position. Across Scotland, the conditions were not yet right for a decisive change to the UK’s constitutional structure.
The work done by the Scottish Constitutional Convention—I had the honour to serve as a member of its executive committee from 1992 to 1997—was marked by its success. That was thanks to the terrific contribution by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, who will close the debate, but also because not only did it involve civic Scotland and wider public support, it was politically led with clarity of purpose. If I have one concern about the proposal for a constitutional convention for the whole of the United Kingdom, it is that it is important to have a sense of purpose for such a body and for it not to operate in a vacuum. There must be an end in sight, even if the details are not all clear at the beginning.
It is important to reflect on the changes that have been made since 1997. There is no doubt in my mind that, despite all the ups and downs, despite my criticisms of the current Scottish Government, despite the difficulties that have occurred over the years from time to time in Northern Ireland and the challenges that running an autonomous home-rule government has posed for the people of Wales and Scotland, devolution has been a success in the United Kingdom. The confidence of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is undoubtedly higher than it was in 1997. Many areas of public life, economic life and social life in those three parts of the United Kingdom are stronger today than they were back in 1997. Despite the fact that things are not perfect, there is no doubt in my mind that things are better than they were then.
That is also true for the city of London. Whatever fun we may have with the current Lord Mayor—sorry, the mayor—and whatever criticisms some Members may have had of the previous mayor, having a mayor has been great for the city of London. I hope that, over time, the development of mayors in other parts of England or even other parts of the United Kingdom will ensure that the great cities of the UK can play their role alongside the devolved governments.
Those changes were important for the overcentralised United Kingdom that existed before, but they were followed by other changes: changes to our judicial system, changes in our relationship with Europe, changes in central government’s relationship with local government and considerable changes in your Lordships’ House and even in the House of Commons. On far too many occasions, in my view, under both the previous and the current Government, those changes have been reactive. They have been in response to public disquiet or, sometimes, just media disquiet, about the behaviour of politicians or the outcome of political decisions. Although most of the changes were certainly welcome and have improved our democracy, they were too piecemeal to be as permanent and effective as they could have been.
Rather than reacting again and again to circumstances and events, it is vital that an overview is taken of the next constitutional steps and changes to the United Kingdom. Just as it should not be a reaction to a referendum on Scottish independence, it should also not be a reaction to the latest story that dominates the headlines and causes questioning of the role of politics, government and politicians.
Although there is definitely a need for some kind of debate on the nature of the United Kingdom and just how federal the UK is to become—we will have today a great contribution on this from the noble Lord, Lord Soley, supported by others—and perhaps a case for a constitutional convention or royal commission of some sort, there is a need among the political parties to provide some leadership in that debate with a sense of purpose and, where possible, unity.
I make three points that I would like considered as part of that discussion. They do not affect the wider constitutional framework of the UK or aspects such as the judiciary. First, in debate on reform of your Lordships’ House, an aspect was missing. I remember interesting—almost exciting—discussions with the late Robin Cook when he was given the responsibility of constitutional reform as leader of the other House. One option that we discussed at the time was whether there was some way to create a second Chamber in the United Kingdom that better reflected not just the nations of the United Kingdom but the regions of England, as an alternative to the failed attempt to create regional self-government for England. Perhaps we could revisit that option in debate in this House. I think there is scope—not necessarily by direct elections, perhaps indirectly, and not based just on the nations but on the regions—for a more representative second Chamber for these Houses of Parliament that reflects all the regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
My second point was that I witnessed with dismay the Prime Minister’s recent Cabinet reshuffle. Yet again, the Prime Minister backed away from an essential development of Cabinet government in the UK: the creation of a department for constitutional affairs. Moving away from the territorial departments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is long overdue. We will not have the culture of respect for the devolved Governments and an understanding of the regions and nations of the United Kingdom at the centre of the UK Government until such a change takes place.
As I am about to reach my 11th minute, I shall leave it at that.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, the House owes the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, thanks for securing this debate and for the wisdom with which he introduced it. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, he speaks from a consistent position down the years. He also speaks from the experience of a convention of which he was a member and which I tried to help—I will not mention that again.
I make two preliminary points. First, I was in the House on Monday to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked about the fate of the Steel Bill, saying that it would languish in the Commons as a Private Member’s Bill until picked up. Surely a Private Member’s Bill has achieved a certain status if it has been passed by the House of Lords. I hope that the Government will look closely at the Steel Bill. It is extremely modest—it is much smaller than most of us would have wanted—but it passed by a large majority through this House and those minor reforms really need to be made. I hope that the off-the-cuff answer by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who was not being asked about the Steel Bill, is not definitive of the Government’s position.
Secondly, I make a point that I have made once or twice in our debates, especially on what is now the Scotland Act. It is in my view a great pity that there is no one among our number who represents the Scottish National Party. I understand why that is the case: the Scottish National Party’s position is that it does not believe in this place and does not want to be represented here. I think that that is a serious mistake. We all—the Government and Parliament—should make it clear to the SNP that it is illogical to send Members to the House of Commons but not to the House of Lords. They would be warmly welcomed to the House of Lords. They would be seen as making a real contribution that is now missing from our debates. I can think of several people in Scotland. I can think, for example, of a Presiding Officer who followed the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who would make an admirable contribution in this House. I hope this is a point on which, in the discussions that are going on with St Andrew’s House behind the scenes, the Government are being extremely welcoming. It is a non-partisan point on which I think all sides of this House would agree.
On the major issues addressed in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, I have been unhappy since 1997 about the way Parliament tackles constitutional reform. In summer 1997, Jack Straw produced his White Paper calling for a national conversation on our constitutional settlement. I found it a very odd paper. I did not feel at ease with its lengthy discussion of values and the need to decide on and be clear about what it means to be British. I felt dismayed by the assertion that the primacy of the Commons would survive unscathed if the House of Lords were elected. That is ground that we have all been over and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was absolutely right on Monday in telling us that he thought the penny on that one had now dropped in the House of Commons—and hence the Bill was dropped. However, I was astonished that the Jack Straw White Paper of July 1997 said not a word about the biggest threat to the constitutional stability of the kingdom, which was, and is even more so now, the independence threat in Scotland. That was passed over in complete silence.
At least Labour tried. There was a White Paper and some discussion of a future constitutional settlement. What have we had from the coalition? First, we have had an EU Act replete with referenda requirements and curiously making decisions of both Houses of Parliament—for the first time ever, I think—subject to subsequent approval by referendum. That seems to be a major attack on the Edmund Burke doctrine of representative democracy. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on that subject, as I regard him as the foremost exponent of Burkean doctrine in this House. Secondly, we have seen the attempt, repeating the Straw assertion, to go for an elected Lords without considering the role of the Lords. The Bill was about the composition of the Lords, but composition should be a function of purpose and we never addressed the role of the Lords. Thirdly, we saw the attempt at replacing first past the post by AV. I will not talk about that.
Fourthly, we saw the attempt to reduce the size of the Commons by equalising the size of constituencies. That seems to rest on a good democratic principle, but I would have liked to have seen that principle modulated by a greater concern for peripherality and geography. It seemed to me that Members of the House of Commons representing constituencies such as the one that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, used to represent could perhaps be regarded as facing more difficulties than someone who represents a central London constituency that also had 75,000 people in it. Fifthly, we had the Scotland Act with its ragbag of further minor devolution—the choice not seeming to be based on any particular principle.
Yesterday we had the assertion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that a reduction in voting age in the Scottish referendum would not set a precedent. I understand exactly what he meant: it clearly would not follow ineluctably that the age of voting in parliamentary elections should be reduced. Yet we all know that it sets a precedent that will be followed. Actually, I support it. If we send kids off to fight and allow them to get married, we might as well let them vote. However, my point now is not that one but that we are approaching constitutional reform in an entirely piecemeal way. Here is something that may well make sense but has never been debated and is not part of any attempt to form a settlement.
I see six issues that it would be good to address in the sort of convention that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, has in mind. First, do we still believe in representative democracy or are we moving more and more to direct democracy, and should we not have some criteria on what issues should be referendable? Secondly, do we still believe in the primacy of the Commons? Thirdly, what is the correct size of the Commons? Fourthly, what criteria should govern further devolution? This is the area that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, spoke of, and it should not just be to Scotland. Which issues should the union lead on, and on which issues should subsidiarity take us towards further devolution? We need a principle there. Fifthly, there is the West Lothian question, which cannot be for ever ducked. Lastly, do we envisage that Scotland, presumably with increased fiscal autonomy, even if independence is rejected, should be represented in this House in the way that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, was suggesting?
Indirect democracy could well be the answer: the cement of the union. I can see the Edinburgh Parliament electing its delegation to come here, and I see that as a precedent for the regions of England if they go that way, and certainly for Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a great deal to be said for a senate so composed, but of course that takes us back to the questions about the role of the House of Lords. It would no longer be a revising Chamber; it would have a quite different role. You cannot separate the big issues about devolution in the kingdom and the issues about the role of this House. I suspect that I am now heading for criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because I have gone further on the wider stage than he would, although I am on his side on a number of issues concerning this House. I always listen with great respect to him and am sometimes reminded of the 19th-century Prime Minister who, when persuaded that some change was necessary, rather plaintively said, “Change? Why must we change? Things are bad enough already as they are”.
However, proposals for change need to be rooted in principle. I am not against the Graham Allen convention. Constitutional change should be considered, organic and consensual, and based on principles designed to create a stronger national settlement. I very much hope that the next two years will not just be devoted to partisan political debate about yes or no in a referendum. We should use this time, down here and throughout the nation, to have the kind of discussion that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, is calling for. This House would and should play a major role in that discussion and is rather well suited to that kind of debate, if only the SNP could be persuaded to be represented, and if only the Government could be persuaded to permit the modest reforms recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in his admirable Bill.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and I thank him for his kind and complimentary references. No, I do not go with him all the way on all that he said but I strongly agree with him that form must follow function, and with my noble friend Lord Maclennan, to whom we are all indebted today, on the need for a holistic look at the constitution of the United Kingdom. I very much hope that the next two years will not be barren in that regard.
My noble friend talked of the contribution that Scotland has made to the United Kingdom, and did so very rightly and persuasively. I have a family background which is not dissimilar, I suspect, from that of many in this House and outside. My great-grandfather came from Scotland and was one of those who helped to set up the fishing industry in Grimsby. I have a son who lives in Scotland and who considers himself Scottish; his children go to Scottish schools and he is married to a Scottish wife. Both of my sons received part of their education in Scotland. We are integrated, individually and collectively, and to disintegrate would be not only an act of folly but a political and social tragedy because the United Kingdom is so much greater than the sum of its individual parts. It is on that basis that I speak in this House today.
I do not, however, want to be complacent. We must not just take things for granted, and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, made that point himself in his speech. I was talking in the corridors yesterday to a couple of colleagues who said, “Oh well, it’ll be a bit like Quebec; they’ll come to the brink many times but won’t actually do it”. I think that we have to take the referendum that is promised—or threatened, depending upon how you look of it—in October 2014 very seriously, and I want to address most of my remarks to that specific subject.
I was deeply disturbed by the response from my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness to the question from my noble friend Lord Forsyth yesterday. I have a high regard for my noble and learned friend; he has contributed enormously to government in the UK in general and in Scotland particularly, where he was a distinguished Deputy First Minister. However, I think that he got it wrong in a big way yesterday. Nothing is more calculated to cause intolerable strains within any country than a disparity of the franchise. If we have a situation where in Scotland people are voting at 16 and in the rest of the United Kingdom they are not, as night follows day, a precedent will have been walked into—there is no point in suggesting that the one thing will not follow the other. I listened with interest this morning on the radio to Vernon Bogdanor, who made this point: this is not the way to debate votes at 16. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made it plain that he is in favour. That is a perfectly respectable point of view; I personally disagree with him, but nevertheless it is a proper point of view to hold. However, it needs properly debating but has not been debated. It should not, and it must not, be introduced through the back door.
We have had all sorts of indications that a deal with Mr Salmond is imminent. It is always easy to do a deal with someone if you capitulate to them. Mr Salmond made it plain from the word go that he wanted votes at 16 for the referendum. He somewhat quaintly added “and 17”, as if you would give them to 16 year-olds but not 17 year-olds. Why did he want this? Because he thought it would be in his interests. Mr Salmond must not be underestimated by anyone in this Chamber; he is the most wily and skilful politician in the UK at the moment, in my view. He has something of the Boris touch about him—a sort of tartan Boris—and we underestimate him at our peril. However, we do not capitulate to those with whom we do not agree.
There has been no principled argument about this issue. It is indicated that we are suddenly going to have this announced next week; I sincerely hope that we are not. If it is indeed announced, then the Government of the UK will not have served us well in this. There is no point in my noble and learned friend suggesting that a precedent would not have been set; it would. Vernon Bogdanor was rather modest on this: he thought it “likely” that votes at 16 would follow throughout the United Kingdom, but I believe that it would be inevitable and I know that many colleagues, whatever point of view they take on the issue, agree with that. This is not the way in which you change the franchise or the constitution.
Personally, I believe that there should be a referendum. Let the Scottish people speak, but let them speak in a way consistent with their current membership of the UK—namely, on a similar register where the franchise is the same as elsewhere in the UK—and do not let us be faced with the situation where, with a narrow majority, it can be suggested that it was the 16 year-olds “what done it”. Think of the implications of that for a moment or two. Let us have an intelligent debate before the referendum, and in that debate let us make sure that the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Maclennan and the noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Kerr, are properly debated.
The United Kingdom is an extraordinary country. It was said by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I think, that the union of our two countries, England and Scotland, was the most successful union in history. Others around the world may debate that, but personally I think that he makes a very good point. I am proud to be British and I am very proud of my Scottish associations on that side of my family, even though I may feel that my own identity is more English. The great thing about this country is that we are all British. Our civilisation, our culture, is European, our nationality is British and within that we have individual national identities. It is a marvellous achievement and must not be put at risk. We need to argue this with force and passion throughout the whole of the UK even though, rightly and properly, the vote will be taken in Scotland.
I hope that some mechanism can be found to enable those who consider their roots to be in Scotland and wish to return there to vote. I concede that that could be difficult, but I do not suggest that everyone in the UK should have a vote and I accept that this decision has to be made in Scotland. However, it must be made in a proper manner in a proper referendum, and on the basis of our franchise arrangements as they exist in the UK at the moment. If there is any suggestion that there should be a change, then that is a change that should extend to the rest of the UK and should be brought into effect only if both Houses of the Parliament of the UK decide that is the right way forward. In such a debate I would not be favouring a lowering of the age, as I made plain, but the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, would be. We could honourably disagree and, as two people who believe passionately in democracy, he would accept the result if it went my way and I would accept it if it went his, but it would have to be on the basis of a proper parliamentary decision—perhaps endorsed in the referendum, because we now have the referendum mechanism for constitutional issues, but essentially made first in Parliament—not introduced through the back door or brought into Scotland in this way by wheeling and dealing. This is a cynicism that is almost beyond belief.
I am told that members of the Government are suddenly attracted this because a recent opinion poll of current 16 year-olds, who will be 18 in two years’ time, indicated that they liked the United Kingdom. What a shoddy way in which to run any country and to be the guardians of the constitution. We can do better than that, and I hope we will.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about whom one of our colleagues once said that if this place had not existed, it would have had to have been created for him. He fits into this place so well. I congratulate—I must refer to him as my noble friend—my noble friend Lord Maclennan. I have known him for so long and most of the time we were in the same party together. I appreciate his wisdom, which others have mentioned, his knowledge and his experience. I am particularly pleased that he has included those three words “alternative constitutional settlement” in the Motion. That is what I want to concentrate on.
Let us first remember why we brought about devolution in the first place. It was not as a reaction to the SNP, it was not as a bulwark against independence and it was not, as some people hoped, as the first step towards independence—the slippery slope argument. We introduced it because in Scotland for 200 years we had had a separate system of education and local government, a separate culture and, above all, a separate legal system, but we also had a democratic deficit because we did not have appropriate democratic control of all that devolution. It was dealt with administratively and inadequately here in Westminster as a codicil to UK or English legislation or as a hurried Scottish Bill late at night, if we had the time. That is why we brought it in. It was because we wanted to do something sensible about that democratic deficit. As with all the changes that have taken place, there have been unintended consequences, and they are what we need to deal with.
Perhaps I may add to what was said earlier by my noble friends Lord Maclennan and Lord McConnell and explain how we dealt with the devolution creating the Scottish Parliament. It was the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Let us remember that the SNP boycotted it. Some people forget that. We might almost forgive them, but not quite. We had wide representation from civic society in particular, and it was based on a clear aim in the Claim of Right. I do not know whether all noble Lords have had the opportunity of reading an excellent book by Owen Dudley Edwards—I contributed a chapter to it. All the Scots Labour MPs, except Tam Dalyell, and Scots Liberal Democrat MPs signed that Claim of Right. We had a purpose. There was a real understanding of what we were aiming for. Then the Welsh Assembly followed. There was not that enthusiasm originally in Wales, but when people saw what Scotland had and what we were doing with it, as noble Lords from Wales will know, they wanted something similar, and the desire for devolution has been growing in Wales. Thankfully, Northern Ireland revived its assembly under different circumstances, and Stormont is now working as part of the whole constitutional structure.
Lord Wigley
The noble Lord will have noted, I am sure, that support for the constitutional settlement in Wales shot up when the National Assembly for Wales got legislative powers after the referendum last year. Therefore, enthusiasm has grown, as have the powers.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Indeed, it is understandable. It is welcome that we have a representative of the Welsh nationalists here. I underline what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said: it would be helpful if we had a representative of the SNP. I know Pete Wishart and some other MPs are quite keen on that, but there is one person who vetoes it, and he has a veto.
To return to my argument, I have written a couple of blogs recently arguing that both from the point of view of Scotland and the point of view of this place, we need a UK constitutional convention because of the piecemeal looks at constitutional reform that we have had in the past and all the anomalies and unintended consequences that have resulted. We need a coherent, consistent look, and we need to work towards a stable solution. One of the anomalies has already been mentioned: the West Lothian question. That is being dealt with separately, and I think wrongly, by the commission under the chairmanship of Sir William McKay because it is looking at it in the narrow context of how we can stop Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs voting on purely English legislation. Incidentally, it has not considered whether it would stop Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Peers voting on that legislation. That did not seem to have occurred to it until some Peers drew it to its attention. So that is being dealt with.
The other thing is that we have ended up with asymmetrical devolution. Scotland, or perhaps Northern Ireland, has the greatest amount of devolution—we could argue that—and then Wales. We then come to the West Lothian question and the problem about England. That is why I and others argue—and it is an increasing argument—that there should be a constitutional convention. My noble friend Lord McConnell said, and I think he is right, that there should be a purpose and an end in sight and that we should know where we are going and not just hope that something will emerge. That is why I am in favour of a federal United Kingdom. I have been arguing that in my own party and with the Liberal Democrats. The Liberals used to want one. I remember going to meeting after meeting where the Liberals would argue so cogently in favour of a federal United Kingdom. They should return to that, we should look at it and I hope others will look at it as the stable solution.
The other stable solution would be a centralised United Kingdom or the break up of the United Kingdom. I do not want either. I do not want a return to a centralised UK, and I do not want the break up of the United Kingdom, but a federal UK would be the way forward.
As other noble Lords have said, the UK constitutional convention could also look at this House, its purpose and its constitution. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord McConnell and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the need for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, of course, England and the regions of England to be properly and sensibly represented in this place, giving this place some enhanced credibility. That needs to be looked at. We also need to look at the relationship of the United Kingdom Parliament, the Commons and the senate, or whatever we call it, to the devolved Parliaments.
Some people argue that a federal system would not work because England is too large. If you think about it, that does not make sense because if the English Parliament—let us say that there is an English Parliament—deals with devolved matters, it is autonomous in those devolved matters, as is the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, so it gets on with its own educational system or whatever. If you agree with a federal structure, if that is the way forward, the size of the different parts does not matter. Where it may matter is when it comes to the federal Parliament, and that is where you have to look at how some balance can be struck.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I support the point that my noble friend is making. Does he recognise that in Germany the Länder vary in size from Bremen with, I think, 700,000 people to North Rhine-Westphalia with about 20 million people, yet they still operate ostensibly on the same basis, which supports the point he is making?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am grateful to my noble friend—he is very much my noble friend—for that example. Pakistan is the same. Punjab is a large state in Pakistan. Ontario is a very large province in the Canadian federal system. It can work. One of the ironies is that the German constitution was formulated by British people. We give these sensible constitutions to other countries, but end up with a bit of a dog’s breakfast ourselves.
If there is one message that I want to come out from this debate today—it has come from all the contributions that have been made and, I predict, will come from others to come—it is that there is growing momentum in support of a UK constitutional convention. As my noble friend Lord Maclennan said, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons, chaired by Graham Allen, is now looking at it. People have been arguing it here. People outside have been arguing it. I think we should try to be the forerunner of a campaign for a UK constitutional convention. We need to get the party leaderships behind it. I have started to encourage the leadership of my party to adopt this as their policy and I will continue to do that. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, can say in his reply that he will encourage his party to adopt a UK constitutional convention, moving towards a federal structure, as his policy. He might even try persuading his coalition partners likewise; I know that it is not easy. It is only through cross-party agreement, if we can all see the way forward and the aim in mind, that something sensible will be achieved. My goodness, with the dog’s breakfast of a constitution we have at the moment, something sensible is long overdue.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
My Lords, if I were in church, I would simply say “Amen” to that speech and sit down; I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. But we are not, and I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to my noble friend Lord Maclennan for his wisdom in enabling the House to have this debate. He has done the House a great service, and also with the tone and content of his introduction.
When Mr Salmond first said that he would hold a referendum in Scotland in two years’ time, I was extremely concerned. I thought that, as time went on, people in Scotland would become thoroughly bored with the whole issue. You cannot open a newspaper but for somebody, either a politician or a journalist, pontificating on some aspect of putative independence. I have also found—and I am sure that other Scottish Peers have had the same experience—that as you travel abroad people immediately ask, “Are you going to be independent?”. The whole thing is an unsettling, long-drawn-out, boring process.
However, in fact it has had one benefit, which may be slightly surprising. It was well revealed in an opinion poll published in the Scotsman a couple of days ago. The number of people who were undecided at the start of the process has greatly diminished, and the people who were uncertain have moved to the “no to independence” camp. According to that poll, the support for those who agree that Scotland should negotiate independence has slumped from 40% to 28%, while those who are clearly opposed have grown from 37% to 53%. So the effect of this long-drawn-out debate has been to focus the public mind on the consequences of independence. Therefore, the potential risk to which my noble friend refers in his Motion has diminished. None the less, it is still a risk and we should be aware of it.
It is not really surprising that this has happened when you consider the number of issues that have been raised: the cost of independence and the cost of establishing a separate social security system. There is the question of what currency we have. It used to be SNP policy to join Europe and the euro; enthusiasm for that course seems to have disappeared in recent months. Are they going to be dependent on the Bank of England, in which case what kind of independence is that? That is another question that crept up. What is going to happen in defence? The SNP is currently going through a whole rethink about whether Scotland should be in or out of NATO. Of course, Scotland has always contributed much more than our population suggests to the defence forces of the country, so that has become a big issue.
So it has gone on. I am one of those who believe that the people of Scotland have a right to be independent if they wish to be. I do not argue that it is impossible to have an independent country, but I think that most people have come around to the view that it would simply be a great and unnecessary leap in the dark. Why are they going to make it? Why do we not instead intend to pursue the line of those who have been heading the devo-plus campaign to build on what we already have, and try to make it, as others have said, somewhat more coherent than it is at the moment?
Lord Lawson of Blaby
My noble friend mentioned the question of what currency an independent Scotland would have. Does he think it not slightly curious that, when events in the eurozone have shown conclusively that it is impossible to have a single currency without full political union, Alex Salmond is promoting a single currency and at the same time wants to break up a perfectly workable, working political union? Is that not rather odd?
Lord Steel of Aikwood
It is certainly very odd. I am grateful to my noble friend; he has taken a little time out of what I want to say.
I pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr: the absence of any SNP representation here. As some may know, I have recently been elected chairman of the Scottish Peers Association; there is clearly no end to my political ambitions. In this onerous post, I wrote to the First Minister and relayed what we all felt during the Scotland Bill: that there was an absence of any SNP membership here in the House. I have invited him, therefore, to come and address the Scottish Peers Association, and he has accepted. Members will have an opportunity, at some point of his choosing, to hear what he has to say. That is really quite important. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said about pursuing certain people who should be Members of this House, and I have been privately lobbying the Prime Minister on exactly the same basis.
The point I want to make in this short speech, to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, is that there is a clear potential role for the reformed House of Lords in dealing with a uniform structure for the United Kingdom. My noble friend’s plea for some kind of constitutional convention is a wise one. Of course, although the House of Lords Bill has been withdrawn, the issue has not gone away. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that he intends to come back to the fundamental question of how the House of Lords should be constituted after the next election.
My simple hope is that, in the mean time, while there is this inevitable period before that happens, there should be some fundamental rethinking about what would be the role of the House of Lords before we get around the drafting yet another Bill. That role should take account of the different elements in the United Kingdom.
Some of my Liberal Democrat colleagues outside this place have been unkind enough to suggest that I have drifted away from what I said as leader of the Liberal Party. I therefore want to quote from the 1979 party manifesto:
“The House of Lords should be replaced by a new, democratically chosen second chamber which includes representatives of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and UK members of the European Parliament”.
More than 30 years later, I have not changed my view. I stand by what I said in the 1979 manifesto. If fresh legislation is going to come forward in another two or three years, we should go back to that principle and make sure that the new House of Lords has a clear role in a reformed United Kingdom. That is one of the key issues, which my noble friend is right to say that a constitutional convention should tackle.
In the mean time, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to the “Steel Bill”, I say that I could not get in on the exchanges on Tuesday, but I wanted to correct what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said from the Opposition Front Bench. He said that the Government were opposed to it. That is not the case. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was right to say that the Bill is “languishing” in the House of Commons. I have invented a new word: I wish to “unlanguish” it. I am glad to say that it is no longer the “Steel Bill”. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made an important point: it has gone from this House. If you go and get a copy through the Commons, it no longer has my name on it. It is a Bill brought from the Lords and, as such, it should not be treated in the queue for private Members’ legislation. I very much hope that the Government, even at this late date, will agree that this modest proposal to get a retirement scheme, which will result in getting our numbers down, should be pursued.
However, the main thing is that there is great scope here for a new role for a reformed Chamber. I hope very much that minds will be concentrating on that in the next two or three years.
Lord Judd
My Lords, it is always a good thing to follow the noble Lord, Lord Steel. He is someone whom I have known, liked and admired throughout my political life. It was good to hear him endorsing so warmly the objective of his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, to establish a convention to look at the constitutional challenges to the United Kingdom as a whole. That must be right. I would argue that if ever there was need for an example of the dangers of pragmatism without a strategy, it is in the story of constitutional reform in recent decades in the United Kingdom. We have not had a road map of where we are going or our objectives and what we are ultimately trying to sustain, which is very foolish of us all. It is high time that we had a strategy to which we are all working.
I have something in common with the noble Lord, Lord Steel. His father was a pillar of the kirk. My grandfather was a minister of the Church of Scotland and secretary of its foreign missions. Originally, he was in the United Free Church but was part of those who brought the United Free Church and the Church of Scotland together again in 1929. He could not have been more Scottish but if you delve into his family history, there is migration from Ireland to Scotland and from Lancashire to Northern Ireland. The story of the British people is very complex. While my father could not have had a family more rooted in southern England—Hampshire and Surrey and, to some extent, East Anglia—if we go back far enough into that family history there are all sorts of issues about exactly where they came from, including the Middle East or wherever.
We are not just dealing with the pieces of a puzzle. We are dealing with people, their origins and their stories. We have to be sensitive about that. My mother was always completely loyal to her Scottish origins. Emotionally, she felt strongly about Scotland and deeply attached to her Scottish family. But being in London during the Blitz, as a young boy I saw her change. She also developed a deep-rooted sense of loyalty to that part of England in which she was living—London and the south-east—which would never change. She went to her grave committed to the people of the south-east of England. But that was not to deny her Scottish origins. It was to build on them and to enjoy the change of which she was a part.
Perhaps I might add that my wife’s story has Wales, England and France in it, which again is an illustration of this complexity. I always say that her grandfather was one of the Welsh who came to England to educate the English. In the 12th century, the north-west corner of England in which we live was part of the kingdom of Strathclyde. The Vikings and the Welsh tribes had more or less colonised that part of England. It was so difficult, resistant, obstinate and wild that the Normans got fed up with it and ceded it to the kingdom of Strathclyde for a while before it was taken back. Those are only glimpses of the complex story of the United Kingdom but it is just as well to remember the human dimensions that are there.
For myself—the House has heard me say this in one context or another on many occasions—the starting point of political reality is that we are locked totally into an international community. From the moment we are born our destiny is that of an international community. We as a generation of politicians, whoever we are and whatever our convictions, will be judged by the success we make of that international reality. Any temptation to deny it is leading the British people badly astray. We have to make a success of that international reality.
However, when I was serving on the Commission on Global Governance, which was chaired by the former Swedish Prime Minister and Sonny Ramphal, the former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, I came to a mind change in my own attitude. As an internationalist, I suppose I had been a bit intolerant and insistent that we had to build the international institutions that were going to make a success—I am a bit dogmatic about this—of our future. It was a very interesting commission in which to work with people from all over the world and I came to realise that we, in a sense, were part of the problem because in the age of globalisation and impersonal technology, there was a real crisis among people in the world about their sense of dignity and identity, and of their importance as individuals. All those remote systems were making it worse.
I became convinced that we had to generate a political reality in which we recognised the importance of identity that then went on with leadership to say, “We can’t possibly run the world on a base of a lot of separate identities. We have to have effective co-operation to make a success of our approach to this international reality”. I think that we could take a look at the United Kingdom in that context and I am glad that there have been references in this debate to the possibility of a federal United Kingdom. I wish that that had been much more thoroughly examined and I hope that it would be one of the things that would be looked at very closely by any convention that was established.
Of course, there are all sorts of issues, including the disparity in size between Scotland and England. But I sometimes wonder whether we would not in the end have a much stronger United Kingdom if it was a federal United Kingdom, rather than one that was simply being imposed. That brings me to the decision on the form of the ballot in Scotland. I am sorry to introduce a word of dissent but I am not sure that I am very relaxed about this yes-no approach. We will get a result but will we get a settlement? Even if there is a significant majority against independence in Scotland, there will still be a significant minority who are not reconciled to this prospect. It seems to me that it would have been wiser to include that third question, which was, “Or would you prefer more authority and a stronger place for Scotland within the United Kingdom as a whole?”. At least there is an issue to be examined again by a possible convention.
I would only say this about Scotland, but I can give another dimension to this complex reality. One story that I was brought up with in the Scottish part of my family was about the businessman in Scotland who had been building up his business and had various problems to resolve. He had taken them to St Andrews House and had success but, finally, there was a problem that he simply had to take to London. When he came back, his family all gathered round him, feeling rather anxious about how he had got on there. He said that it was fine. They asked him, “But how did you get on with all those Sassenachs?” He looked at them rather puzzled and said, “Sassenachs? I didn’t meet any Sassenachs—I only met the heads of department”.
That reality was reinforced for me as a young Member of Parliament in my first PPS job at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for England and Wales. At our weekly meeting between senior officials and Ministers, there, towering in the room, was a great rugby-playing Scot who was, in fact, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry. We have a very complex story to tell.
I say to my friends in Scotland that they should not, in considering their own future, believe for a moment that everything will be resolved with the issue of independence or no independence. They should look at the fraught, divisive, warring history of Scotland—and still there are all the issues of the borders, the central belt, the east coast and the highlands and islands, which all have very strong identities of their own. They are not all happy to be dominated by any one particular part of Scotland, which might be concentrated in the centre. So there will be challenges ahead.
I conclude by repeating what I said earlier. I do not want to overegg it but I believe that our approach to constitutional reform in the United Kingdom in recent years has been a disaster and will be seen as such in history. What the hell were we trying to do, where were we trying to go and how were these pieces meant to strengthen and underpin our ultimate objective? We need to get that ultimate objective very clear.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, I join everyone who has expressed their thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, for opening this debate. I was not sure when I saw this title whether it was an appropriate time to have this debate, but now I am convinced that it is. There are many people in this House who have a long and very honourable tradition of supporting and advocating devolution. I do not want to quarrel with them, but I want to try to look at the future and enter this caveat. History depends on one’s interpretation, and because I was in the other place between 1970 and 1979 I know that the impetus behind the very modest Scotland Assembly Bill did not come primarily because of the arguments of those who favoured devolution but because of the defeat of Alex Wilson in the Hamilton by-election and the rise in the number of nationalist MPs from one to 11. That was the impetus. For too long since then, the view has permeated the debate that if we cede a little bit more power to the Scottish Parliament, and give a little bit here and there, it will somehow satisfy the nationalist beast. I have said it before and I will say it again that anyone who believes that is naive enough to believe that if you feed a carnivore more and more meat, it will one day become a vegetarian.
That does not mean that we should ignore what is happening or not try to face up to the future. Of course, there is a need for a constitutional settlement, but it must be based on principle and purpose and not expediency. Of course, the federal solution has its attractions. It would immediately resolve the so-called West Lothian question; it would abolish the House of Commons, to be replaced by an English Parliament, so we would have English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Parliaments, each with equal status and authority. Of course, that would be fine, but there would still be a need for a federal Parliament to deal with international issues, defence issues, and so forth. But another important issue, not mentioned so far in this debate, is that given the disparity in the size and numbers in the populations and economics, as well as in the fiscal possibilities of each of the four countries, there would still have to be a mechanism to mitigate these financial issues. Someone would have to raise taxation nationally, and distribute it to bring out some equality of opportunity, and we would be back where we started. There is the argument about who is giving money where—and people constantly complain that the English are subsidising the Scots. Federalism would not remove that argument entirely.
There is also the possibility, although we do not know the dynamics of the situation, that you would land up with a federal Parliament where the majority of Members would represent English constituencies. I do not know how it would be elected. Would it be directly population controlled? There would have to be balancing and weights—and that is another debate. The possibility arises of people in Scotland electing members to the federal Parliament, none of whom were members of the majority party in the federal Parliament. This brings me back to the rather ludicrous proposition which was put at the time when there were no Tory MPs representing Scotland in the other place: namely, that the Tories had no mandate to govern in Scotland. Therefore, there are dangers inherent in these issues. However, I absolutely agree that they ought to be examined.
One of the problems that we have with our society today is the insistent and strident clamour for the instant solution—the instant fix. There is no time to think about things; they have to be done tomorrow. We are concerned about the next news headline. We also react to events and do not look far enough into the future. We are not looking at the long haul, yet that is what we need to do. We cannot look at a constitution as an add-on to democracy. A constitution is vital to democracy. A constitution offers all sorts of possibilities but it is not a mystical thing that can suddenly solve all our problems at a snap of the fingers. That is why we have to look at what will happen in the long run. We have to realise that the whole process will fail if we start by looking at solutions to a constitutional issue. What was the reason for having it in the first place? As has been said before, one of the reasons was the debacle of the coalition proposal for the House of Lords. Incidentally, one of the benefits of federation is that the House of Lords would disappear in its entirety as we would have a federal parliament. One of the difficulties is that we go along with these things without defining their purpose. The debacle happened because people were concerned about function, not result, and it is the result and the purpose which really matter. It is the purpose which really matters.
This is a valuable debate and I hope that we will take forward the details of it. However, we should not imagine for one second that the tensions in society will be resolved easily. There is no neat solution to our constitutional problems which can be written on one side of octavo-sized notepaper. However, that might be slightly better than a previous proposal which appeared to have been written on the back of an envelope.
I favour a royal commission over a constitutional convention for the following reason, which may be regarded as slightly controversial. A lot has been said in favour of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the deliberations of which led eventually to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. However, one of the major flaws of that process was that both the Scottish National Party and the Conservative Party refused to take part in it. Therefore, a whole spectrum of the debate was not considered in the discussions that took place. The other flaw, in my view, is that people come to a convention armed with their own views. No one who is involved in politics and is a member of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative Party can put their hand on their heart and say, “I went to the convention with a blank canvas. I had no views of my own”. I was involved in the convention for two years as chair of the Labour Party Scottish MPs so I know a bit about what went on there. As I say, one of the flaws of the convention was that people came to it with their own ideas. There was too much of people saying, “This is what I want”, and not enough of them listening to what other people wanted. Incidentally, one of the most ludicrous propositions put to that convention was that Scotland should have full control and ownership of Scottish nuclear power stations. I mildly asked whether that would include the historical costs. I was told, “We are not sure about that”. I also asked whether it would include the Scottish Parliament taking over the cost of decommissioning. I was told, “We can’t have that. For heaven’s sake, bring some sense to the discussions”. Therefore, a convention will not resolve issues unless all the political parties and civic society take part in it. However, everyone can submit their views to a royal commission, which can then be discussed. It is a matter of debate which is the best way forward. However, it cannot be done quickly—that is not a matter of debate.
I end by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and all who have taken part in this debate. The sense that has been spoken in it has been an eye-opener for me. I certainly hope that that will continue.
Lord Soley
I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, on introducing this debate, which has been very useful. A great deal of good sense has been talked so far. The debate also enables me to repeat what I have said on a number of occasions in this House over the past few years: the United Kingdom has been the most successful, long-lasting political and economic union the world has ever seen. I am glad that other noble Lords have repeated that with emphasis, because we need to get that message over in England, Scotland, Wales and, indeed, Northern Ireland, which is now in a more settled condition than it was before.
However, one of the things that we sometimes forget—this is what I want to talk about a little in this debate—is that with the Act of Union, it is arguable that Britain became a federal state without a federal structure. That in a way is now coming home to roost because generally we are all supportive of devolving power. It is a good thing. One of the problems for the SNP is that it is not clear about what it wants. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, mentioned that the party wants to keep the Bank of England, the sovereign and the Armed Forces. If we had given independence on that basis to the countries of the empire after the Second World War, we would still have an empire. It is nonsense to go down that route.
However, there is confusion about something that we in England need to remember: all too often in broadcasting, the media and government, the word “England” is at times used to mean Britain. We should always be more careful about that because it rankles in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I do not blame them for that. There is of course a problem. We cannot stop the Italians, French, Americans or others referring to England as though it is Britain, but we know the difference, or we ought to.
One of the reasons why I welcome the debate is that one of the advantages of having the government Bill on the reform of the House of Lords, after its failure, was that it focused our views on the key question: if you are going to reform the House of Lords, you first have to decide what you want it to do. That point has been made on a number of occasions. The article published today on progress, to which my noble friend Lord McConnell referred, tries to recognise that we are going through a period of change and that there is an opportunity to get things into perspective.
At the moment, the House of Lords has been used as a revising Chamber. In just one recent Bill, the Localism Bill, 514 government amendments were introduced here. You could say the same for a number of other Bills. The same happened under the previous Labour Government. We were using the House of Lords to do what should have been done in the House of Commons—getting right the role of scrutiny, which ought to be done by the elected Members. One of the fallacies in the debate is that Members of the House of Lords actually legislate. There is an implication that we do so, but in reality, if you look at the harsh facts, we do not legislate. Only the House of Commons has the power to legislate. It can overrule and throw out everything we do. We do not actually legislate, although we talk as though we do. Our problem is that the House of Commons has to be reformed, and I say that as a House of Commons man and chairman, at one time, of the parliamentary Labour Party. We were aware that the level of scrutiny that we were carrying out was not as good as it ought to be. There needs to be radical reform of the way the House of Commons scrutinises government Bills. That would take a large part of the work away from this place.
You then have the question: what is the role of the House of Lords? It does many important things over and above scrutiny. This is where I go back to the question of devolution. I was a great supporter of it and still am. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said that some people argued at the time that it was a slippery slope to independence. We could not have avoided devolution.
Lord Steel of Aikwood
I am following closely what the noble Lord says. One of the advantages if the House of Lords were a properly integrated force in a federal constitution is that it could also be a revising Chamber for the devolved Assemblies, which do not have one. Committees of the House of Lords could perform that function.
Lord Soley
That is an excellent additional point which I had not thought of but I take it on board.
Politics is changing in other fundamental ways, as we all know. Political parties are becoming less important but politics is not, and it is the politics of issues. The issues are sometimes national and sometimes local, and they are also driven by new technology. Therefore, issues-based politics is emerging very rapidly.
Interestingly, the Olympics demonstrated how Britain as a whole could celebrate Team GB and yet in Glasgow, Sheffield, Cardiff and Belfast celebrate the individual achievements of people from those areas. In other words, we recognised that the United Kingdom was as one.
My complaint about the SNP is that it tends to see its history as based on the film “Braveheart” rather than on what really happened. The civil war, which is often wrongly referred to as the English civil war, was in fact a war of the three kingdoms. In Scotland there were people who fought for the king and those who fought for Parliament. The same applied in England, Wales and Ireland, and the brutality was quite extreme. The Act of Union finished all that. The civil war changed things for other reasons, but I emphasise that the Act of Union brought about not only the end of the struggles between England and Scotland but a recognition that the United Kingdom could act as one politically and economically. That, I would argue, opened up the possibility of Britain being a free and open society, and it also drove forward the Industrial Revolution. It is a crucial part of our history and I just wish that people could forget “Braveheart” and remember their actual history.
The other thing that is often forgotten is that if you break up a successful political and economic union, the break is not necessarily a clean one. I dearly hope, and indeed expect, that if we are foolish enough to break up the United Kingdom it will not be anywhere near as disastrous as the break-up of the former Yugoslavia—there would not need to be that blood-stained record. One should just think of the break-up of Czechoslovakia into two states and the disadvantages that it has brought to the poorer part of those two states.
A break-up is not automatically clean. I speak as someone who spends a lot of time in Scotland. I was talking to people in Shetland recently and it is clear that they have very mixed views about being governed from Edinburgh. They get quite cross when they hear Alex Salmond talking about Scotland’s oil, as though it will be divvied up for Shetland. Interestingly, if you look at the two local flags that were devised for the islands of Orkney and Shetland, you will see that they reflect the flag of Norway. It is only about 500 years since they were part of Norway. One should not assume that the break-up of the United Kingdom will be as clean and neat as one would like it to be.
There is another reason for arguing for a federal approach to these issues and that is the whole question of England. I have never been a great English nationalist—I am a mix of British people, as are others here—but I believe that in a way English nationalism is more dangerous than Scottish nationalism. We have to be aware that there is a genuine feeling among people in England that they are not having their voice heard as they need it to be heard. Of course, Alex Salmond would say, “Well, that’s good. England can be independent”. However, we need to recognise all the points that have been made here today: we are stronger together than separated, and we need to look at the new settlement.
I wrote today that we need a royal commission, and this is where I am with my noble friend Lord Hughes. I would prefer a royal commission to a more open-ended one because we need to be very focused about this. There are obvious problems with federalism—how you define it with the relative balance of the nations, England being by far the biggest—but they are not insoluble. As was indicated in an intervention, Germany copes with this quite well. We wrote the German constitution, so we should have quite a good idea of how to do this sort of thing. There is a real possibility that if we approach this properly, we can have a good debate on what powers are devolved. One of the great successes of devolution is that we were very clear in saying what was devolved and leaving everything else separate. Once you get into the problem of defining the powers of the central government, you are into writing a constitution, and I would not recommend going down that road. You just need to be very clear about what powers you are devolving.
I have only one minute left so I am reluctant to take another intervention. I am sorry.
The way we do politics in any democratic nation is changing, partly because of new technology and partly for other reasons. In Britain, we have an opportunity to revisit the federal structure that we created in the Acts of Union but without having a formal federal system. If we do that we can look at the role of the second Chamber in that light as long as we also have a reform of the House of Commons in the way in which it scrutinises government legislation. That should not be a primary role of the House of Lords. Frankly, if it were not a primary role for it right now, legislation would reach the statute book in a pretty dreadful state. That is not an ideal way of doing things.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, on proposing the Motion at the beginning of the debate. As we have been reminded by my noble friends Lord McConnell and Lord Foulkes and as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, reinforced, the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan is, if not uniquely, at least very well-qualified to introduce this issue because of his consistent history as a great veteran of constitutional change. There is another reason of which he may not care to be reminded: in a sense, he is a one-man coalition and has a reach across the political spectrum of the United Kingdom which is not unique but is very extensive.
In the first minutes of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, my heart sank as his wide-ranging introduction, which covered, among other things, globalisation, the reform of multilateral institutions, the role of the Enlightenment and the better governance initiative, made me think that I had agreed to respond to a debate that was well beyond my scope. I was glad to see that in the substance of his speech he came back within the scope that I had anticipated. I have some notes that address some of those issues, although when the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, intervened in the speech of my noble friend Lord Soley and introduced the idea of your Lordships’ House becoming a revising chamber for the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments, my heart sank again as I thought I would have to grapple with procedural and other complications of that sort. The noble Lord will excuse me if I am not tempted into a discussion about whether the Parliament that he presided over has an adequate structure of committees to provide that revision and anticipation. That is a debate for another date. That may be work for a constitutional convention or some other institution which may be created at some time in the future.
Once again, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale for his consistent contributions which set out the progressive case for the union of the United Kingdom. He does it very well because he not only does it by assertion but explains the reasons for it in a way that is accessible.
That leads me to my second point, which is that when I looked at the words of this Motion, I thought that there was a danger of this becoming another kind of Scot fest, with arguments about independence or the pros and cons of independence and nothing else. As one of those who has argued consistently since I have been in this House for a diversity of voices in a debate about the future of the United Kingdom, I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Soley have ventured into the Scottish environment to make a contribution. However, I regret that the diversity of voices in this debate did not manage to extend to a woman’s voice. I should like to hear the voices of more women in the debate about the union of the United Kingdom because they have a significant amount to offer.
It has become fashionable recently for politicians to explain what is called their back story. We have heard a lot of that over the past couple of weeks. My noble friends Lord McConnell and Lord Judd, in explaining their back stories, explained why these islands are so important to so many people. I come to this Chamber every day from a household in London where I have a son who has made a choice to pursue his career here. He is unlikely to go back to Scotland, although he may go elsewhere. The diversity and integration of these islands are crucial to this debate. Hearing voices from beyond Scotland from people who have connections with Scotland and who value those relationships, in exactly the same context as my noble friend Lord McConnell explained, is valuable. There are probably no Members of the House who do not have connections somewhere across these islands without going very far back. When we scratch the surface we find that we are all in a sense connected to each other.
I shared the view of my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside when I first looked at the words of the Motion. The topic of the debate is extremely timely—and has become even more timely with yesterday’s unofficial announcement that there has been an agreement at least about the number of questions in the referendum. I was concerned that the wording would be unhelpful to the arguments that I want to make, first, because I do not believe that come 2014 we will face a landscape in which the UK is broken apart. I am not complacent but I do not believe that that is what the people of Scotland want or what they will vote for in 2014. I am pleased that my noble friend Lord McConnell does not believe it, either. The words could have been misinterpreted to suggest that that was what he anticipated.
Secondly, I was uncomfortable about the wording because I thought it implied that the people of Scotland deem the current devolution settlement grossly deficient, and consider that a much more radical constitutional settlement is required to prevent secession. I know that legitimate voices in this debate suggested that we need to go further in the context of devolution; I will come to that in more detail. However, I do not believe for a moment that the people of Scotland are overwhelmingly of that view. It may be that there is a preponderance of political commentary on some of these issues—we have already heard comments about that—but that is not my sense of where the people of Scotland are. I will come to the polling figures in a moment because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, on this issue.
Thirdly, I was uncomfortable because the wording seems to imply that the case for considering the issue of the future constitutional settlement in general is contingent on the break-up of the United Kingdom, or the prospect of such a break-up. Again, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, indicated that it was not his intention to suggest this, and that his was a different argument. I will take advantage of this opportunity to address some of these concerns and issues because, first, as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said, polling has consistently showed that the majority of the Scottish public are not in favour of secession.
Since last year, the number of people in favour of breaking up the United Kingdom has steadily declined, depending on which poll one looks at, from about 38% or 40% to the most recent poll, conducted by TNS BMRB, which shows 28% of respondents supporting secession. Much more importantly, it shows a trend of a hardening of the vote of those who had not made up their mind in favour of the status quo. That is welcome news and will reinforce the trend that the UK and Scottish Governments have finally reached a point of agreement on the terms of the referendum. Despite the reassurances given to the House yesterday by the noble and learned Lord, I am not sure that I am as content that they appear to have agreed to change the nature of the franchise for this individual purpose—for many of the reasons that have already been expressed in this debate.
Now is the time to focus on making the case for why the United Kingdom is stronger together than apart. It is time to begin a frank discussion about what departure from the union would mean for Scotland. It is also time to consider the strength of the devolution settlement as it stands. That is because it is misleading to imply that great consideration has not been given, and given recently, to the question of the constitutional settlement in relation to Scotland. This is in many ways the big con of those who argue for independence. The only way that Scotland can achieve meaningful autonomy is by leaving the United Kingdom, but it is arguable that the Scottish Government already have many, if not all, of the tools they require for autonomy. The Calman commission process was set up by all the unionist parties when I was the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was completed by this Government in the Scotland Act 2012. Despite the continued assertion and insistence of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it is a ragbag, it is part of a process to consider the ways in which the devolution settlement can be strengthened. In short, it grants the Scottish Government new tax-raising powers, including powers to set a Scottish rate of income tax and borrow on the capital markets that are worth in the order of £5 billion to £6 billion. Crucially, it also makes provision, subject to agreement, to devolve further taxes in the future. We will not go into the detail of the debate we had on the Scotland Bill in relation to those powers. Here, achieved, is a clear and concrete vision for the future of devolution, a vision that is evidence-based and has the support of Scottish business, civil society, experts and academics. It will support the future prosperity and aspirations of Scotland within the union.
Before I have even addressed the meat of this debate, I have run out of time. Perhaps I may ask the indulgence of the House to say something that I think is very important. I commend to all those who wish to make a contribution to this debate the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on 2 October at the Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law. I have captured the BBC’s “Scotland’s future” web page. If you had to rely on this page, you would not believe that that speech had even been made, which is an utter disgrace for a public sector broadcaster. I do not have time to do it justice, but this speech sets out in a thoughtful, reasoned, accessible and persuasive way many of the arguments that I would wish to make.
I also want to say this to the noble and learned Lord: the BBC has been remiss, but he should also capture the page on the Cabinet Office’s website on constitutional reform. It still contains a list of things that have now been consigned to the dustbin of constitutional reform in this country and makes no reference to the ongoing process in Scotland. I suggest that the Government ought to listen carefully to what has been said in this debate to find a way of identifying at least the interim, or even the long-standing, end they have in mind for constitutional reform. They can draw on the Constitution Committee of this House and others, and then they can come back to this place to explain the process of how that will be done across all parties in a way that they can all buy into together.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)
My Lords, I start by thanking and congratulating my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart on bringing forward this Motion, and I thank all who have contributed to what has been both a thoughtful and thought-provoking debate. My noble friend’s long-standing interest in constitutional matters is well known. I counted it a privilege to serve on the committee that he co-chaired with the late Robin Cook in 1996. It is fair to say that these so-called Cook-Maclennan talks helped smooth the way to many of the very substantial constitutional reforms that took place in the first years of the Labour Government after 1997, which saw a much needed modernisation of our constitution.
There are two themes to the Motion before this House this afternoon: first, what the Motion refers to as the,
“potential break-up of the United Kingdom”;
secondly, the further consideration of alternative constitutional settlements. At the outset, I assure noble Lords that the Government believe passionately in the United Kingdom and are committed to devolution within the United Kingdom. We do not anticipate the break-up of the United Kingdom, nor are we planning for such a contingency. However, as was echoed by my noble friends Lord Maclennan and Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, we are in no way complacent. Rather, we see a vibrant and strong United Kingdom with its constitutional arrangements such as devolution thriving and developing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out—as indeed he has done in previous debates on Scottish matters—if there is unanimous support for the future of the United Kingdom it is because the Scottish National Party has chosen not to send Members to your Lordships’ House. I certainly note that point and I think our debates are the poorer because we do not have that particular perspective.
In the context of the forthcoming referendum on Scotland’s future, it is important to distinguish between independence as a country separate from the United Kingdom, and devolution within the United Kingdom. These are two fundamentally different issues and we should not see independence as a logical extension of devolution. Devolution would come to an end if Scotland left the United Kingdom, which is why we need to settle the independence question by a referendum, as an entirely separate matter from the devolution settlement. The devolution settlement will continue its evolution now, in the months ahead and after the referendum.
The view of the Government is that the people of Scotland deserve a referendum that is legal, fair and decisive, and that aim is best achieved with a referendum that poses a single, clear question. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about the third question. One reason we do not believe that a third question is right is that devolution is a different issue from independence—quite apart from the fact that no one has yet come up with a definition of devo-max or devo-plus. People would be invited to vote for something that had no shape or form to it.
I can confirm that further substantial progress towards agreement on the terms of a Section 30 order to facilitate a referendum was reached on Tuesday between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. No agreement has been finalised and officials have now been tasked with doing further work on the details of the agreement.
My noble friend Lord Cormack raised what I accept is an important issue with regard to 16 and 17 year-olds. The United Kingdom Government have no plans to lower the voting age for elections. I do not accept that there is an inevitability about it. The United Kingdom Government’s position has always been that any reform of the franchise ought to be agreed by consensus across all United Kingdom elections and not for a single election. However, if we were to agree to a transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum, as has happened in other referendums, it is the Bill enacting the referendum that determines the franchise. There is no proposal coming from this coalition Government to change the franchise for UK elections or Scottish elections in the lifetime of this Parliament. If the concern is that there will be an absence of debate, I do not think that is a real one. If it is going to be done in another Parliament, I am sure that there will be ample opportunity for debate.
Lord Cormack
It really is very difficult to buy what my noble and learned friend says. The United Kingdom Parliament has the power to ensure that any referendum in Scotland is fought on the basis of the existing franchise. Can he not see that to allow this change in through the back door would fundamentally alter the whole balance of our constitution as far as the franchise is concerned?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My noble friend and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I do not accept that that would be an automatic consequence. Before any change to the franchise for the House of Commons, or indeed for the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly, there would have to be full, proper debate and consideration, and it would require legislation in this Chamber. I do not think for one moment that my noble friend suggests that the House of Commons will suddenly roll over and vote for votes at 16. Apart from anything else, it will certainly not be at the hand of the Government, although they will have no opportunity to do so in the lifetime of this Parliament.
As I have indicated, the Government believe in the United Kingdom. We believe that the United Kingdom is greater than the sum of its parts, as was said by more than contributor to this debate. Our shared history during the past 300 years has been as a stable, successful, political, economic and cultural union. That has benefited our citizens, our economy and our place in the world. It is a unique constitutional achievement and one of the great success stories. It was striking that, in their contributions to the debate, my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, reflected on their own Scottish ancestry. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, indicated that, within his own family, the benefits of being part of a United Kingdom are manifest. Having looked up the origin in Scotland of the name Wallace, I found that it undoubtedly came from Shropshire or Wales in the 12th or 13th century, so it is clear that there has been movement of peoples in these islands for centuries. Geography is probably one thing that binds us more than anything else. Common sense says that we should not split up what has been successfully brought together.
Perhaps I may paraphrase the excellent case made for our United Kingdom in the report by my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood—the so-called Steel Commission report. That talked about nations which had been in conflict for hundreds of years, which were brought together and which together were able to exert a global influence. Our concepts of liberty, democracy and the rule of law, our philosophy and our ideas, have done much to shape the modern world.
Within our United Kingdom, Scots have made an important contribution—in science and engineering, medicine, administration, economics, finance and philosophy— and we have done so as an integral part of the United Kingdom’s success. In unity and co-operation with the other parts of the United Kingdom, Scotland has been able to punch above its weight as a small country and, in doing so, we have helped to build a United Kingdom which is more effective together than its combined resources would merit.
We benefit from being part of a strong United Kingdom and I believe that the United Kingdom benefits from having Scotland as a constituent member. Our experience together in the past 300 years has created a number of key British institutions which are part of a shared national identity: the BBC, the British Army, the Navy, the Royal Air Force, the Crown, the National Health Service and, indeed, this very Parliament. It is the strength of these institutions which will help influence people in Scotland when they cast their votes in the forthcoming referendum.
The Secretary of State for Scotland announced to the House of Commons on 20 June the work that the UK Government will do to highlight the benefits of the United Kingdom. I have detected—and it has been mentioned in some of our debates previously—an appetite for some objective and reliable information on the issues. It is right that the Government should provide facts ahead of the referendum and I welcome the fact that many other bodies now want to contribute objective information. That analysis can inform and support a debate on Scotland’s future within the United Kingdom.
Part of that future, and part of our immediate past, has been devolution. We have demonstrated a strong commitment to devolution, as it gives people choice and a real say over their own affairs. It is consistent with the decentralisation of power which is a core aim of this Government in line with our belief that there are benefits in making decisions at local level. We have an active devolution agenda. There is no status quo to defend because the devolution settlement, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, pointed out, has continually evolved from day one. He will remember, when he and I were in government together in Scotland, the devolution of the railways under a Section 30 order and the fact that we were able then to take forward some important new railway building and construction in Scotland. That settlement continues to evolve.
Most recently, the Scotland Act 2012 was passed, representing the most significant development in devolution since 1998. Like the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and contrary to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I cannot accept that it is a ragbag of measures. First and foremost the measures that changed the devolution settlement in terms of powers were the product of a very detailed consideration by the Calman commission. The fact that it did not amount to a great number of powers is a testament to the settlement of the 1998 Act and the work that was done then. But it also included, very significantly, a substantial transfer of financial powers. That addressed a very important principle of the accountability of the Scottish Parliament, which hitherto has had total discretion on how it spends money but precious little responsibility or accountability in how it raises money.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Churchill said of some pudding—I do not know what pudding it was—that “this pudding lacks a theme”. That was what was wrong with the Bill. Individually, there was a rationale for particular measures and many of them came out of Calman, I entirely understand that. But nowhere was there anything architectural or anything explaining the principles of the settlement with Scotland. That is what we still need and that is why I am very strongly in favour of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, there is a theme. I hate the word “subsidiarity”, but the overall theme is about where decision-making can best be achieved and delivered consistent with good governance. I think the issues and headings that we identified in the Calman commission, which were taken forward in legislation, did subscribe to that theme. Also, as I have said, a very important theme was the accountability that came to the Scottish Parliament with the devolution of financial powers. It must now answer to the people of Scotland as to how it raises money and not solely as to how it spends money.
There is more than just what we have achieved in the Scotland Act 2012, which of course is still ongoing in terms of its delivery. We have established the McKay commission to explore how the House of Commons might deal with legislation that affects only part of the United Kingdom following the devolution of certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. The Silk commission, set up in October last year to review the present financial and constitutional arrangements for Wales, is due to publish its first report on financial accountability within the next few weeks. These are significant processes, and we must allow them to reach fruition and not impede their development. They have a common aim, which is to deliver improvement in the lives of the people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each evolved in different historic ways, and we believe that recognising the different features and factors that make up the constituent parts of the United Kingdom has been an important part of the process.
My noble friend suggested that we should be looking at alternative constitutional settlements. The noble Lord, Lord Soley, suggested there should be a royal commission, while my noble friend Lord Maclennan said this is something that might go on for years and not something that was going to be done in just months. My noble friend—as he was, and still is personally—Lord McConnell talked about the Scottish Constitutional Convention, one of whose features was that it had a very clear end in sight. It is important that we remember that.
I was interested by the number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Soley—whose article I have had the privilege to read—Lord Foulkes and, I think, Lord Judd, who mentioned federalism. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that it remains the policy of the Liberal Democrats and I am sure that when he reads the report of the Campbell committee, which was set up by the Scottish Liberal Democrats, in the next weeks, he will be pleasantly reassured, not necessarily surprised, by what he reads in that.
Numerous ideas have been put forward by your Lordships in debate. My noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood referred to the 1979 manifesto when he talked about the second Chamber having a role to play in the representation of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. If I am not mistaken, I rather suspect that was in the evidence that he wrote for the Scottish Liberal Party to the Kilbrandon commission in about 1967. We can check back, but it has been a consistent theme for some time. Clearly there are issues there that merit further examination and discussion.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Minister has kindly acknowledged that almost everyone who has participated in this debate has called either for a UK constitutional commission or a royal commission. I am not expecting him to announce one today or even to say that he agrees with that. However, surely the very least he can do is to say that he recognises this groundswell, on all sides of the House, and that he will take it away and discuss it with his coalition and his own colleagues. Can he do that?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord certainly makes a tempting proposition.
The noble Lord is right to say that there has been a groundswell among people here, but, as my noble friend Lord Maclennan said, experience in many other countries seems to suggest that constitutional conventions work best when they come from the citizenry and work up rather than from Houses as grand and noble as this and feed down. They are often driven by the public rather than politicians. That was certainly the case with citizens’ assemblies in Canada and the Netherlands, which considered issues such as electoral reform before putting their findings to a referendum, and Iceland, where a constitutional council drafted a new constitution for consideration as a Bill by the Parliament. It is also fair to say that the Scottish Constitutional Convention did not come from the Executive, the Government. Indeed, it came in the face of the Government’s opposition to it. It came from civic Scotland and two of the opposition parties and was very successful because it engaged civic Scotland.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
Perhaps the most important thing about the Scottish Constitutional Convention was that combination between the demand from campaigning organisations and civic Scotland for such a convention and the political leadership that allowed the convention to be meaningful and to make the decisions required that allowed parliamentary change to occur. The combination of the claim of rights which came from the campaign for a Scottish Assembly and civic Scotland, then endorsed by the parliamentarians and the parliamentary leadership, including the noble and learned Lord, ensured that the decisions made in the convention could be implemented and enacted.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That is an important combination but, as the noble Lord confirms, the initial surge came from the people. In all fairness, there is no evidence at present of a strong public appetite for a wide-ranging convention, but the issue will certainly not go away. Work is being done by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the House of Commons; it will report. Fertile ideas are being put forward. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when he was asked by the First Minister of Wales about establishing a constitutional convention on the future of the United Kingdom, said that he agreed that we will need an open, involved and comprehensive conversation about the kind of union we want to see and that, almost 15 years after the process of devolution started in the United Kingdom, we should consider the best way to go about doing so. However, he went on to say he believed that a better time to do that would be once the Scottish referendum debate has come to a conclusion and that we need first to focus on winning the case for the union in Scotland.
A lot of other important constitutional developments are taking place with the theme of trying to reconnect with the electorate, to face up to some of the disrepute into which our political system had fallen—for example, the proposed legislation on recall of Members of Parliament and on electoral administration to try to eliminate electoral fraud. They are all relevant in trying to reconnect, but I fundamentally believe that although in no way should we stop thinking about those things—in Scotland, the three unionist parties, which are the Labour Party, the Scottish Conservatives and the Scottish Liberal Democrats, are all thinking about how we might take forward the devolution settlement—when we consider the future of the constitution of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom includes Scotland. In the next two years, we need to focus first on winning the case for the union in Scotland. It is a strong case, but we cannot for a moment be complacent about it.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
I express my appreciation for all the speeches made today, which brought to this debate a wide range of experience and knowledge of the subject. I am happy that it has ventilated a number of positive proposals from all sides of the House and hope that the dialogue between Parliament, the Government and the citizenry about the appropriateness of a convention to consider a more integral and, in some ways, more uniform constitution will have been assisted by this process. I particularly thank my noble and learned friend for his reply to the debate, which I believe at least leaves the door open for further consideration of these matters, and for the recognition which I believe he has given to the fact that constitutional change can sometimes bring about unexpected results. That is why a coherent approach within an overall view seems, to many of those who have participated today, to be appropriate for this country to take at this time.
Higher Education: EUC Report
Baroness Young of Hornsey
To move that this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on The Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe (27th Report, Session 2010-12, HL Paper 275).
Baroness Young of Hornsey
My Lords, Sub-Committee G on Social Policies and Consumer Protection produced this report just before it was wound up, following a reorganisation of the House’s committee functions that took effect at the beginning of this Session. While the responsibility for European education policy has now passed into the capable hands of Sub-Committee F, its Chairman, my noble friend Lord Hannay, has kindly agreed that I, as the Chairman of Sub-Committee G when the inquiry was conducted, should move this Motion.
The sub-committee turned its attention to higher education last October, shortly after the Commission published a communication on the subject. We aimed to complete the inquiry and publish our report ahead of the Bologna ministerial conference in Bucharest on 26 and 27 April. David Willetts, the Higher Education Minister who provided us with the Government’s perspective during our inquiry, attended that conference and took note of the report’s recommendations. The report also considered student mobility, which was examined by a joint steering group that reported to the Government around the same time that our report was published. I will reflect upon these developments and our position on them in due course.
The debate continues about whether international student numbers should continue to be included in the Government’s net migration targets. Universities UK and other stakeholders have called for their removal in order to create a clear differentiation between temporary and permanent migration, to help universities whose international character is essential to their future success and to contribute to economic growth. While David Willetts has recently responded to these calls by making a commitment that overseas student numbers would be disaggregated from net migration figures, it is not yet clear whether this means that international student figures will be completely removed from the reduction targets. I know that many of your Lordships have strong views on these matters, which I look forward to hearing during the course of this debate.
On the Bologna process, from the very beginning of our inquiry we were conscious that the EU, with its treaties, legislation and enforcement mechanisms, and the more informal Bologna process—of which the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was the UK signatory as Higher Education Minister in 1999, and which relies upon voluntary engagement between Governments and stakeholders and adopts decisions by unanimity—were two very different European organisations. Despite its voluntary nature, we were genuinely impressed by how much has been achieved through the Bologna process without structures equivalent to the EU being in place. However, we also took note of the overlaps between the two entities. Alongside the 47 European Bologna countries, the European Commission is a member in its own right and has aided its development through sponsoring mobility schemes such as Erasmus and other instruments, such as the European credit transfer scheme and diploma supplement.
While concerns have been raised in the past about the effectiveness of the Bologna process as a purely intergovernmental system, we received no evidence from any of our witnesses to suggest there was any desire to reconstitute the Bologna process on a more formal, bureaucratic or legalistic footing. We also received no evidence to suggest that the Commission would like a stronger role in European higher education or in the Bologna process itself. Instead, many of our witnesses raised concerns about the boundaries becoming blurred between the EU and the European higher education area, which was the outcome of the Bologna process. As a result, we emphasised the importance of retaining a clear demarcation between the two entities in our report.
While the UK already complies with much of the Bologna process, and many of our witnesses were positive about its role in principle, we developed the impression that the Government and many universities were yet to realise and fully embrace its potential benefits. We also considered that policy-makers in Whitehall should take more account of the European dimension when framing their approach to higher education reform. However, in other respects we acknowledged that the European frameworks sometimes struggled to accommodate the particularities of the UK system, namely the one-year masters degree, which more commonly takes two years to complete in the rest of Europe and therefore does not always fit neatly into the credit accumulation system. The Government assured us that they were working with their European partners to iron out such conflicts.
An obvious manifestation of the EU’s role in higher education in Europe, particularly in the UK, is the provision of research funding through the seventh framework programme, known as FP7. With this in mind, and conscious of the role of research and development funding in achieving economic growth, our report supports the allocation of a bigger proportion of funds to research, innovation and education—including the successor programme to FP7, Horizon 2020—under the next long-term EU budget for the period 2014-20. This support is subject to reductions being made in other areas of the EU budget and overall restraint being achieved. While we considered that the Commission’s preferred allocation of €80 billion during this seven-year period may be unrealistic, we were concerned that the Government’s drive for overall budgetary restraint may prove to be counterproductive by diluting the disproportionately large allocation of funding that UK universities currently receive from this part of the EU budget. While we appreciate that the MFF negotiations are still ongoing, I would welcome the Minister’s response to this particular point.
As part of our inquiry, we visited the University of East London’s Docklands campus, developed in part due to EU funds and where the development of entrepreneurs from the student body and local communities was being supported. We considered that the EU could make a valuable contribution to fostering greater collaboration between universities and businesses, resulting in increased economic growth, and we urged the Government to take more account of various EU initiatives in this area, including knowledge and innovation communities and European innovation partnerships. We also called upon the Government to play a full role in the further development of the European research area, allowing for the greater mobility of researchers, better cross-border co-operation and competition and harmonised career structures. The European University Association, whose secretary-general provided evidence for our inquiry, is one of the main driving organisations behind this initiative.
As noble Lords will already be aware, there are presently a substantial number of first-class universities in the UK, which are second only to US institutions in global rankings. However, this should not make the UK higher education sector complacent, particularly in the light of recent global ranking figures that showed some UK universities slipping down the top 100. On the subject of ranking, the Commission’s proposal for a new European university ranking, U-Multirank, elicited strong reactions from most of our witnesses. While we considered that the proposal had some positive characteristics, including its intention to rely upon a greater number of indicators than simply research output, we came to the view that it should not be considered a priority at this stage. We noted, however, that existing rankings, which depend on multiple indicators such as the Times Higher Education world university rankings, can make a valuable contribution to assessing the relative merits of universities around the world.
The higher education sector is becoming increasingly global in character. In this vein, the Commission intends to produce an internationalisation strategy. While we can see potential value in this move, we believe that care should be taken to avoid duplicating work already being carried out by individual universities and member states and concentrate on areas where it can truly add value, such as fostering greater collaboration between universities across continents.
Lastly, we considered mobility. While we considered that placements abroad produced a range of benefits for individuals, such as increased confidence, improved social skills and employability, we were presented with evidence that indicated there were a number of barriers that prevented UK students participating in Erasmus and other mobility schemes to the same extent as those of other member states.
Our report urges the Government to address the UK’s prevailing monoglot culture by making language learning compulsory in primary and secondary schools, thereby aiding the development of a UK student mobility culture; ensuring the continuation of the Erasmus fee waiver scheme; and supporting the development of the proposed masters-level student loan guarantee facility—all of which we believe could aid the ability of more students to take advantage of the opportunity to study in Europe. We also considered that universities and the Commission could do more to increase participation by promoting mobility opportunities far more widely and by making the length of Erasmus placements more flexible. We welcomed the Commission’s Erasmus for All proposal and considered that, as with Horizon 2020, funding to this area should be prioritised under the next multiannual financial framework.
Apart from financial and linguistic barriers to student mobility, the report also recommended that the Government could do more to overcome other socioeconomic and cultural barriers to participation in mobility programmes. Despite the rapid expansion of participation in higher education over the past half- century, the proportion of students from disadvantaged social backgrounds participating in study in Europe has remained frustratingly static. While some aspects of the new tuition fee regime could alleviate the financial burden on prospective students from less privileged backgrounds, debt aversion and low expectations are more difficult to overcome. HESA data also demonstrate that these students, as well as those from ethnic minorities and those with disabilities, are less likely to participate in Erasmus and other mobility schemes. I trust that the Minister will outline what the Government are doing to widen participation in this respect.
We also noted the recent growth of courses taught in the English language by universities in mainland Europe, particularly at the postgraduate level, which is a feature of the increasingly competitive global market for international students. To reference one example, Maastricht University has recently stepped up its efforts to recruit students from the UK and toured some English schools last Easter in order to recruit new students. While their significantly lower tuition fees will no doubt appeal to cash-strapped parents up and down the country, it would lessen students’ chances of improving their language skills. It also means that the UK can no longer guarantee that it will retain its competitive edge in attracting foreign students. While greater competition is not necessarily a bad thing, our report urges the Government and UK universities to be vigilant and actively to promote the benefits of the UK higher education sector within Europe and internationally.
The Government’s response to our report was published in May 2012, and there is clearly much common ground between our respective views on the report’s themes that I have already mentioned. In particular, we welcome the commitment that David Willetts has already made to increasing outward student mobility. A joint steering group, chaired by Professor Colin Riordan, who gave evidence to our inquiry, produced a series of recommendations last March to increase outward mobility. The Minister confirmed that from the beginning of the academic year 2014-15, students studying overseas on Erasmus or other international mobility schemes will be required to pay a student contribution for the first time, which is not as generous as the existing scheme.
I am conscious of time, so I shall move to a conclusion, leaving out a few points that may be raised by noble Lords during the debate.
In conclusion, we reached the view that while the EU can continue to make a positive contribution to the modernisation of European higher education, it must nevertheless be pragmatic and concentrate only on the areas where it can truly add value. For their part, the Government should also place higher education at the centre of their growth agenda, domestically and across Europe, by maximising the potential opportunities presented through engagement with both the EU and the Bologna process. We welcome the progress that the Government have already made in this area. I beg to move.
Viscount Bridgeman
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, for securing this debate and take this opportunity of thanking her for her leadership of the now sadly defunct sub-committee G. I also pay tribute to Michael Torrance and Alastair Dillon for all the support they gave to us on the committee and, in particular, for the drafting of the report we are now debating. It is a particular pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the chairman of sub-committee F, is providing continuity by speaking in this debate; I have the privilege of serving on that committee.
I suggest to your Lordships that the overarching background statistics for this debate are that investment in higher education in the United States is 2.7% of GDP, in Japan it is 1.5% and in the EU it is 1.3%. That is the backdrop. But it is, of course, the EU which we are considering and I want to focus on mobility within the EEA as it affects higher education, the point made so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
Globally, the UK is the largest destination for students studying abroad, second only to the United States. We are told by the Government that in 2009-10 there were approximately 406,000 foreign students studying at universities in the United Kingdom compared with only 33,000 UK students studying abroad. A study of British secondary school pupils showed that the majority preference was for North American universities at 56%, rather than European ones at only 21%.
The committee was told by the British Council that during 2011 there were 12,873 UK Erasmus participants, the highest number since the programme started in 1987. That is good news. Nevertheless, the fact remains that outward mobility from comparator countries such as France, Germany and Spain is approximately three times that of the United Kingdom, which means that the UK is a substantial net receiver of Erasmus students from elsewhere in the EU. The National Union of Students told the committee that 28% of students decided not to study abroad because of language problems—a problem I referred to—11% were unaware that the opportunities were there and 37% cited financial implications.
In the United Kingdom there is the added dimension that higher education within the UK is devolved. However, in the case of England, the Government responded constructively to the concerns raised by the committee with the appointment of Professor Colin Riordan’s joint steering committee, to which the noble Baroness has referred. Among the important recommendations by this steering group was the need for flexibility in the curriculum to make it easier for students to spend time abroad, and for their experience abroad to be more widely accredited and recognised, for instance through the Higher Education Achievement Record and the diploma supplement. But a possibly even more fundamental suggestion from Professor Riordan’s group is that there should be a stronger promotion of international awareness prior to university, at school level, in order to inspire and encourage interest before students enter higher education. The group makes a specific recommendation to include foreign HE providers on UCAS applications. I would welcome the Minister's assurance that both of these recommendations are being addressed
However, in all our discussions about the relationship of British students to higher education within the EU, we are back to the language problem. The old cliché that Britain and the United States were separated by a common language can be imitated to say that, when it comes to language capability, Britons are isolated—or dare I say even complacent?—by English being now effectively the lingua franca.
In this context, I make what I regard as two telling points. A 2010 education and skills survey by the CBI found that over two-thirds of UK employers were not satisfied with the foreign language skills of the young, and more than half perceived shortfalls in their international cultural awareness. Secondly, but I hope more positively, students who have had an Erasmus mobility period are more likely to be either in employment or in further study six months after qualifying, and their average salaries are higher. Both of these opinions come from the Higher Education Funding Council for England and are but two of the salient points in the Riordan report. Again, I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have for taking those points forward.
In conclusion, perhaps I may refer briefly to the visit made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and myself to the University of East London last January. This university is located in the centre of one of the great shifts in commercial activity in the past 100 years, from the closing of the London docks to the huge docklands office complex centred around Canary Wharf. But in this metamorphosis the UEL has retained much of its resourcefulness of the old East End. This spirit of entrepreneurialism has helped to give it the pre-eminent position it now holds among the younger universities.
In past years, the university has benefited from the European regional development fund and from the European Social Fund. The incubation of activities, together with SMEs, has enabled the university to establish entrepreneurship and enterprise as a key part in the development of its work with students, which was a point again made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in addressing the co-operation between businesses and universities. Certainly, at the time of our visit it was the only business innovation centre as recognised by the EU in London. I think that we were all impressed by the spirit of can-do and the outreach to students from the rest of the EU which was so apparent during our visit. With its emphasis on student mobility the university is a fine example of the way in which higher education institutions in this country are addressing in particular the mobility of students within the EU.
Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I very much welcome the report by the EU Committee on The Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe. In particular, I should like to draw the House’s attention to the last paragraph in the summary of the report, which sums up what this debate should be about. It states:
“The EU can continue to make a positive contribution to the modernisation of European higher education but it must be pragmatic and concentrate on areas where it can truly add value”,
a point which I underline. It continues:
“For its part, the Government should place higher education at the centre of its growth agenda, domestically and across Europe, by drawing on the potential of both the EU and the Bologna Process”.
Again, I very much agree with that point.
It is important to acknowledge that although education, including higher education, is primarily a member state responsibility, under the treaty the EU and, in particular, the Commission can encourage the,
“development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States”.
That is set out in paragraph 1 of the committee’s report. It lists a variety of ways, which I will not go through, in which this can happen, and all of them seem pertinent to this debate. Other Members of your Lordships’ House may want to take them up. In my view it would not be acceptable for Commission directives on all or any of these matters to be issued. In this area, its role should be as a facilitator and not as a purveyor of pan-European higher education policies. It needs to interact with the Bologna process, neither determining it nor duplicating it.
In 1999, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just mentioned, I signed the Bologna declaration on behalf of the UK, following the Sorbonne declaration the year before. At that time I strongly argued that the EU should not do a takeover job in relation to what was being proposed for Bologna and I was not terribly popular with some of my ministerial colleagues, some of whom, although not all, saw this as a matter for the Commission. I am glad to say that in the end my intransigence won the argument. I felt very strongly that the Bologna process should be much wider than the EU countries—which now number 27. I cannot remember the precise number at that time except that it was quite a few less. I wanted to see the whole of Europe brought into the Bologna process, from Iceland in the west to Turkey in the east. I thought that it was really important that we should reach out to this wider range of countries, particularly some of those countries in central and eastern Europe and the Balkans which were not yet part of the EU.
I felt very strongly that the whole Bologna process should not be a top-down one from Brussels but very much a bottom-up one, with the kind of voluntary and consensual approach that the committee identifies and which has indeed been adopted. At the time I was not quite sure whether this would lead anywhere after all the work that had been done, and whether it would work. I think that I should have been a bit more confident. Some of the things that I did as a Minister have been wiped off the sheet altogether, but they are mainly domestic decisions that have been overturned by this Government, such as EMAs—to my great regret. But at least this international one is rather more difficult for the coalition Government to overturn, and it is to the credit of all those people who have been involved in the Bologna process since then that there are now 47 countries that participate in it and it is a vibrant process where genuine debate is taking place.
It was difficult for some of the countries that signed up for this to engage in the common framework proposed, with the three-stage structure—higher education, bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees and PhDs—whereas it was very easy for us. It was described by my French colleague, Claude Allègre, as the Anglo-Saxon approach to higher education. That is one way of putting it. But we did not have to make the enormous changes that some of the other participants did. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has questioned whether the UK Government or universities have really embraced it. I do not know what the current Government’s position is, but certainly I believed that the then Labour Government did engage with it and did encourage the higher education sector to do so. I cannot really speak for universities, either, but my recent experience tells me that most universities entirely accept the value of Bologna, although they may sometimes be a little bit passive about it when perhaps they should be a bit more active.
The other concern that I had at the time was that the UK would be pushed into longer master’s degrees. After all, the other bit of the Anglo-Saxon approach in the United States involves two-year master’s degrees, and many European Union countries thought that that was probably right. However, I was absolutely determined that the integrity of our intensive one-year master’s degrees should be maintained, and I thought that that had been accepted. But clearly from reading the committee’s report, some universities are still finding that in practice there are issues about this in some of the countries that are signed up to Bologna, so that when graduates from the UK go back to their own countries they are questioned about the validity of their one-year master’s degree qualification. That is wholly unacceptable, and I ask the UK Government to take this up at the meeting in Bucharest, if they are able to do so.
There are some other more detailed areas where the recognition of our qualifications has to be fought for. I give you one example, which I feel quite strongly about. Those who decide to enter the medical profession, after graduating in another subject, particularly if they have graduated in science degrees, should not be forced to start all over again with a five-year medical programme. There is a four-year scheme, but I gather that there have been some issues about that in the EU. I believe that there should be a three and a half year scheme for people with a master’s degree and an undergraduate degree in biological sciences, for example. It is an absurd waste of British taxpayers’ money to make these young people who enter medicine a little later go right back to the very beginning. I hope that the Minister will look into this with her colleagues at the Department of Health to see whether we can get rid of these absurdities and have larger numbers coming into shortened courses. This is also a matter for the professional qualifications directorate in Brussels, which is supposed to be engaged in a pragmatic modernisation of some of these issues. Again, the committee refers to them.
I wish to say something about student mobility in general and Erasmus in particular. I think it is common sense that geographical mobility among able young people has a positive effect. I very much agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has just said about the widening of understanding of other cultures being important, as is the challenge of living abroad and the greater independence and maturity which can derive from that. However, if I read the committee’s remarks correctly, it was right to be a little sceptical about whether student mobility in Europe conveyed direct benefits with regard to employment. I do not know that employers take an awful lot of notice of such mobility although perhaps they should. We should also remember that most mobility arises through students taking individual decisions to study elsewhere than in their home country and not through Erasmus programmes. Far more students come to the UK on this basis than UK students go to Europe although this could change if English becomes the main language for the delivery of teaching in many more European universities.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a related matter although it is not something on which the committee commented. We are sitting on a time bomb in relation to the repayment of fees by European Union students. The Government have simply no idea how they will recover the fees that are given to European Union students as a loan. Graduates in the UK have to pay back fees through the Inland Revenue but that is not the case for European Union students. I would like the Minister to say how this will be done and what the Government will do if there is a huge default given that they have no mechanism with which to tackle this issue.
The take-up of Erasmus schemes by UK students is relatively low, as has been reported, which is regrettable. The committee offers as an explanation the monolingual nature of our society. I am sure that that has something to do with it, along with perhaps a rather regrettable lack of interest in European Union countries on the part of many of our young people. Some of the low take-up may be due to a justified scepticism about the quality of what some European universities are able to offer, and that is not as good as it should be. However, some speakers in the debate will not be surprised to hear me say that I believe that the solution the committee offers is much too simplistic. I do not believe that compelling the teaching of foreign languages in primary and secondary schools will make a great difference. It simply will not work. It is not realistic. We do not have enough foreign language teachers to teach foreign languages in secondary schools, let alone to introduce it in primary schools. I believe that foreign language learning will again be compulsory at stage 4, as it has been in the past. However, when it was compulsory, how many young people with a GCSE in French, Spanish or any other modern language could actually speak the language afterwards? Very few could do so and they soon forgot what they had learnt. Therefore, we need to think rather more laterally about how to deal with this issue. I would like to see some pilots undertaken of gap-year programmes, particularly where the students undertaking them are going to study the social sciences at university and have an interest in economic, political or social issues in Europe. Such programmes should comprise a really intensive three or four months of learning a foreign language in Europe. They will be much more proficient than they would be if they had been made to do it at GCSE and then no more after that. We have seen the decline in the numbers taking a foreign language at A-level—a process that I fear is irreversible, given that English is now our global language. I was pleased when I discovered that my four year-old grandson was learning Spanish in his nursery class. However, I am afraid to say that he has now moved to another primary school’s reception class where Spanish is not taught. His one word in Spanish, “hola”, is likely to vanish fairly soon. I am a bit sceptical about this issue. People have been saying for years that we need more foreign language study but it does not happen, and it will not. We have to think a bit harder about it.
I also thought that there was a slight contradiction in what the committee wanted to do in this area. It admitted that there is a huge growth in the teaching of English in many European universities. I believe that that will continue. It makes it less necessary for our students to learn a foreign language, even if it may be desirable for more of them to be multilingual. I am a little sceptical about the claims made in paragraph 84 of the report, but endorse the committee’s recommendation on looking at shorter and more flexible ways of delivering Erasmus.
I want to say a couple more things, although I am running out of time. First, I hope that the Government will look seriously at the master’s-level student loan guarantee. The soaring costs of undergraduate education to our graduates is bound to lead to a dampening of demand for postgraduate higher education. We will have to provide more incentives. Therefore, the proposal from the Commission deserves to be taken seriously. I ask the Minister whether or not the UK Government support it. I have heard on the grapevine that their response so far has been indifferent.
I want to end by briefly referring to a project, Empower European Universities, led by Jo Ritzen, the ex-Education Minister of the Netherlands, with two other former Education Ministers. I am also involved. The project is not referred to in the committee report, but it is an important study. Its starting point is that university autonomy leads to greater flexibility, innovation, creative uses of scarce resources and better outcomes in the long term. The study focuses on HE systems, not individual universities, and looks at the extent to which university systems allow a degree of autonomy without intrusive and undesirable interference to make those outcomes happen. The UK scores well in this respect but the study points to the fact that it could be in the “on the way down” category. I hope the Minister will look at the report.
To conclude, the role of HE in economic growth is paramount. I hope that the Government will give the reassurance we all want—that this will be an area where public expenditure priority is attached. We cannot just rely on the European Union to make up for any failings on the part of nation states.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her committee on producing a useful and timely report.
It takes its rather grandiose title from the Commission paper issued a year ago, which refers in its title to, An Agenda for the Modernisation of Europe’s Higher Education Systems. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out, this modernisation process has been going on for some time and was initiated by the moves towards creating the Bologna process in 1998, when she was the UK Minister responsible for participating in it. She also stressed that this is an intergovernmental, not an EU, initiative, and what has preceded it is a matter for agreement between Governments, rather than something that has been imposed by the European Union. Nevertheless, the Bologna process itself built upon the Erasmus exchange programme, which had existed since the 1980s and had gradually been built upon.
Of course, the students who participated in the exchange programmes under Erasmus needed to have the work that they did during their year abroad recognised in a standardised way. The Bologna process has therefore put particular emphasis on two things. The first is the standardisation of the degree process and the introduction of what is called the three-cycle pattern—the three-year bachelor’s degree, the two-year master’s degree and the three to four-year PhD doctoral programme. The second is the introduction of the European credit transfer system, which enables those who participated in the programme to gain credit for the work that they have done and for a degree of equivalence to be recognised between universities participating in the programme.
Last year’s initiatives were stimulated by the increasing concern on the part of the Commission that Europe was not holding its own in the higher education league tables at a time when the knowledge economy was becoming more and more important—a trend reinforced by last week’s publication of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, which saw the top institutions in China, Taiwan, South Korea and, notably, Singapore all moving up the rankings, while generally European institutions, with the exception, interestingly, of those in the Netherlands, were tending to lose rank. The Commission noted that by 2020 35% of the jobs in the EU would require graduate-level training, whereas only 26% of the workforce currently had higher education qualifications. It therefore set the target that 40% of the workforce should have completed the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree by 2020.
To this effect, the Commission is now proposing to strengthen the Bologna process in a number of ways. Some of these strike me as being somewhat aspirational—for example, the aim to put higher education,
“at the centre of innovation, job creation and employability”,
by, among other things, encouraging the convertibility of academic innovation into business enterprise. How many times have we wished that to be the case? We continue wishing it. Nevertheless, it still strikes me that it is aspirational in its aim. Another is supporting the internationalisation of higher education, strengthening the synergies, or joined-up thinking, between the EU and the intergovernmental processes.
Perhaps more to the point in terms of joined-up government, the Commission is also proposing to develop the complementarity between the European Union’s funding instruments—for example, the structural and cohesion funds—and the framework programme, now renamed Horizon 2020, as well as Erasmus for All, the new training and education programme. I shall come back to that in a moment because I have some comments on those proposals.
However, the Commission’s most substantive proposal is the launching of yet another set of league tables ranking universities within the European Union—the U-Multirank, a “ranking and information tool”, as it is called. I have to say that I fully endorse the scepticism shown by the committee and the Government about whether this will serve any useful purpose.
The second substantive proposal by the Commission is the introduction of a new EU-level loan facility to boost mobility at master’s level. I have much more sympathy with this particular proposal. The Government’s White Paper on higher education, published last year, completely ignored the question of postgraduate funding and the knock-on effect of the new fee regime on postgraduate training. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has made clear, there are huge problems facing postgraduates now.
I have been a member of an all-party commission of the two Houses looking at postgraduate education and we shall be publishing our report at the end of October. In it we note the need for a proper loan scheme for the master’s-level students. The present commercial scheme is not working at all well. In our report, we argue that the Government need to take cognisance of that and make sure that a proper scheme is introduced. It could be a government-backed scheme or perhaps they should work with the banks to produce a commercial scheme that is much more workable.
As I understand it, the proposed European scheme from the Commission would apply only to help Erasmus students; in other words, those who are on an exchange with other European universities. Nevertheless, I think it would have the effect of both helping those students to undertake master’s work and encouraging the interchange between different universities within Europe, which, like other noble Lords, I think is something that we need to encourage.
As the committee’s report makes clear, the UK’s higher education establishment has, from the start, been slightly disconnected from the Bologna process. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned that the three-cycle model—the bachelor, master’s and doctorate, which is sometimes called the Anglo-Saxon model—was essentially the US model, which became standardised in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s. Therefore, we can justifiably claim to have moved closer to the Bologna process than other countries because we had already started it. It is a much more difficult option for other countries and there is much more opposition in other countries; in particular, many German universities feel that the process short-changes what they regard as being a proper university education. This is where the problems of the one-year master’s come in; they feel that a one-year master’s is quite inadequate training for those who wish to go on to do a PhD.
The second factor in the British attitudes towards Bologna has been the fact that many British students who go abroad at postgraduate level have chosen to go to the United States rather than to European universities. The European programmes, the Erasmus programme, and for the postgraduates the Marie Curie exchange programmes, have done a great deal to change attitudes and I endorse entirely those who argue that there is great value to be gained by students who have that experience. It is very much my experience from teaching at the University of Sussex in the early days of Erasmus that students who, in that case, went abroad for a year came back with very much wider horizons and a much better attitude to studying than those who did not have that experience.
However, it is notable that in spite of that, UK universities have not really adopted and adapted to the European credit transfer system. We keep our own. We keep the old CNAA system which had 120 credits for a four-year programme as compared with the European one that looks to 60 credits. Many universities, in particular the Russell Group universities, have never really adapted to any form of credit unit framework and it is a matter for us, as I have many times lamented in this House in my championing of part-time education, because if we are to get part-timers and full-timers at FE and HE on to a par with each other, we need a proper credit transfer scheme.
Last, but by no means least, is the issue of language training. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, quoted the quite shameful statistics of the inward and outward comparison with something like 230,000 students coming in and only 13,000 going out.
There has been a lot of discussion about whether there should not be better information. The report suggests that more should be done for those leaving school and going on to university at the time when they apply to the universities. Universities could do far more to promote the Erasmus schemes by giving publicity to the possibility of going abroad for a year and by making it much easier for students to take language courses as a supplementary to their other studies. All the time I was at the University of Sussex, I taught a course in which science students, and subsequently management students, could do a language side by side with their studies and then have a year abroad to study their subject at a European university. The opportunity of doing a language at university in addition to other things is something that would benefit students and help promote this.
My experience in the early days of the Framework programme was very much in relation to scientific and project collaboration. In the early 1990s the programme was worth something like £15 billion over five years—roughly £3 billion a year spread out between 25 countries. Today, Horizon 2020 is looking at something like £80 billion over five years—£16 billion a year spread out between some 30 countries. I very much endorse the notion of pulling in funds from the structural funds and cohesion funds, and making use of them in relation to student exchanges on the one hand and promoting R and D on the other. I was involved in a study that looked at a number of European countries. One feature that emerged was the very good use made by Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s of money that it secured from the structural funds and put to training a new generation of technical students. It gave Ireland a very good infrastructure on which to build the multinational participation that marked the early, “tiger” phase of its expansion and industrialisation. Sadly, this phase was overtaken, and completely upset, by the banks.
I will end by endorsing a statement made by Imran Khan, the director-general of the Campaign for Science and Engineering. He said that in opposing the increase in Horizon 2020 funding, the UK Government were scoring an own goal. This issue was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The Framework and Erasmus science and technology programmes are among the very few programmes in which the UK does disproportionately well. Our universities are extremely successful in attracting these funds and making good use of them. By encouraging the increase in the budget we are bringing money into the UK for research and development. Our record in funding R and D is miserable. We hover along at about 1.8% of GDP. The target is 3%. Germany is up to that level, Japan is above it and the United States is almost up to it, but we are falling below it. This is one way in which more funding can be attracted, and it is scoring an own goal to oppose it.
Lord Giddens
My Lords, I phoned up the Government Whips’ Office this morning to find out how much time we had to speak in the debate. I was told that we had five minutes each, so I scrubbed out most of my speech. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I cannot read what is underneath the scrubbed-out bits, so my speech will be a bit shorter than some that have just been given.
Europe is in the throes of an existential crisis. The status quo is not an option. Either there will have to be profound reorganisation in the direction of much greater integration with political and economic unity, or the alternative is disintegration, at least of the core structures of the European Union. No one in their right mind would want the second of these alternatives. The first, if successful, will change everything. Europe will look very different after the next five or six years and the theorem of changing everything will apply to higher education as much as to other areas.
It is interesting to look back at the Bologna declaration of June 1999. My noble friend Lady Blackstone was present and obviously had a strong impact on what emerged, and she is a signatory to the document. The Bologna declaration was made against a totally different background in Europe from the one we have today. Its point of origin was enlargement and the transfer of the Union into eastern Europe. The document was highly optimistic about what it called the “extraordinary achievements” of the preceding few years in Europe. That was a more or less completely different moral tone from today. I do not know whether it is a phrase of my noble friend—probably not, from what she said—but it aimed at creating a “Europe of knowledge” as a means of promoting social and economic welfare. Are those objectives still relevant in a Europe that is teetering on the edge of crisis and which is bound to have fundamental structural reform? You bet they are; the argument could be made that they are even more relevant. In 1999, further integration looked to be evolutionary in nature and long term. Now it has to be much more sudden and radical. Higher education is crucial because it straddles areas relevant to growth and job creation, research and innovation and the enrichment of European civic consciousness.
The report cautiously and gently suggests investing more money in some areas of the Bologna process. In this situation, I am not sure whether we should be modest about it, because certainly in terms of the EU itself, the whole EU budget will have to be reappraised and undoubtedly will be over the next few years as part of the process of building a more integrated continent. So I do not think it is right to take a modest “give us a little bit more money” approach because a lot that is much more fundamental is going on.
I agree with almost all the findings and recommendations of the report, although I think it could have been much more adventurous and directed towards the current crisis. It seems to be an opportunity rather than a problem. At the moment there are two Europes. There is what can be called “paper Europe”, a Europe of endless plans, documents and declarations that mostly remain plans on paper, and there is the real Europe, in turmoil and looking for new modes of growth. It will have to become much more competitive than in the past because it has fallen behind other areas of the world. It is obvious that higher education is crucial to that. We do not want a set of paper conclusions; we want some more substantive ones.
I want to make a few brief comments in conclusion. First, I fully endorse the contribution of the Erasmus programme to the traits mentioned on page 32. They are similar to what the noble Baroness talked about: character development, building confidence, increased cultural awareness and enhanced employability. Those who are pro-Europe, as I am, will be looking to create a pan-European younger generation for a much more integrated and competitive Europe because, if we are going to be competitive, we will have to have a lot more labour mobility.
Secondly, as I know from my experience as director of the London School of Economics, which gave a lot of attention to these issues, many problems remain in finding a balance between standardisation and diversity. For example, if you look at careers structures, it is relatively easy for students and researchers from other EU countries to get on an academic career track in the UK but the reverse is much more difficult. French or Italian universities are much more closed to the outside than our universities are. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that if she has time.
Thirdly, and finally, the problems noted on pages 37 to 40 of the report are very real. In my experience, virtually all Erasmus students who came to the LSE and to Cambridge, where I used to teach, were high achievers and came from more affluent families. I very much agree that there should be programmes in place to counter this tendency, and again would welcome the comments of the Minister.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, the significance of the report we are debating can hardly be exaggerated, for two main reasons. First, the future competitiveness of the European Union in a knowledge-based global economy will crucially depend on the capacity and quality of its higher education sector. Currently European countries—those within the eurozone and those outside it such as Britain—are losing competitiveness and market share at a rate that bodes ill for our future.
Secondly, the higher education sector is one of the relatively few parts of the European economy that has a credible prospect of growth and of playing a leadership role in an increasingly interdependent world. It could be, as it already is for this country, a major source of invisible exports and what is often called soft power for the foreseeable future. Add the fact that with four out of the top 20 universities in the world, according to a recently published league table, Britain is by a long distance the most effective European performer in this sector, and you have an overwhelming case for congratulating my noble friend Lady Young on her committee’s excellent and informative report and her introduction of it today.
I also congratulate my noble friend on deploring the short-sighted decision that led to the committee’s disappearance at the beginning of the Session. The sub-committee I chair, which has taken on responsibility for scrutinising that area of EU policy, will do its best to keep up the high standards set by its predecessor, but it will be a hard act to follow and I am delighted that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, will be providing continuity.
If, as I believe, Britain is in the lead among European countries in the higher education sector, should we be afraid of more competition, more co-operation at the European level and more exchanges of students and staff, as this report recommends? Quite the contrary, I would argue. Our main competitors in the field of higher education are not other European countries but countries such as the US, Canada and Australia. What other European country in such a relatively strong position—say, France in agriculture or Germany in industry—would not be out there actively seeking to shape Europe’s policies in this field, to influence the evolution of the Bologna process, which aims to strengthen the sector in Europe? However, there is little or no sign of the Government doing that. You could comb the speeches of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Business Secretary and the Minister for Europe and you would find no trace of that kind of thinking. Let us hope that the Minister will make a modest contribution to filling that lacuna when she replies to this debate.
This report recommends, quite rightly in my view, that Britain should be working in the negotiations for a multiannual financial framework for the next five or seven years, which are currently under way in Brussels, for a larger share of scarce EU resources to go to higher education and research than in previous budgets. This must be in our national as well as in the wider European interest. But here, as elsewhere, the dead hand of Her Majesty’s Treasury is insisting that we oppose any increases anywhere out of fear of triggering an overall increase in the budget ceiling. That is a recipe for losing the support of other like-minded member states which want to see the budget shifting away from the old pattern and the old priorities and giving more weight to the objectives of the European Union’s 2020 agenda in which this sector figures prominently. It will encourage an eventual outcome which consists merely of the top-slicing of existing patterns of expenditure. What a wasted opportunity that would be. I hope that the Minister can show more flexibility than that.
One issue not covered by the report, although I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others refer to it, is that of student visas for non-EU undergraduates, postgraduates and teaching staff wishing to come to our universities, perhaps because this is not a matter of policy for the EU as such. However, it could critically affect our ability to play a leadership role in Europe and more widely and have a negative impact on the capacity of this sector to enhance our and the rest of Europe’s invisible exports to, and future influence in, the great emerging economies such as those of China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria and Indonesia.
A recent report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee of the House of Commons has highlighted just how misguided and damaging is the Government’s policy of lumping those who come to study here in the wider category of immigrants and imposing their targets for reducing immigration on overseas students, whose numbers it is surely in our national interest to increase, not decrease, since they bring resources to this country and to our universities. In the light of that report and of the many other representations made to the Government by the universities and those of us who have raised the matter in this House, I urge the Government to rethink this aberrant policy.
This is not just a matter of changing the statistical presentation of immigration, which up to now has included students together with other immigrants; that is, everyone who comes here for a year or more. What is being sought—and I emphasise this—is to exclude students from the public policy implications and impact of the Government’s target of reducing net immigration to the “tens of thousands” by 2015. When the Minister for Higher Education spoke to Universities UK early last month, he said that the Government would in future disaggregate the statistics and present the statistics for students separately from those for other immigrants. That could be a step in the right direction, but it was not the step that matters. The step that matters is for the Government to state categorically that they do not include students in the public policy implications of their objective of reducing net migration to tens of thousands by 2015. Until they say that, this sector will get squeezed in the way that it has been squeezed already, and it will go on being squeezed if that statement is not made. I hope that the Minister replying to this debate will be able to say, at the very least, that a review of that policy is now under way.
Viscount Hanworth
My Lords, the report, The Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe, is an important and timely document. It alerts us to developments within the European Union and suggests that we need to keep a close watch on them if we are fully to exploit the opportunities that have arisen for co-ordination and collaboration.
The report also serves to remind us that, unless we take care, we are in danger of losing some of the advantages that our universities enjoy in the competition to attract overseas students. The report is relatively brief, and it might be helpful to give it a fuller context by recalling some of the recent history of our university system. I suggest that some things have gone amiss in the course of the modernisation of higher education in the UK.
The British university sector has grown remarkably in the past 20 or 30 years. The UK probably has a higher proportion of the relevant age group in higher education than any other European country. The participation rate for the year 2010-11, as calculated by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, was 47%. When I embarked on my own undergraduate studies some 45 years ago, only a small proportion of the age group attended universities, and the participation rate was probably no more than 12%. There was a favourable ratio of staff to students. We were treated in a manner that was casual but intimate, and if we showed aptitude or enthusiasm attention was lavished on us.
The academics were, in the main, as hardworking as they are today. However, they were free from the unsettling demands of research assessment exercises and national surveys of student satisfaction. They also benefited from the security of their jobs. Nowadays, academics within research-orientated universities who fail to perform sufficiently in their research and in its publication are liable to have their careers terminated, either by the non-renewal of a temporary contract or by early retirement. In the past, if their research faltered they had a ready alibi, which was to undertake administrative duties. The consequence was that there were few professional administrators in universities. The administration was also highly efficient, and a maximum output was achieved from a minimal input.
Nowadays, professional administrators, who used to play a minor role, are more numerous than the academic staff. The balance began to alter in the 1980s, when large numbers of academic staff were retired or dismissed as a consequence of budgetary cuts. Additional administrators were needed to oversee these cuts and dismissals, and the dismissals led to a dearth of academic staff available for administrative duties. At that time, the prospects of early advancement in the academic profession all but vanished and there were severe restrictions on academic salaries. Academic employment became unattractive to British nationals, and the numbers of British students pursuing master’s degrees and PhD qualifications in some subjects declined almost to zero.
Today, there continues to be a dearth of native trainee academics. Very little financial support is provided to native postgraduate students and, given the current burden of undergraduate fees, few people can afford to prolong their studies. Today, British universities recruit the majority of their young academic staff from other countries, and this is likely to be the case for the foreseeable future.
This circumstance, which has barely been recognised by politicians or the public at large, has had some adverse consequences. It has led to an increasing impermanence of academic staff. The turnover in some of the academic departments in which I have served has reached as high as 30% in one year. The impermanence of the staff is one of the factors that have contributed to a loss of ownership on the part of the academics of the processes of student recruitment, teaching and examining. The administrative staff have been exercising increasing control in these areas, with consequences that have often been deleterious. The academic staff, who are a weakened force, have been unable to resist incursions on to their rightful domain.
The increasing commercialisation and customer orientation of the enterprises of higher education have meant that student satisfaction has become a guiding principle. This has had adverse consequences both in teaching and examining. There has been a remarkable inflation of the grades in the assessment of the exams. When I was pursuing my undergraduate studies, the preponderant honours award for the final exams was a Lower Second. Nowadays, the majority of students are awarded at least an Upper Second. The failure to achieve the higher classes of honours degree can prejudice a person’s employment prospects.
A reputation for stringency can also prejudice a department’s ability to recruit the students it needs, which can have grave financial consequences. In one of the universities of which I have had experience, the management has issued an injunction that at least 70% of the students should be awarded First or Upper Second degrees. The failures of some departments to achieve this target have led to visitations from the quality-control administration, which has been pursuing an agenda that is directly opposed to the purpose that it is ostensibly intended to serve. The system of honour classifications is under attack. In some quarters, it has been declared that it is no longer fit for purpose. The purpose has surely changed over time.
The formative or didactic purpose of exams, which is the role they play in reaffirming knowledge, has given way to their summative purpose, which is their role in generating qualifications. Part of the impetus behind the desire to abolish honours classification is the fact that most of us dislike being subject to judgment. The honours system implies failure as well as success. Those who propose that the honours classification should be superseded have argued in favour of transcripts designed to give an assessment of the overall worth of individual students. It has been argued that those transcripts should reflect multiple criteria and give credit for a variety of social and extra-curricular activities as well as for academic performance.
I baulk at such a presumptuous intention to make such broad judgments on a person’s worth. Nevertheless, in a system based on the accumulation of credit, the majority of students will graduate from universities brimful with credit, and there will be few ostensible failures. Such a system would surely certainly enhance customer satisfaction.
Surveys of student satisfaction nowadays accompany every taught course. In some cases, the objective of customer satisfaction is placing a major constraint on what can be taught to undergraduates. The courses that tend to be the least popular are those that are technically demanding and those that have a major mathematical content. Such courses are often essential to the mastery of an academic discipline. The responses to them within surveys of satisfaction tend to be dichotomised. If they are demanding and well taught, such courses are liable to receive plaudits from the most able students, but they will usually be accompanied by bitter complaints from those whose have struggled.
The averaged indices of satisfaction of courses that are demanding are liable to be low, which will lead inevitably to pressures to curtail or suspend them. When such pressures come directly from the university administrators, academics are nowadays rarely able to resist them. The consequences for the quality of undergraduate education can be dire.
I have paid rather little attention to the detailed recommendations of the report. I am pleased that others have discussed them more fully. Instead, I have described what the processes of modernisation have implied for the British system. They have created some significant problems.
The report has alerted us to one significant problem, which is that the natural advantage that Britain has enjoyed in attracting overseas students may not endure. It points to the fact that nowadays many European universities teach their courses in English, which has become the modern global lingua franca as well as the pre-eminent language of academic discourse. To benefit from being taught in English, students no longer need to come to the UK. The extraordinary treatment of overseas students by the UK Border Agency now poses a strong deterrent to them.
At a time when many European universities are purging themselves of the last remnants of medievalism, British universities are becoming increasingly subject to the pathologies of the modern age. The prognosis is not good for them, and they should be fearful of being rapidly overhauled and outdistanced by their competitors in Europe and elsewhere.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I shall focus on what the report says about student mobility in relation to the Erasmus scheme and the teaching and learning of modern foreign languages. I declare an interest as chair of the All-Party Group on Modern Languages and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
I warmly welcome the committee’s conclusions on the importance of the Erasmus scheme: in particular, that the fee waiver should be retained to encourage participation and not deter students who may already be finding university fees a bit of a stretch. There is already early evidence that recruitment to modern language degree courses, which of course are four-year courses, has been adversely affected by fee increases. It seems that by no means all Russell Group university language departments have succeeded in recruiting to target this year and that at least three of them have recruited so badly that degree programmes are likely to close. In that light, the recent settlement agreed with the Government for study and work abroad was most welcome, minimising disincentives to outgoing UK student mobility for both students and their home universities.
The UK benefit from the Erasmus scheme is still very much one way. We benefit from the enrichment to students and university life provided by incoming students but, sadly, three times as many students from Germany, France and Spain take the opportunity to study abroad as their British peers. In 2009-10, we had 406,000 foreign students here, but only 33,000 UK students were abroad. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who said that universities themselves should be doing much more about this. They should encourage all students, not just the linguists, to know about and take advantage of the Erasmus scheme.
The committee suggests—and it is right—that the language deficit among our students is a major factor in the UK’s inability to benefit fully from Erasmus. The significant increase in funding from 2014 to 2020 will remain untapped by the UK unless we can produce greater numbers of linguistically confident and competent students in HE, whether they are studying modern languages or not. I wish that more universities would follow the example of UCL and insist that all applicants, irrespective of subject, should have a GCSE or equivalent in a foreign language—or that if they do not, should undertake to study one during their first year. This is surely the right approach for a modern university with an international perspective and awareness. No graduate should be a monoglot, even if their one language is English. Most continental universities ensure that all their graduates have two or three languages to a decent level.
I take slight issue with the committee for saying that the evidence for the benefits of student mobility on employability is still anecdotal. The British Academy’s report, Valuing the Year Abroad, which was also published in March this year, set out some robust evidence for the link between mobility and employability and is just the latest evidence that one might quote. Various employer and business surveys have shown for years how much employers value languages. Over 70% of UK employers say that they are not happy with the language skills of UK graduates and are being forced increasingly to recruit from overseas to meet their needs. This applies to business in all sectors. We are damaging both the economic competitiveness of the UK and the employment chances of young people in a global labour market if we allow this language deficit to continue.
The committee also asserts that English is the dominant language in the academic world and in EU institutions. However, I believe that that is a great oversimplification and that where it is the case it will not necessarily remain so. It is short-sighted to believe that English is enough. One interesting indicator is the language of the internet. The fact is that content on the internet in English is declining rapidly, from over 50% in 2000 to only 29% in 2009. In the same period, content in Mandarin or Cantonese quadrupled and continues to rise rapidly, particularly in the field of scientific research.
As far as EU institutions are concerned, there is an interesting paradox. The truth is that as multilingualism within the EU has grown following the expansion of member states, the need for English has also grown. This is because English is what the directorate of interpreting services calls a bridge language. You would be very hard pushed to find many people who could do simultaneous interpretation between, say, Finnish and Maltese, or between Latvian and Greek. What happens is that they go from language A to English, then English to language B. The trouble is that the UK is not producing enough language graduates to meet the need, either in the EU or in the United Nations and other institutions. Meetings in all of them often have to be cancelled because there simply are not enough people in the language services who are English native speakers and able to work in other languages. This is not doing a lot for our reputation as a nation in these institutions, and is why the committee whose report we are debating was so imaginatively right to recommend that languages should be compulsory in both primary and secondary schools. Without this, the HE sector will not have the raw material to maintain and develop its language teaching and learning.
We desperately need not just more specialist linguists but more economists, geographers, scientists and others who can also handle themselves in at least one other language—as graduates from the US, China, India and most of the rest of the EU already can. As the committee’s report says, this goes back to the need for better language teaching in schools. I am delighted that the Government have made such a strong case recently for the introduction of compulsory languages in primary schools from 2014. This will be an important step in addressing our national languages deficit, but only one small step, insufficient alone to secure the higher standards of achievement that we need to see. The arguments that the Government themselves have made in relation to primary education, in terms of European and global comparability, apply equally to key stage 4. International research shows that an early start to language learning is not a panacea; it needs continuity through to secondary school. In my view, compulsory languages up to key stage 4 should also be a part of the Government’s curriculum review. Just making them compulsory is not enough in itself, of course; we also need radical improvements to the syllabus and to teaching methods, especially the emphasis on spoken language, which, as both Ofsted and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, have pointed out, is not nearly good enough.
The EBacc has had a positive effect, which is very welcome, but on only 54% of state schools. The other 46% have said that they will not be changing or improving a thing about their language offer as a result of the EBacc. We must stop the current trend of languages becoming an elitist subject and university language departments being dominated by students from the independent schools because fewer and fewer state school-leavers are actually qualified to apply for those courses. Without compulsory languages at key stage 4, we are unlikely to be successful in exploiting the opportunities provided by the Erasmus scheme to enable young British people to achieve their potential.
It is important to point out that languages for all up to key stage 4 does not necessarily mean forcing every child to do a GCSE. There are several other ways of accrediting language learning, not least the language NVQ, which is highly favoured by business. Will the Minister assure me that the question of languages for all at key stage 4 is still under active consideration, and does she agree that there is a strong case to be argued?
Given the cross-departmental relevance of all the aspects of modern foreign languages that I have touched on, not just for BIS but for the DfE and the Treasury, not to mention for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, does the Minister agree that it would make sense to designate a Minister with cross-cutting responsibility for languages policy so that the interconnectedness between these sectors, from primary schools through to a competitive economy, could be properly made and monitored and better served by coherent policy?
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
My Lords, I welcome this report and debate on modernising higher education in Europe. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who is emphasising modern-language teaching. I have friends in France who have a company that is developing software to enable French companies to work with British ones. It is important that the translation of English is regional; if you are in a Birmingham factory, you jolly well want the French people to speak Brummie, not some other language. Of course, English is a broad and complex subject, and sometimes when we say “English” we should think about what we are saying.
Those of us of a certain age have hugely benefited from this extraordinary period over the past 30 to 40 years of the renewed Europeanisation of academic life. Around 130 years ago my great-grandfather, after doing medicine and chemistry at Oxford and having been introduced to his wife by none other than Oscar Wilde on The High, then went to Germany to study medicine. Then there was a long period when there was a breakdown in relations across Europe during the first half of the previous century, and it is very gratifying now that that has all been restored. It is also interesting to remind noble Lords that we should remember that the PhD degree, which came from Germany, was still regarded in Cambridge in the 1960s as an interesting experiment.
The report emphasises the growing masters’ courses in English. One of the features that it does not emphasise is that the ones that I know about in the Netherlands are not just courses in one university; they are collaborative across universities, and that is a very important feature. Almost every master’s course in the UK is given by a university, but there is no subject in which you would not benefit from spending a week here, a week there and so on. I have participated in that.
The other important point is that these advanced masters’ courses are all highly specialised, even the ones I have just referred to. Surely we should be moving to masters’ courses in English or well understood languages to enable students in Europe to understand and study broader issues, perhaps involving social science questions, environment, health or business. Business schools are one of the areas that enable people across Europe to study processes and ideas in a very broad way.
Perhaps the greatest critique, which is not mentioned in this report, of European higher education is that China, in thinking about its higher education, is moving away from the European model. It is moving to the American model because it realises that it is important that people have a broad education when they start higher education. They should learn about languages, philosophy, politics and science, as you do in the United States, where you have to know the name of the planets, for example, even if you are studying English literature.
Is Europe going to follow this idea? Fifty years ago, Lord Snow spoke of the need to combine science and humanities teaching. He visited the school I was at and talked about Russian physicists having to write essays about the character of Natasha in War and Peace, which is an inconceivable concept in the way we educate people now. We are now changing in the UK. There is a new course at University College London on humanities and science. Interestingly, it is partly funded by the movement of science funds into humanities as the result of the Government reducing the humanities budget. It is an ill wind, et cetera. It is also interesting that some of the Netherlands universities are also developing science/arts universities, so all is not lost.
Another important feature touched on in this report and, indeed, responded to by the Government in paragraph 120, is that collaborative research is vital in EU higher education to enable us to be in this leading position. I do not quite take the gloomy view of my noble friend Lord Giddens. As a result of the EU, we have extraordinary and marvellous research programmes involving people across Europe. The attraction of EU research is that it is totally unexpected. You have no idea what your colleagues in Latvia, Greece or some other place are going to do. It is not like, if I may say so, a grant from Swindon when you more or less have to say what you are going to do and you do it. If you have a European project, you have no idea what is going to happen, and really new things happen. This is, of course, a very minority view about European science. Most of my colleagues prefer a grant from Swindon, which is very regular and predictable. I believe that this EC practice of insisting upon collaborative projects is bringing Europe together, and we are getting many important ideas. I believe this should be welcomed. The Government in their welcome response to the report referred to the importance of small companies benefiting from these developments and their connection to the Technology Strategy Board.
Another important development in European higher education and science in the past 20 or 30 years has been the formation of networks of activities across universities. I was involved in the formation of something with the indigestible title of ERCOFTAC—European research community for flow turbulence and combustion. It involved major European companies and many of the major universities and technical institutions. Forming that kind of bottom-up network was considerably resisted by officials in national research communities and by the European Commission. They said, “It’s our job to tell you what networks you have. We’re going to control them”. We said, “No. We’re going to have our own”. Periodically European-funded networks participated in this bottom-up network, which has lasted longer than every finite-time initiative from the councils. In the 1990s, we had a meeting at the Royal Society that looked at these large numbers of groups from beekeepers and watchmakers to physicists and engineers. This is a great feature of European development, and you do not see it on any other major continent. Industry has been highly supportive of this. As a result of such networks, databases and scientific developments have been formed.
One of the interesting developments in Europe is that Airbus, for example, shares its future plans. It is going to produce some sort of “Dan Dare” paper-dart-like aeroplanes in future. We all know about this in Europe, and the way in which the wings are going to wobble around and hopefully be controlled. It is an extraordinary participation of universities and industry, the like of which you do not find in any other country. Boeing keeps its future plans very secret.
In the enlightened world I see around us in Europe, if you wear these rose-tinted glasses, the United Kingdom research councils should be much keener on this. They should be in much closer contact with the other EU research councils. If they get a research grant, they should be able to ring up their friend in Germany, Paris or Italy to find out whether some proposal is similar to what they are doing. Not a lot of that happens.
It is interesting that, still as a result of the lack of languages, a lot of EU science is not credited in the UK because it is not in English. A really important point was mentioned in a meeting that I had a couple of weeks ago in Bergen in Norway: one of the most important findings about climate change—the fact that we have very long periods of great heat or cold—was published in French. It is nowhere published in the English language. Therefore, at the moment, it may not appear in the next IPCC report on climate change. I had to rush to my French friend and say, “For goodness’s sake, quickly write this in English. Then it will probably be credited”. The consequences of this lack of understanding of other languages have many practical applications.
The movement of students, as other noble Lords have commented, has great merits. Those of us in British universities have seen excellent students arriving and bringing with them new ideas. Some of them have then also joined small British companies. The French universities’ “stage”, as they put it, can be held not just in another university, but in companies. Many of them make this transition, and bring with them their ideas, their language skills and employability.
The British Government could do much more— I welcome that this is highlighted in the report—in showing UK students the merits of doing some of their advanced work in universities in other European countries. How should this be done? It is interesting. I was talking to colleagues in Delft this week. Even in Delft, they find that their academics do not understand what happens in Brussels, which is not far away. They want their academics to understand the EC programmes, so they put them all in a bus and took them to Brussels in order to do so, with great benefits. Surely we should have familiarisation courses for students who are very unaware of what happens on the continent. That may be the first way of overcoming this problem.
One of the reasons why British companies and even certain government agencies now employ many continental rather than British graduates is simply because the continental graduates arrive with great familiarity of several languages and an understanding of wider European institutions, industry and so on. The Met Office now employs a considerable number of scientists and experts from these countries, which they did not use to. I am glad to say that our government agencies are broader than other European agencies in being able to employ people from other countries. However, the reason is that it is because our graduates do not have this broader savoir faire, as one might call it. That will continue until UK universities are taught in their entry standards and insist that they know at least one other language. Special courses could be laid on by universities, as they are at UCL and many other universities I know. For example, professional bodies like engineers, bankers and lawyers should also insist upon this.
Finally, since this is a report to government, I can see no reason why the Civil Service entry examinations should not include a foreign language qualification, which would show some seriousness. In this debate, we have tended to talk about foreign languages as something European. Of course, many tens of thousands of our Civil Servants speak several Asian languages. We should not forget that they are also modern languages. It is extremely important that we have people speaking Asian languages and we have that benefit because of Britain’s enlightened immigration policy. Long may it last.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, in June 2011 my company, Cobra Beer, signed a joint venture with Molsen Coors, one of the world’s largest brewers in India, to build on the global joint venture that we had already formed in 2009. Molsen Coors and Cobra Beers in India bought the only brewery in the state of Bihar. In the past year, I have got to know more about Bihar’s history. It is the state where Buddha started Buddhism. It is where one of the most powerful ancient empires under the emperor Ashoka, the Mauryan empire, was based. It is where one of the world’s most famous ancient universities, Nalanda, was founded around the fifth century AD and was closed in 1197AD. Nalanda was closing down when Oxford and Cambridge were starting. We in Europe are fortunate to have a host of ancient universities, including Bologna, Salamanca, Oxford and Cambridge, and I could go on. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for leading this debate.
Where Europe in concerned, Britain is a proud member of the EU. Yet there is always the debate about “Are we in Britain contributing more to Europe than we are getting out of it? Is European governance, regulation and red tape stifling or hampering Britain or is it helping to improve Britain? Is our trade too dependent on Europe, when the world’s centre of gravity is moving east and south?”.
Fortunately, we made the right decision to stay out of the euro. To me, the eurozone crisis shows that pushing towards a united states of Europe is a bridge too far. The euro has proven itself to be an abject failure where one size cannot fit all and a group of countries in Europe can never be in sync at the same time, and thus should never be straitjacketed by a single exchange rate and a single currency. That can work only if you have a true political, fiscal, financial and economic union with a central defence and a central foreign service such as the federal systems in the United States of America or a country like India. I believe that that will never happen in Europe. It is a utopian dream to anyone who thinks that it will. Given this, in Europe, where higher education is concerned, on the face of it there appears to be the right balance in encouraging interaction between European universities, movement of students between countries and funding of research around the EU. Some of these things are handled by the EU directly, but others, most notably the Bologna process, operate outside the EU, and involve both EU and non-EU countries.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, Britain has some of the best higher education in the world and it is one of our greatest sources of soft power. As many noble Lords have said, we are fortunate to have the best higher education in the world alongside the United States. I do not think that we need another ranking system, which has been mooted. We have got enough rankings of universities but whichever ranking you look at we in Britain are right up there at the top. Yet that is in spite of our higher education funding being a fraction as a proportion of GDP compared to our competitors in the United States and on the continent.
My figures are slightly different from those given by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. We spend 1.3% of GDP on higher education compared to 3.1% in America and an EU median of 2.6%. We spend exactly half a percentage of GDP on higher education as the median European figure and far less than the United States of America. Given this, the Government were short-sighted and irresponsible in cutting higher education funding and teaching funding by up to 80%, thus forcing universities to almost treble their students’ tuition fees in one go.
We are shooting ourselves in the foot and this is deterring students, both domestic and from the EU. Our domestic students will be burdened with loans for up to 30 years. Will the Minister confirm the financial arrangements—this issue has been raised—that are available to EU students attending British universities? Will she give us the number of EU students who applied to British universities for the 2012-13 academic year versus the number who applied for 2011-12? Will she also confirm the actual number of EU students who enrolled in this academic year compared with the previous year?
We have a huge advantage with the English language being the world’s global language. Not only do we have the reputation for having the best universities in the world but we also know that EU students want to come here to enhance their English skills at UK universities—something that they know is essential around the world. In the state of Bihar, the chief Minister told me something that I would never have heard in India some years ago—that children in his state wanted to learn English, and that the teachers needed to be able to learn it to teach it to the students because it was the international language. The internet has only enhanced this.
On the other hand—and on this I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins—we must continue to encourage our students to learn foreign languages, and in particular European languages such as Spanish and French that are spoken so widely around the world. The Erasmus scheme must be encouraged among UK students, but we languish at the bottom of the list among the large EU countries in terms of outgoing Erasmus students. What are the Government doing to try to get us higher up this list? What are they doing to encourage the Erasmus scheme to be more flexible? The average time spent is about six months. Could students not be encouraged to spend a term, or just a few months?
Then there is the area of R and D, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke about. We are so underfunded as a country. We need European Union funding; in Britain we spend 1.7% of our GDP on research and development, compared with an EU median of 2%—let alone countries like Germany, which spends 2.8% and the United States, which spends 2.7%. Are the Government doing enough to ensure that the Horizon 2020 figure of €80 billion will be maintained, even if other parts of the Commission budget must fall?
I wrote a foreword for a book called Big Ideas for the Future, produced by Universities UK and Research Councils UK. In spite of our underfunding in research and development, we have 200 examples in that publication of innovations coming out of British universities that are world-beating and world-changing. We are doing this, and the Chancellor is asking for the EU budget to be cut—although that is understandable. But can the Minister confirm that the EU R and D budget is not to be cut and that we will stick to the Horizon 2020 plan of €80 billion, if not the €100 billion suggested by the European Parliament committee?
On the business interaction with universities that is talked about, are we using Cambridge as an example of a cluster? There are three great university clusters in the world. One is Silicon Valley, which is head and shoulders above the rest. Then we have the Cambridge, Boston cluster, with MIT, and the cluster with Cambridge University here, which is one of the best in the world. What are we doing to encourage this around Europe? The report does not really talk about this.
Furthermore, what are the Government doing to encourage the European Union to have a strategy to attract students from around the world, working in a co-ordinated manner to market European universities to developing countries and the emerging markets? Could we have flexible degrees, where a student from India could come for a degree to the UK but spend a year of that degree at one or more European universities as part of their course? We are competing, as Europe, with Australia, Canada and the United States of America.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, this Government continue to insist on including student figures within immigration figures. I have challenged the Home Secretary on this and I am told that we are using internationally recognised figures. That is not the case. Could the Minister confirm that countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States of America all include student figures as a separate category from immigration figures? The signal that we are sending out is awful. I am on the board of three business schools and I know that our applicants from countries such as India have plummeted. Students in India are asking, “Does Britain want us?”.
Then we had the situation at London Metropolitan University. That was a shocking incident, with the UK Border Agency having the gall to take the licence away from a university. I could challenge the UK Border Agency and say, “Tell me the number of illegal immigrants in this country”, and it would not be able to give me a figure. Even when it finds them, they cannot deport them. Yes, we need to address bogus universities and colleges and yes, we need to address bogus students—but what about the innocent students among the 2,500 at LMU who had done nothing wrong and were told that they had 60 days to find another course? Are we a police state? Is this the way to behave? The signal that we have sent out around the world once again is that Britain does not want foreign students—the students who bring in £8 billion of revenue to this country and build generational links around the world. Three generations of my family have been educated in this country. I want that to go on and on. Will the Government address this situation and redress this gross unfairness and injustice?
We are now competing with the rising powers of China and India. Britain and the European Union will compete and stay ahead only by ensuring that our higher education, research and development and innovation always lead the way. We cannot cut back on this funding now. The Government have not only cut back on HE funding but have cut back on R and D in real terms by freezing the funding of science and research. Will the Government confirm that they have frozen science and research funding? Will they admit that they are cutting it back in real terms? If we do not put higher education and research and development at the top of the agenda in Europe, we will not get ahead and we will be left behind. Britain is head and shoulders above our European counterparts in higher education. We should be leading the way for Europe to be able to compete in the decades ahead with the emerging countries, particularly the giants of China and India.
Lord Parekh
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, for introducing this report. I welcome the report of the EU Committee on higher education with two minor reservations. First, it talks about modernisation of higher education. Whenever I have come across the word “modernisation” as a social scientist, I have found it to be loaded and rather disturbing. It is disturbing because it seems to imply that if you do not go along with it you are reactionary, archaic—a backwoodsman. It is also unacceptable because it seems to imply that no argument is needed on behalf of it. Simply to say that something is modern is ipso facto to suggest that you should go along with it. I am pretty sure that we can find a less loaded, more satisfactory way of describing the content of the report.
My second reservation has to do with the fact that when the report talks about modernisation of higher education it does so in the language of economic growth. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about higher education being in the interests of economic growth. While I can understand why this is so important in general as well as in the context of today, we need to bear in mind that every time we talk about economic growth we instinctively think of science and technology and have a tendency to underemphasise the role of the arts, the social sciences and the humanities. When we talk about co-ordination across various European countries we are not simply thinking in terms of economic growth. We are also thinking—imaginatively, boldly—in terms of a common elite, an elite which shares a common intellectual, educational and cultural background. Unless that kind of elite is created by moving between different universities, we simply will not be able to make a success of the European project.
Having got that out of the way—in a rather boring, academic way—I turn to the more positive task of endorsing the report, especially its three major imaginative proposals. The report rightly addresses the question of the lack of mobility among British students. This is being addressed but not as effectively and extensively as one would like. UK mobility under the Erasmus programme in 2000 and 2001 was 9,000 students. Today it is 12,873, so things have moved on, but that is as nothing compared with other European countries. I shall not talk about our rivals and competitors because one should not use that language in the context of the European Union. In Germany, however, 28,000 students are taking advantage of the Erasmus programme, and in France the figure is 32,000.
It is also striking that mobility is considerably limited, not only compared to other European countries, but in terms of its depth as regards social class, race and gender. White students, for example, represent 75% of those who move across European countries. For Afro-Caribbeans, however, the figure is 0.4% out of a total student population of 1.27%. Pakistani students’ mobility is only 0.3%, although they represent 2.42% of the student population. As regards class background, it is striking that the mobility of students from higher managerial and professional backgrounds is 22.4%, but for those from lower managerial and technocratic occupational backgrounds, the figure is only 2.4%. It is striking that mobility is limited in terms of the groups of people who travel.
The advantages of mobility do not need to be emphasised here. We know that people who travel across cultures and different regions gain in experience, maturity, communication skills, greater cultural awareness and greater employment prospects. The obvious question to ask is: why are British students not taking advantage of mobility? Are they dumb? Do they not realise the way that the world is moving? Rather than blame them or language provision, I want to look a little deeper.
Why does one learn a language? How do you do so with confidence such that you are able to follow courses in that language at undergraduate level in a foreign country? When the Dutch and the Germans learn English—although the French are slightly weaker at it—they do so for at least five-and-a-half to six years and for about six periods a fortnight. If we want our students to learn French with an equivalent degree of competence, language will have to be taught in that manner. It is also worth bearing in mind that a lot of English is picked up by the French, Germans and others through television programmes and films. That kind of facility is not easily available for our students who might wish to learn French or German. What TV programmes are they going to watch in order to pick up those languages informally?
We need to pay far more attention to why people seem to be resistant to learning languages when we know that they calculate their own long-term interests and know that it would be to their advantage. Obviously we need a national strategy. We need to make sure that languages are available at primary and secondary schools, although they cannot be enforced or imposed. We also need to bear in mind that a large number of people do not move across linguistic barriers, largely for financial and other reasons. We therefore need to consider the various schemes to which the report rightly draws our attention. Grants and loans should be portable. There should be fee-waiver schemes, and those we have should be extended. It is difficult for people to go abroad to spend a semester there. We could therefore think in terms of substitutes, work placements or internships for shorter periods. We could also think in terms of vacation courses on which one could earn and learn, as lots of students do when they go to the United States. Better advice could be offered to students on the UCCA form when they apply for university, as well as by the universities themselves.
It is amazing how certain impressions are created. It is important to bear in mind that the international league tables create an impression to which the report unwittingly adds its weight. Of the top 50 universities in the world, many are in the United States but only three from Europe. All three happen to be in Britain and the implication is that the universities in France and Germany are not as good as ours. That is simply not true because you are not comparing like with like. In Germany, universities are not the centres of much of the research; much of it takes place in the Max Planck Institutes, and these are not taken into account in the world rankings. Similarly, there are great research institutes in France.
Therefore, it is important to bear in mind that our students may get the wrong impression. From my experience as a university professor, I know that many do, thinking that the Sorbonne, Heidelberg, Bonn or Berlin are not as good as, say, Hull or Exeter. That is ridiculous, yet that impression is created by suggesting that none of the European universities emerges among the top 50. It also partly explains why students do not readily move across linguistic barriers.
I turn to the second proposal in the report, which I endorse—the European research area. It is absolutely right that we should think of promoting the EU as a very desirable study and research destination. It is also striking that grand research projects and challenges are best undertaken through cross-border partnerships, and our Government need to be fully engaged. It is certainly worth bearing in mind, as some of my colleagues said earlier, that EU universities can easily sell themselves outside the EU—for example, in the United States, as well as in other parts of the world—by offering unique combinations of degrees and courses. The London School of Economics and Imperial College do not have to sell themselves in any way but, for example, Manchester or Hull, jointly with Heidelberg or the Sorbonne, could offer a degree in social sciences, economics or whatever. Students abroad, including those in the United States, would be enormously attracted by the prospect of spending two or two and a half years in Britain and half a year or a year in France or Germany. I think that we should take full advantage of the EU proposal for a European research area.
The third proposal concerns a common master’s degree. That is obviously not easy. In this country it takes one year; in Europe it tends to take two years. It is not generally a good idea to insist on uniformity but it is important that postgraduate education is encouraged. It is striking that in Britain we have seen only a 14% rise in postgraduate education in the past five years compared with 69% in the rest of Europe and 155% in non-European countries. While encouraging postgraduate education, we should also think of postgraduate research degrees, including master’s degrees, being undertaken collaboratively between various universities in Europe. For that to be possible, financial support will have to be available, especially in the arts, humanities and social sciences, where scholarships are not readily available. National support schemes should be portable and not limited merely to the countries that provide them, and there should be greater facilities to secure loans for postgraduate students.
Once we begin to think along those lines, we will begin to find a flow of students at undergraduate and postgraduate level, and when that begins to happen not only will our universities become more attractive but we will contribute towards creating a common intellectual and political elite that is capable of carrying forward the great European project.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, there is a great deal of interest, and I think importance, in the European Union Committee report, The Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe. We are indebted to my noble friend Lady Young for the report and for the many themes that it covers in some detail.
I am going to be, I hope, quite boring and concentrate on a single theme. It is discussed in paragraphs 50 to 57 and summarised in paragraphs 121 and 122. I shall put some questions to the Minister about the proposed new EU university ranking instrument, which goes by the uncharming name of U-Multirank and is, it is supposed, being developed by the European Commission. The topic is, I acknowledge, something of an outlier in the report and in the Government’s response, so it is probably pretty appropriate to reach it at the end of the debate. However, it is not unimportant; it is potentially expensive, it is unlikely to improve the quality of universities in the EU, and it is unlikely to contribute to their excellence in any way.
University ranking tables have, of course, become a well known currency and very often headline material during the past decade since the emergence of Shanghai Jiao Tong University’s academic ranking of world universities and the Times Higher Education world university rankings. As is well known—sometimes we preen ourselves on this—some leading UK universities have consistently ranked very highly on these measures, but initially few other European universities ranked highly. In the Times Higher Education rankings for 2012-13, which recently emerged, Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial were all in the top 10 and a further seven UK institutions were in the top 100. No non-UK European institutions are ranked in the top 10, but 16 are now ranked in the top 100. That is a change. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that it is remarkable that five of those 16 are in the Netherlands.
Among other things, I think that shows that these rankings have, in the decade in which they have existed, great influence on university and national higher education policy and practice. Institutions strive to rise in these rankings. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, pointed out, the Max Planck institutes used to be outwith the university system in Germany and therefore did not count in the ranking, but the Germans have seen the writing on the wall and have now incorporated them into universities. It is one reason why German universities are coming up the rankings quite fast.
One might wonder why, given that the problem has to some extent been cracked, and European universities are now doing reasonably well using the existing metrics, the EU is still bent on devising a further ranking system. I think the answer is that one has to go back to when these rankings first emerged, less than a decade ago—it does not go back into history—and people were horrified that almost no European universities outside the UK were even in the top 100. The UK had some in the top 10 and a good number in the top 100. It was galling for institutions of high reputation and long history to find themselves with such low rankings. In particular, I think French and German universities were appalled.
That sense of injustice, whether the rankings were merited or unmerited, is a separate point that lies behind the hope that a new measuring rod will provide the answer and that it will somehow reveal the true qualities of European universities in a more compelling and fair light. It is hoped that U-Multirank will show the diversity of institutions and their merits by ranking different aspects of performance separately. It will supposedly give us a fairer picture. I suspect that if it comes to pass, people will quickly put the various rankings together and find a single ranking for all European universities.
Some French and German universities may now achieve higher scores and they may be less inclined to want to shoot the messenger, but for many of them, and also for many UK universities, the rankings still bring unwanted and what are felt to be unfair comparisons. They are still resented. That sense of grievance is spreading and it is bound to spread further as more institutions find themselves with lower rankings than they feel they deserve. Non-EU institutions of considerable distinction in other parts of Europe are also now experiencing that disappointment and resentment.
Recently, I had the good fortune to speak to the rector of St Petersburg who told me how startling and upsetting it had been to find Russia’s leading universities—St Petersburg and Moscow State—given lowly rankings. Naturally, they are taking what they see as appropriate measures to raise their scores—note I did not say to raise their standards, which is a somewhat separate matter. It is understandable that some institutions and Governments still think that U-Multirank is a useful project in Europe, but it is quite hard to find out either whether it is still on track or who is supporting it. At a meeting in Aarhus this spring on excellence in universities, under the Danish presidency, I heard great enthusiasm for U-Multirank. A prototype is supposedly now out to tender. It is said that the first version should be available at the end of 2013, and further versions at the end of 2014 and 2015—and that the European Commission wants at least 500 participating universities at the end of the first phase, covering at least the disciplines of business and engineering.
However, no one seems particularly enthusiastic about U-Multirank. The League of European Research Universities—a dozen or so highly selective universities not in capital cities—voiced its opposition publicly as early as 2010. The rectors of the Coimbra universities—another very selective group, although not quite as selective—are apparently not happy, as I heard at a meeting in May, but they have not to my knowledge gone public about being unhappy with it or opposing it. The European Union Committee was not enthusiastic, nor was the Government’s response, but the juggernaut appears to be rolling. Are Her Majesty’s Government going to take steps to disengage, or will they remain tepidly engaged? Are they content that matters should roll—or perhaps lurch or inch—forward, and if so, why?
I will ask the Minister a few simple questions about Her Majesty’s Government’s views and plans. Is the development of U-Multirank proceeding, or is it sputtering to a halt? How much is its development expected to cost in the current year? What costs are foreseen for future years? What estimate have they made of the costs to UK universities of collecting the additional data that will have to be submitted if U-Multirank goes ahead? Do the Government believe there is a reasonable likelihood that other European university systems will be able to compile the data needed for U-Multirank, or do they believe that the data likely to be submitted will be of low quality and perhaps even bogus? Do the Government think that the U-Multirank project represents value for money?
Above all, do the Government think that U-Multirank, even if it has integrity and goes ahead, will be useful? League tables give us just a ranking. What is needed for quality control is not a ranking or league table but a judgment, and sometimes metrics, of quality or excellence—that is, of the excellence of matters that are educationally important and that matter for research. Both the committee’s and the Government’s response suggest that a ranking might be helpful for applicants to universities, who would be able more accurately to compare institutions. That is just an illusion. Students need to know far more about a course before they apply for it and commit years of their life and considerable amounts of tuition money. I am sure that they will continue to rely on institutional websites, university prospectuses, the advice of current and recent students and teachers, and site visits. Open days are a way of gaining seriously relevant information.
Ratings or rankings are not substantive enough or sound enough to be useful for these decisions. Students need ways of judging quality, not comparative success. Excellence is not a positional good. There can be many excellent universities, or perhaps few. That is what we need to know. That is why there is no reason to think that UK universities are worse just because fewer of them are in the top 100; it is simply that others are taking steps to do better in the rankings. Relative success is a merely positional good. Someone will come top even if the standards are uniformly low, just as someone will come last even if the standards are uniformly high. Should we not aim for excellence and spend less time and money on ranking? In the end, one is tempted to ask whose benefit the U-Multirank is being compiled. Cui bono?
Will the Government take an active stance? If, as I suspect, they think U-Multirank is not needed or valuable, why not say so? We could save some money and put it into research.
Lord Judd
My Lords, it is a challenge to follow the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve. Throughout our deliberations she has made wise, incisive and penetrating contributions, and that is characteristic of her whole approach to public life. I am therefore certain that I do not speak for myself alone in saying how much we admire her for agreeing recently to take on a huge new challenge on behalf of society, one that is not unrelated to the issues we are discussing today; in fact it is very close to them. We all wish her well as she shoulders those responsibilities. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, and her colleagues for a helpful and useful report. It will be of value to the many people who get hold of it and study it.
Earlier today in another debate about constitutional matters, I ventured to suggest that the first reality of political life is that, whether we like it or not, from the day we are born we are locked into a totally interdependent international reality. The world is totally interdependent internationally. I feel strongly that we fail our young, and we certainly undermine the United Kingdom’s future, if we do not recognise that and then grapple with the challenge in order to meet it effectively. As I said in the earlier debate, I am quite certain that history will judge our generation of politicians by the contribution we make to finding effective answers to the challenge of international interdependence and the success, or indeed the mess, we make of it.
Universities are central to all this. Unless we enable the young of the world to prepare to participate in and contribute to an international community, what are we doing with our educational system? This is not simply a matter for those reading international relations formally. That is a daft approach. Of course we need the discipline of international relations as a subject of study, but it would be daft just to leave it at that. All the dimensions of higher education, and indeed of education at all levels, are related to what needs to be done. In that context, if we adhere at all to the concept of a real university being a community of scholars, it totally lacks relevance unless it is a vibrant international community in which all parts of the world are represented. We desperately need access socially, ethnically and internationally in order to ensure that our universities provide a climate of learning that is essentially part of the international reality.
Too often the debate is dominated by what overseas students represent to universities in terms of the income they provide and how universities are going to be in dire economic straits if the overseas students do not come. While that is part of managing universities, it is completely to miss the point, which is that the quality of the education and the educational experience in our universities is related to the degree to which they are real international and socially representative communities.
These days we have a very utilitarian approach to education, which of course cannot be dismissed; it is an important part of enabling society to function. But sometimes I wonder about where we draw the frontiers in our evaluation of what is relevant in utilitarian terms and what is not. I declare an interest as an emeritus governor of the London School of Economics, and I find it extraordinary that the Government should give the emphasis they do to science and technology but deliberately underrate the significance of the social sciences. If we are to make a success of society, if we are to meet the radical new challenges that are presenting themselves, the social sciences are absolutely essential. Even if you take a utilitarian management approach, the social sciences are every bit as important as the physical and other sciences in enabling us to make a success of what we are trying to do.
There is another point in all this. Understandably, we are desperately preoccupied with our economic plight. Our leaders have nightmare situations to deal with. But why do we want our economy to be successful? Is a successful economy just an end in itself or is it a means to having a society worth having? If we are going to have a society worth having, what about revisiting the principle of education for its own sake, and the principle that part of living as distinct from existing is discovering your potential and realising it, or discovering your creative potential and realising that? If we really care about the future of our society, we neglect at our peril an emphasis on the arts, including the creative arts.
As was powerfully argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, languages are crucial. There is a great importance in studying language as part of education for its own sake, and the richness of studying language, of course, but languages are also essential to the functioning of international society. We need to reinvent a passionate concern for people being able to live the fullest possible lives, and that means being able to enjoy music, art and all the rest; and we are hell-bent on creating a hell on earth if we let our commitment to these dimensions of higher education slip. The interplay in European education is crucial to all this.
To conclude, it has been a very high-minded debate today, which has avoided the immediate controversy of party conferences and the rest, but I was very depressed last night when I heard the Prime Minister’s jibe about intellectualism. Where are we taking our society if we try to score cheap political points by talking about intellectuals in politics? For God’s sake, why are we in the mess we are in? We are in the mess we are in because we have not been doing enough thinking, because we have not being doing enough evaluation of where we are and why. If I were to pick one urgent priority in education and our national life, it would be a revival of intellectualism and the ability to think about our predicament, and to think about where we could be as distinct from where we are, and what we should be doing. From that standpoint, I make no apology for introducing a hard political point at the end of this debate.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, for introducing the last report of the committee which she chaired, The Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe, and all noble Lords for their contribution to what has been a very informative and sometimes spirited debate.
There is not time to reflect on every contribution made today, though there was something of interest and value in each one. I think that we are all in debt to my noble friend Lord Giddens, whose sadly truncated speech dealt with the context for our debate, of a Europe in crisis, and drew attention to the impact that this may have. I shall pick up three main points which I hope will be noted by the Minister when she comes to respond in what I think is her first appearance as a spokesperson for BIS. We welcome her to her new role and I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for her contributions to our education debates over the year.
We have too few opportunities to debate higher education in your Lordships’ House—the wide range of comments that we have received in this debate prove that—and I, too, will raise issues both from the report and on general HE policy. Much of the report implies at least a partnership between the UK Government and our HE institutions across the Bologna process, Horizon 2002 strategy, EIT, ERA, KICs and, of course, the Erasmus programme. Several noble Lords referred to the benefits that can flow if these multilateral programmes are delivered, but it was not clear from the government response how, if funds are tight, they will be supported. With HEFCE being refocused and no direct teaching grants being provided, how will the UK Government deliver on their commitments?
Several noble Lords mentioned the poor level of participation of UK students in the Erasmus programme but also drew attention to the work of the Riordan group. Student mobility clearly suffers from poor language skills acquisition at school and at university and may also be impacted by debt aversion to the new student finance system. It also needs more direct funding. Will this be available? Can we be assured that extra support will continue to be available for disabled and disadvantaged students?
My noble friend Lady Blackstone and others raised the question of how postgraduate education is to be supported more generally. A loan system will surely not be attractive to those undergraduates who leave university with accrued loans of perhaps £50,000. What are the Government going to do in this area? We are still not very clear about this.
Listening to the debate today and reflecting on how the EU intends to modernise higher education leads us to call into question what this Government are doing to our higher education system, which, until recently at least, was regarded as one of the best in the world. Can current plans really be called modernisation? According to UCAS, there are 54,200 fewer students starting this term than there were this time last year. The evidence is clear: the trebling of tuition fees is hitting the life chances of thousands of potential students across the country, holding back their access to opportunities and at the same time damaging the UK’s economic potential, which must surely be seen to rely on a supply of highly qualified graduates to enable us to compete with new competition from emerging markets.
Other countries see the importance of higher education and are investing in it. This Government are out of touch and doing the opposite. Cutting 25,000 student places at universities this year is hardly investing in our young people or contributing to growth. Times Higher Education has estimated that the fall in student numbers will mean a loss of income to universities of around £1.3 billion over the next three years. That is the equivalent of shutting down a huge university such as the University of Manchester, together with a smaller one such as the University of Keele, or shutting two mid-sized institutions like Cambridge and Hertfordshire. It is not just that this piles yet more financial pressure on universities, already under significant strain as a result of the Government’s 80% cut to the teaching grant; complex student number control mechanisms are compounding these problems, creating further uncertainty where places at popular universities which could have easily taken them have been taken out and auctioned off to those who bid for them on price not quality.
The impact is being felt in regional economies, already suffering from a recession made in Downing Street, with fewer students studying, eating, shopping and renting in towns and cities across the UK. The University of Southampton estimates that the changes that it has experienced have generated a £16.5 million loss in income to the city. What is going to happen to our current,
“enviable track record of attracting bright overseas students to come and study in the UK”,
who, according to the chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee whose recent report has already been mentioned today,
“contribute significantly to our economy as well as to our reputation as a world-class place to do business”?
We seem to have yet another omnishambles, with what seems to be open warfare between BIS and the Home Office. Can the Minister shed light on who is winning the argument? The Immigration Minister, Mark Harper, said recently that:
“The government does not consider it appropriate to deviate from the internationally agreed definition of a migrant”.
However, in what was widely described as a damage limitation exercise, David Willetts said that the Government want,
“to publicise disaggregated figures”—
on net migration—
“so that the debate can be better informed”.
In other words, the ONS will now publish two series of net migration figures, one including students and one excluding them. Whatever happens, this has been a very sorry episode that will do lasting damage to our HE system and our economy as well as impact on the sort of soft-power issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Mr Willetts is on record as saying that:
“There are few sectors of our economy with the capacity to grow and generate export earnings as great as higher education”,
and that,
“education exports are already worth around £14 billion, and could rise to around £20 billion in 2020 and nearly £27 billion in 2025, representing an annual growth rate of approximately 5 per cent”.
They will certainly not if the Government do not sort out this unseemly mess in very short order.
The Government in their White Paper—and we are still waiting for the promised Bill—said that they wanted a revolution in higher education and to place,
“students at the heart of the system”.
However, in reality a combination of high fees and broken and discredited number-control policies have hampered universities’ best efforts to fill their books with students ready for the transformational effects of a higher education system that was once the envy of the world.
Our universities are hurting as a result of the Government’s policies, and students will be personally paying for generations to come. They will be paying more and for longer than ever before. In fact most students will be paying back the higher fees most of their working lives. What a way to modernise higher education.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, for introducing this debate and express appreciation to her and the European Union Select Committee for all their work. The Government very much welcome its thorough report. It is pleasing that such disagreement as there is between the committee and the Government is essentially of detail and emphasis.
We are agreed that the Bologna process has had very positive effects since the declaration was adopted in 1999. My right honourable friend the Minister for Universities and Science, at the latest Bologna ministerial meeting in April, agreed to focus on three main goals in the face of the economic crisis: to provide quality higher education to more students, better equip students with employable skills and increase student mobility. The national mobility strategy required is currently being worked on by the sector, under the capable chairmanship of Professor Riordan, and the Government look forward to seeing it. We have had a number of references to that report from noble Lords.
The committee was concerned about recognition of our one-year master’s degrees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, brought this up. The Government continue to press, bilaterally where necessary, to ensure that the recognition that should be accorded under the Bologna process is given. Recent figures suggest that this problem is diminishing and the number of institutions offering one-year master’s courses is increasing, suggesting confidence in these degrees.
The committee noted that use of the European credit transfer system and the diploma supplement is mandatory in Scotland and considered it would be of benefit throughout the UK. We rightly prize the autonomy of our universities and this would be a decision for them. The Bologna process implementation report prepared for the ministerial conference shows that the rest of the UK has one of the best performances in Europe for implementing the Bologna tools. UUK figures show that use of the ECTS and the diploma supplement have increased significantly since 2009. As my noble friend Lady Sharp set out, there are difficulties for HEIs in this country accepting credits from other institutions, especially, but not only, within the Russell group.
The committee noted that the HE sector is global in character and saw value in the production of a strategy in this area. The European Commission will issue a communication on internationalisation of HE in 2013. The Government will examine it carefully, and agree with the committee that it must justify any new EU actions as adding value, and avoid duplicating what member states, and universities themselves, are already doing.
In this context the committee notes that there is increased competition from continental universities, and although it is too early to say what the effect of the new fee regime in England will be, the Government will continue actively to promote the strength of our HE sector to students. Several noble Lords have referred to the fact that continental universities are now offering degrees through the medium of English, so the language component has been taken away from those non-foreign-language-speaking students who want to study there. I assure the House that we encourage and prize the world-class reputation that our universities enjoy. Our reforms to higher education funding in England are progressive, with no eligible student paying upfront, with more affordable repayments and more financial support for students from lower income households. I refute the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that fees will impact on cash-strapped students and parents. As we all know, repayments do not start until students become graduates and are earning at least £21,000 a year.
The committee rightly stresses the need to foster collaboration between universities and businesses to contribute to our future prosperity and the added value that various EU initiatives can give. In particular, the European Institute for Innovation and Technology and its knowledge and innovation communities have the potential to foster such collaboration. The Government will look closely at how existing KICs are doing that during the remainder of the present programme. For the new European innovation partnerships, it is very early to judge, but we will follow developments closely to optimise future performance. I note the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about innovation and technology.
The committee welcomes the Commission’s proposal for a new integrated education programme, Erasmus for All. The Government agree, and my right honourable friend Mr David Willetts was pleased to support the partial general approach to the programme at the Education Council last May. We will do all we can to ensure that, as the proposal proceeds through the legislative process, the gains agreed are maintained.
Of course, as we are all aware, our aspirations in this field, as in many others, run up against the very difficult financial climate. The report wisely notes that any increases will be possible only in an EU budget in which reductions are made in other areas and overall restraint is achieved. The proposed Erasmus for All programme, integrating as it does the existing education and youth programmes with the new sport programme, is a good example of the sort of simplification and streamlining needed.
We agree with the committee on the importance of encouraging student mobility. To do so, the key questions are the language ability of our students, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, set out, and financial provision for mobility. On the latter, since the report was written, my right honourable friend Mr David Willetts has announced new arrangements to replace the Erasmus fee waiver in England. They allow English HE institutions to charge students who take year-abroad placements a tuition fee up to 15% of their maximum fee cap; give students access to a tuition fee loan to cover those costs; and provide a HEFCE grant to support institutions participating in overseas student programmes. For the first time, that support will extend to students from English institutions taking year-abroad placements outside the Erasmus scheme.
On languages, the report criticises our monoglot culture and the risk of complacency due to the increasing spread of English. The Government agree. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education has included languages in the English baccalaureate; the new national curriculum will for the first time make a foreign language compulsory at key stage 2; and his department is funding the CfBT Education Trust to raise standards of language teaching. Several noble Lords have raised concerns about the requisite number of qualified language teachers to meet those new demands. Work is under way to identify teachers to recruit and to encourage more people to come back into the profession to encourage language teaching.
Research published in March this year showed that 51% of state secondary schools have more than half their pupils taking a language in year 10, up from 36% when the previous Government left office—an increase probably helped by the language component in the English baccalaureate. Proposals for the English baccalaureate certificate include making a modern language compulsory at key stage 4. We would certainly hope that that would also become part of the national curriculum. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills classifies languages as strategically important and vulnerable subjects, which it has asked HEFCE to support; more than £14 million will be allocated to maintain capacity in SIVS this academic year. We are pleased to note the committee’s endorsement of the proposed revision of the professional qualifications directive. The proposed directive includes references to ECTS credits as evidence for minimum training requirements for seven professions. The Government support this approach and are seeking to ensure flexibility for both professionals and their regulators. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said more on this and I will say a little more in a moment.
I will come on to some of the comments made in this debate, which has been wide-ranging. I apologise if I am not able to cover all of the points raised but I will of course write to noble Lords on those which I am not able to cover this evening. Further to mobility, the British Council, which delivers the Erasmus programme in the UK under contract to the Government, introduced a supplementary grant of €500 in 2011-12 for Erasmus students who are eligible for HE widening participation assistance in the UK. It is too early at the moment to tell how that has affected the take-up from these groups but we hope it will certainly help to widen both the diverse range of students and participation. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned widening participation and reaching out to those groups.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the multiannual financial framework. It is vital that the next MFF is geared to fostering growth and competitiveness. Since those are underpinned by research and innovation, the Government agree that this area should account for a larger proportion of an EU budget that will increase by, at most, inflation in 2014 to 2020. The importance of R and D has been brought out again in a number of speeches this evening.
My noble friend Lord Bridgeman and the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, also mentioned outward mobility. BIS has tasked the higher education sector to consider outward HE student mobility generally, including the measures necessary to support the growth of UK participation in the Erasmus programme, and ensure that students from all backgrounds have the opportunity to take part. Again, it was raised in this debate how the numbers coming into this country are far greater than the number of our own students wishing to study overseas. Raising awareness of international experience in schools, as my noble friend Lord Bridgeman said, is an important aspect of this. I will get back to him on whether this is needed on the UCAS application form. I would certainly have thought that any personal statement would benefit from having a comment about international experience, because we know that is valued by employers and universities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked a number of questions. I will do my best to tackle some of them. She asked what was going to happen about EU students defaulting on student loans. The reply is that we are working closely with other member states and the European Commission to establish a means of strengthening ways of pursuing repayment. However, there has not been a major problem with other forms of loans to EU students. We are hoping that it will not present a great problem. It is a matter, of course, of working with other countries.
On the review of the directive and the recognition of professional qualifications, which the noble Baroness mentioned particularly in the medical field, we hope that that directive will help young graduates not to have to start again or to study for more years than is necessary to prove their professional competence. We shall obviously have to work with that directive as it develops to make sure that that is happening. I think that I have already mentioned the one-year master’s degrees, but on the professional directive we would like to ensure that the levels of education outlined are aligned with Bologna cycles, so that the training courses towards regulated professions do not aim for two differing benchmark levels. I would not underestimate the difficulties of trying to ensure that, throughout different countries, we have benchmarks measuring the same things across this range of professions.
On the master’s-level student loan guarantee facility, which my noble friend Lady Sharp mentioned, we agree with the committee that the loan guarantee proposal needs to be explored further and could potentially help UK graduate students, but once again we will need to monitor how this goes along to make sure that it is entirely effective.
A number of noble Lords mentioned universities doing as much as they can to enforce the teaching of modern languages. My noble friend Lady Sharp mentioned the University of Sussex, where languages were encouraged. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, mentioned UCL, which has insisted on a modern language module for all incoming students and, if they do not have a GCSE, UCL is providing courses to enable them to gain one. There are examples of other universities doing similar things. Aston, for instance, has a programme where all first-year students will be studying a modern language. There are a number of very innovative programmes within universities to try to ensure that languages are encouraged across the range of subject areas. I think that the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Parekh, mentioned the importance of linkages across subject areas, not just for linguists but in science, engineering, technology, the arts, law, medicine and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, also mentioned the barriers to research and academic careers for UK citizens, and the European Commission recognises that there are barriers for researchers and academics and is working with member states to tackle those barriers to develop the European research area to ensure that there is more openness and exchange within those areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised the matter of visas, as did the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Judd and Lord Stevenson. This has been a vexed question. I am destined to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Hannay; I am sure that I will not fill the lacuna to his satisfaction regarding the areas that he raised. There are hopeful signs regarding the Government’s interest in fostering internationalism; for instance, just recently the Government announced that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office language facility would be funded with £1 million following the closure of the college in 2007, so there is an upturn on that front.
I assure noble Lords that the UK is most definitely open for business to international students. Genuine students who have the greatest contribution to make to the UK will continue to be welcomed. The aim as always is to get the balance right between providing a user-friendly route for bona fide students and education providers and deterring those who would seek to abuse the system. I share noble Lords’ concerns that we certainly seem to have got publicity rather skewed against that in recent times. We are working very hard to try to redress that position and to encourage overseas students to come. Conversations continue with the Home Office and UKBA and the student visa people to try to ensure that we encourage students to come here. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pointed out, it is not just a matter of economic benefit to the UK from students; it is also the matter of international relations, the fostering of friendships across different cultures and countries, which is of such vital importance today.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, commented that he was not impressed by the trend of universities to issue statements of all-round achievement alongside the academic record and guides. We understand from employers that they are interested in other characteristics of graduates as well as their academic grades, and many UK universities have adopted the higher education achievement report, which provides a much deeper record than the standard academic report. The Government encourage that development.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, commented on the importance of linguists generally and concerns about the shortage of interpreters and the impact that that has. I commend the work in this respect of the Chartered Institute of Linguists, to which I spoke last week, which performs a vital role in trying to ensure that standards are maintained in all branches of linguistics.
I have given the assurance on key stage 4. That is going to continue. The noble Baroness’s idea that there should be a cross-cutting Minister covering languages in all departments is an interesting one. I will need to get back to her on that; it might not be wise for me to make a policy decision at the Dispatch Box this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, commented on the benefits of EU research collaboration and research mobility, and we would certainly agree that that is of enormous benefit. We are working with the European Commission and other EU partners to increase such collaboration where appropriate through the European research area initiative. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, talked about joint and double degrees, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, with a mixture of different universities delivering together. These already exist, with the development of joint programmes supported through the EU education programmes, and are strongly encouraged in the Bologna process, but it is indicative of the fact that they are worthy of more support than they have at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, reminded us that India was closing down its universities long before Oxford and Cambridge were even thinking of opening. I also mention that there are BIS-funded projects for sending students to India and China to find out more about those cultures. They are very popular. Applications are way in excess of the number who can go. On the financial arrangements available to EU students, they are eligible for loans but not for maintenance grants.
I will have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, on the detail of the U-Multirank. The Government concur with the report’s finding and with the concerns that she raised. It is important that there is clear information and guidance for students on higher education institutions, but there are concerns about the usefulness of university league tables and rankings systems. The noble Baroness pointed out some of the difficulties of rankings systems for universities. There are also possible concerns about the cost. The Commission is running a trial scheme with a limited number of countries on this, and we will possibly wait until that trial is reported. I shall try to find out about the costs for the noble Baroness. I do not know them at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, mentioned the multinationalism of universities and that social science is as important as physical sciences. I think we all agree that the revival of intellectualism and the ability to think our way out of problems are of key importance in the times in which we live.
I am conscious that I have not covered all the points that have been raised in the depth that I would like. I will read Hansard and try to come back to noble Lords on the points that have not been covered today. I commend the influential reports of the EU Committee, which are very welcome. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, the members of the committee and all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. We have had productive and incisive contributions that will help to shape government policy in a field that is not only crucial to our economic future but helps to promote good international relations and opens opportunities for students of all ages.
Baroness Young of Hornsey
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in today’s debate. I, too, am conscious of the time and that everybody has been very diligent in listening to all the analysis and critiques that we have heard this afternoon. It makes me sad that I no longer have any responsibility for this subject directly within the EU Select Committee structure but I will, no doubt, be working with my noble friend Lord Hannay, who I wish well in his work, in following up on this debate and on the report, as is customary.
I shall make a couple of very quick points in shorthand. We recognise, but were not able to put fully into the report, how complex student mobility is. It is not just about finance; it is about economics and social and cultural factors and the rich interplay of all those different factors in presenting barriers to many of our students going to study in Europe.
I shall say no more on U-Multirank, except that in a sense I understand that the impulse to develop something less oriented towards particular kinds of institutions was not necessarily a bad idea, but how that is to play out is to be seen.
Our remit and title were determined by the communication from the European Commission, so although there might be problems around the use of the term “modernisation”, it is not necessarily of our doing and I distance us slightly from that.
On language competence, I shall say only that it is not merely about the language and linguistics; it is also about culture. Even if everybody in the world were able to speak English as well as other languages, we would be impoverished if we could not communicate in languages other than our own native tongue.
I thank the Minister for her thoughtful reply. I shall not address those areas where we might still be in disagreement. Like her, I shall be looking at Hansard and thinking through what some of those responses mean.
To conclude, I thank hugely the members of Sub-Committee G who I worked with. In particular, for today, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, who was so supportive on that committee. I am really glad that he is able to follow that through on the committee of my noble friend Lord Hannay. I, too, give due credit to Michael Torrance, Alistair Dillon and Mandeep Lally, who were admirable support for Sub-Committee G.
The debate has been stimulating and wide-ranging. The one thing we all agree on is that higher education has a huge role to play, one way or another, in trying to get us out of this ongoing crisis in which we find ourselves, which is not only to do with the financial crisis—although that is obviously at the forefront—but also our environmental crisis, and social and cultural issues, too.
I thank everybody for their participation.