House of Commons
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
On the front page of today’s Order Paper it is noted that on 9 September 1916, Lieutenant Thomas Michael Kettle, Royal Dublin Fusiliers, Member for East Tyrone from 1906 to 1910, was killed in action at Ginchy during the Battle of the Somme.
We remember him today.
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
We continue to support the roll-out of superfast broadband to reach 95% of UK homes and businesses by December next year, and we are reinvesting funds from project savings and revenues specifically to help those people in harder-to-reach areas, such as rural communities.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her promotion and wish her well in her post, which I am sure she will make a great success of. Is she aware that, while 84% of properties in my constituency have access to superfast speeds, 9.5% still do not have access to 10 megabits per second and 2% have no access at all to even basic broadband? Many of those remote communities include farms and businesses that want to expand and get on and diversify, but they are being held back, so what more can she and her team do about that?
Karen Bradley
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words; I do appreciate them. He has pointed out that more than four in five properties in his constituency have access to superfast broadband; it is very important that they know that and make sure, if they wish, that they can access it. I know that very well, given that I also represent a rural constituency.
We are looking to make sure that there is access to superfast broadband for all in rural areas. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the project savings and revenues for reinvestment are already being made available to local projects across the UK, which can then determine how and where that money is best spent. So far, nearly £130 million of take-up revenue has been confirmed for reinvestment in local projects nationwide, and we expect up to £150 million of savings in addition. More than £10 million of that is being reinvested in hard-to-reach areas in Norfolk.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
A lot of my constituents have written to me recently about the problems with superfast broadband and lack of access to it. Obviously, if people do not have access to it, their non-access is 100%. They want certainty in timescale and when it is going to happen. What can the Secretary of State do to increase that certainty?
Karen Bradley
I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments, which are exactly the same as those I receive from my constituents. I am working, together with the Minister for Digital and Culture, to make sure that we communicate to all people and businesses when they can expect access to superfast broadband. We are also making sure that universal service is available to all in the timeframe set out.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The village of Harrington in the borough of Kettering is just two miles from the town of Rothwell, and yet it has had tremendous difficulties in persuading BT to provide it with superfast broadband. Farms on the outskirts of Harrington are almost in despair that they will never get it. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give my constituents that they will be connected?
Karen Bradley
I encourage my hon. Friend to contact me and the Minister of State, and we will make sure that we speak both to BT Openreach and to other service providers, to find out exactly that information.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the existence of not spots in urban areas is often the result of a combination of cock-ups, including commercial rivalries between companies, which are sometimes overlaid with developers taking their eye off the ball at the wrong time and local authorities not getting their act together? Whose responsibility is it to sort that out?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman has nailed some of the problems in urban areas, the Minister and I are working very hard to rectify them.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State to her place. As a fellow graduate of Imperial College, I hope to find in her a fellow champion of the digital economy. However, although I welcome her to her place, she should be ashamed of the situation we are in. In 2016—four years after the last Labour Government’s commitment to universal broadband for all would have come into force—hundreds of thousands of British citizens do not even have the speed to download an email and can only dream of the speed necessary to watch the parliamentary channel and see your good self, Mr Speaker. Will the Secretary of State disavow her predecessor’s laissez-faire attitude and tell us what she is going to do to end that disgraceful situation?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady and I are both alumni of Imperial College, a great institution that does so much to further science and technology and to ensure that we have the right skills in the digital market so that we can be a world leader. I have to take issue with some of the comments she has made, however. This Government have done more than many others and this country is well ahead of, many others in broadband provision. I fully appreciate that if an individual does not have access to broadband, they feel somehow that that is not right. It is not right; we are determined to get it right, and we will get it right. I absolutely and totally disagree with any suggestion that there is a laissez-faire attitude in the Government. This Government are a Government for all the country—for everyone—and we will deliver.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
Local TV makes an important contribution to British broadcasting, with around 1.5 million households watching it each week. Twenty-one channels have launched since November 2013, with a further 13 due to come on air next year.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister has highlighted the successful development of local TV. That success is underpinned by a partnership with the BBC, which provides an income stream in return for sharing news content, but the arrangement is now at risk with new proposals for commissioning local content. Will the Minister agree to meet the local TV network to discuss how the proposed public service content fund could be used to provide continued support to local TV?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I would be delighted to do so. The detailed arrangements that were set out in the BBC White Paper are a matter for the BBC, but it will clearly want to consult and engage with all local media. I would be enthusiastic about meeting local TV providers with the hon. Gentleman. It is disappointing to have sedentary voices from the Opposition shouting that local TV is not relevant. I think it is hugely relevant, and I look forward to working across this House to deliver it.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
May I draw the Minister’s attention to Estuary TV, which was established 12 years ago at Immingham in my constituency, and is now based at the Grimsby Institute? It is a long-established channel. May I invite the Minister to follow his predecessor and visit the station, which I am sure will give him an extended interview?
Matt Hancock
Well, how could I turn down an offer like that? I love Grimsby. It is great to come to Cleethorpes with my hon. Friend, and to Grimsby, too. I hope that even these exchanges may find their way on to Estuary TV. As with other brilliant local TV stations that I have appeared on in the past, I look forward to visiting this one in the future.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
May I also welcome the new Secretary of State and her team and wish them well? Has the Minister had any opportunity to read the report on the BBC by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, and in particular the Committee’s unanimous recommendation that there be a separate Scottish six o’clock news? Moreover, have the Minister or his colleagues talked about that with anybody senior at the BBC, and can he reassure us that there will be no Government interference to try to thwart the “Scottish Six” when it is launched?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and I know that there have been extensive discussions with the BBC at all levels about the draft charter and the framework agreement. I am afraid that he will just have to wait a short while longer for more detail about that.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
May I take the opportunity to congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment and welcome her team to the Front Bench? May I also add my congratulations to our brilliant Olympians on their stunning success in Rio and wish our Paralympians similar success?
Local television services face the threat of serious cuts if the Government press ahead with their plan to make the BBC pay the cost of free licence fees for the over-75s. As a social benefit, that has hitherto been paid for by the Exchequer, and rightly so. Transferring the cost to the BBC could mean a loss to the corporation, and effectively to other licence fee payers, of up to £608 million a year, threatening programme cuts across the board. Will the Government think again about this utterly misguided decision?
Matt Hancock
I simply do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. There was a very good licence fee settlement, which the BBC welcomed. If he is coming out against providing free TV licences to the over-75s, he ought to say that that is the Labour party position.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
The Government support culture in the north-east through Arts Council England investment and the Heritage Lottery Fund. The north-east has a thriving and growing arts scene that we want to support, such as the National Glass Centre and the Cultural Spring programme.
Mrs Hodgson
I am thrilled to hear the Minister talk about culture in the north-east, and I would love to take him to the National Glass Centre in Sunderland and the Arts Centre in Washington. Does he agree with me that the disparity in Arts Council funding between the north-east and places such as London is one of the reasons why it would be excellent for Sunderland to become the city of culture 2021 to showcase our city’s cultural contribution to the rest of the UK and to the world?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady has made an excellent case for an application to become the city of culture 2021. I am hugely looking forward to the city of culture 2017 in Hull next year. No doubt her comments will be picked up. I would love to come to Sunderland soon to see some of these things for myself.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
The Government have delivered the majority of the recommendations set out in the Leveson inquiry report.
Christian Matheson
May I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment? The long grass into which the Government have kicked the Leveson review is getting ever longer, but the issue is not going away. The previous Prime Minister signed a cross-party agreement, and this House overwhelmingly passed section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, so when will she implement it?
Karen Bradley
I am taking my time to make sure I listen to all sides on this matter. I have already had a meeting with Hacked Off and I am going to meet all representatives; I wanted to hear from all victims of press abuse. I will take my time and make sure I make the decision in the right way.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
May I join hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend on becoming Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—the best job in the Government? Does she share my concern about the continuing loss of both jobs and titles in the national and local press? Does she agree that there may be a case for saying, if there is a recognised regulator, that its members will be given the protection afforded under the Leveson recommendations, but that to impose the cost penalties would simply result in the loss of yet more newspapers?
Karen Bradley
I am having to fill my right hon. Friend’s really enormous shoes as best I can, because he did an absolutely fantastic job in this role. He sums up the dilemma that we face. We want to have a free press, and we want to make sure that we have a strong and vibrant local press. I know from my own local titles just how important they are to people. They read the Leek Post and Times, the Biddulph Chronicle and The Sentinel, and they want to have such a strong local press.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman will know that some cases are pending, and until they have been completed there can be no progress on Leveson 2. I assure him that this is not being kicked into the long grass. We are looking very carefully at all the arguments from all sides to make sure we have a free press that protects the citizen.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the whole of the new ministerial team. I am particularly delighted at the survival of the Sports Minister, whom I daily want to hug—[Interruption.]—still want to hug. However, as one of those whose phone was hacked back in 2003, I would just say to the Secretary of State that the victims of phone hacking—many of them were not politicians, but were other victims of crime, including members of the armed forces—are desperate for the Government to stand by the promises they made to them. First, they promised there would be Leveson 2. Can she say today that there will be? There is no reason why she should not do so, because every previous Secretary of State has done so. Secondly, why on earth have they not implemented section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013? It was a cross-party agreement. We would love her to death—I would hug her, too—if only she implemented it.
Karen Bradley
Oh my goodness—the promise of a hug from the hon. Gentleman is difficult to resist. He will know from my previous time in government that I always listen to victims of crime, make sure that their voices are heard and take note of everything they say, and I would very much welcome the chance to sit down with him and discuss his point of view. I want to make sure that we do this based on the evidence, and that we do it properly.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I am disappointed that there was no hug offer straightaway. Historic buildings provide an important tangible connection to our past and bring alive our heritage in real and exciting ways. Grant support is provided by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for historic buildings through Historic England, the church and cathedrals repair fund and the architectural heritage fund, among others. In addition, funding is available from the Heritage Lottery Fund.
Pauline Latham
If the Minister would like a hug, I am very willing to give her a hug. I also welcome the Front-Bench team to their places. Kedleston hall is a grade I listed building, and Kedleston Voice, an action group in my constituency, has campaigned against the granting of planning permission on land that used to belong to the estate, only for the planning inspector to overturn the council’s decision. The group believes that is damaging to the environment of the hall. Will the Minister put measures in place so that no other grade I listed building is affected by housing too close to an historic setting?
Tracey Crouch
I have been made aware of that particular case in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Across the House I think we all face similar frustrating outcomes in planning matters in our own constituencies when the local authority has made one decision and the planning inspector another. Ultimately, it is an issue for her to take up with colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government. However, there is protection of the historic environment through statutory designation and planning policy. When determining planning cases, local planning authorities must have regard to the national planning policy framework, including its policies on conservation enhancement of the historic environment. We shall continue to stress the importance of that aspect of consideration.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Tracey Crouch
We work closely across all Departments on heritage matters. I am very proud to be heritage Minister, because it is an incredibly exciting part of what we can deliver in this country. I have regular conversations with the Heritage Lottery Fund. There has been an incredible distribution of its funds across the entire country, but there is of course always room for improvement. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss that further with me, I am very happy to do so.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Must farm near Whittlesea and Flag Fen bronze age centre near Peterborough are among the finest bronze age settlements in western Europe. Peterborough City Council is the lead agency for developing a Heritage Lottery Fund bid for £3 million to develop a bespoke bronze age heritage centre. May I warmly invite my hon. Friend to visit the site and, more pertinently, to support that unique project?
Tracey Crouch
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, as it enables me to thank the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (David Evennett), for his excellent maternity cover in my absence. He visited the site that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) alluded to. There was an excellent Westminster Hall debate on this matter. I will of course be pleased to visit if my diary allows.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
I would like to use this opportunity to hail Team GB’s historic medal haul in Rio. I am sure that the rest of the Chamber will join me in paying tribute to the incredible achievement of all our athletes.
You may remember, Mr Speaker, that the last time I was at the Dispatch Box you arrived a little late to a debate, as you had been watching your hero Roger Federer at Wimbledon. It was a shame that he was not at the Olympics because of an injury, but I am sure you enjoyed watching our flagbearer Andy Murray’s wonderful gold medal-winning match, alongside all the other British successes. Our greatest Olympic performance in a century owed much to UK Sport’s no-compromise approach and an increase in funding.
Since we were last at the Dispatch Box, the Office for Civil Society has moved into the Department and I have a fantastic ministerial team. I pay tribute to all the previous Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and Baroness Neville-Rolfe for their sterling work.
The Paralympic games began yesterday. I know the whole House will join me in wishing Paralympic Team GB well. I am delighted that Lee Pearson was selected as the flagbearer at the opening ceremony. He is a stunningly successful Paralympian who has won medals, most of them gold, at four different games. I am very proud to say that he is one of my constituents.
I can also announce that Sir Nicholas Serota is the new chair of Arts Council England. Sir Nicholas has a superb pedigree in the arts and is stepping into the shoes of Sir Peter Bazalgette, who did a brilliant job.
Barbara Keeley
I welcome the Secretary of State to her new role. I wrote to her in July, as co-chair of the all-party group on women’s sport and fitness, to tell her of our concerns about the impact we felt the loss of listed events could have on women’s sport. There is a threat to listed events, because the threshold of qualifying criteria of 95% reception for public service broadcasters is at threat due to the level of streaming used to watch programmes. Can she let me have a response to my letter? If we do not have reassurance, this matter should be dealt with in the Digital Economy Bill.
Karen Bradley
I am aware of the issue; it has been raised by a number of Members. We need to ensure that we have sport on free-to-air, so that we increase participation and make sure people enjoy sport. The Minister for Digital and Culture will be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this matter further.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Karen Bradley
The Peak district is most definitely a very important part of both the Macclesfield and Staffordshire Moorlands constituencies. I know my hon. Friend is a great hill walker and often walks in The Roaches. I enjoy walking in his constituency, too. I absolutely agree that we should be promoting the Peak district and all national parks as great places for outdoor activities. The Sport England inspired facilities fund has invested nearly £170,000 in mountain biking, gliding and sailing at venues and clubs across the Peak district. I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming that.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
In the Secretary of State’s keynote speech in Liverpool on 9 August, she set out plans for social impact bonds to address deep-rooted social problems, notably drug and alcohol dependency. She failed, however, to make any reference to the nightmare of gambling addiction, in which fixed odds betting terminals play such a major role. Why have the Government refused consistently to address this scourge in our communities, which damages so many lives and families despite being raised so often by hon. Members in this Chamber.
Karen Bradley
I am aware of the issues relating to FOBTs, not least through my work in the Home Office. I am well aware of the problems and we will speak to the hon. Gentleman further about this in due course.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Rob Wilson)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. At one point I thought I was going to be like the loser’s ribbons at the FA cup final—taken to the game but not used. [Hon. Members: “Aah.”] The sympathy vote.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and I will take a look at that particular instance. The proposals come from the sector itself and are necessary to ensure that elderly and vulnerable people are protected from poor fundraising practices, including high-pressure tactics. Committing to a proper fundraising practice should not be viewed as a regulatory burden, but as a means of restoring and increasing public trust in charities.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I was weaned on Formula 1. It is always exciting to see success for British drivers, and, indeed, for teams. The Government are working closely with the engineering community to boost employer engagement with young people, teachers, schools, colleges and universities, and to showcase the exciting and diverse careers that are available, including careers in motor sport.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Tracey Crouch
I am pleased to join the hon. Gentleman in wishing our Paralympics GB team all the very best. I look forward to heading out to Rio myself next week to watch our team, as I did during the Olympics. We have increased funding for Tokyo 2020, working with UK Sport to ensure that all our Olympians and Paralympians are well funded in the future.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Mr Rob Wilson
Yes. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Government are committed to ensuring that there is a place on the NCS for every young person who wants one. This summer, more young people than ever before have taken part in its life-changing programme. We will publish national data soon, but I am pleased to report real progress in my right hon. Friend’s own area: more than 1,500 young people in Hampshire are participating.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Karen Bradley
The last time I stood at the Dispatch Box, we were discussing this very issue of hate crime. Let me now reiterate that there is no place for hatred in our society. There is no excuse for it, and anyone who is a victim must report that crime. I am, of course, meeting editors and others to discuss many points, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will raise this one.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
We are introducing the universal service obligation to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to benefit from high-quality superfast broadband when that is possible, and fast broadband when necessary. Broadband is no longer merely a “nice to have”; it is vital to participation in modern society, and we want to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to acquire it.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
As many Conservative Members accept, it was a terrible mistake to hand over all the superfast broadband funding to one company, and communities throughout the country are suffering as a result. Will the Minister make a fresh start, and recognise the key role of competition in driving the adoption of superfast broadband?
Matt Hancock
I strongly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that competition is incredibly important to the delivery of superfast broadband, especially in fibre. I am glad to say that in the second round of Broadband Delivery UK there is competition, rather than just one company dealing with the delivery. I can also report that more than 91% of properties in the United Kingdom now have access to superfast broadband, and we will not rest until the figure becomes universal.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Tracey Crouch
I am glad to learn that my hon. Friend has been inspired by Paul Drinkhall, the first GB player in 24 years to reach the last 16 in the Olympics. I would love to come and visit, but I should warn my hon. Friend that I am not sure whether my officials would allow me to do so. The last time I visited a table tennis event, I got a bit over-competitive with some table-tennis-playing pensioners.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
May I take this opportunity to welcome the two new Front-Bench teams? I do not know whether my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are as surprised to see them there as I am. None the less, will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating UK Sport on its successful Olympics? Team GB won more gold medals in more sports than any other country and came second in the table, but there is still an issue with team sports. There is more work to be done in sports such as basketball, possibly handball and others. Will she therefore join me in congratulating UK Sport but also urge it to do more work on team sports?
Karen Bradley
I of course congratulate UK Sport. Like the sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), I was in Rio and I will be visiting it again for the Paralympics. I am incredibly proud of all the achievements in all our sports, but I have to take the hon. Gentleman up on his comment about team sports. I was at the women’s hockey semi-final. There is no doubt that the women’s hockey team is one of the greatest teams we have and we should all congratulate them on their gold medal success.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
May I first say what a pleasure it is to see the hon. Lady in her place looking so healthy and radiant? It is especially a pleasure for her neighbouring MPs to see her.
My Department already has a strong and capable trade policy team, which has doubled since 23 June. In the next two years, we will be developing that team to build the world-class negotiating strengths needed to deliver the best outcomes for the UK. In terms of negotiators, we have already had strong expressions of interest from individuals, organisations and Governments.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but will he reassure my constituents that the trade negotiators will speak to strategically important sectors such as aerospace, which employs and trains hundreds of people in Bristol, before they begin detailed negotiations, so that we may guard against horse trading between sectors, which could damage our crucial role in aerospace and other such significant sectors?
Dr Fox
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. It is a question not simply of having a single team, but of having the expertise to deal with specific sectors as well as in-country knowledge. We will certainly ensure that we build a core ability among those negotiators and bring in the sector experts who are so important in getting the sort of deals that she correctly outlines. That is especially important in areas such as the west country.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
A team of skilled, experienced, first-class international trade negotiators has been assembled at the Legatum Institute’s special trade commission. Will my right hon. Friend consult the commission and listen to its proposals for a much larger prosperity zone than the European Union?
Dr Fox
As I said, the expressions of interest have been wide: they have been from individuals, organisations and Governments. All those who are willing to put their talents at our disposal are extremely welcome. We will be looking at those individuals and the strengths they have in terms of sectoral and in-country knowledge, and we want to draw from the best that is on offer.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether he is likely to hire any consultants to manage these trade negotiations? According to a headhunter I was speaking to a couple of weeks ago—[Laughter.] Not for my purposes. According to a headhunter I was talking to a couple of weeks ago, the head of a trade negotiating team, if hired as a consultant, would cost around £750,000 a year.
Dr Fox
It is nice to see that the Lib Dems are looking forward to repeating their election success at the next election. I always think it is nice for politicians to cover all their options. We do not intend to create a standing army of bureaucrats that would be expensive to the taxpayer. We are looking to see how most effectively we can create the skills and the cadre of negotiators we will require.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome the President of the Board of Trade and his Ministers to their place. May I follow up on the previous question by saying that those in the private sector surely have a lot of experience and insight to offer in particular markets? Will he assure the House that the private sector will be consulted and its skills harnessed and welcomed by the Government?
Dr Fox
That is correct, but I would say to counterbalance that that we also have a great deal of expertise inside Whitehall Departments, and it seems to me it would not necessarily be a good use of taxpayers’ money to contract out all these functions when we have the ability to get that knowledge into the negotiations from inside the Departments we already have. I think that a judicious mix between the two would be the appropriate way forward.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to this exciting new Department and look forward to working with them to promote British trade across the world. I also welcome his progress in recruiting international trade negotiators, although it seems that they may have to wait some time before they can do any actual negotiating. Does he accept that under the current EU treaty the UK does not possess competence—the right to negotiate separate trade deals—and will he confirm that the UK will assume competence not when article 50 is triggered, but only when the UK actually leaves the EU?
Dr Fox
May I reciprocate by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to another one of his many roles in the House of Commons? Let me be very clear that while we are not able to negotiate in terms of concluding a deal while we are members of the EU, there is nothing to stop us having discussions and scoping out future agreements, and I can announce to the House that as of last week we have now concluded a deal to set up a trade working group with India to look at how we will remove barriers to trade before negotiating a free trade agreement on our exit from the EU.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Greg Hands)
We are going to make a success of Brexit. As the Prime Minister made clear ahead of the G20 summit, the UK will continue to be a powerful advocate for free and fair trade.
Gavin Newlands
I thank the Minister for that answer, such as it was. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU and the single European market, the largest trading bloc in the world which benefits consumers and businesses across Renfrewshire and right across Scotland. Will he be advising the Prime Minister to negotiate to remain inside the single market, yes or no?
Greg Hands
First, I remind the hon. Gentleman that more Scottish people voted to remain in the UK than voted to remain in the EU. But on the subject of the single market, our objective will be to gain as much access as we can, consistent with the way people across the whole of the UK voted on 23 June. That is the purpose of our approach.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Do Ministers agree that Britain voted overwhelmingly for Brexit and we should stop listening to the doom-mongers, recognise the democratic will of 17 million people, and all work together to make this the huge success it is going to be?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is right. As the Prime Minister said, Brexit means Brexit, and we need to make the most of the opportunities our departure presents, getting out into the world and doing business right across the globe, banging the drum for Britain and doing trade.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State and his Front-Bench team to their places.
We know that the Secretary of State would like the UK to be outside the customs union and his colleague the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union believes that at the end of this process the UK will be outside the single market. We also know that the Prime Minister disagrees with both of them. May I ask the Minister to ask the Secretary of State for International Trade if he stands by his statement in July when he said:
“If the price of the relationship with the single market is free movement of people, it’s a price I’m not willing to pay”?
Does he still want to leave the European single market, yes or no?
Greg Hands
I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I gave to her colleague, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), just a few seconds ago. I want to make it quite clear that there will be no running commentary on the negotiations at this stage. She will know how important that is, following last year’s negotiations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government on the fiscal framework, at which time the Scottish Government understood perfectly the importance of not providing a running commentary.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend that we should not be showing our hand when we go into such massive negotiations as these, but will he expand on the parliamentary process behind any new trade deals with the EU and any other trading bloc?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course we would want to keep Parliament involved and consulted in relation to new trade deals, but precisely what format that will take is a matter for us and for the House authorities.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
“No running commentary” is politician-speak for not having a clue. How is the Minister getting on with delivering on the promise made by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union that the Government would
“trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners”
by tomorrow?
Greg Hands
It is a bit rich for Opposition Members to talk about having a clue. I noted with interest the Leader of the Opposition yesterday attacking something he called “free trade dogma”. Let us be absolutely clear: the Prime Minister has said that under her leadership, Britain will seek to become the global leader in free trade, and that is what we will do.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)
Our posts across the region are in frequent, regular contact with their host Governments. In my second week in the Department, I visited Burma and Thailand to promote trade and investment. Since the referendum, major Association of Southeast Asian Nations—ASEAN—economies have expressed an interest in discussing future trade relations with the UK. We have been clear that the UK will remain open for business and investment, and we are committed to strengthening our already excellent economic ties with the region.
Michael Tomlinson
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, and I warmly welcome him to his place. As the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Singapore, I also welcome the indication that Singapore is open to removing the barriers to trade between our countries. What discussions will he have to promote investment opportunities for UK businesses in Singapore and across south-east Asia?
Mark Garnier
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his important work for the all-party group on Singapore. The opportunities in ASEAN and Singapore are absolutely enormous. In the next 15 years, the members of ASEAN will make up the fourth biggest economy on the planet. We are in constant discussions, we have trade envoys going out to the region and we are very keen to open negotiations to promote trade between our countries.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is almost exactly three years since the Government launched their action plan for business and human rights. When the Minister goes to countries such as Burma and Thailand, are human rights on the agenda during those trade talks as well as business?
Mark Garnier
The Government are never neglectful of their duty to ensure human rights around the world. There are two clear elements involved. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is key on human rights and we will support it where we can by raising the issue when we are talking about trade.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
We will continue to be a powerful advocate for free trade by playing to Britain’s strengths as a trading nation and forging our own new trade deals around the world. Fifty-six per cent. of our export value and two thirds of inward investment projects are with non-EU countries. My Department has the experience and expertise in trading outside the EU to grow our significance as a global trading nation even further.
Dr Lewis
In order to maximise the benefits of leaving the EU, the Prime Minister has appointed three excellent Cabinet Ministers to run the Department for International Trade, the Foreign Office and the Department for Exiting the European Union. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the machinery exists to enable them to follow the example of their illustrious predecessors by adopting the mantra “All for one and one for all”?
Dr Fox
That is a difficult one! I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. I am reticent about indulging in personality politics but I am glad to see that he was as able to read the August press as I was. When it comes to our commitment to delivering on Brexit, he can be in no doubt that we will be working together as a tight team to ensure that that happens as soon as we can achieve it on behalf of our country, having made all the necessary preparations.
Mr Speaker
I am sure we all remember Tony Benn’s adage that it is not about personalities but about the issues.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
On 24 November, I am hosting an exporters summit for businesses in the M11 area. I thank officials in the Department for their fantastic support. Given the importance of winning new trade opportunities, does the Secretary of State agree that all Members have the chance to play their part in ensuring that more British firms export to not only Europe, but the whole world?
Dr Fox
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his personal commitment to trade and the practical way in which he is demonstrating it. He makes a useful point. All of us should encourage businesses in our constituencies to export. In a nation that built itself upon free trade, it is disappointing that only 11% of businesses export. I hope that my Department will help all Members improve that position and create the expertise required to get all parts of the United Kingdom exporting to all parts of the globe.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State explain to our European partners the huge benefit to their industries of car and truck sales to the UK and ensure that there are no obstacles to our own vehicle makers selling to the EU? While he is at it, will he persuade other Departments to behave like their European counterparts and support domestic industry and buy British?
Dr Fox
On the latter point, the GREAT campaign has been moved to the Department for International Trade and I am keen for it to encourage people in this country to buy British where possible. He makes an important point about the wider negotiations in that the European Union has a huge trade surplus with the United Kingdom. It is more in their interest than ours—if that is possible—to maintain an open, free-trading environment.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Currently, 21 trade envoys deal with about 50 markets around the world, yet with the huge opportunities available post-Brexit, does my right hon. Friend agree that it may be wise to look at boosting both the number of trade envoys and the resources available to our people on the ground overseas?
Dr Fox
The programme of prime ministerial trade envoys set up by the previous Prime Minister has been extremely successful and has delivered notable results given the resources initially allocated to it. The Department and No. 10 are looking at how we can improve on the success of that programme, which will depend upon the distribution of DIT’s staff overseas. I hope to make an announcement about that programme in the near future.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
I travelled to the US in July and had extremely productive meetings with the US trade representatives, senior White House officials, and business leaders. My message was that Britain remains open for business and that we place continued importance on the commercial relationship between the UK and the US, our largest single trading partner.
Dr Fox
The US is the south-west’s third-largest export market with £1.59 billion-worth of goods exported in the year to March 2016, including everything from aerospace, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), to cider and cheese. We want to expand those opportunities. I have already announced that we will open three new trade offices in the US in Minneapolis, Raleigh-Durham and San Diego. We need to look at where there are markets and not simply operate on a geographical basis.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will acknowledge that the most important ongoing discussions with the USA are on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Does he therefore find it strange that although the UK has voted to leave the European Union in order to reclaim parliamentary sovereignty in this country, the Government, unlike their EU counterparts, have still not made available any provision for Members of Parliament to scrutinise the secret text of the TTIP agreement, despite having promised to establish a reading room securely for this purpose in February?
Dr Fox
While we remain in the EU, we will continue to push all free trade agreements possible, because we believe in global trade liberalisation; that includes the Government’s position of support for TTIP. It remains the United States’ clear priority to get this agreement, but I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that given the comments that have come from both France and Germany in recent weeks, and the fact that we have elections next year in both countries, the future of TTIP, at least in the immediate future, looks less than utterly secure.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Dr Fox
There are indeed enormous opportunities with Commonwealth countries, and we will be wanting to explore with a number of those exactly how we might take forward trade working groups along the lines that we have already announced with Australia and with India. However, I point out that although we have political links with Commonwealth countries, they are not, in terms of economics and trading, homogenous. Therefore, there will be a great difference between the biggest markets and some of the smaller markets, although we will want to take a look at those that may be developing markets in the future.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)
This Department has many valued interactions with Commonwealth partners in support of our aim for the UK to be a global leader in free trade. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently visited India and will co-chair a bilateral trade dialogue there in November. He also recently met the Australian Trade Minister. In addition, several ministerial visits are planned to Commonwealth markets, and the UK will co-host the Commonwealth Trade Ministers meeting next year.
Wendy Morton
I welcome the Minister’s response. What priority is being placed on negotiating trade deals with Commonwealth countries?
Mark Garnier
As my hon. Friend will have heard from an earlier question, the Commonwealth is made up of a very diverse set of economies, so there will not be one, single trade negotiation. We are already enjoying excellent trade relationships with our 52 Commonwealth partners and we are committed to strengthening those further. One example of this is that the UK is co-hosting with Malta the inaugural Commonwealth Trade Ministers meeting in London in March 2017, which will be an excellent opportunity to promote greater trade and investment within the Commonwealth.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Indian company Wockhardt exports from Wrexham pharmaceuticals to the rest of the world, including to the European Union. What comfort can the Minister give that the important regulation that exists in the single market will continue for that company in the post-Brexit world?
Mark Garnier
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said a little earlier, we are reluctant to give a running commentary on how negotiations and where ideas are going to go, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are incredibly keen to recognise the important contribution to the British economy that international companies are making when they invest in the UK, such as the company he mentions investing from India.
Several hon. Members rose—
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
The Department for International Trade is a Department for the whole UK. I visited Scotland last month, met the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work, and offered my support to Scottish businesses. The Export Hub is currently touring Scotland, with trade experts providing advice to 252 first-time exporters, from just two Scottish tours. Its focus is on demonstrating real live business opportunities that businesses in any part of the UK can apply for.
Roger Mullin
I thank the Minister for that response. The attraction of worldwide entrepreneurs to work in Scotland is a particular form of investment that needs encouraging. Will he speak to his colleagues and encourage a complete review of tier 1 entrepreneur visas, as current barriers have led to rejection rates of about 70%, thereby harming investment and growth?
Dr Fox
The visa regime is constantly being reviewed by my colleagues at the Home Office, and I take note of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. In terms of having an open economy, we must welcome the concept of free trade, and ensure that we have a low-tax, low-regulation economy and access to skilled labour. The United Kingdom as a whole has a number of advantages, not least that we speak English and that we are at the centre of the world trading time zones.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
When he was the keynote speaker in Scotland of the Go movement, the Secretary of State will remember how much and how many people there welcomed the fact that we had the opportunity to exit the EU and increase trade opportunities. Will he lay to rest the lie that everyone in Scotland is against leaving the EU?
Dr Fox
Two things are clear: the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom; and the people of the United Kingdom, with an equal vote in every part of this country, voted to leave the European Union. We are taking the decision as a United Kingdom, not as separate parts of it.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
This is the first time that I have had an opportunity to set out the new Department’s responsibilities. We have three tasks: promoting UK exports of goods and services to support a growing economy that serves the whole of the United Kingdom; maximising opportunities for wealth creation through supporting foreign direct investment with a renewed focus on overseas direct investment to support the current account; and delivering the best international trading framework for the UK outside the European Union, including through building our capacity to negotiate and administer a national trade policy. Like the UK as a whole, the Department for International Trade is open for business, and I am pleased to say today that we will now demonstrate that by launching an open international recruitment for a new permanent secretary, which gives me an opportunity to thank very much Sir Martin Donnelly for his fantastic work in helping build the new Department.
Mr Mak
I congratulate the Secretary of State and his ministerial team on their appointments. Later today, the fourth industrial revolution will be debated in the Chamber for the very first time. Will my right hon. Friend commit to helping small and medium-sized enterprises involved in new and emerging technologies to export and to secure more overseas clients?
Dr Fox
May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate later this afternoon? The Department for International Trade supports cutting-edge British technology companies to take advantage of overseas opportunities. Working closely with industry partners such as Tech City UK, techUK and our network of international trade advisers, we assist SMEs to scale up, reach their export potential and win overseas business. Companies have the opportunity to take part in focused trade missions, key tech industry events and meet potential buyers, and we will be setting out new ways in which we intend to maximise that in the coming months.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that, in the automotive business, the original equipment manufacturer focuses on the stability of its supply chain, which is typically sourced from many different countries. Has he identified those supply chains in the automotive sector in which the involvement of UK companies would violate country of origin rules once the UK has left the EU, and what advice has his Department given to those companies?
Dr Fox
The country of origin complications is of course tied up with the point that was made earlier about the World Trade Organisation and the EU schedules. The WTO is still working on EU 15 schedules having not yet ratified EU 28, so the way in which it operates still has some way to go. The hon. Gentleman is quite right in looking at country of origin; it is one of the issues that the Government will look at as a whole when considering the options for our future relationship with European Union and outside.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Dr Fox
I am grateful for all job applications—formal and otherwise. Whether we have a post-sanctions relationship with Russia will depend on Russia’s international behaviour, and we can only look forward to that business opportunity when we get the appropriate international behaviour by the Putin regime. When that occasion arises, if it does, I am sure that my hon. Friend has now made his well-known interest in that area a formal job application.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The latest quarterly review published by Scottish Engineering shows a slump in orders, a sharp fall in output volume and a drop in employment levels, with companies blaming the uncertainty caused by the decision to leave the EU. Can the Secretary of State tell us what he expects the effects will be on Scottish business exports if the UK withdraws from the single market?
Dr Fox
Industry dislikes uncertainty, as the hon. Lady says, but I would add two uncertainties into the equation. The first is the uncertainty over Scotland’s fiscal position. We have seen the deterioration in the position, which makes me very grateful that the people of Scotland took the sensible decision to remain in the United Kingdom. The second is the uncertainty posed by the Scottish Government and their constant reference to a second independence referendum. I can think of no greater cause of uncertainty for Scottish business investment.
Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Dr Fox
Switzerland is still negotiating its trade agreement with India, but my right hon. Friend is correct that leaving the EU will give the UK greater freedom to strike its own trade agreements, including with some of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world. As he will well know, these will not necessarily be straightforward, as these countries are tough negotiators, but it would be much simpler to negotiate a bilateral agreement, and they have shown greater willingness to negotiate a bilateral deal outside the complications that sometimes come with an EU free trade agreement, which is often a political agreement rather than a pure FTA.
Mr Speaker
Switzerland also has its own unique selling point, called Roger Federer. Just thought I would mention that.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Japanese Government have thrown a huge cold bucket of water over Brexit, with their announcement that UK investment from Japan might be threatened. Is not access to the single market key to calming Japanese nerves?
Dr Fox
I had a constructive meeting with the Japanese ambassador earlier this week. It might be worth reiterating what he said in his “Today” interview:
“There is no indication so far I have received from Japanese industries that they are contemplating an exit from the UK economy because they like it here and they have benefited from working in the UK.”
That will continue because the economic fundamentals of this country remain extremely strong thanks to this Government and no thanks to the Opposition.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
We know that politicians love to don high-vis jackets, walk around factories and stand next to manufacturing goods, but the reality is that 79% of our exports are in services. The UK is the world’s second biggest exporter of services, and all the most successful export nations play to their strengths. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in setting the strategy for his Department and choosing personnel and trade missions for the future, he will focus on services as much as on goods?
Mr Speaker
I will not call people for topical questions if they abuse the system. The hon. Gentleman is a very good parliamentarian, and that question was not just too long but far too long.
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Greg Hands)
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I met him in July in his capacity as joint chair of the all-party parliamentary group on trade and investment. He is right that services are vital to our economy. They provide 78% of our GDP and 80% of our jobs. It was often a frustration with the EU that it failed to deepen the single market in services. It is important to realise that we are talking not just about financial services but about digital and other services. We will make sure that they are all at the heart of our efforts as we move forward into the free trade world.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Following the questions asked earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State more recently, has the Secretary of State met representatives of the UK automotive industry? If so, what clarifications have they sought and what have been his responses, and if he has not, when will he do so?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)
The UK has a highly successful automotive industry, and Ministers are seeking input from that industry on an ongoing basis in order to make sure that we are very attentive to the needs of that industry. I cannot stress too much the importance we attach to the automotive industry. It is one of our leading and most fabulous industries, as evidenced not least by the fact that nine out of 11 Formula 1 racing teams choose to come and build their cars in this country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that we have overrun, but I want to accommodate remaining questions if they are extremely brief.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Mark Garnier
The Government, with industry, are working with the Aerospace Growth Partnership to boost growth and exports. Together we have committed £3.9 billion to aerospace research up until 2026. I will shortly be visiting Rolls-Royce in Derby, and I look forward to holding a separate round-table meeting with aerospace companies later this month in Toulouse.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that there is a very healthy all-party manufacturing group. Will he come and speak to us soon, and also look at our Manufacturing Commission and our campaign, Exported by Britain? We would love to talk to him.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Greg Hands
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, we are encouraged by comments coming from across the Commonwealth, from leaders and Ministers of countries such as Australia. Several additional ministerial visits are planned in Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth markets—for example, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. I will be in South Korea and Taiwan, and other Ministers in China, Japan and Vietnam in the coming months.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I warmly endorse what the Secretary of State has just said about Russia. I am glad he is adopting that attitude, but may I urge him to extend the same attitude towards North Carolina? I think it bizarre that he has opened a new office in North Carolina, when Deutsche Bank, PayPal and a string of other businesses and many US states are boycotting North Carolina because of its ludicrous homophobic new policy in relation to transgender people.
Dr Fox
I made the point earlier that what we need to do to provide certainty about jobs and profits in the United Kingdom is to be in the markets where we have the greatest maturity and the greatest potential for value. That means, in the United States, not just looking at the established areas where we have personnel, but looking to where we have growing markets that can prove to be of value to the United Kingdom, its people and its businesses.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
Given that in two decades’ time, one in four people on this planet will be African, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that his Department will focus on trade in Africa, because that is a sure way to keep the economies of that continent fully functioning and stable?
Dr Fox
My hon. Friend is right. We will also require to see greater co-operation between Government Departments and a cross-Government approach to Africa. I expect to make an announcement shortly about a joint visit by myself and the Secretary of State for International Development to Africa in the coming months.
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to the Secretary of State and to colleagues. There is no shortage of demand in this session, and I dare say that that will continue.
New Grammar Schools
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on the Government’s plans to lift the statutory ban on opening new grammar schools in England.
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
As the Prime Minister has said, this Government are committed to building a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few. We believe that every person should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential, no matter what their background or where they are from.
Education is at the heart of this ambition. We inherited a system from the Labour Government, however, where far too many children left school without the qualifications or the skills they needed to be successful in life. Our far-reaching reforms over the last six years have changed this, strengthening school leadership, improving standards of behaviour in our classrooms, ensuring children are taught to read more effectively and improving maths teaching in primary schools. As a result there are now 1.4 million more pupils in schools rated as good or outstanding than in 2010.
This means more young people are being given the opportunity to access better teaching and to maximise their potential. This is what we want for all children, and we are continuing our reforms so that every child can have the best possible start in life. It is why we are doubling free childcare to 30 hours for working parents of three and four-year-olds. As I said in July, on the issue of academic selection I am open-minded because we cannot rule anything out that could help us grow opportunity for all and give more people the chance to do well in life.
The landscape for schools has changed hugely in the last 10, 20, 30 years. We now have a whole variety of educational offers available. There will be no return to the simplistic binary choice of the past, where schools separate children into winners and losers, successes or failures. This Government want to focus on the future, to build on our success since 2010 and to create a truly 21st-century school system. However, we want a system that can cater for the talent and the abilities of every single child. To achieve that, we need a truly diverse range of schools and specialisms. We need more good schools in more areas of the country responding to the needs of every child, regardless of their background. We are looking at a range of options, and I expect any new proposals to focus on what we can do to help everyone to go as far as their individual talents and capacity for hard work can take them. Education policy to that end will be set in due course.
Angela Rayner
Wow! Despite that waffle, the cat is finally out of the bag. The Government have revealed their plans for new grammar schools in England, but not in this House—we did not even hear the word “grammar” just then. Instead, they did it through leaks to the press and at a private meeting of Conservative Members. So much for the one nation Government we were promised. Will the Secretary of State promise today that future such announcements will be made here so that we can give this policy the scrutiny it so badly needs?
Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us the evidence base for this policy today. Has she read the Institute for Fiscal Studies report “Entry into Grammar Schools in England”? If so, perhaps she remembers the conclusion:
“amongst high achievers, those who are eligible for”
free school meals
“or who live in poorer neighbourhoods are significantly less likely to go to a grammar school.”
The OECD and the Sutton Trust, and even the Government’s own social mobility tsar and their chief inspector of schools, have all cited the evidence against this policy. In Kent, where we have grammar schools, the attainment gap is far wider than it is elsewhere. So can the Secretary of State tell the House what evidence she has to support her belief that grammar schools will help disadvantaged children and close the attainment gap?
At a time when our schools are facing a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, with thousands taught in super-size classes and schools facing real-term cuts to their budget for the first time in nearly two decades, pushing ahead with grammar schools shows a dangerous misunderstanding of the real issues facing our schools. What will the Secretary of State be doing to address the real problems facing our schools today?
The Prime Minister has said this policy is justified because we already have social selection. Quite how making things worse by bringing back grammar schools as a solution remains a mystery. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us why she is not ensuring that all children get a decent education?
This policy will not help social mobility but will entrench inequality and disadvantage. It will be the lucky few who can afford the tuition who will get ahead and the disadvantaged who will be left behind—a policy for the few at the expense of the many. I was told that the Tories know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. I do not even think they know that anymore.
Finally, the Prime Minister promised to lead a one nation Government. She said that her policy would be led by the evidence, and she claimed that she would govern for the disadvantaged, not the privileged few, yet this policy fails on every single count. It may be a new Prime Minister, but it is the same old nasty Tories.
Justine Greening
The first thing I would say to the hon. Lady is that we have not yet actually made any policy announcements; they will be made in due course. She has given a commentary on what I guess she presumes the policy announcement will be. I would encourage her to wait. Broadly, we are interested in increasing diversity and meeting parents’ desire for choice in having a school near to them that matches the needs of their child. We also want to see capacity built into the system, in two ways. We want more good schools near to children where they need them. There are too many parts of our country where, in spite of all the reforms we have made and the improvements in attainment that we have seen, there are still children who cannot get good enough access to a good school. We also want to build capacity by having some of our best schools work with other schools in the system to help collectively to raise attainment and standards as a whole. We want to see all parts of our education system, not just the school system but universities as well, playing a stronger, better role.
The hon. Lady asked about evidence. She quoted a report by the IFS that does mention free school meals. However, I must say that I do not understand her argument. She seems to be criticising the status quo while resolutely defending keeping it in place. It was really interesting listening to her, because, in many respects, the words echoed the voices that I heard in my childhood—people having a dogmatic debate about the education system while I studied in my local comprehensive entirely untouched by that ideological debate. What we want to do, and what we think this Parliament and the country should do, is to be prepared to look at the practical ways that we can improve attainment for our children, and to leave no stone unturned to do that.
Complaining about one aspect of our school system and then saying that we should not even have a debate about that element is, frankly, an untenable argument. It is, in essence, politics and dogma coming before pupils and opportunity. It is about Labour Members prioritising, as we can see today, an ideological debate, while Government Members want a debate about the practical steps we can take to tackle generational failure and schools that still are not delivering for children who live near to them. It would be wrong to discount how we can improve prospects for those children, especially the most disadvantaged, purely because of political dogma. If Labour Members are not willing to ask themselves these difficult questions, how can they possibly come up with any of the solutions?
We do believe that selection can play a role, and we think there is evidence to show that it does for many children in grammar schools—but anyhow, we need to leave no stone unturned. We will set out our policies for consultation in due course, and I am sure that hon. Members will want to debate them thoroughly after that.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The World Economic Forum has recently reminded us that we are well down the tables in terms of literacy and numeracy. It says that some 20% of 16 to 18-year-olds struggle with literacy, and the figure for numeracy is even worse—25%. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is absolutely vital that any discussion about grammar schools does not distract us from our fundamental task of improving social mobility and ensuring that we make the best use of all the talent across the whole country and do not just talk about the few?
Justine Greening
I strongly agree. The Sutton Trust report focused particularly on free-school-meal children and how they performed in, for example, grammar schools. The educational gains from attending grammar schools were twice as high for pupils with free school meals compared with the impact for pupils at grammar schools overall. As my hon. Friend points out, while grammars, in their own way, provide a stretching, outstanding education for many children from all backgrounds that helps them to have better prospects in life, they are one part of a very broad-based school system—a system that has been transformed out of all recognition from when grammars were originally introduced. We now need to look at how we can have a 21st-century education policy that takes a pragmatic look at the role of grammars and, of course, across the whole system. He is absolutely right that we will not lose sight of the broader reforms that we are bringing through that will improve standards across the board.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State represents a London constituency, so she will know that London schools have improved dramatically over the past 15 to 20 years. Does she agree that that has happened because of a focus on high standards for all children in all schools, not by going down the route of selection? May I urge her not to turn the clock back to grammar schools, but to focus on high standards in all schools in all parts of the country, for all children?
Justine Greening
I absolutely reassure the hon. Gentleman that we will not be turning the clock back. I think that the London lessons are about collaboration, school leadership and sharing those best practice experiences across schools. The challenge that I want us to discuss is how we can make sure that all schools play a role in doing that, rather than simply setting grammars to one side and saying that they should not play as great a role across the rest of the school system. I think they should, and we want to have that debate and discussion. Fundamentally—I come back to my opening comments—this is about having more good school places for more children. It is about building capacity through better and more places and by sharing best practice, and about improving school leadership by having schools working closely together.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
In Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School in Faversham, I am fortunate to have an excellent grammar school in my constituency. As my right hon. Friend will know, people move to Kent because of its grammar schools. Does she agree that it is not right for an excellent academic education to be available only to those who can move to the catchment areas of outstanding schools?
Justine Greening
We need to improve diversity and choice. As the Prime Minister has said, the reality is that too often in Britain we do have selection, but it is on the basis of house prices, which is totally unacceptable in a modern Britain. We need to challenge ourselves to talk about how we can change that and improve standards for children, wherever they are in our country. Simply saying that something is off the table because of political ideology and dogma does not serve the children whose future prospects we want to improve.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I beg the new Secretary of State to listen to the expertise that is out there? She might know that I chair the advisory council of the Sutton Trust. I ask her to listen to the Sutton Trust, because we believe in evidence-based policy, and to the chief inspector of schools, and to look at those areas that have for years had this kind of education, with the 11-plus, and at what it has done to the entirety. If she looks at Kent in depth, she will learn some lessons that might push her in a different direction.
Justine Greening
It is time that we look at the Kent experience. I know that Kent has done a lot of work to dig into how it can get more children from disadvantaged backgrounds into its grammar schools. The hon. Gentleman has raised issues of principle, but my attitude and response is, if that is how he feels, why would he want us to discount looking at how we can make grammars work more effectively with the rest of their local communities, and not just for those children who get to them, but for those who do not? It seems to me that the Labour party’s response to all of those challenges is to raise them, but to then simply put them to one side and ignore them. I do not think that that is sensible.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Bradford is one of the worst-performing education districts in the country. There is a wide provision of some outstanding results and some very dire results. People who can afford to buy a house in a good catchment area tend to get a school that produces outstanding results, whereas those who cannot afford to buy a house in a good catchment area tend to get a school with the worst results. When can people in Bradford, including working-class people, get access to the very best grammar schools that we need? They surely should not just be a preserve of the Tory shires.
Justine Greening
I think that my hon. Friend speaks for many constituency MPs around the country. The point is that people should have choice, and it should not be for Government to deprive them of that choice about how they want to educate their children. This is about choice and diversity, as well as about building capacity in the system.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State well knows that apart from giving our young people the best possible teaching, the most important thing we can do for them is to encourage them as they make their way through school. Given that we are still, as a nation, dealing with the legacy of a divided education system, why on earth does she think that subjecting more 11-year-old children to the experience of being told by their tearful parents, who have opened the envelope, that they have failed will encourage them and support their self-esteem and continuing career through the education system?
Justine Greening
Dare I say it, that was yet another Labour MP telling us what is wrong with the current system, in his view, while also arguing that we should not look at that. The legacy that we are interested in challenging is the one left by the previous Labour Government: grade inflation; declining standards; and children leaving our education system without even the basics in maths and literacy. While I was sat on a train last weekend, I listened to a young man talking about how the fact that he did not know how to spell was holding him back at work. We managed to take power from the Labour party, but that man has to live with the consequences of an education system that fundamentally failed him every single day of his life.
We inherited a university system that had a cap on the number of children who could enter it. Record numbers of young people were not in employment, education or training. Youth employment had gone up by 50% by the time Labour left office. We are interested in not only catching up that lost ground for our young people, but making sure beyond that that we leave no stone unturned. We want to look across our entire education system to turbocharge the prospects and opportunities for all children in our country, but especially the most disadvantaged and especially those who do not currently have the opportunities that they need, deserve and should have.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s decision at least to open this debate. A statutory ban on the establishment of grammar schools should be no part of a Conservative Government’s policy. Evidence from my area, where grammar schools are available just down the road in the neighbouring council area, indicates that there is widespread support for the establishment of a grammar school. Coastal communities are particularly vulnerable to poor educational standards, so I hope that the Secretary of State will give due consideration to that if the policy goes forward. May I also urge her to consider the extension of bilateral schools?
Justine Greening
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to see our policies when they are published shortly. He talks about some of the elements of our secondary system. I know that he wants to make sure that his local community has access to better schools for more local children, and that is precisely what we are aiming to achieve overall.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is quite right not to rule out a discussion of grammar schools forming part of the wide range of schools that we have. I declare an interest as the product of a wonderful grammar school. Would she like to visit Northern Ireland, where grammar schools still exist? In Northern Ireland, grammar schools are hugely popular. There is good education right across the spectrum, no matter what a young person’s ability. Results continue to improve and to be better than those in the rest of the United Kingdom, and there is very little private education. Perhaps she might like to go to Northern Ireland and talk to the First Minister.
Justine Greening
I thank the hon. Lady for that invitation; I am sure I will want to take her up on it shortly. I should emphasise to the House that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) said, this is the opening up of a debate. It is important for our children that we have that debate if we are to rise to the challenge of looking at what will improve attainment and ensure that they have good schools where they are growing up.
We will look at all the options very carefully. I recognise that this is an emotive debate, but that is because it matters. That is why we should be prepared to have a debate about this, given how much our broader school system has changed. I will look very carefully at all the arguments that are made and all the evidence that is produced, because that is important, too. I am keen to hear from colleagues on both sides of the House and we will be setting out all our policy options shortly.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s comments. All children have the right to fulfil their full potential. Will she assure the House that she is considering all methods of selection and that this is not about bringing back the 11-plus?
Justine Greening
We will set out our policies much more broadly, but I assure hon. Members that there will be no return to the past. This is about moving forward with a 21st-century approach to our school system, and precisely not one rooted in the 1960s and 1970s. I just hope that the Labour party is able to engage in a modern debate, rather than one that is 40 to 50 years old.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
In the clamour from some areas about creating new grammar schools, many people forget that the creation of new grammar schools de facto creates secondary modern schools, because the intake is skewed by grammar schools. In his speech to London Councils on Monday, the chief inspector accepted that grammar schools, where they exist, do “a fine job” with the intake they have, but said that they have a very poor track record in admitting youngsters from “non-middle-class backgrounds”. If we are to go down this road, what can the Secretary of State do to confirm that that would not be the case in other parts of the country?
Justine Greening
That again underlines why we are right to open up this agenda for debate. In a way, we will not be able to tackle any of the issues that the hon. Gentleman cares about without a broader look at what a modern policy approach to grammars should look like. We should not simply discount the excellent education that so many children get at grammars, including children from very disadvantaged backgrounds. We should look harder at how we can make sure that grammars play a role more collaboratively in a wider, broader school system, while ensuring that they build capacity and provide more good places as they steadily improve.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Yesterday, during an Education Committee evidence session, we heard about the truism that what affects pupils’ attainment most is good teaching in the classroom. That is evidently true, but does the Secretary of State agree that structures can sometimes support learning? A 2011 PISA—programme for international student assessment—study showed that giving schools autonomy improves outcomes, so further choice for parents, teachers and students may provide further opportunities.
Justine Greening
I think that is right. Critically, we need the right level of autonomy for schools so that they can actually get on with the job of teaching our children. We need fantastic leadership in our schools. We know from the London experience that that was absolutely critical. Heads who showed what could be done in difficult schools then worked with other schools so that they could put in place the same approaches. More broadly, we also need teaching staff who are motivated and able to work effectively in the classroom with children who can be disciplined effectively by a head who genuinely feels they have control over and can exercise leadership in their school. All those things make a difference.
Beyond that, if we are to make an impact on long-term social mobility in Britain—it will not change overnight—we need not just schools and the education family to drive social mobility, but communities, business, our universities and civil society to do so. Everybody needs to play a role, alongside core education reform, to make sure that children in the classroom and outside it can get the skills, knowledge, advice and experience that they will need truly to develop their potential.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
When the chief inspector said that the idea that poor children would benefit from an expansion in the number of grammar schools was “tosh and nonsense”, was he being ideological?
Justine Greening
As we open up this debate, people will have different views, but I do not believe that that is a reason not to have the debate. It is too important for that. Improving attainment and having more good school places for more children—building the capacity we need in our system so that we can have great schools on the doorstep for every child in our country—is too important simply to be put in the “too hard” bucket and for us to say that we might have a bit of a debate about it. I think we should have this debate and that we should work out what we must do to do a better job of raising the attainment of the children who currently do not go far enough.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am not an expert on the theory of secondary education, but having attended a grammar school with a largely working-class contingent in the 1960s, I know something about the practice, from which we all benefited. Will the Secretary of State explain why it is acceptable to nurture and promote sporting excellence but not academic excellence?
Justine Greening
My right hon. Friend raises a good point about the broader issue of selection. All children are different, so playing to their talents and natural interests is important. Parents should have more choice and diversity in the school system so that they are able to find not just a good school, but a good school that will be particularly good for their child.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The job of education in the 21st century is to maximise opportunity for the maximum number of children, whatever their background. Ofsted’s chief inspector, Sir Michael Wilshaw, said this week that a return for grammar schools would not do that, but would be a
“profoundly retrograde step that would actually lead to overall standards sliding back, not improving”.
He said that in grammar school Bexley, just 9% of disadvantaged children go to its grammar schools, while in non-grammar school Hackney, 62% of children go on to university compared with 48% in the country as a whole. Does the Secretary of State agree that where there is failure and disadvantage, the answer should not be this festival of bring-backery, but instead a focus on expanding opportunity for all schools right across the system?
Justine Greening
Expanding opportunity is at the heart of what we are doing. Rather than jumping the gun, I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to wait to see the Government’s proposals. Yet again we have heard the Labour party complaining about the current system while seemingly maintaining a position of not wanting to have a debate about how we can make it better overall and then ensure that the entire school system can benefit from that improvement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I realise that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) may experience some teething problems as he makes his adjustment to Back-Bench life. We look forward to hearing from him on a regular basis, but unfortunately as he is no longer a Minister he does not have a guaranteed slot. However, an expectant nation will hear him now.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am slowly adjusting myself to the metaphysical plane.
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said about diversity and choice, but will she acknowledge that a grammar school might not be suited to every town? I would not relish the prospect of informing parents in Fordingbridge, Ringwood, New Milton or Lymington that their child, not having been able to get into the grammar school, would have to be bussed elsewhere.
Justine Greening
My right hon. Friend raises the important point that local communities need to be intrinsically involved in how their school system develops, and I assure him that we are very seized of that. I should also take this opportunity to put on record how much I enjoyed working with him in our previous roles within the Department for International Development. He did an outstanding job and was a pleasure to have as a ministerial colleague.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
All of us want the best for our children, but in answering the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—although in my view she did not answer it—did not the Secretary of State understand the very real fear that reintroducing grammar schools also reintroduces secondary moderns? That will mean, in essence, recreating divisions when the consensus has been that we should not allow those divisions in our education system. How will proposing new grammar schools, which will bring in secondary moderns, improve attainment for all pupils in all our communities?
Justine Greening
The fundamental premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question is wrong. This is absolutely not about going back to the past. Secondary moderns for many years did not even put their children through a single exam. Our school system has, thankfully, been reformed beyond all recognition since then, so the premise of his question is wrong. This is about improving standards for all children. He asked how we can help to make that happen. One way is by having good and outstanding schools playing more of a role and lifting other schools that can benefit from their experience and knowledge.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on excellence and education for all. I invite her to come and look at the mixed economy that exists in Salisbury, with grammar schools, university technical colleges, a free sixth form, local authority schools and a multi-academy trust forming shortly. I would like to place an emphasis on the dynamics between the different types of schools. In particular, grammar schools work with their neighbours nearby to raise standards across the board. The focus on the Progress 8 score—the progress made by every school—is surely where the emphasis needs to be placed.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Collaboration and having good schools working with the broader family to raise overall attainment is important. Secondly, he is right that we should be looking to challenge schools on the progress of every single child. Part of the problem with the floor approach of getting children into GCSEs and achieving good A* to C grades was that it missed out on the often brilliant progress that schools make with children who are perhaps further back in their attainment. We should value that work, and that is the intention of Progress 8.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. On a consensual note, the Secretary of State will surely share the view that the biggest and most significant problem in British education is the long tail of underperforming boys in our poorer areas, few of whom will actually pass the 11-plus. How on earth does she think the creation of grammar schools, in simple terms, is a solution to this problem?
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that the Department for Education has a range of different policies. We are allowed to have more than one policy to tackle poor attainment. We will be bringing forward proposals on how we feel the broader schools system, including grammars, and the broader education system can work together more effectively to raise attainment. He is absolutely right to highlight the point about white working-class boys. Interestingly, the Sutton Trust looked at primary schools that were doing a good job on improving attainment for white working-class boys. Sadly, only about eight or 10 really improved attainment dramatically. We can, however, learn from that experience and make sure that best practice is spread more effectively. The issue is absolutely critical and he is right to focus on it.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
There is no doubt that there is a virtual scrum of parents around almost every grammar school in the country trying to take advantage of the excellent education and opportunities that they provide. The answer, therefore, is not to sneer at grammar schools or to try to close them down, but to enhance them. At the moment, new schools can select on the basis of children’s ability at performing arts, sports and music, but not on their ability at maths or English. How can that be right?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right. The scrums around good schools are not just around good grammars; they are around good and outstanding schools more generally. That is why our focus surely has to be on opening up the system as much as we can to make sure that we absolutely maximise our ability to get good schools and more places at such schools for children in their local areas. Many of our colleagues talk about how children come from miles away to attend the good school in their constituency. Perhaps if we already had a good school closer to where those children live, they would not need to spend their time travelling, and losing out on homework and study time.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I very much welcome the comprehensive-educated Secretary of State to her post and wish her well in this new challenge.
The
“age of 11 is too early to make final decisions about a child’s future.”—[Official Report, 8 July 1970; Vol. 803, c. 683.]
So said Margaret Thatcher, the Secretary of State who oversaw the greatest expansion of comprehensive education. Does the current Secretary of State really want to increase the number of children taking the 11-plus and to bring back secondary moderns and grammar schools, with the negative impact on achievement predicted by Her Majesty’s chief inspector and the negative impact on social mobility predicted by the Government’s social mobility adviser?
Justine Greening
I have a great amount of respect for the hon. Gentleman. I know he spent a career in education before coming into this place. I would simply say to him, as I have said to many other colleagues, that he should wait for the policy options to come out. I will be interested to hear his response to them in due course.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I went to a state grammar school in south London, and I owe my place here to that school. The best grammar schools actively seek children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and 14% of pupils at Wallington County grammar school, next door to Croydon, are on free school meals. Does the Secretary of State support that school’s plan to open a satellite grammar school in my constituency, rather like the one that was opened in Sevenoaks a few months ago?
Justine Greening
I think all of us are here because of the education that we were lucky enough to have. The challenge that we face, and the challenge that we are debating today, is ensuring that no child misses out on that opportunity because of the postcode lottery of where they happen to have been born. We need to ensure that good schools, whatever kind of good schools they are, have more freedom to expand and deliver more good places in our school system for children who do not currently have them.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I have listened carefully to the Secretary of State, and I have not heard her explicitly support the policy that was announced by the Prime Minister at last night’s private Back-Bench Conservative meeting and leaked to the media. The Secretary of State smiles, but that is an interesting fact. The Prime Minister has repeatedly boasted that she likes to make decisions—thinking very carefully about them—on the basis of evidence. Is the Secretary of State aware of any evidence that shows that a grammar school system improves attainment across the piece, or improves social mobility?
Justine Greening
As I have said in the past, we have not set out the policy proposals—they will be set out in due course—but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to research conducted by the Sutton Trust, which clearly identified improved attainment by children on free school meals in grammar schools. The trust also said that its research showed no negative impact on the attainment of children outside the grammar school system. I recognise that different studies have identified different challenges relating to selection, but if that is the view that Members take, is there not all the more reason to open up a debate and discuss how we can develop a sensible policy on grammar schools?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I was educated in a comprehensive school, and I saw the benefits of both academic and vocational education. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the things we must do in society is assess young people and ensure that we can provide teaching that stretches them to the utmost so that they achieve the best they can, and does she agree that assessments at all ages are important so that we end up with the best possible people in society?
Justine Greening
Absolutely. While we are right to focus on the academic attainment of children in our schools because if they do not learn the basics they simply will not be able to succeed in any walk of life, we should recognise that one of the most important things we can do alongside that is embed our reforms of vocational education and apprenticeships, and ensure that those are competitive routes for young people who want to choose a path in life that is fundamentally different from an academic one. Underlying these exchanges at times is a slight sense among Opposition Members that education is purely about academic attainment. That is critical, but it certainly does not represent the totality of what we want our children to gain before leaving an education system. They must gain knowledge, but also, critically, they must gain skills. We must build skills pathways for the children who will be pursuing a much more vocational life course.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State recently told The Times Educational Supplement:
“The times I learnt best were when I had great, amazing teachers, who could excite me about learning”.
I entirely agree. However, heads and chairs of governors in my constituency who are working really hard to raise standards and increase opportunities for all our young people tell me that the recruitment and retention of good teachers is the biggest challenge that they face. Does the Secretary of State not understand the frustration that they feel because she has focused on structures when evidence does not suggest that they work, rather than focusing on the problems that they see every day when trying to deliver a fantastic education for people in Nottingham?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady is right. As she says, the issue of recruiting and retaining teachers, and unlocking their ability to get on with their job and to be excellent in the classroom, is truly important, and is relevant to some of the policy options that we will set out in respect of selection. It is indeed absolutely vital, and I assure the hon. Lady that we are not losing our focus on it.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I am sure many people throughout Torbay, where three grammar schools work perfectly well with comprehensive schools, a studio school and a successful technical college, will have listened to some of the comments we have heard today, particularly from the shadow Education Secretary, in amazement. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is nothing radical about the idea of giving other areas the chance to choose to have the education system from which Torbay already benefits?
Justine Greening
For me, it is about two things. It is about being prepared to leave no stone unturned in asking what it is going to take to improve our education system for children and it is about having a practical debate on that which goes beyond the ideological debate and puts pupils first.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
In Trafford, where we have selection, our schools perform very well not because of selection but because of great teaching and good leadership, but I must tell the Secretary of State that the majority of parents in Trafford, especially parents of children with special educational needs, do not feel that they get their child into the school of their choice. In particular they feel that the grammar schools are reluctant to take children with special needs because they will depress the school’s results. Can she assure the House that the needs of those particularly vulnerable children will be given appropriate attention in the strategy she proposes?
Justine Greening
I am grateful for that question. I would be happy to sit down with the hon. Lady to discuss that matter further. It is incredibly important that we not only raise attainment across the board but leave no child out of the progress that we are seeing in our schools.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Parents in Dover, Deal and Kent as a whole see grammar schools and faith-based schools as engines of opportunity and aspiration. If the Government are going to look at having new grammar schools, which I wholly support, will they also look at more faith-based schools and more skills education throughout life to give people the greatest life chances at every stage in their lives?
Justine Greening
I agree that it is about choice, about diversity and about having more choice for parents and a school system that means that they can find the school for their child that is tailored to their needs.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
How does this help the Government’s new industrial strategy? We know that they still have a policy of having technology colleges, which seem to have disappeared somewhat. How will grammar schools help the new industrial strategy? In addition, has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church about the potential impact on existing faith schools, particularly in the Teesside conurbation?
Justine Greening
As I have said, we will announce our policy options in due course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to respond to them, but education in schools is critical to delivering our long-term industrial strategy and to meeting the dual challenges of having a successful economy and of having our migration levels more under control. One way we can do that incredibly constructively is to meet more of our skills needs through our own young people—to train and educate them to be able to play their role in British industry, helping our country to be successful.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that with all the different schools now available, if parents do not want to choose a grammar school education for their children, such schools will not survive and thrive? We should at least give parents with limited means the same choice that better off parents have.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should not accept poor school standards, whatever school the children are in. We must challenge low attainment wherever we find it, but the point I am making today is that it is not good enough to take something off the table just because of political ideology. We need to challenge all aspects of our education system to play a greater role in raising attainment and building capacity.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
There remains a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Government’s thinking, which I suspect has been muddled by the ideology that they are accusing Labour of: either the school selects or the parent chooses, but you cannot have selection and choice together. Therefore, does not the suggestion last night by the Prime Minister that she wants to see an element of selection surely indicate that the Government have abandoned parental choice?
Justine Greening
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to wait for the policy options to be announced. I am sure that he will want to respond to them.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
I am sure parents in Newark will warmly welcome a new grammar school, as hundreds, often on very low incomes, have to cross the border into Lincolnshire. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge what a lot our existing grammar schools are achieving on very low funding? My local grammar school, which is in Gainsborough, gets by on £4,000 per pupil, while the lowest performing school in Lincolnshire, in Lincoln, has almost £8,000, so grammar schools do provide good value for money as well as high standards.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend makes his point very well, and he will be aware that we are developing our proposals on reforming the funding formula for schools. I know he will want to represent his community as we do that, but it is important that we get more equitable funding for pupils than we currently have.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
It has been a trait of this Tory Government that they steal the language of the left to cover up the mean and regressive policies they introduce, using terms like “social mobility” when they mean quite the opposite. All the empirical evidence shows that investment in early-years does more to move children forward than any form of selection at 11 could ever justify, so does the Secretary of State regret closing 800 Sure Start centres? Should we not be investing there, rather than having this pointless debate about bringing back selection?
Justine Greening
I do not accept this either/or characterisation of policy. What we need to do is improve education at every stage of a child’s life, including early- years.
Mr Bone
I am not entirely sure what Northamptonshire has done to deserve getting the last questions.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on securing this urgent question, but I think she is under a misapprehension. I know that under Labour announcements were made in the press, but this Government make announcements here. At the meeting last night, there were no new announcements of policy, and I would be the first to object if the Government started to do that. Will the Secretary of State confirm that once the policy has been decided upon, she will come to the House and report on it?
Justine Greening
I think that was a very good choice, Mr Speaker, and yes I can assure my hon. Friend that I will come to make a statement.
Mr Hollobone
I have to tell the Secretary of State that in Kettering, where five of the six secondary schools are already academies and we have one of the fastest housebuilding rates in the country, and where recent exam success was very encouraging, the debate is not about whether we bring back grammar schools or not; it is about having more school places. Will she confirm her support for the Conservative manifesto commitment that all good schools, whether maintained, academies, free or grammar, be allowed to expand?
Justine Greening
Yes, absolutely. Our desire is to make sure that it does not matter what kind of school a good school is, but that it has the chance to create the additional good places that our country needs. For areas that do not have any good schools, we need to ensure we have a school system that is freed up enough so that schools can be set up there that really do improve prospects for children, or that we network those schools with other good schools nearby that are delivering. I have to say, however, that there are some parts of our country where that has proved challenging, which is why we need to leave no stone unturned.
Tom Pursglove
Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do different things work in different areas, but it is essential that we have a mixture of routes by which our young people can go on to succeed? Surely it is only right that a new Government are reviewing exactly where we are and looking at how best we can enhance what matters most, which is opportunity.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have 1.4 million more children in good or outstanding schools. We have done that in a variety of ways in terms of what children are learning in the class, but also in how we are getting schools to work together more collaboratively, but we now need to ask how we can take that to the next level. Critically, for the 1 million-plus children who still are not reaching the attainment levels we want and are living in parts of the country where they do not have a chance to get to a good school, we have to make sure that we change the terms of trade in terms of their educational opportunities.
Business of the House
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 12 September—Remaining stages of the Wales Bill.
Tuesday 13 September—Second Reading of the Digital Economy Bill.
Wednesday 14 September—Motions to approve statutory instruments relating to welfare reform in Northern Ireland and to pensions, followed by Opposition day (un-allotted half day). There will be a debate on NHS sustainability and transformation plans on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 15 September—Debate on a motion relating to domestic abuse victims in family law courts, followed by debate on a motion relating to quantitative easing. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 16 September—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 10 October will include:
Monday 10 October—Second Reading of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 15 September and 13 October will be as follows:
Thursday 15 September—Debate on sixth report of the Justice Committee of Session 2015-16 on prison safety. This subject was determined by the Liaison Committee.
Thursday 13 October—General debate on the tobacco control strategy. This subject was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members of all parties represented in the House will want to wish the GB Paralympic team success on this, the first day of competition. Speaking personally, as the Member of Parliament who represents Stoke Mandeville, I think that everyone in the United Kingdom can take some considerable pride in the fact that it was in this country, due to the genius and drive of Ludwig Guttmann, that we saw the creation of the disability sport movement, which has grown into the worldwide Paralympic movement whose achievements we shall celebrate over the next two weeks.
Paul Flynn
We thank the Leader of the House for his answers. We are all basking in the reflected glory of the brilliant successes of our Olympians, and we too acknowledge the pioneering work in this country on the introduction of the concept of the Paralympic games. We all wish our Paralympians well. If there is a minor quibble, it is that this is an odd moment, when we are celebrating our sporting success, to diminish the time available for Culture, Media and Sport questions. The Opposition have reluctantly gone along with that decision, but we see it as a temporary measure. We certainly do not see any of those areas as minor in any way, and we look forward to the restoration of the full time that was previously available for those questions.
Next week’s Welsh debate will illustrate the degraded system of our democracy and the way in which it is heading into further distress. The Wales Bill will not guarantee a compensatory increase in the number of Members of the Welsh Assembly, although their work load has trebled. Wales will lose 11 of its 40 MPs as well as the four MEPs who represent Wales. There is great turmoil in our democratic system as the disgrace of buying places in the House of Lords continues. The press have rightly condemned the decisions taken by the previous Prime Minister to award places in the House of Lords, which is already bloated and trying to cope with 300 extra Members that it does not need, in order to placate the interests of lobbyists, cronies and party donors. Instead of piecemeal reform of only one defect in our democracy that will please and help only the Tories and disfranchise 2 million voters, we should get together and realise how degraded is our democracy and reach an all-party agreement on an all-embracing reform that will consider all the abuses in order to create a fair system that is good value for our electors and one that can win back international respect for the quality of our democracy.
The decision to halt the contract for Hinkley Point C was bold and brave. There is no crisis of security; the system being introduced is out of date and has never worked anywhere in the world due to endless construction delays—multi-billion cost overruns have happened in other countries. We must also reconsider the striking of an atrocious deal that will saddle electricity users with the world’s highest electricity prices for the next 35 years. Will the Leader of the House give us a debate before any final decision on Hinkley is taken, so that we can consider all these aspects in this House before we blunder into what could be a gigantic financial and technological disaster?
Finally, the Leader of the House had a distinguished record as a Minister for European affairs, so why are we retreating from our role of providing the gold standard for human rights in the world—certainly throughout Europe? By insisting on a minor matter of our own traditional practices, we are inviting other countries—oppressive regimes—to go back to their traditions of abusing their citizens and degrading human rights. If we are no longer the trailblazers and do not provide the gold standard, others will slip backwards. Is that not a retrograde step? We should consider continuing to be a full part of the European Court of Human Rights and following all the European traditions of human rights, in which we have led for many years.
Mr Lidington
On the rota for oral questions, the usual channels will review it depending on how the new arrangements work out in practice.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s question about human rights, I must say that there is absolutely no retreat on the Government’s part from the high human rights standards that we set for ourselves in this country, and which we follow through in the promotion of our foreign policy objectives. The human rights of the United Kingdom were well developed, established and had a fine reputation before the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998. There is a long-standing issue over decisions relating to the application of article 8 of the European convention on human rights in particular extradition cases, so we are looking at how we might remedy some of those problems. However, the Prime Minister and the entire Government are absolutely clear that we stand by the human rights embodied in the Eurpoean convention, which after all was very much the product of work by United Kingdom jurists and politicians at the time.
On Hinkley, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, we intend to take a decision very soon. In framing an energy strategy, we always have in mind the need to deliver on our climate change objectives and on ensuring security of energy supply, at reasonable cost, to both domestic consumers and British industry, so that British industry can be competitive in some quite fierce global markets.
I suspect that on the House of Lords the hon. Gentleman and I voted the same way, when those things were debated in a previous Parliament, in respect of a wholly or a partially elected upper House, but the truth was that there was no consensus, nor anything approaching it, in the House of Commons, within parties or across them, as to how that issue should be addressed. So it is not likely to be fruitful to try to pursue House of Lords reform as an early priority.
I was sorry about the disparaging tone that the hon. Gentleman adopted towards the Wales Bill, because this Government’s record in Wales has been about delivering the increased devolution that the Welsh people, the Welsh Assembly and political parties, for the most part, in Wales have been saying they wanted to see. I was not shocked, but I was disheartened by the critical remark he threw in about the approach of the parliamentary Boundary Commission and the framework within which it is operating. One of my treats since my appointment has been to dip into his autobiography, and I found on pages 57 and 58 of his memoirs that he lauded the achievements and record of the Chartists. He spelled out that one of the Chartists’ key objectives was that we should have constituencies with equal numbers of electors in each constituency. The framework under which the Boundary Commission is operating will deliver one of the charter objectives, which he so strongly supported, so I should have thought he would be cheering us on, not criticising us.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is consulting on some remarkable changes—at least they are proposed changes. It is presenting itself before various Committees and will have two sessions before the Administration Committee, in which I have some interest. Will he agree to a debate in the House that might give IPSA the opportunity to get a better understanding of what it is like to be an MP and how it can assist, rather than hinder?
Mr Lidington
It is an important principle that IPSA is statutorily independent, but my hon. Friend is right in saying that any decisions about the salaries, pensions and expenses of Members of Parliament ought to be informed by a proper understanding of what the responsibilities of being an MP involve and of the multifarious ways in which different Members, because of the nature of their constituencies, go about doing the job. That information is important. On a debate, I suggest that the proper course would be for the Backbench Business Committee to consider this, if a large number of Members feel that a debate of that kind is needed.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I, too, thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and join him in wishing the very best to our Paralympians as they start their business of, we hope, winning a new clutch of gold medals for this country.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced that there would be no “running commentary” on the Brexit negotiations, when refusing to say whether she was in favour on the simple question of whether we should be in a single market or not. That sounded to me—it might just be me—that this House will simply be expected to accept whatever this Government concoct in this Brexit deal, as soon as they get round to deciding what that is going to be in the first place. The Leader of the House is Parliament’s champion; he has an obligation and a duty to represent this House. Will he confirm to us today that this House will be kept bang up to date on every detail of these negotiations on the single biggest issue in our public life today?
We already know that this Government have no intention of bringing the trigger for article 50 to this House—God knows where that leaves their whole concept of parliamentary sovereignty. We have also learned, second hand, that there will be no Australian points-based system. That is the UK Independence party’s favoured immigration system, yet it is too liberal for the Tories. Instead, they are going to have some sort of great wall of Calais constructed. I say to the Leader of the House: please let us have no more meaningless waffle from the Secretary of State for splendid isolation and no more keeping this House and the public in the dark about what this Government propose on Brexit.
This morning, it was announced that billions of pounds will be spent on refurbishing this House. I am sure that the Leader of the House meant to announce that we were going to have a full statement on that and a proper debate in Government time on the proposals, particularly as we have learned that this project could cost up to £4.3 billion of public money. I am sure that all our constituents would want to know whether that is a good use of public money.
Lastly, let me go back to the constituency issue in the House of Lords that the shadow Leader of the House so deftly raised. The Government were going to make an announcement on their latest plans to gerrymander constituency boundaries. They do not really need to do it any more, as the plans were designed to stymie the Labour party, which does not need to be stymied any further. I know that the plans give the Conservative party a lead of 30 seats, but that is not necessary any more. When we have that debate, can it be for all of Parliament, because we have to take into account what is going on in that absurd House down the corridor? It cannot possibly be right that we are increasing the number of unelected Lords while at the same time decreasing the number of elected Members. Can we have that debate and that statement?
Mr Lidington
Yes, Parliament will be kept fully informed at the appropriate times about the progress of the negotiations, although I think even the hon. Gentleman will understand that if there is an ongoing negotiation, it would be foolish of any Government of any political party to go into minute detail about how those negotiations were progressing, because that would disadvantage this country in the progress of those negotiations. The Government will indeed report back at regular intervals, and Ministers will additionally be available to answer those oral and written questions. It is also open to Members to make an application to Mr Speaker for urgent questions and debates if they feel that the case is strong.
I just say to the hon. Gentleman that he should look at the track record this week. On the first day back, we had my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union answer questions about this matter for about two hours. Yesterday, in giving a statement about the G20 summit, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spent a lot of her time responding to Members’ questions about the impact on the United Kingdom’s international position of the decision to leave the European Union. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can claim to have been short-changed this week.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the report on the restoration and renewal project that is to be published at midday today by the Joint Committee. It is a report which, like any Select Committee report, has been developed by the Members concerned. The Government have not had any input into it, nor have we had any prior copies of the report sent to us so that we could make comments before the Committee made its announcements today. Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the matter before any decisions are taken. Decisions about the future of the Palace will be a matter for this House and for the House of Lords.
Finally on the boundary changes, I just say to the hon. Gentleman that the principle involved here is equality of weight of votes. It really would be an affront to democracy if we went into an election in 2020 on the basis of electoral rolls that were based on a census that was nearly two decades old by that point and where we had some Members representing 100,000 electors and others representing significantly fewer than half that total.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I note that the Leader of the House has announced the Second Reading of the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, and wonder whether there is enough time in that to debate the substantial and innovative recommendations of the local plans expert group to simplify the whole process, including neighbourhood planning, or whether he will recommend a second debate.
Mr Lidington
I think there will be opportunity during proceedings on the Bill to have the kind of debate that my hon. Friend wants, but should he be dissatisfied, other opportunities will be available.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I welcome the opening of a new and positive dialogue with the Leader of the House about the allocation of parliamentary business to Backbench debates. I know that he would welcome advance notice of any time-sensitive subject applications. We had such an application to the Committee on Tuesday for the week beginning 10 October from the hon. Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince), with support from across the House. The week beginning 10 October is baby loss week and they sought a debate about baby loss, infant mortality in the first year of life and still birth, which I think would gain great support across the House. If we could find a slot during that week, we would be very appreciative.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and persuasive point. I cannot make a promise today, but I will do my best to accommodate his request.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Wellingborough prison is a reserve prison so it is not operating at the moment. It is at the end of a large residential area, and three days ago 10 Traveller families dumped themselves on the prison car park. The Ministry of Justice has tried its best to move them. The situation has become unacceptable to my constituents, especially those living nearby. May we have a statement next week on how the Government deal with Travellers who are on Crown property?
Mr Lidington
Quite a number of Members from all parties have had this problem where there has been an unauthorised encampment on privately or publicly owned land and local residents have become distressed about it. I am sure that the appropriate Minister will want to talk to my hon. Friend about this particular case, but he might want to consider applying to Mr Speaker for an Adjournment debate so that he can air his views about the local situation more fully and secure a detailed response from the Minister concerned.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
The Campaign for Better Transport has this week set out its concerns that the Government’s Bus Services Bill will have a huge impact on rural bus services. I regularly receive complaints from constituents about the deterioration in their bus services, especially in the rural areas around Silloth and the Solway plain. Will the Leader of the House ensure that when the Bill comes for debate there will be proper time to discuss the impact on rural bus services?
Mr Lidington
I am sure there will be ample time to have those discussions, which will of course be relevant to Members across the House who have rural constituencies. There are some real challenges; many rural bus services provide a vital lifeline to what is often a minority of people due to the spread of car ownership. So the customer base shrinks, but those services are still important. I hope that the debate will encompass other things, such as the use of new technology to help provide community transport services, which in my constituency and others are providing a useful additional form of support to people living in villages.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
May we have a debate on paediatric training in the NHS in England? In my constituency the children’s emergency centre at County hospital has been temporarily closed due to a lack of sufficient trained staff, and I understand that I am not the only Member of Parliament who has this problem in their constituency.
Mr Lidington
I understand, particularly given the history of hospital services in Staffordshire, why my hon. Friend is so concerned. He has been a strong champion of patients in his constituency. I was sorry to hear what had happened. The local health authorities have obviously taken the decision on the grounds of patient safety, and that clearly must come first, but I hope that those local problems can be resolved as rapidly as possible. The Government are certainly determined to continue to ensure the highest possible paediatric training standards.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I take the opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment? In January, the Government announced welcome proposals for a partnership between the Department for Transport and Transport for London to specify and manage metro services in London when individual franchises lapse. May we have a debate on how those proposals have developed in the months since and how the Government intend to take them forward in the months ahead?
Mr Lidington
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to me. I will draw his remarks to the attention of both the Minister for London and the appropriate Minister in the Department for Transport, and I will ask one of them to make contact with him about the matter.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
I am delighted that the importance of industrial strategy has now been formally recognised, not least with its inclusion in the title of a Government Department. May we have a debate on its terms of reference and its aims and objectives?
Mr Lidington
It sounds to me as though that would be an excellent idea for my hon. Friend to propose to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I am sure my ministerial colleagues would welcome it if such a debate were secured, because the industrial strategy will be important for the future prosperity of this country. It is important that we have a strategy that works for all sectors of industry, particularly for the new industries that will provide the growth and opportunity for this nation in the future, and that it is a strategy that works for all parts of the United Kingdom.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Every single day in my constituency, I have low-income workers getting in touch after their tax credit support, wrongly and without warning, is stopped by Concentrix, an American company contracted by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and paid on a payment-by-results model—in short, commission. This causes immense stress and hardship to households. At this point, 12% of all inquiries to my office are about this issue. Will the Leader of the House commit to holding an urgent debate on this matter before more people experience this harsh and brutal situation?
Mr Lidington
Although decisions about tax credits are not always what applicants want, every constituency MP would agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is very important that decisions are taken as promptly as possible and that they are accurate. He is right to say that people who are on low incomes to start with are completely thrown if an application that is justified is rejected or there is an attempt unjustifiably to claw back money after the event. I will let the relevant Treasury Minister know about the point. The hon. Gentleman may want to seek an Adjournment debate on it, but I hope very much that the problems that he has described will be resolved by HMRC and its contractors as rapidly as possible because constituents deserve a better service than that.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
To assist my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the consideration of the Brexit process, I have a little idea to run past him. Can he enlighten us about the state of the discussions on the scrutiny by Select Committees of the Brexit process? My sense is that the convention is very clear: each Department should have a Select Committee. We have two new Departments; there should be two new Select Committees. Bearing in mind the complexity of the issue, the need for bandwidth and the need for all sorts of other committees to be involved as well, it would help if we got going on those Select Committees as soon as possible. Can he help, as I am sure the House wants to see such scrutiny?
Mr Lidington
I will do my utmost to help. These matters are the subject of continuing discussions between the usual channels. In anything relating to the establishment of Select Committees, if it is humanly possible to have cross-party agreement, it is better that we should achieve that.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
Trossachs Mobility is a new and innovative charity that has been established in my constituency to offer opportunities to people who are wheelchair users to get out and about in the outdoors—the spectacular terrain, woodland and hills in the Trossachs. May we have a debate to explore how we can promote such excellent initiatives across the country?
Mr Lidington
That is an excellent subject for the hon. Gentleman to draw to the attention of Department for Work and Pensions Ministers at the next Question Time, or for him to seek an Adjournment debate on, because if that scheme is working well in his constituency, the word should be spread and others should look to see whether that is an example that they could copy.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
The next time the House meets with meaningful time to hold debates will be in October. The Government have given a lot of money to flood defences around the United Kingdom, with another £12.5 million today for the north. Could we have time to have a debate in this Chamber, or a statement from the Government, about the future of flooding and flood defences? Flooding—not just sea flooding, but flash flooding internally—affects all our nation, and it has to continue to be debated in this Chamber.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I well recall that his constituency was very badly affected by floods a couple of years ago, and he was the most fearless and outspoken champion of his constituents at that time. A report was, coincidentally, published earlier today by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on flooding and the Government’s 25-year plan for flood resilience. I would urge my hon. Friend and all Members who take an interest in these matters to study that report. It has a number of important conclusions, but also proposals on how the Government will take these matters forward into the future. I take note of his request for a debate; I clearly cannot promise one at the moment, but I understand the importance of the subject.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On 19 August, a faulty Indesit tumble-dryer caused a major fire at Shepherd’s Court, a block of over 100 flats overlooking Shepherd’s Bush green. Some 26 families were forced to move out, and the homes and possessions of some of them were totally destroyed. It is a miracle there were no deaths or serious injuries. There are millions of these faulty products out there; they are not being recalled by the manufacturers. May we have a statement from the Government on how manufacturers can be made to recall and replace faulty white goods, as demanded by the London fire brigade’s “Total Recalls” campaign?
Mr Lidington
There is a question mark in my mind about the legal position if goods have indeed been sold that are a demonstrable threat to the safety of those customers. I would hope that, if the situation is indeed as the hon. Gentleman has described, the manufacturer would take note of his remarks and act accordingly. I shall ask the relevant Minister to look at the case that he has described. If he would like to write to me with the details, I will happily pass them on to the relevant Department, and let us see whether we can get the appropriate action.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was the longest-serving Europe Minister, and I have a familiar question for him—about Cyprus. May we have a statement, following the new Minister’s visit to Cyprus this week, which coincides with the three meetings taking place this week between the Cypriot leaders and with President Anastasiades saying the “end of the road” has been reached and it is time to reunite Cyprus?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and the Americas would be delighted to talk to my hon. Friend about his recent visit to the island. I think all of us across the Floor of the House want to see the day when Cyprus can be reunited and the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities brought together again. That would be a really good day for the United Kingdom. I think there will be an opportunity to raise this at the next Foreign Office questions, but a conversation between my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister is probably the best immediate way forward.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Yesterday, the BBC reported that Katrina Percy, the ex-chief executive of the Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, which is being investigated because of the lack of investigation into unexplained deaths at the trust, had resigned from her post but was then shunted into a £240,000-a-year job, which was created just for her, with no other candidates. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on this very worrying decision?
Mr Lidington
My understanding is that this appointment was wholly within the jurisdiction of the local board of the relevant NHS trust, and it is a decision that that board therefore needs to explain and for which it is accountable.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Health provision is hugely important to Solihull, as to all other constituencies, with an ageing population and particular acute health needs. Given that, may we have a debate in Government time about the NHS in the west midlands, and particularly the mergers of clinical commissioning groups and NHS trusts that are serving my constituency?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is already, in his first year in the House, building a reputation as somebody who really does stand up for good health services and the interests of patients in the west midlands. When we have Health questions on Tuesday 11 October, he will have an opportunity to make some of these points to the ministerial team.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Newham Council’s application under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to control fixed odds betting terminals, alongside 92 other councils representing 42% of the population of England and Wales, expired on 14 July. The Act says that the Government have to compromise with the Local Government Association in these negotiations, but no debates have taken place. When will we get a statement on this important issue for a huge proportion of the country?
Mr Lidington
I will ask the responsible Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Attorney General to make a statement about appealing against unduly lenient sentences? A number of people, including some of my constituents who have contacted me about this, felt that the sentence given to Anjem Choudary was derisory, given the serious level of the offences that he had committed. Today, we found out in the newspapers that the Attorney General is unable to appeal against an unduly lenient sentence for that crime. We promised in our manifesto to extend the number of crimes that could be appealed with regard to unduly lenient sentences, so will the Attorney General come to the House and explain when we are going to crack on with it?
Mr Lidington
As my hon. Friend points out, the Government were elected on a manifesto that pledged us to extend the list of crimes that were covered by the right of the Attorney General to refer an excessively lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal. Work on that is ongoing. As soon as it is completed, either the Attorney General or the relevant Justice Minister will come forward with a statement to the House.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Petitions Committee has already agreed, after an evidence session, that the petition on driven grouse shooting will have a parliamentary debate. There is also a petition on the badger cull that has about 40,000 signatures and will, I am sure, reach the 100,000 required. Given that when we had a debate on the badger cull in Westminster Hall this week, over 40 MPs were in attendance and lots of people wanted to watch the debate but were unable to fit into the Public Gallery, can we ensure that both those debates are held in the main Chamber, so that people can come along and watch and that there is sufficient room and time for MPs to take part?
Mr Lidington
There is always a pressure that Government business managers, and the Chair and members of the Backbench Business Committee, have to wrestle with about which matters are debated in Westminster Hall and which are debated here in the Chamber. The hon. Lady will have an additional opportunity to raise this on Thursday 13 October when Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be answering questions here.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I know that the Leader of the House is very aware of the anxiety caused in Corby by the ongoing discussions about the future of the steel industry. May we have a statement next week from Ministers to update my constituents on exactly where we are with those discussions between the industry, the Department and the unions?
Mr Lidington
I will make sure that the Business Secretary and the International Trade Secretary are aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns. I certainly understand the importance of the steel issue for his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during her statement on the G20 yesterday that she had raised the question of over-production on global markets in the plenary session of the G20 leaders while she had been in China and that she hoped that that would lead to the international powers considering a way forward to manage this.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House is very popular in my constituency, and my constituents have asked me to ask him this question. Whether they voted for Brexit or voted to remain, they want to know why, if this is a sovereign Parliament, after all the negotiations have taken place and they can see the deal, Parliament cannot have a vote. Because they love him so much, they would also like a debate on the closure of the accident and emergency department in Huddersfield. In addition, with the landfill tax going up to £85 across West Yorkshire, unscrupulous waste contractors are setting fire to waste, to save money. May we have debates on all those subjects?
Mr Lidington
On waste management, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise that at DEFRA questions on 13 October. On his local health issue, there are questions to Health Ministers on Tuesday 11 October. As somebody who, as the House knows, was strongly on the remain side of the campaign, I have to say that, if we are democrats, we must, however reluctantly, accept the result. Had the result been 52-48 the other way round, I would have been the first to say to my colleagues supporting the leave campaign that it was time to fold their tents. We simply have to respect the view that the electors have taken.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
As I am sure the whole House will be aware, this weekend the world black pudding throwing championships are taking place in Ramsbottom in my constituency. They date back to the Wars of the Roses. May we have a statement on what the Government will be doing to promote this prestigious and historic event in future?
Mr Lidington
For a moment, I thought that my hon. Friend was going to propose this as an experimental sport for the Tokyo Olympics in four years’ time. I envy him his round of constituency engagements. He has made his point very forcefully, as usual. I hope that he gets the chance to sample the black puddings before they are thrown rather than afterwards.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
While giving evidence to the Procedure Committee, on which I serve, the Leader of the House’s predecessor offered to visit a local pub in my constituency to discuss the intricacies of English votes for English laws with my constituents. In the event, he did not do so—much to the great disappointment of my constituents. Will the new Leader of the House use his good offices to visit my constituency to discuss English votes for English laws with my constituents in his place?
Mr Lidington
It is a delight to have such a tempting offer from the hon. Lady. Of course, her constituency, like many others in Scotland, contains vibrant communities and some absolutely wonderful landscapes. While I would hope to able to visit North Ayrshire and Arran at some stage in the future, I cannot give any firm diary commitment at the moment.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement that there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on the Government’s tobacco control programme. The issue at hand is that the control programme that was running for five years has expired, and we were promised a replacement in the summer of 2016. I realise that the summer can stretch into the autumn, but we still do not have the new programme published. The Government have met the targets that they set themselves under the five-year programme. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that the Minister announces the date for publication during the debate and that it is also announced in this place?
Mr Lidington
I will make sure that the Minister is aware of that. My hon. Friend will have an opportunity not just to take part in the Back-Bench business debate in Westminster Hall but to raise this in Health questions on Tuesday 11 October.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
When will Members know when they can elect the Chairs of the Select Committees?
Mr Lidington
As soon as possible, I hope. Obviously, after this week, we have to provide for an additional Select Committee Chair election, but I hope that the process is not delayed for any longer than is absolutely necessary.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House look again at the time allocated for questions to the new Department for International Trade? I do not think that he was in his place this morning when we had half an hour for questions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and then half an hour for questions to the new International Trade Department. Almost 50 oral and substantive questions were listed on the Order Paper for a one-hour period, whereas a normal one-hour slot would have only about 35. Despite his huge experience, the Speaker had to make heroic efforts to try to squeeze everybody in, and even then the session overran by 10 minutes. Surely, we can do better than this, given the importance of international trade post-Brexit.
Mr Lidington
I personally will look at what experience tells us of the new roster for oral questions, and if the House needs to be asked to review it again, then obviously we will do that.
Mr Speaker
I think that will be very welcome in the House. The danger otherwise is that there is a recipe for disappointment. There is always unsatisfied demand, but it was very striking this morning. There were huge numbers and a lot were disappointed.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), I have also been contacted over the summer by hundreds of single women who have been affected by the behaviour of Concentrix. Yesterday I received a written parliamentary answer saying that the contractor had breached its performance standards on 120 occasions over the past 11 months. May we have an urgent debate about the behaviour and performance of this contractor, so that it cannot continue for another day to punish individuals, particularly single women?
Mr Lidington
Clearly, the state of affairs and the number of contract breaches described by the hon. Lady are completely unacceptable. She might want to write to the Financial Secretary, who is probably the appropriate Treasury Minister, to ensure that her constituents’ concerns are being represented directly to those Ministers dealing directly with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but it seems to me that it is the responsibility first of the HMRC senior management to manage the contract effectively and of the contractor to deliver a decent service to the hon. Lady’s constituents and everybody else’s.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes)? The decision by Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust was greeted with a fit of apoplexy in my constituency in the New Forest.
May we have a debate on the scandalous, enduring and rigged duopoly of the wholesale newspaper distribution market and the disastrous consequences it has for independent retailers?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend is obviously returning with relish and energy to his role as a Back-Bench champion, particularly for small retailers in his constituency. I am sure he knows the ropes well enough to know that an Adjournment debate might be the opportunity to air those concerns further.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I was recently contacted by a constituent of mine, Mrs Jones, when she discovered that her E.ON energy account had a standing charge of 14p per day higher than that of other constituents. E.ON tells me that it is entitled to charge a higher rate to those who do not pay their accounts by direct debit, but that amounts to more than £50 a year for people who do not have bank accounts, who are often some of the poorest people in society. May we have a debate about ending that very unfair and penalising practice?
Mr Lidington
Again, I think that the way forward would be for the hon. Gentleman to see if he can catch Mr Speaker’s eye during Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions on Tuesday 13 September, when he can put those points to Energy Ministers.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I strongly endorse what the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said about the extraordinary decision of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust to create a post with a salary greater than that of the Prime Minister to accommodate someone whose position as chief executive had become untenable?
May I ask for a ministerial statement on the plight of Afghan and other former interpreters for British armed forces in hostile environments who have applied for but not yet been given asylum in this country? That is not only a debt of honour, but necessary for the future functioning of British troops in hostile environments where we are greatly dependent on indigenous interpreters.
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Clearly it is a very important principle that all asylum decisions are taken on the merits of each particular case. That is true of applications from former interpreters as well as those from everybody else. It is also the case, however, that both the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office continue to review the overall situation in order to ensure that we are providing protection to people who have helped to protect us. My right hon. Friend will, I think, be pleased to know that there will be Defence questions next Monday 12 September, and he may wish to raise the issue with Defence Ministers then.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
May we have a statement on reports that emerged over the summer that the Government Equality Office has awarded G4S the contract to deliver the equality advisory support service helpline formerly provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission? Hon. Members have long expressed concerns about the performance of G4S in relation to public contracts. The matter is urgent. I understand that the contract is due to take effect from 1 October, so can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made to the House on the subject next week?
Mr Lidington
I cannot promise an oral statement, but I will draw the hon. Lady’s concern to the attention of the relevant Minister dealing with the Government Equality Office.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Parliamentary scrutiny of Sports Direct has helped employees get a better deal from a rogue employer. May we have a debate on how a good increase in the minimum wage leads to some employers cutting back terms and conditions for their staff, resulting in a net reduction in pay? That cannot be right.
Mr Lidington
It is certainly not right, but I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman might at least have acknowledged that in setting the first ever national living wage, it is this Government who have lifted, very considerably, the minimum levels of pay that low-paid employees around the country can now expect.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) asked the Leader of the House what progress has been made in setting up Select Committees to scrutinise the new Departments for Exiting the European Union and for International Trade. He said that discussions are ongoing, but when we get back here on 10 October it will be more than three and a half months since the referendum. We have had very little detail this week of what the Government propose to do, and I—like lots of other hon. Members, I am sure—am being inundated with requests from businesses and individuals in my constituency, asking what the Government are going to do in the light of the vote. Can the Leader of the House guarantee that, when we return on 10 October, those Select Committees will be in a position to get up and running and to scrutinise those Departments to try to get the answers that we have not had this week?
Mr Lidington
I very much want that to be the position, and I hope that the ongoing discussions through the usual channels have a successful outcome soon.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the performance of Southeastern trains? The Government have put £20 million into trying to sort out the mess of Southern trains, but my constituents are suffering equally due to the poor performance of a company that is behaving like it has one foot out of the door because it can see the prospect of Transport for London taking over the franchise. We cannot continue in this way. The Government are responsible for the contract, so let us have a debate about it in Government time.
Mr Lidington
There will be Transport questions next Thursday 15 September, so the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise the matter directly with Transport Ministers then.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
My constituent, Mr Adamson of Bo’ness, is, like other sufferers of Dupuytren’s contracture, waiting for a decision from the Department for Work and Pensions. In repeated parliamentary written answers, we are fobbed off with promises of a decision being reached in due course or shortly. On 12 January, I was advised that
“a decision whether or not to add it to the list of prescribed diseases will be made early this year”.
As we are still waiting, may we have a ministerial statement to explain the delay and bring the deliberations to a conclusion?
Mr Lidington
I will certainly draw that matter to the attention of DWP Ministers, because clearly, whatever the decision will be, the sooner that people know the outcome, the better.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Leader of the House and I have something in common, in that we were both once contestants on “University Challenge”. If we were able to have a debate on enhancing democracy, how would he answer this starter for 10? Under what school of political logic do we enhance democracy by cutting the number of elected politicians and increasing the number of unelected peers?
Mr Lidington
As I said to the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), I wish that there had been consensus on reform of the House of Lords in the previous Parliament, but that consensus was absent, and we are where we are. I doubt that opinion across the House of Commons has changed all that much since that abortive attempt at reform a few years ago.
The answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is that he really cannot evade the central point that we are now operating on electoral registers based on a census taken in 2001. They are very out of date, given the population changes that have taken place since then. It is also plainly wrong to continue with a situation in which constituency electorates are of such disparate sizes. That in practice means that there is gross inequality between the weight of votes of individual electors in different seats.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
In June this year, my constituent John “Richie” Anderson, a miner for 35 years, was killed by a gas blowout at Boulby potash mine. In August, a contract worker was electrocuted with 11 MW while doing surface work at the same mine. Back in April, 11 miners escaped with their lives after the oxygen ran out in a safety zone because of an underground fire. The Health and Safety Executive has investigated the mine on a number of occasions in the past 12 months. Some of those 11 miners have had to return to work with clear signs of post-traumatic stress disorder because the sick pay of just over £80 a week is not enough to cover the cost of feeding a wife and children. Can we have a debate about health and safety law and the implications of workers having to return to work because sick pay is not adequate, when companies have accepted liability for the danger that they have placed their workers in?
Mr Lidington
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that serious matter to the House. I express my sympathy with his constituents who have gone through this horrific experience, and with their families. The matter that he raises crosses the border between the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Work and Pensions, in respect of benefits and sickness pay arrangements. I will draw this question to the attention of Ministers in both Departments. He might also like to raise it at Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy questions, when it comes up, or seek an Adjournment debate so that there can be a consolidated ministerial response from across Government to address his concerns.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Around three people a day die because of a shortage of transplantable organs. Earlier this week, brave Renfrewshire mum Corinne Hutton, a quadruple amputee, posed nude with her body painted with organs that are deemed to be transplantable. Does the Leader of the House agree that Corinne, whom I recently witnessed becoming only the fourth person to be awarded the freedom of Renfrewshire, is an inspiring woman whose lead we should follow by debating organ donation?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman has used today’s opportunity well to highlight his support for organ donation. I, too, know constituents who have been given not only a longer life, but a life of unexpectedly improved quality because of a successful organ transplant. I am sure that he can find many ways in which to highlight the matter during parliamentary proceedings.
Points of Order
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Order. I would prefer to save the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) as a specialist delicacy of the House. We will come to him in due course.
Mr Charles Walker
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise me how best I can bring my concerns to the attention of the House in relation to the boundary review and Lords reform? It seems perverse to reduce the number of elected representatives in this place while the Lords continues to gorge itself on new arrivals. I believe in an appointed upper House, but not at the current price and not at the expense of this elected, and therefore accountable, Chamber. We in this place must guard against bringing this country’s democratic settlement into disrepute.
Mr Speaker
In that case, let us hear from the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), and then I will respond to both.
Philip Davies
I absolutely endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has just said. In addition to that, we also have the situation whereby the Government propose to reduce the number of MPs by 50 but not to reduce the number of Ministers by an equal proportion, thereby giving the Government more control over the House of Commons. That is clearly an outrage, and surely it is something that needs to be considered in conjunction with the points raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to both hon. Members for raising their points of order. Let me seek to deal, in so far as they require to be dealt with, with each in turn. First, in relation to the point of order from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who is, as we all know, the illustrious Chair of the Procedure Committee of the House, I remind colleagues that the hon. Gentleman asked the Chair by what means he could register his concern. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he is a perceptive and sagacious fellow, he has found his own salvation. He has made his own point with his own inimitable eloquence, and it is on the record. I know how strongly he feels about it, and I know there are many Members across the House who feel very strongly about it, and these matters will doubtless be further debated.
Secondly, in relation to the hon. Member for Shipley, I note the force of his point about reductions in the number of MPs needing, as he sees it, to be accompanied by reductions in the number of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman has got such a long-established good memory for what people have said in the past that I feel sure that, although he did not say it today, he will be well aware that I myself expatiated on this matter on 19 January 2011 in a lecture to the Institute for Government. On that occasion, I made the point that it would be a rum business to reduce the number of MPs but not to cut the number of Ministers. I said it then and was right then, and therefore I am very happy to say it again, five and a half years later, and to be right a second time.
We had better leave it there. I am not sure that either of them was a point of order, but they were jolly good fun.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I was allocated question 12 in Cabinet Office questions, asking:
“What recent progress has been made on the National Flood Resilience Review.”
We did not reach question 12, so I received a written response later that day:
“The National Flood Resilience Review has been assessing how England can be better protected from flooding and extreme rainfall. The review has been working to identify actions needed to strengthen our resilience to flooding.”
That is one of those answers that tells you absolutely nothing. To my surprise, this morning we had a written statement and this very hefty document, the “National Flood Resilience Review” published. The written statement, although it is from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is jointly in her name and the name of the Cabinet Office Minister. At the very least, was it not extremely discourteous of them not to flag those things up in the written response yesterday, or does it suggest that the Cabinet Office Minister was not aware that he was about to publish this review?
Mr Speaker
It would be rather disturbing, it has to be said, if a Minister of the Cabinet Office were unaware of the imminent publication in his, or a departmental colleague’s, name of such a report. I find that very hard to credit. It might well be regarded as discourteous; that is, to some extent, a matter of opinion. What I can safely say is that it was, at the very least, unhelpful. There is a general principle that ministerial answers should be as informative as possible, so it was unhelpful. I think I can say—possibly at the risk of irritating a Cabinet Office Minister, which I will have to bear with stoicism and fortitude—that at the very least it was extremely unimaginative of the Minister answering not to consider providing more information or, alternatively, to consider and then to decline. Very unsatisfactory—he really ought to be able to do better than that.
The great thing that we have on our side is that the new Leader of the House—there have been lots of illustrious Leaders of the House—as was flagged up a moment ago, is, of course, I think twice a winner on “University Challenge”, with a gap of, I think, 30 years in between. It used to be said that the former Member for Havant, in the previous Parliament, was “Two Brains”. I leave colleagues to speculate or, indeed, to compute how many brains the Leader of the House has. He is a very cerebral fellow, and I am sure that he can spawn more imaginative and considerate thinking among his ministerial colleagues.
Mr Speaker
Oh, very well. I call Kevin Brennan, and we will then come to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Kevin Brennan
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I point out, in all modesty, that I too have twice been a winner on “University Challenge”?
Mr Speaker
I must admit that I did not know that, but I do now, and I promise not to forget it.
Kerry McCarthy
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am obliged at this point to say that I was on the first ever season of “Blockbusters”, but all I came away with was a sweatshirt.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady has made the best case she can, and I thank her for that.
Crispin Blunt
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is pursuant to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) yesterday. There has been a further development, increasing the seriousness of it, which you acknowledged yesterday. On Monday, The Guardian reported the central recommendation of a draft report being put to the Committees on Arms Export Controls. The meeting to consider this was held yesterday in private. On Tuesday, “Newsnight” produced exerts of the text of the draft report, and that was the excepts subject of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order.
Yesterday, the Committees met and resolved to report the matter to the Liaison Committee. As I understand our procedures, the Liaison Committee will have to consider the matter and decide whether it should be referred to the Privileges Committee, which would then have to decide whether and how to pursue this matter. Subsequently, last night, “Newsnight” reported extracts of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and me, which can only have come from the consolidated list of amendments circulated to members of the Committees on Tuesday.
Separately, Patrick Wintour in The Guardian today—this was put online at 00.01—reported the number of amendments we had tabled to the report, a fact which was not reported on “Newsnight”. “Newsnight” chose to contextualise the amendments tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and me in the light of our previous membership of the all-party group on Saudi Arabia, work I did in the middle east 12 years ago and the right hon. Gentleman’s record of supporting employment provided by the British defence industry. “Newsnight” emphasised that none of this was improper,
“but it gives you a sense of where people stand”.
In parallel, members of the Committees received between 1,500 and 2,000 emails on Tuesday and overnight, which appear to have been organised on someone’s behalf by Avaaz, a self-styled global citizens movement, which was aware that the Committees were meeting to consider this issue. The right hon. Gentleman believes one of them was from a constituent, but my office did not identify any constituents before it called the organisation to invite it to desist.
Mr Speaker, this amounts to a prima facie case of a deliberate campaign to influence a Select Committee, relying on in-confidence information provided by a Member of this House or their staff. Conceivably, the information could have come from Committee staff, but I think you would agree that that is highly unlikely. I cannot recall an example of such deliberate and repeated leaking of information in our time in the House.
Will you confirm, Mr Speaker, that it would not be open to the Privileges Committee, if this is referred to it, to call in the police, as this is not a criminal matter, but that it would be able to call on the services of private investigators? They would have the capacity to interrogate the electronic records, including deleted emails, relating to potential sources for this confidential and private consideration by Committees of matters, in this instance, of the greatest seriousness, involving life and death issues and the employment of tens of thousands of our fellow citizens. Will you encourage the Liaison Committee to consider this as a matter of urgency, and confirm your view of the seriousness of this attempt to undermine the work of Select Committees?
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have participated in only two meetings of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, because three other members of the Defence Committee have been nominated as our regular attenders; I have total confidence in them. May I, however, express my disquiet about something I learned only yesterday? The draft report, which is very one-sided, was produced without any heads of report discussion prior to the drafting of the report. That means there was no opportunity for members of the Committees who dissented from the thrust of the report to raise their objections and try to reach consensus before a draft report was produced and then leaked in a very sensational way. I must say, as someone who has been at one remove from the operation of the Committees, that something went terribly wrong with the procedures, because there should have been room for consensus to be built before any such one-sided report was leaked. I say that as someone who is highly critical of Saudi Arabia and in some sympathy with some of the arguments in the draft report.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for their points of order.
With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman said, I am intimately conscious that I cannot and should not intervene or overly pronounce on the way in which Select Committees of the House conduct their affairs. From my own experience as a member of several Select Committees before being elected to the Chair, I can say that it was certainly my normal and satisfied expectation that before draft reports were produced, there would be a period of considerable discussion by the Committee not only about chapter headings, but, more substantively, about the direction of travel that colleagues could anticipate, even in the first draft. In other words, the process would be Member-led, rather than Chair-decreed, still less official-determined. I therefore understand the sense of angst that the right hon. Gentleman has conveyed in a very reasonable, balanced way. I think colleagues would do well to consider what he has said.
More widely, I would say—if colleagues want to come back on this, they will—that the Committees on Arms Export Controls carry out extremely valuable work. To do so, they rely on the co-operation and consensus of the Chairs and members of four Select Committees. I very much hope that this co-operation can be maintained so that the House can benefit from their important work.
The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee focused very much on the matter of the leak and what might flow from that. Let me just say that it is for the Committees concerned to investigate the cause of the apparent leak to decide whether it constitutes a substantial interference with their work—a matter on which Members not on the Committees may also have a view—and to inform the Liaison Committee, seeking its views in the process. Thereafter, it would be sensible for them to decide—indeed, it will inevitably be decided—whether to make a special report that would stand referred to the Committee of Privileges.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the use of private investigators. I can only say that I do not know whether that would be effective in this instance, although it is perfectly conceivable that it might be. Probably the best approach for me to take is to say: let the Liaison Committee, which is an established and respected Committee within the House, make a judgment. It is perfectly legitimate for colleagues to make representations to the Liaison Committee about what they think should happen. Rather than for the Speaker to say what the Liaison Committee should do, the Liaison Committee should consider the matter carefully, taking note of these points of order in deciding how to proceed.
This is a very serious matter, indeed. If the Committees of this House are to work effectively, we cannot have a situation in which individual members of a Committee leak information, in advance, to advance a particular point of view or to retard the progress of another. That is wholly against the spirit of the operation of the Select Committees of this House. I thank colleagues for what they have said, and for the spirit in which they have said it.
Backbench Business
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Scamming: Vulnerable Individuals
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that the elderly and vulnerable are a high-risk group from having harm done to their financial, emotional and psychological wellbeing from criminals who target them with scam calls, post and visits; praises the work that trading standards bodies do to combat scams; calls on financial institutions and the communications industry to put in place mechanisms to protect potential victims from scams; further calls on the Government to recognise the threat from scams to victims’ ability to live independently; draws attention to the measures proposed by Bournemouth University, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and National Trading Standards Scams Team on financial harm as useful first steps in tackling such scams; and calls on the Government to make suggestions on further steps to tackle such criminality.
It is difficult to overstate the damage done to our economy and society by fraud and scam artists. Such people prey on some of our most vulnerable citizens and can strike at many points in our lives, whether we are buying a home, hiring a tradesman or investing in our pensions. As a former consumer rights and personal finance journalist, I have seen at first hand the real harm that these fraudsters can do. They not only leave people poorer, but can cause a huge range of health and confidence problems far into the future.
While working for the BBC in 2003, I covered the story of a Southampton pensioner who fell victim to scam artists pretending to represent something called the Canadian lottery. They convinced him to wire £1,600 to Canada as an administration fee to unlock his winnings, which of course never materialised. Instead, there were only escalating demands for more cash, and good money went after bad; indeed, in the end that individual paid out more than £9,000 to those fraudsters. In a particularly cruel twist, I remember he told me that he had been told to wait up with his wife, because someone would call at his house to deliver a cheque for his winnings and a bunch of flowers. The door was never knocked on. When he spoke to the fraudsters again, they laughed down the phone at their own cruelty. It is very easy to form snap judgments about people who fall victim to these sorts of schemes—indeed, the victims often blame themselves, which is one reason why only 5% of cases come to light—when we ourselves have been lucky enough never to fall victim to one.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a good case. Does he agree that these crooks are getting ever more sophisticated? Using scanning technology and the ability to take pictures from the internet, they often copy the logos and trademarks of reputable companies, which makes it even harder to detect the scam.
Julian Knight
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is an ever-rising tide and the methods are becoming more sophisticated. While we are talking about logos, these people use governmental logos—that of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs among others—so that they can pretend to be quasi-governmental. They also use logos that are very similar to governmental logos and those of other institutions. He is quite right to raise that point.
As I say, it is easy for us to rush to snap judgments, and some people do that about what they perceive as their own foolishness. However, the gentleman I was discussing was no fool. He had run his own business for more than 30 years. The scammers were not only persuasive but, as they often do, preyed on his very best instincts, especially the thought of how he could help his children with the winnings.
I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for co-signing the motion. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have talked to me prior to the debate to recount their stories of constituents who have been affected. I was struck by one from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who wrote to tell me that an elderly lady in her constituency was robbed of almost £35,000 by people posing as, of all things, an anti-fraud unit from her local bank. Unfortunately those fraudsters were not caught, and as the banks are not liable, her savings have not been returned. That has had a devastating impact—not just financial but emotional—on the lady concerned.
Those incidents are just two among the thousands that occur each and every year. They highlight why we need to do more to combat this detestable style of crime. I thank the many external organisations that got in touch with me, especially those that provided so much useful data and information, such as the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, Age UK, Financial Fraud Action UK, Standard Life and the Fairway financial consultancy.
The cost of fraud to the economy is truly astonishing. According to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, it amounts to £52 billion a year. Numbers can get thrown around, but to put that into context, £52 billion is more than we spend on defence or education. If we were to cut that figure by just 10%, we would reinject £5 billion into people’s savings and the wider economy itself. That would equate to much of the economic boost that has come about in recent years due to payment protection insurance payouts.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading the debate. A quarter of the population of my constituency is over the age of 65, and the average age of those being scammed is 74, so my constituents are particularly concerned. He talked about financial cost, which is of course important, but those being scammed are some of the most vulnerable in society. This is an issue of not just the financial cost, but the human cost.
Julian Knight
I could not agree more. The demographics in our constituencies are very similar, certainly in terms of age—in Silhill ward in my constituency, 40% of people are over 65. As my hon. Friend says, the average age of scamming victims is 74. Fraudsters have many different ways of making their approach, but in the main they instinctively target elderly people—although not to the exclusion of everyone else—because, frankly, the older generation is quite polite. They do not want to put the phone down straightaway and they might respond to a letter. However, as I will explain, as soon as someone does that, they enter a whole new world in terms of the information gathered by these fraudsters.
The national average cost of fraud per victim is purportedly just over £1,000, but the amounts can be a lot higher. I was staggered to find that in my constituency the average cost is £9,000 for each event of fraud, which probably reflects our relatively affluent population and also the fact that we have an older population, as my hon. Friend and I discussed a moment ago. Older people are disproportionately the target of scammers, but we must not forget that the youngest reported victim that I have been alerted to was only 19. Can we imagine starting out in life, effectively, as an adult, and finding that one of our first experiences is to be hoodwinked by one of those despicable fraudsters? That demonstrates that no one who is old enough to handle their own finances can afford to be complacent about the risk of fraud.
Being stung is often only the start of the process. A victim’s details can be sold on more than 200 times, putting them in the sights of a much larger pool of international criminals. The National Trading Standards scams team has found an astonishing 106,000 potential victims of fraud on captured criminal target lists. The fraudsters call those sucker lists, which shows what they think of people. Investigations suggest that the names of 560,000 victims from the UK are already in circulation.
We must not fall into the trap of considering only financial costs as the social and human damage caused by fraud can be just as severe. Indeed, according to trueCall, the phone screening service, the impact of scamming is comparable to that of violent crime. For starters, 29% of victims suffer a major depressive episode in the 20 months after a crime, compared with just 2% of non-victims.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend also considered the risk and actual harm caused when scammers market fake medicines online? That is a particular problem. Operation Pangea has been seizing many such products as they come into the UK, but people need to be aware of the danger of buying from online pharmacies. They need to be sure that they are buying from a reputable agent of the pharmacy industry in the UK, and people can look at logos to check that they are doing so.
Julian Knight
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. She will have come across that issue in her role as Chair of the Health Committee. As I understand it, such cases are not simply a question of being defrauded of money; they can actually cost people their lives, in the worst possible circumstances.
As well as depressive episodes, 45% of victims suffer a generalised anxiety disorder compared with just 15% of non-victims. The stress that victims suffer can both exacerbate pre-existing health conditions and induce post-traumatic stress, and 10% of victims have unexplained hospital admissions within three months. The circles of these frauds—their effects within our wider society—roll outwards and outwards. More horrifyingly, people who have been defrauded are two-and-a-half times more likely than non-victims to be in care or dead within two years of the event. Scammers take so much more than cash. They can rob us of our self-confidence and elderly citizens of the ability to live independently.
We should not forget the people who fight back. I have enjoyed reading stories of people called scam baiters, who turn the tables on these predators by wasting their time and making fools of them. I particularly liked one story that the BBC covered a few years ago of a gentleman who managed to persuade a Nigerian scammer to daub himself in war paint to prove his dedication to a made-up religion. Overall, however, the clear knock-on effects for personal independence and relationships add huge invisible costs to the headline figures of fraud.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent case he is making about this very important subject. From personal experience, I know that some scammers concentrate on people who are beginning to suffer from short-term memory loss. Will he explain to what extent that is a feature of this phenomenon? If it is, as I suspect, a very significant feature, does it not highlight the importance of people who are beginning to lose their faculties trying, whenever possible, to give power of attorney to reliable relatives so that they are not vulnerable to being taken advantage of in this way?
Julian Knight
That is absolutely correct. We also need better training for bank staff. Nationwide is very good at spotting the signs of when an individual is being defrauded. I remember one case that was told to me by my grandmother, who is 91, of a lady on her estate who had tried to withdraw several thousand pounds from the Nationwide with two burly men behind her. That case related to fake tarmacking and the usual fake repairs. Nationwide must be commended for stopping that withdrawal from happening. The Post Office, too, has put in place such training. My right hon. Friend is right to make the link between scamming and the ever-increasing instances, due to longevity, of dementia in our society. This is another challenge we must meet as a society through financial institutions, and family and other support networks.
The clear knock-on effects for personal independence and relationships add huge invisible costs to the headline figures I mentioned, both by increasing demand for state support and simply in terms of human misery. One of the reasons why fraud is so difficult to tackle is that it can take many different forms. Con artists are adept at exploiting people’s unfamiliarity with the technical aspects of a product or service in order to trick them. They are also quick to exploit the latest news story or Government initiative, and sometimes simply try to exploit our generosity after a natural disaster by posing as someone in need of disaster relief. An email apparently coming from a disaster zone and asking for help is a very common trick of the fraudsters.
Several constituents have visited my surgery to complain that their insurers will not allow them to take money out of their pension funds to invest into unregulated investments—so-called “penny shares”—which allow scammers to sell people worthless stocks and other asset classes. I am sure that other hon. Members have received similar visits. I have had to be very clear to those individuals that their insurers are perfectly right and that they should never put their pension at risk. I encourage Members to remain vigilant about such stories. This “pensions unlocking”, as it is called, is just one way in which con artists are trying to exploit the Government’s new, more liberal pensions system. I fully support the Government’s desire to give more power to individual savers, but such cases highlight the importance of developing anti-fraud protections alongside policies, rather than after they are implemented. That applies to our regulators, too.
Impersonating banks is another common form of financial fraud, as the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury discovered. According to Financial Fraud Action UK, scammers are now targeting individuals directly for passwords, passcodes and PINs as security systems become ever more sophisticated and complex. FFA UK reported that losses to financial fraud totalled £755 million in 2015, but that was only what was reported. Worryingly, that figure represented a 26% increase on 2014, despite bank and card company security systems intercepting and preventing £1.76 billion of fraud, or £7 in every £10 of potential losses.
Fraud is also flourishing on the internet. According to consumer group Which?, more than 5 million online scams were carried out last year, with an astonishing £9 billion lost to fraudsters. It also reports that six in 10 of us reported being targeted by online scammers in the 12 months up to May this year. Frankly, I am surprised the figure is only six out of 10; I am forever being asked to wire money to various parts of the world, basically for it to be laundered. The most common types of fraud are phishing emails—usually purporting to be from a bank or senior official—seeking money, and bogus computer support.
Alongside this cutting-edge crime, the more traditional forms of fraud flourish too, such as false tradesman tricking people into paying extortionate amounts for unnecessary work and often providing cover for outright distraction burglaries into the bargain. I was struck by a case sent in by the Chartered Trading Standards Institute on this very point. The case involved a 78-year-old pensioner from Lincolnshire who lived alone and was isolated from family. The pensioner was conned out of his house by a conman who convinced him that major repair work was needed on his property. After being cold-called and visited, he agreed to will part of his property in return for the work being carried out. However, the documents he signed actually gave the house to the scammers, who then placed him in a caravan park. It was only the victim’s testimony in court that guaranteed a conviction. The officers involved had no doubt there were other victims, silent victims, who had lost homes in this way.
The huge financial and human costs of fraud make the case for action clear, but the problem could very well be much more serious than we realise. The CTSI believes that only 5% of scams are ever reported, with fear and shame keeping victims silent and preventing them from seeking help. There are already some very strong efforts in this area. In addition to the preventive measures by banks and card companies that I have already mentioned, trading standards has been collaborating with charities and the police to afford better protection to victims. For example, there has been a concerted effort to provide previous victims, and those whose age or health makes them likely to be victimised, with call blockers. These have so far protected 1,600 vulnerable people and blocked 95% of 81,000 attempted nuisance calls.
Based on the overall statistics, trading standards estimates that more than 11,500 scams, which would have been carried out, have been stopped. Expanding the capacity of trading standards, as many have called for, would make these efforts more effective. More needs to be done, especially when the resale of personal information makes so many people vulnerable to crimes such as identity theft. The CTSI has called for much stricter regulation and control of personal data to counter industrial-scale and legal harvesting of personal data which can then be put to illegal use or sold on. So often, the first purchase of the information can be done through clicking a box, for example to sign up to a newsletter. The information then goes into the ether. I do not believe that people know quite what they are signing up to: there is no transparency. The first few purchases of that information might be bona fide and legitimate. Further down the scale, however, we start to find in investigations that holding companies, which are a front, are effectively buying in the information for fraudsters.
Despite the fact that 85% of people, a huge majority, think that businesses have an equal or greater responsibility to protect their customers from fraud than consumers, the Cyber Security Breaches 2016 Survey found that only 5% of firms invest in ongoing monitoring of hacks into their systems, despite more than six in 10 reporting such breaches. I know from personal experience that some banks have a long way to go in their own security arrangements, too. Very recently, HSBC asked my wife to send some very sensitive financial and personal information to a private email address. That was legitimate. It was bona fide. But what on earth is a bank doing allowing private and sensitive information to go outside its own networks?
Some firms report to me the astonishing claim that some of our current systems work against responsible corporate behaviour. A partner in the financial consultancy firm Fairway wrote to me that the Financial Ombudsman Service was holding his firm accountable for losses incurred via some very risky, and frankly quite murky-sounding, investments that his firm had clearly warned its clients to avoid because they would put their life savings at risk. One adjudicator at the FOS had apparently suggested that the firm should have refused to advise the people involved. How can we have a system that makes it harder for people engaged in potentially problematic and risky investments to receive professional advice? It is essential for us to ensure that our regulators are focusing on the authors of dodgy investment schemes which blur the line between legitimate business and outright fraud, and not unfairly penalising those who try to help.
The Government can also make a real difference by stress-testing policies and building anti-fraud protections into them as they are developed, rather than waiting until afterwards. I know that the Cabinet Office has made great strides in relation to the sharing of information throughout the Government to track down benefit fraudsters and other financial scammers.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on an excellent speech. I strongly endorse what he has said about Government schemes. He mentioned pensioners earlier, and in recent years, particularly in south Wales, they have been targeted by green deal scams. I agree wholeheartedly that it is important for the Government to build in safeguards when they are developing policies, to prevent people from being scammed on the back of legitimate Government schemes.
Julian Knight
That is a very good point. I remember the fraud that took place way back when tax credits were launched. The fraudsters cotton on incredibly quickly, and they see the opportunities. They seem to be extremely flexible in that regard. Scam artists are very quick to move on any new opportunity. They cost the Government hundreds of millions of pounds by exploiting the green deal, and, before that, Labour's tax credits proved so vulnerable that the online portal set up to claim them is still closed a decade later.
We also need much clearer warnings for people. Despite the best of intentions, much of the advice on offer is too cautious, and contains too much room for doubt. There is too much reliance on caveat emptor. It would be much better to lay out some very clear rules, such as these. If a tradesman knocks on your door to say that you need surprise repairs, just say no. Thank him or her, and, if you are worried, call a reputable professional yourself. If someone tries to convince you that you have won a lottery that you did not enter, just say no: it cannot be made clear enough that that never happens. If someone tries to persuade you to make a risky investment with your pension, just say no: that precious investment has to look after you in your old age. If you want to invest, always take the time to seek proper, independent professional advice.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman as worried as I am about the number of people who respond to communications? He mentioned the lottery. Once people have responded to one communication, they will receive many more. I heard of one person who received up to 10 or 20 a day. Moreover, the communications are coming from abroad, which means that they cannot be intercepted and stopped. It is causing a great deal of heartache to very vulnerable people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) responds to that intervention, let me point out that, while I appreciate that he is making some extremely important points and the House is very attentive, a great many other Members wish to speak, not just in the current debate but in the next. I am sure that he will conclude his speech very soon.
Julian Knight
I am actually on my last paragraph, Madam Deputy Speaker, but thank you for the reminder.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) is absolutely correct. If the Post Office is alerted to the position, it will stop mail and set up a separate “scam mail box”, which is a very good initiative.
Fraud is a detestable crime which preys on our worst fears and best instincts, and I hope that, together with the police and other organisations and across the Government, we can start to stamp it out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I call the co-sponsor of the motion, let me repeat that a great many Members wish to speak in both this debate and the next one. I must therefore impose a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. That does not apply to the next speaker, who is deemed to be the spokesman for her party.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to co-sponsor the motion and this important debate along with the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), with whom I have sparred in the past but with whom I am in complete agreement today.
The cost of scamming in our society is undoubtedly huge and cannot be counted only in terms of pounds and pence, although the financial cost is significant. Scamming affects the elderly and other vulnerable members of our communities, not exclusively but disproportionately, and the problem is becoming greater with each passing day. The Office for National Statistics predicts that by 2030 the number of elderly people living in our communities will increase by 34%, from 11.6 million to 15.7 million, and the number of people living with dementia will increase from 850,000 to 2.1 million.
The people who perpetrate scams use sophisticated techniques to scam their victims, repeatedly in some cases. Trading standards, although already hard-pressed, is working on the front line to do all that it can to safeguard the vulnerable. The most sinister, cynical and cruel aspect of scamming is that it is criminal activity which targets those who are most vulnerable in their own homes. The one place where any of us should feel safe becomes the setting for people being conned out of their money via sales scripts, data collection and targeted mail. Scams can involve, for instance, pension fraud, bogus equity release schemes, fictitious prize draws, false investment opportunities, upfront payments to release lottery wins, upfront payment for building work that is either never started or never completed, and investment scams. The most common telephone scams are cold calls. I hope that everyone who is in the Chamber today will feel able to support my ten-minute rule Bill on cold calls next week. I do not have time to talk about it now, but it is fascinating.
The impact of scams goes far beyond financial loss. It is emotional and psychological, and has even been shown to have an impact on physical wellbeing. At worst, it can ruin lives and split families, with the consequences lasting long beyond the initial trauma of financial loss. Moreover, even when financial losses are comparatively low, scams lead to a breakdown in consumer confidence. The full effects of the harm caused by them is difficult to estimate, as only about 5% of victims report that they have lost money. We know that the average victim loses about £1,000, but we also know that many lose hundreds of thousands of pounds. We know that victims of scams often feel embarrassed, and are afraid that their families will judge them to be no longer capable of living alone. For that reason, scams may not be reported, which leaves the victims open and vulnerable to repeat scams. Some people find it extremely difficult even to admit that they have been victims of a crime.
We should not forget that the impact of dementia and other impairments makes vulnerability much more pronounced and the ability to target an individual repeatedly much more possible. As we heard from the hon. Member for Solihull, it has been demonstrated that victims of scams are nearly two and a half times more likely to require increased care provision, or to die within two years of being scammed. It has also been reported that victims often experience a rapid drop in their physical health after realising that they have been scammed.
The scale of the problem and its associated costs are absolutely huge. Alongside this growing problem, we all know that trading standards are struggling to cope, although the work they do is worthy of very high praise and demands our respect. I also want to highlight the excellent work carried out by CIFAS, which works to prevent fraud and financial crime through the sharing of confirmed fraud data. Last year, CIFAS prevented more than £1 billion in fraud loss by sharing data across sectors. Its data show that in 2015 in my own constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran, 278 frauds took place and there were 103 victims of fraud. We know that that is a mere snapshot of the true level of fraud, which is likely to be much higher.
I want to single out for particular praise North Ayrshire Citizens Advice Service, which carried out a range of activities to promote Scam Awareness month, which was July, providing training to advisers, raising awareness of scams among clients, and working in partnership with local community groups, the third sector, Police Scotland, and Ayrshire College. It also worked closely with my local Member of the Scottish Parliament, one Kenneth Gibson, whom I mention purely in the interests of domestic harmony.
Scams do so much more than rob people of their money. They rob them of their confidence, their belief in themselves and in their judgment, their self-esteem, their willingness to trust people and the help they may be able to offer them, and ultimately their ability to live full, happy, independent lives. What makes all of us vulnerable to scams is shown by research carried out by Which? All of us are overconfident about our ability to spot a scam. Ironically, that makes us all the more vulnerable. The gap between confidence and ability is dangerous.
So what can we do about this problem? I absolutely agree with the suggestion put forward by trading standards that financial institutions should recognise that clients with dementia are by definition more at risk of being scammed and that measures need to be taken to protect that group as a duty of care. Those who are diagnosed with dementia live with a cognitive impairment and that must be recognised. The sharing of personal details and information with other organisations should require a clear opt-in, as opposed to an opt-out. The normal default position of charities and other organisations should be that personal details are not passed on or shared, except to report a safeguarding concern where there is a suspicion that a person may be at risk of harm from scamming.
In addition, customers should be able to formally notify their bank in writing that they feel at risk and request that all transactions over a certain amount to new payees have a 24-hour delay before being processed. That will give time for the proposed transaction to be challenged and potentially stop scammed money from leaving a scam victim’s account.
Those eminently sensible and fairly straightforward measures would do much to protect those most at risk of scamming—the elderly and the vulnerable in our communities. I urge the Minister to reflect on those proposals to help us to tackle the problem that confronts people who are robbed in their own homes and subsequently find the experience scarring. The effects are far reaching. Let us do more to protect the victims of scams. It is the least we can do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
I wholeheartedly congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) on securing this important debate. I know they have a long-standing interest in tackling scamming, especially when vulnerable individuals are the intended victims. They have set out the wide range of harm that fraudsters and scammers can cause. I assure the House that tackling scams is a priority for this Government. Scams can have a devastating impact, particularly on the most vulnerable people in society. Mass marketing frauds can affect any one of us, at any time. We are more likely to be a victim of fraud than of any other crime, but when caught out we can sometimes feel ashamed or not want to admit we have been hoodwinked. That, however, can make it hard to get a full sense of the problem. It is really important that we do all we can to understand it and respond, which is why I welcome this debate.
We know that older people are more at risk. The National Trading Standards scams team says that the typical person it provides support to is 74 and living alone. That is why I welcome the work of Bournemouth University and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute to investigate the impacts of scams on older people. Their report on financial scamming earlier this year set out clear recommendations for action by the Government, by charities and by private institutions such as banks. As much of the debate today is focusing on the report’s recommendations, and I will address them directly.
The first recommendation was for all agencies, including banks, to recognise their duty of care to those with dementia and to take measures to protect them. The second was to strengthen rules on data protection to reduce the risk of vulnerable people ending up on so-called suckers lists used by criminals to target their scams. The third was to introduce safeguards at banks and building societies to prevent those who feel at risk of scams from losing large amounts of money.
Dr Julian Lewis
I thank the Minister for the interest she has taken in this issue. I know from personal experience that it is difficult to get a bank to take action unless someone has already given power of attorney, as I said in an earlier intervention. When this happened to someone very close to me and I told the bank concerned that I needed to be tipped off if there were any unusual withdrawals, nothing really happened until a particularly alert cashier, on her own initiative, did that. After five years, I eventually got success: the fraudster was forced to repay all the money and to pay the costs of the case. Therefore, will the Minister do everything possible to persuade banks, if a power of attorney is not in place, to have procedures in place if a worried close relative asks them to monitor irregular or unusual withdrawals and let them know?
Sarah Newton
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that constituency case. It reflects the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull made that some banks have good procedures in place and some do not, and that some staff have been well trained and some have not. We need to ensure that every person working in the bank is as good as those identified by the Nationwide, which my hon. Friend mentioned. I will come on to address the wider point: what more banks and building societies can do to protect their vulnerable customers.
I am pleased to report that the Government, regulators and private companies are responding strongly to the recommendations that I have outlined. The Government have taken action more widely on nuisance calls, including a new requirement for all direct marketing callers to provide caller line identification. That came into effect on 16 May. The measure increases consumer choice, by making it easier for people to identify direct marketing calls and to choose whether to accept them. It will also increase the Information Commissioner’s Office’s ability to investigate such calls.
Members may also be aware that, in the Queen’s Speech on 18 May, the Government announced their intention to bring forward a Digital Economy Bill. Among other legislative changes, it will introduce a measure making it a requirement for the Information Commissioner to issue a statutory code of practice on direct marketing.
Dr Wollaston
I wonder whether the Minister in the legislation will also address the fines that are meted out when people breach the rules. She may be familiar with the case of Pharmacy2U, which, disgracefully, sold the details of more than 20,000 of its customers, many of them very vulnerable, to marketing companies. The fine of £130,000 is derisory and no meaningful deterrent.
Sarah Newton
As always, the Chairman of the Health Committee makes a powerful point, and I am sure those responsible for drafting these measures will take them into careful consideration, ensuring that the scope of the measures captures some of the very harmful behaviour of scammers and fraudsters and that there is sufficient deterrent to those considering undertaking these crimes from the regime of punishments put in place, including fines.
The overall aims of the new code of practice will be to support a reduction in the number of unwanted direct marketing calls and to make it easier for the Information Commissioner to take action against organisations in breach of the direct marketing rules.
Secondly, the Government-funded national trading standards scams team is working with the British Bankers Association, the Building Society Association and others to produce a new national banking protocol for doorstep crime and other scam issues discovered at branch level. The Financial Conduct Authority is building on this. Its ageing population strategy will consider how older consumers engage in financial services and make best use of the products and services they use. The FCA intends to release a regulatory strategy and recommendations by 2017.
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend mentions trading standards services, and may I ask her to praise the work of both Poole and Dorset trading standards, which do such a good job in this area? However, they can only do their work if the victims come forward; that is the only way in which successful prosecutions can be secured. So I invite her to continue her work with trading standards and to highlight the important work they do to ensure we get prosecutions.
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend raises an important point. My own trading standards team in Cornwall, like that in Poole, does an excellent job. In addition to the vital work they do in all our communities, they are supported by national bodies—one for Scotland and one for England and Wales. A lot of this activity is related to organised and serious crime, and these national bodies do make sums of money available for support where we are seeing particular instances of scamming in communities. That national and local working is a very good model.
Following scandals in 2015 that highlighted unacceptable charitable fundraising practices, a new Fundraising Regulator has been established. Chaired by Lord Grade of Yarmouth, this independent regulator is tasked to set high standards of fundraising practice and to deal with public complaints when those standards have been breached. It has a range of sanctions and can refer serious non-compliance or abuse to the relevant statutory regulator.
The scams team has also been working in partnership with Royal Mail and other postal operators, training over 2,000 postmen and women to spot scam letters. Already over 700 vulnerable households have been identified and are getting support. Even more importantly, contracts to carry the mail are being cancelled, stopping the letters from getting to their intended victims in the first place.
Enforcement is important in tackling this crime. That is why the Home Office launched a joint fraud taskforce in February this year. The taskforce includes, among others, the City of London police, the National Crime Agency, Financial Fraud Action UK, the Bank of England, National Trading Standards, CIFAS, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, and Age UK. The taskforce is a good example of the approach we are taking to crime prevention. This is very much the focus of the modern crime prevention strategy the Government published in March this year. Its key themes are about working together to understand the drivers of crimes—why and how they are committed—and then working together to try to stay one step ahead of the criminals to prevent more crimes from happening in the future. The work of the taskforce oversight board is an excellent example of such collaboration, bringing government, law enforcement and industry together in a focused way to develop a clearer and common understanding about the changing nature of fraud and how we can all take action against it.
In its first few months the taskforce has demonstrated that it works. Improved data sharing has led banks to close hundreds of accounts linked to fraud; bank branches in London, alongside the Met and trading standards, are introducing a new fraud intervention, and prolific fraudsters have been arrested since the launch of a new campaign in July.
I can assure hon. Members that the Government regard tackling scamming as a priority, and we will continue to work with national and local partners to address the issues raised today and to do everything we can to prevent the horrendous consequences of the scams we have heard about and to enable more of the good work we have seen.
I want to highlight one extremely good example I came across from Trading Standards Scotland. It funded and co-ordinated a project to install over 200 call-blocking devices in vulnerable consumers’ homes. These devices block 95% of nuisance calls. The impact of preventing scammers from reaching vulnerable and elderly people should not be underestimated. Trading Standards Scotland estimates the resulting saving to individuals and the public purse is between £3,000 and £7,000 per call-blocker.
But really what we are here to do today is to think about the effect on people, and I would like to read a quote from one of the beneficiaries of the scheme that illustrates the true human value. She says:
“I have got my life back. I am nearly 70 and I think how did I let people get me like this? My son is ill and cannot protect me. I have had to get police protection in the past for nuisance calls. Now I can protect myself—it is marvellous. I feel in control. We can sit and have a cup of tea without being disturbed. The dog is even less stressed.”
In conclusion, I repeat my thanks to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull for securing this important debate. I will be listening intently to the contributions of all Members today, and I can assure them of our utter determination to tackle this dreadful criminal activity.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) on securing this debate on a subject I must confess I did not know nearly enough about. But I do know now that my own constituency is affected by scams in the same way as are many other hon. Members’. One of the local police divisions informs me that the main scam taking place there is one that has been referred to in this debate. Crooks pretend to be from the bank and state that unusual activity is happening on the victim’s account. Information is requested, and then a so-called safe account is set up, and the victim is asked to transfer the money to that new account, which, of course, is almost the opposite of safe.
A local officer there, PC Blades, informs me that
“we are talking about large sums of money being taken”,
with an equally large impact on the victim. He also confirms that it seems that
“a lot of fraud activity goes unreported as persons feel ashamed at being caught out with such scams.”
Tragically, as we have heard, this is the picture all across the country, with the average victim being 74, and the average loss £1,000, but with many losing much more, yet only 5% of victims report being scammed to the authorities. I have been astonished to learn about the scale of the problem—the number of people losing out, the financial losses resulting, the range of industries affected, the different types of scam, and the techniques and technologies employed, from vishing to phishing and cold calling to copycat websites.
The only thing that is less of a surprise is the personal distress and misery caused, which Members have eloquently described. I, too, was horrified to read that victims of mass marketing-type fraud in particular are often placed on so-called suckers lists and their details are then sold on to other fraudsters, increasing their risk of becoming a repeat victim. So anything that can be done to clamp down on that practice must be done.
This is all rather depressing reading, so how do we set about that task of preventing scams and bringing perpetrators to justice? We all have a responsibility in raising awareness by highlighting ScamSmart or Know Fraud, by supporting Scorpion or Pension Wise, and by backing campaigns such as scam awareness month and the excellent “Avoiding scams” information leaflet from Age UK. I confess that Action Fraud had barely entered my consciousness until a few months ago. By introducing this debate, hon. Members have made me determined to ensure that as many of my constituents know about it as possible.
The messages that we have to promote are not particularly difficult ones, but they are easy to forget under pressure, particularly for vulnerable people. The first message, which other hon. Members have mentioned, is that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is—certainly if a cold call is involved. I know that we will be returning to that issue next week. Another message is that people should take expert advice, and the local citizens advice bureau will be happy to help. Also, people should not be afraid to doubt someone’s honesty when they are being asked to part with cash. Unfortunately, a lot of people find that difficult.
Julian Knight
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the information from the local citizens advice bureau—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. A load of time has been used already and we have an oversubscribed debate next, so it is unfair to use more time making interventions. Does the hon. Gentleman really need to intervene? I think that he was hoping to speak for two minutes at the end anyway.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The point I was making is that we should encourage vulnerable people not to be scared about doubting someone’s honesty when they are being asked to part with cash. The fact that they are scared to do that is exactly what makes them vulnerable. We must encourage them to see that there is no downside to challenging someone in that way, because honest people will not be upset by such action. We must also encourage people to report any scams. That could help them to see justice being done and perhaps even to gain some redress. It will also help to prevent other people from falling victim to such crimes.
All this awareness raising can take us only so far, however, when the range and sophistication of scamming activity is increasing all the time. It cannot be relied on to protect significant numbers of people in those crucial moments when they are being hounded for their cash. Going beyond awareness raising, the proposals from the organisations to which the Minister referred, including Bournemouth University and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, along with those that we have heard from hon. Members today, all provide powerful pointers for Governments at all levels about what further steps could be taken.
The opt-in procedure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned is an attractive proposition. It could involve placing a 24-hour stop on any significant transaction or group of transactions relating to a vulnerable person’s bank account, during which time a nominated representative could be contacted to provide an opportunity to challenge the transaction. In short, it should be as close to impossible as it can be for a vulnerable person to transfer the entire contents of their account to somewhere else without major questions being asked.
We also need to think about considerably increasing the resources that we invest in tackling this problem, using not only public money but the time and money invested by companies to protect their most vulnerable customers and clients. For my own part, I shall happily sign up to be a “scambassador” and I know that many other hon. Members will do so if they have not already. The fight back against these wicked and callous fraudsters deserves all the support it can get.
Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) for bringing this important debate to the Floor of the House. I am going to focus on scams targeted at the elderly. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on older people and ageing, I hosted the launch of the first report of the Sussex Elders Commission. This was the first listening exercise of its kind for older people, and it received almost 2,500 responses from elderly residents of Sussex about policing, crime and community safety. It asked them about their concerns and what they feared most about staying safe. Their concerns about scamming were profound.
Based on projections from national data, the commission estimated that there could be as many as 13,000 cases of elder abuse in any given year in Sussex alone—two counties with a combined population of only 1.6 million. For example, the commission heard that one man’s elderly brother was dying of cancer and quite frail. He was persuaded to pay £2,000 for essential roof and damp repairs, but the only work completed was some painting over of the damp. A couple aged 85 and 86 were scammed out of £8,000 through a postal scam, and their daughter lost money in the process of trying to recover the funds. Another woman was charged £450 for a minor building repair that was subsequently valued at £30.
Scams targeted at elderly people purposely target vulnerable people. The perpetrators see them as more trusting and less inquisitive. They may be less mobile and more easily cornered. Perhaps they are lonely and isolated, and therefore more welcoming of contact from other people, whether strangers or not. They might just be keener to ensure someone leaves them alone, and therefore more willing to pay a price in order to get rid of them, just because it is easier. Also, some older people might not have all their faculties and might not be aware that they have become a victim of a scam.
The scammers formulate a scheme designed to prey on those characteristics, particularly the vulnerability and isolation of older people. Even worse, they are able to pull this off while the victim is at their own front door, sitting in their living room using their own phone, opening their own post or responding to what seems like a personal email. As a result of the impact of such scamming, one in five older people in Sussex is afraid to answer the phone in their own home. These scams are carried out not only by strangers in far-flung countries or nearby communities, but by members of the victim’s own family, or perhaps by a carer or close friend. An investigation by The Times earlier this year found that adult social services had received allegations of 21,935 cases of theft and fraud against elderly victims in the 12 months to March 2016.
I welcome the Home Office’s creation of a joint fraud taskforce in February this year to develop better solutions to address the increasingly common nature of these types of crime. Age UK is also doing very good work, including in my own county of East Sussex where the average high-risk victim loses £23,000 over a three-month period. It provides support services to victims, with an individual support plan to address their needs, including advice on handling unexpected calls. But as a society we also need to do more to encourage family members to better protect and look after their elderly relatives. For example, investing in hidden cameras for an elderly relative’s home can make it easier for the police to catch regular perpetrators. One of the big issues at the moment is that it is too easy for them to get away with it and repeat the crime. We have heard a lot about call blocking technology, but it is incredibly difficult for older people to install it themselves, so we should urge family members to do that for their elderly relatives.
We have heard about a duty of care, whether on the part of postal workers or of bank staff, and I believe that that should go further. I suggest that scams targeting the elderly be re-categorised as an aggravated crime, because they specifically target a vulnerable person. This could form part of a new type of crime named elder abuse, and I appeal to Members to support my campaign to change the law to recognise this new type of crime. We already treat child abuse as a separate crime, and while I obviously recognise the real differences between physical child abuse and scams against the elderly, both are especially repugnant because they target those least able to defend and protect themselves.
San Diego in America has an official elder abuse prosecution unit. As the Ministry of Justice conducts its review of sentencing, I would strongly encourage it to make elder abuse a priority focus. We should draw on initiatives such as the one in San Diego, where the reporting of elder abuse is mandatory. Referrals follow a checked process which makes it easier to collect evidence and to prosecute, and caseworkers are assigned to any older person who is seen as the victim of abuse or a scam. Anyone who betrays the trust placed in them by the elderly, or who specifically targets the elderly because they are trusting—
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to congratulate and sincerely thank the hon. Members for Solihull (Julian Knight) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this debate today. We have heard already about some atrocious cases of scamming that have affected the most vulnerable in our communities. Scamming in the UK has an average financial detriment per person of more than £1,000, but some victims have been forced to re-mortgage or even sell their homes to cover the cost. I would like to draw the House’s attention to the issue in Wales. From April 2015 to May 2016, 8,774 instances of fraud were reported in Wales, but it is estimated that only 5% of scamming victims report being scammed to authorities, so the reality is far worse.
I would like briefly to highlight one scam that has affected a number of my constituents. Residents have been targeted with an automated voicemail message claiming to be from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and warning of an impending lawsuit. After being asked to press 1 to speak to a caseworker, a person then asks for certain personal details such as national insurance numbers, which are then used to commit fraud. Claiming to be from HMRC is a common tactic used by criminals and, unfortunately, it is often successful. I have had constituents contacting my office in tears, ashamed to have been caught out and unclear as to where to go to report what has happened to them.
Many would argue that scamming is at crisis point in some constituencies, and the crisis will only worsen if it is not given the necessary attention. We have an ageing population, many of whom are living with dementia, which is due to increase in the coming years if we believe health experts, and scammers are deploringly exploiting the condition of many elderly people.
Fraudsters also have new avenues to explore. Statistics from Financial Fraud Action UK show that 58% of people have received suspect calls—an increase from 41% in the previous year. It is difficult to assess the exact extent of scamming because so many victims choose not to report such crimes, but we can say with near certainty that it will increase. The Office for National Statistics predicts a 35% increase in elder abuse by 2030. We must recognise this tremendous problem, and I am glad that the House has had the opportunity to highlight it today. It is our duty not only to draw attention to scamming and its effect on individuals, but to look for the solutions.
Sufficient investment in support for those falling foul of such crimes is crucial. Groups such as trading standards continue to do excellent work, but budget cuts mean that they cannot reach their potential. Call blocking projects across the UK have done wonders to tackle the issue, but they can continue only with sufficient funding. It is unacceptable that, according to the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, there has been a 53% cut in front-line officers at trading standards services since 2009. It cannot be denied that that has contributed to the issue and further cuts will only worsen the situation. The Government must invest not only in services to help the victims of the crimes we are discussing today, but in the police to allow them to raise awareness of the problem.
In the scam in my constituency, South Wales Police worked locally to let people know about the issue through social media, reaching hundreds of thousands of people across the area. The Government must make suggestions about further steps to tackle such criminality and cuts cannot continue without consideration of the consequences. I am glad that Members from both sides of the House are in the Chamber today to discuss the issue, on which there is clearly considerable consensus and common ground, but we cannot ignore the fact that Government cuts have contributed to the dilemma. I urge the Government to examine the issue, in particular the role that cuts are having on the ability of front-line services to tackle the problem.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) on securing this important debate. Like all Members, I have experienced constituents at my surgery tearing their hair out, almost in tears, following scams. If time permits, I want to focus on two particular cases. Both were perpetrated against professional people who did all the appropriate checks, and I want to highlight that they feel let down by the investigatory and regulatory authorities. One couple lost £19,000 as a result of an investment in a carbon offset scheme, and the others lost £38,000. The reality is that if those couples had lost such amounts by having their homes burgled, it is fair to say that they would have had a much more positive response from the police and other authorities and would certainly have had an investigating officer whom they could contact personally.
The first case was reported to ActionFraud, but the correspondence that the couple received amounted to this:
“Please find attached a copy of the Crime report as requested. We advise you to keep this information safe”.
The letter indicated that further advice can be found on ActionFraud’s website and ends:
“Kind regards, Claire”.
That does not inspire much confidence. As the investment was US-based, my constituents, in despair, sought support from US authorities. I must congratulate the New York police department, which actually looked into the matter and came back to them. A Lieutenant Phelan emailed the couple, giving his personal contact details, which was at least a positive and helpful response.
I received an email from those constituents, which reads:
“My reason for writing is that there appears to be very little of a practical nature the UK government is doing to support the victims of this crime.”
Based on what the Minister said, it is fair to say that we are now getting a more positive response, and I point out that this email was written in 2014. It continues:
“We fell victim to the approach of a Wealth Advisory company based in Switzerland at a time when we had a sum of money to invest and were looking for an ethical investment…I did as much research as I could on the company and on this potential investment and found little to deter us despite my misgivings about the cold calling…When I contacted the FCA, they were polite but disinterested. They said they would be in touch with me and asked if I would be willing to give further information…I have heard nothing further…They advised me to contact the local Police…I submitted a report to Action Fraud.”
My constituents were told by the local police that they could not investigate further until ActionFraud referred the matter back to them. They went on to say:
“I appreciate we have been gullible but, if this has happened to us, I have no doubt it has happened and will continue to happen to others.
I wanted you to know about the inadequacies of the support offered to the victims of this particular type of crime.”
The second case involved a familiar scam that used the name of a well-established and reputable organisation, copying its contact details, letterheads and so on, as we heard earlier. Personal contact was made between three supposed investment brokers and my constituents, who became friendly and familiar with them, building up the confidence that they could invest safely and, again, doing all the appropriate checks. However, they were also referred to ActionFraud. I understand from my question at Home Office questions on Monday that ActionFraud is being encouraged to ensure that more referrals go back to the local police force so that action can be taken. I urge the Minister and her colleagues to do what they can to ensure that our police and regulatory authorities take a much more serious approach when people lose their life savings.
To be fair, following my correspondence with ActionFraud, I have been invited to a programme run by the City of London police to inform me of its activities, so I hope that I will be able to report something more positive.
Philip Boswell (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) made mention of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, and I recommend its website to anyone seeking more information. Victims tend to be elderly and therefore less likely to use the web, so we must ensure that all mediums are used to get the message over. I trust that the Minister will take note.
One of my elderly constituents recently told my senior caseworker about an unsolicited call he received from a company claiming that his property’s council tax banding was incorrect and that it could secure him a rebate for a fee of £69.99. It immediately took payment from his debit card over the phone, but—surprise, surprise—my constituent then received a letter from the company stating that it could not secure a rebate. The Lanarkshire joint valuation board, which is responsible for setting the council tax bands, could have checked whether the banding was correct at no charge. Therefore, the “service” offered in the original, unsolicited telephone call was completely unnecessary. I am deeply concerned and further troubled that other vulnerable constituents may be affected by the company and its questionable practices.
My research staff looked into the history of the company, which hid behind office moves and changes of directorship. I wrote to the company, raising my concerns about its business practices and requested a refund for my constituent, but the response was lamentable. My office then reported the situation to the local trading standards team at North Lanarkshire Council, who were extremely helpful. After chasing the company for a refund, they visited my constituent and, after assessing the situation, fitted a telephone screening device to prevent further unsolicited sales calls—exactly one of the devices mentioned by the Minister. Unfortunately, because my constituent used a debit card not a credit card to pay the fee, he was unable to get the money back. Many elderly and vulnerable adults do not have a credit card but, as most of us will know, there is enhanced consumer protection when using one.
Through another case, I have been made aware of a company based in my constituency that has a record of dubious sales practices throughout central Scotland. The company came to my attention when the family of a 79-year-old man, whose wife suffers from dementia, contacted me. The company made an unsolicited visit to the vulnerable couple, offering an external cosmetic service for their home. After taking an initial £800 deposit, the company signed the couple up to nearly £6,000-worth of unnecessary cosmetic work to their home. So keen was it to get the money out of this vulnerable couple that the company did not even check whether they owned the property, which they did not.
Further research into this company shows that they claim to offer a 10-year guarantee, but on closer inspection of their company records a pattern becomes clear. The business practice is to have several companies, with similar names, offering exactly the same services. The directors then fold the company when the heat becomes too great, moving their main business over to one of their many other companies, always with the same two directors in charge. The guarantees are therefore not worth the paper they are written on. That sharp business practice also has a knock-on effect within communities, as it creates reputational risk to other bona fide companies. In an increasingly competitive market, it is difficult for consumers to work out which companies are trustworthy and which are untrustworthy. Unfortunately, many consumers believe that a 10-year guarantee shows that a company is trustworthy, but in the case of this company, nothing could be further from the truth. I also feel for the staff employed by such charlatans, as they, too, may be unaware that the business is built on sand.
I therefore fully support the hon. Member for Solihull and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on this, and urge the Minister to show the leadership needed to co-ordinate a strong, public service response to these despicable practices.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this important debate. Financial scamming and fraud has a devastating impact on the elderly and the vulnerable, and we have heard today, from Members on both sides of the House, stories of both financial loss and the incredible mental distress caused to people, many of whom are among the most vulnerable in our society. Each of us will have constituents who have lost significant sums of money to scams, with many falling victim because they are too trusting, because they underestimate the maliciousness of those who perpetrate these crimes or because they are subjected to a continual bombardment of nuisance calls and, in desperation, give in.
Scammers are highly organised, predatory and exploitative. Yesterday the Stockport Express, my local paper, reported that so far this year almost 300 people have fallen victim to fraud as a result of cyber-fraud, nuisance calls and bogus traders. In my constituency, trading standards have warned of a recent scam where constituents receive a call claiming they have paid excessive council tax and are encouraged to part with personal banking details in order to gain a refund. Victims cannot even trust the numbers on their phones to be genuine any more, as highlighted on last night’s BBC1 programme “Rip Off Britain”. This shocking new scam allows fraudsters, with the aid of a simple mobile phone app, to phone victims under a number that appears to be genuine—like a bank’s—and helps persuade them to part with sometimes large sums of money. This type of crime is becoming even more sophisticated as criminals are able to “ghost” phone numbers and hijack genuine phone numbers, so they appear legitimate. It is important that we continue to take steps to address these new types of fraud, as and when they appear.
People who are ill, isolated or lonely are particularly affected by these types of crimes, as the internet or phone line may be their only link to the outside world. Leaving aside the financial loss, their feeling of safety in their own homes is undermined, and they often become more isolated and distrusting. I welcome the initiatives that have been put in place to tackle this type of crime, such as setting up the joint fraud taskforce earlier this year, and I look forward to hearing about its achievements and the actions that have been taken to identify intelligence gaps and vulnerabilities. I am pleased that there will be a better co-ordinated approach to the sharing of intelligence between banks and law enforcement agencies, which will address areas currently exploited by fraudsters. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in due course what progress has been made in the few months it has been established. It is vital that we raise awareness about this important issue, so that those most at risk can spot scams and protect themselves. I welcome the work of groups such as the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and its “scambassadors” programme, which I support.
I want to take some time to address the language of scams, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull. The word “scam” implies an idea of culpability or negligence on behalf of the victim, and may change how people view the nature of the crime committed against them. We say that people have been “scammed”, “conned” and “cheated”, but overwhelming these people should be described as what they are: good, honest people who are the victims of the most heartless fraudulent crime. As a result, the probability that the fraud will be reported decreases, as the victim feels embarrassed, ashamed and guilty.
Finally, I just wanted to mention the importance of a long-term strategy. The elderly as a demographic group is increasing in size year on year. That, combined with changes in pensions drawdown handing capital to people earlier, means that the severity of this, and the necessity for greater protection and awareness, is more profound. Therefore, as we prepare for an ageing population that has greater access to capital in an ever-evolving technology-dominated industry, we must ensure that the most vulnerable in society receive the appropriate support and assistance to protect them from falling victim to these devastating crimes.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Dishonest individuals have always sought to deceive and to take advantage of the most vulnerable in society. Sadly, as our world has increasingly moved online, transforming the way we communicate, do business and live so much of our lives, many fraudsters have used the same technologies to increase their activity and come up with ever more elaborate ways of defrauding vulnerable people. Action Fraud estimates that about 70% of fraud is either conducted online or is cyber-enabled. For most of us, casework relating to scams probably makes up a relatively small amount of our postbag and email inboxes, but that does not mean that this is not a sizeable problem. Clearly, many of the people most at risk of fraud and scams are also among the least likely to come forward to their MPs or to the police and other agencies.
Sadly, I do not need to speculate on this matter, as shortly before I was elected a member of my family received a letter that was apparently from the Serious Fraud Office and that said—this is ironic—that it needed help to catch some serious fraudsters. There was a telephone number supplied, which, when rung, gave details. Unsurprisingly, what was needed was some money to be transferred into an account, which could then be used as some kind of “trap” for the “fraudster”. Unfortunately, my relative wanted to help the authorities and so transferred the money. Of course, there was then another call saying, “Thank you very much for that. We just need that bit more money.” This went on until, fortunately, the one time she went into a post office branch the lady behind the counter, who knew my relative and knew that this was not normal conduct, contacted another relative with her concerns. So this was finally stopped, but only after several thousand pounds had been lost—it still cannot be recovered. More importantly, this has left my relative, who has always been a proud, intelligent and independent person, seeing herself as clumsy and being embarrassed; she feels stupid to have been taken in in such a way.
We, as a must society, must play our part in protecting the most vulnerable, and that includes protecting them against fraudsters, online and otherwise; local authorities, the police and politically and technologically savvy members of our communities must be involved in this. I was heartened to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister authorise the expansion of police volunteer roles, so that individuals with digital skills are able to support police digital investigations by providing the technical expertise to cyber and digital units. That scheme has been piloted in Hampshire and Gloucestershire, and I hope to see it expanded much more widely around the country.
There is much more that can be done in partnership with financial services to trace these criminals. We are all familiar with the necessary anti-money laundering regulations. For anyone wanting to set up a current account or to change signatories on a voluntary organisation’s bank account, navigating the endless paperwork can feel like an interminable process, and yet it is apparently impossible in many of these cases to trace the bank accounts into which these transfers have been made. It is even less likely that any of those moneys will ever be recovered. Surely, it is not beyond the wit of man or of the people running these financial institutions to do much more to enable those accounts to be traced. It is simply not acceptable that victims and vulnerable people are left scared in their own homes. Online threats have changed, and the way that we respond to them must change so that we can protect vulnerable people in our communities.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I wish to congratulate the hon. Members for Solihull (Julian Knight) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this most important debate. I also pay tribute to all those who have spoken today as their contributions have helped us to discuss this very important issue.
Scamming is an increasing problem in our communities, mostly targeting the elderly and vulnerable. The average age of a scam victim is 74. Given that the Office for National Statistics predicts that the number of elderly people in our communities will increase considerably to more than 15 million by 2030, the potential number of scamming victims is likely to increase as well.
It is not only the financial loss that causes pain, but the severe psychological and emotional wounds that can take considerable time to heal. Victims will inevitably suffer financial loss, and very often depression or even relationship breakdowns. What is terrifying is that, potentially, a third of all victims of scams will fall prey to another scam within 12 months.
Mass-mail scams alone cost the UK consumer between £1 billion and £5 billion every year, with an average loss per person of £1,000. It has been known for victims to lose up to £1 million of their savings. This week, a gentleman told a drop-in for scam awareness that he had lost his home to a scammer. There are more than 190 trading standards services across the UK, each working to tackle scams in their area. However, cutbacks and budget pressures mean that the number of officers working on the frontline has fallen by 53% since 2009. Some service areas are running with fewer than one professionally trained member of staff.
The current budget for trading standards services across the UK equates to just £1.99 per person per year. These local teams are in place to step in when a victim of a financial scam is identified and to work with the police to help bring justice. However, the fact that only 5% of victims report crimes, often due to embarrassment, means that criminals continue to scam vulnerable people of their savings with little consequence.
The National Trading Standards scams team was founded in 2012 and identifies vulnerable individuals to the local authority teams by using captured criminal databases. The team shares a £13 million target along with other financial crime teams, which is shockingly low when we consider that financial scammers cost UK consumers between £5 billion and £10 billion every year. National Trading Standards could tackle this issue more effectively in partnership with other Government agencies, such as adult social care and the police, by sharing intelligence and safeguarding victims. However, both bodies are experiencing their own limits on resources, reducing the opportunity for partnership with National Trading Standards. Safeguards against scams, harm and abuse need to be an integral part of care and support. This is a perfect example of this Government cutting funding to vital services, which has a detrimental effect on the public.
A vital tool in combating financial scams is consumer awareness. Many websites sell direct marketing leads to any purchaser without restriction. Many websites allow people to purchase lists of personal details for “market research”. However, those people do not necessarily have to represent a business to use them. One such site that I identified was Targets Located, which has a top 10 of people to be scammed. Disabled car buyers is at No. 1, with 390,000 people receiving the high rate mobility component of DLA—they are ripe for the picking. Second is high-stake shareholders. The third place belongs to people who regularly donate to charity. Such sites are making sure that, for a small fee, people can acquire the personal details of the most vulnerable people in our society. Regulation on the sale of personal data would dramatically reduce the number of vulnerable people falling victim to financial scams.
To tackle the issue of scamming, the Government seriously need to review police funding. Police resources are already suffering as a result of police budgets decreasing year on year. Should that be allowed to continue, we will see more scams being carried out in all our communities. Co-operation between trading standards and the police is vital but it can only happen if both services are given the funding for resources that they so desperately need. We have a moral responsibility to protect the elderly and vulnerable in our society. We must ensure that the resources to do that are made available to the professionals who have the skills to best offer this protection.
Julian Knight
I thank all Members for their contributions to this debate. The variety of stories and concerns highlights the fact that this subject touches so many of our constituents, and, in some instances, our immediate families. I welcome the Minister to her place and her commitment to focus the Government on tackling this most cruel and silent of crimes. This issue concerns not just Government, but private firms, the third sector and the wider society in general. Fraud will always be there, but we can make it harder for those involved if we act together.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that the elderly and vulnerable are a high-risk group from having harm done to their financial, emotional and psychological wellbeing from criminals who target them with scam calls, post and visits; praises the work that trading standards bodies do to combat scams; calls on financial institutions and the communications industry to put in place mechanisms to protect potential victims from scams; further calls on the Government to recognise the threat from scams to victims’ ability to live independently; draws attention to the measures proposed by Bournemouth University, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and National Trading Standards Scams Team on financial harm as useful first steps in tackling such scams; and calls on the Government to make suggestions on further steps to tackle such criminality.
Fourth Industrial Revolution
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House acknowledges that the UK is in a strong economic position to take advantage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution; welcomes the view of the World Economic Forum that fusing physical, digital and biological technologies can promote further economic growth; notes that small and medium-sized businesses across the country contribute invaluable expertise and market leadership; and calls upon the Government to continue introducing and supporting policies that keep the UK at the forefront of this revolution in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) and other Members across the House for supporting my application for the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to bring the motion before the House. I believe that this is the first time that the topic has been debated in the Chamber.
Two hundred and fifty years ago, the world’s first industrial revolution began here in Britain. New engines driven by coal and steam made manufactured goods and allowed them to be transported across the country on new railways, roads, bridges and viaducts, heralding a new era of British industrial strength.
Now, 250 years later, after two further industrial ages, driven first by electricity and then by electronics and the internet, we stand on the cusp of a new, fourth, industrial revolution. Since the turn of the century, we have witnessed an unprecedented fusion of technologies that blurs the traditional boundaries between the physical, digital and biological spheres. This fourth industrial revolution is now accelerating, characterised by an exponential increase in automation, digital connectivity and technological innovation. Breakthroughs and new products in fields such as artificial intelligence, advanced robotics, the internet of things, driverless cars, drones, 3D printing and nanotechnology, to name but a few, have captured the imagination of the public and the attention of policymakers.
This revolution offers significant economic growth and productivity advantages to the countries that seize those corresponding opportunities, as well as new jobs, lower prices, more competition and greater product choice for consumers. These technological advances will also disrupt almost every industry in every country and pose profound economic, political and social challenges, especially to countries and communities that are unprepared or unresponsive.
At the global level, the World Economic Forum has taken the lead in exploring this issue. Indeed, the 4IR, as it has become known, was the theme at its annual meeting this year in Davos. At a national level, however, we in this House have a key role to play by leading the debate, understanding the opportunities and challenges, and making the 4IR a success for Britain. The fact that we have a new Government Department and new Minister recently in place, and a new industrial strategy, makes today’s debate all the more timely and relevant.
My view on the issue is clear. Britain is in a global race for economic success and we must actively seize the opportunities presented by the 4IR to drive economic growth, proactively shaping and harnessing the technological and social changes that it brings for the nation’s benefit. Britain can and should develop an early economic comparative advantage to become a world leader in the new 4IR global economy, but to do this, we must take a proactive, free market approach to policy formulation, and prepare for the impact of disruptive technologies, not just react to them. Put simply, we must make mastering the new 4IR a key part of the Government’s industrial strategy. Just as Britain launched the first industrial revolution 250 years ago, it can and must lead the new 4IR in this new century.
To understand the scale of the innovation that is taking place on a practical level, we should consider for a moment some of the new products and services that are already transforming the way we live and work. The 4IR’s key technological advances are pervasive digital connectivity, widespread automation, and advanced computer software based on machine learning and artificial intelligence techniques. All these give rise to a range of economically disruptive products and services, including driverless vehicles, robotic manufacturing and 3D printing. This shift from the simple digitisation of information that is so characteristic of the third industrial revolution to a fusion of technologies that will help businesses, streamline production, lower costs and deliver new products is truly revolutionary.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Well done to my hon. Friend and county colleague for securing the debate. I recognise the technologies that he said underpinned the fourth industrial revolution, but does he agree that other technologies will revolutionise our lives, not least synthetic biology, in which we are a world leader? Will he support me in encouraging the Government and the Minister to revive the vigour that is needed for the eight great technologies policy, which the Government adopted not four years ago?
Mr Mak
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that he has a long record of passionate activity in this field. I certainly support him in his aims, and look forward to working with him on that. I will mention those technologies later in my speech. What he said reflects the transition from the digitisation of information to the real fusion of technologies, whether biological, physical or digital. For example, it is already conceivable that entire factories could become automated, requiring only a constant supply of energy and raw materials in order to operate 24 hours a day. That certainly affects the biotech sector as well.
Similarly, the 4IR is already blurring the lines between manufacturing and the service sector as networked products make life easier for consumers. For example, smart boilers that monitor themselves to detect faults, call an engineer and even pre-order spare parts are already making their way into the consumer market.
This fast-moving and innovative environment to which my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) referred also presents opportunities for Britain’s small and medium-sized enterprises, which are often the most nimble when it comes to job creation and launching new products. An excellent example comes from my Havant constituency, where local start-up Dream 3D is getting a head start in the 4IR economy by selling 3D printers and providing training about how to use them. The founder James Preen and his growing team have seized the opportunities presented by the 4IR to create new jobs in a new industry, selling new products and generating new wealth.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I praise my hon. Friend for securing this extremely important debate. I suspect that we will come back to this subject many times in the coming decades, if not centuries.
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the important things that we in the House need to begin to think about is a change to patent law? The UK has the principle that the first to file secures the rights. On that point about SMEs, does he agree that “first to invent” is surely the best way for securing a patent? If there is a wait for the first to file, we give an advantage to large companies that can afford to file many patents.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Tugendhat, interventions are meant to be short. If you want to make a speech, I will put you on the list, but keep interventions short.
Mr Mak
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) makes a strong case. A strong legal regime, especially in respect of intellectual property, is certainly key to making Britain a world leader in the 4IR. I thank him for making that point, which is one that Dream 3D, the business in my constituency, is very well aware of. Its success has been predicated on protecting the work that it has produced. It is no surprise that its clients already include Rolls-Royce, Land Rover and Pinewood Studios. That said, larger businesses of the sort that my hon. Friend also mentioned can bring scale and expertise to innovative processes. Havant-based defence contractor Lockheed Martin, for example, has used its big data expertise to develop a new system called Mailmark that helps Royal Mail to track parcels more efficiently as the e-commerce economy grows.
It is clear that by embracing these new disruptive 4IR technologies, we can create new jobs, deliver new services and generate new economic growth. It is also clear that the countries that are best able to take advantage of the 4IR are those with nimble free market economies, low taxes and a competitive regulatory environment. I hope that the Minister, who I congratulate on his appointment, will confirm that the Government will continue to focus on pro-enterprise policies that will make Britain a world leader when it comes to starting and growing a business, particularly in the new 4IR economy.
I can offer three suggestions as the Minister and his new colleagues develop our new industrial strategy. First, the economic benefits of the 4IR must be shared throughout the country and not just concentrated in London or the south-east. Regional investment funds for 4IR technologies should therefore be made available to promote regional hubs that will stimulate growth and innovation outside the M25. I see local enterprise partnerships as key partners and potential funders in this process.
Secondly, Government should use their procurement power to buy British when it comes to 4IR products. Advanced economies such as Israel already play a key role in helping new sectors to develop, and our Government should do the same. Finally, Britain must continue to invest in its digital infrastructure, which is as essential today for our future economy as railways were in the age of steam. This should include a new phase of the fibre optic broadband rollout and 5G mobile internet. I commend those suggestions to the Minister, and draw his attention to a forthcoming report from the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Free Enterprise group of Conservative MPs, which will set out more.
We should be clear that, while the 4IR will certainly bring economic benefits, it will also cause societal challenges, but by shaping the way in which the 4IR evolves, we can tackle these issues head on. For example, as automation increasingly substitutes for human labour, the displacement of workers by machines could result in short-term unemployment, especially in low-skill or low-wage sectors of the economy. The Government certainly have a role to play in dampening the downside effects of the 4IR, principally by bridging the gap between short-term unemployment and long-term prosperity, primarily through welfare, education and training policies.
We should be clear that the technology that I have talked about and the disruption that it may bring is not an external force over which we have no control. All of us in this House have a duty to be responsible and to help guide its evolution, so while Britain must grasp the opportunities of the 4IR, we must also shape and direct it to reflect a future and economy that involves our common objectives and shared values.
As the fourth industrial revolution gathers pace, we in Britain should embrace it, encourage its growth, harness its benefits and shape its evolution. We must act now to ensure that our political and economic structures are fit for purpose. From continued investment in digital infrastructure to reform of our welfare and education policies, the Government have a key role to play. At the same time, we must address the 4IR’s shortcomings, making sure that no one is left behind as we reshape our economy and society. This new industrial revolution must consist not of changes that happen to us, but changes that work for us all.
Throughout our history, Britain has adopted a pro-innovation approach to technological developments from farming mechanisation to domestic labour-saving devices. We have never allowed fears about the future to stunt our economic or social progress. We soon realised, for example, the folly of requiring early cars to be preceded by a man carrying a red flag, and we must adopt the same forward thinking, pro-innovation approach when it comes to the 4IR because here in Britain we reach for the future rather than just yearn for the past.
Just as before, the new wave of technological change can bring about substantial benefits from greater productivity, new jobs and lower production costs, to more choice for consumers through new goods and services. I hope that the Government will take that proactive and positive approach by placing the fourth industrial revolution at the heart of its new industrial strategy. In doing so, we can usher in a new manufacturing renaissance, launch a new industrial era built on high-quality innovation and, above all, give Britain the head start it deserves in the global race for success.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I suggest to Members that they speak for up to 10 minutes? Let us try and ensure that everybody gets the same amount of time.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Being called second to speak in a debate is a new experience for me; it feels like going to the airport and being upgraded.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr Mak) for including me in the discussion that led to this debate and for allowing me to second the motion, which is a privilege. He spoke brilliantly. As we listened to him, we realised how exciting and exhilarating the idea of a fourth industrial revolution is.
There is one aspect of this revolution that should have every decision maker in our economy on high alert: the rapidity with which it is occurring. The fourth industrial revolution will sweep through our economy in a matter of years, rather than the centuries it took the previous industrial revolutions to unfold. Sadly, we have been fed a diet of automated cars and drones to deliver our groceries, which to those of us of a certain age has a certain “Tomorrow’s World” feeling about it. The truth is that this revolution is already under way. Consumers are already controlling their home heating and security with their mobile phones. People’s hand-held devices are controlling real-world events via the cloud. That is happening today, but we have barely crossed the start line in this race.
Microsoft alone is investing £5 billion in capital expenses worldwide to build data centre infrastructure, which gives us an idea of the scale of the transformation that is yet to come. Advances in nanotechnology, 3D printing and renewable energy are opening up a multiplicity of opportunities for medical, academic and industrial research. Our universities are rising to the challenge. Next year, for example, the University of Sussex will open a new £10 million centre for computing, robotic electronics and mechatronics. I would welcome an intervention from the hon. Member for Havant to tell me what “mechatronics” means; perhaps we can visit the University of Sussex and discover that together.
Although many of these new trends will be powerful enough to break through regardless of market conditions, there are several barriers that will need to be dealt with. The private sector will need to tackle the threat of data security. Cyber threats pose a real-world problem to those who have been affected by them and a psychological barrier to those who have not. The private sector must also invest in management skills to ensure that their businesses can be effectively led through this change. They must put aside the territorial needs of their business to ensure that the technologies work across platforms and geographical areas.
There are challenges that Governments must be active in supporting our economy to overcome. One is the infrastructure for the future economy—the internet. Internet speeds are increasing, but consumers and commerce will need reliability as well as speed. The biggest challenge that we must overcome is that of making sure that the next generation is equipped with the skills to contribute collectively to our economy of the future and personally thrive in it. There is a danger that the rate of change in our economy will not be matched by the ability to produce and retain the skills that are needed.
I am a supporter of the Government’s apprenticeship levy, but it is being rolled out too fast to ensure that the benefits reach all parts of our economy. Nowhere is that more acute than in the technology sector. Here, post-16 training is too late. Training needs to happen before 16, and preferably from primary school upwards, if we are to develop the programming skills and high levels of creative thinking that are needed by cutting-edge technology firms. Forcing large technology companies to pay for post-16 skills development could have the perverse effect of forcing them to divert funding away from pre-16 investment in schools and to end up recruiting from abroad.
The key goal is to equip our students and young people with the social, creative and academic skills that they will need in a fast-evolving economy. To date, this has not been achieved. I agree with the former Tory Minister, Lord Baker, when he says that the back-to-basics approach to the curriculum is preventing the social and creative development that we need. In a report for the Edge Foundation, which he chairs, he says:
“The government’s White Paper has a firm commitment for students to focus on seven academic subjects at GCSE – English language, English literature, maths, two sciences, a modern or ancient language, geography or history, plus probably a third science. This is word-for-word the curriculum laid down by the Education Act of 1904, though it added three subjects – drawing, cooking for girls, and carpentry or metalwork for boys.”
I have no doubt that had the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) remained as Education Secretary for just one more week, we would have had those three subjects on the curriculum as well.
The report goes on to say:
“We should not go back to a 19th century diet of academic subjects for all. All young people should make and do things as part of a broad and balanced curriculum.”
Emotional intelligence will be as important to the future economy of our country as academic intelligence has been in the past. According to the Manufacturers Organisation, the EEF, staff skills are the No. 1 need of manufacturers. It is important to remember that the fourth industrial revolution is not only about the digital; it is also about manufacturing. Britain must have confidence as we move into this next stage of our economic life, and accept that we have the same potential to “make things” as we did in the first industrial revolution.
It was 30 years ago today that Margaret Thatcher opened the Nissan factory in Sunderland. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I pause to allow those on the Government Benches to celebrate. Back then, people thought our automotive industry was on its last legs. Now we know that it is one of the most advanced and successful in the world. Thirty years ago car doors closed with a loud clunk; today they do so with a soft click. That is because of the huge effort and expense that go into innovation and material design in our country and explains why this part of our economy can and must work in tandem with, not apart from, the revolution that is unfolding.
The manufacturing sector will contribute to and benefit from the fourth industrial revolution. It has a lot to offer and a lot to gain. The progress made by Jaguar Land Rover and Nissan since the 1980s shows what can be achieved in Britain’s foundation industries, including the use of metals and materials. This has the potential to benefit our new economy massively. From steel to ceramics, coatings and Graphene, this £200 billion sector has the potential to provide the innovation and materials that are strong and light enough to make the robotic dreams of tomorrow a reality. I sense my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) twitching at the mention of ceramics, and I will be listening out for her contribution shortly.
However, this sector is omitted from the Government’s catapult centres, even though the potential for them to integrate with the technology sector is enormous. I hope the Minister will listen to the voices in this sector and play an active part in bridging any gaps there may be between the manufacturing and the technological sectors of the fourth industrial revolution. The benefits to this sector from the unfolding revolution are clear. Supply chains and production lines will move towards a system with end-to-end autonomous decision making by machines, continuous demand sensing, and better use of resources. In short, there will be less error, more efficiency and higher productivity.
Finally, I move to the other end of our economy, because this revolution will impact on the self-employed as well as the tech giants and the manufacturers. Between 2000 and 2015, the number of British people working alone rose by 73%. The largest growth has been in the service sector, primarily supplying education, health and business services. The fourth industrial revolution will transform these people’s connection, virtualisation, and cloud computing experiences. Huge power that has been available only to large companies and public sector departments will now be readily available to individuals. One person with the right skills and imagination will have the power and capacity to make a transformational impact in the economy of the future.
The challenge that we face is to make sure that this power is available to everyone from whatever background. I do not believe that entrepreneurial spirit was a gift to the middle classes; I believe it was a gift to humanity. But unless we equip every young person with the right skills, many will find the door to modern life and all its wonders slammed in their face. The time to ensure that that does not happen is now.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
May I, too, start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak) on securing this important debate? May I also say how delighted I am to follow the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle)? I thank him, as a colleague on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, for yet another excellent contribution.
Industry 4.0—we all call it different things—is an extremely dynamic prospect and something that the UK must fully embrace in the years to come. I do not know whether we can talk about centuries to come, as my hon. Friend did earlier, but I know what he was trying to say. As the co-chair of the all-party group on manufacturing, I appreciate the importance of raising awareness of this topic, and this debate gives us a great opportunity to do so.
In my intervention in business questions this morning, I was pleased to be encouraged by the Leader of the House to raise the issue of industrial strategy with the Backbench Business Committee, and I hope my hon. Friend will join me in making that application.
Using technology to aid production is clearly not a new idea, but the advancement of digital and machinery in the last decade has brought to light the concept of this industrial revolution. The first saw the Victorians rapidly improving their wealth and their economic outlook, and we must not underestimate the ability of state-of-the-art systems to change and have a similar impact on the way we do things now. A particular point to stress is that other nations are advancing on this issue, and that is why we must keep up. Countries such as Japan and Germany are already understanding the benefits of these technologies, and we cannot allow them to have this window to themselves.
Through-life engineering services are one way in which we can help innovation to flourish in the UK. The aims of TES are to improve the availability, predictability and reliability of complex engineering products, to deliver the lowest possible whole-life cost. This is an area where we can take the lead. I recently spoke at the launch of the new TES national strategy, and such a focus on improving the design of systems is an important way forward.
More broadly, we need to act now to compete internationally. The adoption of cyber-physical systems that are able to collect data, provide insights and be used on a large scale in heavy industries is vital for the UK manufacturing sector moving forward. Machines using self-optimisation and self-configuration allow complex tasks to be completed in a way that dramatically increases cost efficiencies and delivers better quality.
The potential is obviously immense. Businesses will be able to streamline production, reduce waste, conduct rapid prototyping, exploit new business models and dynamically engage with customers in real time. A European Parliament briefing paper estimates that improvements in efficiencies of between 6% and 8% can be achieved and that, in Germany alone, industry 4.0 will add 1% of GDP to the economy.
One of the recurring themes from meetings of the all-party group is the need to plug the skills gap. As mentioned in the group’s submission to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee’s inquiry into the productivity plan, the current level of skills in the UK is inadequate for the future success of manufacturing. Satisfying this need for high-level skills is vital for productivity and can be done in a number of ways. Firms need to invest in increasing capacity, and the flow of talented individuals into the workforce must be continuous, with apprenticeships a notable factor in making that difference. Industry 4.0 and its associated benefits are a way of speeding up that process and improving the outlook in terms of our skills shortage. I hope the Government can enhance their support in that regard.
The backing of the UK catapult centres is proving extremely successful. The Digital Economy Bill, which seeks to improve our digital infrastructure, is an encouraging indication of the Government’s commitment, but we should continue to look at all possibilities to secure the UK’s role as a leading research nation. Investment in R and D will encourage new production in the UK, as well as further reshoring. R and D tax credits have been a major boost, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Another recurring theme in discussing the future of manufacturing is the reshoring of production and the significant impact this has on the sector and the national economy as a whole. In enhancing our efforts, an increase in intelligent automation can be a significant driver of economic growth. With such a significant change, new business models should be analysed, and the adoption of the concept of industry 4.0 fully considered. The significant investment needed may hinder small and medium-sized businesses in the medium term, considering the high level of funding needed to pursue such systems.
There are also issues of data protection. With such technologies, the large volume of data used in production will obviously be sensitive. If competitors were to access the information gathered by smart machinery, profits could be squeezed. It is therefore imperative that legislation around data protection is tight before businesses can be confident about changing their business models.
To name just one more challenge that I see in the digitisation of the market, there is a concern that our talent pool will lack the necessary skills to operate machinery encompassed by the concept of industry 4.0. It is generally accepted that there is a shortage of experts in information and communications technology, and that may be more pronounced in terms of the need for cyber-security and the transfer of big data.
If we are to push forward with industry 4.0, we need to ensure that the whole system, including education and apprenticeships, works in harmony to provide the necessary skills. The industrial strategy is particularly relevant in that respect.
It is therefore clear that we have an incredible opportunity to rapidly advance manufacturing in the UK, and this debate is an excellent way of kick-starting the discussion around how we go about embracing these new technologies and how we overcome the challenges involved in doing so.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
It is impossible to be from Inverclyde and not to reference the lessons of history when talking about how we can best implement new technologies in our economy. I hope other Members will forgive me for indulging in a short history lesson, but without Greenock-born James Watt we would not be talking about a first industrial revolution, never mind a fourth.
Many Members will be aware that Inverclyde was once a world leader in technological innovation. For hundreds of years we led the way in shipbuilding innovation, with ships such as the Port Glasgow-built PS Comet, which operated the first commercially successful steamboat service in Europe. That technological innovation created thousands of jobs and led to a massive increase in manufacturing production.
Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries Inverclyde’s shipyards remained world-leading innovators, building the advanced warships of the day and the most cost-effective merchant vessels, which expanded our influence in the world. It was an imperfect industry, but people could take pride in their work, and we can declare without hesitation that this was an integral part of Scotland’s story as a nation.
In the 1980s the UK Government withdrew public funding for shipbuilding. The subsequent collapse of the industry meant that, by 1986, Greenock and Port Glasgow’s male unemployment rate had risen to 26%. The UK Government told us the private sector would create jobs where publicly supported industries had failed. I will concede they were partially correct about that—a McDonald’s restaurant is now situated where the walls of the Scott Lithgow shipyard once stood.
In 1988 Margaret Thatcher visited Greenock’s IBM plant to highlight how we would transition to new industries and lead the way in an electronics revolution. However, the revolution has been short-lived, and IBM will permanently end its involvement with the Spango Valley site in Greenock later this month. The first three industrial revolutions brought success to Inverclyde, yet they ultimately ended with periods of rapid decline. These eras created wealth for factory owners and multinational technology companies, but too often the workers were left to pick up the pieces when these industries ended. As a result, Inverclyde now suffers from a high rate of depopulation, and the remaining local businesses and public services are struggling to survive under the long shadow of those historical failures.
The point of that history lesson is this: Inverclyde shows us that technological innovation will never reach its full potential if it lacks a social conscience. The motion before us states that
“the UK is a in a strong economic position to take advantage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution”.
In my constituency, we have not yet resolved the issues arising from the decline of the previous technological ages. Undoubtedly the fourth industrial revolution can be part of the solution, as long as constituencies such as mine receive adequate levels of support; otherwise, this innovation will only reinforce inequality as the more developed parts of the economy continue to benefit the most from rapid technological advances. The UK Government have an obligation to offer more assistance to Inverclyde, given their catastrophic failures of the past. The Government took extraordinary measures to destroy industry in Inverclyde; I would now like them to take extraordinary measures to help us take advantage of the fourth industrial revolution.
Renewable energy will be a major component of Scotland’s future technological innovation. Inverclyde would be well placed to take advantage of these developments. Inverclyde is one of the few areas with the geography to utilise nearly all forms of renewable energy. We have a coastline and can therefore contribute to tidal power, and we have enough rural space and hills to facilitate wind farms. The burns that run off those hills can power hydro schemes, as they did in the past, and while solar will never fulfil all our requirements, it could be a valuable contributor. Further, we are already a producer of biomass fuels, and wood chips produced in Inverclyde are being used all over Scotland. Inverclyde has a large amount of unused industrial land, and these sites could be centres of manufacturing once again, while our port facilities mean that we are able easily to export the completed products to their required destinations. Every renewables business that we establish would result in associated benefits for suppliers and other local businesses.
While I welcome the UK Government’s decision to bring industry strategy back on to the policy-making agenda, I fear they will not prioritise the needs of constituencies such as Inverclyde. Where the UK Government do have power, we are witnessing a lack of vision. Renewables could transform Inverclyde, yet policy decisions made here in London are stifling the industry’s potential. The UK Government have shown a complete lack of foresight in withdrawing much of the financial support that was available for the renewables sector, so not only are the UK Government the chief architect of a social and economic disaster in the west of Scotland, but they are actively damaging industries that could make the area vibrant once again. The fourth industrial revolution promises us so much—“smart” manufacturing, increasingly integrated technologies, and even white goods and household appliances that connect to the internet—but what my constituents are really asking for is employment: not low-level, poorly paid jobs, but skilled, high-value employment that will boost other businesses and educational institutions in the area.
The industrial revolution failed to lift the landed poor out of poverty. It created vast amounts of wealth, but increasingly that wealth is being accumulated in a smaller and smaller section of society. I want the UK Government to demonstrate two things: first, how they plan on driving forward the fourth industrial revolution; and secondly, how this technology will be used to benefit the social and economic situation of everyone in society. With an astute eye for the future, the fourth industrial revolution could lead to a period of unrivalled prosperity for this country, but without the Government’s stewardship, these new technologies will only reinforce social, gender and regional inequalities.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber yesterday afternoon when I spoke in the climate change debate, so I thought I would inform him that through employing some of these new technologies, Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust in London has been able to install in a hospital a combined heat and power system that saves it £2 million a year on its operating costs. It has done that not through Government promotion but because the technology is there and it has sought to adopt it, and it is doing immediate good for that public service.
Ronnie Cowan
I have wonderful examples of the same thing in my own constituency. Biomass fuel heating is a fantastic innovation if used properly. At the same time, the Government are reducing tariffs on various sorts of wind energy and solar power. It is part of the whole mix if we are going to get this right.
I want to see a fairer and more prosperous society that has employment and opportunities for our young people. Without this sense of progress and social justice, technological advancement will only work against those that need the most assistance. It is time for the UK Government to show how their industrial strategy will benefit working people—and if they are unwilling to do so, transfer the powers to Scotland and let us get on with the job.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Speaking twice in 25 hours is a record for me, and I am grateful for the opportunity. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak), who has secured a worthwhile debate and opened it brilliantly. I apologise for being late, but I was working on the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s paper on renewable heat and transport targets, which will be released this evening. I commend it to the House: it is probably one of the most insightful Select Committee reports that Members will read all year. Indeed, all of our Committee’s reports are insightful.
In summing up yesterday’s debate, the Minister used some fantastic theatrical references, which I hope will become a tradition of his summing-up speeches. He has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the theatre, so we look forward to that. Today, I present, to use my own theatrical reference, the second part of my play in two parts, in which I will talk about the energy opportunities provided by the collision of emerging technologies and our existing energy infrastructure.
There is some dispute over whether this is the third or fourth industrial revolution. A book by Professor Jeremy Rifkin has become a bit of a bible for me, as I have sought to develop my thinking on how energy policy might evolve. He thinks that this is the third industrial revolution, but none the less it is an excellent read that very much pulls in the same direction as those who are advocating the fourth industrial revolution.
Ministers will already have looked in great detail at the National Infrastructure Commission’s “Smart Power” report, which is a fantastic publication setting out how we can harness all these wonderful technologies as we digitise the energy system. The reality, as the report observes, is that we could save £8 billion a year for the UK economy if we digitise our energy system and harness those technologies. That figure represents not just immediate savings on our energy bills, but gains in productivity.
Nicola Shaw, the head of National Grid, told the BBC “Today” programme last week that we are seeing
“a smart energy revolution across the country with consumption adjustments reflecting when energy is cheapest”.
The idea that we have to change our consumption habits to meet a changing energy market sounds like a nightmare to most people, but the reality is that we already have many of the technologies in our homes. Most major white goods manufacturers are producing smart appliances already: they are in our shops and, probably unknowingly, we already have them in our homes. Through the internet of things, they will all start to speak to one another to make sure that they operate at the most efficient and cost-effective time. They also report faults, so people will not have to carry on for years with a fridge that uses more power than it should, because it will already have flagged up its fault to whoever manufactured it. These are exciting times and the technologies already exist. It is not, in my view, going to be a case of opting into them, because manufacturers are building them as standard and they will increasingly do so.
The Government face a challenge in preparing our homes, businesses and society for the internet of things from an energy perspective, so I will give my thoughts on our system preparedness before moving on to examples of where we are already seeing the huge economic advantages.
As Ministers know only too well, the smart meter programme is the keystone in achieving the digitisation of our energy system, and I know that they will be keen to push on with that roll-out at best speed. Everything that we seek to do in bringing technological innovation into the energy space depends on those smart meters being in place to digitise the system. Similarly, on the way in which our grid is put together, we want all our generational capacity—from the smallest to the largest—to be able to speak in real time about what it is producing, so that we can have a more dynamic generation system. We also need to sort out the regulatory framework for storage, because at the moment people have, in effect, to pay for their energy twice: first when it is generated, and secondly when it is released from storage. Surely, that cannot continue for much longer.
We also have to make sure that our distribution networks—the substations in our communities—are capable of dealing with more dynamic demand and clustered demand, particularly overnight, when people might be taking advantage of cheap energy to charge cars, run the washing machine and tumble dryer, and heat immersion tanks. None of that will happen automatically without the Government paving the way. Thereafter, however, I am sure that these technologies will find their place in the market by themselves. They will make life better, and people will buy them as a result. The Government do not need to encourage people every year or so to change their mobile phone, because people just want to have the latest technology at their disposal. I am sure that that will be the case in this area if the Government create the right regulatory framework with energy policy.
I turn to storage. The price of storage has already come down from $3,000 per kWh to about $200 today, and it will come down even more quickly still. We saw over the summer reports about the Tesla Panasonic factory in Colorado, the construction of which is being accelerated quite rapidly given the increase in demand. These are exciting times, because storage is the key to flattening the energy supply curve and unlocking the real potential of renewables.
The real technological wizardry, however, is demand-side response. That may be a combination of words that many in the Chamber have not heard before, but it needs to be at the forefront of the way in which we discuss energy. Flattening the supply curve through the availability of storage deals with only half the problem; flattening the demand curve through demand-side management is equally important.
I have been hugely impressed as I have become enthused about DSR, and as I have gone around various companies that are delivering it, by the scale of the savings that it is bringing to businesses. Marriott hotels have signed up to a DSR contract that saves them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Workers at Aggregate Industries’ bitumen plants used to just turn up in the morning and fire up the boilers to get the bitumen tanks up to heat. They would operate over the course of the day, and then they would be switched off. Aggregate Industries now employs technologies that allow it to say, “Our tolerance is that we need to keep these tanks at a certain temperature, and provided that they are at that temperature, we can release energy back to the grid.” It does so, and it gets money for nothing as a result. By employing those technologies, it can sell back energy that it does not need, which it would otherwise just have paid for and wasted. That creates a huge saving.
Similarly, refrigeration is a massive cost for supermarkets and the food industry in general. Sainsbury’s has employed demand-side response, and the store in my constituency in Street, Somerset has released 20 kW of capacity back to the grid simply from DSR. That is extraordinary.
The other area that I want to touch on was the electrification of the transport system. I had to check very carefully with the Clerk of the Energy and Climate Change Committee about when I would find myself in contempt of Parliament, but I understand that if I draw on the evidence rather than on the report itself, it is fine. This is a hugely exciting opportunity for us to employ electric cars and electric haulage systems in the UK. The problem is that I am not sure that we yet have the infrastructure in place to support them, and I am not sure that we have the right fiscal structure to support them either.
I tried to buy an electric car over the summer, and sadly I found that their range was probably not quite enough to allow me to do my duties around my rural Somerset constituency. They are getting there, however, and we just need to incentivise the acceleration of the technology, so that we get beyond the 100-mile range to a range of 200 or 300 miles. If that happens, I think that people will, all of a sudden, go for electric cars quite quickly. All the incentives that the Government have in place—the £4,500 that they contribute towards the car and the contribution they make towards a charging point at the buyer’s home—are fantastic. The Government’s emphasis on establishing a charging infrastructure at motorway service stations and on main roads is also fantastic, but we really need to grow the infrastructure much more if people are to buy the cars and make the saving that we hope they will. The argument is that electric cars will make us more productive as well, particularly when we go beyond merely electric cars to electric autonomous cars, and we find that we can move around our towns and cities much more freely.
Interestingly, in the United States, Coca-Cola has employed hydrogen-electric hybrid vehicles for its entire fleet, and it has made a 20% reduction on its fuel costs. It made that huge saving by employing those technologies and electrifying its transport fleet, which is very exciting. We should look across at that and realise that this is not just something that people do if they are green and they want to be environmentally sensitive. It is something that an individual or a business can do if they want to reduce their operating costs—technology colliding with energy generation and energy consumption to make us more efficient and more cost-effective, and to make all our operating costs that bit cheaper.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you encouraged us to keep within 10 minutes, so I will summarise, rather than go into the many more examples that I am itching to provide. The bottom line is that, while we will focus very much on our digital infrastructure with broadband and 5G mobile phones and we will worry very much about the preparedness of our airports and air routes, as well as of our roads and rail, the energy infrastructure is just as important. In my view, alongside the broadband and mobile phone networks, the three sets of infrastructure of telecoms, broadband and energy will drive the fourth—or third—industrial revolution and allow us to harness all these fantastic technologies. We should seek to do so not just because we are seeking to arrest climate change, but because it is cost-effective, makes business sense, will increase productivity and, ultimately, will be great for our economy.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Mr Mak) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) on securing this crucial debate.
I am proud to represent the greatest city of the first industrial revolution. [Interruption.] I thought I was going to get away with that. In Stoke-on-Trent, we pioneered the modern ceramics industry, as visionaries such as Josiah Wedgwood and Thomas Minton transformed the very landscape, with the pot banks and factories of a world-conquering industry. The clay and coal beneath our feet fuelled a vast, dynamic economy and funded the great civic buildings and canal networks that still stand in testament to that industry. With last week’s news that Churchill China is planning to invest in new jobs and machinery in the city, building on the additional investment at Steelite, that legacy is very much alive to this day.
For my city and my constituents, who have worked the clay for generations, the path to prosperity lies in the renewal of British industry and in the creation of a prosperous, balanced economy that utilises all of our country’s strengths—our creativity, technical acumen and the knowledge gained from hundreds of years of craftsmanship. Advances in modern technology and material engineering present an opportunity to rebuild a local economy and to celebrate a city far too often overlooked. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove mentioned, such new horizons are already visible in the ceramics industry, in which advances in material transformation mean that ceramic technology could and should be utilised in new and extraordinary ways, from bone transplants and hip replacements to mobile transmitters and energy conductors. Trials have even been done on lightweight ceramic body armour to protect the next generation of British armed forces.
We now need to make these ambitions a reality for my constituents, and to lay the groundwork for a truly 21st-century ceramics industry in the city that has led it since the 19th century. Plans for a new hub for materials research in the city—the applied materials research and innovation centre—are already under way, supported by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Imperial College London and Cambridge University, which demonstrates that Stoke-on-Trent and the UK really are leading the way.
This revolution has the potential to unleash extraordinary economic growth and to improve our quality of life greatly, and we must seize this opportunity to create an economy that works for everyone. We must harness these new technologies to breathe new life into traditional industries and lead a renaissance in British manufacturing. Let us be clear that this, and no less than this, is required. The fourth industrial revolution has the power to drive our country and our communities forward to a brave new world of scientific discovery, material comfort and sustained economic growth.
I wish, however, to sound a note of caution to those who assume that greater prosperity and opportunity are a foregone conclusion. We should not fear change, but we must support our communities to adapt to new industries and new opportunities, because with great change can come great upheaval and economies can develop and adapt in ways we cannot always predict. There can be unforeseen consequences from an economic boom pursued without care. The true mark of a strong economy is that it allows each of us to live comfortably and well, without hunger or want. Losing sight of that aim results in ever greater disparities in wealth and opportunity, to the detriment of us all. Progress may be inevitable, but prosperity is not. Our own actions will determine whether the promise of this fourth industrial revolution is realised, and whether its opportunities will be accessible to the many or the few.
The fourth industrial revolution needs to be guided in such a way as to provide equality of opportunity and balanced regional investment. Communities such as mine in the post-industrial regions, long neglected by successive Governments and lacking the resources to retrain and upskill our workforce, could be hit hardest if we get that wrong. The challenge we face is not only to capitalise on the new technologies but to ensure that the rewards are distributed equitably and that everyone has the chance to get ahead. That is why we need a Government who provide businesses, workers and entrepreneurs with the support they need.
For Stoke-on-Trent, that means a coherent industrial strategy that plays to our strengths in ceramic manufacturing and engineering, and supports us to develop the associated industries that any successful city regeneration is built on. During my first year in Parliament, I have been working with local employers, businesses and universities to do just that. Supported by the Staffordshire chamber of commerce, we are working to develop a clear industrial strategy for our city, with a set of achievable goals to improve our infrastructure, tackle our skills shortages and secure the inward investment that we desperately need.
Throughout our city, there is recognition that a piecemeal approach to economic renewal is not enough. We need a long-term plan that sets out to tackle the particular obstacles we face. That means overcoming the challenges in skills and education and offering greater opportunities for our young people, not just in traditional trades but in digital technology, coding and advanced materials. I welcome the Government’s decision to lift the age cap on apprenticeships to allow more people to learn new skills and trades, but we must also work to open people’s eyes to the many new industries that are being thrown open by the digital revolution.
We also need a fresh commitment to lifelong learning, so that people can learn new skills throughout their lives and adapt to an ever more fluid labour market. So much potential is wasted because people are not being granted the opportunity to develop themselves throughout their working lives.
Cities such as Stoke-on-Trent also need investment in the critical infrastructure needed to grow our local economy, whether that be transport links or superfast broadband. Projects such as the ceramic valley enterprise zone are a very welcome boost, but I fear that they are not sufficient in isolation to deliver a strong local economy. A full infrastructure evaluation of our northern and midland cities would show that the Government are committed to building an economy that works for every nation and region, and help to put flesh on the bones of the so-called northern powerhouse. We need an industrial strategy that supports businesses that want to expand or to invest in new technologies—especially new ceramic technology—and supports R and D into those new technologies, as we saw with the breakthrough in graphene technology at Manchester University.
Britain can and must lead the way in this revolution, but we must also ensure that opportunity and rewards are spread fairly. We must understand that the faster our society changes, the more people are at risk of being left behind. By investing now in skills and infrastructure to give everyone the chance to excel, we can overcome those challenges. That is why I urge the Government not to sit back and let events take their course but to invest in the skills, training and infrastructure that we need right now, right across the country, to ensure that everyone has the chance to fulfil their potential. We need to ensure that the opportunities presented by the fourth industrial revolution are open to all, not just a few. We need a commitment from the Government that they will invest in skills and education—in particular, in adult education—so that those whose jobs are at risk can find new, better and better-paid employment in new industries, and we need a genuine industrial strategy that supports the manufacturing and technology industries the length and breadth of our country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak) and the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) on securing a debate on this very important topic.
According to the World Economic Forum, the fourth industrial revolution is characterised by a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds. As my hon. Friend reminded us, it has, they say, the potential to transform and to integrate products and services to reshape radically the way in which things are made, the factories in which we make them, and the ever more personal and customised uses to which they are put. This can take many forms, be they new web applications, micro robots, peer-to-peer services, advanced manufacturing, personalised medicines and cyber-medical technologies. They, in turn, can be leveraged by big data, and better and more widespread digital connectivity.
I want to speak briefly about what I think the fourth industrial revolution is or might be, why it matters and what the UK is doing to promote these developments. Let me start by saying that I am quite sceptical about the language of the fourth industrial revolution. I share some of the scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey). Voltaire once rather sardonically remarked that the Holy Roman empire was neither holy nor Roman nor an empire. I worry that the fourth industrial revolution is neither the fourth nor particularly industrial, and not a revolution.
The natures and causes of the original industrial revolution are still, may I remind the House, rather contested. Was it the result of access to coal and high thermic value coal in particular? Was it the result of spreading trade? Was it the result of the bourgeois virtues of thrift and hard work, of tolerance and openness to other countries, or of science and technology? These are still contested matters among historians. What we can say is that it was based on steam, and that something like 150 years later there was one based on electricity.
Where does that leave us now? I think we need to go to the fons et origo, the foundation of all economic discussion: Adam Smith. I was particularly glad that the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) highlighted the importance of Glasgow, since Smith was Glasgow University’s greatest professor at a time when it was, along with other Scottish universities, one of the greatest universities in the world. Smith was wise on many fronts. He was, alongside David Hume, a Unionist above all. He said:
“The Union was a measure from which infinite good has been derived”
to Scotland. He was wise in economics, by pointing to the importance of the division of labour. He pointed out in particular that the capacity for specialisation was limited by the size of the market. He said that we did not get porters in villages. These days we might say that we do not get Uber in towns—the market simply is not big enough.
I would suggest that change today has been powered by the same things it has always been powered by: bigger markets; technological innovation; better materials and access to materials; and, above all, the human appetite for risk and the questing nature of the human imagination. It was one my predecessors, Lord Willetts, who pointed out the eight technologies on which the previous Government founded their industrial strategy, ranging from satellites to agri-science. I think that that marks a better approach to thinking about these issues than talking airily in terms of revolutions.
There is a contrary view, which has been very well articulated by Robert Gordon in his book “The Rise and Fall of American Growth”. He argued that there was a golden century of innovation between 1870 and 1970, a time of genuine transformation through innovative technologies. As John Kay has said, someone who was born when Benjamin Disraeli was Prime Minister and lived to see Edward Heath would have witnessed horse-drawn transport give way to cars and aircraft, medical services that were non-existent replaced by cures for infectious diseases, as well as the introduction of electric light, indoor plumbing and colour television. Each of them was a transformative technology. Paul Volcker has pointed out that the greatest technological change of the past few decades in finance has been the ATM. Anyone who knows anything about finance has a great deal of sympathy with that viewpoint.
These technologies reshape. Gordon’s suggestion is that the capacity for transformative innovation has slowed. We have upgrades but we do not have the same life-transforming breakthroughs—breakthroughs such as the washing machine, which even more perhaps than the internet has shaped people’s lives—and the result is low growth and low productivity. I do not share that pessimism; for me, the things that matter are imagination, energy, the capacity for risk and the ability to work.
At this point, I should declare an interest by mentioning two projects with which I have been associated. One is the New Model in Technology & Engineering, which will be the first wholly new university for three decades. It will be based in Hereford, and is creating a curriculum along the lines of liberal engineering, tying the liberal imagination of the arts and sciences to the engineering discipline required to create genuine innovation. Its approach will be problem-based rather than curricular, and students will be taught in three-week blocks rather than attending specific lectures. There will be a 46-week curriculum. The university has links with Olin College in America, and with the universities of Warwick and Bristol in this country. It is not just a very important local institution in embryo, but a potentially national—disruptively national—institution in higher education, and I think that it will do an enormous amount to assist the technologies about which we have talked today.
The other project is, if anything, even more personal. It is a not-for-profit car that my father has designed—a flat-pack vehicle. Even you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your astonishing breadth of understanding and knowledge, may be surprised to learn that the vehicle can be assembled by three people in a day. It costs a third of the price of a luxury 4x4, and it carries three times the weight. Its target price is under £20,000. It is astonishingly simple, and, of course, achieving such simplicity requires terrific design and terrific engineering. What the project shows is that great innovation does not require high technology; it can come through simplification, or a sense of the possibility that simplification can change manufacturing processes. This is a vehicle that has potentially revolutionary implications for developing countries.
Let me now deal with our own situation more widely. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant rightly highlighted the importance of policies that support enterprise, as did the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth), and I very much share that view, but manufacturing companies in this country are overwhelmingly employers of 50 people or fewer, and those small firms account for more than 50% of manufacturing employment. Small and medium-sized enterprises will be the lifeblood of change over the next few decades, as they are today, because they are versatile in their manufacturing and light on their feet. They are also able to respond quickly as customers demand more customised, bespoke and niche products, using new materials and revolutionary production techniques such as 3D printing, intelligent machines and sophisticated computer design.
I hope that Members are already aware of Innovate UK, which brings together entrepreneurs and innovators with great ideas. It runs funding competitions to identify the strongest opportunities, and connects with the best partners to get their products market-ready, be they digital or solid-state. The High Value Manufacturing catapult, enabled by Innovate UK, helps small manufacturers to adopt and use those technologies. In its first five years of operation, about £300 million has been invested in high-value manufacturing by that means. Over the past year, the HVM Catapult has worked with more than 1,650 private sector clients on more than 1,300 projects and 1,800 small and medium-sized enterprise engagements. It has the right equipment to support the adoption of advanced technologies. Its use of virtual modelling enables businesses to understand what technology could do for them, and to plan and remove risks. Through Innovate UK, we are supporting the £9 million CityVerve internet of things smart city demonstrator in Manchester. The Future Cities catapult is collaborating with Microsoft and Guide Dogs for the Blind to develop tools to make moving through cities easier and more enjoyable for partially sighted people.
Those are just some of the very interesting collaborations that this model of support between the private and public sectors is operating and offering. It is a virtuous circle, and the Government want it to be replicated many times. We need to increase awareness of and access to these catapults. We need to increase the number of catapults so that more small businesses can test out how to transform what they do and open up new market opportunities.
Peter Kyle
I cannot help but make the observation that only someone who has never shopped at Ikea would ever think it was possible to buy a flat-pack car and assemble it in a day.
Catapult centres are a fantastic idea. Does the Minister think there is merit in linking them more to some of the industrial materials, products and services that are being developed in parts of the heartlands that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) mentioned?
Jesse Norman
I very much take the point. There is only one way to think of this flat-pack car: it is the product of three years’ development by the former chief designer at McLaren. That is the only way one could get a vehicle that would meet the criteria set out by the hon. Gentleman. On the issue of linking to industry, he is right. One of the things that is interesting about catapults is that they have proved to be quite flexible. There is no reason why that flexibility, as they grow in number and extend themselves, cannot be used to create even closer links. As he knows, there is what Lord Willetts used to call a “valley of death” between research and development. The tie-in to employers in education and to businesses in development is vital to stop that problem.
I thank colleagues and congratulate them on the debate, which has been extremely wise and intelligent. The Government want to be at the forefront of the changes that are being discussed here—the dramatic transformations in the landscape of our industry and commerce. We want to lead this revolution—whether it be the third or the fourth—as we led the first, and we plan to do so through the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the industrial strategy, which will be unveiled in the next few months.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I join colleagues in thanking the hon. Member for Havant (Mr Mak) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for all their work to secure the debate. I declare an interest: for three years, from 2009 and 2012, I worked at the World Economic Forum.
The subject of today’s debate was the subject of this year’s Davos meeting: the fourth industrial revolution, an industrial revolution that will be characterised by new forms of renewable energy and the exponential outward expansion of technological innovations, driven by the internet. It is a revolution that will take place as we face severe challenges to our economic future: seemingly ever-increasing inequality; the worst productivity crisis and trade deficit in our country’s history; greatly reduced job security; over-concentration on London as the predominant source of wealth and growth, at the expense of other regions; and over-reliance on the services industries, with manufacturing accounting for an unprecedentedly low share of GDP. Manufacturing is crucial to broadly shared wealth, but we have seen manufacturing as a share of GDP drop from over 30% 40 years ago to under 10% now. That lies at the heart of many of the difficulties—the unbalanced nature of the British economy.
In the aftermath of the EU referendum, each of those challenges is exacerbated by the uncertainty that our economy faces as we negotiate Brexit, given that we do not know what our trading relationship with our largest market will be, and likely will not know for some time. In that difficult context, the fourth industrial revolution, which will completely transform the way we live, will be a defining period for our economy. Will the technology at its heart, left unfettered, entrench the challenges we face, threatening jobs, driving inequality and reducing exportable products as the economy is further limited to services, and further place all the risks and insecurity of the economy on the worker; or will we use the fourth industrial revolution to transform and brighten our economic future for all our people? Can its fusion of digital technology, intelligence and connectivity shape a new economy, with new models of manufacturing, labour relations and skills development that create jobs, raise living standards and allow us to trade with the world in new ways?
Can creating this new economy help us realise our values in society and in our everyday lives?
The answer to those questions is what we make it. We must shape and lead the fourth industrial revolution so that it delivers the society and economy we want for people all across our country. That requires a Government with a vision of what a fourth industrial revolution must look like in order to deliver the outcomes we need and a Government who have an industrial strategy that helps us get there. It requires a Government who take action and take control of our future.
This will require a strategy and plan that rebuilds a new manufacturing sector based on the internet of things, and that creates world-leading products but also delivers a more sustainable form of labour relations. It will require us to take long-term decisions that back British ingenuity and ideas. It will require us matching or exceeding OECD levels of investment in research and development, which is the source of future growth and industry.
As part of this, we must continue Horizon 2020 funding, which does so much to catalyse university research and innovation and transform it into market products. The Government have currently promised to match Horizon funding until 2020, yet even in a fastest possible Brexit scenario that is only one year of matched funding. We must commit for much longer to give universities and innovators the confidence they need, especially in the face of Brexit-fuelled uncertainty, to develop the ideas and intellectual property that will inspire and drive our future in the fourth industrial revolution.
As well as providing this foundation for the catalysts of the fourth industrial revolution, Government must also protect its fruits: British IP, business, manufacturing and supply chains. We simply cannot afford to be hands-off and allow a world-class tech business such as ARM Holdings to be sold to the Japanese. We cannot run a successful, growing economy and secure the investment it needs if we allow our crown jewels to be sold off.
Just in the last year, I have seen the huge difference in impact between a hands-off approach to government and one that is active. The British steel industry, so important to my constituency, has been failed time again by our Government. The Government did not act to block the dumping of state-subsidised Chinese steel, when they could have done. The Government did not encourage investment or profitability by keeping a regressive business rates regime and uncompetitive energy prices. Yet when the Government and the state do step up to shape our future and provide a foundation for our success, British talent can deliver great results.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the sale of ARM Holdings to SoftBank. Yesterday we saw the announcement of Micro Focus, a UK business, buying a significant business of Hewlett Packard. Does he think that we should be able to buy businesses internationally, but not be able to sell them internationally?
Stephen Kinnock
In my view, we need to reform the Companies Act, placing a clear national interest clause and a method of monitoring and executing that clause, so that we move away from situations such as we saw with Pfizer attempting to take AstraZeneca. I am very thankful that the previous Leader of the Opposition did a great job in preventing that from happening, but it is very ad hoc and we need a national strategy to protect our national assets, particularly where they play such a key role in the research and development that drives the entire economy, and indeed the fourth industrial revolution.
In Aberavon, we have a remarkable company called SPECIFIC that works to turn buildings into power stations. It is developing steel-based coatings for buildings—roofs, walls, glass and so on—which can generate and store their own electricity, and it works. We already have an industrial site in Port Talbot that has been generating all its heat through solar power like this for three years. All of this is done thanks to a partnership between business, universities, industry and, yes, the state. The SPECIFIC project is a living, breathing example of the fourth industrial revolution in action, and it required the proactive support of Government. Without the support of Innovate UK, the EU and the Welsh Assembly Government, this project would not have got off the ground. We will be able to make every region of the UK a leader in the fourth industrial revolution only if the Government see building launch pads for our people and businesses as part of their role, in order to allow them to succeed.
I close by quoting my old boss at the World Economic Forum, Professor Klaus Schwab. He said:
“In its most pessimistic, dehumanized form, the Fourth Industrial Revolution may indeed have the potential to ‘robotize’ humanity and thus to deprive us of our heart and soul. But as a complement to the best parts of human nature—creativity, empathy, stewardship—it can also lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of destiny.”
That is the prize of the fourth industrial revolution, but only if we make it so.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Vielen Dank, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to be here and I thank you very much for making time for me to speak. I had intended to make only a brief comment, but the conversation this afternoon has inspired me to speak for a little longer. Many elements have been touched on, some of which took the theme from Voltaire that the Minister raised, and many of them are Panglossian. There is, however, a darker side to the fourth industrial revolution, and it relates to the element of protection.
I want to cover two areas of protection. The first is a legal one that will be obvious to many Members of the House, and it relates to the nature of patent law. The point of a patent is to do what Newton told us he did—namely, to stand on the shoulders of giants. It is to allow people to create ideas, to enjoy a monopoly on them for a brief period and to allow others, through knowing that secret, to build on it, thereby benefiting the whole of society. Patents are really important, and they will therefore be extraordinarily important in inspiring this next phase, the fourth industrial revolution. However, they will work only if they inspire those people who are actually coming up with the ideas to continue to do so.
The current system of patent law, not only in the UK but, sadly, in the United States, Europe and many other parts of the world, states that we will guarantee that monopoly for whatever the period is—it is usually about 20 years around the world—to the first person who hires a lawyer, goes to the patent office and registers his or her claim, thereby guaranteeing their rights for the future. I am afraid, however, that that is an error, and it is one that many countries make. We have done this because it sounds logical. It sounds sensible that the first person to register their claim should be the one to benefit, but it should be the first person to invent who benefits.
This might sound as though I am being casuistic. What is the difference, after all, between invention and filing, when all the inventor has to do is to hire a lawyer? Well, that is easy if you are a large company that has lawyers on tap and can afford these procedures. But what about the small companies? What about Google, when it started out in a garage a number of years ago? What about Apple, which started out in a garage 30-odd years ago? What about a small company such as Sir Torquil Norman’s vehicle company? Such companies come up with many ideas, but they do not know which will be of any value so they do not invest in the legal protection that their ideas deserve.
Instead, those small companies start talking about an idea to people who understand the industry and to potential investors. They try to attract interest in their idea. In doing so, without even thinking about it, they put their own rights at risk, because if someone else takes that idea and registers it, it is then theirs. The fact that the small company came up with it a day, a month, a year or 10 years beforehand—and can even prove that it did so—does not guarantee its claim. It is, after all, the first to file who gets the patent, not the first to invent. Given that we are now discussing technology that can be invented, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), by those under-16—let alone by older apprentices—it is important to remember that their rights should not be diminished simply because they do not understand the finer points of patent law. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to look hard to see how we can adjust the law to protect all.
My second point is one that I wish I did not have to touch on and one on which this Government have rightly already done much: the protection of our nation’s right to develop ideas and not have them stolen by foreign companies or Governments or by those who simply seek to use commercial espionage—or state espionage—for commercial gain. I am pleased to see that the Government have already gone some way on this matter, but I urge them to go further.
The position that GCHQ holds today in the UK is essential, but it is not the position that it has held for the past 100 years. Over the past century, GCHQ has quite rightly guaranteed the signals intelligence of Her Majesty’s Government. It has protected our communications to our armed forces, our embassies and our friends. It has perhaps done something to ensure that we know a little bit about what is going on elsewhere. Now, however, GCHQ’s role is different or, rather, has expanded.
It would be right today not to think of GCHQ as an intelligence agency in the traditional sense, but rather more like the Royal Navy between the 18th and 20th centuries. Today, it is GCHQ that guarantees the economic routes of communication in exactly the same way as our battleships once did while guarding the strait of Malacca, ensuring that the coast of Africa was free of pirates, and keeping the Mediterranean free for trade from all nations. Today, those sea lanes are electronic highways and those ships are concrete and based in Cheltenham. The sailors, who are now coders, are no less essential to our economic future. As we talk about this fourth industrial revolution, it is vital to remember that we must think about the protection of ideas in all senses both legal and, sadly, through intelligence.
Thank you for giving me the time to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. I must also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak) and the hon. Member for Hove for arranging this debate.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak today in this interesting and far-reaching debate that was brought forward by the hon. Members for Havant (Mr Mak) and for Hove (Peter Kyle). The debate is fundamentally about technological change.
There is a proud industrial past across my constituency. In fact, the town of Bo’ness can justifiably claim to be the birthplace of the first industrial revolution—I suspect that many other constituencies are staking such a claim today.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has just claimed to be the representative of the birthplace of British industry, but I must confess that I am the representative of the birthplace of British industry. I hope that he will agree.
Martyn Day
I thank the hon. Lady for proving my point.
James Watt, who hailed from Greenock in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), constructed his first steam engine for Dr John Roebuck of Kinneil in 1768, and the rest as they say is history.
My constituency has not been a stranger to the changes brought about by subsequent industrial revolutions—or to decline. Indeed, much of the 20th century was marked by the demise of heavy industry and the loss of jobs. For many people, the name Bathgate still to this day conjures images of large-scale closures at British Leyland in 1984 and more recently at Motorola in 2001. We must learn from those experiences and ensure that the legacy of the coming revolution is not another round of job losses and increased inequality.
With that in mind, let me say that I welcome the UK Government’s decision to put industrial strategy back on the policy-making agenda. I also support the introduction of programmes that assist businesses in delivering greater economic growth. That said, I am concerned by the uncertainty caused by the UK’s decision to leave the EU, which affects firms’ planning for key investment decisions. Any such delays may weaken an industrial strategy.
In Scotland, the SNP Government have put forward ambitious policies, such as the action plan for manufacturing, to fully realise Scotland’s manufacturing potential, encouraging innovation and skills development, while promoting inclusive growth. As industries evolve, so, too, must the firms that support them. One good example from my constituency is Sibbald Limited, at Blackridge, a firm that has continued to move with the times and is one of the leading providers of training in the construction sector in the country—indeed, it provides construction industry and plant training worldwide. As the fourth revolution develops and processes become increasingly sophisticated, specialist training becomes ever more crucial.
When I grew up as child in West Lothian, not all that long ago, the landscape was littered with shale bings and scenes of industrial decay. What is now being achieved technologically was the stuff of sci-fi shows such as “Star Trek”, which is 50 years old today; there will be a free screening of “The Wrath of Khan” in Linlithgow on Saturday, with Linlithgow being the future birth place of Scotty. The growth of phone apps and world interconnectivity take things to an entirely new level, with personally tailored solutions designed to fit individual user needs. One such modern solution has been developed by another local firm, Silent Seminars in Grangemouth, which has an assistive listening system technology. When that was used during the Edinburgh Hogmanay party last year, it was the first time this tailored service solution had been used at an outdoor music event in the UK, and it allows people with hearing impairments, who may not usually be able to attend live concerts and such, to enjoy shared social experiences with their partners, friends and families.
I am fairly certain that we have arrived at the early stages of the fourth industrial revolution, but large parts of the world have still to experience the second industrial revolution; about 1.3 billion people still lack access to electricity. One thing is certain: we will be in the thick of this revolution for decades to come, and the pace of change will be like nothing before. Where society ends up is anyone’s guess. We need to ensure that such a pace of technological advances reduces, and not magnifies, social and gender inequalities, both locally and globally. Indeed, a long-term comprehensive strategy must be developed to tackle that.
It is predicted that we are witnessing an internet of things, and it is suggested that 30 billion devices or more, covering all aspects of our lives, will be connected to the internet by 2020. This, in turn, will be opening up an unprecedented level of remote control management. Unlike James Watt, whose work at Bo’ness required the nearby Gil Burn to provide a plentiful supply of water, today’s engineers will be able to work remotely, but let us make sure people are not isolated and left behind. We live in exciting times, filled with many challenges and opportunities, so let us make the most of them.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak) on securing this very important debate and on his motion, which notes the importance of small and medium-sized businesses, the huge contribution they make and their expertise. The motion also calls on the Government to
“continue introducing and supporting policies that keep the UK at the forefront of this revolution”.
I wish to add to that, as I think we will need policies that support small businesses and let them take advantage of these opportunities in the future.
I welcome the opportunities that this industrial revolution will bring, but I have niggling concerns. I will always be a champion in this Chamber for small business, having set up my own business in 1992 and then several technology businesses later on, with varying degrees of success. Business is a huge opportunity for this nation and for individuals, and it can transform the lives of people right across this land, whatever their background. There is also an opportunity for the consumer here, of course, as this technology revolution in particular is transforming the way in which consumers shop and travel, and how they can socialise. We need to look at how some of these channels will be dominated by huge businesses and at the potential opportunities—or even the lack of opportunities, which I am most concerned about—within their supply chains for small business.
Let me touch briefly on the pipes that we need. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) talked about ensuring that the country has the right infrastructure, and this is about mobile phone communication—not just 4G but 5G—and our broadband. We do not want a sticking-plaster approach, because we need to get fibre not just to cabinets, but right through to premises. Only 2% of premises in the UK have a fibre-to-the-premises connection, which is the futureproof solution that we need. In Spain, the figure is 60%. I have welcomed the Government’s £1.7 billion investment in this area in the past, particularly for rural areas, as it has made life much easier for many of my constituents and businesses. Nevertheless, I fear that we will hit the same bottlenecks in five and 10 years’ time unless we step up our investment.
Jesse Norman
Did my hon. Friend note the brilliant report on broadband that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee published in July, which highlighted the underinvestment by BT in the national broadband network that independent experts estimate to be in the region of hundreds of millions of pounds a year? That is directly attributable to the way in which BT’s investment policy is carried out, and it is to the detriment of shareholders.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend hits on one of my favourite topics: the culture of corporate obfuscation that we get from BT and its willingness to underinvest to maximise profitability. We absolutely need to get BT to up its game. I agree with Ofcom, which says that one solution is to open up the ducts and poles to other operators. Perhaps in future, when there are bidding rounds for Government investment, local authorities or the delivery authorities should themselves be held responsible for ensuring that third-party operators—smaller operators—get access to those ducts and poles in the local areas for which money has been committed.
The Government are supporting small businesses and innovations in many ways. As the Minister mentioned, there has been a 38% increase in investment in Innovate UK since 2010. Research and development tax credits have a hugely beneficial effect on companies that want to invest in new technologies. The enterprise investment scheme has unlocked investor capital for new start-up businesses and made such businesses possible on the back of these tax concessions. I support the retention and perhaps expansion of the concessions to make sure that we get new businesses to take advantage of these opportunities.
The failure rate for high-tech businesses is very high, but investors will countenance that because the rewards are also very high. Investors know that it is almost a winner-takes-all bet. They know that if they get it right, they can land themselves with an Amazon, a Google, an Uber, an Apple, or even a Rightmove or a Zoopla. In many sectors, there is either no competition or competition from just one other body, which puts those businesses in a hugely advantageous position.
In some areas of technology, business inevitably wins, and the other thing that will inevitably win is the machine. I spent my summer holidays reading a very interesting book by Matt Richtel called “A Deadly Wandering”, which talks about the ability of machines to multi-task. Richtel talks about the cocktail party effect. He describes a person in a conversation at a cocktail party. He says that it is not possible for them to listen to another conversation if they are truly engaged in their own conversation, as they can only do one thing at a time. Apparently, they can recognise their name being mentioned, but that is about it. Computers, on the other hand, can do millions of things at the same time, and they can do them better. A new computer called AlphaGo was built to try to beat the world champion of the game Go. That is not just a game of logic, but a game of intuition, yet the computer beat the world champion Lee Sedol five times in a row. The computer hones its own skills. So machines will win and big business will win.
The biggest worry I have about some of the businesses that will win in the future is their ability to dominate the entire supply chain. Uber is a good example. When it first came along, we saw it as just something that connected people who wanted a taxi with people who were taxi drivers. Uber has been clear that in the future it wants to be the taxi driver as well. In fact, it does not want any taxi drivers; it will have autonomous vehicles, and will no doubt link up with huge car manufacturers. Toyota, Nissan and other companies are looking at this. Uber will be end to end, taking away small business opportunities from taxi drivers, delivery drivers and HGV drivers.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is making a persuasive point. There will be a challenge to not only small businesses, but large businesses. After all, if someone can hail a cab for nothing at all, why would they own a car?
Kevin Hollinrake
There are huge challenges ahead.
The situation is similar with Amazon, of course. Small businesses used to engage on the Amazon platform. A small business driver would pick up goods and take them to their destination; in future that will be done by autonomous vehicles and drones. Amazon will completely dominate the supply chain, so where is a small business opportunity there?
In previous industrial revolutions, opportunities were created for small businesses—people repaired the looms and sold clothes to the people who had new well-paid jobs. I must disagree with the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who said that people had not benefited from the industrial revolution. Clearly living standards today are much higher than before the industrial revolution. Nevertheless, future opportunities for small businesses are a concern.
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that both for private residents and for businesses, if one of the characteristics of this industrial revolution is the pursuit of a zero marginal cost for energy, communications and transport, the reduction of those costs could give small businesses, large businesses and private citizens alike a great opportunity to enter a marketplace without those barriers to entry?
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend makes a good case. In California, people are experimenting with something called a digital dividend. The money that is being made is paid back to people in the form of a dividend for which they do not have to work, but work is important. We want the opportunities; we want the work. We do not want to be redundant, sitting at home while machines do all the work for us. We must make sure that we make the most of the opportunities.
These advantages are locked in, as are tax advantages. The businesses that dominate these technologies are multinational companies that know how to work their way through the system. They circumvent corporation tax and also, arguably, circumvent employment laws. They also circumvent existing businesses and supply chains.
I am not King Canute trying to hold back the tide—this is an inevitability. We cannot resist this change, but the House must develop policies that create a level playing field and also opportunities. We must ensure that our tax system is fit for purpose for the challenges ahead and as we deal with multinational corporations. We must also support the growth of other industries that may spring up on the back of new opportunities that will inevitably be created. We must make sure that we use the opportunities available to us to keep opportunities open for small business.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Mr Mak) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) on securing an important debate that has been very informative so far. I hope that it is a subject to which we will return many times in the future.
Before I talk a little about the future, I want to talk a little about the past. The title of this debate, the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, evokes images of previous industrial revolutions, and of course the first, which began—whereabouts exactly has been the subject of some debate today. It has been romanticised. We should not forget the child labour, the decline in life expectancy, the exploitation and the unsafe practices that were all huge features of the early years of the industrial revolution. I am not suggesting for a minute that we are going to return to the days of the poorhouse, but history should act as a warning that change of the magnitude we saw in the first industrial revolution is not all positive, and we should be considering now how best to mitigate the negative impacts that a fourth industrial revolution may bring.
For as long as there have been technological innovations to ease the burden of physical labour, there have been dire warnings about the impact on jobs. Although the short-term impact of early automation was severe enough to lead to the Luddite riots of the early 1800s, in the main the dire predictions of what people such as John Maynard Keynes termed “technological unemployment” have proved to be unfounded. In the long run, technological innovation has always delivered more employment opportunities to the economy than it has taken away, but these processes have created winners as well as losers in the short term.
I for one am not prepared to take a chance that things will sort themselves out in 30 or 40 years. Unlike previous waves of industrial progress, this new wave of automation threatens jobs across the entire spectrum at a pace that is unprecedented and may well be impossible to keep up with. Studies by analysts such as Deloitte have predicted that 2.1 million jobs in wholesale and retail have a high chance of being automated in the next 20 years, and another 1.5 million jobs could be replaced in transport and storage in the same period. These sectors have seen considerable growth in the past few decades, but that now looks as though it could be dramatically reversed.
These predictions refer to the next 20 years, but change in some sectors will happen more quickly. For some, it has started already. There are plenty of examples, as we have heard in the debate today. We have also heard about trials by companies where the movement of all goods in a warehouse is performed by robots. We hear of driverless cars and of drones making deliveries, and in supermarkets the number of automated checkouts continues to increase.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman’s points are well made, but does he recognise that automation has lowered costs, which for so many of our constituents has been a blessing? The cost of television sets, food and any number of items in the home has dropped dramatically, meaning that people can enjoy so many more benefits of modern living than would have been possible even 50 years ago.
Justin Madders
Of course automation has increased people’s ability to purchase high-spec goods and has led to higher living standards and greater comfort, but we have to remember that to buy those goods, people need an income. That is where my concerns lie.
Not only are jobs at risk in retail and logistics, but the professions are in trouble as well. A raft of new legal tools has been launched which automate functions that were once the preserve of clerks and paralegals. Further analysis by Deloitte has shown that the UK has already lost 31,000 jobs in the legal sector to automation, with a further 114,000 jobs set to go in the next 20 years. One futurist predicts that accountancy and law will go from being respectable, well-paid professions to barely existing in a generation. Although many will no doubt view a reduction in the number of lawyers as a good thing, it is difficult to see how there will be anything other than a loss of skilled professional jobs over the coming decades, which will limit opportunity for future generations.
This is in line with some economists’ predictions of an increasing polarisation in the job market, with the gap between high-skilled and high-wage jobs and everyone else continuing to grow. This is a trend that we are already seeing, and it is likely to accelerate as a result of automation and the development of artificial intelligence. Now that we have a pretty good idea of what is coming down the track, it is time for an honest appraisal of whether enough new opportunities can be created to bridge what could be a gaping chasm in the job market, and how we prepare our children for what will be a markedly different economy from that of today.
These are questions that need to be answered sooner rather than later if we are to avoid unemployment rates that would make the 1980s seem like a golden age. I am sure some will say that that is a rather dramatic statement, but I fear that unless we start to ask ourselves some fundamental questions about how we organise our society, we risk the creation of an unbalanced and unsustainable economy where the majority will face a struggle just to survive, and the insecurity that many feel today will become chronic.
The rise in zero-hours contracts, which we have heard about again today, is another example of the increasing casualisation and disposability of the workforce. What about pensions? How will people save for their old age if the insecurity of their whole working life is such that they cannot be sure they will earn enough to put food on the table each week? Not having the certainty or sufficiency of income to enable people to plan for the future is only storing up problems for us all in the long term. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) who said that there need to be clear regional strategies for investment if we are not to risk an unequal distribution of revolution and investment in our industries.
There are many ways these challenges could be tackled. In many ways, the availability of technology has already allowed us to change the way we work. We have seen a seeping of family life into work activity—the blurring of the lines between home and work life has already occurred. That could be a positive development, allowing people to work more flexibly, although there is a tendency at the moment for it to become a more convenient way of extending the working week. We are also going to see an increase in the flexibility of employment arrangements, as well as flexibility in the way we actually work. That will not necessarily be a good thing; it can lead to more exploitation, and I want this place to be challenging that exploitation now, rather than years down the line. A good start would be for the Government to start looking at implementing the Deane review on self-employment.
There are many ways we can look at this issue. A universal income has been talked about. We can reduce the number of working hours. We can change the way we view the world of work. This should be seen as a great opportunity to liberate people from their workplaces. Doing more of the same is not the way ahead for this country. I know that politicians tend to think in terms of four and five-year cycles, but if we can look beyond that, articulate a vision of what a fair and prosperous society would look like and then actually deliver that, we will have shown leadership that our country will benefit from for decades come.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches and some particularly enlightening ones. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Mak) and the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for bringing the debate to the House today.
There has been a bit of debate about where the first industrial revolution originated, so I thought I would take the opportunity to talk briefly about my constituency and why I consider it the birthplace of the first industrial revolution—I am never one to miss an opportunity to talk about Telford. It was in fact in Coalbrookedale, in my constituency, where the father of the first industrial revolution—the ironmaster Abraham Darby—developed the first blast furnace in 1709, using coke as his fuel, and the furnace is still there today, forming a key part of the Ironbridge Gorge industrial heritage museum. That was a major innovation, securing a transition to a new manufacturing process enabling the production of iron by a means we would today call smart manufacturing—of course, iron was the raw material on which the industrial revolution was built. Other revolutionary innovators, such as Thomas Telford, a civil engineer and architect of the local canals, bridges, railways and churches, followed in the ironmaster’s footsteps.
Today, Telford is a symbol of innovation and change, energy and optimism, and it is once again undergoing a revolution—once again leading the way with cutting-edge technology and advanced manufacturing. Today, we have Enterprise Telford, an innovative initiative that is successfully securing inward investment to a corridor of advanced technology and smart manufacturing processes. At the heart of Enterprise Telford is T54, a flagship site situated on the M54, just 12 miles from Jaguar Land Rover, in the west midlands. This site is successfully securing inward international investment. The Canadian-owned giant Magna’s subsidiary Cosma recently confirmed it would be investing in a high-tech car parts plant, creating 300 new jobs. Swedish-owned Filtermist opened its brand-new global headquarters on the same site recently.
The value of the fourth industrial revolution to Telford’s economy cannot be overstated. It is bringing high-skilled jobs, renewed optimism and record levels of employment —and all to an area that has never had it easy. The last blast furnaces blew out in the 1960s. The last of the mines were closed in the 1970s. Then Telford was hit hard by the recession in the 1980s and 1990s, becoming an unemployment blackspot, and it once again suffered in the recession of 2008-09.
Telford has a proven ability to adapt, innovate and evolve. The Telford spirit first shown by the ironmasters is ensuring that Telford continues to overcome obstacles, find solutions to problems, and never give up. Once again, Telford is leading the way. I pay tribute to the excellent work of council officers at Telford and Wrekin Council and to the Marches local enterprise partnership, which has worked so hard to make this possible. It is currently in the process of submitting a very fine growth fund bid to the Department for Communities and Local Government to further improve Telford’s ability to take advantage of the fourth industrial revolution through the Enterprise Telford initiative.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who visited Telford on many occasions when he was Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, has always paid tribute to its success and potential for growth in taking advantage of the new economy. He very kindly told this House in June that he will work with me in every way to secure Telford’s bright future. I mention this now because in his new role at the Department for Communities and Local Government he will be considering the bids for growth fund money. I will be reminding him of the fantastic work being done in Telford, and particularly the merits of the Enterprise Telford bid.
Revolution is all about new opportunity: the opportunity to press a reset button and start all over again. In any revolution, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) eloquently said, there will be winners and losers, but in the fourth industrial revolution, as with the first, Telford is a winner.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Havant (Mr Mak) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) on securing this Back-Bench business debate on this very important subject, and expressing my own personal pleasure in having the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition on a subject that, as we have heard, we will no doubt return to many times over the coming years. I welcome the Minister to his place. I am sure that his time leading the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has imbued him with enthusiasm for all things digital. I look forward to hearing about the digital industrial strategy that he has promised us. I am sure that as well as being informed by the past, as his speech was, it will look to the future.
There has been some debate about the origins and the location of the first industrial revolution. Let me just say that it was growing up in the powerhouse of that industrial revolution, the north-east, that inspired me to become an electrical engineer before moving to this place. It is therefore with some pride that I have heard so many hon. Members describe how information technology is at the heart of the fourth industrial revolution. I have been hugely impressed by the technological insight and understanding displayed by so many Members in all parts of the Chamber. That is something that this House will increasingly have need of as we move into the fourth, and fifth, industrial revolutions. It reflects well on the House that we can have such a well-informed and wide-ranging debate on the drivers of that revolution.
Hon. Members have spoken about the incredible technological changes that we are witnessing and how they herald astounding new opportunities: increased connectivity, boosting productivity and social reach; open data, inspiring creativity, bringing together previously separate areas of the economy and empowering citizens; smart meters in our homes, putting us in charge of our energy usage, as well as smart networks and smart grids, improving energy consumption; the use of 3D printers, enabling manufacturing at home; increased automation in industrial manufacturing; and machine learning, making us work faster and create more, which is vital for the UK to stay competitive in the 21st century.
My constituents in Newcastle have seen local government lead on embracing those opportunities. Just last week, Newcastle City Council launched free outdoor wi-fi across the city, benefiting consumers, citizens and businesses and enabling them to reach out to new and improved markets.
As many Members have said, those opportunities also bring challenges. We have a new set of intermediaries, such as Uber and Deliveroo, whose workers are disempowered and to whom they are unaccountable. How much real power does the Uber driver have in relation to Uber? This informal gig economy gives workers little security and few rights. These new business models can also put downward pressure on wages and move business risk on to ordinary people, causing stress and a lack of security, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) has said.
In addition, citizens and consumers face threats to their identity and data. For example, to download an application from the Google Play store, people must first have a Google account, which is used to identify and control their device. How many consumers know that? Indeed, how many MPs in this Chamber right now know who has their data and what they are doing with them? How can we give citizens the skills, as well as the necessary connectivity, to participate fully in the digital economy?
The rise of the algorithmic software application brings many of those challenges to the fore. I have been told that a well-known web-dating application has optimised its match-making algorithm for short-term relationships. That maximises its revenues but leaves consumers entirely powerless to verify where the interests of that algorithm lie.
I am proud that I was the first MP to mention the internet of things in this House. I did so more than five years ago and I believe that it can change our lives more than any technology since electricity, but its lifeblood is data and we have no legislative framework for that. All those challenges have huge implications for the economy and our society, as Members have said. Low, unstable wages prevent people from participating fully in the economy, and they remove demand from it. They also bring higher costs to the public sector, either through a larger demand on benefits or increased reliance on public services. Vulnerability to hacking destroys businesses and livelihoods; it creates instability, which is exactly the opposite of what we want for the economy in the years ahead. In addition, if citizens lack confidence in what happens to their data when the entire economy is digital and based on data, they will lack confidence in our economy.
On skills and connectivity, the digital divide means that whole groups could find the new economy inaccessible. The ever-expanding digital world should be designed not only for a small segment of the population.
I am a digiphile and proud of it, but digital power has not even begun to be distributed fairly. We need more women in technology and better representation of working people and ethnic minorities, so that the fourth industrial revolution represents us all. In fact, the fourth industrial revolution needs a Labour movement to go with it, to create a truly progressive digital economy and to protect those who work in it. Harold Wilson said in his famous 1960s “white heat of technology” speech that innovation is driving us in a new direction, but we need leadership to embrace the changes and to ensure that that direction is for the benefit of us all. The Government’s Digital Economy Bill would be the perfect opportunity to provide such leadership, but it is a squandered opportunity. The Government are managing simultaneously to bury their head in the sand and to jump on any passing bandwagon; that is quite an achievement.
On broadband infrastructure, the Government tendered for failure, designing a process heaped with delays that managed to pay BT to create a new monopoly, which still does not meet the needs of the British people. On data rights and fraud, the Government refuse to deliver a legislative framework that people can understand and rely on. The new digital age needs a new set of digital rights. Who owns my data? Who owns my identity? That requires active participation by digitally savvy citizens, consumers and workers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) has said, while the Government should be setting out a vision for our digital future—one that encompasses the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Innovate UK, the research councils, the manufacturing catapult, which the Minister mentioned, and the digital catapult, which I do not think he mentioned—they are instead squabbling over their un-plan for Brexit. We have been told that “Brexit means Brexit”, but we have been given no details about what that will look like.
On immigration, the Prime Minister has ruled out a points-based system, but she has given no indication of how the UK’s flourishing technical sector, which is part of the basis for the fourth industrial revolution, will be able to employ or retain people with the skills that it needs. The Government are also failing to make plans to bring the benefits of the digital single market to the UK. The Government need to focus on the new economy. They must respond to the challenges of identity, data, algorithms, labour rights and digital inclusion.
We must not suffer from the faults of the first industrial revolution, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) highlighted. We do not want the modern-day equivalent of nine-year-olds going down mines, or of limbs being lost in the unguarded looms of the workplace. Labour Members will work to bring about a progressive industrial revolution, and we hope that Conservative Members will see the future and want to be part of it.
Mr Mak
We have had a positive, insightful and wide-ranging debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) for co-sponsoring the motion. He gave an eloquent and impressive speech, and I was particularly pleased to hear references in it to Margaret Thatcher. The hon. Gentleman is a great credit to his party.
I thank the Minister for his full response. I was heartened by his commitment to ensuring that the fourth industrial revolution has an important place at the heart of the Government’s new industrial strategy. As the Government move forward with their proposals, it is important to make sure that the fourth industrial revolution is built in, and not bolted on, to their strategy. I was particularly heartened to hear about the Minister’s personal involvement in the fourth industrial revolution, including his flat-pack car, which I look forward to seeing in action.
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken, from across the House, for their speeches and for the time and thought that they have put into preparing for today’s debate. It was good to hear about the excellent examples—whether local businesses, universities, research centres, enterprise zones or other forms of engagement—from constituencies across the country of engagement in the fourth industrial revolution. This must be a national success, not just a regional one. I thank the Opposition Front-Bench representatives for their contributions, because this is an important cross-party issue.
Britain is in a strong position to become a world leader in the fourth industrial revolution. We must adopt the pro-free enterprise, pro-innovation approach that has given the country success in the past. I thank the House for the opportunity to debate this important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House acknowledges that the UK is in a strong economic position to take advantage of the Fourth Industrial Revolution; welcomes the view of the World Economic Forum that fusing physical, digital and biological technologies can promote further economic growth; notes that small and medium-sized businesses across the country contribute invaluable expertise and market leadership; and calls upon the Government to continue introducing and supporting policies that keep the UK at the forefront of this revolution in the future.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you will be aware, very important concerns have been raised in House about the leaking of a draft report from the Committees on Arms Export Controls, of which I am a member. I share the deep concerns about the leaks and their ability to frustrate our proceedings. May I ask you, first, to provide us with an update on that process?
I wish secondly to raise a separate matter relating to the Committees on Arms Export Controls. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the Committees are formed of four constituent Committees—the Defence Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the International Development Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, which I am sure will be replaced by the new Committee. Members of all those Committees are allowed to attend the Committees on Arms Export Controls, to take part in their proceedings and to vote. Given the very serious matters that the Committees are investigating at the moment, is it in order for their members to withdraw from the proceedings at a crucial moment to frustrate other members moving on to formal consideration of such matters in the Committees—they declared that they were withdrawing with the express intent to prevent such proceedings from taking place—with the knock-on effect that other members of the constituent Committees were not therefore able to speak, vote or take part in the further proceedings of the Committees? Is that in order, because it seems to me that it is not? These are very important matters, and Parliament should be able to proceed in holding the Government to account.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. I am aware that he has spoken to the Clerk of the House and the Speaker’s Office. The hon. Gentleman is aware that this point of order was raised both yesterday and earlier today, and the Speaker gave a very full response on both matters the hon. Gentleman raises.
On the first matter, there has not been an update, other than what the Speaker said during points of order today. He was very clear to say that this is not actually a matter for the Chair. It is not for the Speaker of the House of Commons to decide what is proper conduct or what is disorderly in Select Committees. Individual members of Committees are certainly allowed to leave whenever they want to. Again, whether the timing of that has been decided elsewhere is not a matter for the Chair—either me or, indeed, the Speaker.
The Speaker has said very clearly that it is for the Liaison Committee to look at this matter and then for the Committee concerned to decide whether it is serious enough for it to make a special report which would be referred to the Privileges Committee. That is the proper way to proceed. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard, he will see a very full exchange between the Chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committee and of the Defence Committee and Mr Speaker during points of order today. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answers that the Speaker has given. I thank him for advance notice of his point of order.
Bangladesh (Religious Minorities)
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker for granting me the opportunity to raise the plight of religious minorities in Bangladesh. It is apposite that this debate is being held today, because it is exactly the first anniversary of the visit to Bangladesh by the UN special rapporteur Heiner Bielefeldt.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) as the newly appointed Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister with responsibility for the Indian subcontinent. It is clearly a very well-deserved appointment, and I look forward to working with him over the coming years to further good relations between the UK and the countries of the Indian subcontinent.
I am chairman of the all-party group on British Hindus, and I have chaired a number of meetings at which the plight of Hindus and other religious minorities has been raised. I have also had the opportunity to visit Bangladesh on two occasions to participate in social action projects, as well as to meet the leaders of all political parties in Bangladesh and the President. At every opportunity, I have raised the plight of religious minorities and requested further action by the Government of Bangladesh to safeguard those minorities. I have seen at first hand the challenge of assisting some of the poorest people in the world to achieve their full potential, but also the determination of those people to do so.
I recently tabled early-day motion 351 on the plight of religious minorities in Bangladesh, which has so far been supported by 31 hon. Members. The UK has a very long history of assisting Bangladesh, stretching back to the battle for independence and attempts to combat the atrocities that were committed.
The widespread and persistent violations of human rights and the persecution of minority religious groups—Hindus, Christians, Buddhists and other tribal communities in Bangladesh—by the extremist armed groups are deeply worrying to all concerned within the country and in this country. Holding this debate today will highlight the deteriorating human rights situation in Bangladesh.
Religious extremism and terrorism exploit multiple societal failures in the middle east, south Asia, east Asia and the Russian Federation, but they also rely on ideologies that reject secular governance as illegitimate. The atrocities of 9/11, the Madrid bombings, the London attacks, the Bali bombings and a large number of other acts of religious violence pose a dire and unique challenge to peace and security throughout the world. The recent ISIL-inspired jihadi attack in Bangladesh’s capital of Dhaka against innocent diners at the Holey Artisan Bakery, which I had the opportunity of visiting in the past, highlights the seriousness of an enduring threat to the peace and security of the country.
The terrorists who commit such dreadful crimes are not organised as a single worldwide hierarchical group; they are small autonomous clusters or cells, whose principal common link is a millenarian ideology. They are dedicated to the destruction of secular government and the advent of a society based on an imagined model of the early 7th century. Local problems everywhere are exploited as one means to attract people to that world view, aided by funding from wealthy patrons and the Governments of certain Islamic countries. It enables extremists to recruit devout members of society, who are discontented for various reasons, to participate in acts of terrorist violence to attain martyrdom.
The world cannot forget the scale of the suffering of the people of Bangladesh and especially the grim fate of its Hindu minority during the war of liberation in 1971. That ranks with the worst mass killings of the 20th century, alongside the holocaust, the Armenian genocide during world war one and Rwanda. Indeed, assaults on minority communities have been rife in Bangladesh since before the partition of India in 1947. The Bangladesh Government estimate that during the independence struggle of 1970-71 up to 3 million people were killed and 200,000 to 400,000 individual rapes occurred, in which even the most senior Pakistani officer of the province, Lieutenant General Niazi, participated without restraint.
According to one report the mass murder of boys and young men denuded entire communities and was the world’s worst gendercide in half a millennium. To quote from a report at the time, Robert Payne wrote:
“For month after month in all the regions of East Pakistan the massacres went on. They were not the small casual killings of young officers who wanted to demonstrate their efficiency, but organized massacres conducted by sophisticated staff officers, who knew exactly what they were doing…soldiers…went about their work mechanically and efficiently, until killing defenceless people became a habit like smoking cigarettes or drinking wine…Not since Hitler invaded Russia had there been so vast a massacre.”
Terrorism in contemporary Bangladesh is motivated not only by the aim of exterminating or expelling its minorities and creating an unsullied theocracy at home, but by a global agenda. That is why events in Bangladesh are of grave concern to the wider global community, and to us in the UK. Bangladesh is the fourth largest Islamic society in the world, and the deepening roots of religiously motivated terrorism there pose a significant challenge to peace and security in a world already besieged by terrorism from other sources. A handful of determined killers, influenced by intensifying extremist ideology in their country of origin and the right to visa-free travel as EU or US nationals, will create an additional nightmare for national security agencies.
I would like to put on record some key statistics relating to Bangladeshi minorities. The number of religious minorities in Bangladesh, including Hindus, has been declining rapidly. In 1947, religious minorities accounted for 34% of the population. By 1971, that figure had been reduced to 19.8%. Two years ago, it had reduced to 9%. The political parties of Bangladesh are not committed to restoring the original spirit of the liberation war of 1971 and the Bangladesh constitution of 1972. The Enemy Properties Act 1965 is still in force in the name of the Vested Property Act, enabling the seizure of Hindu properties in a blatantly discriminatory way. Since independence, Governments have failed to protect places of worship of minorities in Bangladesh. The restoration of the important religious sites of Ramna Kalibari Temple and Ma Anandamoyi Ashram is still pending. The Debottar land of Shree Shree Dhakeshwari national temple has been “grabbed” and reduced from 6.75 acres to 2.75 acres—a drastic and unjustified reduction.
Demographic changes are clearly being instigated to reduce Hindu-Buddhist-dominated districts, particularly in Chittagong Hill Tracts. Cases relating to persecution and oppression inflicted upon minorities are not being investigated by the authorities. No one is being brought to justice. There is no minority Ministry or Department to oversee the interests of religious minorities and regulate policy matters to redress sufferings and issues related to them. There is no budgetary allocation for religious minorities in the national budget and no special law to protect their specific interests. Secular political parties are under threat and secular Bangladesh is gradually turning into a land of political thugs and religious extremists. I regard the first duty of any Government to protect their own borders. The second duty is to protect the rights of the minorities who live within those borders.
I want to highlight some of the key findings of the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion and beliefs, Heiner Bielefeldt, who visited Bangladesh from 31 August to 9 September 2015. He said:
“The religious demography in Bangladesh has changed considerably in recent decades, mostly as a result of migration. When the demography changes rapidly, this can pose some challenges to the religious harmony in the country. This risk is even higher, if certain minorities feel vulnerable and insecure.”
Islamic radicalisation has been on the rise in Bangladesh and has caused a mass migration of Bangladeshi minority communities, including Hindus, Christians and Buddhists, who believe their lives are in danger if they do not convert to Islam. It is a huge challenge that the Government of Bangladesh are battling every day, as the unfortunate incidents of persecution continue to be on the rise. The UN special rapporteur attributes the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the country to the growing influence of ultra-conservative interpretations of Islam stemming from the Gulf region. The atrocities carried out on the minorities, particularly on Hindus, come in many forms. It may be useful to look at the history of them in Bangladesh. The UN special rapporteur’s report says:
“Unsettled property disputes constitute challenges in many societies, including in Bangladesh. In various ways, they are closely linked with problems concerning freedom of religion or belief. One link is the salient decline of the Hindu population in Bangladesh, which has shrunk significantly since the time of independence. The Government of Pakistan initially instituted the designation of minority owned land as ‘enemy property’ under the provisions of the Enemy Property Act of 1965. That Act encompassed a series of discriminatory property laws targeting primarily Hindus and tribal communities in the eastern portion of the country (Bangladesh). After achieving independence from Pakistan in 1971, the newly formed Bangladesh retained the inequitable provisions of the Enemy Property Act through the 1974 Vested Property Act. Hindus remained the main target, and the Vested Property Act caused many Hindu families to emigrate to India and other countries. As in many instances, when a person left the country for any reason, whether temporarily or permanently, they were designated as an ‘enemy’ under the Vested Property Act and their property was ‘vested’ or seized by the State. Frequently, when one Hindu member of a family left the country, the family’s entire property was confiscated. In reality, much of the confiscations carried out amounted to sheer land grabbing.”
The increasing influence of Daesh, or ISIL, is known to us here in the UK, and our Home Office has reported as follows:
“There is a high threat from terrorism in Bangladesh. Since September 2015, Daesh has claimed responsibility for a number of terrorist attacks in Bangladesh.
In late September and early October 2015 two foreign nationals were shot and killed. Since then and as recently as July 2016, attacks against religious minority groups including the Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Shia and Ahmadiyya communities, have killed several people and injured many more. Previous methods of attack have included crude explosives, grenades, shootings and knife attacks.
On 1 July, a terrorist attack at the Holey Artisan Bakery in the Gulshan 2 district of Dhaka resulted in the death of 20 hostages, mainly foreign nationals and 2 police officers. Daesh has claimed responsibility for this attack.
Groups affiliated to Al Qaeda in the Indian Sub-continent…are also active and have claimed responsibility for the murder of a number of people who they consider to have views and lifestyles contrary to Islam. Online activists, including secular bloggers and two members of the LGBTI community, have been murdered most recently in April 2016.”
The global community has a stake in engaging with the Government and people of Bangladesh to combat religious extremism, which is a serious threat to our own citizens as well as those of Bangladesh. Attacks by such extremists against minorities are only the first step in intimidating and imposing their authority on communities. That is why it is vital to encourage and assist the Government of Bangladesh to act by investigating and prosecuting heinous crimes such as gang rape, frequent seizures of private property and desecration of religious places. A permanent haemorrhage of the minority population, fleeing abroad to escape grim oppression, only weakens the moral standing of established authority, and eliminates voters who support politicians committed to human rights. The final stage of the triumph of extremism is likely to be the empowerment of political authority that has a benign attitude towards it because extremists have sunk deep roots in society and can mobilise to demand acceptance of their views. That scenario will be familiar from recent experience elsewhere in the world.
Just this year, a large number of priests, preachers and followers of minority religions have been killed by Islamist militants in a series of acts, and have gone missing.
Hindu priest Jogeshwar Roy Adhikari in the Panchagarh district, Hindu priest Ananda Gopal Ganguly in the Jhenaidah district, Nityaranjan Pande in the Pabna district, Nikhil Chandra Joarder in the Gopalganj district, Sulal Chowdhury, and Hindu priest Shyamananda Das were all hacked to death. They were literally cut up before people’s eyes. The veteran saint Sadhu Paramananda was murdered, and a Hindu businessman, Tarun Dutta, was beheaded in the Gaibandha district. Hindu devotee Pankaj Sarkar, of the ISKCON temple in the Satkhira district, was brutally stabbed. College lecturer Ripan Chakraborty, of the Madaripur district, was chopped to pieces in front of his class.
Several bloggers, human rights activists, atheists and authors, including foreign nationals, have been hacked to death in the past two years. I will not go through the list of those individuals but I will make it available to the House for its consideration. All those people have been murdered for a simple reason: their religious beliefs or way of life do not fit with this extremist ideology.
Hindu shrines, temples, monasteries, congregation and cremation lands in Bangladesh are now the prime targets of Islamist extremists in Bangladesh. It is apparent that all the Islamic outfits based on radicalism and onslaught, particularly those I have mentioned, in districts throughout Bangladesh are growing fast and operating armed camps to propagate hatred against non-Muslims. Their ultimate goal is to transform Bangladesh from the secular state that it was always intended to be into an ultra-conservative Islamic state. That is set out by the writer Bertil Lintner. I will not go into his report, but it is available for the Minister, should he wish to have some light reading; it is only about 500 pages long.
I therefore ask the Minister to raise the following key recommendations from the Bangladesh Hindu Buddhist & Christian Unity Council with the Government of Bangladesh. Laws for the protection of minorities, such as a human rights Act and a minority protection Act, and for the protection of places of worship need to be implemented as fast as possible. A minorities rights commission should be created to safeguard minorities’ rights. The discriminatory laws that exist, especially the Vested Properties Act, should be repealed. The UK Government should make a recommendation to the Bangladeshi Government for a United Nations special taskforce to investigate the disappearance between 2001 and 2011 of over 900,000 Hindus from Bangladesh, as noted in the European Parliament resolution on the situation in Bangladesh in 2013.
The Government should also publicly condemn attacks against members of the Hindu community and other minorities. Decisive action is required to protect members of minority communities against these attacks. A full, impartial and independent investigation of all such attacks should be initiated and the results of the investigation made public. All the perpetrators of the attacks should be brought to justice, regardless of their position in society or membership of a particular political party. The victims of the attacks and their families should be provided with compensation.
There should also be a crackdown by the Bangladeshi Government on all Islamist terrorist organisations in the country. An independent inquiry commission should be set up to investigate the incidents and to bring the perpetrators to justice. Action is still required to ensure representation of these minorities in every sphere of the Government and in the Bangladeshi Parliament. The UK Government should give careful consideration to minorities who are already in United Kingdom who have applied for asylum on the basis that they are seeking refugee status for their protection.
A wealth of information is available backing up what I have said in the House today—evidence of the attempt literally to purge Bangladesh of all religious minorities other than the Islamic majority. It is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to protect religious minorities, wherever they are in the world, but particularly those in Bangladesh, which has so much potential. We have had a unique relationship with Bangladesh over the years. I look forward to the Minister giving a positive answer to the points I have made.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for securing this debate and for the sensitive way in which he has presented some very traumatic information. While Bangladesh rarely makes the headlines in this country’s national press, my hon. Friend has had a long-running concern about the welfare of the people of that country and their freedom to express minority views of both religious and political sentiment.
I am speaking first as a member of the International Development Committee, which had hoped to visit Bangladesh during the past year, but unfortunately we were advised not to do so due to security concerns. Secondly, I speak as chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission. I am currently conducting an inquiry into the shrinking space of civil society across many countries in which DFID is providing UK aid. That inquiry has taken evidence from both politicians and human rights activists from Bangladesh, who have confirmed the overall picture that my hon. Friend has painted of escalating violence and increasing concern about the protection offered to religious and political minorities, including by the state authorities.
I have been assisted in preparing for the debate by the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief and by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which has recently completed a fact-finding mission to Bangladesh. I will not go into all the detail, which would largely echo my hon. Friend’s evidence today, but I invite colleagues to look at the website at csw.org.uk as it contains more information.
I want to reflect on two background aspects to the concerns my hon. Friend has raised. First, there is concern about freedom of the press in Bangladesh. As we know, protection of religious minorities is often greatly enhanced by the protection of a free press. Therefore, it should appropriately be of concern to this House that a number of high profile editors and journalists in Bangladesh have been arrested over the last few years. Earlier this year, Mahfuz Anam, editor of The Daily Star, Bangladesh’s most popular newspaper in English, was arrested. He currently faces no fewer than 79 cases against him, 62 for defamation and 17 for the very serious charge of sedition. There is a real logistical challenge for him to defend himself because all his trials are being held in different parts of the country, and even appearing for them is a major logistical problem.
Mr Anam is reported to be the victim of a campaign that has allegedly been encouraged, if not orchestrated, by the current Government of Bangladesh over his printing of allegations of corruption. Reports tell of the Government putting pressure on his newspaper’s advertisers to withdraw their money and pressure being put on other press institutions to refrain from criticising the Government.
I also want to reflect on the political context of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend. In January 2009, Sheikh Hasina and her party, the Bangladesh Awami League, took power through controversial general elections held in December 2008 and were re-elected in 2014, but DFID commissioned an independent expert report on those elections and their legitimacy was questioned. The report states:
“Recent election processes have had escalating levels of shortcomings, relating to the election commission’s ability to provide for neutrality, integrity, and freedom from undue influence, intimidation and violence.”
We all recognise that often in the context of religious persecution where there is intimidation against the press or political opposition, it paves the way for broader persecution against a range of minority groups, as the rule of law is increasingly undermined in favour of protecting the interests of a ruling party. Prime Minister Sheikh promised in her 2014 manifesto that the
“religious rights of every people would be ensured and the state would treat equally with every citizen irrespective of their religion, culture, gender and social status.”
Sadly, subsequent events do not appear to bear out this manifesto pledge.
I should like to turn now to the persecution of atheists. Some Members might be surprised at my wanting to defend those who have no religious belief, but it is essential in defending the rights of those who have a religious belief we should also defend those who choose to have none at all. This is particularly important in Bangladesh. Unfortunately, violence against atheists has led to an increase in confidence among those who are attacking non-Islamic communities, whether of any belief or none. Since 2013, Islamic extremists have regularly called for violence against atheist writers and bloggers. Killings have occurred with disturbing frequency, and there was a string of high profile murders in 2015.
I highlight the following case to the House. There are a number of others which bear striking similarities. Mr Avijit Roy was a well-known champion of secularism through his blog Mukto-Mona. On the evening of 26 February 2015, Mr Roy and his wife were returning home from a fair by rickshaw. At around 8.30 pm, they were attacked near Dhaka University by assailants. Mr Roy was struck and stabbed in the head with sharp weapons. Mrs Roy was slashed on her shoulders and the fingers of her left hand were severed. Both of them were rushed to Dhaka Medical College hospital. Sadly, Mr Roy died at 11.30 that night.
Mr Roy’s wife survived, and she has openly criticised the lack of response from the Government to the murder, as have others. Strikingly, even the Prime Minister’s son, Sajeeb Wazed, has acknowledged that the Prime Minister is unwilling to show public support for Mr Roy’s widow due, we are told, to a fear that the Government would be accused of siding with the atheists. The lack of faith among the atheist community that the Government will protect them is unsurprising when we reflect that Inspector General A. K. M. Shahidul Hoque and Home Minister Asaduzzaman Khan have warned atheist bloggers against expressing their views online. The first warned them not to “cross the line”, and the latter stated that the Government themselves would take action against those
“who defame religion in blogs and on social media”.
I want to turn now to reports relating to the persecution of Christians. Last year, a 57-year-old Catholic priest, Father Piero Arolari, was shot in Dhaka by three assailants as he cycled to church. Rosaline Costa, the 67-year-old Catholic editor of Hotline Bangladesh, has recently had to leave the country due to concern for her life. Hotline Bangladesh is a monthly newsletter that chronicles corruption, crime, terror and religious violence in the nation. Due to her reporting of the harassment of Christians in the country, Rosaline has been subjected to frequent phone calls intimidating her and telling her to “be careful”. A number of her relatives have also had to leave the country after they were followed at university and told to convert to Islam “under the fear of death”. An attempt was made to coerce one of her female relatives into a forced marriage with a Muslim. Rosaline reports that her and her family’s experiences are not isolated and that they represent a microcosm of the wider persecution that many Christians face in the country, with continuous intimidation in an atmosphere of hostility.
I endorse the evidence given by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East regarding the persecution of Hindus. Buddhists and Hindus are deeply concerned about persecution. Advocate Rana Dasgupta, secretary-general of the Hindu Buddhist Christian Unity Council of Bangladesh is quoted as saying:
“The entire community has been terrorised and is feeling very insecure. We are not seeing any active role by the political parties to find solutions to these problems that we are facing.”
Christian Solidarity Worldwide continues to receive reports of attacks on Hindus and Buddhists, as shown in evidence on its website.
Fiona Bruce
In conclusion and in light of such concerns, I have several questions for the Minister. I pay tribute to DFID representatives in Bangladesh. What work is being done by DFID in that country to address both religious persecution and the reported absence of steps by the Government there to satisfactorily address them?
What representations have been made by our Ministers to their Bangladeshi counterparts to express concern about the abuse of human rights in Bangladesh, about which we have heard today?
Has there been any exploration of bans on the entry to the UK of law enforcement personnel who may be involved in attacks on activists in Bangladesh on religious or political grounds?
Finally, has a review been proposed of the UK’s business involvement in Bangladesh to ensure that no UK funds are being used to support systems that oppress religious minorities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this incredibly important debate and thank him for his kind words about my appointment. I commend the commitment he has shown, as chair of the all-party group for British Hindus, towards the protection of religious minorities in Bangladesh and elsewhere. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on a powerful speech. From the day she arrived in this place, she has always championed and spoken up for minorities and the vulnerable wherever they may be. I commend her for that. They are both real champions for human rights and have raised several important issues and questions, which I will try to address in my remarks. If they do not feel that I have sufficiently answered them, I will be delighted to answer more substantially if they write to me.
The UK and Bangladesh are long-standing and close friends. We were the first European country to recognise Bangladesh’s independence in 1971 and we continue to support its economic development. We have the largest Bangladeshi diaspora in Europe. The half a million British people with Bangladeshi heritage have made an immensely positive contribution to every aspect of British life. The UK cares deeply about what happens in Bangladesh. We want it to be economically successful and to maintain its rich tradition of accepting people of all religions and beliefs, and all backgrounds and cultures.
Religious tolerance is not just an end in itself; it goes hand in hand with economic prosperity. A country will reach its full potential only if it values and harnesses the power of all its people. As my hon. Friends have noted, however, the situation seems sadly to be moving away from, not drawing closer to, that aspiration for tolerance. The threat against minority groups and foreign nationals has intensified. My hon. Friends mentioned Hindus, who have suffered the largest number of attacks, but there has also been a rise in attacks against Sufi, Shi’a and Ahmadiyya Muslims, as well as Christians, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton. Such attacks run counter to Bangladeshi traditions of mutual respect and peaceful coexistence.
When Bangladesh was last debated in the House at the end of June, hon. Members raised concerns about the political situation, about freedom of expression, and about the number of attacks against those whose views and lifestyles appear contrary to the teachings of Islam. Since then, we have seen further shocking incidents of extremist violence against minorities and foreign nationals across Bangladesh. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East noted, on 1 July, 22 people died in the appalling attack on the Holey Bakery café in Dhaka’s diplomatic zone. Also in July, the Sholakia Eid congregation was targeted and there were separate attacks on Hindus, including a deadly attack on a Hindu priest. On behalf of the UK Government, I utterly condemn all these attacks. Many have been claimed by Daesh or groups affiliated to al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent—that is a clear demonstration of the global and shared threat posed by these extremist groups.
Terrorism is a global threat that faces all of us, and we stand shoulder to shoulder with Bangladesh and all our partners in the fight against terrorism, but it is clear that extremism flourishes where there is a culture of intolerance and impunity, or where space for democratic challenge and debate is lacking. I of course welcome Prime Minister Hasina’s “zero-tolerance” stated approach to countering extremism and terrorism, yet it is vital that the Government of Bangladesh also make it clear that they will uphold and protect the fundamental rights of all their citizens: the right to life; the right to religious freedom or belief; and the right to freedom of expression. Underpinning and guaranteeing all of those is the right to justice for all. Mass arrests, suspicious “crossfire” deaths and enforced disappearances at the hands of the police undermine confidence in the judicial system. Investigations must be conducted transparently and impartially, irrespective of the identity of either victim or alleged perpetrator. Anyone arrested should be treated in full accordance with Bangladeshi law—there must be no impunity.
When the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), met Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh in May at the G7 meeting, he expressed concern that extremist attacks risked undermining stability and investor confidence in Bangladesh. While in Dhaka at the end of last month, the Minister of State, Department for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), also raised the issues of countering extremism and gaining access to British nationals in detention in Bangladesh in his meetings with Government representatives. I urge the Bangladesh Government to do everything they can to tackle this scourge of violence, to bring the perpetrators of these heinous crimes to justice, and to explore the root causes of these attacks.
The UK Government are supporting organisations that work to protect minorities in Bangladesh and that ensure that their rights are protected, both in law and through Government policy. Since 2010, the non-governmental organisations we support have defended the rights of more than 200,000 people in Bangladesh. This work ranges from advocacy at a national level to helping Dalit communities secure access to Government land meant for landless people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned the Chittagong hill tract. The advocacy that has been supported by the British Government has also persuaded the Bangladesh Government to establish a land commission to resolve land disputes in areas with a high proportion of ethnic and religious minorities, such the Chittagong hill tracts. UK support for civil society organisations promoting human rights and free speech in Bangladesh will continue under a new programme funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s Magna Carta fund for human rights and democracy.
Outside this House, a number of people have raised the issue of whether we should be imposing sanctions on Bangladesh to make it adhere to civil and political rights. With respect, I disagree with such an approach—let me explain why. Extremism and terrorism is a global threat, and one that countries must face together. Our development programme in Bangladesh, which is still one of our largest in the world, enables us to provide broad-ranging support to address some of the root causes of extremism, including poverty and economic marginalisation. Sanctions would hamper our ability to do that. We believe that the right approach is to engage with the Government of Bangladesh on areas of shared concern, such as countering terrorism and extremism, and promoting human rights for all. We will continue to do that. The UK Government have prioritised counter-extremism support for Bangladesh and we will identify areas where we can work with the Government of Bangladesh better to understand the problems of extremist views and to help counter them.
In their powerful speeches, my hon. Friends raised a number of points, which I will try to address. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East asked about the new laws being enacted in Bangladesh. As I have already noted, we have consistently called on the Bangladesh Government to protect religious minorities in the country. We continue to support advocacy to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected in Bangladeshi law and in Government policy.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of compensation. Compensation for the victims of attacks in the country is a matter for the Bangladesh Government to address. I urge them to ensure that all attacks are investigated transparently and impartially and to consider carefully the need to provide remedy to victims.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of refugee status. Of course immigration status is a matter for the Home Office, and I refer him to that Department for its consideration. He mentioned the United Nations in this regard. As he pointed out in his own speech last September, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief visited Bangladesh. We urge the Bangladesh Government to implement the recommendations in the rapporteur’s report, which includes a call for the Government to
“protect the vibrant civil society and pluralistic society in Bangladesh.”
That is the right approach to take.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton talked about the press. I absolutely agree that a vibrant civil society and media, with the ability to discuss and debate freely, are fundamental to building democracy. Indeed, the charges brought against newspaper editors, even if they are eventually dismissed by the courts, can be seen as a form of harassment and intimidation. She talked about what we are doing to support bloggers and others who find themselves under attack. I can tell her that, in addition to ongoing public and private diplomacy, we have funded safety training for bloggers in Bangladesh. We have supported a review of its Information and Communication Technology Act to bring it into line with international standards and help lawmakers to develop a better understanding of international standards on hate speech. I have already mentioned that the new programme funded by the Magna Carta fund for human rights and democracy is promoting freedom of expression and aims to protect those who exercise it.
Finally, my hon. Friend talked about the work that is being done by the Department for International Development. We are the largest grant aid donor in Bangladesh, allocating in this financial year of 2016-17 around £162 million. Our support focuses on improving the provision of basic services, supporting private sector development skills, and reducing the risks to development, especially those related to governance and natural disasters. I wish to make it clear that no UK aid is paid as direct budget support for the Government of Bangladesh. About one third of UK aid to Bangladesh goes to the Government as reimbursement for agreed activities or results and, as we all know, we are very clearly focused on that.
I hope that I have been able to address many of the issues that have been raised by my hon. Friends but, as I have said, if they wish to write to me on any particular issue, I will of course respond to them in a substantive manner.
As I have already outlined, the UK and Bangladesh share a set of values—they are core Commonwealth values—and they include a commitment to parliamentary democracy, inclusive communities, free speech and tolerance. As Bangladesh progresses from least-developed country status towards middle-income country status, it will need more than ever to promote and defend its people’s rights—the right to an effective justice system, the right to a vibrant civil society, the right to a free media and the freedom to hold authority to account. The British Government will continue to encourage Prime Minister Hasina to deliver on those commitments and to uphold the international human rights standards that Bangladesh has pledged to uphold as a member of the UN Human Rights Council.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. The purpose of the draft regulations is to increase the hourly rate of the national minimum wage for all workers, and to increase the maximum amount for living accommodation that counts towards minimum wage pay, in line with recommendations from the Low Pay Commission.
The national minimum wage is designed to protect low-income workers, and to provide an incentive to work by ensuring that all workers receive at least the hourly minimum rates set. The minimum wage also helps business by ensuring that competition is based on the quality of goods and services provided, and not on low prices based on low rates of pay.
Following advice from the Low Pay Commission, the Government are uprating the minimum wage from 1 October 2016, so that the main rate for 21 to 24-year-olds will be £6.95 per hour, which represents an increase of 3.7%. Young people aged between 18 and 20 years old will be entitled to a minimum of £5.55, which is a 4.7% increase on the rate now in force, and those aged between 16 and 17 years will have a minimum wage rate of £4.00 per hour. For apprentices aged 19, or those aged 19 and over in the first year of their apprenticeship, we are increasing the minimum wage by 3%, to £3.40.
Turning back to the rate for 21 to 24-year-olds, the increase is the largest cash increase in the main rate of the national minimum wage since 2008. As a result, people working full time—35 hours a week—on the national minimum wage will see their earnings increase by about £450 a year.
The new main rate of the national minimum wage is expected to be at its highest level ever when accounting for the general increases in prices, surpassing its pre-recession peak. In all, we estimate that about 500,000 workers will benefit from all the national minimum wage increases this year.
The accommodation offset was introduced in 1999 and provides a mechanism to offset the cost of providing accommodation for workers against the national minimum wage. Following advice from the Low Pay Commission, we are increasing the accommodation offset significantly, by 12%, to £6.00 per day from 1 October 2016.
Since the introduction of the national minimum wage in 1999, it has been a success in supporting the lowest-paid UK workers. On the whole, it has increased faster than average wages and inflation, without an adverse effect on employment. It continued to rise each year during the worst recession in living memory, and the new main rate is expected to be at its highest ever real value.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
May I raise with the Minister the issue of Marks and Spencer workers? There is a campaign to press M&S during its consultation on reducing premium pay for Sundays and bank holidays and on reducing pension contributions—changes that would hit some of the longest-serving staff hardest. Does she agree that it is unacceptable for companies to contemplate making such changes in light of the national living wage coming in?
Margot James
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I propose meeting Marks and Spencer to discuss a range of matters, including some of the points that she makes. It is important to remember that, by law, as long as companies pay the national minimum wage and, in future, pay those over 25 the national living wage, there will be a limit to what the Government can do, apart from expressing a keen concern that employers should operate within the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
There is a real issue with enforcement. The National Audit Office said that, last year, 209,000 workers in the UK were not being paid the national minimum wage and that 56,000 were owed arrears. Will the Minister outline the Government’s plans to enforce the national minimum wage better throughout the UK?
Margot James
We are doing a great deal to improve enforcement. Sadly, there will always be cases of employers who have the very immoral intent of getting round this law, but the powers of investigation of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are increasing, and we are increasing the expenditure on HMRC’s enforcement team. I will come on to make other points about enforcement; there are various other things that we are doing to increase it. Every single complaint made by an employee is automatically investigated by HMRC’s enforcement team. This year, we have increased the budget from between £13 million and £14 million to £20 million. We are serious about cracking down on employers that try to flout the law. I shall return to enforcement in due course, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is crucial.
The Low Pay Commission has proved that a rising minimum wage can go hand in hand with rising employment. However, the carefully considered independent advice from the commission is central to this. The Government’s 2016 remit for the commission asked it to make recommendations for the new rates, based on maximising the wages of the low-paid without damaging their employment opportunities. The commission has made its recommendations following thorough consultation with business, workers, and their representatives, and extensive research and analysis.
The Low Pay Commission’s remit is clear: when considering the pace of increases to minimum wage rates, it should take into account the state of the economy. The commission has stated:
“the labour market had continued to perform well, with robust employment growth in low-paying sectors”.
Although the referendum result may have cast some uncertainty over forecasts and assessments made before June this year, we should remember that the labour market performed robustly during the worst recession in living memory.
The increases to the minimum wage rates are, of course, in addition to the national living wage for those aged over 25, which we implemented in April. It is the Government’s ambition for a national living wage to reach 60% of median earnings by 2020. In addition, the national minimum wage cycle will be aligned with the national living wage cycle from April 2017. That will reduce the burden on businesses of having to update their workforce’s pay more than once a year and will mean that the statutory pay floor for all ages is uprated simultaneously.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that in the US, which had a minimum wage before we did, the rate is currently $7.25 an hour? That is only £5.50 at the current rate of exchange. Does that not put into context how good our minimum wage is, let alone the living wage?
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for his informative intervention. The fact that it is more or less dollar for pound indicates that we in Britain are doing as much as we possibly can to protect the interests of low-paid workers, and to pay them the maximum that the economy can afford without damaging their employment prospects.
Chris Stephens
Since the Government announced their version of a living wage for those over 25, there has been no explanation of why the age of 25 was chosen. Will the Minister outline why that age was set for a living wage, rather than 21?
Margot James
The wages of young adults between the ages of 21 and 25 are protected by the minimum wage regulations, which will continue to apply. It is felt that prior to the age of 25, people in employment are gaining experience, and that the most important thing for them is to be in work and looking at their prospects in the workplace. I am sure that is felt by the Low Pay Commission, which advises the Government on such matters, while having a remit of having regard to the state of the economy as a whole and a mission to not damage people’s employment prospects. Those factors informed the Government’s decision to pick the age of 25 for the national living wage.
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that a lot of employers—particularly in the retail sector, for which I am responsible—are finding the prospect of a national living wage a huge challenge. If we lowered the age or dramatically increased the rate, there would be a grave danger to young people’s employment prospects, which it is the Government’s duty absolutely to protect.
If I may make some progress, I will come on to the issue of enforcement, which I know is of interest to the hon. Gentleman. We are absolutely clear that anyone entitled to the national minimum wage or the national living wage should receive it. The enforcement of the minimum wage is essential to its success, and we are committed to cracking down on employers who break minimum wage law in all sectors across the economy. That is why we have increased HMRC’s enforcement budget, as I was saying earlier, to £20 million from £13 million last year. This will bolster HMRC’s resources and ensure that it continues to respond to every worker complaint.
The Government will continue to take a tough approach to employers that break minimum wage law, and will continue to name eligible employers in the vast majority of cases. From April this year, the Government have also significantly increased the national minimum wage penalty, taking it from 100% to 200% of the arrears owed to the worker, up to a maximum of £20,000 per worker. HMRC will continue to refer the most serious cases of wilful non-compliance for criminal investigation.
In conclusion, the Government believe that the rate set out in the regulations will increase the wages of the lowest-paid while being affordable for business.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. The Minister set out the good news about the 3.7% rise in the national minimum wage that is before us. She acknowledged that it has been some time since there have been significant rises; the regulations start to rectify the fact that rates have fallen behind over many years. This good news for young workers is tempered by the fact that if someone is under 25, they do not get the national living wage. The Scottish National party spokesman asked why; I am afraid that I do not find the Minister’s answer at all convincing, any more than we did when the national living wage first came through.
Margot James
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman so soon in his speech, but will he acknowledge that young people aged between 21 and 24 will be paid, through this increase in the minimum wage, £6.95 per hour? Would he not agree that the difference between that and the national living wage is fairly small?
Bill Esterson
Perhaps the Minister has just told us that she has no intention of putting up the so-called national living wage by very much. I remind her that the Living Wage Foundation says that a living wage in this country is £8.25, or £9.40 in London—not the lower smoke-and-mirrors figure of £7.20 that the former Chancellor introduced.
Michael Fabricant
I was quite involved in the minimum wage when it came in under Tony Blair, the former leader of the Labour party, in 1999. The age of 25 was chosen was because the Labour party got good advice that if it priced the minimum wage for those under 25 at the same amount as for those aged 25 and over, those under 25 would not get employed. The Labour party wanted 21 to 25-year-olds in work; it is as simple as that. It may be that the old Labour party, as opposed to new Labour, resents or rejects that, but that was the view of the Labour party at the time, and it was correct.
Bill Esterson
I remember all too well the all-night sitting—I was a researcher at the time—during which Conservative MPs filibustered as long as they could to prevent the national minimum wage from being introduced, so we will not take any lectures about the implementation of the national minimum wage. [Interruption.]
Bill Esterson
The point is well made that there is a difference. The reality is that old and young workers will potentially be set against each other. Employers in low-paid sectors might be encouraged to recruit up to the age of 24, to replace staff by using short-term contracts, and to discriminate against older workers. There are all sorts of problems and concerns arising from the differential. I will be interested to see whether the so-called national living wage goes up by a similar amount.
There are real problems with what has happened. We had a successful partnership between the Government, business and trade unions in the Low Pay Commission, which is still operating for under-25s. The way that the previous Chancellor went about introducing the national living wage undercut that partnership approach and has caused problems for low-paid sectors such as care and hospitality. In care in particular, and where budgets have been cut in local government and in the public sector generally, it has really caused a problem. Those employers, and employers whose private businesses are engaged by the public sector, have no way of making up the shortfall in order to pay the higher national living wage. I do not think the Government have addressed that point in their introduction of the national living wage. Surely they should have increased local government budgets, so that local government could in turn pass on those increases either to its own workers or to workers employed by contractors.
We have heard about M&S, and a similar point could be made about Sports Direct. The Minister talked about enforcement and how serious the Government are about it. She spoke about the welcome increase in funding for HMRC staff from £13 million to £20 million, but how many staff is that? How many prosecutions has HMRC started? How many times has the national minimum wage penalty been applied? What level of criminal evidence does HMRC require to start an investigation?
We have heard enough about Sports Direct’s behaviour for me to ask whether the Minister believes that it should be subject to a criminal investigation, notwithstanding its apparent Damascene conversion to the cause of workers and low pay over the past few days, just before its annual meeting. Of course, it turned out that the improvements in pay and conditions would affect 10 workers a year. I would like to hear a bit more about exactly what action has been taken. The SNP spokesman spoke of hundreds of thousands of cases across this country. I very much doubt there have been hundreds of thousands of investigations by HMRC, so let us have the figure, so we can see exactly how effective the measures are.
A successful economy is characterised as one where working people are paid well. There are a number of reasons for that—not just reasons of decency and prosperity. Where people are paid well, they have more money to spend with private businesses, and more people are in a position to pay tax to fund the high-quality public services that we as individuals need, and that the private sector needs to be able to run effective businesses. So we should all support attempts to improve the rates of pay and the standard of living of ordinary working people in this country. Is that really what is happening as a result of the differential between under-25s and over-25s? Will a 3.7% one-off rise in the national minimum wage, after years of stagnation and a fall in real terms, really cut it? I rather doubt it.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on the level of prosecutions, and on investigation and enforcement by HMRC. Employers who are allowed to get away with not paying the minimum wage are gaining an unfair competitive advantage over those who want to pay properly. We should be encouraging good, responsible business behaviour in this country, so let us see more enforcement. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on those points.
Michael Fabricant
I was not going to speak, but I have been driven to do so by the hon. Member for Sefton Central. I agree with his last few words—enforcement is tremendously important—but his rewriting of history has been quite remarkable. He may have been here as a researcher when the minimum wage was introduced; I was the Opposition Whip at the time, but they would not put me on that Committee because the only row I ever had with our then leader, William Hague—now a noble Lord—was over the minimum wage. I said to him at the time that the minimum wage was something that we would come to support. He said, “It will never happen”—that was not a very good impersonation—and I said, “Oh yes it will, and it works in the United States.” On that occasion, I was proved right and he was wrong.
Earlier, talking about the level of the minimum wage, I gave the example of the United States, where the federal rate is just $7.25 an hour. Interestingly, there are many exemptions in the US. For example, disc jockeys—I was a disc jockey for a short while on a pirate radio boat—are exempt, and so are waiting staff. That is one of the reasons why people have to tip well when they go to the US—because the waiting staff live on tips. I go to the US a lot for private reasons. I was chatting to a barman who told me that he is on $2.50 an hour, which is only £1.90, so we really can be proud of the UK’s minimum wage.
The rate is tremendously important. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Sefton Central to say that it should be higher, but if people are not employed, the rate is zero per hour. It is always a balance. Tony Blair knew that; Gordon Brown knew that; sadly, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that. If people are priced out of the market, they will not get anything, because they will be unemployed.
Bill Esterson
Given the hon. Gentleman’s belief that the national living wage prices people out of jobs, was he against the former Chancellor’s introduction of the national living wage at £7.20—a rate significantly higher than the then national minimum wage?
Michael Fabricant
I have not even mentioned the national living wage; the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I was saying. I am talking about the national minimum wage. Whether we are talking about the national living wage or the minimum wage, it has to be set at a rate that people can be employed at. Otherwise, why not set the national minimum wage at £50 an hour? That sounds a good figure. Why not make it £100 an hour? The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that that would be ridiculously stupid, because it would price people out of the market. It is always a question of balance. He may or may not be a great economist—I do not know his background; forgive me, but I have not read his biog—but he would know that.
It is all too easy to score cheap political points and say, “Let’s make the rate higher,” and “Aren’t the Tories wicked and mean for not having it higher?” [Hon. Members: “Yes!”] Listen to them now, Mr Wilson. They are saying, “Yes, the Tories are wicked and mean.” Well, I am not a wicked Tory, and I am not mean. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. I supported the minimum wage at the time. However, it has to be at the correct rate, and I think that on balance, this is the correct rate. All I agree with the hon. Gentleman on is that the rates must be enforced, as I said earlier.
Michael Fabricant
I will give way. I like SNP Members, because at least they are hard-working.
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Gentleman, although I think I have been damned with faint praise. He is talking about the right rate. What is his view on having different rates for different age groups? That is an issue on which there is real debate, and I would like to hear his view.
Michael Fabricant
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. The analysis done by the Low Pay Commission and others suggests that unless we have different wage rates by age, people under the age of 24 or 25 will be unemployable. That is the problem. For example, if we set the rate too high, it would be a disincentive for companies to engage people in apprenticeships.
Michael Fabricant
Of course I give way to my honourable and very real Friend the Minister.
Margot James
I thank my hon. Friend for his enlightening comments and for giving way. To amplify his point about the difference between those under and over 25, he might be interested to know that unemployment among those 25-plus is just 3.7%, but it is still 13.6% for 16 to 24-year-olds. I agree with the Low Pay Commission that increasing those rates further for under-25s would put their employment prospects in serious doubt.
Michael Fabricant
Yes. Also, people pay a premium for experience, and the younger people are, the less experienced they are. Although 13%—was it 13%?
Michael Fabricant
Although that is too high, in Spain, youth unemployment is at 48%. In France, it is near 40%. I think we can all applaud this Government for strong management of the economy.
Chris Stephens
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. There are two main themes that I will touch on. The first is enforcement. We heard about some sort of strategy to address that, but I have questions for the Minister similar to those that the hon. Member for Sefton Central asked. What impact does the HMRC office closure programme have on enforcement of the minimum wage? Have any of the compulsory redundancies made by HMRC affected any minimum wage enforcement staff? It is important to get enforcement right. If 290,000 workers in the UK last year were not paid the national minimum wage, it seems that there is a real problem with enforcement, and we need to do it better. How many people are employed to deal with minimum wage enforcement? Are there any plans to increase that number?
The Minister mentioned the alignment between the living wage and national minimum wage rates. When will that alignment take place? It is important to look at the whole picture. The criticism of the UK Government’s so-called living wage is that it is actually just an additional tier of the national minimum wage. She and the hon. Member for Lichfield have argued that the rates change at 25, then 21, and then at other age bands. I think that that is wrong. I do not accept the arguments, well put though they were, that young workers should be discriminated against in terms of wages. I have never agreed with that analysis.
I say that for a couple of reasons. First, young workers have the same costs. A 21-year-old or a 19-year-old has the same costs as a fellow worker aged 25. I have never accepted the view that we should have different age bands. Another way of looking at it is that if there are two workers flipping hamburgers in a fast food restaurant, one aged 17 or 18 and the other aged 37, and both are doing the same work and producing the same output, they should be paid the same rate. Under the Government’s proposals, one would be paid £4 an hour and the other would be paid £7.20 an hour, which is a difference of £3.20 an hour between two workers working alongside each other and doing the same job. Employers address training and experience by inventing a pay grade containing different bands.
Well put though the arguments are, I am afraid that I want the Government to reconsider this and to direct the Low Pay Commission to look at the various age bands of the national minimum wage, because young workers have the same costs. When young workers go into the labour market, they should not be treated any differently from others. They should not be used as cheap labour, as some employers use them. I ask the Government to consider young workers, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to those questions.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I was pleased to hear the Minister speak of strengthening enforcement, which is essential both to protect workers and to stop unscrupulous employers undermining responsible ones, but she must keep up the pressure to ensure that better enforcement becomes a reality. When the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), announced the so-called living wage of £7.20 an hour, which I consider to be simply a new minimum wage, I was disappointed to note that it would apply only to the over-25s and not to those aged 21 and over, as the national minimum wage did. By the time that young people are 21, they may have finished their higher education course, or they may have been in work for a couple of years. They may be married and they may have children. They should be receiving the same as those aged 25 and over.
I point out to the hon. Member for Lichfield that when Labour introduced the national minimum wage in 1999, the full rate applied to those aged 22 and over, not 25 and over as he indicated. Twenty-two was reduced to 21 some 10 years later.
Michael Fabricant
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for correcting me on that point, but she will concede that the age was changed to 25 under a Labour Government. Gordon Brown felt that in that way, the Government could keep under-25s nearer to full employment.
Nia Griffith
The national minimum wage was introduced for 22-year-olds and over, not for 25-year-olds and over, in 1999. That is the important point.
Nia Griffith
Ten years later, it was reduced from 22 to 21.
If there is a valid argument that there is a higher unemployment rate among 21 to 25-year-olds and that depressing the wages of this group compared with the wages of those aged over 25 will make employers more likely to employ them, it is very exploitative and very unfair, both because it discriminates against younger adults by setting a lower rate of pay, and because it could prejudice the chances of over-25s getting work, as they may be seen as more expensive. We should instead address the underlying reasons for it being more difficult for this group to get work. We know that there have been far fewer openings in recent years, with confidence still low in the private sector, with the recovery patchy across the country, and with swingeing cuts in the public sector, which means there is little expansion in many areas. Retiring workers are often not replaced, or are replaced only by casual workers on zero-hours contracts or other such arrangements.
Moreover, there is an argument that raising the minimum wage would save the public purse by lowering the tax credit bill; that argument applies equally to those under 25. When Labour introduced the minimum wage, in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservatives, we had to proceed cautiously. The hope was that, once introduced, rates could be gradually improved. I have consistently argued for less of a differential for 18 to 20-year-olds and for 16 to 18-year-olds, with higher annual percentage increases for these groups.
When the new over-25s rate was set at £7.20, it was an increase on the existing national minimum wage of some 7.5%, whereas the proposed new rate for 21 to 24-year-olds is an increase of only 3.7%. If the Government are not minded to give the full £7.20 to that age group, they could at least use this opportunity to raise the rate by more than 3.7%. Likewise, looking at the 4.7% increase for the 18 to 20-year-olds, from £5.30 to £5.55, and the 3.4% increase for 16 to 17-year-olds, from £3.87 to £4, the gap is now widening, not narrowing, between the three groups of younger workers and the over-25s.
I want a concerted effort to increase the 18 to 20-year-old rate by a greater percentage, to reduce the differential and bring the rate up to that for the 21 to 24-year-olds, and then to that for the over-25s, for the reasons I have already alluded to. Of course, many young people now work to fund their studies. I also want a greater percentage increase and a lesser differential for the 16 to 17-year-olds, and I feel that today’s legislation is a missed opportunity to begin on this path.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I welcome the Minister to her place.
The UK national living wage is not a living wage; it is simply a further tier of the national minimum wage. The real living wage is calculated according to the basic cost of living, and therefore takes account of the adequacy of household incomes for achieving an acceptable minimum living standard. We can all remember the debates that we had in this House over the past year about tax credits, and I think we all want to get to a situation in which there is dignity in work, in which everyone can earn a decent living, and in which people do not have to look to the state to top up employees’ wages for employers because people are not paid at the right level. The Government have missed an opportunity to introduce the real living wage.
Why did the UK Government decide to set an arbitrary rate for the national living wage? That fundamentally challenges the value of having an organisation that provides independent advice on wage levels across the UK. Where is the Government’s analysis that suggests that their new minimum wage—that is what it is—is set at the right level? I contrast the behaviour of the Government in London with that of the Scottish Government, who support the payment of a real living wage of £8.25 an hour, and who became an accredited living wage employer in 2015. When do the UK Government expect to be an accredited living wage employer? I am proud of our record in Scotland of implementing the living wage across the public sector, but we recognise there is much more to do.
The Scottish Government appointed an independent Fair Work Convention, which published its Fair Work framework on 21 March 2016. The convention recognises that fair work is work that offers security, opportunity, fulfilment, respect and an effective voice. Our Government have taken action to promote fair working practices through procurement. For example, the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2004 took every opportunity to tackle the need to ensure that people had a living wage through procurement. What action are the UK Government taking through procurement to make sure the living wage is adopted?
On 6 October 2015, we published statutory guidance addressing fair work practices, including ensuring that public contracts provided for the living wage. This goes further than any other Administration, and makes it clear that the Scottish Government consider payment of the living wage to be a significant indicator of an employer’s commitment to fair work practices. Furthermore, the Scottish Government require public bodies to consider whether a question on fair work practices, including paying the living wage, can be included as part of any procurement competition. Will the UK Government do the same?
The Chair
Order. The statutory instrument is about the national minimum wage, not the national living wage.
Ian Blackford
I am making the point that the Government should address the disparity between the minimum wage and the living wage, and I am asking what actions the Government will take. We will support the Government’s regulations today, but we are saying that they do not go far enough. What will the Government do over the months ahead to strengthen the legislation to make sure that there is full dignity, as far as the real living wage is concerned?
Margot James
I thank hon. Members for the interesting points they have made. I will take the issues turn by turn, starting with the valid points raised by the hon. Member for Sefton Central about the national living wage. He quoted the other organisation for a real living wage, whose deliberations I follow. However, the Government follow the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, rather than those of the other organisation. The Low Pay Commission is independent of the Government and, as I said, it makes its recommendations on the basis of what the economy can afford without damage to the employment prospects of young people.
I also mentioned the increase represented by the national living wage, which will rise over the next few years, as we all know. We on this side of the House think that is a very good thing. A lot of employers, particularly in the retail sector, are seriously concerned about their future viability with this new cost; for example, we have already identified that people in the social care sector, which several hon. Members mentioned, are very concerned. The Government are right to follow the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission, for those good reasons.
Margot James
I am going to make some progress, but if I do not cover the point the hon. Gentleman wants to make, he can intervene later.
I will say a little about enforcement, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Llanelli; I very much agree with where she is coming from, and I thank her for her comments. As I said earlier, the Government are absolutely committed to cracking down on employers who break the national minimum wage law. I mentioned the budget increase for HMRC’s enforcement team; we have also increased the minimum wage underpayment penalties from 100% to 200% of the arrears owing to workers.
Employers who have underpaid their workers by more than £100 are eligible to be named. We name the vast majority of those employers: 700 have been named to date. I will make sure that that operation continues and is put on an expected footing of quarterly naming and shaming. I assure hon. Members that naming impacts on firms’ reputations, especially locally, because the local media always pick these stories up. It is a serious deterrent.
We are also creating a statutory director of labour market enforcement—I hope to have the individual in place by the end of the year—who will establish a single set of priorities for all enforcement bodies, and will back up the work of the HMRC enforcement team. The increased budget for HMRC will enable it not just to continue to investigate every single employee complaint, but to carry out more targeted inspections that do not depend on employee complaints.
I recognise that some employees, particularly in small firms, are worried about their future employment security if they make a complaint. There is the facility to make confidential complaints—people can complain directly to HMRC or they can call the free helpline that ACAS operates—but there is still that worry and fear at the back of people’s minds. I had someone come to my constituency surgery about it; they were so worried, and I took the matter up on their behalf. To ensure that that worry is not a barrier to enforcement, HMRC will carry out targeted inspections across various sectors of the economy.
That point leads me on to the care sector, which several hon. Members mentioned and which is a priority for the Government. HMRC is already undertaking targeted inspections: so far, it has made inquiries into almost 500 social care companies operating in the sector. It is worth pointing out that many of those inquiries result from targeted inspections; they are not dependent on employees making complaints. We have also enabled local authorities to charge a precept of up to 2.5% on council tax to provide considerably more funding for the social care sector, because we are concerned by what we have heard from companies operating in that space.
Hon. Members mentioned prosecutions—an issue that causes me concern. So far, HMRC has brought just 12 successful criminal prosecutions. I think we would all agree that that is a small number, but there is a good reason why HMRC prefers the civil remedy. It is far quicker; it is also cheaper, and we must have an eye on cost. Each criminal prosecution costs, on average, £50,000, and some cost considerably more. We need to make sure that criminal prosecution is in the armamentarium of HMRC, for the serious repeat offenders and employers who go out of their way to break the law. They should be the subject of criminal prosecution, but there is much more we can do, and hon. Members should not forget that when a civil remedy is pursued, the employees get their arrears immediately, whereas with a criminal prosecution they have to wait—and, of course, if it is not successful, they receive nothing.
I think I have dealt with most of the matters that the hon. Member for Sefton Central raised, including the Low Pay Commission. On the point about the disparity between people aged under 25 and those aged over 25, I listened attentively to the hon. Member for Llanelli, who obviously has expertise on the issue, and I accept that there is a difficulty in terms of strict equality between someone aged 18 and someone aged 37. I do not accept that they necessarily have the same costs, but there is an issue.
Let us not forget that the figure is a floor—a minimum. A lot of good employers who can afford it pay younger and older workers equally, and I think we would all like that to happen; but we must accept that the position of younger people in the labour market is different, and among the differences is the fact that sometimes they are training, or they need experience. I have already pointed out the significant difference in the unemployment rate.
I do not think that the provisions are a licence for exploitation. I think it is a realistic acknowledgement of the different position of different age groups, and the need to incentivise employers to employ younger people who do not have experience. Employers must have some kind of benefit from doing that. If they are in highly competitive and low-paid sectors that are under threat, such as the retail sector, which as I have mentioned is under severe threat for all sorts of reasons, they need that cushion, and that is what the Low Pay Commission recommends.
Chris Stephens
Some of those companies in the retail sector are multinationals making millions of pounds of profits. Is the Minister also looking at some of the companies that are changing contracts and taking away other premium payments to enforce the living wage? In debates in the House, evidence has been given of companies taking away other payments and changing hours and shifts to try to get round the living wage. Is the Minister looking at that issue?
Margot James
I am looking at that. I mentioned earlier that I was meeting one of the major retailers to discuss it. I will restate the Government’s position, which is that we expect companies to follow the spirit of the national minimum wage and the national living wage, and not just the letter of the law.
I accept that some large multinationals—and I do not suppose that this is confined, by the way, to multinationals—try to get round the minimum wage in the way described. It is a difficult matter, because it is a minimum wage, and although personally I think it is mean-minded of an employer to choose to reduce someone’s hours, or affect their privileges in some way, and I do not advocate it, using the law to intervene would be a challenge. However, we will keep the situation under review, and if we find there is wide abuse of the spirit of the law, I hope we will do more than just look into it.
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to a crucial debate. The regulations will, as I have said, increase the national minimum wage for about 500,000 people from 1 October, and will ensure that low-paid people share in the benefits of economic growth without, importantly, damaging their employment prospects. The independent Low Pay Commission plays a crucial role in advising the Government about the minimum wage, and I thank it very much for its detailed report and recommendations. Various points were made in the debate, and I feel I have responded to them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016.
Petitions
Private rented sector in Dulwich and West Norwood
Dr Keilloh and the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service
Higher Education and Research Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 8th September 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2016 - (8 Sep 2016)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I beg to move,
That, the Order of the Committee of 6 September be varied so that the following is added at the appropriate place in the table—
Date | Time | Witness |
Thursday 8 September | Until no later than 12.45 pm | National Union of Students Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education |
We considered the request of the Committee to make time within the period we had allocated to oral witnesses to hear from the National Union of Students and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, which is the quality body for the sector. That had been a subject of discussion between the usual channels over the course of the weeks leading up to the agreement of the programme motion on Monday, but in the light of views expressed about the importance of ensuring the broadest possible set of views being heard directly by the Committee, we are happy to make space in the schedule. We realise it is a brief period, but I believe we will be able to get to the substance of what they are trying to get across in the time we have made available to them in the programme motion as amended.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for responding positively to our request.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I also thank the Minister. This is an extremely positive step. I wondered, however, whether we could squeeze the session with the Minister, for whom I have high regard and with whom I am looking forward to having many debates, so that we could have more time with the NUS and the QAA.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I echo the comments of the other Members and thank the Minister for making the time available.
Joseph Johnson
I have reduced the time that I had been allocated to give evidence to the Committee by 50%, going down to 15 minutes, and I feel it is important, before we get into the line-by-line, nitty gritty scrutiny of the Bill, that we have the opportunity as a Government to give an overview of what we are trying to do, the context for the Bill and the core measures that we propose to achieve those objectives. If we shorten the time much further, I am afraid we would lose the ability to give a coherent sense of what we are trying to do overall. I would prefer to be left with the 15 minutes to which I have already reduced my slot.
Question put and agreed to.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Ruth McKernan, Professor Philip Nelson and Professor Ottoline Leyser gave evidence.
The Chair
I welcome the first set of witnesses this morning. We are now to hear oral evidence from Research Councils UK, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Innovate UK and the Royal Society. Could I ask witnesses to introduce themselves, perhaps going from left to right?
Professor Ottoline Leyser: My name is Ottoline Leyser. I currently chair the Royal Society’s science policy advisory group and I am here representing them.
Professor Philip Nelson: I am Philip Nelson, chief executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. I also chair Research Councils UK, which is the strategic partnership of all seven research councils.
Dr Ruth McKernan: I am Ruth McKernan, chief executive of Innovate UK.
The Chair
I remind Members gently that questions have to be within the scope of the Bill and that this session has to be completed by 12.30 pm. I call Gordon Marsden to open the questions.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Q 119 Thank you, Mr Hanson, and our thanks to our witnesses this morning for appearing. I will kick off the session with a general question put within a timeframe, if I can put it that way. It was clear on Second Reading that there were a number of concerns—I put it no stronger—about the variable geometry of the new structures. The submissions we have had from the various research councils and the Royal Society underline that fact. Since then, we have had some of those issues about the variable geometry between the UK and its constituent parts emphasised and underlined by the implications of Brexit. Do the members of the panel still hold strongly to the reservations that were submitted to us? How do they think the situation post-23 June has altered the position?
Professor Philip Nelson: I am happy to answer first. The result of the referendum has given still more impetus to the need for reform in research and innovation. One of the key features of the review that Sir Paul Nurse undertook was to ensure a stronger voice for science and innovation in the UK and I think that to backtrack on that at this stage would be entirely wrong. I think we need absolutely to ensure we have a strong voice through the Brexit negotiations.
Mr Marsden
Q Without wanting to do too much cross-examination, can I take you up on that point? We were not suggesting backtracking on it. What we were saying—you will know this well, Professor Nelson, because you will have seen the correspondence about this and the House of Lords’ report—was that there are strong concerns about the structures here. I am asking you to say not just, “We need to get on with it more because of Brexit,” but particularly how the variable geometry has affected some of the concerns that you have received.
Professor Philip Nelson: If I understood you correctly, by variable geometry you mean the fact that we are having nine councils under one single body.
Mr Marsden
Not simply that. That is an issue, but there are also the continued concerns about what the split is going to be for funding between the UK and the England aspects of that, and the issues about the independence of Innovate UK and so on. No disrespect, but those are not things that can be blandly dealt with by just saying. “We ought to get on with it.”
Professor Philip Nelson: I completely agree with that. I want to emphasise the fact that we have spent a lot of time engaging with Government on these issues and have been deeply involved in constructing the so-called variable geometry and made our views very clear on this. We have been very clear about the principles that we feel we need to subscribe to to ensure that we do retain the strength of UK research and innovation. Those include things such as dual support, the Haldane principle and the disciplinary identities being very clear in the existing research councils. I think we have made all those points very clearly throughout this process.
Mr Marsden
Q Have you got any results?
Professor Philip Nelson: I think we have. I think the policy intent as stated in the White Paper is very clear and I can find several references to exactly the sort of points that we have been making through the process, so I do not feel too uncomfortable about that at all at this stage.
Mr Marsden
Q Perhaps I could ask Professor Leyser and Dr McKernan to give their views.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: I should say that our understanding at the Royal Society is that the clear intention of the Bill is to implement the recommendations of the Nurse review and those recommendations have been broadly welcomed by the community for a variety of reasons. In terms of variable geometry, on the one hand, people have expressed concerns about, for example, ensuring a robust implementation of the Haldane principle so that money winds up in particular pots of money that are under the power of the individual research councils to spend; but at the same time, there is wide recognition that the ability of those research councils to collaborate at present and to consider the research base across the piece is currently compromised by the way in which the divisions between the research councils are so hard. Therefore, the variable geometry is to be welcomed, as long as it does not simultaneously destroy the strength of our research base that has grown up through the Haldane principle and the power of individual research councils to allocate money independently.
From our point of view, the key question is the extent to which that opportunity for flexibility while maintaining our strong research base is enshrined in the Bill. We do not have huge concerns about that. There are particular phrases that we have submitted in our concerns that touch on those questions, but overall we think that the direction of travel is absolutely right.
Mr Marsden
Q The devil is in the detail, is it not? A question that has been raised by a number of people is about the new powers that are given to the office for students, particularly in terms of research councils. I am sure that colleagues will want to probe that point. Are you are worried about those things—that the connection between the research councils and the OFS in the Bill is not yet strongly established and that, in extremis, that could result in situations where the research councils have powers taken out of their hands?
Professor Ottoline Leyser: The relationship between UK Research and Innovation and the OFS needs strengthening. The specific recommendations about the obligations of those organisations to interact, as we have laid out in our written response, need to be strengthened and embedded across the system because there are a number of issues where a lack of co-ordination between those bodies could cause major problems—for example, in maintaining the health of disciplines, in postgraduate research training, and in shared facilities and the efficiency of spend across Government. We understand why there has been this division and clearly there are some advantages to be had from that, but as usual, if you are making a change you need to ensure that you do not then have unintended consequences on the parts left behind.
Dr Ruth McKernan: From the perspective of Innovate UK and small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs get 30% of the Horizon 2020 funding. It is very important for them. Last year, it was as much money as they got from Innovate UK. With the formation of UKRI, the opportunity to do the research that businesses need to be competitive is a big opportunity and it is a win for us. With Brexit, the opportunity to help companies scale and become really competitive is even more important than it was before. Post-Brexit, UKRI is more important.
Mr Marsden
Q You have expressed in previous correspondence not just to me, but to other people, a concern—if I can put it that way—that the buccaneering spirit of Innovation UK does not get entangled in this new relationship. Do you feel you have the guarantees you need about that in the Bill at the moment?
Dr Ruth McKernan: There are some really great things about the Bill and it was nice to hear John Kingman say that he would encourage Innovate UK to go further and faster. There are some really good parts such as not changing the name or the purpose.
Mr Marsden
Q What about the not-so-good parts?
Dr Ruth McKernan: I am getting to that. Another good part is maintaining the business focus. There are three areas in particular on which we need to be absolutely sure that the intent and what was in the White Paper is still there in the Bill. The first of those is the business experience of the board and the Innovate UK champion, which is very clear in the White Paper. As I understand it, that is possible and enabled through the Bill, but I think that the balance of business and research experience is very broad and could be tightened up a bit.
The second area is the financial tools. We are keen to be able to use things such as seed loans and equity, and other councils within UKRI have dipped a toe into that. Seed funding through Rainbow has been done through the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Science and Technology Facilities Council, and the Medical Research Council has done a very forward-thinking thing by creating MRC Technology, which looks at royalty streams from work it has done.
We need to be absolutely clear, in how the Bill is finalised, that we ensure we have as much flexibility as the research councils have had and some of our enterprise partners have. We work very closely with Scottish Enterprise, which uses more financial tools than we currently have, and Enterprise Northern Ireland. We want to move at speed and to empower companies to grow in scale and be really competitive, but we must ensure we have the flexibility to do that and not slow down our clock speed. I think there is a bit of work to do looking at that in more detail.
The third point is about institutes and research. The Bill gives us the great opportunity to look across the whole spectrum, from very basic research institutes to catapults. They go from future-thinking research to business-focused, short-term delivery. At the moment, as I understand it, if Innovate UK wanted to create an institute and employ researchers to do the work that businesses need, we absolutely could. I am not sure, within the letter of the Bill, that we are still going to be able to do that. I think that probably needs to be looked at. These are all conversations that we are already having with the people who are putting the proper wording on the Bill, so it will not be a surprise that those are some of our concerns. They are the main three.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Q The Science and Technology Committee has heard from all three of your organisations about the UKRI future. I think the consensus was that UKRI allows the research councils to be more than the sum of their parts. Can you talk a little about how we ensure that is actually the case, rather than just hoping it happens?
Professor Philip Nelson: That is the critical question. The objective is absolutely to make us more than the sum of our parts. I think it will take, in practical terms, a lot of good will and hard work on the part of the new executive chairs of the new research councils, when they come into being.
I think the principles are clear, and I believe they are accepted by the Government, that we still need those seven discipline-facing identities and that those disciplines have clearly delegated budgets, with authority over them. That is one of the core principles that we have expounded. Set against that, we absolutely need to enable the councils to work together better and incentivise that working through some means. Those details have to be thought about more and worked out, but I certainly detect a will on the part of the councils to do better collectively. We have had a programme across RCUK for about a year now which is aimed at achieving precisely that. I think that the move to a single accounting officer will probably enable that to happen more easily, so I do not have too many concerns about it happening. It should be set up to enable that.
I think we absolutely need to retain the good things that the councils already do. Paul Nurse acknowledged that we are highly effective organisations, and the key trick is to make sure we retain that while enabling better collaboration. I am confident that that can be done.
Matt Warman
Q Your view is that the Bill lays the foundations to do that?
Professor Philip Nelson: I believe so. Again, it goes back to technicalities, and we are talking to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy about one or two of them. I think that the intent in the White Paper is absolutely clear. We are talking about the extent to which that gets reflected in the Bill, but I am sure we can resolve these minor issues.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: I would probably take it beyond the notion that the outcome should be that the research councils are more than the sum of their parts. To me, a key issue here is to provide a really effective interface between the UK research and innovation base, broadly defined, and the Government. That is more than just about the parts being the research councils; it is really about the whole research base and the way that is harnessed, in terms of how bottom-up opportunities arise, how knowledge about them feeds into the Government, and how Government priorities are fed into that research base. That interface is what we have to get right. It is the least effective part of our current wonderful system. We have a wonderful system, but that part is what we are trying to fix.
From the Royal Society’s point of view, what is currently in the Bill is fine, but there is a key missing part that was explicitly laid out in Nurse and that is the executive committee, which is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. That is where the chief executives of the research councils would sit. That committee is a key layer in governance integration across those activities, and the board will not be able to do that. It is a much higher level, strategic-thinking organisation that must have an overall, big vision focus. The nitty gritty information about the community, understanding where things are going with the science—we must not forget the social science, arts and humanities people—the direction of travel and what opportunities there are come up through those chief executives so it is really important. Even though in principle that body could be established under the current wording of the Bill, the Royal Society’s view is that that should be enshrined in it as an explicit requirement because without that layer of governance I don’t think the operation will work effectively. As I say, it could be back-fitted, but that is always a danger because one never knows going forward what people will decide to do.
The Chair
Q Dr McKernan, do you have a view on Mr Warman’s question?
Dr Ruth McKernan: Yes, I have three points to make. On being more than the sum of its parts, with the cross-disciplinary approach we have worked very well with all research councils, but being part of one organisation will absolutely give us the opportunity to do that more efficiently and, furthermore, will help us to do the research that business needs to be successful. That is the element—the business view into research—that is not always easy to get. That is my first point.
The second big advantage is that from the business perspective, a company does not find it easy to know how to access the latest innovation in science that will work for its business. So simplifying and improving the transfer of skills into business is very important. In innovation indices our absorptive capacity, as it is described, is not world leading. I think UKRI will give us the opportunity to improve that.
Thirdly, on a much longer horizon, we want to know and understand how, when we spend money on research, it plays back into economic growth. It is very hard to do that. Many innovation agencies like mine are struggling with the data and the analysis. We are moving into the fourth industrial revolution. So much more will be driven by data and algorithms, and we can do much more sophisticated evaluation. As one organisation, we can ask questions of a common database of grant systems what works and what doesn’t work so we can spend money wisely.
The Chair
I remind colleagues that we only have until 12.30 and there is a lot of interest in questions from Members, so brief questions and succinct answers will be very helpful.
Carol Monaghan
Q Elements of this have been mentioned by all the panel. Dr McKernan, you are talking about working together with the research councils and how this should be more easily facilitated under this Bill. Is there a conflict, first between the different role of Innovate UK, which is looking to competition to market, and the research councils? You spoke about needing to see the results of the research but, as we know, in some of the best research the results, implications or applications are not found for 20 or 30 years. Do you see a conflict there and, if so, how do you intend to work with the research councils to make that relationship smooth?
Dr Ruth McKernan: I think this is one of the fundamental challenges that the Bill has faced and most of the discussion I have had has been around maintaining the business focus of Innovate UK. Our funding goes to businesses and research is included to the extent that it delivers what the business needs. We must make sure that business focus is maintained. We are a UK-wide organisation and we work very closely with enterprise partners in the regions and the nations. Provided that the Bill really does ensure that at the board level we have the aspiration to link up business and science better and has a sufficient business expertise and input, that would really help. I also feel that ensuring that we work very closely with partners who also support businesses will help us to keep our business focus.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: I would dispute that it is a conflict. There is obviously a budget and it has to be spread but, in my experience, businesses are enthusiastic about blue skies research that will not have any obvious application for 20, 30, 40 years. At the same time, the scientists conducting that kind of research are interested to know what the current challenges are facing business.
More effective communication across the system can support all parts of the system and ensure that the movement of people and knowledge to and fro within that community is increased and enhanced, so that we can capture the benefits as quickly as possible, take the excellent blue skies research that is widely acknowledged as essential to fuel the system, and turn that into economic or societal benefit.
Professor Philip Nelson: I would agree with that completely. The current state of affairs is very much that the research councils do have very effective engagements with industry already. It is not as if we do not do that. I think something like 60% of my own council grants are done collaboratively with some partner or another.
We get very good leverage. We in fact do get industry, as Ottoline rightly said, interested in quite basic research, and some of the bigger more sophisticated companies, as you might expect, do invest in really long-term projects, so it is a spectrum of activity. Getting the big picture clearer and looking at the relative activities across that whole range is going to be an important function for UKRI, and making the strategic interventions that we think are the most important to propel the economy forward.
Carol Monaghan
Q Professor Nelson, since you are talking about people looking for grants and getting funding from different organisations, potentially somebody looking for a grant here could be getting all of their money from the one institution—from UKRI—because they will be going to a research council, the funding council and Innovate UK. Is there a problem that everything could be coming from the one body?
Professor Philip Nelson: I do not see that. The roots will still be distinct. For example, when it comes to the dual support system, it is clearly being protected—in fact, enshrined in legislation for the first time. It is clear that the QR money as it is called—the quality-related money—that currently comes from the Higher Education Funding Council for England is still going to be delivered via Research England. That is a clearly separated and different funding stream from the research council funding stream. I do not think there are any intrinsic difficulties because the Bill deals with that clear separation.
Dr Ruth McKernan: With Innovate UK grant funding, it is all matched funding. Businesses or private investors have to put in an equal amount and there are regulations that surround how businesses get their funding—state aid rules. One reason we are keen to use more financial tools is to ensure that we use public money to the extent that it is useful but also encourage private investment. With our business-facing mind we need to ensure that we use private investment as much and do not expect people to rely wholly on UKRI for funding.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: I would say that basically it is all taxpayers’ money, apart from the stuff that comes in through business; if we think of it in those terms.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
Q Looking at that connection between business and research and charities, which is of particular interest to me, and building on the opportunities that we have got there, would you welcome the protection of the dual support in the Bill, helping to provide long-term confidence to both universities and charities in order to drive some of that innovative work forward?
Professor Philip Nelson: I would certainly welcome it, as I said in my opening remarks. Dual support was absolutely key to us in terms of sustaining the effective system that we have, mainly because the QR money—the HEFCE money—takes that sort of retrospective view of performance, whereas research councils are looking prospectively at what might be achieved. So I think it is critical that that balanced funding, as it is called in the Bill, is properly maintained and retained.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: Absolutely. Dual support is a key strength of the UK Research and Innovation system, and not just because of the charities. We are really excited that it is now going to be in law.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q As you know, the Nurse review proposed establishing a ministerial committee to enable joined-up, cross-Government discussion of strategic priorities for research and funding. The Government rejected that in favour of reforming the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology. Do you think that council can be reformed to deliver what Sir Paul Nurse envisaged?
Professor Philip Nelson: I think it can be.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Can you tell us what needs to happen?
Professor Philip Nelson: I think it will require very strong liaison between that committee and the Government Office for Science and UKRI. I do not think that quite how that will work has been completely been sorted out yet, but there was certainly a recommendation that the chair or the chief executive of UKRI—I cannot quite remember which—would be on the CST, for example. That would be one step that you would take.
I certainly think that strong and regular dialogue between those two bodies is going to be essential to make this work, because I think that GO-Science does its work, which is really mostly aimed at science for policy, whereas UKRI will be doing the policy for science. The two inevitably overlap, and taking a holistic, national view of all this will be very important. So I think it will be critical that those two organisations are able to work together. I think the details have yet to be worked out, frankly.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: With another hat on, I was on the Nurse panel and we talked quite extensively about whether the CST could do the job of this ministerial committee. It could if it reforms itself to look like the ministerial committee. It is a job that needs to be done and it does not really matter what the thing is called. I think we wound up recommending a new body, because it can be difficult to change an existing body and to move it away from its current modus operandi. As long as there is a clear direction of travel to refocus it more specifically on this kind of in-government role—really interfacing across Government Departments—then I think it could be done.
Dr Ruth McKernan: I would say that we work very closely with the Government Office for Science. We work across all Government Departments as well, and where I think we need to pay attention to connectivity is looking at the long-term horizon. What are the future areas that will impact us or that we can create value from?
In terms of the futures work, Innovate UK and the Government Office for Science work very closely together. That is something that we do not want to lose in whatever this new committee looks like, because we need to scan the horizon for the UK for our businesses and for the research that we do.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Do you think that the Bill should address more clearly liaison between the relevant bodies, rather than just hope it happens and hope that individuals talk to each other?
Professor Philip Nelson: I think it would be helpful. It is clearly very, very important.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
Q At our last evidence sessions, we talked about the importance of diversity and participation on the teaching side, but it is incredibly important for the research element as well. There have been great strides in relation to Athena SWAN—scientific women’s academic network—projects and so on across the country. However, specifically in relation to this Bill and in research, how does this Bill help to improve diversity and participation?
Professor Philip Nelson: I think we can probably again take a more joined-up view of the diversity issue, if you like, across the research councils. In fact, we have already done a lot of work on this. We have an action plan in place, commissioned by our Minister, to take forward. We are certainly working very hard on that. In my own council where we have an issue—in engineering and physical science, the community of females is smaller than it should be—we are doing a lot of things, certainly in terms of governance and the way our own organisation works.
Our governing council got 30% female representation; we are aiming to get that up to 50%. Similarly, for our strategic advisory teams that really are at the coalface of scientific developments, we are trying to make sure that we get proper representation on those as well. We are working very hard to do that. So I think the new organisation can take that bigger holistic view and ensure these issues are driven forward effectively.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: I would go with an even bigger, more holistic view. Again, for me there are exciting opportunities from the creation of UKRI. There is this big overarching strategic vision of research and innovation in the UK and the world. It is not just about whether we have the right number of particular minorities on our board; it is about a much broader agenda for social inclusion and social cohesion, which a knowledge-based economy provides.
In parallel with a developing industrial strategy, the role of UKRI is twofold, both in driving that kind of economy and bringing the skilled workforce along with it, which gets back to the question about a really important requirement to link with the office for students so that we have those skills pipelined, but also in generating the research and understanding about topics like social inclusion and regional development so that we can most effectively deploy the strategies and funds that we have to grow those things.
These questions about diversity and inclusion are exactly core drivers. We can be a linchpin in establishing Government policy that moves those agendas forward well beyond “Have you got enough women on your committee?” into your society benefiting from the exciting opportunities from knowledge and innovation.
Ben Howlett
Q So, given what has just been said, do you think the Bill—to go back to the earlier question—goes far enough? Can it be strengthened? Is there anything that could be looked at?
Dr Ruth McKernan: To the extent that UKRI gets a business view of what business needs in terms of skills, that is really valuable. When it comes to diversity and inclusion, that should absolutely be business as usual for all of us in improving that. I did not see it specified in the Bill. I am not sure that is the appropriate place. That should be what we just do.
Paul Blomfield
Q May I ask two unrelated questions? The first is about distribution of research funding across the sector. Professor Nelson, you talked about working together better. I wonder whether you are looking at working together more consistently as well, because it is fair to say that there is a difference of approach by research councils in terms of how effectively they enable every part of the sector to compete equitably for research funding. In many senses, Horizon 2020 and FP7 before it have been more successful in doing that. What thoughts do you have on how the new framework can enable that?
Professor Philip Nelson: It should help us resolve some of those differences that have developed over the years that we appreciate are unhelpful. We need to resolve some of that. There are very often small differences in policy that have a disproportionate effect, so we need to work at that. We have a lot of work under way already in trying to think that through. Some of it gets entangled. Certainly the new organisation with a single accounting officer who can just turn around and say, “Right, we are going to do it this way” will be helpful, if I can put it as bluntly as that. So I think that will enable us to resolve those things, or many of them at least. So that is another good feature of the proposed reform.
Paul Blomfield
Q My second, unrelated question is about the office for students, which is there to ensure we get the best learning experience for all our students. The narrative and discourse around the Bill so far is inevitably around undergraduate and postgraduate taught students. What responsibility do you see the office for students having in ensuring the best learning experience for postgraduate research students?
Professor Philip Nelson: I think that is an important issue, absolutely. For example, we in the research councils have three main ways of supporting PhD students across the sector. We do interact with HEFCE on that currently. I think it will be very important—the point has already been made in evidence to this Committee—that the OFS and the UKRI connection is carefully made. In that particular area, there is clear overlap of responsibility. It will be down to ensuring that that connectivity is well and truly in place.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: I agree. I think this is very important across the board for a number of reasons. There are a couple of points I would like to make. One is that one of the opportunities generated by UKRI would be the possibility to have more integrated research into teaching and research training. One of the things that the cross-council pot could do would be to consider whether we could develop better understanding of the most effective ways to do research training and teaching. That is one opportunity that is more difficult within a single research council.
I would like to connect that a little bit back to this diversity point. I think there is a concern about the narrative of “the best teaching”, because by definition different people work in different ways and the system has to support diversity of provision. Any system that is set in place at any level—whether undergraduate, graduate or graduate research—has got to have on tap different options for different kinds of students with different kinds of learning styles and different kinds of goals for what they want to get out of that learning. There is a danger of winding up with too much of an assessment-driven, individual metric-driven approach for assessing across the board. You canalise into a rather narrow range of provision that will not suit the diversity of students.
The Chair
Q Professor McKernan, do you want to add anything?
Dr Ruth McKernan: I do not have anything more to add.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Q You have already said a bit about this, but may I just press you for specifics on the dividends that can accrue to UK plc from the councils working together? It all sounds great and very sensible. I have heard so far about improvements from the transfer of innovation to business, improving diversity and social exclusion and integrating research into teaching, but are there other specific concrete dividends that you would wish to identify that can flow from this?
Professor Philip Nelson: One of the main things that came very strongly out of the Nurse review was—there are two levels to this—that many societal challenges are intrinsically inter-disciplinary. It is about enabling us to tackle those challenges more efficiently. Take urban living, for example. Some 70% of the world’s population will be concentrated in cities, and there are massive challenges in that whole process, both here and overseas. That involves physical science, engineering and social science—all those factors come into play. We have got a pilot study running with Innovate UK where all seven research councils and Innovate UK are working on precisely that subject area.
Alex Chalk
Q So it improves the co-ordination of a complex issue.
Professor Philip Nelson: Absolutely. So that is one dividend. Another dividend is at the more basic science level. One sees that an awful lot of the great opportunities in science are at the interfaces between physics and biology and between biology and chemistry and so on. Those are the sorts of fundamental aspects of science where we need to be able to ensure that we do not get very innovative researchers having to deal with too many individual silos. We already take steps across the research councils to do that. We have a cross-council funding agreement. We have done our best to enable that to happen, but we can do more, especially at the more strategic level, to say, “This is clearly a cross-disciplinary work of basic science”—
Alex Chalk
Q So, “You do that bit, you do that bit, and you do that bit.”
Professor Philip Nelson: Exactly. There are lots of fantastic opportunities there.
Dr Ruth McKernan: I would add that where the challenge is business-led, it would probably be very difficult to make it happen without the voice of business represented in UKRI.
For example, if we wanted to be world leading in robotics and autonomous systems, that would require much of the technology that Phil’s council is developing, SMEs that are already in the space and some additional maths skills; if a healthcare or medicinal purpose was involved, you would need the participation of the MRC. This allows a process by which business could put forward a challenge that required many different groups to work together, which today would be incredibly difficult.
Alex Chalk
Q Right. Because it is too labyrinthine at the moment.
Dr Ruth McKernan: It is labyrinthine. We run collaborative R and D programmes that pull together people from big business, SMEs and the research environment, but as part of UKRI we will have the opportunity to speed that up—and business speed is on a quarter. It gives us the opportunity to move at the speed that business needs.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: I would echo the point that both challenge-led and blue-skies interdisciplinarity is going to be a huge benefit. I would like to add strategic oversight of various things. Large research facilities would be high on the list for me. We have a lot of large research facilities. They have appeared historically in various places for various reasons, and they are very eclectic in how they have arisen, how they are maintained and funded, and who gets to use them and who does not.
This provides exactly the kind of place where we could have a national overview of what we need, where it should go, how it should be accessed and how it should link in internationally with other facilities. We just do not do that at the moment, and there is nowhere obvious to do it.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that time is now beginning to press down upon us. Three Members have indicated that they wish to ask questions and we have to finish at 12.30. Should we finish earlier than that, there will be more time for the next set of witnesses. I call Roger Mullin.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
Q Thank you very much for your evidence this morning. It has inspired me to ask a different question from the one that I came in to ask; it is about the wider policy context.
I have been listening carefully, and on quite a number of occasions you have talked about, for example, industrial strategy, social inclusion and economic policy with the assumption that there are such things in the United Kingdom. Of course, there are not because the devolved Administrations have increasingly different approaches to economic policy and the like. How do you see the Bill and your own functions as described in the Bill being able to accommodate the different policy contexts that are developing in the UK?
Dr Ruth McKernan: This is something that Innovate UK works through very successfully by partnering with the other enterprise agencies in the regions and nations. We are actually prototyping a process with Scotland. When we run a programme, the number of high-quality, fundable applications always exceeds our budget. We are working with Scotland to enable them to pick up some of those applications against their policy and preference, to the extent that they want to do that.
We would like to be able to roll that out. Being connected to the research environment helps us to put out the right sorts of competitions, which allows regions and nations to develop their own expertise and specialist skills and choose where they want to invest in proposals that come in at a national level against their priorities. We have a way of simplifying that. We have a way of working with different policies and values in different parts of the UK.
Professor Philip Nelson: Research Councils certainly engages strongly with the devolved Administrations; we are in dialogue across those Administrations. For example, I led a delegation to Scotland back in June. All seven research councils were represented. We had conversations with the Scottish Government and we visited Scottish universities.
We absolutely treat all those universities out there in devolved Administrations as part of the team, as it were. There is no question about that. How to deal with industrial strategy and perhaps different slants on how things should be developed in that way will be a challenge for us, but by working with Ruth, for example—this is another advantage of working closely together—we can absolutely address those challenges. We are definitely minded to do so. There is no difficulty in that.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: I agree that good interfaces, once again, are crucial, so Research England will be part of United Kingdom Research and Innovation, but the equivalent organisations from the devolved nations will not. Establishing really good relationships with those organisations and maintaining those, going forward, will be important.
I would say in principle that the research landscape, the research base, is the same, and it can feed into anybody’s industrial strategy. Exactly how that knowledge is used will depend on the Governments in the various Parliaments taking it, understanding it and using it to develop their own priorities. The fact that there will be one place which will have a better integrated understanding of what is going on in the research base will in principle help all those organisations. I do not see it as a conflict if that interface works properly. It is about an interface. There is not one at the moment and there needs to be one, and that is what this Bill will try to achieve.
Roger Mullin
Q A quick follow up, particularly to Professor Nelson. You will be aware, having consulted with the Administrations in Scotland and your partners there on the research side, that there is some anxiety about the Bill and the lack of formal representation in some of the architecture described in it. Would you like to comment on that?
Professor Philip Nelson: We did absolutely acknowledge the existence of those anxieties and said we would make it clear that we needed to do something about it. I know there have been proposals about representation on the board of United Kingdom Research and Innovation. I would have thought at the very least one would want to have a clear point of contact within United Kingdom Research and Innovation.
I do not know how we would do this but we certainly need to absolutely manage it, and those anxieties were very clearly expressed, but from the research councils’ point of view there is no need for concern. We place huge value on the Scottish universities’ contributions. There are some great institutions there doing great work, and we would continue to fund excellence wherever it is across the UK.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Q I have a question—mainly, I think, for Dr McKernan, but I am interested in other views. The UK has traditionally had a reputation for cutting-edge research, brilliant innovation and coming up with ideas, with the commercial exploitation taking place in other countries. Does the Bill mean that the UK manufacturing sector is more likely to benefit from the research that takes place here?
Dr Ruth McKernan: I do not think the Bill specifically addresses that, but indirectly I think there is a benefit from having business close to research such that the benefits of research and innovation could be more easily adopted in business and provide a competitive edge.
Some 50% of productivity growth comes from innovation, so to the extent that we can help businesses grow more quickly because we can help them innovate, they have a chance to be more globally competitive, although many other factors in terms of access to capital and the competitive environment come into that. The Bill can only ever relate to a small component of your question.
Professor Philip Nelson: An awful lot of our work is focused on doing exactly what you are asking and I think that we will continue to do that. I think, frankly, this country has got an awful lot better at converting its scientific output into application in the last 20 years, and I would hope we will continue on that upward path.
Mr Marsden
Q My question is principally for you, Professor Nelson, but perhaps Professor Leyser will want to comment on the thrust of it.
You spent your academic life in acoustics, engineering and technology, but of course your position as chair of the board means that you have to recognise the needs and aspirations of non-science areas, and particularly the humanities and social sciences. Does it worry you that in the whole thrust of the Bill, and certainly the thrust of the White Paper, there seems to be little to say about the role of the social sciences and arts? Does it worry you that the Academy of Social Sciences is concerned that the Bill gives the power to do away with research councils by statutory instrument, which is often a rubber stamp? Are you concerned about that, and, if you are, what representations have you made to the Government?
Professor Philip Nelson: We are concerned about that. In fact, we absolutely hold dear the continued existence of those seven disciplinary councils. We have made it very clear to the Government that we felt that what we had was an effective base from which to work and that we did not want to abandon that in any regard. Personally, I have a huge sense of support for social sciences, arts and humanities. Those councils are extremely well read—sorry, well led.
Mr Marsden
And well read.
Professor Philip Nelson: Yes—Freudian slip. I would be very concerned about any sense that they were to be abolished. I would have deep concerns about that. In terms of exactly what the Bill says, that is one of the details on which we will be working with BEIS to ensure that we have the right sort of protections. I do not think that any Minister would undertake such an action lightly. I imagine they would want to consult widely before changing any sense of direction.
Mr Marsden
Q You would like to think so, but we have to legislate for a generation, and not for the best Ministers but for the worst. Do you think something should be made more explicit in the Bill?
Professor Philip Nelson: I think there is scope for doing that. Again, it is down to the detail. For the research councils, it is a very important principle.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: We would agree that there should be an obligation to consult before any drastic reorganisation of research councils—that is in our paper. In principle, UKRI has the opportunity to allow the social sciences, arts and humanities to be better included and considered across the research base.
There is a tendency to say, “And arts and humanities”, rather than it being brought across, but the interdisciplinary working will integrate those disciplines much more strongly and allow the obvious benefits, in terms of policy developments in the social sciences, design and manufacturing. For those kinds of issues where that expertise is clearly crucial, it should be strengthened by bringing everybody together in a single body.
Mr Marsden
Q All I can say is that as a medievalist, a historian and politician, I am grateful on all three counts.
Professor Ottoline Leyser: I am the daughter of two medieval historians, so I am very familiar with the medieval history argument.
The Chair
Are there any further questions to the panel? No. I thank the panel for their contributions and stand them down. If the next panel is available, we can commence the session two minutes or so early.
Examination of Witnesses
Douglas Blackstock and Sorana Vieru gave evidence.
The Chair
Q We will now hear oral evidence from the National Union of Students and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. As Members know, we have until 12.45 pm for this session. Members should try to limit themselves to one question, and we will try to get people in. I am afraid it is going to be difficult to do in that time. Will the panel introduce themselves from left to right?
Douglas Blackstock: I am Douglas Blackstock, the chief executive of the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Sorana Vieru: Hello, my name is Sorana Vieru. I am the National Union of Students vice-president for higher education. I am delighted that consideration of the Bill is including student representation.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Q I want to pick up on student representation first, because several amendments have been tabled that seek to address the lack of it. Given that it has been such a powerful way of getting students’ voices heard and has been used as a tool for quality enhancement, why is the NUS proposing to boycott the national student survey?
Sorana Vieru: At the national conference in April this year, an amendment was proposed to the education zone motion, which was looking at tackling the increasing marketisation of higher education and promoting students’ interests. Because the NSS was to be a metric in the teaching excellence framework, the amendment, proposed by a students union, mandated the NUS to look at boycotting or sabotaging the NSS in order to campaign against the teaching excellence framework.
Wes Streeting
Q Given that there are few ways for policy makers to get a national picture of student opinion, or for student unions to have some quantitative data to take to their institutions, and given that dozens of student unions seem to be concerned about the policy, I wonder whether decisions made by the national conference, which potentially have a detrimental consequence for all students, are a case of the NUS being led by its activists, rather than by its students.
Sorana Vieru: The spirit of the motion was in debating the usefulness of the data of the NSS itself—I am not debating that. It was proposed as a particular tactic, as the NSS is a metric considered in the teaching excellence framework. I have taken steps to ensure that we are carrying out a full consultation with our members. We have not made a decision about the next steps of the campaign. So we are seeking to maximise the number of responses from the student unions and the campaign and response will be structured in such a way as to mitigate any downfalls of the campaign as well. All those concerns are very high on my agenda.
The Chair
I remind Members that questions must be within the scope of the Bill. While “students” appeared in the question, it was slightly outside the scope of the Bill.
Wes Streeting
The NSS is linked to the TEF, which is within the scope of the Bill.
The Chair
You have to be clear about that.
Again, a number of Members wish to speak and we have limited time.
Ben Howlett
Q Before I come to my substantive question, the National Union of Students has been campaigning to give evidence at these sessions. For the record, why has the NUS sent a vice-president, not the actual president?
Sorana Vieru: I am the representative who holds the portfolio for higher education. I have been allowed the opportunity to come and give evidence, considering I have also been leading on the response to the Green Paper, since last year in November. I am in my second year, and I have been leading on the NUS’s response to the Green Paper, the White Paper and now the Bill as well.
Ben Howlett
Q Don’t get me wrong, I have worked with the NUS for a long time, and it has been a productive relationship, but this is a serious Bill and not to have the president here—
Sorana Vieru: Absolutely, but our president started on 1 July and I am in my second term. I have been dealing with the reforms and the Green Paper since November, and have been doing sector engagement, so I have been given the opportunity to present evidence today.
Ben Howlett
Q I think that is a bit of a shame but, obviously, the president is not here in person at the moment.
Moving on to my more substantive point, do you welcome the measures in the Bill that open up alternative student finance?
Sorana Vieru: The steps taken to ensure that sharia-compliant loans are available to students are very welcome. This is something that NUS has been working on with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for a number of years, in conjunction with the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, so this is definitely a welcome step.
The Chair
Q Mr Blackstock, do you have any views on Mr Howlett’s question?
Douglas Blackstock: On the specifics on student finance—we do not have a brief for student finance. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment.
Carol Monaghan
Q With the increased marketisation that the Bill will create—potentially, we could have new providers popping up all over the place—what needs to be done to keep students and their higher education safe?
Sorana Vieru: Two things are really important to consider with the increased image of higher education right now. The first is student protections. If we are opening the door to more providers and the shape of the sector is increasing, it is really important to protect students and their education and to ensure a quality education.
Student protection plans are very important in the case of a course or of a private provider closure. A full indemnification for students will be required should that happen, but student protections need to go beyond what is reasonable and fair in terms of financial compensation and to look at the reasons why students enter higher education—that is, in order to get a degree. It is about looking at ways in which we can ensure that students will complete the degrees, or a similar kind of degree to the one that they signed up to—so looking at transferring to new providers—and at the interplay that the Bill has with the consultation on credit transfer and lifelong learning, which is extremely crucial.
In this case, when we talk about student protections, we are talking about worst-case scenarios. It is also important to put in place student representation systems. It is important that new providers have established student representation systems that are autonomous and independent from the institution to allow the student voice to come through.
Douglas Blackstock: We already have a diverse higher education system. The QAA has reviewed more than 600 providers, and 170 or 180 degree-awarding bodies, 220 further education colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and more than 200 private alternative providers are still under our remit since we took on work first for the Home Office, then for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and now for the Department for Education on tier 4 licensing and cost designation for student finance.
We have a diverse sector. The Bill is bringing in measures that will strengthen the system. We particularly welcome the creation of a single register so that students—UK students and overseas students—can check that this is a bona fide institution that has actually gone through a series of checks. It also strengthens checks on financial sustainability, management and governance.
To pick up on Sorana’s point, it is really important for student protection that if we have providers that exit the market—and we have already experienced that, particularly through some of the work we have done with colleges that have failed the QAA reviews—there should be a permanent register of the qualifications that those students have obtained so that if they apply for a job in the future, an employer can check that that is a bona fide qualification that was awarded at that time.
The Chair
I am bound by the programme order to 12.45 pm. We have six Members and nine minutes. People need to bear that in mind so that we have short questions and short answers.
Matt Warman
Q I think this question is mainly for Mr Blackstock. The Bill moves towards a risk-based approach to regulation. Could you just talk us through your views on the advantages of that?
Douglas Blackstock: The advantage of a risk-based approach for an organisation such as us and the office for students is that you can direct resources where they are most needed. You can pay attention in a system like that, which is proportionate, to the track record and the ongoing performance of particular institutions. An example that I have used in many speeches over the past year is: why would we visit the University of Oxford as often as we would visit the college above the kebab shop on Oxford Street? They have different track records. It allows you to move to a system described in the White Paper, the Bill and the recent quality reforms—what I would call intelligent monitoring—which is where you actually look at the performance of institutions and then have an intervention that is proportionate to the risk that exists in that institution. That is the right way to go. It is what has happened in Australia, and the United States is probably a year or so behind where we are.
Sorana Vieru: With a move to a more risk-based approach, we really need to ensure that we capture the student voice throughout. With the current system, students really welcome the review opportunity to get changes and to get those from the students as well. A move that goes to student outcomes and annual reports is important to get a robust way of capturing student feedback and ensuring that it is acted on.
Mr Marsden
Q I have a couple of questions for Douglas Blackstock, if I may.
Mr Marsden
Okay. On the issue of alternative providers, the QAA’s most recent survey shows that shortcomings were uncovered in a third. Are the proposals for registering alternative providers adequate? That is obviously a point that Sorana might want to comment on. The other point is about the process on the creation of the OFS. The complicated architecture between QAA, HEFCE and all the rest of it will take up to two or three years. Are either of you alarmed that that will create problems for the UK brand abroad?
Douglas Blackstock: Starting with the current arrangements, I think that they have been proved. We have made significant steps through the introduction, in our activities, of financial sustainability checks, and HEFCE has been doing that as well. The creation of the register will strengthen it too. It is a sign of the system’s success that the providers that are doing well have come out well. We have now had the first alternative providers that have commended judgments and are doing well, but where there have been shortcomings, they have been exposed in public reporting.
In the five years we have come through since we took on the review of alternative providers, the market has reduced in terms of the number of providers, but the stronger ones have survived and are doing better in reviews. We recently published an analysis of our reviews of alternative providers, and those that have a partnership with a university do well. They come out well, because they have a mature relationship.
Sorana Vieru: I am alarmed by the fact that these are risky reforms that are being pursued at risky times, and I cannot see where student representation sits. With the split of knowledge exchange—with it coming out of HEFCE and going into UKRI—do postgraduate research students fall through the cracks? I would like to see more clarity about where those functions are. We are creating an office for students without having student representation designated on the board or the quality assessment committee, or any statutory duty placed on that office to work with and consult students to represent their interests.
Jo Churchill
Q Mr Blackstock, you have said that you welcome the single register, financial stability and so on, but you are the quality body for higher education, so do you believe that the necessary quality safeguards are in place to do that intelligent monitoring that you spoke about and to ensure that there is quality for all students of any age at any institution?
Douglas Blackstock: We are in the process of reform anyway, and there has been a detailed consultation and a move towards this risk-based system, which involves an annual provider review. There is much more regular checking up on how institutions are performing, and then a series of triggers to investigate where there are problems. That is all strong and good, and I welcome it. My one residual concern was put rather nicely to me recently by a vice-chancellor of a prestigious university: “If we never look at the best, how will we know what good looks like?” That is my one concern—that we need to work with the system on an enhancement approach that would help improve quality, perhaps learning the lessons from the quality enhancement framework that we operate in partnership with others in Scotland.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q On that point, do you think the teaching excellence framework will raise teaching standards, or will it simply lead to a very complicated fee system in which we will get different levels of fees across courses and institutions over time and they will change constantly?
Douglas Blackstock: I think the teaching excellence framework has real potential to raise teaching standards in UK HE.
Sorana Vieru: I do not think it is a secret that we do not think the metrics in the teaching excellence framework are robust enough. We welcome a focus on teaching quality and a way to improve that, but given the way the teaching excellence framework has been proposed, it is not likely to achieve that, due to the metrics not actually matching teaching excellence.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Q Is there sufficient clarity in the Bill on where postgraduates sit, or returning students, or students who are perhaps—as my colleague mentioned—slightly older and do not fit the profile of a normal young student?
Douglas Blackstock: In the current arrangements—it is certainly covered in the UK quality code and QA reviews—postgraduate research students and postgraduate taught students are part of that. We recently published a characteristics statement of what a doctoral degree looks like. We are working on a similar statement of what a degree apprenticeship looks like. I think that is captured in there, and we, with the office for students, should continue to have responsibility for ensuring that all students get a good quality education.
Valerie Vaz
Q Can you say specifically where in the Bill it is captured?
Douglas Blackstock: I would need to go back to it. I can come back and follow up on that.
Sorana Vieru: I have already mentioned the issue with postgraduate research responsibilities falling through the cracks. With UKRI still funding research degrees, it will obviously have an interest in ensuring the quality of provision for those degrees, with the office for students overseeing student experience as a whole. That muddies the waters a little bit. On the point of lifelong learning, there is something to be said about the student loan system currently being quite inflexible and working on an annual basis. If we are talking about mature students, we need to look at very flexible and part-time provision and a different kind of loan system that is not annually based and works on different—
Paul Blomfield
Q The NUS has put student representation at every level of the system at the heart of its submission. Can you explain in practical terms why that is important?
Sorana Vieru: We cannot talk about working for the benefit of students without involving students themselves. There is a bit of doublespeak in saying, “We’re introducing a single regulatory framework because we need to keep up with how the sector is looking currently. However, on the board of the office for students, we don’t require someone who has current experience and could reflect what being a student is like right now.” It could be anyone—someone who graduated 20 years ago. If our regulatory framework is mirroring the state of higher education institutions right now—
Douglas Blackstock: A useful model would be to look at what we have done over the last decade. We have embedded student engagement through all of our work. Students are on our review teams and are involved in all the developmental processes. There are two students on our board. There is a student advisory board of 20 students who we recruit through public advertisement to give strategic advice to the board. I think that would be a useful model for the Committee to look at.
The Chair
I thank the witnesses. I am sorry to have rushed them, but time is limited; I am bound by the programme motion.
Examination of Witness
Joseph Johnson gave evidence.
The Chair
Our next witness is the Minister, who will introduce himself formally for the Committee.
Joseph Johnson: Thank you, Mr Hanson. I am Jo Johnson, Minister for Universities and Science.
The Chair
This sitting has to finish at 1 o’clock. The Minister has asked to make a brief opening statement, and I have agreed. We will then take questions, commencing with Gordon Marsden.
Joseph Johnson: I want to take a couple of minutes of the Committee’s time to make a brief opening statement, and I am grateful to you for allowing that, Mr Hanson.
I want to provide the context for why we are introducing this Bill in this Session. We have not had an overhaul of the higher education and research system for more than 25 years. The sector itself has long been calling for these changes, and we now have the ability to make significantly overdue reforms. I would like to highlight the nature of the need.
Since the previous reforms in 1992—I believe that was the year you entered Parliament, Mr Hanson—[Laughter.]
The Chair
Was it that long ago? It feels like yesterday.
Joseph Johnson: The year we passed the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, in which you may have had a hand.
The Chair
I have lasted longer than the last legislation.
Joseph Johnson: The world has significantly changed. The world of higher education has been transformed. Back then, it was an elite system of higher education in which barely a fraction of the cohort of the student population had the chance to go to university. Now we are in a system of almost mass participation, with nearly 50% of the relevant cohorts having a chance to gain the benefits of higher education. It was a period of relatively limited university competition. Perhaps most importantly, the Treasury’s tight fiscal control limited student numbers through a system of quotas.
Unless we fix the regulatory problems that have emerged through operating with this out-of-date system, there is the risk that our system will fail to keep pace with the changes in the world around it. Although we have a world-class HE and science system, there are signs that we are at risk of falling behind unless we fix emerging problems. I am going to identify what those problems are.
First, opportunity for all is far from achieved. Access is still very uneven in our system, even though more people from disadvantaged backgrounds are getting a chance to go to university than ever before.
Secondly, the needs of the economy are unmet. Employers, who are a big motivation behind our reforms, are not getting the pipeline of skilled graduates that they need. We need to address the mismatch with the graduates who are coming out of university.
Thirdly, as we heard from Which? on Tuesday, applicants are choosing universities on grounds that are not necessarily the best and most relevant for their futures. We need to ensure they are properly informed and, critically, can choose from a range of good providers.
Fourthly, there is a lack of innovation in our system. Because entry into the sector is so heavily circumscribed at the moment through the requirement that new institutions be validated by existing incumbents, there is a lack of innovation and an increasing predominance of the traditional three-year residential model. There is insufficient innovation, such as new provision of accelerated courses, two-year provision, part-time provision, degree apprenticeships that offer workplace experience, and other sorts of things. We desperately need to allow more innovation to provide meaningful choice to students looking to gain the benefits of higher education.
The last motivation is to ensure that we have a research landscape that can take us forward in the 21st century, with science and innovation at the heart.
The Chair
Thank you, Minister. We have an opportunity now for questions. We have very limited time— 11 minutes—and I already have six Members who wish to speak.
Mr Marsden
Q I do not think anyone round this table would disagree with any of the aspirations, Jo, but the devil is in the detail. You have referred already to the length of time that it has taken to get this Bill—since Mr Hanson came into Parliament. We need to put something forward that will last for 20 or 25 years. We need 21st-century structures, not 20th-century structures, for 21st-century solutions. We will be pressing you on some of those issues, particularly about part-time and mature students in future.
I do want to press you specifically on this. You talked about the research landscape. You have come forward with this very complicated structure for the future. Are you actually engaging with what parliamentarians have said? There was a major 12-page letter sent to you by the Chairman of the House of Lords Committee at the end of June, which essentially duffed you up—not you personally but the Department—
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mr David Evennett)
I can’t believe that!
The Chair
Order. Can I remind colleagues that we have 10 minutes and we have to have succinct questions? Otherwise we will run out of time and people will be frustrated. There are lots of opportunities to question the Minister.
Mr Marsden
I will be very specific. What have you done to respond to the widespread criticisms of the way in which you have put the future of the research councils together, set out in the letter that Lord Selborne sent you on 30 June?
Joseph Johnson: Thanks, Gordon. I do not think your comments reflect the evidence that you have been hearing this morning and Tuesday from witnesses such as Professor Sir Leszek Borysiewicz and others. They saw huge merits in the creation of UKRI and were unanimous in agreeing that we should incorporate Innovate UK within that body.
Of course, we received Lord Selborne’s letter and I gave a very comprehensive reply to it, which has been published and is in the public domain. We strongly believe that there are huge benefits to the business community from having a better understanding of what is going on in the research base and the opportunities that are coming out of it. We think there are huge advantages to the research base of being more aware of the needs of business. There is a big synergy there to be exploited.
Amanda Milling
Q Good afternoon, Minister. On Tuesday, Professor Gaskell said that Universities UK had advocated a well-regulated register of higher education providers. Do you feel that the Bill will enable that?
Joseph Johnson: Yes—one of the centrepieces of the Bill is the creation of the register. For the first time we are going to have a unified list of institutions that are recognised, that meet a defined quality standard and that are able to assure students that the institution that they are going to has been through a quality threshold. This is a really important unifying mechanism that creates coherence in what is currently a very fragmented regulatory architecture, where HEFCE regulates a number of publicly funded institutions, BIS directly regulates alternative providers and there is a third huge universe of providers who are outside of both regimes altogether.
For the first time we will have a register, which Mary Curnock Cook, the chief executive of UCAS, said on Tuesday would be of huge benefit to people applying to university and wanting to have some kind of assurance that the institution they were thinking of going to had been through some basic sanitary and hygiene checks.
Carol Monaghan
Q Having heard from the witnesses over the past couple of sittings, can you tell me what the current position is on representation of devolved Administrations on the board of UKRI?
Joseph Johnson: UKRI is a body that will represent science and research across the United Kingdom. That is in the name. We want to ensure that excellence is well represented on the board, that there is a proper understanding of the systems that are operating in all parts of the UK.
We want to ensure that there is a proper ability for the devolved Administrations to have their specific needs well understood by the board of UKRI. As you know, in the research council system there is no ex officio membership for the devolved Administrations on the boards of those bodies. We have a reserved settlement in which science and innovation are presently reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We would not want to unpick our devolution settlement in this bit of legislation on its own.
Alex Chalk
Q Why structure rankings by provider and not by subject?
Joseph Johnson: You are referring to the teaching excellence framework?
Alex Chalk
Yes.
Joseph Johnson: We are introducing the teaching excellence framework in a phased, careful approach. In the first years of its operation, we are approaching the assessment and performance ranking on an institution level. In later years—piloting in year 3 with plans for introduction in year 4—we will be moving to discipline-level teaching excellence framework judgments.
Dr Blackman-Woods
Q Can you point to the evidence base that demonstrates a lack of innovation in the sector?
Joseph Johnson: In the HE sector?
Dr Blackman-Woods
Yes.
Joseph Johnson: It is interesting to note that the share of HE provision currently dominated and held by traditional provision—the classic three-year course—is increasing. It has gone up, for example, from 2010, when it stood at about a 65% share, to 78% in 2015. Rather than seeing increasing diversity of HE provision, with more people doing, for example, degree apprenticeships —although they have been growing this year—or more accelerated courses or more part-time courses, we are seeing a growing share for the traditional three-year model. What we want to see, and what these reforms will allow, is a greater diversity of provider and new models of HE provision, which mean that we are providing the kinds of opportunities for students that meet their needs at all stages in their lives.
Ben Howlett
Q What benefit will this Bill have for the most disadvantaged in society?
Joseph Johnson: In many, many ways it will help the most disadvantaged in society. First of all, we are introducing significant reforms on how we deal with transparency in the sector. Universities will be under an obligation to publish full information about their admissions processes and their offer rates, broken down by characteristics such as socio-economic disadvantage. We are putting a duty on UCAS to publish its data in a way that has not fully been available to researchers before. The teaching excellence framework will encourage institutions to focus on how much support they are giving to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and we are strengthening the powers of the director for fair access, widening his role to participation too.
Wes Streeting
Q Looking at the evidence of the amendments, what do you think now are the weaknesses in the Bill that you would like to address in Committee and on Report?
Joseph Johnson: We are always keen to hear from Members of the Committee and broader stakeholders with a strong interest in the Bill on how we can strengthen it and make it better. That is what this is all about. I have been working on this for 14 months.
Wes Streeting
But what are the areas that you would like to see strengthened through that process?
Joseph Johnson: We are open to all ideas. You have already submitted 150 amendments as a Committee on the first two or three clauses. I think many of them have interesting proposals and we are keen to—
Mark Pawsey
Q Minister, why should institutions treat students as informed consumers?
Joseph Johnson: They are required to by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. That is the first thing. They are required to by law. Universities are governed by consumer legislation in this country, so that is a starting point. Questioning whether this is a market completely misses the point. It is a market by law.
Paul Blomfield
Q You really do not seem to have lamented the lack of part-time education. Part-time student numbers have obviously collapsed since the funding arrangements changed in 2012. What do you think the Bill does to address that?
Joseph Johnson: It does a lot. It builds on measures that we have been taking over recent months. As you know, we have introduced maintenance loans for part-time students with effect from 2017-18. That is an important provision that will facilitate access to part-time education. That built in turn on access to tuition fee loans that we introduced just before. We have extended the equivalent or lower qualifications exemption so that more people can take a second degree on a part-time basis in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects. The bigger picture is that by allowing new providers into the system, we are more likely to get providers who are providing part-time provision. Alternative providers, as they are known, have a much higher proportion of part-time students in their student cohort than traditional providers. It follows therefore that allowing a greater diversity of providers into the system will benefit part-time students and people who want to study later in life.
Valerie Vaz
Q It is good to see you Minister. Presumably the Secretaries of State didn’t think that this was an important meeting, so they sent you along, but this is within your expertise, isn’t it?
Valerie Vaz
I had to get that on the record. Minister, you have said you have been working on this for 14 months. Every single person who presented the Bill has now changed—
Joseph Johnson: Apart from me.
Valerie Vaz
Apart from you—you are the only one who is left. Everybody else has changed. Given that we now have two Secretaries of State and machinery of government changes, that we had an important vote on 23 June, and that, as you have heard, there are 150 amendments, is this not a good time to pause the Bill?
Joseph Johnson: Ms Vaz, you are pretty much alone in wanting that. The sector bodies are not calling for this Bill to be paused—
The Chair
Order. I thank the Committee for making me feel very old. [Laughter.] Twenty-five years does not seem like yesterday.
Higher Education and Research Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 8th September 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 8 September 2016 - (8 Sep 2016)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. To curry favour from the start, I should say that Members may, if they so wish, take off their jackets. I remind Members that mobile phones should be switched to silent or turned off.
As a matter of form, I also remind Members that my fellow Chair Sir Edward Leigh and I do not intend to call starred amendments. The required notice for Public Bill Committee amendments is three days, which in effect means that amendments should be tabled by the rise of the House on Monday for consideration on Thursday, and by the rise of the House on Thursday for consideration on the following Tuesday. The Clerks will circulate a note shortly on the arrangements that will apply during the forthcoming recess.
The selection list for today’s amendments is available in the room and on the website. It shows the selection of amendments that I have made, and their groupings. Today, I intend to call first the Member who has put his or her name to the leading amendment in the group. Other Members are then free to catch my eye accordingly. Members may speak more than once in a single debate, should they so wish.
At the end of the debate, I shall again call the Member who moved the leading amendment in the group. Before any such Members sit down, they will need to indicate to me whether they intend to withdraw the amendment or to press it to a decision by the Committee. Any Member who wishes to press any other amendment or new clause in a group to a vote needs to let me know, because some amendments are not decided on in the order of their consideration in Committee, but are taken at a later date, as are new clauses that have been grouped. Let me know at that stage if any amendments in the group are to be taken further, and they will be dealt with at the appropriate point in the Bill or at the end. Decisions on new clauses, as I have said, will be taken at the end of the Bill, so after consideration of clause 113.
I shall use my discretion to determine whether we are to have clause stand part debates following the initial debates on amendments.
Clause 1
The Office for Students
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 119, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “Office for Students” and insert “Office for Higher Education”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 120, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “OfS” and insert “OfHE”.
Amendment 121, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “OfS” and insert “OfHE”.
Valerie Vaz
Thank you, Mr Hanson. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. My amendment is intended to be helpful; obviously, if Members do not like what I say, they can just trash me in the press. “Office for Students” is a misnomer. First, this body is not about being an office for students; as various clauses make clear, the body is about registration and regulation—a registration procedure—and not about students. It is certainly not about having students as part of the office for students.
Secondly, from the written and oral evidence given to the Committee, the situation of postgraduate students has clearly not been acknowledged or mentioned in setting up this body, and, with the new changes in the Government, we now have two responsible Departments. Postgraduates do a fantastic job of not only research, but teaching, so they are split between the two. There is a gap there, which has been acknowledged. Postgraduate students have to be somewhere in the Bill.
Furthermore, there is nothing about subject-specific support—the strategic and vulnerable subjects, which require a higher level of funding. That is why I say that this body is not about students. There is nothing about skills, the skills deficit or protecting the STEM subjects of science, technology, engineering and maths. I liken the office for students to the Care Quality Commission. This is like calling the CQC the “office for patients” when its responsibility is not actually about that, but about regulating healthcare providers.
The office for students appears to set up regulation and registration processes. We can see in the Bill a power to impose monetary penalties and a power for the suspension of registration. Higher education providers will have to pay for the benefit of being part of the register. If we continue to look through the Bill, we see clauses titled “De-registration by the OfS” and “De-registration by the OfS: procedure”. Higher education providers are going to be spending all their time on bureaucracy, and all that money will be taken away from front-line services—away from the students themselves. That is why I say, again, that it is not about students.
According to clause 2(2), the Secretary of State has to give guidance. Again, there is no clarity. We need to change that, because we now have two Secretaries of State. If the OFS was for students it would be about fees protection, because students who were having to face bills of £27,000 are now being provided with invoices for £45,000. It would also be about students’ wellbeing, the skills shortage, retraining, returners, and all those people who do not classify themselves as students as we imagine them to be. Our time as a student is actually a very short part of our lives. There are people who do not fit the student mould, yet who will be students at some stage during their lifetime.
I want to pick up on the Minister’s remarks earlier about my being the only one who wants to pause the Bill. I do so because I am a lawyer, and was a Government lawyer. It is important to have clarity on the face of the Bill. Currently, that is not the case. The Minister helpfully told us that he has been living with the Bill for 14 months. I sympathise with him on that, but there have been a lot of changes, not least the new grammar school policy that might be coming through. What happens at the early stages of education filters up. The abolition of the Office for Fair Access and what happens to young people as they go through the education system will have a great impact. I know that it is not part of the programme motion, and I have been told that we cannot discuss this, but what happened on 23 June is vital. I say again that the machinery of Government changes.
There is no clarity on the face of the Bill. “Office for Students” is a misnomer. I would prefer to work with the Minister to find another way to describe the body, not least because it is not about students.
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I echo the hon. Lady’s pleasure at serving under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.
I shall move straight to the points raised by the amendment, with which I fundamentally disagree. I do, though, appreciate the hon. Lady’s efforts to be helpful and am pleased to have a chance to address the points she made. The Bill sets out a programme of reforms for higher education that will improve quality and choice for students. It will encourage competition and allow for consistent and fair oversight.
As I said when I gave evidence to the Committee this morning, there have been several significant changes to the higher education system since the last legislation was introduced to overhaul the regulation of the sector, all the way back in 1992. The majority of funding for the system used to come directly from the Government, in the form of grants. We have now moved to a system in which students themselves fund their studies.
The regulation of the sector clearly needs to keep pace with developments if confidence, as well as our international reputation and standing, are to be maintained, so we need an HE regulator that is focused on protecting students’ interests, promoting fair access and ensuring the value for money of their investment in higher education. That has been a central tenet of Government reforms since the publication of the 2011 White Paper, “Students at the Heart of the System”. Ensuring that the student interest is at the centre of the sector’s systems and structures is a cardinal principle of our approach.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is probably the first of many occasions. I wonder whether he could not give some reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South on the issues she is raising by indicating that he views our amendments sympathetically. They would give life to what he just talked about—putting students at the heart of the system—by providing for effective student representation both at the top on the OFS board and throughout the system.
Joseph Johnson
Yes, I will certainly come on to that issue, which is the subject of a number of later amendments, but I will happily touch on it in answering the hon. Gentleman.
In its written evidence, University Alliance states that:
“As the organisation responsible for regulating the higher education sector, the OfS will need to ensure that institutions operate in the interests of students.”
That point was reiterated by Professor Quintin McKellar, vice-chancellor of the University of Hertfordshire in his evidence to this Committee, when he said that
“the Government’s idea to have an office for students that would primarily be interested in student wellbeing and the student experience is a good thing.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 22, Q31.]
We also heard from Alan Langlands, vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds, who concurred when he said:
“I think the Government have struck a reasonable balance, and putting students at the centre is sensible”.––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 27, Q41.]
The creation of the office for students is about putting students at the heart of the system. It has been a consistent theme of Conservative and, formerly, coalition policy for a considerable time. The OFS will, for the first time, have statutory duties focused on the interests of students and equality of opportunity when using the range of powers given by the Bill.
In addition, unlike appointments to the HEFCE board, the Secretary of State must “have regard” to the desirability of the OFS’s members having proven experience of representing the interests of students when appointing the OFS board. That goes straight to the point that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central raised. Schedule 1 of the Bill captures the intent of many of the amendments that have been tabled for later clauses. We feel that schedule 1 fully meets those intentions of ensuring that the OFS board has people with the experience of representing student interests.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
May I repeat my delight in serving under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and that of Sir Edward? On the very specific reference that the Minister has just made, some might say he is just trying to defend the indefensible. It is “Hamlet” without the prince, but we will come on to that in a moment.
Is it not the case that the specific phrase “have regard” offers the minimum in draftsmanship, not the maximum? We have to legislate not for the best universities—I am sure the Minister will in due course become part of them—but for the most unexcellent. Just saying “have regard” will not be sufficient to give the guarantees that students need.
Joseph Johnson
I completely agree that for the OFS to function effectively in students’ interest, they should be represented properly on it. We have had a crack at that in schedule 1. I am certainly receiving a lot of representations from Opposition Members and from student unions and so on saying that we have not gone as far as we might in entrenching that core principle with which we are in basic agreement: students need to be properly represented in the governance of the office for students.
I have understood the messages we are being sent, but I point out that at board level we will be recruiting those with experience of representing or championing the student interest. A critical feature of the OFS as it is organised is that overall it must have members with experience of representing the full diversity of the sector, including students. It is essential that the individual appointed can act on behalf of the wider student interest. That reflects common practice: board members are typically appointed for their breadth of experience and representation.
OFS members will have significant responsibilities in taking decisions, many of which will ultimately impact on all students, so it is essential that each member brings more than an individual perspective to the decision-making process to ensure that the diversity of stakeholders is fairly represented.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the Opposition are focusing far too much on the institutions themselves? The whole point of the Bill is to focus on students. By calling for such a change, the hon. Member for Walsall South is missing the entire point of the Bill.
Joseph Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for his point. That is right. HEFCE is a brilliant body. As we discussed this morning, it was set up in 1992 as the successor body to the Universities Funding Council. It is in the tradition of being a funding council at a time when the Government no longer principally funds the universities, so it is doing its job in a regulatory environment that reflects a bygone era. We need a regulatory structure that reflects the fact that students are now the primary funders of their education through the student loan system. This is a market, as recognised in law, so we need a market regulator. The office for students is the body that we believe is best placed to do that.
A change of name of the kind that the hon. Member for Walsall South suggests would go against the main principles that we are trying to achieve through these reforms. I note that none of the stakeholders who gave evidence to the Committee on Tuesday or today asked for a change of name.
As a regulator, the OFS will need to build relationships across the sector. Part of its duties will be thinking about the health and sustainability of the HE sector. However, that does not change the fact that the new market regulator should have students at its heart, and I believe that the name of the organisation needs to reflect that. For that reason, I ask that the hon. Lady withdraws her amendment.
Valerie Vaz
The stakeholders may not have asked for it, but that does not mean that people cannot have an idea of their own, take soundings or look at the face of the Bill and see what strikes them. I have not missed the point, as the Minister said, because clause 2(1)(b) says that the OFS is needed
“to encourage competition between English higher education providers in connection with the provision of higher education”.
Anything to do with students, universities or higher education is also about collaboration and public good. I wanted to flag up the fact that the name, as it currently stands, does not incorporate the idea of putting students at the heart of it, for reasons that I will not go through again. It is open to very clever civil servants to come up with something that reflects this debate. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
The Office for Students
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 63, line 17, leave out “twelve” and insert “ten”.
This amendment would maintain the maximum number of OfS members as twelve when taken together with amendment 3.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 122, in schedule 1, page 63, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) At least one of the ordinary members appointed under sub-paragraph (1)(d) must, at the time of their appointment, be currently engaged in the representation or promotion of the interests of individual students, or students generally, on higher education courses provided by higher education providers.”
This amendment would ensure that at least one of the members must be a student representative.
Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 63, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) The members appointed under subsection (1) shall appoint two further members (“the student representatives”) who—
(a) are persons—
(i) enrolled on a higher education course of a registered provider,
(ii) elected as representatives of a students’ union, or
(iii) elected as representatives of the National Union of Students, and
(b) are considered by the members of the OfS able to represent, or promote the interests of, a broad range of students.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), “course” means any graduate or postgraduate course.”
This amendment would require there to be two student representatives as members of the OfS.
Wes Streeting
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I welcome this opportunity to debate the first higher education Bill that we have had for some time. In introducing the first in a series of amendments I have put forward to the Bill, I want to offer the Committee some context for what I am trying to achieve.
The Minister’s warm words about the importance of students and of placing them at the heart of the system, as in the title of the coalition Government’s White Paper, are laudable but that aspiration is not currently reflected in the Bill. Since the introduction of university tuition fees and their subsequent trebling and trebling again, students have not been afforded anything like the rights and protections that they deserve, given the substantial contribution that they now make to the cost of their higher education.
When I saw the Bill on publication I thought it was at risk of being a missed opportunity. Instead of being a higher education Bill it ought to be a Bill of Rights for students, addressing some of the serious deficiencies that currently exist and ensuring that students are better protected.
During the evidence session, the Minister talked about the importance of consumer rights for students within the context of the current higher education system. I regret that language and the pace of marketisation that we have seen in higher education. It has always been my view that higher education is not simply a commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace. It is a mission that goes far beyond benefits to individuals. Higher education has a far broader societal benefit and a benefit to students. At the heart of the relationship between the student, their lecturers and institution is not a sense of suppliers and consumers; it is actually a partnership. I would like to see a focus on higher education that places principles of co-production of higher education at the heart of the Bill rather than aggressive consumerism.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a series of excellent points about the current state of higher education. Does he agree that we are getting payment for higher education out of balance and not recognising that there should be a relationship between the state, the public good and individual students in the payments funding of higher education? At the moment too much weight is being placed on individual students for funding higher education. Although they benefit, society benefits, too.
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who has made an enormous contribution to the debate on higher education in this place over a great many years. I know she shares some of my frustrations about these issues.
When the Dearing report was first published, it placed a tripartite principle at the heart of contribution. All the beneficiaries were expected to make a contribution: society, through general taxation, employers, and students themselves as graduates. I will not open the funding debate in its entirety today as that is outside the scope of the Bill, but I must say to those outside this place who take an interest and watch these proceedings that I share some of their frustrations that the scope of the Bill means the Opposition cannot set the direction of higher education policy on a radically different course, by placing more progressive principles at the heart of the Bill. To have that opportunity, a party needs to win a general election. There is a lesson in that as people make their choices.
To return to the scope of the Bill and in particular the amendments tabled by the Opposition, not only is there a lack of general protection for students, but the proposed office for students itself epitomises the problem with the Bill as it stands: students have their name on the door but they do not have a seat at the table. The amendments seek to ensure that students are represented on the board of the office for students.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the responsibilities that board members have for not just representing their own perspectives or interests but promoting the broader interests of higher education. I speak as someone who has been a student nominee on the governing body of the University of Cambridge, the board of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, the Higher Education Academy, and several other bodies that I cannot instantly recall, during my previous life as president of the National Union of Students. It has always been accepted that when someone accepts a role as a board member, they are not there solely to represent their own interests; they must take on a broader responsibility for the duties of the body concerned, particularly where that is a public body. That would be implicit and explicit in the student representatives’ responsibilities.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
The Care Quality Commission was mentioned earlier. There is no patient on the board of that organisation to represent the views of patients, because things evolve quickly. How does the hon. Gentleman want student voices to be engaged more effectively? The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, which the Labour party requested give oral evidence to the Committee, provided a probably successful and succinct idea for embedding the student voice by representing and engaging students at every level, not by having a token director on the board. Other regulators in the system certainly do not. Why not embed and engage students throughout the system as we move on?
Wes Streeting
Given the nature of the role of board members, those people would not be token; they would in fact have serious duties and responsibilities, and their voices and valuable perspectives would be heard at the heart of discussions. I might argue, by the way, that patient interests really ought to be represented on the board of the Care Quality Commission, but that is certainly outside the scope of the Bill. I have a serious point: I urge the hon. Gentleman and the Minister to agree with the new Prime Minister, who has said some interesting things since her elevation to the highest office about the importance of having worker and consumer representatives on company boards. That is an interesting point that ought to be addressed at the heart of the Bill.
Whether we believe that students are consumers of higher education or we prefer to see them as co-producers, both those visions would be served by these amendments, because students’ voices would be heard on the board of the office for students. I propose that there should be two student representatives, because I found—particularly in the higher education sector—that it was often helpful for there to be someone else who shared my perspective and experience when I was sat at the table with people who had often been around for some time, had been through the mill and had a great deal of experience. That principle has been supported by the evidence that the Committee has gathered. It is regrettable that we had only one NUS representative in, and for only 15 minutes. We had two GuildHE representatives in for an hour. In fact, we heard a whole range of perspectives from just the universities represented during our evidence gathering, but there was very limited time for students. I hope that we do not make the same mistake with the architecture of the higher education system.
Placing students on the board of the office for students would bring to life the Minister’s commitment that the new body will place students at the heart of its work. We might have a debate about the best mechanism for that and the appointments process. I have suggested, for example, that the board itself should appoint student representatives, there might be some chopping and changing as a result of turnover or churn, and the Secretary of State may not want to get bogged down in annual or biannual appointments.
We can debate implementation and perhaps even tidy it up on Report, but at this stage I would like the Government to commit to including students on the board of the office for students. That is not much to ask. It would not have a great cost, but there would be an opportunity cost of excluding students. Students have a valuable perspective to offer. There are countless examples of NUS representatives, student union representatives and students themselves making valuable contributions to university governing bodies and higher education bodies and enhancing the quality of our higher education sector as a result. I commend these amendments to the Committee and hope for a favourable hearing from the Minister.
Paul Blomfield
To make up for failing to do so earlier, may I say what a pleasure it is to serve on this Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson? I look forward to several weeks of debating with the Minister, who through the process of this Bill being brought together has proved to be a very listening Minister. He has ensured that proposals have developed and responded to concerns that have been raised. I hope we can continue to do that as we debate. While there will be a few dividing lines between each side of the Committee, there are also many things on which we can agree. Many of the amendments have been tabled genuinely to be helpful—this is one such amendment—and I hope there will be space for us to reach some understanding around them.
Mr Marsden
I rise to support the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Ilford North and to propose amendment 122, which stands in my name and that of the shadow Secretary of State. I begin by making it clear that in no way do I doubt the bona fides and the good intentions of the Minister; I hope he realises that. However, as I said in the previous session, we have to produce legislation for a significant period, so we have to think about all sorts of situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North, in an excellent speech, drew attention to the context in which these amendments are proposed today and to the aggregation of decisions, costs and responsibilities that has been growing for individual students of every age since we decided in the early 2000s to introduce a tuition fee regime. I do not wish to sound unkind, but there is an old saying about hanging concentrating the mind of the condemned person wonderfully. If the Government wish to put students as consumers at the heart of the Bill, I can only say that there has been a great deal of hanging and stretching over recent years to concentrate their minds in that respect. I do not wish to be partisan—I merely remark on the fact—but in my experience, having listened to a large number of students on the issue, perhaps the more profound point is that the tripling of tuition fees, the withdrawal of grants and their substitution with loans for disadvantaged students, and the freezing of the threshold, of which Martin Lewis spoke so eloquently in our evidence session, make the question of how they can have their voice truly heard in the process even more important.
Let me address what the Minister and the hon. Member for Bath said about their perception of the role of the proposed student representatives. Again, I do not believe that either intended this—I have already referred to the bona fides of the Minister, and the hon. Member for Bath does excellent work with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central on his all-party group on students, and all the rest of it—but I ask them to consider whether students might see as a little condescending the suggestion that the representatives are in place simply to represent the student body and not to reflect on any of the broader issues.
The Minister is right to say that in any corporation or organisation of any description, when people are put on boards, whether as paid or non-executive directors, we want to get good value out of them, so that they are not simply a representative of a particular organisation but have broader perspectives. Indeed, by being on the boards and involved in the process, they themselves develop in understanding of the industry—to talk in commercial terms—or, in this case, of the vocation and structures of universities.
We see that in other areas. I will remain within the spirit and the text of the amendment, Mr Hanson, but I wish to reflect on young people’s councils, which a number of Members of Parliament have in their constituencies. In some cases, those young people’s councils are involved in making decisions, working with the local councils and local authorities. As I am sure has been the experience of other hon. Members, when I have had engagement with students or young people in informal or formal events in my constituency, the one thing that has always come across strongly is that they do not want just to be sitting there and wearing only the one hat—to talk about young people’s issues. Young people of course have interests in specific areas such as higher education, but they are interested in all sorts of other areas as well. By extension, therefore, it is a faulty or deficient argument to say that the amendments are merely putting forward a token representative for a particular perspective.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman think it would be appropriate to take into account that the existing clause bakes in the desirability—in fact, the requirement—for OFS members to have experience of representing or promoting the interests of individual students or of students generally? In other words, that is already baked into the proposed legislation.
Mr Marsden
I hear the point made by the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right to say that paragraph 2(2)(a) of the schedule has such a reference. He talks about baking in, and I will not ask for a description of whether it is soft or hard-baked, but I would prefer to have the measure hard-baked into the Bill. The reason is to send out the message to students that they are valued, not simply as instrumental members of the board, but as a holistic part of the operation and one that can add value.
The principle is important, which is why I am spending some time on it at this stage, and it will appear in a series of other amendments that we will consider in due course. To turn specifically to the existing drafting of the Bill, the OFS is to have three designated places—one each for a chair, the chief executive officer and the director for fair access and participation. The remaining non-designated members have to collectively demonstrate experience and satisfy a number of criteria, but I agree with what the NUS said in its submission. Without the guarantee we propose, there would be no statutory protection for the student voice and no statutory protection for that time in the future when the Minister has moved on to higher and greater things and possibly even to No. 10—we may yet get a Johnson in No. 10. There is no guarantee in the Bill. It is true to say that ordinary members of the OFS will have experience of representing students, but that is not in itself a sufficient guarantee that the voice of students would be heard in the office that bears their name. This is about sending out a very important symbolic message, which would benefit the Bill.
In their evidence to the Committee, the NUS talked about specific values—it is, after all, a trade union and trade unions have to have due regard to the interests of their members, otherwise they would not exist—but it went beyond that. It said that, following the recent referendum and elections over the last few years, it is clear that young people have a great appetite to engage in politics and civic society and to shape the world around them. The NUS suggests all sorts of ways that that might be done, including individual electoral registration, but there is a broader point here, and on that point I want to refer to our evidence session with Mr Martin Lewis. Giving students the opportunity and the right to be at the heart of the office for students would confer not only those benefits on students, but would add value to this Government’s—to any Government’s—commitment to the democratic process.
To remind Members, Martin Lewis spoke in his evidence about the controversial issue of the freezing of the threshold—I am not going to go down that road at the moment. He went on to talk more broadly about breaking the principles of good governance and finance, and then continued:
“not only that, but this breach of trust makes it more difficult for people like me who have been trying to say to students, regardless”—
I am sure we don’t all share this view—
“of the political spittle generated—forgive me—by you people when you argue over these issues, that students can still afford to go to university… Let us not just treat students as consumers; let us treat them as voters and citizens.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 38-39, Q55.]
The danger is that retrospectively changing terms breaches a contract and breaches the belief in politics as a whole. My point is not about that specific issue; it is that this is a social contract, and that is extremely important. The Government are contracting to produce a body that they believe will do far more for students in the future. They want students to be enthusiastic about it, to abide by it and to participate in it. In return, students want to have the right to sit on that body. I am tempted to quote the famous saying of the American colonist who said, “No taxation without representation.” I hope that we will not have a civil war, such as that between England and what became the United States, but this is a totemic issue, which students feel strongly about.
If the Government were to consider and reflect on this issue, it would send a very strong signal of how important it is to include students in this process and in broader democratic processes. That would benefit all of us in Parliament in terms of improving engagement not just from younger students, but from older students as well. For those reasons, while I do not in way mistrust the bona fides of the Minister, the hon. Member for Bath or indeed anyone in the room, we do intend to press amendment 122 to a vote.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you again, Mr Hanson. I hope that this is not a private fight, and that the Committee does not mind a Scot intruding in this debate, which would seem rather strange to anyone who has been in receipt of university education in Scotland, because universities in Scotland have had students at their centre, in different ways, for centuries. Indeed, the amendments are extraordinarily modest in their intent.
Some may know that for centuries ancient universities in Scotland—the four ancients, as we call them—have had elected rectors. Only the students have been able to vote to elect rectors, who are chairs of the court. That has not led to an utter collapse in the system. Indeed, the other day we heard a professor saying how proud he was that his university was ranked 19th in the world. Over the years there have been some aberrations; in the early 1970s in Edinburgh, they elected a student as rector, who did go on to No. 10: a Mr Gordon Brown, I believe, who also used to be able to get elected as MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, but no more.
Having worked in the education sector at times, I know that students can show remarkably wise judgment: students elected me honorary president of Paisley University in the early 1970s for two years. More recently, when I was doing some work at Stirling University, I was invited to chair the students’ association as an external person. The engagement has been great, and there are many platforms for student engagement.
The serious point I would like to make about the nature of student engagement, however, is that we should look at some of the problems that we have on boards, not just in the education sector, but more generally in society. Look at what happened when the banks crashed. The Government regularly point out that part of the problem is group-think on boards—in other words, nobody on the board comes from a different perspective, able to challenge.
Although I respect many of the contributions we heard in evidence in the past two days, it strikes me that many of the people were talking with similar assumptions and in similar ways. We are just as likely to get group-think among well suited academics sitting together in a room as we are on the board of a bank. Student representation can provide a type of challenge, which is important. It is not even a problem if challenges are wrong, as long as there is challenge. To avoid group-think, there should always be someone willing to provide that challenge. That is where I think student representation has a particular role to play. If I correctly understood the hon. Member for Blackpool South to say that he intends to put his amendment to a vote, we will be happy to support it.
Joseph Johnson
I will respond to amendments 2, 122 and 3 together, as they all relate to student representation on the board. As I said earlier, students’ interests really are at the heart of the reforms. They are hard-baked into the Bill. They are clearly and explicitly, in black and white, in schedule 1, in which, as has already been made clear, the Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of the OFS board containing people with experience of representing students’ interests.
We will continue to engage with our partners as the implementation plans are developed. That will include ensuring that the student perspective is represented on boards and decision-making bodies. That is why, for the first time, we are setting up an office for students, with the intention, set out in primary legislation, that its members will, between them, have experience of representing such interests. I think it is fair for the Committee to acknowledge that that is progress. The current legislative framework, which was set up in 1992, did not have any requirements for the board of HEFCE or its predecessors to have experience of representing the student interest. It is also fair to acknowledge that putting students at the heart of the governance of the main regulatory body that will oversee the sector is a significant step in the right direction, even if that is not quite as hard-baked as the hon. Member for Blackpool South would like, in terms of prescribing the specific number of people on boards who are capable of representing the student interest, or prescribing that those involved be current students.
Mr Marsden
I entirely acknowledge what the Minister says about the provision not existing in 1992 or subsequently, but that, while not exactly being a lawyer’s argument, is a slight straw person, if I could put it that way. We might as well say, “We have near-universal suffrage in the UK today; they didn’t have that 200 years ago.” It is not a very strong line of argument, I would suggest. The Minister talked about experience of representing the student interest; most of us here have that experience, so I wonder if either he or his officials could give us a definition of that, and say whether it includes or excludes existing students.
Joseph Johnson
It could easily include students who are presently at university, but we would not want to put that in the legislation, because that might exclude people who are quite capable of playing that role. Many NUS executives, for example, could occupy the position, but they are often not actually studying, as I understand the NUS’s arrangements. They take leave of absence or years out from their university. They sometimes perform these important functions shortly after they have stopped studying. Putting in legislation the kind of requirement that the hon. Gentleman wants would prevent many of those kinds of people from contributing their valuable experience. We would not want to exclude them by putting in a requirement that they be existing students. It would perhaps not be in the student interest to do so, because we want to make those skills available.
It is essential that the individuals who are eventually appointed be able to act on behalf of the wider student interest that I spoke about. Students are a highly diverse group, and we want representatives on the OFS board who can represent the rich diversity of the student population—mature, part-time, minority ethnic and distance learners, as well as many other forms of learners. We want the OFS board members to be able to represent more than one type of student. It is very possible that we can recruit members with several of the criteria that we are looking for.
Dr Blackman-Woods
May I help the Minister out by suggesting that he looks at having the president of the NUS, or an immediate past president of the NUS, as a member of the board—somebody with a very up-to-date knowledge of a wide range of issues relating to students and the higher education sector more widely?
Joseph Johnson
We have made it clear that we want the student voice prominently represented in the governance structures of the main regulatory body. We would not want to set out in legislation that the holders of particular positions in the NUS or other student unions had ex officio places on the board of the office for students. That would tie the hands of the board of the OFS in a way that would be entirely undesirable in primary legislation.
I want to pick up on one or two points that the hon. Member for City of Durham made. She said that the way in which the higher education market had evolved to cause students to be regarded as consumers was regrettable, and she also regretted the withdrawal of the state from the financing of higher education. I would like to point out that that is not true: the taxpayer still makes a considerable contribution to the funding of the system. Taxpayers fund it directly, and also often subsidise the loans that underwrite students’ studies. That is a critical feature of a progressive higher education system that has enabled many people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university and benefit from it.
As I was saying, schedule 1 is progress. It includes a requirement that is not found in current legislation. The student voice and the student interest will be represented in the main regulatory body; that has not previously been the case. The Committee should welcome that, even if some want the types and specific characteristics of the student representatives to be set down even more clearly.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for giving way again. He has explained his aspiration to engage students. The first OFS board will set the tone; it will set an operating framework that will be maintained over many years. Under the Bill, would the Minister expect that first board to include a current, or at least very recent, student, so that that particular experience could complement its work?
Joseph Johnson
I would not want that to be explicit in primary legislation. It will be for the Secretary of State to have regard to the duty to think about the desirability of student representation, but I do not want the Bill to be clear now as to whether it would be a current student or someone who had just finished studying. It could be either of those, or people with a number of other characteristics. The key thing is that there will be people on the OFS board who will be capable of representing the wider student interest.
Mr Marsden
Without trading lawyers’ words, the amendment says that at least one of the members should,
“at the time of their appointment, be currently engaged in the representation or promotion of the interests of individual students, or students generally”.
That is drafted quite widely, for the specific and practical reasons that the Minister outlined. It certainly does not say that a member has to be an NUS officer or official. There is a degree of latitude in the amendment.
Even at this stage, I shall make an offer to the Minister: if he is worried that the amendment is technically deficient—after all, he is Goliath and we are David in this matter; he has many officials to draft amendments, whereas ours may well be technically deficient—and he wants to suggest improvements to it, that would be a different matter, but he has not said that.
Joseph Johnson
I deal with the amendments that have been tabled. I do not choose which amendments Opposition Members table; I can deal only with those that are presented to me. The amendment as drafted would restrict student representation at board level to a current student. We think that is over-prescriptive. It is of course right that we engage directly students who are currently in higher education, but restricting the requirement in such a way would risk our not being able to appoint the right person to the role. It could, for example, prevent us from appointing a future full-time officer of a student representative body. For that reason, I urge the hon. Member for Ilford North to withdraw the amendment.
Wes Streeting
Having listened to the arguments, I am genuinely baffled by the Government’s reluctance to give way on the notion of student representation on the board of the office for students. I cannot understand how it could be reasonably argued that students’ interests lie at the heart of the office for students when there might be no voice around the table with current or recent experience of being a student.
Alex Chalk
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that students are not being excluded? It is not the case that they will not be included; they just might not be. The schedule simply allows the flexibility to ensure that if the representative is a student, they are the best person for the job.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. It is in the nature of the business of the office for students, which is, after all, for students, that it will be always discussing the kind of issues on which it would be advantageous to have the perspective of a current or former student who had been involved in student representation, so that the OFS could reach the right conclusion and listen to the right perspectives.
It is some 12 years since I graduated from university, and more than half a decade since I left student representation. Although I maintain a passion for representing the interests of students, as reflected in the amendments I have tabled and in the contributions I tend to make in the Chamber, I do not pretend for a moment to know what it is like for students currently studying on my course at my university, let alone on all other courses at all other universities. Things have moved on. I know the higher education sector can sometimes move at a glacial pace when it comes to improvements and developments, and it suffers from small c conservatism, but none the less there have been significant changes. In the student finance system alone, the architecture for tuition fees has changed twice since I was at university, and the repayment terms and conditions have changed even more. I cannot understand the argument we have heard this afternoon.
Wes Streeting
I give way to the hon. Member for Bath, in the hope that he has had a change of heart.
Ben Howlett
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is withdrawing his amendment, but some of the examples he has cited show that student representation can be looked at by one of the committees provided for in schedule 1. If he tables further amendments on student representation, surely he should look at that at a committee level, rather than board level.
Wes Streeting
It comes back to the Minister’s point, which is that we do not want to see tokenistic representation. The board of the office for students is the governing body of the institution; it has powerful regulatory functions to oversee and it will have a degree of responsibility for allocation of resources. It is quite right that the student perspective should be heard right at the top.
I fear that the Government’s reluctance at this point in our discussion to include student representation will go down very badly throughout the country, not just among student representatives—many of us have large student constituencies—but with the sector, as we saw in the evidence session. I am sorry that university and higher education sector leaders seem to have a greater appetite for, and understanding of, the true value of student representation than the Government have demonstrated this afternoon. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 122, in schedule 1, page 63, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) At least one of the ordinary members appointed under sub-paragraph (1)(d) must, at the time of their appointment, be currently engaged in the representation or promotion of the interests of individual students, or students generally, on higher education courses provided by higher education providers.”—(Mr Marsden.)
This amendment would ensure that at least one of the members must be a student representative.
Mr Marsden
I beg to move amendment 123, in schedule 1, page 63, line 20, after “have” insert “equal”.
This amendment would ensure all the related criteria are taken to be of equal importance and there would be no perception that a hierarchy exists between any of them.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 124, in schedule 1, page 63, line 24, at end insert “or further education providers”.
This amendment would ensure experience of Higher Education at Further Education providers is taken into account.
Amendment 125, in schedule 1, page 63, line 37, at end insert—
“(h) working to improve equality of opportunity and the widening of access and participation within higher education, including via part-time, adult and lifelong learning.”
This amendment would ensure improving access and widening participation is considered when appointing board members.
Amendment 126, in schedule 1, page 63, line 37, at end insert—
“(i) being an employee of a higher education provider, particularly in the capacity of teaching or researching.”.
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State had regard for the experience of Higher Education employees, teaching or research staff.
Mr Marsden
The aim of these amendments is again to extend and clarify our view of the direction in which the Bill should travel. I like to hope that other members of the Committee feel likewise. I will take them in order.
Amendment 123 is relatively straightforward but contains an important principle. It marks a slight dividing line between Government and Opposition. We had a lot of discussion about consumers in the previous debate—rightly so, because we wanted to take the Government at their word, when it came to their interpretation. Surely it should be a principle that all the related criteria referred to in this part of the Bill, which talks about the desirability of the proposals, should be of equal importance. There should not be a perception of them being in a hierarchy.
The Government have suggested that the new office for students will be explicitly pro-competition. I am sure, as we go through the Bill, we will have a number of significant debates on amendments that will draw out what the Government mean by being pro-competition. There is a risk—I put it no stronger than that at this stage, as we will want to return to the subject in detail when we talk of providers—that if we encapsulate that preference in the criteria, that element will take priority over other functions, which could harm the quality of higher education and act against the wider student interest.
We believe that members of the office for students should have prior experience and understanding of all aspects of the work of the OFS board, and that should be made explicit in legislation.
Amendment 124 addresses what I hope we will discover from the Minister’s reply is a drafting error. We are asking for the words “or further education providers” to be included in the list of things that members of the board should have experience of. There is a very straightforward reason for that. Further education colleges in England have provided and increasingly provide a range of higher education, including higher-level skills and qualifications for students entering the workforce and individuals wishing to pursue a higher education qualification.
I speak with some feeling, although I do not have a university in my constituency. We might have had one in the 1960s; it was between us and Lancaster, but unfortunately the Conservative council at the time thought that revolting students—because that is, of course, what people were doing in the ’60s—were not what they needed in Blackpool, so it went to Lancaster. However, we do have an excellent further education college—Blackpool and the Fylde College—which has thousands of higher education students and was one of the first FE colleges to be awarded independent degree-awarding powers.
The direction of travel in that respect is absolutely clear—or at least I hope it is. Some 159,000 people study at higher education colleges, and colleges deliver 85% of HNCs, 82% of HNDs and 58% of foundation degrees. Given what the White Paper said about the crucial importance of skills and vocational education in driving the objectives that the Government describe—indeed, the Minister said that when he introduced the debate in the House of Commons—I would have thought it was a no-brainer, if I can put it that way, that we should consider looking at people who have worked in the further education sector and have specifically promoted and developed higher education degrees.
This is a good opportunity for the Government to respond to the concern, which I and other people have raised, that further education colleges and their role in higher education got a raw deal in the White Paper and the Bill. On Second Reading, I raised the forecast figure in the Government’s technical paper for the number of further education colleges that would be delivering higher education as a result of this Bill. The figure for 2027-28 is exactly the same figure as that projected for 2018-19. Now, perhaps the Minister will say, “Oh well, that’s speculative” or whatever, but there is a suspicion—I will put it no stronger than that—in the further education sector that when the Government talk about the importance of new and existing providers of higher education, the further education sector is not absolutely at the forefront of their mind. For those reasons, it is desirable, and frankly in the Government’s interest, that this modest amendment, which simply identifies what is actually the case at the moment—that more than 10% of higher education is delivered by FE colleges—should be incorporated in the list of criteria, not the obligations, that should be considered when the members of the board are appointed.
In amendment 125, we are developing and taking forward the same principle of widening participation and social mobility. We are suggesting again that they need to be made explicit criteria in the Bill. Again, the Labour Opposition are putting forward our strong view of how important widening participation and improving equality of opportunity and access are. I am not going to speak in detail about the inclusion of the phrase
“part-time, adult and lifelong learning”,
because there will be other opportunities when we debate other amendments, but we want the Government to put money where their mouth is, and their mouth has been very eloquent about the need to improve and widen participation. Again, I cannot see any reason why those measures should not be included.
Indeed, the previous Prime Minister made great play of this issue at the beginning of the year, and I have no reason to believe that that position is not supported by the current Prime Minister. The Minister herself has spoken eloquently about the need to get universities and higher education institutions to step up to the plate.
Joseph Johnson
Ensuring that the OFS board members reflect the diversity of the HE sector is of the utmost importance to this Government. It is also essential that the board has the range of skills, knowledge and experience that will be required for it to be the market regulator of a sector that is of such strategic importance to the UK.
The current legislative framework requires the Secretary of State solely to have regard to the desirability of appointing HEFCE board members with experience of the HE sector, business or the professions. Over the years, that has given successive Secretaries of State from different parts of the House the flexibility to ensure that the HEFCE board has the breadth and depth of experience and skills that it has needed to deal with the priorities of the day.
The provisions in this Bill relating to the OFS board appointments take the same approach as the current legislative framework. In line with the OFS’s broader remit, we have expanded the number and range of areas to which the Secretary of State must have regard when appointing OFS board members. For example, those areas now include developing and implementing a regulatory framework, and promoting student or consumer choice. However, the basic approach remains the same. The Secretary of State must have regard to the desirability of appointing, but is not bound to appoint, people with certain backgrounds. The aim of the Bill remains to preserve the crucial flexibility for Secretaries of State to constitute the OFS board in the most appropriate way to address the challenges and opportunities it faces at any given time.
On amendment 123, it is extremely important that the Secretary of State has the ability to determine the overall balance of the board, and to decide where the OFS board needs greater strength and depth. While I agree that a balanced approach will be important, the amendment would inhibit the Secretary of State’s ability to make appointments that reflect current priorities. It risks having a board lacking the depth and breadth of key experience it needs to tackle the issues of the day, which may vary over time. The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State needed to have equal regard to all the criteria. It therefore implies that it would be desirable to have equal representation from all the areas on the list all of the time.
The process we have adopted for making appointments to the OFS board is based on that which has been successful for the HEFCE board over the past quarter of a century. The current legislative framework requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of appointing HEFCE board members with expertise in higher education, business and the professions. In terms of OFS board recruitment, the legislation expands the skills it is desirable to have. In purely numerical terms, the Bill lists seven areas, whereas the previous legislation mentioned only three, which means there will likely have to be some trade-offs between different types of experience that the Secretary of State will need to consider when making appointments. Furthermore, it is highly probable that some people will satisfy more than one of the criteria, and it would therefore be odd to try to pigeonhole individuals into a category for the purposes of satisfying the amendment, rather than making a judgment on the best way for the OFS to deliver its duties.
On amendment 124, I am glad that the hon. Member for Blackpool South has raised the important role of FE colleges in HE. Some 159,000 students study HE in a college, which is why I would like to highlight the support given to the package of reforms contained in the White Paper and the Bill by the AOC. The AOC says:
“We welcome much of the Bill’s content, as it has been one of AoC’s key long-standing policy objectives to make it easier and quicker for high performing institutions, including colleges, to achieve their own degree awarding powers”,
as the hon. Gentleman’s college in Blackpool has successful done recently. I will read another quote from the AOC that shows the support from colleges for what we are trying to do through our reforms:
“Choice, access and quality are the welcome watchwords of the Government’s long-awaited plans to open up higher education and to allow more colleges to award HE qualifications. This step change away from the country’s traditional university system will empower more people than ever before to access HE in their local area through a college. It will also provide a wider choice of courses that are linked to employment.”
I agree that having board members who can represent a wide variety of students would serve to enhance the diversity of the board. However, a specific amendment to ensure that is not necessary, as the definition of higher education providers in clause 75(1) is broad enough to capture further education providers. The definition already includes any provider who is offering higher education courses, which reflects the definition used in the Education Reform Act 1988. That definition has been used deliberately so that it captures HE in FE as an important and valued part of the sector.
There is nothing to be gained by highlighting a distinction between higher education and further education providers as the amendment proposes. The Bill enables the necessary flexibility to select board membership that best represents a very broad range of student interests. The amendment would serve to restrict that flexibility. It is essential that the individuals appointed can represent all students, which reflects common practice, where board members are typically appointed for their breadth of experience and representation.
Mr Marsden
I have to say that the Minister’s response was an extraordinarily—this was possibly predictable—managerialist response written by his civil servants. It was a pretty poor response. On the specific point he made, I would have more sympathy with the technical position—I have no doubt that the civil servants have gone through the previous legislation—were it not for the fact that in the White Paper and the Bill that was presented, the role of further education colleges in delivering higher education was pretty non-existent. That is why it is important to include the phrase in the Bill at this point.
Joseph Johnson
I have made the point that including the phrase is simply unnecessary, because the definition of “higher education provider” that we are using, which is taken from the 1988 Act, captures the delivery of HE through FE colleges. It would be entirely redundant and confusing for people to see a new definition spring up at this point in the Bill.
Turning to amendment 125, widening access and promoting the success of disadvantaged students will be a key part of the office for students’ remit. We want to ensure that in bringing forward our reforms, higher education providers do not lose sight of their vital role in promoting social mobility and in helping some of the most disadvantaged young people in our society to benefit from our world-class HE system.
The integration of the remit of the director of fair access within the OFS signals our commitment to making fair access and participation a priority. The OFS will have a new duty that will require it to consider equality of opportunity in connection with access to and participation across its functions, so widening access and participation for students from disadvantaged backgrounds will be at its very core.
I understand the concerns expressed about the importance of considering experience of widening access and participation when appointing the chair and ordinary members, but just because it is not in the list in schedule 1 does not stop the Secretary of State from appointing ordinary members who have that experience. The OFS’s members will be drawn from a wide range of backgrounds to ensure that the body is supported by the knowledge and expertise critical to delivering its mission and informed by representation that reflects the diversity of the sector’s providers and students.
We have already signalled the importance we attach to access and participation through the duties we are placing on the OFS and through the creation of the director for fair access and participation post. The DFAP will, like other members, be appointed directly by the Secretary of State. The DFAP must have the skills necessary to fulfil the duties placed on the OFS in widening access and participation. The necessary experience will therefore be there within the membership of the OFS. The OFS members will operate in effect as a board.
Amendment 126 relates to HE staff representation. The HE sector is diverse. It includes: large teaching intensive institutions that operate on an international level; highly specialist conservatoires of music, dance and the performing arts; and small, very locally based organisations focused on giving the most disadvantaged groups access to HE. In the Bill we have already included measures that mean the Secretary of State must have regard to the benefit of having represented on the board experience of providing higher education and experience of a broad range of providers. Such experience could come from higher education staff involved in teaching or research, or from leaders of higher education providers.
The most important thing will be that the individuals can bring a broad range of experience and represent interests that go beyond their personal position. In any case, it would be difficult to get a truly representative cross-section of HE staff, even if they filled all 15 available places on the HE Board. It would be impossible to ensure anything like fair representation from the other stakeholders in the HE sector alongside having anything approaching even reasonable representation of HE staff.
In practice, we see no reason why many members of the OFS board will not, at one time or another, have worked in HE and be able to use the experience they gained there to represent HE staff, regardless of whether they are actually employed in HE at the precise time they are serving on the OFS board. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Marsden
I have listened carefully to the Minister and, again, I have no reason to doubt his bona fides. But what he has said and, particularly during the discussion of the last two amendments, the criteria on which he has based the Government’s unwillingness to take them on board underline our concern about the direction of the Bill.
I mentioned earlier the need to have a Bill that is fit for the challenges of the 21st century and does not simply reflect the issues of the 20th century. I do not want to sound like a sociologist, but I am disappointed that the assumptions in the definitions of what the Minister has said are so extraordinarily hierarchical. In the context of the Bill, none of the amendments are mandatory. We are not saying there must be a cleaner on the board of the office for students—perhaps that would be a good thing—or a junior lecturer or X or Y. We are saying that when thinking about such things we should think broadly and outside the hierarchical box that has occupied, perhaps for too long, the attention of civil servants and Ministers. We are talking about a revolution in higher education in the 21st century, yet the very modest issue of not putting in the Bill indicators that show that the Government are thinking in a new, rather more creative and profound way instead of going back to the hierarchical models that have obsessed higher education in the past is extraordinarily dispiriting and disappointing.
Another point should be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North talked about the impact of what we have had today, and I am sure debate on it will recur in other places at other times. We heard the Government using their majority on this Committee to slap down any suggestion of student representation in the office for students—[Hon. Members: “No!”] It is true.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mr David Evennett)
That is rubbish.
Mr Marsden
No, it is not. The fact that you protest too much shows the weakness of your position.
Mr Marsden
I apologise, Mr Hanson, on both counts.
If Conservative Members are feeling touchy on that subject, I will move on to the broader point. We have now heard the Minister talk without mentioning further education colleges or the importance of such things. It is no good the Minister saying the Government are thinking about it elsewhere. Symbols and permissiveness matter when considering the people we want on the board, particularly because this is the first time this has ever been done. I am genuinely frustrated, as I think are my hon. Friends, with that position. The Minister could have said he would go away and think about it or work on it but, no, he has fallen back on the standard managerial, hierarchical structures that have turned so many people off higher education in the past.
On this occasion, because the Minister is clearly not prepared to consider the amendment further, I will not press it to a vote, but we will be watching him carefully during the progress of the Bill for a more positive response to the issues covered in this group of amendments than that which he has shown today. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Marsden
I beg to move amendment 127, in schedule 1, page 64, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) The Director for Fair Access and Participation shall be responsible for all the OfS Access and Participation functions.”
This amendment would ensure the Director for Fair Access and Participation is responsible for all Access and Participation Functions
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 156, in schedule 1, page 64, line 6, leave out from “responsible” to the end of line 8 and insert—
“for the access and participation functions of the OfS and must report to other members of the OfS on the performance of these functions.”
This amendment aims to clarify that the Director for Fair Access and Participation is responsible for the performance of access and participation in addition to just reporting on those functions.
Amendment 134, in schedule 1, page 66, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) The Director for Fair Access and Participation must be consulted before any function relating to access and participation is delegated by the OfS under subsection (1).”
This amendment would require the Director to be involved in access and participation functions.
Amendment 157, in schedule 1, page 66, line 23, at end add—
“(3) Any functions in relation to access and participation functions will be delegated to the Director for Fair Access and Participation.”
This amendment aims to underline the exclusive responsibility of the Director for Fair Access and Participation for all matters relating to access and participation.
Mr Marsden
In the Minister’s concluding remarks on the previous group, he referred to the important role of the director for fair access and participation. In the amendments we are proposing now—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North has tabled other amendments in this regard, too—we want to explore the independence and flexibility of the director with the Minister. He rightly described that in his comments as part and parcel of what the Government want to embody in the Bill.
I am not being particularly critical, but, as always, we did not have a great deal of time to tease out some of the implications for the director—whoever holds that office—when the current director of fair access appeared in the evidence session. We could take enough from what he said to know that the ability of the director for fair access and participation to negotiate with institutions—whether soft-baked, hard-baked or anyway-you-want-baked—would be seriously compromised if the director did not have the ultimate authority to approve or refuse access and participation plans. My hon. Friends who have tabled amendments and I believe that that is not sufficiently clear in the Bill, so we want to pursue the matter further with the Minister.
To ensure that the targets set by universities and colleges are sufficiently challenging will always involve tough negotiations. For the director to have had that independence to engage in negotiation free from conflicts of interest has been crucial in securing high levels of commitment by institutions to date—the key factor in OFFA’s success, which vindicates the decision of the Minister’s predecessor, David Willetts, to appoint Les Ebdon to the post in the first place. Negotiations can secure significant additional investment in access and a marked increase in the ambition of many universities and colleges. For example, in the 2016-17 access agreements the director’s negotiations led to improved targets at 94 institutions, and 28 increased their level of predicted spend, which secured an additional £11.4 million for fair access and participation.
Those are the statistics, and statistics are important. After all, we often talk about evidence-driven policy, and it is gratifying when there is evidence to drive the policy. It also, incidentally, strengthens the Minister’s hand in the financial discussions that he has to have from time to time with the Treasury. Behind the figures, however, lies the success story, or aspirational stories, of hundreds and thousands of not only young people, but—I speak with feeling as a former Open University tutor—older people who traditionally thought that higher education was not for them. In any system, some people will always be able to bustle their way through, even when they have not had opportunities on a previous occasion, but the whole point of a director for fair access and participation is to spread best practice, not only from the best universities and the most determined students, but generally.
I am labouring this point, because it is so important to continued success. When an important new framework is to be established with the office for students, it is crucial that the director’s ability to do his or her job is not impeded, whether by omission or by unexpected and unplanned consequences. If the director for fair access and participation can be bypassed and overruled by the chief executive or board of the office for students, we believe, as do others, that that would significantly undermine his or her ability to negotiate directly with vice-chancellors and to offer a robust challenge. That would probably lead to a significant scaling down of ambition by some institutions. That, I am sure—indeed, I do not need to be sure, because the Minister has waxed eloquent on it in several speeches and lectures at a number of institutions over the past year—is not the Minister’s intention. The amendments are, therefore, genuinely intended to be helpful in getting clarification.
It is vital to have a high-profile director for fair access and participation with the authority and credibility to offer robust challenges to institutions. A director who has first-hand experience of how tension at a higher education provider plays out in practice—in relation to finance, marketing, recruitment, student voice, learning and teaching, and Government policies and initiatives—will be well positioned to make nuanced judgments across access agreement negotiations about what is reasonable and achievable. That would obviously require the director to be a credible champion and a high-profile person in this field.
If the director does not have responsibility over access agreements and that is not clear in primary legislation—putting to one side the helpful advice that Ministers may be able to give subsequently—that will send out the wrong message for the institutions that we would expect to engage in the new settlement resulting from the Bill, and will make much more difficult both the Government’s avowed intent to widen participation and access and the specific responsibility of the director to pursue that.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I am getting a little lost. Is not the hon. Gentleman being a little managerial now by saying that only the director for fair access and participation is responsible? Based on the arguments he made in favour of previous amendments—that we should be looking at the broader ability of the board to make decisions—should it not be the responsibility of the whole board to feed into such a position in order to ensure that the important area of access and participation really does what it says on the tin?
Mr Marsden
I have considerable respect for the hon. Lady, not least on the basis of the speech she made on Second Reading, and she has made a valuable point. It is not my intention, or that of my colleagues, to say that the director for fair access and participation should sit in a great bubble somewhere thinking great thoughts and that the OFS should simply rubber-stamp them at the end of the day. It is about who takes the initiative and carries things through on a day-to-day basis. With the best will in the world, we do not believe that that should be left to the board.
I have served on boards, committees, trusts and all the rest—as have, I am sure, many Committee members from both sides of the House—and everyone knows that one of the most difficult things to get right is the balance between overall strategic policy and the day-to-day administration of that policy. In my view—I have not heard many people dissent from this position—the director of fair access has been a successful innovation. It is important that those elements of the role that have worked so well so far are not restricted, unintentionally—I am not saying there is a dastardly plot to undermine them—by a defective or unclear identification and delegation of the director’s powers in the Bill.
This is a question not of managerialism but of realpolitik. We all know that in the real world and in the political world, if people’s powers are not well defined, there will always be someone who at some point will try to chip away at them. That is the point I am trying to get at. I understand entirely the point that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds was making. I do not wish to micromanage the affairs of the office of the director for fair access and participation any more than I think the Minister does, but I do not want to see set in legislation a train of views that takes us down the path I have described.
To meet the Government’s goal of doubling the rate of young people from disadvantaged backgrounds entering higher education by 2020 will require an acceleration of the process and a director who can continue to offer those robust challenges. If the director does not retain the authority to approve or reject an access and participation plan, if it is not clear that he or she retains that authority, or if that power can be delegated to others and decisions overturned, there is a real risk that the director’s position will be seen as weakened. Believe me, having sat on the Education Committee, I do not think that lawyers and judicial reviews or internal rows in Departments, detracting from the work of that Department, are something to be recommended.
Dr Blackman-Woods
I rise to support the amendment and the excellent case that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has made. On Tuesday, we heard from the director of fair access, Professor Les Ebdon, about how important it is that the Bill protects the interests of not only current students but future students. I cannot overstate the importance of the Bill providing a robust framework for fair access to universities, and I am concerned that it may water down some of the director of fair access’s powers to hold universities to account on widening access.
That issue was raised by Professor Ebdon in his evidence, during which he said:
“The concern that I would have is around whether it actually gives more power to the director of fair access or not.”
He was speaking about the new role of director for fair access and participation. He added:
“At the moment, the director of fair access has the sole authority for deciding whether an access plan is sufficient and universities have done what is sufficient to promote and safeguard the interests of students. I know there would be a number of universities that, if they had somebody else—another chief executive above me—to go to, would take my decision to them, because they argue long and hard with me about the decisions I make.”––[Official Report, Higher Education and Research Public Bill Committee, 6 September 2016; c. 57, Q86.]
The point of the amendment—this may address the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds—is that it seeks to ensure that the final responsibility for decisions relating to fair access and participation rests solely with the director for fair access and participation, not with other members of the board or a chief executive who might be in the structure above the director. The amendment seeks to address the concerns expressed by OFFA by ensuring that responsibility for holding universities to account rests solely with the director for fair access and participation, and that universities cannot try to undermine the authority of the director by going above his or—at some time in the future—her head to a higher authority.
There is a danger that without the amendment, the good progress that we are making on widening access could be slowed down as universities delay taking action on failings in their access programmes, believing that they can rely on complaining or appealing to someone else to overturn what has been requested of them by the director for fair access and participation, and that they may not ultimately have to take the actions that he or she suggests.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. If he does not like the wording of the amendment, we would be happy for him to come back with another form of words that would ensure that there is no watering down of directives that might be given by the new director for fair access and participation.
Paul Blomfield
I rise to speak to my amendments, which in an extraordinary example of excellent co-ordination say much the same thing but in a slightly different way. Amendment 156 tries to address what I see as a flaw in the schedule as drafted, which makes the director for fair access and participation responsible simply for reporting. The amendment seeks to clarify that he or she is not responsible simply for reporting but for that function and reporting on it. I think that is a helpful additional drafting point.
Amendment 157 clarifies the point about delegation and that the director should not be bypassed by his or her responsibilities being delegated to somebody else. The way that we deal with the matter could set the tone for discussions over the next few weeks. There is complete agreement on trying to achieve widening participation and enormous progress has been made. The Government have shown commendable ambition to make further progress. With these amendments we are considering ways to help that along.
I am sure my colleague the hon. Member for Cannock Chase will acknowledge that when we considered this issue in the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills there were, despite the one area of disagreement, many areas of agreement. One was fair access. Changing the institutional architecture of the sector, which has merits, by bringing the Office for Fair Access into the OFS, also has risks unless we protect the autonomy and authority of that function within the office. That was a key recommendation of the Select Committee report, agreed by all Members. It also relates to the next group of amendments and I will say more about it then. We are simply seeking to ensure that that function has the authority to deal with universities, to get the sort of change of culture and practice that we are all trying to achieve.
I was a supporter of David Willetts’s appointment of the current director, which was not uncontroversial at the time. That was a signal from the previous Government that there was an intention to see change and Professor Ebdon has assisted that process enormously. He has been a very impressive director of fair access and we should listen closely to the evidence that he gave us on Tuesday. He is clear that this sort of definition is required to ensure that the director has the authority to help the Government achieve their objectives in negotiating the deals with the universities.
I hope the Minister will say he is happy to bring back some different form of wording, if not to accept the amendments, picking and choosing between mine and those tabled by my Front Benchers. I hope he will be able to make an amendment that reflects that suggestion, in which case I would be happy not to press mine to a vote.
Joseph Johnson
I thank hon. Members for their helpful and extremely interesting amendments. Although I was less able to be accommodating on previous amendments, I would like to signal that we are giving these amendments very careful thought. There is obviously agreement on both sides that social mobility is a huge priority, all the more so now for this Government. Widening access and participation in higher education is one of the key drivers of that.
I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central that the current director of fair access, whom I played a part in reappointing last year, has done a superb job and continues to be exemplary in the way he discharges his functions in that critical role.
Through our reforms, we are keen to ensure that promoting the success of disadvantaged students will be a central part of the OFS’s remit. Through the Bill, the OFS will bring together the responsibilities for widening participation currently undertaken by the director for fair access and HEFCE. Bringing those functions together in one body will ensure greater co-ordination of activities and funding at national level. That should allow greater strategic focus on those areas identified as a priority. In establishing the OFS, we have been clear that we are creating a single body, whose members will, in effect, operate as a board responsible for a range of functions, including access and participation. It will be the responsibility of the OFS to ensure that all its functions are being fulfilled.
Let me reassure Members the intention is that the OFS will give responsibility to the director for fair access and participation for activities in this area. The intention is that the OFS will give responsibility to him for these matters. We envisage that in practice that will mean that the other OFS members will agree a broad remit with the future director for fair access and participation and that the DFAP will report back to them on those activities. As such, the DFAP would have responsibility for those important access and participation activities, including—critically—agreeing the access and participation plan on a day-to-day basis with higher education institutions.
Amendment 134 would place in legislation details of how the OFS members will operate when considering delegation of functions. It would not, however, be appropriate to put that kind of detail into statute. Rather, we would expect the OFS, once established, to confirm how it will operate and exercise its delegation powers taking account of guidance from the Secretary of State. However, let me repeat and attempt to reassure hon. Members that the intention is for the OFS to give responsibility for access and participation to the director for fair access and participation.
The work of the DFAP does not need to be separated from the rest of the work of the OFS. The reforms mean that access and participation will be considered in the context of everything that the regulator does, with the Secretary of State’s directly appointed champion in the form of the director for fair access and participation. The Government are serious about social mobility and that is exactly what the measures will help to drive. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Blackpool South to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Marsden
I thank the Minister for laying out the outline and broader direction so strongly. I am glad that he reflected on my comments and those of my colleagues, and indeed the exchange I had with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds, because that was helpful in bringing out the tensions between day-to-day executive activity and broad strategy and policy. He referred to that in his comments.
We will take the Minister’s assurances at face value. We need to do that because what Ministers say in Committee influences the interpretation of the final legislation. We will wait to see how that issue is dealt with—in another form, if that is what he wishes. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Wes Streeting
I beg to move amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 64, line 6, leave out “is responsible for reporting” and insert “must report”.
This amendment, together with amendments 11 to 14, would require that the Director of Fair Access and Participation reports directly to the Secretary of State and that the report produced be laid before Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 64, line 7, after first “OfS”, insert “and Secretary of State”.
See Explanatory Statement for amendment 10.
Amendment 12, in schedule 1, page 64, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
See Explanatory Statement for amendment 10.
Amendment 128, in schedule 1, page 64, line 9, leave out
“the other members of the OfS”
and insert
“the Board of the OfS”.
This amendment would ensure that the Director for Fair Access and Participation reports to the Board Members of the OfS on performance of access and participation functions.
Amendment 13, in schedule 1, page 64, line 9, after “OfS”, insert “and Secretary of State”.
See Explanatory Statement for amendment 10.
Amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 64, line 12, at end insert—
“( ) The Director must prepare a report under sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) at an appropriate time but at least annually.
( ) The Director must send the report to the Secretary of State.
( ) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament.”
See Explanatory Statement for amendment 10.
Wes Streeting
The amendments follow a similar theme to the previous group, being about the architecture of the higher education system and in particular safeguarding the position the Office for Fair Access has occupied since it was first created.
I will take members back to that debate in 2003-04. OFFA was one of the important concessions—one of the few surviving concessions, I have to say—of the debate surrounding the introduction of variable tuition fees in the Higher Education Act 2004. OFFA was born out of a concern about the risk that increasing tuition fees might jeopardise fair access to the most elite universities, particularly if they are charging higher variable fees, and a broader concern that it might jeopardise widening participation more generally among students from under-represented backgrounds.
Paul Blomfield
I will only make a brief contribution, which is to follow up on the point I was making about the Select Committee report on this specific point. I will share the brief recommendation we made as a Committee, with the endorsement of every member of the Committee:
“In order to best promote widening participation, and to help the Government meet its own targets, we believe it important that the decisions of the Director for Fair Access are seen as fully independent and not subject to being overruled by any higher authority within the same organisation. The ability for this post to report direct to the Minister and to Parliament should therefore be built into the new higher education architecture.”
I think that crystallises the point made powerfully a moment ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North when moving his amendments. I hope, and I am sure, that we can reach the same accommodation if the Minister is able to respond in the same terms as he did to the previous group of amendments.
Mr Marsden
The generic points the Opposition Front Benchers would like to make in this area have been amply covered by my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield Central and for Ilford North. I will briefly touch on amendment 128. I say again that we entirely endorse and think it is of huge importance that that report should come to Parliament on a regular basis. Although this is not part of any of the amendments, it is taken for granted that it should also go to the relevant Select Committees. It is in that context of closing the circle that we wanted to clarify with a probing amendment that the director would report to the board members of the OFS on his performance.
To go back to the point that the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds made earlier, we do not want the director to sit in a bubble. I can imagine that the OFS board, once it gets going, will have myriad things to consider at its meetings and it is important therefore that we flag up that there is a regular slot for the board members to receive that report from the director for fair access and participation. That would be of benefit to the board as a whole and to the director in maintaining his strong relationship with it.
Joseph Johnson
Again, I thank hon. Members for their interesting amendments. Widening access and promoting the success of disadvantaged students will be a key part of the remit of the office for students. It will build on the important progress that has been made in widening participation in recent years. Hon. Members will have noted that the latest data for 2016 entry shows that the application rate for 18-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds is again at a record level.
We want to ensure in bringing forward our reforms that higher education providers do not lose sight of their vital role in promoting social mobility and in helping some of the most disadvantaged young people in our society to benefit from our world-class higher education system. The integration of the remit of the director of fair access into the OFS signals our commitment to making fair access and participation a priority. The OFS will have a new duty requiring it to consider equality of opportunity in connection with access and participation across all its functions, so widening access and participation for students from disadvantaged backgrounds truly will be at its very core.
There is a further protection in the arrangements because, as I have said, the DFAP will be directly appointed by the Secretary of State, but ultimate responsibility for access and participation sits with the OFS and it will be the responsibility of the OFS to ensure that all its functions are being fulfilled. As I said in my comments on the last group of amendments, the intention is that the OFS will give responsibility to the director for fair access and participation for activities in this area. We envisage that, in practice, that will mean that the other OFS members will agree a broad remit with the DFAP and that the DFAP will report back to them on those activities.
The OFS board will have responsibility for access and participation but, on a day-to-day basis, I envisage that that will be given to the DFAP. In particular, he or she will have the responsibility for agreeing access and participation plans, as is currently the case. I reiterate that because it is such an important point and I know hon. Members are focused on that issue.
The amendments would have the effect of requiring reports by the director for fair access and participation to be presented to the Secretary of State and to Parliament separately from other OFS reporting. As I said, that is an interesting idea, to which we will give some thought. We agree that it is important for the DFAP to report on their activities and areas of responsibility, so the Bill does require the DFAP to report to OFS members. As I have said previously, we are mainstreaming access and participation as a key duty for the regulator as a whole. As such, it will then be for the OFS members to report on that function.
The OFS members will operate in effect as a board, although they are not referred to by that term in the Bill. It will be required to produce an annual report covering its functions, and access and participation activities have been identified as a key function by virtue of their prominence in the Bill. That report will be sent to the Secretary of State and laid in Parliament. The work of the DFAP does not need to be separate from the rest of the OFS and its work should be reported to Parliament as part of the OFS’s overall accountability requirements. In addition, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to ask the OFS to provide additional reports on access and participation issues, either through its annual report or through a special report. Any such report will also be laid before Parliament and therefore made available in the Library. The OFS can produce separate independent reports on widening participation. It would not be consistent with integrating the role into the OFS to require separate external reporting from a single OFS member when the organisation will be governed collectively by all its members.
These arrangements ensure that effective reporting will be in place, so that the Secretary of State and Parliament can effectively monitor activity in this area. As I said, we are looking carefully at it, but in the meantime I ask the hon. Member for Ilford North to withdraw his amendment.
Wes Streeting
I listened carefully to the Minister, and I am grateful that he will go away and reflect. What he said about clarifying the reporting mechanisms reinforces my belief that the present arrangements do not go far enough. It is right and proper that the Secretary of State should be able to demand additional or more extensive reporting, either as part of the annual report or separately. That is to be welcomed, but it somewhat dilutes parliamentary accountability, which is separate from Government accountability. Many Members would welcome the opportunity to consider issues of access and participation through parliamentary scrutiny; it need not be burdensome, but it would be welcomed. I was particularly struck by the evidence given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.
Paul Blomfield
Does my hon. Friend agree that we are at such a critical juncture in developing widening participation targets and strategies that it is a risky time for them to be completely subsumed? I would not challenge for a moment the Minister’s genuine intent, but there is a risk in organisations that what the Minister described as “mainstreaming” sometimes means that functions get subsumed, and we have to take care that the particular function of widening participation is not.
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend; his point reinforces the recommendation of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. When the Minister goes away to reflect on these issues, he should consider not just what is being said here but the view of that Committee. Parliamentary accountability is important, and as my hon. Friend warns, there is sometimes a risk that mainstreaming leads to a lack of focus. I do not think we are anywhere near where we need to be as a country on social mobility—on ensuring that people’s backgrounds and the circumstances of their birth do not determine their destiny in life. Higher education has a critical role to play. We know from looking around the Palace of Westminster and from looking at the top of business and civil society that the levers of social, political and economic power tend to be pulled by people who went to university—often to the same universities.
It is important that we keep a close eye on this matter, because it goes beyond the question of value to higher education; it is in the national interest. That is why there is such interest in parliamentary debates on these issues, and why I think parliamentary accountability is important. However, I am mindful of what the Minister said about considering these issues further and so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Marsden
I beg to move amendment 129, in schedule 1, page 64, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) The appointment of the Chair of the OfS shall be subject to a pre-appointment by the relevant Select Committees and the proposed appointment shall be subject to the passing of a resolution by each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would ensure Parliament was able to ratify the chair of the OfS.
We have had an interesting and productive exchange on social culture and the role that the OFS will play both in governmental activity and, as my hon. Friends quite rightly reminded us, in parliamentary activities. It is in that spirit that I move amendment 129.
This House is a place that invents precedents, and one of the most useful precedents that we have invented in recent years—I am a former member of Select Committees, and we have current members of Select Committees here, too—is the principle that Select Committees should play a significant role when key appointments are made, which is now well established. Of course, that has not always meant that the Select Committees concerned have got their own way, and we have had an interesting example of that recently in the context of Ofsted. We might argue about whether the Select Committees have a veto power or a restraining power, or whatever, but there is no major disagreement or lack of consensus in the House that it is important for Select Committees to have that watching brief when key officials are appointed by Ministers.
Ben Howlett
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this already exists? My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and I have just sat on the pre-appointment process for the selection of the Equality and Human Rights Commission chairman. Select Committees already do this, and legislation is not necessarily needed to implement it.
Mr Marsden
The hon. Gentleman refers to another welcome precedent. Yes, Select Committees sometimes have this power but the devil is in the detail. I am reminded of what President Reagan said: in these matters one should “trust, but verify”. There have been discussions in the past about the powers of Select Committees. This is a new proposal, and it is a probing amendment, but it would do no harm if the Minister were prepared to say today that this is a part of the process that he would welcome.
Joseph Johnson
I think I can be of some help. There is no legal obligation for pre-appointment hearings to take place for OFS appointments, as currently none of them is on the Cabinet Office list of appointments subject to pre-appointment hearings—that is a technical point, and I do not want to be accused again of being overly managerial. Despite there being no direct legal obligation, I reassure the Committee that we fully intend to actively involve the Select Committee or Select Committees, as appropriate, in the appointment process, including the option of pre-appointment hearings for senior OFS appointments. I welcome the constructive role that Select Committees can play through pre-appointment hearings. I believe that that involvement will ensure sufficient parliamentary oversight.
For that reason, I firmly resist the suggestion in the amendment that a vote in both Houses should be needed to ratify the appointments. We need to ensure an appropriate level of ministerial involvement in the appointment to a key public role. Parliamentary ratification is not in line with normal practice and would be both burdensome and unnecessary. Furthermore, there is no precedent for parliamentary approval of such appointments. HEFCE appointments have never been subject to parliamentary approval, and the Cabinet Office general guidance on pre-appointment scrutiny states that it is for Ministers to decide whether to accept the Select Committee’s recommendation on an appointment. We are following the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments approved process and as such are working closely with an assigned public appointments assessor to ensure that all public appointments are fair and open. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Blackpool South to withdraw the amendment.
Mr Marsden
I have heard what the Minister has said. I am grateful for his endorsement of the overall principle. Heaven forfend that I should ruffle feathers in the Cabinet Office dovecote on this matter and provoke a constitutional crisis. On that basis, I am happy to take his assurance and to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Marsden
I beg to move amendment 130, in schedule 1, page 64, line 39, leave out “considers appropriate” and insert “must specify”.
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State must specify why a person has been removed as a member of the OfS.
I do not think that this is an issue of constitutional niceties, but it is an issue of beefing up something that I think is extremely important. I make this not as a partisan political observation, but as an observation from having been—dare I say it?—in this House for nearly 20 years and having seen various rows, crises and everything else about why various people have been removed by Ministers at various points in time.
The wording of the Bill at the moment gives far too broad a remit to the Secretary of State—any Secretary of State—simply to remove a member of the OFS without some form of explanation. I am familiar with the civil service: I have been a Parliamentary Private Secretary in three Departments. I am familiar with the civil service’s use of terminology, and the terminology “considers appropriate” basically means “You can do what the…you like if you are the Secretary of State.”
Again, I am thinking of the reputation of the OFS, particularly in its formative years. I do not think that simply saying “considers appropriate” is necessarily the best way of proceeding. That is why we are suggesting the alternative of “must specify”. And let me be very clear to the Minister and his officials before they come back and say, “Oh, this is terrible. It can’t be done.” The implication of this is not that we would expect the Secretary of State, if there were some person on the board who they thought was completely and utterly disruptive, objectionable and all the rest of it, to give chapter and verse as to why that was the case. However, we do think, for the sake of confidence in the board, that it would be helpful, including to the Minister concerned, if we had stronger terminology that dealt with situations in which the Secretary of State would have to remove a member of the OFS. There may be all sorts of perfectly non-controversial reasons why a member of the OFS would be removed—because of health or whatever—and those personal discretions could be dealt with, but we would feel more comfortable if we did not have the wording “considers appropriate”, which is vaguely suggestive of Henry VIII powers and which we would not be happy having in the Bill.
Alex Chalk
This is a reasonable point if I may say so, but is it not also right to take into account the fact that a Minister, as an officer of the Crown as it were, has to act rationally? If he does not act rationally, there is always the risk of sanction in the courts, and that always has to be recognised as a safety net.
Mr Marsden
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and of course we are all honourable Gentlemen and Ladies in this place and I hope we all act rationally, although there has been just a smidgen of examples in the past in which Ministers, on both sides of the House, appear not to have acted entirely so. [Hon. Members: “Surely not.”] Surely not. I take the point that the hon. Member for Cheltenham is making, but I feel that some movement—again, the Minister might not like the phrase “must specify”—away from a phrase that is redolent of Henry VIII powers would be helpful.
Joseph Johnson
I understand that the amendment is well intended, but I am afraid we are not going to be able to support it and certainly not as it is drafted. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to specify the reasons for removing a member of the OFS board from office and we strongly resist it. It would take us well away, quite clearly in the wrong direction, from the current legislative arrangements for HEFCE board membership. Such a requirement would be inconsistent with normal practice on public appointments, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham hinted, it would be unnecessary, as general public law principles require that the Secretary of State must act reasonably and proportionately in taking an action such as removing a member from the board. The specific terms and conditions of appointments would also have effect in that way.
The Secretary of State might remove a board member for a number of reasons, and in many cases it would not be appropriate to disclose the grounds for dismissal. I am sure hon. Members can understand that the removal might, for example, be because of personal or health-related issues and making those public could be an inappropriate breach of a member’s privacy. Disclosure of reasons for dismissal may have an adverse effect on the reputation or future employment of the member.
Schedule 1 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 currently empowers the Secretary of State to appoint HEFCE board members on such terms and conditions as he deems appropriate. For the past 25 years, Secretaries of State from successive Administrations have routinely attached terms and conditions to the appointment of HEFCE board members relating to the circumstances in which they might be removed from office. These have, for example, included conditions relating to the individual’s fitness to hold public office and record of attendance at HEFCE board meetings.
Mr Marsden
On that point, I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful and I also appreciate there is a balance to be struck between transparency and the sorts of personal issues he talks about. I do not think I am going to agree with him that the Bill has got the balance right; I personally believe that there needs to be greater transparency in it. To be helpful, given that he is praying in aid HEFCE as the precedent, if he is not prepared to accept the amendment, will he at some point disclose the generic list of principles that would be appropriate to remove a member of the OFS board?
Joseph Johnson
As I have said, over the past 25 years Secretaries of State have routinely attached terms and conditions to the appointments of HEFCE board members. I gave a couple of examples of the conditions that have been common practice, including that an individual must be fit to hold public office and that they must have a strong record of attendance at HEFCE board meetings. Those are the kinds of conditions that are typical, the breach of which might lead to a Secretary of State deciding that it was necessary to remove a member. I have to say that it has never proved necessary to remove a HEFCE board member over the past 25 years. If it had, the Secretary of State would have written to the board member in question to explain his or her decision. That letter would have had to be clear about the grounds on which the Secretary of State was removing the board member, and the individual in question would have had every right to make that letter public if they had wished to.
The Bill draws on that successful historical practice. Schedule 1 makes provisions identical to those in the Further and Higher Education Act as regards the Secretary of State’s discretion to set such terms and conditions for appointing OFS board members as he or she deems appropriate. As I have said, that replicates current arrangements and provides that crucial flexibility for the Secretary of State to set a clear expectation, appropriate to the circumstances of the time, on appointing OFS board members. In addition, the amendment would be inconsistent with the arrangements that apply more generally across the range of public appointments. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Mr Marsden
We are not going to agree in principle on this issue, but I understand the Minister’s position. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Mr. Evennett.)
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chibok Schoolgirls
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the missing Chibok schoolgirls in Nigeria.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Earlier this year the Select Committee on International Development, which I chair, visited Nigeria as part of an inquiry into the work of the British Government, including both the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office, in that country. As part of our visit, in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria, we joined the regular vigil conducted by campaigners seeking to highlight the plight of the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram.
As Committee members—I am glad to see so many of them here, as well as other Members from all parts of the House—we made a pledge that we would not forget about the girls or those campaigning to highlight their plight. We have taken opportunities since our visit to raise that with Ministers in both DFID and the Foreign Office. I am delighted—I give my thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for this—that we have this opportunity to address this important issue once again.
Let me start by setting out some of the background. As colleagues may know, Boko Haram is roughly translated as “western education is forbidden” or “western education is a sin.” Among other things, we can take western education to mean girls getting an education. On 14 April 2014, Boko Haram militants attacked a government school in Chibok in the early hours and kidnapped 276 girls. At the time, other schools in that part of Nigeria were closed precisely because of the difficult security situation. The reason that the Chibok government school was open and the girls were there was to enable them to take their examinations, and that village was assumed to be a place of safety and security.
Some of the girls managed to escape during the night, but the total number of kidnapped girls was still 219. It is thought that they were taken to the Sambisa forest in the north-east of Nigeria. The forest has been considered by Boko Haram to be a safe haven: it is difficult for the Nigerian military to monitor the whole of this vast area of land. We understand that non-Muslim students who had been kidnapped were forced to convert to Islam and that many of the girls were married off—effectively enslaved to Boko Haram fighters.
It was not until 2 May that year that Boko Haram officially accepted responsibility for the kidnappings. Its former leader made its argument that the girls should not have been in school; they should instead have been married. Later that month, on 26 May, Nigerian forces claimed that they had located the girls but that a rescue operation was impossible due to the risk of collateral damage.
There was then a long period in which very little happened. Very little news came through from Boko Haram, the Nigerian Government or indeed other sources. Then in May this year—more than two years after the kidnapping—one of the girls was found in the Sambisa forest. Amina Ali Nkeki, aged 19, was found with a baby and a suspected Boko Haram fighter who claimed to be her husband. In August, Boko Haram released a video that appeared to show about 50 of the Chibok girls, and a masked fighter said that many had been killed in air strikes and many others had been married off.
The kidnapping of the girls sparked a global campaign: Bring Back Our Girls. I am wearing the badge that I was given when we were in Abuja earlier this year. There was a big social media campaign with the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls on Twitter. The campaign was started by a lawyer in Abuja but it quickly trended on Twitter and became prominent. The official movement was started by Obiageli Ezekwesili, a former Federal Minister of Education in Nigeria and president of the African division of the World Bank. She said:
“The way our Government handled the Chibok girls’ case goes beyond an election matter.”
This was in the run-up to elections in Nigeria. She continued:
“This is not a one-time issue we discuss over elections. We need to have a deeper conversation about what kind of a nation we want to be.”
This was early on, following the kidnapping. She went on:
“Today is day 241 and the girls are still not back. If some people want to move on, it’s their right…But they should remember we moved on when 69 secondary schoolboys were killed, and nothing changed. Do our children now have to choose between getting an education and dying? Some of us cannot move on and accept that kind of society.”
The hashtag was promoted and propagated by celebrities, politicians and others across the world, including our former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), the Pope and the actress Julia Roberts. Perhaps most prominent was the First Lady of the United States of America, Michelle Obama, who said in 2014:
“This unconscionable act was committed by a terrorist group determined to keep these girls from getting an education—grown men attempting to snuff out the aspirations of young girls.”
She went on to say:
“Why, two years ago, would terrorists be so threatened by the prospect of girls going to school that they would break into a dormitory in the middle of the night?”
She also said:
“What happened in Nigeria was not an isolated incident. It’s a story we see every day as girls around the world risk their lives to pursue their ambitions.”
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Chair of the Select Committee is making a powerful speech. I well recall being at that meeting in Abuja with the supporters of the girls, who are dedicated and tireless campaigners. It was deeply moving. He mentioned that this has happened to countless children across the world and that these girls are still missing. Does he agree that it is very concerning that the Department for International Development does not focus more closely on human trafficking, particularly given that we hear reports of girls being trafficked, perhaps for prostitution or servitude, into this country from Nigeria, the very country about which he is speaking?
Stephen Twigg
I am grateful to my friend, the hon. Lady, who is an assiduous and hard-working member of our Select Committee. I pay tribute to her for her consistency in raising these issues in the Committee and the House and with the wider public. I absolutely agree with her. We have seen a greater focus by Her Majesty’s Government on issues around human trafficking, but it is vital that all the different Departments join up their efforts to maximise the impact of that commitment.
The organisation that has been campaigning has aimed to raise awareness of the plight of the girls and to encourage the Nigerian Government to do all within their power to bring the girls back. The United Kingdom Government, along with other Governments including the United States, France, China and Israel, have all contributed significant military and economic resources to the region to support the attempt to find and rescue the girls. A regional taskforce was launched with Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria, amassing almost 9,000 regional troops to force Boko Haram out of the Chad Basin National Park. There has been concern among parliamentarians globally. For example, the European Parliament passed a resolution two years ago calling for the
“immediate and unconditional release of the abducted schoolgirls”.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the UK Government’s role in seeking to find the girls. Last year, the UK sent around 130 military personnel to Nigeria to assist in training the Nigerian military. The UK and the US have provided counter-terrorism support and advice and, importantly, support and advice on hostage negotiation and victim support capabilities for Nigeria. Additionally, the UK has invested around £5 million in supporting the multinational joint taskforce set up by Nigeria and its neighbours to combat Boko Haram. From our point of view on the International Development Committee, we welcome the UK’s role in humanitarian relief for those most affected by the insurgency, which we set out in a report published earlier in the summer. That money is being used to provide food, water, sanitation and emergency healthcare for up to 7 million people across Nigeria.
I will also mention, in particular, the safe schools initiative in Nigeria, which has helped more than 90,000 displaced children return to school and provided them with the learning materials and teachers needed, including those giving psychosocial support. DFID has played a role in supporting that project as well, and we welcome the support that DFID and other parts of the UK Government have given.
The United Nations appeal for Nigeria is not fully funded and we urge the Government to do all they can to ensure that it is, including by other countries. At the world humanitarian summit in Turkey in May, commitments were made to address education in emergencies. We think it is crucial for the UK Government, and for DFID in particular, to use their resources and influence on other donors to ensure that the “Education Cannot Wait” fund is properly supported and quickly operationalised so that interruptions to education caused by conflict are minimised to no more than 30 days.
We know that in Nigeria, in that region and in other parts of Africa and the middle east, increasing numbers of children are spending a large part of their childhood, or their entire childhood, as refugees or internally displaced people. It is vital they get that access to education as they grow up, and we therefore recommend that DFID scale up its support for the safe schools initiative, as well as engaging with and supporting the special investigative committee appointed by President Buhari of Nigeria to assess the safety of schools in that country. Our recent report also recommended that DFID continue its support for work to address the drivers of conflict through the Nigerian stability and reconciliation programme.
Since the kidnapping, the Nigerian Government have pursued a military campaign against Boko Haram. They have been able to free other women and girls who have been held by Boko Haram, but none were the Chibok girls. We know that Boko Haram has continued to kidnap women and girls in the north-east of Nigeria. We also know that it has been affected by internal strife and a leadership struggle following its pledge of allegiance to Daesh last year, which resulted in an internal division in the movement. It remains the case that only one girl has escaped from the original 219. There have been sightings of the girls, including by a former clergyman, Stephen Davis, as well as by citizens in Cameroon and Chad.
During his inaugural speech, President Buhari committed to redoubling the Nigerian Government’s efforts to find the girls, saying Nigeria will not have
“defeated Boko Haram without rescuing the Chibok girls”.
We know that, because of the conflict in Nigeria, nearly 1 million school-aged children have been forced to flee their homes. According to the Human Rights Watch report, “‘They Set the Classrooms on Fire’: Attacks on Education in Northeast Nigeria”, 600,000 children have lost access to learning altogether. We know that teachers have been killed and have had to flee, and that attacks in the north-east of Nigeria have destroyed more than 900 schools and forced a further 1,500 to close.
Today’s debate is an opportunity for us to demonstrate the strength of cross-party commitment in the House to this important movement and campaign. Last year at the United Nations, the countries of the world came together and adopted the sustainable development goals—the “global goals”, as they have become known. Among those goals are commitments to global education, gender equality and, in goal 16, to
“Peace, justice and strong institutions”.
There can be no better way of demonstrating our commitment to those goals than maintaining the campaign to ensure that we “bring back our girls”.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. As the chair of the Select Committee on International Development, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), set out so eloquently, on an International Development Committee trip to Nigeria in March, we had the honour of meeting a small team of dedicated, passionate campaigners. On arrival at the hot and dusty venue I could hear them chanting and singing. Every day, the small group of mainly women, but with some men, meet at Unity Fountain in Abuja. They campaign for the return of the 276 girls taken from their school by Boko Haram on 14 April 2014. Shortly after the abduction, 57 of the girls escaped. As we have heard, one more escaped in recent weeks, but 218 girls are still missing.
The girls from Chibok were just like our girls. They were daughters, they were granddaughters, they were sisters, they were cousins and they were nieces, and they were loved by their families. They had been encouraged to embrace education, and they had, and their families had. They were preparing for their final school certificate when disaster struck. Notwithstanding world condemnation, and the support of Michelle Obama, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) and a host of others, the girls have still not been returned. It is believed that many are likely still to be held by Boko Haram. Many will be pregnant as a result of rape, often by different men, and we know that many have been forced into marriage. Some have been used as suicide bombers. Some are very ill. Some are HIV-positive, and some have died as a result of physical and mental abuse.
The Chibok girls are a small proportion of an estimated 2,500 women and girls abducted by Boko Haram in 2014. As they return, many face discrimination and rejection by their communities. Some fear that the girls have been radicalised. Others believe that the children who have been conceived will be the next generation of fighters because they carry the violent characteristics of their biological fathers. As a result, children, babies and mothers face stigma, rejection and further violence when, as victims, they should be getting all the help and support they need and deserve to move on with their lives and reintegrate.
For the families of these girls, the pain is hard to imagine. With every reported sighting and every video released, hopes are raised for something positive to hold on to, but then quickly dashed. One father described it as
“like being beaten and being stopped from crying”.
One mother, who had identified her daughter in the most recent video, sent a video message back. She said:
“From birth, I have been planning for you—your life, your education, your health…Until now, I have not seen or heard anything from you. But I believe that one day, I will fulfil that, my promise to you, and I will see you again, and my happiness, my joy, my life will be complete with you.”
I stand in this great hall as a mother, a daughter, a sister and a politician. I can actually still hear the chants of those Nigerian women at Unity Fountain. I can still hear them saying, “Bring back our girls now and alive. Bring them back now,” over and over and over again. Rarely have I witnessed such strength and determination.
Now, with the second anniversary of the girls’ abduction having passed, the families and campaigners need world support. They must raise awareness further and keep the issue in the spotlight. They want people everywhere to write, email, tweet with the hashtag #BBOG and hold rallies, vigils, talks and Google chats. We need Governments and agencies around the world to share credible intelligence and all the latest eye-in-the-sky technologies to find these girls and to bring them back home. Time is running out. Every single day, there is more suffering. Decisive action is needed now, and terrorism cannot be allowed to succeed.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for securing this extremely important debate. He is a fine Chair of the International Development Committee, and it is a pleasure to serve on that cross-party Committee with him and other colleagues. I would particularly like to thank the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who has just given an extremely poignant speech that almost brought me to tears.
I have a strong interest in this matter. As colleagues have described, earlier this year I visited Nigeria with the International Development Committee, where we met with the Bring Back Our Girls campaigners, whose tireless work keeps the Chibok girls’ memory alive. It has been now more than two years since the Chibok girls were abducted by Boko Haram from their school in northern Nigeria. Other than a few who escaped, they have not been rescued or returned. It is not fathomable for those of us living in the west that our child could be abducted from school for the proposed crime of seeking an education, or that girls, by sole virtue of their gender, should be denied that education. The pain suffered by the parents, who wanted the best for their girls and sent them to school, never to return, is unimaginable. What has become of the Chibok girls during the past two years remains largely unknown.
We visited schools that have bravely dared to reopen since this atrocity occurred, and we spoke with Nigerian politicians about the current status of girls’ education in Nigeria and the continued fight against the brutal extremism of Boko Haram. Arriving in northern Nigeria was daunting, to say the least. I have never been anywhere where the security was intensified so significantly for myself and the group. We were given security briefings, transported in armoured vehicles, had body armour fitted and were protected by armed guards. That shows just how difficult and risky the situation remains for citizens in Nigeria and particularly for young girls at school.
We visited two schools in Kano, one a state school and the other run by the local church. Both were co-educational, although it was difficult to fathom whether the curriculum differed for boys and girls. We were told that early marriage remains the norm for girls in the north of the country, due to both cultural and religious beliefs, which interferes with the length of girls’ education and therefore the intrinsic value for parents of sending them to school at all. Millions of children are still not recorded as being in school, and those who are experience overcrowded classrooms of 100-plus children.
There are significant problems for the Government in providing quality education, due to a lack of teacher training and resources. Cultural beliefs, security issues and lack of future opportunity present ongoing barriers to sending girls to school in Nigeria. The girls we met, from primary to secondary level, wanted to learn, had aspirations and voiced ambitions to become hairdressers, nurses, teachers and doctors. It was depressing that despite their ability, ambition and motivation, they were unlikely to realise their dreams.
Meeting with the Bring Back Our Girls campaigners in Abuja was one of those moments in life that grounds you. They have been campaigning for the return of the Chibok girls for more than two years and have pledged to keep the girls’ memory alive outside Parliament until they return. Realistically, hopes have become slim. The Government have reported no new leads, and we were told that it is highly likely that many of the girls have been married to Boko Haram soldiers, incurred sexual violence or even been killed. As we heard, one of the girls was recently located with a child. Given cultural beliefs, it is difficult for her to reintegrate into society, such is the stigma of her situation.
Meeting Government officials in Nigeria was equally sobering. A new Government have heralded renewed efforts to tackle the country’s problems, including corruption going up to the highest levels of society and inequality. They should be commended for that. However, the lack of female representation in Parliament is stark and has actually reduced since the current Government came to power. Equality issues do not appear to be high on the agenda, and without concerted efforts to increase women’s representation at all levels of society, it is difficult to see how culture will shift and the lot of young girls within Nigeria be significantly altered.
The Chibok girls who were abducted hold the same value as girls across the world. It is hard for me to believe that if this had happened elsewhere in the west, more would not have been done to bring them back at an earlier stage. The new Government have reportedly increased efforts to improve security and to tackle Boko Haram, with limited success—but some success—so far. People we spoke to said that they now feel more able to go out after 6 o’clock, though security issues remain paramount. Some parts of north-eastern Nigeria were completely off limits due to security issues. The population remains displaced and the schools in those areas closed. There is a long road to tackle extremism in those areas, to offer alternative hope and to support the population out of poverty.
I urge the Minister to keep these girls at the forefront of our minds. Pressure from international Governments appears to have dissipated over time, and it must be resurrected to give hope to the Chibok girls and to girls across Nigeria and the developing world. The parents we met despair, but they will never give up hope for the return of their girls.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing this debate, which is very timely and on an issue that we should not forget. I am very grateful to him. I thank too all those who have contributed so far and made valuable points. I do not want to say anything that might diminish their points, which I fully support. The situation is tragic not just for the girls, important though that is, but for their families. Some speakers have given weight to the fact that we are talking about girls who are daughters, cousins and members of larger family groups. That is an important feature of Nigeria.
In my short contribution, I want to widen the debate, pick up some of the points about the underlying cause of the situation and try to give some guidance on how it might be prevented from continuing. I do that in my role as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Nigeria. I have just come back from a visit there when I was able to raise this on several occasions with Ministers and businessmen operating there. First, I want to echo the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby about the success the Nigerian Government are beginning to have against Boko Haram. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) pointed out the large area that it still covers, principally because Nigeria is a very big country, but Boko Haram is being contained. I like to believe that our advice on counter-terrorism and our practical assistance to the armed forces in Nigeria are helping to do that.
All that is good, but it is not enough and the underlying causes of Boko Haram need to be examined. It seems from conversations that Boko Haram’s terrorist threat is linked to the economic situation in the country. The hon. Lady mentioned some of the issues that contribute to that, one being the extent of corruption in a country where 40% of oil revenues are stolen before they reach the Revenue. That is a phenomenal amount of lost revenue that the country could use in the fight against Boko Haram by making conditions much better for people. We must give all the support we can to President Buhari and his Government who, after all, came to power on an agenda to tackle corruption. He is doing that effectively as far he can.
Hon. Members have mentioned peace and justice and I want to pick up on the justice elements because the British judiciary is participating in projects to toughen up the Nigerian judiciary and to give it the ability to tackle these problems in its courtrooms. All that is an important contribution to the work of President Buhari and his Government to try to increase the extent to which the country is tackling underlying causes.
Secondly, the problems in Nigeria will not go away until the currency has been sorted out. Earlier in the year, the Central Bank of Nigeria stated that it would introduce a flexible currency for the future, but we are still waiting for details of exactly what that means. Until then, British companies will resist going into the country. This market will have 400 million people by 2050 and has enormous opportunities for British companies that want to go there. Dealing with the currency problem will have the enormous advantage of ensuring that companies go in sooner rather than later, and by going in sooner they will exert influence over the Buhari Government and their successors and start to take action themselves.
My third point is about the prosperity agenda, which goes across Government and includes the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office. Its purpose is to increase the country’s prosperity. All trade envoys are looking out for opportunities to encourage the use of the prosperity agenda, particularly for training.
All that leads to stability in the local marketplace and that too helps the situation. But it is really important that we concentrate on ensuring that the prosperity does not go to just a few rich Nigerians. Boko Haram has such success in the north of the country because it is one of the poorest areas. If that wealth is spread more effectively, we will begin to see the erosion of Boko Haram and, I hope, release of the girls.
Dr Cameron
I am enjoying listening to the hon. Gentleman’s expertise in the area. It was marked during our visit that there is little electronic transfer of money in Nigeria. I am wondering whether progress been made on that because the Government were unable to collect many of the taxes that were due because money was being bartered and there was no record of it.
John Howell
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and I wish I could answer yes, but I cannot. The situation is confused and in the last few weeks it has got worse for electronic transfer of money. That, too, is something the Buhari Government must concentrate on to make sure there is a free-flowing money system that will tackle directly the Boko Haram challenge and hopefully lead to release of the girls.
I want to pick up on a point that the hon. Lady made about equality. During one of my visits I went to LADOL, a deep-water offshore oil and gas company run by a woman who trained as a surgeon in Oxford. Although she has two brothers, she was invited back by her father to run the company because of her undoubted ability to do so. It was a great pleasure to see her. She set us up with a long line of inspections of the army, the police, customs officials and taxmen, all of whom were stationed on her free trade island in the lagoon at Lagos. Believe it or not, I had to take the salute. It was fascinating.
At a dinner with Nigerian businessmen afterwards, I asked why this woman was not in the Nigerian Parliament and the answer was simply because she is a woman. It was as bold and as simple as that and came from prominent businessmen in Nigeria. I do not think they approved of that and I think they took the view that it was bad, but that the fact that she was there—admittedly she was an exception—was a move in the right direction towards more equality.
There is a trend for the middle classes in Nigeria to come to London. While I am a trade envoy, I want to take London to Nigeria because I firmly believe that will build a stronger middle class in Nigeria which will help to press for release of the girls and the ending of the Boko Haram menace.
Also, to the extent that I have not had the opportunity to do this so far, I would like to have discussions with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby offline, because anything that I can do when I go out there to push this agenda forward, I will very happily do to ensure that this issue is taken up and pursued with equal vigour by President Buhari and his Government and the British Government.
DFID does and has done a number of things in Nigeria that I want to pick up. One is that, since 2011, the incomes of 1.1 million people have been raised by up to 50%; 200,000 of them were women. That is a very good targeted use of our money in that country. Similarly, in terms of the focus that there has been on state budgets, looking at both education and health, that money has been extremely well spent. It is useful to reflect that the work being done on privatisation of the power sector also has an effect. It, too, leads to a much broader and more secure economy that helps tackle Boko Haram and this whole issue. I understand that DFID now spends more than 60% of its funds in Nigeria in six northern states, which I think is a very good move. It is one that I am sure we all, across the House, will support and, hopefully, enjoy.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), the trade envoy to Nigeria. He is absolutely right to highlight the important point that the new Government were elected to deal with corruption and the economic situation in an oil-rich nation that does not distribute its wealth among its own people.
As a member of the International Development Committee, I want to return to our visit to Nigeria, when we met, in the country’s capital city, the campaigners for the release—the freedom—of the Chibok children. It was a very emotional meeting. Like many colleagues, I have had the pleasure over the years of listening to some prominent speakers, but the tone that those campaigners set and the words that they uttered will remain with me for an awfully long time. I stood there listening to my colleagues speaking alongside the campaigners, and I did so as an uncle and a father, not as a visiting Member of Parliament. I listened to the chanting for the release of these children.
The British Government have a proud record of investing in the human development, through education, of people across the globe, including in Nigeria. On the International Development Committee visit, we visited many educationists. We met politicians, including the vice-president. We met a number of people, and it was stark that there were very few young people under the age of 35 in Parliament—I believe that the constitution does not allow those people to represent their country. There were also very few women in either House of Parliament. We met people from both Houses while we were there.
Education is so important. It is vital that we get educated young people in Nigeria, including women, coming through to represent their people, so it was hard to take the situation in. These young girls had committed no offence whatever other than to attend school to educate themselves. Their brave parents had sent them to the dormitories and have never seen them again. Hundreds of children were abducted by a terrorist organisation. There is no nice way of putting it—it is a terrorist organisation.
I would be abdicating my duty as a parliamentarian if I did not repeat something that some of the fathers said to me: “When you return to your Parliament”—we made this pledge and are honouring it today—“think about this. If there had been children there from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel or other countries that have been involved in working hard on this, would there have been extra effort by the Nigerian Government to release these children?” I know that it is not easy—I understand economics and the terrain and the geography—but these are young human beings. We, the international community and the British Parliament, have a proud tradition of working to release people in such circumstances.
I am sure that the Minister will make an eloquent speech when he winds up this important debate and will tell us about the work that is being done behind the scenes. We understand that, and we understand that the expertise is being used in a positive way, but parents are still without their children. That is the fundamental argument in this debate. These young people were not unlike any young person in this country attending their school. I say to anyone who is an uncle, a father, a mother, a niece or an aunt: just think of how the relatives must be feeling, having been without their children for two years. Then there is the indignation at this terrorist organisation releasing videos and using the children as political pawns on TV in their own country. The international community has to do more to work with the Nigerian Government to get them released.
On the issue of corruption, we met the police, and a new unit is being set up. The new President, Buhari, was elected to eliminate corruption, but he pledged swift action to release these children as well, and the campaigners are angry with their own Government. I am not angry with our Government, because we are doing a lot of work in Nigeria, including on education. We must provide not just basic education for children but basic safety, and we must work with the other members of the international community and with the Nigerian Government to provide a setting for children and young people to become the parliamentarians and businesspeople of the future. They need that basic education and that basic safety.
I will not echo the eloquence of other speakers who have given a breakdown of what has happened in Nigeria, but I do want to echo the sentiments of the campaigners we met in Nigeria. They are honest, decent people whose only sin was to send their children to school. Think about that. I say, in the best British tradition, that this Parliament today stands shoulder to shoulder with those campaigners, and we ask for the release of those schoolchildren today.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I was mightily relieved earlier when I did not have to follow the very moving speech by the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant)—that was a tough act to follow. I pay tribute to everyone who has spoken today, but particularly to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and the whole International Development Committee for not forgetting about these parents and children. I have many Nigerian constituents and friends, and I know that it matters so much to them.
It is important to point out that although anyone watching might think that this is an empty Chamber, two debates are going on today and constituency work is also going on. We are not the only people who care about this issue. I have had incredible feedback from members of the Scottish National party group and other groups. I want us to put that message out there to anyone watching: this is just a tiny snapshot of all the people who care about this issue.
I am privileged to be able to contribute to this debate—indeed, to any debate in this place. I am privileged because I am one of an appallingly small number of women in the world to hold elected office. In fact, it is estimated that only 22% of all parliamentarians globally are women. As a woman, I am also, apparently, privileged to have benefited from education, and from higher education in particular. As we have heard, other women and girls across the world have not been so lucky.
The missing Chibok schoolgirls were brutally torn from their families and their lives for no worse crime than accessing the education that we all take for granted and have done all our lives. They were kidnapped by a group that prioritises the prevention of a secular education but particularly prioritises the prevention of any education at all for girls. That is in a country where opportunities for women to achieve a reasonable standard of living are already scarce.
Any reasonable person would find it difficult to comprehend the motivations of the men who commit such acts. Acts of barbarism struck sufficient terror into the heart of communities that schools were shut down lest their children be kidnapped or murdered. Such acts of terrorism, and this one in particular, would not easily be forgotten had they occurred in this country. Two years on, it is vital that we continue to remember these girls, that we work to ensure that this evil act remains on the news agenda and that Governments across the world continue to exert pressure to target this crime.
I welcome the support of the UK Government and others for the Nigerian military. I call upon the British Government to ask whether, in addition to what we have heard they are already doing—they are doing a lot to help—it is possible to do anything to increase the international pressure, provide assistance to the Nigerian Government and help bring back the girls. If it is, I urge them to do it.
I also ask the Government to consider supporting the Nigerian Government in re-establishing education for the millions of people displaced by terrorism in sub-Saharan Africa. I know they are doing some of that, and clearly the priority in this debate is the missing girls, but female education has become almost non-existent in the areas terrorised by Boko Haram. The thousands who have had to flee—both boys and girls—are also now without an education. But the large-scale displacements of people to areas not affected by Boko Haram mean that there is also the freedom to ensure that those displaced people are allowed to be educated. I wonder whether our Government could do anything more to support them to do that, until those people are safely returned home and can be educated in their own towns and villages.
There are 62 million girls around the world aged between six and 15 who are not in school. We know that educating girls does amazing things for the societies in which they live. It correlates with an increased GDP, it provides better outcomes for girls and women themselves and it leads to healthier children, because a mother who can read instructions on a medicine bottle, for instance, is a mother who is more able to protect the health of her child. It is clearly worthwhile for all Governments to work to support girls’ education across the globe as part of their efforts to promote development.
It goes without saying that the pain and anguish that a family go through when a child is missing must be unbearable. “Unimaginable” was the word used by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), and that is probably the best way to describe it, because I bet it is a million times worse than we imagine it to be. I cannot even begin to comprehend the suffering of parents who live every day not knowing whether their children are safe or in danger, dead or alive. It does not matter whether someone lives in a tiny village in rural Nigeria, a penthouse in Paris, a trailer park in the US or a mansion in rural England, everyone would feel the same unbearable pain. The powerful words of the mother mentioned in the moving speech by the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald could be the words of any parent anywhere.
However, I worry that Nigeria seems so far away, and the lifestyles of the families so far removed from our own, that we are in danger of allowing ourselves to forget what is happening and of putting it out of our minds because we do not relate to the parents in the way that we might relate to someone in Europe or the US. We all remember the terrible, tight knots of dread we had in our stomachs when the news broke of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. When Sarah Payne was kidnapped and murdered in July 2000, our country was shaken with grief and anguish for her and her family. When it transpired that Jaycee Dugard had been kidnapped and held hostage for 18 years in California, shockwaves reverberated around the world—rightly and understandably so. But in this one incident in Chibok in Nigeria, those terrible crimes were repeated over and over and over again, and they continue to be so.
These Nigerian families sent their children to school because they hoped and believed that getting an education would allow their girls to get on in the world. Two hundred and seventy six girls were taken in total. As we have heard, 57 escaped the same day, and one managed to do so two years later. That leaves the families of more than 200 young people utterly devastated. Some of the girls are said to have died at the hands of their kidnappers or in bombing campaigns against Boko Haram, but nobody knows for sure. Despite not knowing where these girls are, we do know that some have been forced to change religion, some have been raped in forced so-called marriages and all have been forced to live transitory lives in forest regions far away from their homes, families and everything that is familiar to them. They are each somebody’s child, and they must be terrified. They must wonder whether their families have given up on them or are still looking for them, because who knows what their captors are telling them.
The nightmare goes on for all these people and their families. Let us resolve today to do everything we possibly can to help bring them back to their families and, in their honour, to support education for the displaced people in Nigeria and for girls right around the world.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing this important, timely debate. I thank all my friends here—those who visited Nigeria as Committee members and others from whom we have heard—for their contributions, which were very emotional and touching. People can feel what is involved with this issue only if they have seen it. I saw it when we went to Nigeria: the emotions, the way campaigners presented themselves and the honesty in their moves.
As a grandfather myself, with a 15-year-old granddaughter, let me say this to Members: imagine that your child, your granddaughter, was taken away from you—the child that you love so much—and that you did not know where the child was now. That is what the people were telling us; as a human being—as a father or grandfather—I was imagining what it would be like not to know what was happening to my child and to feel so helpless about their safety. That was the feeling and it is what has given Committee members—those who have spoken in the debate—the commitment to come back to see what else we can do.
Every Member who has spoken has given the details and set the scene: the country, the way the Government operate there, the corruption and the north-south divide. People there are still talking about out-of-date ideologies. They are not talking about the 21st-century society we want to live in, where the whole world is coming together to make sure that everybody has equal rights and where, as we put it, nobody is left behind. There are many slogans and sustainable development goals: all the world leaders have signed up and given the commitment that every child will be protected, and that there should be education for all and the elimination of poverty. Yet in some areas there are still individuals and ideologies that do not want their girls to be educated or to live free from fear of terrorism. We have been fighting inequality for years in the western world, and now we are talking about how best we can improve that—not only here, but throughout the world.
The time has come for the whole world to come together. Those girls must be waiting for someone to release them. The parents, grandparents, uncles, aunties, brothers and sisters are waiting for someone to bring their children back. Some Members have said that for reasons to do with culture, faith and many other traditions, the girls who come back are badly treated and not accepted. We need to advocate the protection of those who come back and look at how to bring them back into society.
I am proud that we have offered nothing but unwavering support for the families of the girls and aid to the Nigerian Government as we continue to lead the international effort to secure the girls’ safe release. I commend DFID for providing consistent aid through development and for working alongside intelligence and military teams that have been key partners of the Nigerian Government.
I am pleased to say that the Government have taken further actions to ensure that schools become a safe place for all children. The safe schools initiative has proved successful in helping more than 90,000 displaced children to return safely to education. However, it is important that we do not stop there. I recommend that we increase our support and aid to this troubled region, as there is still much to be done.
President Buhari has appointed a special investigative committee to evaluate the vulnerability of education facilities. I hope that DFID has already taken steps to communicate effectively with this group in order to influence the Government’s policy decisions. Safety in schools is undoubtedly paramount to future regional development. Given the tendency of Boko Haram to target schools, we must be able to ensure that children will be safe in their place of education. Although we will continue to support the Nigerian Government’s efforts to bring the girls home, it is key that we stress the importance of education and the protection of women and girls from violence.
While some state governments in Nigeria have been unable to provide adequate schooling for children, I am concerned that the private sector provision is not in keeping with the sustainable development goals’ commitment to leave no child behind. I therefore urge DFID to focus on how to help the Nigerian state governments to improve their public sector education provisions. By continuing to offer assistance for the provision of safe and successful schools, we are ensuring that children in Nigeria have access to a proper education. We hope that in our efforts, we will encourage even more Governments to offer their help.
While addressing these appalling acts of terrorism, we must not in any way fuel Islamophobia. It is clear that the actions of such a group lack genuine ties to Islam, which teaches the benefits of an education for women. This group is based on an outdated and cruel ideology, at odds with morality and the modern world. It is our duty to do all that we can to ensure the girls’ safe return.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the International Development Committee, ably led by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), on bringing this important issue to the House today.
I want to touch on some of the wider issues, following the line of argument made by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) on why what happened is a symptom of some of the other challenges in Nigeria. I have a very strong interest in Nigeria. I am proud to represent one of the largest diaspora groups in the UK. I am a former chair of the all-party group on Nigeria, which I chaired for five years, and I had the pleasure of visiting Nigeria on three separate occasions.
In 2014, I hosted an event on the issue of the Chibok schoolgirls; we had a representative from the Nigerian high commission and a lot of diaspora Nigerians present in the room, where there was palpable upset and anger. I will touch on this further, but this was really at the beginning of a rise in feeling from the Nigerians politically against some of the actions of their then Government.
It is also worth highlighting Nigeria’s huge importance both to the UK and to the region, as Africa’s most populous nation. It is a key player in security and potentially in trade in that region. Our last Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), signed a concordat in 2011 with the then President Goodluck Jonathan to double bilateral trade between our countries. Although that seems a bit distant from this tragic kidnapping—218 girls are still missing—it is related and I will go on to explain how.
The hon. Member for Henley, with his vast knowledge and experience, highlighted the issue of companies from Britain seeking to invest in Nigeria. We have heard on a number of visits and in events here how British businesses are put off going out and working with Nigerians and putting their energy into boosting the Nigerian economy because of security and other issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby set out the detail of the terrible, large-scale kidnap that took place. As so many others have eloquently highlighted, that act rightly shocked the world, but as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) rightly said, although this was the most terrible and awful action, it is not the only act of terror against children in Nigeria. Other schools have been attacked and pupils have been brutally murdered and abducted.
That was forcibly brought home to me when I was working with a group who had come to London at the behest of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. It was a cross-religious group of Muslims and Christians, working for a fortnight to develop skills to try and tackle extremism at its root cause. One of the members who had come over—her nephew had been brutally murdered in his school bed—brought home to us very firmly the human reality of what is going on in Nigeria. In 2014, more than 2,000 people were abducted, so although the Chibok girls are the visible sign of that and rightly attracted international attention, let us not imagine that that is the beginning or the end. Even if they are happily returned to their families, we should not rest there. I think we would all agree that we need to keep vigilant.
The key issue is how to tackle Boko Haram and stem the threat of extremism in Nigeria and the region. I welcome the UK Government’s support for military training and the commitment in December last year to increase that. Is the Minister able to give us an update? We know that it is a very challenging arena to work in and, of course, the issue is about collaboration and not about us going and telling the Nigerians what to do. Nigeria is a sovereign nation and it is important that we recognise that, but there is a resource issue and I would be interested to hear from the Minister what more is happening.
I am very pleased that DFID has increased its spending in Nigeria, although my love for Nigeria means I am sad that that is still necessary. However, the decision was made following a needs-based assessment and it is great that DFID is helping to tackle poverty, disease and to improve education, particularly for girls.
On one of my visits, I went to a school in the Kano area, in the days when it was easier for Members of Parliament to travel around the country. There was a training programme there, funded by DFID and delivered partly with Save the Children, to get more girls trained to be teachers, because girls were not going to school in parts of the north of Nigeria as their parents were not keen for them to be taught by male teachers.
The girls were in a compound with barbed wire—not particularly, in those days, because of the security threat from terrorism, but because their husbands and fathers would not have let them come to be trained as teachers if there was any risk to them in cultural terms. It was effectively a brutal chaperoning system—“brutal” in that there was barbed wire—to make sure that those girls were completely protected. They were ambitious young women. I was there with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), and we were talking to them as women to women.
We were quite shaken when the woman running the programme said to them, “Remember, when you go back to your village, be yourselves. Don’t try to be too ambitious.” Part of her role was to get them to go back and be teachers, and to stay doing that, but when we were talking to them we found that those young women had ambitions to go beyond teacher training and do other things.
As two British female MPs who have worked hard, and had a good education and the opportunities that life in this country has presented to us, we understood but were shocked at the limits being put on women around the world, although in that case, perhaps, that was to give more women opportunities. As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East highlighted, an educated woman—the first educator of her children—can deliver so many things, including knowledge of healthcare.
On my last visit to Nigeria, I went to Minna, and saw parents taking control of the school in their area. They were helping to run the school, a bit like a super parent-teacher association, working with the headteacher to ensure that young women who might be hawkers on the roadside were scooped up, gathered up and put into education. I spoke to parents of three-year-olds who were keen for them to get an education.
Let us not kid ourselves: education is a huge prize in Nigeria. Why do schools in my area do particularly well? We always praise schools in Hackney and we know that lots of things have gone into that, but one factor is that we have a large west African population, who prize education and whose children strive to achieve with great parental support. That is no different in a village in Minna than on an estate in Hackney. I also had had the opportunity to visit some of the human rights policing work. Small scale but important activities are going on with the support of the Department for International Development.
I turn to inequality and sexual exploitation. During a visit to Nigeria with the former Africa Minister, the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), I heard that perpetrators of sexual offences against young girls were getting off with a fine less than the price of a UK parking ticket because the shame on the family of having a prosecution and evidence that their daughter had been sexually molested was too great. That is some of the backdrop to the attitude and challenges for women in Nigeria, and they are big challenges.
There are other complications, such as security. Nigeria has a large and porous border. I have had security briefings and it is mind-boggling to imagine. It is not just that Nigeria is a huge and populous nation, but that the border with Chad and other countries to the north is long, porous and challenging to police. Will the Minister update us on any work that the UK is doing to support the Nigerian Government in managing those border challenges, as Boko Haram go in and out of the country causing havoc?
There is huge poverty in Nigeria. Most Nigerians live on less than $1.50 a day. There is a lack of investment in infrastructure because, sadly, so much corruption still exists. In fact, when I was in Minna with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, she bartered to buy some juicy mangoes. We worked out that they cost less than 20p each, but by the time people got them in Nigeria—if, for example, sellers got them to Lagos through various police checks by paying bribes—they would cost too much to make it worth the while to transport them.
A mango costs about £1 in Ridley Road market in Hackney and about £1.50 in Sainsbury’s. Challenges such as the lack of infrastructure and corruption create difficulties for things such as exports, which would help to boost the economy. I do not want to digress too much, but that is certainly a big element of tackling poverty, and I refer hon. Members to previous reports of the all-party group.
There is now a big north-south divide in Nigeria. The north is much poorer, less well educated and at greater risk from Boko Haram. It has a young population in great need of skills and training. Those girls who were at school to get the skills, training and education they needed to contribute and help to boost the north of Nigeria have still not been returned to their parents.
I mentioned the impact of the Chibok girls on the attitudes of Nigerians. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby highlighted, the situation had a big impact on the Nigerian election and was one of a number of factors that influenced the outcome, unseating the People’s Democratic party for the first time since the re-establishment of democracy. Yet, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) said, women are still woefully under-represented in the Nigerian Parliament. From my visits, I know how much support is still needed to support democracy at all levels.
Women politicians in Nigeria face challenges including open discrimination and physical attacks. While we in the UK are sensitive to this, particularly recently since the death of our colleague, the situation is nowhere near the same. We do not feel that same fear when we walk out of our doors. We do not face the challenges that our female colleagues in Nigeria do. Although changing that would not have solved this issue, it is an important backdrop.
The poorest communities need hope, infrastructure, education and jobs. Although the Nigerian Government are doing their best to tackle the rampant terror in the north and the activities of Boko Haram, they are still some way off resolving it. I suspect it will be years, if not decades, before that is challenged. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update. The terrorists exploit poverty and it is important that the international community fights poverty with the same vigour as it fights the military might.
It is important that we unite to tackle Boko Haram. Think of the poor Chibok schoolgirls and the anguish their families are facing: there is a real risk that such things will continue to happen unless the root causes—poverty and terrorism—are tackled. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I rise, as the third party representative, to sum up this debate, which is a hard task. I congratulate everyone, especially the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg)—the Chair of the International Development Committee—and all the members of his Committee who have given such eloquent and heartfelt updates on their experiences of visiting Nigeria. I apologise if I miss out anything significant. I got so involved in the debate that I forgot to take as many notes as I normally would.
The work that Governments here do to support countries abroad is a great credit to them and to this House. However, today we are here to talk about the missing Chibok schoolgirls who were brutally kidnapped by Boko Haram. As all hon. Members have said, it is almost inconceivable and unimaginable to think about what those parents and families are suffering, and about what has happened to those girls—girls who are the same age as the granddaughter of the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma). I have grandchildren. In fact, I only have granddaughters, and it tears my heart to think that they could have been in such a position. As a developed country, we must and should do everything we can to support any country that has to go through this.
The Chair of the International Development Committee gave a full and heart-rending explanation of the Committee’s visit and of all the things that have happened. On the “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign, I confess that I simply tweeted, retweeted and did not know enough about what had happened. Rest assured, I will become more involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) said, the representation in this room is not representative of what this Parliament wants to do and the support it wants to provide. We need to think about how the situation affects us, but we must understand and address the basic concerns of what has happened in Nigeria and the reasons why. We are talking about poverty, cultural issues and the role of women and girls in society, which we really must push forward.
I will briefly mention those who have spoken. The hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) gave an emotional account of what happened to her when she went to Nigeria. She focused on the families’ suffering, as did many other hon. Members. It is really important that the girls are not forgotten and that the issue keeps getting raised so that more can be done nationally and internationally, and that it never leaves the public imagination here and abroad. It is only with continuous pressure and real hard work, which has already been done by the members of the International Development Committee, that the girls may have the possibility of being returned.
I return to the status of some of the girls who have come back from similar incidents and how the culture and society in Nigeria work against them. They are seen not as victims but as tarnished people who cannot take back their full place in society. That is an abomination in any country, and we need to fight against it.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) gave a good overview of his role as trade envoy and of how by having more trade with Nigeria, and by dealing with the trade issues there, we could produce more prosperity, which might help culturally and even educationally. If people have more money, they are likely to be more educated, which will also change cultural attitudes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East spoke more generally about the role of educating mothers. My parents were told many, many years ago, “If you educate your daughter, you educate the family.” That is so true. She gave the simple, illuminating example of a mother being able to read the instructions on a medicine bottle. What a difference it makes to a family if the mother can do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who is a member of the IDC, gave a full and heart-rending account of her visit and the security issues involved in making even a simple visit to northern Nigeria. All Committee members are to be commended for their bravery and dedication. To go through that and to come back with a burning desire to help even more is commendable.
It is also important that all those who have spoken have congratulated the UK Government on what they have done so far while appealing to them to do even more to help. We understand that forces have been sent to help, to train and to try to find and rescue these girls, but the girls have not been rescued because of the terrain and all sorts of other reasons. We must not give up on these girls.
Once again, I commend everyone who has spoken in this debate for substantially raising awareness. Two years on, these girls must not be forgotten.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will be brief so that the Minister has time to respond to the specific points that have been raised. I am grateful to the Chairman of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for securing this debate. As ever in Westminster Hall, this has been a cross-party and collegial debate.
I will press the Minister on a couple of points about the assistance that the Government are giving to Nigeria. Will he comment briefly on the larger number of 276? Is he aware of the services on offer to the girls who have returned, particularly post-traumatic services? Does he believe that the services funded through the DFID budget are of high quality? Will he briefly touch on both the Defence and Foreign and Commonwealth Office budgets being spent on assisting with the logistics of finding the girls who are still missing in this huge terrain?
Will the Minister comment on the sensitive matter of returned girls who want to terminate their pregnancies? What choice of healthcare is on offer? Will he comment on those who, through ostracism in society, are sadly facing destitution? What sort of basic welfare is available to these girls? Some of those who have returned are being ostracised. That information comes from House of Commons Library research and the Guardian article by Chitra Nagarajan, who has underlined that although some girls have been returned, and we hope more will, those crucial services must be in place. High-quality, long-term, ongoing care, in which the UK has expertise and which we are in a good position to offer, would be valuable. By providing such care we could rest assured that excellent services are available when more and more of these girls are returned.
I address my other short point not to the Minister but to our Government’s trade envoy, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). He has an important role to play, and I am pleased that he has emphasised that the Nigerian judiciary has a role to play in strengthening the effectiveness of the rule of law. Will the Minister outline how the roles of the trade envoy and the FCO will be co-ordinated so that we strengthen our messaging when officials and envoys are in Nigeria so that these issues are discussed at every single opportunity, not just Government to Government or military to military, but in a genuinely co-operative and co-ordinated response?
John Howell
It depends on the cheekiness of whoever is the trade envoy. In my case, I take everything under my own banner and I do a bit of the co-ordination myself. If I can continue to do that, so much the better.
Catherine West
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to be as cheeky as possible.
Once again, I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate. I apologise for not having a chance to mention everyone, but I particularly thank the three Members who were there and who heard the chanting. They are wearing their badges today. Listening to their speeches was very emotional.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing this important debate. He does incredible work as Chair of the International Development Committee. He raises the interesting concept—I do not know whether we can formalise it—that when the Committee makes such a visit perhaps there should be a more formal opportunity to present its findings, rather than simply producing a standard report. Members on both sides of the House have articulated a sense of knowledge and expertise, as well as a commitment to really understand these issues and to press the Government, and indeed the international community, to see what more we can do. Hearing people say that is more powerful than any report, even though the report is valuable, too.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on leading the Committee’s visit in March. It was clearly very productive. I join him and other hon. Members, some of whom are wearing their “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign badges with pride to raise the campaign’s profile—as has been mentioned, the campaign has reached the White House and elsewhere—in reminding people that it has now been a couple of years since the horrible abduction of these missing children. I am pleased that we have this opportunity to debate the matter, which allows me, as the Minister with responsibility for Africa, to place on the record what the Government are doing.
There has been a huge number of questions, as there always is. I will do my best to answer them in the time provided but, as usual, I will write to Members in detail if I am not able to provide the necessary full answers here today. We were all very moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant). She has a powerful understanding of what is going on, and she provides a level of expertise and a forthright understanding of what is actually happening there, not least the power of the campaign. I pay tribute to her for raising this matter again and again. We all owe her tribute for her work.
The hon. Member for East Kirkbride (Dr Cameron) made it clear that we know very little about—[Interruption.] Sorry, do I have the constituency wrong? You are laughing at me, but that could be for a myriad reasons.
Mr Ellwood
I now realise why I missed off the last part. The hon. Lady made the astute point that we do not really know what has happened to these girls in the past two years. We absolutely do not know. Anybody who is a parent or who has a sister can only guess what these people are going through and enduring. We need to provide mental support when the girls return because there is no doubt that they have been mentally scarred by what they are going through. That is very important.
[Mr Graham Brady in the Chair]
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) and I had the opportunity to discuss Nigeria only a couple of days ago, when we had our first meeting in the capacity of inviting trade envoys for Africa to the Foreign Office. It was timely for us to engage on that matter. I join others in paying tribute to his work. He reminded us of some of the underlying causes that must be dealt with, not least the economy. We can try to defeat insurgencies militarily, but ultimately, we must give the people and communities something better to look forward to. They need a way of life that is successful and more attractive than that offered by an extremist organisation. The detailed knowledge that he brings is much appreciated.
My hon. Friend mentioned the huge challenge that the size of the country presents. I will touch on that a little later. The scale for the military combing through the various parts of Borno and east Nigeria is immense, which is why the international community must work together. Once we have done that and created an umbrella of security, that is when an economic strategy needs to kick in. The ingredients are there. Nigeria is a powerful country in Africa. As he highlighted, there is much that we can do on bilateral relationships. He has illustrated clearly that he is the right person for the job, and we will continue to work with him.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), if I have pronounced that correctly, spoke about the value of the Committee’s visit in March. I have underlined why I appreciate its work. He emphasised that there are parents out there who are missing their children. We are debating the issue and highlighting it, and there are people watching and discussing it, but there are also parents who are aware every single moment of the day that their loved ones are missing, and we should be conscious of that.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) underlined the value of this debate. She is right that Thursday afternoon is not always the busiest—there are other things going on across the estate—but it is important that we debate such matters, and I hope that we will have a regular opportunity to discuss the wider issues to do with this part of Africa as well as the plight of these schoolgirls. She is right to remind us of that.
The hon. Lady also discussed the call for increased international assistance. At the UN General Assembly in a couple of weeks, we will hold an event to rally further support for what we are doing to assist Nigerians in defeating extremism and freeing the girls. She also highlighted the importance and value of education. If I may, I will write to her in more detail about the DFID programme that is in place and how we are making huge efforts to provide education, particularly to girls, so they can have the best opportunities in life. I will be in touch with her.
Albert Owen
The Minister is making an important point. I am sure that Committee members will join me in paying tribute to the DFID and Foreign Office staff in Nigeria, who took us to meet the campaigners. No stone was left unturned; we saw at first hand exactly what the campaign is about and the programmes to make things better.
Mr Ellwood
I absolutely concur. I am grateful that that could happen. Looking through my notes, I can see that we have provided support for more than 300,000 additional girls to attend primary school in Nigeria and that more than 50,000 girls have benefited from safe space interventions, which provide training and support to help their confidence and improve their skills, as well as the opportunity to seek work. DFID is providing a package of measures. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development visited Nigeria only a couple of weeks ago, I understand. I must catch up with him before my own visit there in the next month or so. This debate has been timely, as I will need to raise these matters when I visit the country.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) spoke of the international community’s wider requirement to work together. Members have been generous in supporting the Government’s initiatives, but ultimately, the more we can lead by example and encourage other countries to join us, the more leverage we have, not just in the military component but in all the other aspects that we have been discussing.
The hon. Member for Hackney South—I have probably missed a bit of that constituency as well. Have I?
Mr Ellwood
I only learn the first bits; it is easier. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) gave another great example of the expertise that she brings to the house as chair of the all-party parliamentary group. She was also the first speaker to touch on the importance of the diaspora in this country and the relationships associated with it, separate from the bilateral relationship, the prosperity agenda and so forth. I pay tribute to the pioneering work that she does to ensure that those relationships are strong.
The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows)—have I got that right?
Mr Ellwood
I am getting better at this, clearly. She spoke about the underlying problems. I will come to that in a second, because it is important to dealing with areas of instability and conflict, which are an incubator for extremism. She gave an important list, including poverty, cultural issues and the role of women and girls in society. In the 21st century, it is important that we can articulate that from an early age, which is exactly what some DFID programmes are doing.
Finally, I turn to some of the questions raised by the Labour spokesperson. Her speech was quite short; she caught me off guard a little by stepping back, but she clearly wanted to give me the most time possible to answer the points. She spoke about post-traumatic services, which must be considered. I do not have the details, but the former Foreign Secretary, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, raised with President Buhari our concern to ensure that that package of measures is in place. Again, when I go on my visit there, it will be on my list.
Catherine West
I understood that the debate would finish at 3 o’clock, but we now have loads of time for interventions. Will the Minister write to the Committee members and to me about the exact provision for women, particularly in relation to some of the healthcare issues that I mentioned, including post-traumatic support and counselling and the depth of those services? It has been highlighted in press reports that some of that provision is not necessarily reaching the ground, and it should be ready in case other girls return who have been abducted or radicalised. We would like the detail.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady has explained why she made an uncharacteristically short speech, thinking that the debate would be curtailed at 3 when we actually have more time. I will certainly be able to discuss other things, if there are more that she was hoping to present.
The hon. Lady raises some important questions about post-traumatic services and the role of the envoy. If I may explain, when I invited a number of the Africa envoys to meet me as the Minister for Africa, I wanted to know what the formalities were and how we could utilise them. In his own way, my hon. Friend the Member for Henley put his finger on the point: it varies incredibly according to the enthusiasm of the individual tasked with the job of envoy. I would like to elevate it to a much more formal role, so that envoys are tasked by the Prime Minister, occasionally get access to the Prime Minister at No. 10 to share their thoughts and have to write reports. I understand that none of them has to do so. We have not only a gifted but a committed envoy, who has attended this debate, but there is no requirement for any of the trade envoys actually to produce any work. I think that that is wrong.
We are considering ways we can work together on a more formal footing to leverage the role, because it is important. As we have seen, envoys can get amazing access. Because it says on their business card “Prime Minister’s envoy”, they get incredible access, and that needs to be leveraged appropriately.
Catherine West
May I suggest that the Minister not only reaches officials but goes to small business communities, which provide huge opportunities for applying pressure in regional ways? They go into communities in much more depth.
Another point I want to make concerns linking the trade envoy with the all-party group and the Chairman of the International Development Committee and its members. We are all here, so perhaps we could establish a reporting-back system by trade envoys to the Select Committee and to the APPG on occasions, if that is permitted, so that the informal networks that operate among parliamentarians can be enhanced and we close the gap.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Lady is making up for the shortness of her speech with the length of her interventions, but they are welcome. There are useful observations and initiatives to be pursued there.
John Howell
The Minister is absolutely right when he says that the trade envoy has unparalleled access in the country. It is unparalleled access to Ministers—indeed, right to the top—and to the companies that are there, big or small. I have already been twice to the APPG and I want to continue to do so, provided I do not have too many reports to write.
Mr Ellwood
I think we have some momentum there and certainly some ideas that we need to formalise. That is very much appreciated.
At the core of the problem is not only the challenge of a country that has to deal with the corruption and red tape that we see in many countries in Africa, but the blight of extremism in the form of Boko Haram. Unfortunately, as we have seen with al-Shabaab, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis and Daesh itself, extremist organisations take advantage when there is a power vacuum. They offer something else to the local indigenous people. They say, “Believe in me and I can give you something else.” Unless there is something else as an alternative, they will always win. And—dare I say it?—we saw that in Northern Ireland with the IRA when youngsters saw nothing else on their agenda or in front of them but to join a club, extremist though it might be, because they felt part of something and they got cash and status. That is what is happening in the north-east of Nigeria, and that is what we need to change, as it changed in Northern Ireland. It is a challenge that the international community must face. It is the responsibility not only of Nigeria, but the international community, because the consequences are that the trouble bleeds into neighbouring countries, triggering a refugee crisis, which bleeds into other parts of the world and across the Mediterranean, as we have seen.
Boko Haram’s violent insurgency has resulted in more than 20,000 people being killed in Nigeria and caused more than 2 million people to be displaced. I understand from the UN that 9 million people are in need of assistance across the Lake Chad basin. UN reports also confirm that about 250,000 children are suffering from severe acute malnutrition in the Borno state alone.
As has been mentioned, 276 Chibok girls were abducted in April 2014; 57 escaped and one has been confirmed dead, which leaves 218 still missing. It is the figure of 218 missing that has prompted today’s debate.
Boko Haram has been around for some time. It was formed in 2002 as a Sunni fundamentalist sect, but it has developed into a Salafist jihadi group. It seeks to attract people to join it and to take over and push back the legitimate Government. Today Boko Haram officially refers to itself as the Islamic State’s West Africa Province, because it has decided to join Daesh/ISIS. I am afraid that organisations that are not necessarily attractive themselves are joining that international franchise in the hope that they will then get further funding and advice on how to move their extremism agenda forward. That is of interest to all of us because of where it leads. That is why we have to work not only in Nigeria but in Libya, in Sirte, and wherever the black flag has been taken over by a local terrorist group to further its cause. It is why we are joining with others on the military side and providing intelligence as well.
The international community has responded, as we have heard today. In January 2015 a joint multinational force was formed with units from Benin, Cameroon and Chad, and with Nigerian forces as well. We have provided assistance in three forms, which have been mentioned in the debate. The first is in a military capacity. We have more than 300 personnel involved in training and advising the Nigerian armed forces. We are also providing huge levels of intelligence, although I cannot go into too much detail about that here. Thirdly, and of most interest to the International Development Committee, there is the humanitarian support. There is no doubt that the Nigerian military and the international force have made progress, but, as has been outlined, Nigeria is a massive country. It has often been the case that when the forces have been able to clear an area and move forward, they have not been able to hold it, and that has been a problem. We are getting far better, but it is a challenge. Unfortunately, Boko Haram continues. There was not only the event in 2014 that we are discussing; the horrific attack on the UN convoy that took place in August is an illustration that it remains very active indeed.
We are providing a wide range of support, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby outlined articulately. We have provided support in hostage negotiations, for example, as well as financial support, military support and humanitarian aid, which I will touch on in more detail. The UK has increased its support to £32 million over the next three years. It is not my call—it is DFID’s shout—but we are looking to see what more we can do. That will be subject to debates that we will have at the UN General Assembly, but there is a desire to do more, so I am pleased that this debate can help to frame where some of the extra resources can go.
There has been a series of ministerial visits. Baroness Anelay, the Foreign Office Minister in the Lords, visited in February. The former DFID Minister, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), visited prior to the change in Prime Minister. As I mentioned, the current DFID Minister with responsibility for Africa visited a few weeks ago, and I will be going in the next month. That shows Nigeria that we care about what is going on. It also allows us to influence in the best possible way how we can support that country along the three tracks that I mentioned—economic, humanitarian and military. We have pushed back Boko Haram, there is no doubt about it, but we have not completed the job yet.
Clearly, as many hon. Members have illustrated in the debate today, we will not defeat Boko Haram militarily. What we have done is not enough. Boko Haram will simply reform and recruit if something better is not put in place. There needs to be economic development and civilian-led security so that people genuinely feel safe. They want not military people in green uniforms but civilian operators, with gendarmes policing and so forth.
We also need improved governance. We need councils and mayors in place, and for governance to work, we need people who are respected and not corrupted to make the local decisions. We need better delivery of basic services such as education and health, which are the basic pillars for any community to be able to move forward. The Nigerian Government recognise that and have been open and have put their hands up about where support is required. That was outlined in the Abuja regional summit in May, and there will be further big conferences with a focus on that issue. Our support reflects that approach, in the sense that we are placing our focus not just on the military but across the piece. As I mentioned, these matters will be considered at the United Nations General Assembly, and I hope that that will deal with not only Nigeria but the whole Lake Chad basin, because there is a need to see things in context.
This has been an extremely important debate, and I am pleased to have listened to the contributions, because of the depth of knowledge shown in them and because Parliament is demanding a commitment from the Government to continue focusing on the matter and make it a priority for Africa.
Albert Owen
The Minister has been very keen to get other people doing extra work—the Select Committee, the envoy and others. Does he intend that after the debate, in the new climate, a Foreign Office statement should be made so that the campaigners who asked for the debate—we are honouring a pledge to them—can hear that the British Government stand in solidarity with them?
Mr Ellwood
I should be more than delighted. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are slightly disingenuous, as I was not trying simply to outsource work. I am going to go to Nigeria myself to see what I can do. I like to think that given my close relationship with my DFID counterpart I can again focus on this issue, which the United States is also keen to look at.
Mr Virendra Sharma
I hope that at this important time, with the visit next week, the Minister will be able to visit the group to show his solidarity and commitment.
Mr Ellwood
I have actually made that request already. We will already have fed that in and said that it is important that I get to meet the group, as the Committee did.
As for a statement, I shall look at the best timing. Rather than simply providing an update, which I think I have done, we need to confirm that there are new steps being taken. I have spoken about our desire to do something, and when that is articulated and formed a statement can be made to update the entire House. I agree that that would be a useful move.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby for obtaining the debate, and to all those who have supported it and made contributions. I have outlined our commitment to continuing to support Nigeria in its quest to defeat extremism.
Stephen Twigg
May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Brady? We have had an excellent debate, with powerful, well informed and sometimes, understandably, emotional contributions from across the House. I thank everyone for their participation, but particularly members, or those who have recently been members, of the International Development Committee, including those who are here in another capacity and therefore cannot take part in the debate.
I congratulate the Minister on his appointment as Africa Minister. One of the themes of the debate is that it is important that we work together cross-departmentally. An increasing proportion of overseas development assistance will now be delivered through other Departments as well as DFID. The Select Committee wants to make sure that we work together to scrutinise the other Departments’ expenditure, which obviously includes the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I echo strongly what my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), a fellow Committee member, said in tribute to the Foreign Office and DFID staff on the ground in Nigeria. We had fantastic support from them for our visit earlier this year, and they are a fine example of how the two Departments can work together on the ground in an integrated way on behalf of the British Government.
Many broader issues were raised by several Members, and in particular by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell). I hope that we shall have an early opportunity to consider some of the broader challenges that Nigeria and west Africa face, such as economic challenges, the trade issues that he is working on, broader issues of education and women and girls, health challenges, and the challenge of supporting the Nigerian Parliament and further strengthening democracy in the country. I should welcome the chance to address in the House many of the issues dealt with in the Committee’s report published earlier in the summer.
I want to finish with two points. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) spoke about the diaspora voice, and it is important that it should be heard on such questions. My friend, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), is one of a number of Members who have Nigerian family connections, which added extra power to her brilliant speech. Just before the debate I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), who also has connections in Nigeria, as does the new shadow Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor). Hearing those voices in the House is important, but so is hearing them in the wider community.
The debate has demonstrated the strength of commitment and feeling across the House. We need to get back to the focus of the Bring Back Our Girls message. I welcome what the Minister said in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn—that he will find a suitable opportunity to set out on behalf of the Government their continued commitment on the issue. I hope that we have demonstrated today that Parliament shares that commitment. We send out from Westminster Hall this afternoon this message—that we want, as our badges say, to bring back our girls now. I look forward to a future debate in this Chamber or the House, where we can celebrate the return, and the reuniting with their families, of those girls who are still alive; I look forward to making that stride towards gender equality, and towards education for all children, but particularly for girls, in Nigeria.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the missing Chibok schoolgirls in Nigeria.
Written Statements
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
ECOFIN: 9-10 September 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
An informal meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Bratislava on 9-10 September 2016. The Government are committed to leaving the European Union; in the interim, they continue to participate fully in ECOFIN meetings. EU Finance Ministers are due to discuss the following items:
Future economic policies in the EU
Ministers will discuss the EU’s current economic policy framework and whether further systemic reforms are needed. This discussion will be supported by presentations from former Italian Prime Minister and Finance Minister Mario Monti and former Swedish Finance Minister Anders Borg.
Deepening Economic Monetary Union (EMU)—fiscal pillar
An orientation discussion will be held on proposals for a euro area fiscal capacity, assisted by Guntram Wolff of Bruegel, Vitor Gasper of the IMF, and Danial Gros of the Centre for European Policy Studies.
Taxation—current issues: improving tax certainty and fighting BEPS, tax crime and terrorism
Ministers will exchange views on measures to address tax avoidance, tax evasion and tax crime and counter-terrorist financing. The discussion will be framed by a presentations from OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria and State Secretary of the Slovak Finance Ministry Dana Meager.
Investment plan for Europe
The Council will discuss the progress of the first two pillars of the investment plan for Europe; the European fund for strategic investment (EFSI) and European investment and advisory hub. EIB president Werner Hoyer and EFSI managing director Wilhelm Molterer will report on the first year’s functioning of EFSI and the hub.
[HCWS138]
National Flood Resilience Review
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) and I would like to update the House on our progress with the national flood resilience review.
Last year the UK was hit by a number of extreme flood events, including in Cumbria, Yorkshire and Lancashire. Record rainfall and river levels have led to widespread floods severely affecting cities, communities and businesses.
The magnitude of these events means that we need to fully understand the scale of risk that the country is currently facing from river and coastal flooding. We need to take immediate steps to improve our resilience to this flooding.
As a result, the Government set up the national flood resilience review, chaired by the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) and overseen by a cross-government national flood resilience review group. That review is being published today, setting out the actions to improve the nation’s resilience.
By using new plausible extreme rainfall scenarios developed by the Met Office in the Environment Agency’s flood modelling, we are now confident that the extreme flood outlines can be used as a robust planning tool for assessing flood risk.
As part of the review we completed a preliminary assessment of the resilience of key local infrastructure, such as energy, water, health, transport and telecommunications to flooding from rivers and seas. These are services our communities and businesses depend on.
The results showed around 530 facilities vulnerable to river and coastal flooding which could impact significant local communities. Working with the relevant utilities, regulators and Government Departments, a number of areas have been identified to improve resilience planning for this infrastructure. By Christmas 2016, the water and telecoms sectors will develop and implement plans for where temporary improvements can be made to the flood resilience of their infrastructure. These plans will ensure that the utilities obtain stock-piles of temporary defences in advance and have site-specific plans ready to deploy where they can be used. This is in line with current practice in the electricity supply industry.
In addition to these temporary defences all sectors with infrastructure at risk have agreed to develop and implement plans—where not already in place—to make medium-term permanent improvements to the flood resilience of their services to significant local communities.
While better understanding the risk helps us better prepare and protect infrastructure, effective response when flooding occurs is essential to minimise impact and protect lives. The review sets out actions that the Government and others will be taking to improve the response to flooding incidents by delivering a long-term rolling programme of improvements to our modelling, improving working across services and with local communities to strengthen our response, and improving our communication of flood risks.
The Government have prioritised investment in maintaining and improving flood defences in England with a record £2.3 billion six-year commitment to 1,500 schemes. This is set to better protect 300,000 homes and provide £30 billion in economic benefits by 2021.
On top of that, in this year’s Budget, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a £700 million increase in flood defence and resilience spending, including a further £150 million for new flood defence schemes in Cumbria and Yorkshire. He also signalled that part of this funding would be used to respond to this review.
The findings published today commit an investment of £12.5 million to increase the Environment Agency’s stock of temporary flood defences and other incident response equipment.
The work identified in the review is continuing, including with local resilience forums. Additional funding support will be considered as further findings emerge.
Copies of the review have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS135]
Review of the Forensic Archive Ltd
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
I am pleased to announce that I am today publishing the Review of the Forensic Archive Ltd (FAL). FAL was established in October 2012 to manage and maintain material previously held by the Forensic Science Service.
The review makes 10 recommendations, most crucially that the functions of FAL should continue to be carried out and that FAL is the best organisation to do so. It also recommends that the Home Office continue to fund FAL. I agree with these recommendations.
I will place a copy of the review in the Library of the House.
[HCWS137]
Cremation Regulations
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
I am today announcing that new regulations regarding cremation in England and Wales have been laid before Parliament. The Cremation (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 will come into effect on 1 October 2016.
We are making these changes following our recent response to our consultation on cremation, published on 7 July 2016, in which we committed to make a number of changes to infant cremation regulations and practice. The regulations laid today introduce a statutory definition of ashes. They also remove the current requirement that cremation authorities must keep original paper records for two years, even though they have also made electronic copies of those records. These changes will provide clarity for bereaved parents at a difficult time in their lives, and modernise processes for crematoria.
In addition I would like to announce that, as also promised in the consultation response, we have now set up a national cremation working group. The group is made up of representatives from the cremation and funeral industries, voluntary organisations who support bereaved parents, medical professionals and other Government Departments with an interest in cremation. In the coming months it will provide expert input into our work to further improve cremation legislation and practice. The group’s first priority will be amending statutory application forms regarding options for disposal of ashes, and bringing the cremation of foetuses of less than 24 weeks’ gestation into the remit of the cremation regulations.
[HCWS139]
Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner: Annual Reports
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I have today laid before both Houses a copy of the latest annual reports from the Intelligence Services Commissioner and the Interception of Communications Commissioner. Both reports show the rigour and strength of our intelligence oversight system, a system that will be further strengthened with the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner provisions set out in the Investigatory Powers Bill. I welcome the unprecedented level of transparency about the authorisation and oversight regimes that both reports contain.
I am pleased that both reports recognise the diligence and rigour of those who use investigatory powers. These are important powers that are used, when necessary, to keep our country safe. Both reports contain details of the recommendations that the Commissioners have made to continue to improve the way that these powers are used. The public authorities who have received these recommendations will be giving careful consideration to them and how to further improve their processes.
I would like to thank both Commissioners, and the staff that work for them, for their continued diligence and the rigour with which they undertake their oversight roles. In particular, I would like to thank Sir Mark Waller for all of the work that he has undertaken as Intelligence Services Commissioner since this is the last full year of inspections that he will undertake.
[HCWS136]
Grand Committee
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the powers available under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 are invoked and exercised in an accountable, appropriate and proportionate manner.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I have for many years been passionate about the future of live music and am only too well aware that many of our most famous acts can have small beginnings, with many well-known artists starting their careers performing in small clubs and pubs or busking on the streets. It was for that reason that I promoted the Live Music Act 2012 and why, on my Benches, we became concerned about the impact of public space protection order powers under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
In response to concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, confirmed the importance of the statutory guidance, which would be consulted on. Ominously, he said that the essence was to allow councils maximum flexibility on the exercise of the new powers. That, I believe, is the root cause of the problem today.
Shortly afterwards, in January, I raised a Question in the House seeking further assurance on busking policy to make sure that local authorities would not resort to a PSPO before they had first exercised their noise-abatement powers. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said:
“The Government are certainly not seeking to restrict reasonable behaviour and activity, and we do not believe that these powers do. Live music and street entertainment play an important role in community life and can generate a positive atmosphere that is enjoyed by all”.
He also said:
“We believe that the tests and safeguards set out in the new anti-social behaviour powers will ensure that they will be used only where reasonable”.—[Official Report, 21/1/14; col. 571.]
In June of the same year, I raised issues regarding police attitudes to busking and received an equally positive reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, who I am delighted is replying to this debate. She said that,
“the Government are clear that appropriate busking can enrich a community’s quality of life and generate a positive atmosphere that can be enjoyed by many people”.
She also said that,
“we have undertaken … to include reference to busking in the guidance for the new anti-social behaviour powers for use by the police and others. This will be published shortly, in advance of the new powers commencing later in the year”.—[Official Report, 30/6/14; cols. 1531-32.]
Later in the year, in a different context, during the passage of the Deregulation Bill, both in Grand Committee and on Report, my noble friend Lord Stoneham and I pointed out the considerable powers that were already available to prevent noise nuisance. At the same time, we raised our continuing concern that public space protection orders would be used in a heavy-handed way. The Government, this time in the form of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, gave assurances on both occasions that they were clear that busking can enrich a community’s quality of life and generate a positive atmosphere enjoyed by many people. But later he said:
“The Government do not start from the position that busking requires regulation and control”.—[Official Report, 11/11/14; col. GC 46.]
So right from the start we received a series of ministerial assurances about how the new PSPO would be exercised. Nevertheless, very soon, signs began to emerge of inappropriate use of the PSPO powers.
In February 2015, I asked an Oral Question about the operation of the Act and what use had been made of it to prevent or control busking. In reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said:
“We have made it clear in the statutory guidance for front-line professionals that they should not use the new powers to stop reasonable activities such as busking or other forms of street entertainment that are not causing anti-social behaviour”.—[Official Report, 12/2/15; col. 1354.]
Despite those ministerial assurances, it was becoming clear a year and a half ago that these powers were being used extensively in an inappropriate and disproportionate way. In fact, they were not just being used inappropriately to ban busking, they were being invoked for much wider purposes—for instance, to ban the homeless from the streets. In February this year, the Manifesto Club published its report, PSPOs: A Busybodies’ Charter, reflecting this, pointing out the extensive and disproportionate use of these powers and calling for proper limits to be placed on them.
In response to an Oral Question this February, I received yet more assurances from yet another Minister, this time the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon. He said that,
“we have made it clear in the statutory guidance that anti-social behaviour powers should not be used against reasonable activities such as busking, where this does not cross the line into anti-social behaviour”.—[Official Report, 1/2/16; col. 1585.]
Despite a succession of assurances given over the years by at least four government Ministers, the problem of the inappropriate use of PSPOs worsens. Buskers are now falling foul of laws designed to break up dangerous public gatherings and risk being branded as criminals. The problem goes much wider. The Manifesto Club report shows that PSPOs are being used not only to criminalise busking but also the everyday lives of ordinary people, including the activities of the homeless, charity collectors, teenagers, skateboarders, parents dropping off kids at school and even those wearing head coverings.
Sefton Council’s ban on head coverings would include hats. Other councils, such as North East Derbyshire, have prohibited or are seeking to prohibit the carrying of golf bags, or the carrying of skateboards, as in Colchester. At least five have banned rough sleeping. Others, such as Gravesham Council, have prohibited lying down in public, which would prohibit lying on the grass or falling asleep in a public place.
At least six councils have banned or restricted music or street art. Hammersmith and Fulham Council has banned busking and public speaking in the area outside Shepherd’s Bush Tube station after 6 pm. At least 16 have created new criminal offences of loitering or congregating in groups in a public place. Hillingdon Council has prohibited people from gathering in groups of two or more unless at a designated bus stop, and Bassetlaw Council has banned young people aged 16 or under from standing in groups of three or more.
Kettering Council has banned skateboarding and created a curfew for under-18s, meaning it is now a crime for a 17 year-old to be out after 11 pm or before 6 am. In Oxford, the council has proposed a ban on any activity it judges makes people feel uncomfortable, and a city-centre PSPO has banned aggressive begging, street entertainment that causes a nuisance, remaining in a public toilet without reasonable excuse, and allowing dogs to enter any covered space. Hillingdon Council has banned noisy remote-controlled cars and pigeon feeding from its parks. Swindon Council has banned pavement art, thereby criminalising its resident and well-known pavement poet Danny Lake, even though 68% of the public voted against this.
So far, 80 councils have introduced PSPOs and more are threatening to bring them in. Police and local authorities, often based on the decision of a single official, and without consultation or a council decision, are throwing new orders about like confetti. A huge number of people are being dragged into the net of the criminal law. Clearly, the problem of improper use of these new powers extends well beyond busking: it is high time we took stock of this and amended the statutory guidance and, if necessary, the primary legislation, before our freedoms are eroded any further.
However, there may be a ray of sunshine. After my Oral Question last February, at the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, I, together with the Manifesto Club, the Kennel Club, Liberty, Keep Streets Live, the MU, UK Music, and others, wrote to him and his then Home Office colleague, Karen Bradley, to set out the current issues and demonstrate why changes are needed to the legislation and statutory guidance. Karen Bradley—now, I hope, in her new role stoutly upholding the rights of street performers and their contribution to local culture—wrote back defending PSPOs and the procedures used. She did, however, offer to consider amending the statutory guidance, and I replied in July, setting out what campaigners believe are the key problems and the changes needed to solve them. Let me spell these out.
First, PSPOs are targeting activities that are not in themselves harmful. The most problematic examples have banned activities that do not in themselves cause significant public nuisance or harm, such as rough sleeping, begging, loitering, standing in groups, swearing or skateboarding. We want to see a much stronger test before powers are used. PSPOs must target only activities that are causing significant public nuisance or harm; councils should not be able to use them for activities that some people just find annoying or unpleasant.
Secondly, the majority of PSPOs are being passed by single council officers. The Manifesto Club’s research found that out of the 56 councils that have passed a PSPO and provided data, half—that is 28 councils—have done this. Seventeen councils—30%—passed the order through a committee, but only nine—16%—passed it through a decision of the full council. They must be passed only after a debate of the full council and not based on the decision of a single officer.
Thirdly, PSPOs are not being consulted on adequately. Although most councils have held a public consultation, in many cases these have been of extremely low quality. There must be a requirement for proper consultation, so that they cannot be imposed having asked just a few vague questions of residents.
Fourthly, the grounds and methods of appeal are too limited. We believe that the Government intended that these powers should be partly checked through the courts. There should be a much better right of appeal. Currently, appellants have very narrow grounds to appeal to the High Court, only six weeks to appeal and have to bear all the costs if they fail. The grounds of appeal should be expanded to something more like the test for judicial review, which would allow the worst cases of unreasonable PSPOs to be challenged and checked in the courts.
I am sure that we are here in the area of unintended consequences. Given Ministers’ assurances, I am sure that they did not intend the Act to be used in this way—banning rough sleeping, placing curfews on teenagers and so on. It is urgent and vital that they recognise that there is a fundamental problem with the Act. This may or may not be resolvable by changes to the guidance. I hope that we are making some progress and that amendments to the statutory guidance are being drafted as we speak but, in the light of the history of ministerial reassurances on this, I do not take anything for granted. I should like to hear specifically what is proposed.
Hence this debate about how the Government plan to ensure that these powers are invoked and exercised in an accountable, appropriate and proportionate manner: to find out whether demands for change, particularly to the statutory guidance, will be met. We cannot have local authorities and police services cracking down on our culture, ripping out the heart of our town centres and destroying the vibrancy of our local communities.
I have a note here from the Salvation Army. It states:
“Thank you for sponsoring a debate on the operation of the 2014 Act. We have had three of our front line locations raise concerns about the way in which Local Authorities are using Public Space Protection Orders in connection with homeless people spending time in public spaces … We would ask that government clarify their guidance to Local Authorities saying that PSPOs are not to be used to disperse homeless people rather than engage with them”.
I hope the Minister can today give cast-iron guarantees that the Government intend to make vital changes and will see them through.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing this debate with his usual comprehensive analysis of the problem, which, as we have heard, is significant. I am also grateful for the briefings from the Manifesto Club on public space protection orders. The noble Lord rightly focused his attention on PSPOs. The heart of this issue is bound up with our understanding of what public space is and what we want to get out of it.
Not entirely coincidentally, the debate happening simultaneously in the Chamber—an equally important debate led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—is also about public space, a different kind of space: the public sphere. The reason we are now having these concerns about the future of public space in the broader sense is that both the imaginary space, as it has been described, of the public sphere and the geographical space under discussion here are under considerable threat to both their amount or degree—a concern I will come back to—and their quality or operation.
I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about PSPOs, the examples given and about changes to statutory guidance. PSPOs are horrendous. In the manner in which they are being applied, they seem to vary from the ludicrous to the sinister to the blatantly inhumane. As the noble Lord said, the ludicrous include bans on people lying down in parks or carrying golf clubs. The sinister include bans which limit freedom of expression and the right to protest and bans on the gathering of groups of two or more people, such as in Hillingdon and Guildford, and on live music, the handing out of free literature and blanket bans on amplification.
There is a randomness about these orders that has nothing to do with what I would regard as real or respectable law, but there is also a targeting involved which reveals blatant unfairness in them. In a BBC interview in Hillingdon in March this year with a group of teenagers about the ban on groups of two or more—I am not sure the interview itself was strictly legal—one of them said very reasonably, “You know that if there is a group of elderly people standing there”—meaning within the bounds of a particular shopping centre—“they will not get fined”. This, then, will be law used as it suits the local council.
As an example, I refer to a particular PSPO that, in the words of Liberty on 31 August,
“has taken full advantage of this vague power by seemingly banning everything”.
This is Teignbridge District Council’s PSPO for Dawlish of 14 June. It is a detailed six-page document making it illegal to,
“act in a manner as to cause annoyance … to any person”.
It also states that,
“the purpose of the PSPO is to deal with a particular nuisance … in a particular area”.
I emphasise “nuisance” and “annoyance”. The Minister may recall that on 8 January 2014 in this House, at the Report stage of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, tabled an amendment that, after a two-hour debate, specifically removed “annoyance” and “nuisance” for injunctions. I believe that the amendment did not cover PSPOs but I am raising the matter of whether it should have. Causing harassment, alarm or distress is quite a long way from nuisance and annoyance but it is at this much less significant level of perceived harm that PSPOs are being applied.
It seems that you can be criminalised effectively for anything that the local council decides on. This surely makes a mockery not just of the concept of public space as a space of co-operation—a publicly owned and shared space whose uses should be negotiated and tolerated by all the public who use that space—but a mockery of the law itself.
At the inhumane end of the scale the criminalisation of rough sleepers in Wrexham and beggars in Southampton and other places is particularly scandalous and entirely unacceptable, since this is the targeting of the vulnerable who need to be helped, not criminalised. The idea of slapping a £100 fine on a rough sleeper or beggar is both absurd and inhumane.
For a number of reasons there is a particular desire at the moment in councils to effect a kind of cleaning up of our towns and cities. Teignmouth, for example, cites holidaymakers and Oxford’s implicit concern is for tourists. None of us likes to see rough sleepers on the street because it makes us uncomfortable. But I would prefer that they are there, in recognition perhaps of a problem so far unsolved, rather than being swept under the carpet, pushed off into another borough, or, worse still, criminalised.
In an article in the Guardian in May of last year, Matt Downie of Crisis said:
“Rough sleepers deserve better than to be treated as a nuisance”.
There is that term, “nuisance”, again. He continued:
“They may have suffered a relationship breakdown, a bereavement or domestic abuse. Instead, people need long-term, dedicated support to move away from the streets for good”.
Hackney Council’s announcement last year of its order applying to rough sleepers and street drinkers stated that,
“enforcement is always the last option”.
The “last option”: when should the criminalisation of rough sleepers ever be an option? On this occasion, after a sustained, celebrity-backed campaign, the council saw reason, although unfortunately this has not been the case with all other councils who have introduced PSPOs.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, The Social Value of Public Spaces from 2007, made the valid point that not everybody is equal in public spaces. It cites the example of local parks being used by young people for hanging out or by groups of street drinkers. In the absence of other facilities or spaces, it says that,
“this might be regarded as legitimate, as long as no harm is caused to others”.
The fact is that to a certain extent public space is messy because people are messy.
I want to make a point here, too, about street drinking, which I think shows not just how culturally relative this can be but also what a public space might include. In Berlin, for example, drinking on the streets and on trains, particularly late at night at the weekend— that is, quaffing from beer and wine bottles—is socially absolutely acceptable and wholly unaccompanied by violence. It is something that you see all classes of people doing and it is an accepted aspect of their city space.
Ultimately, my preference for PSPOs—indeed for the Anti-social Behaviour Act itself—is that the legislation should be repealed, though I appreciate that this might be asking too much of the present Government. I say this because prosecutions involving harm of one person against another should be based on the law of the land, whatever the environment it takes place in, not on the use to which public space is put, since such legislation in practice has been geared in favour of particular users over others and drives a wedge between perceived victims and perceived aggressors. Such legislation, as we are seeing, does not in effect respect the potential for public space to develop organically but limits it.
Finally, there is real concern that PSPOs are being used to clean up an area prior to its being sold off. That privatisation of our public space, particularly in city centres, has already been a significant long-term trend is undeniable, as Anna Minton forcefully describes in her book Ground Control: Fear and Happiness in the Twenty-First-Century City. This issue has not yet properly surfaced as a major public concern, in part because many spaces which are privately owned have the surface appearance of being public—for example, the frankly sterile, privately owned public spaces, or POPs, where PSPOs do not apply, such as the More London estate which surrounds City Hall, where neither protesting nor filming is allowed, full stop. With continuing austerity and the starving of funds for councils this process may well be accelerating. This is the worst-case scenario: that the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act becomes irrelevant, for all the wrong reasons.
We badly need an audit of public spaces in this country. True public space in its different forms is an important if underestimated democratic right, and this is now such a critical concern that there is a case to be made for a Minister of public space, although that is a debate for another day.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I declare that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham. We have had two excellent contributions. I am pleased that at least they did not mention Lewisham Council in that list of ridiculous decisions that have been taken by many authorities. I will certainly go back and check that my council has not done some of the stupid things that it was suggested have been done. That was clearly never the intention and it is absolutely ridiculous. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on securing this Question for Short Debate today. It is good to be back debating with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. It is a bit strange that we will not mention housing, or the housing regulations in the Housing and Planning Act, but it is good to be here today.
As we have heard, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 replaced a number of mechanisms for dealing with anti-social behaviour with six new powers, which are shared between police, local authorities and social housing providers. These offences were designed to deal with the sort of offences that can upset residents and cause problems and which can quickly destroy people’s quality of life. If left unchecked, these problems can lead to the risk of more serious offences being committed. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asks what is being done to ensure that these powers are used in an accountable, proportionate and appropriate manner, with a particular emphasis on live music, busking and so on.
We all want to live in areas that are safe and free from fear, so ensuring that powers are invoked properly is all about striking the right balance—that is the important thing here. We need to work with local communities and look at some of the powers here. For example, the public spaces protection order was meant to deal with groups of youths out at night, drinking and causing trouble, playing loud music on radios and annoying people. It was not intended to deal with people enjoying themselves in the park and so on. I am quite worried now, because I quite like going to Blackheath, lying on the grass with my friends and having a beer. It was never the intention to stop such things and it is ridiculous that anyone would suggest that they should be stopped. We want to ensure that all these things are done proportionately, like live music, busking and the sort of things that people do with their friends and family in the park and elsewhere, should never be banned. We all live together, and we need to make sure that we live properly, so the list is ridiculous.
The noble Lord was also right to say that you should not be able to find a council officer who can sign a piece of paper to ban something; it should at least come before elected members of the authority, or the mayor and the cabinet should decide that, and it should possibly be able to be challenged in the local magistrates’ court as well. The fact that a council officer can ban these activities means that the whole council itself will get lambasted for doing ridiculous things. I will certainly go back and check that my council has not done anything stupid and banned something I do not know about, and if it has I will try to get it changed.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked whether people could be banned for being annoying or a nuisance. I am sure we are all annoying and a nuisance to other people so we could all be banned on that basis. Again, this seems completely ridiculous.
I started a debate last night in the Chamber on homelessness in which we talked about rough sleepers. We all know that the homeless can have mental health issues and drink and other problems but these people need help, not to be banned and moved on elsewhere. That, again, is ridiculous.
I shall leave my remarks there. I hope the Minister can give a full response to the noble Lord. There are other bits of this order on different things. Maybe the Minister could write to us having looked at the more criminal things that people can do. What are the mechanisms for reviewing this and the six powers? There are unintended consequences with some of these things. We must have mechanisms to change them and stop them.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all three distinguished noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am very glad to be back with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, because on a number of occasions we have discussed busking and how much we enjoy hearing buskers, particularly the ones in and around Westminster and further around London. Busking is very positive for community life and that is why this is an important debate. Anti-social behaviour as we know it can blight the lives of communities, but there is widespread interest, not least from this House, in the powers available to the police and local councils to respond to such things being used properly. This debate is timely.
The Government’s starting point is that there is a clear recognition of the serious impact that anti-social behaviour can have on ordinary people’s lives. That is why the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 gave the police, local councils and other agencies the powers that they need to take swift and effective action to protect the communities they serve.
The Government are also clear that anti-social behaviour powers are there to protect the activities of the law-abiding majority, to enable people to enjoy their public spaces and feel safe in their homes. They are not there to be used to restrict reasonable behaviour and activities not causing anti-social behaviour, as all noble Lords pointed out. That is why the Act contains legal safeguards before the powers can be used. However, we have said that we will look again at the statutory guidance on the use of the powers that the Home Office published to help emphasise these points.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that despite ministerial assurances, PSPOs are being used in an inappropriate and disproportionate way. As I said, there are clear legal tests for the use of the power. The statutory guidance references the need for councils to consult whenever community representatives and regular users of the public space think it appropriate and specifically references buskers and street entertainers. Following the noble Lord’s Oral Question this February, the former Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime gave a commitment to revisit the statutory guidance. We are reviewing it to see how we can strengthen it to ensure proportionality in the use of the powers and accountability, which is very important. The work is under way, so the pens are on the paper, and officials are consulting front-line practitioners.
We will write to the noble Lord and other interested noble Lords on the proposed revisions once the work has progressed further. We will complete the work as soon as we can. We are also working with front-line practitioners to develop a case-study document to highlight effective practice and appropriate use of the powers. I say again that it is a useful power but should be used proportionately to deal with a particular anti-social behaviour problem in a particular area by imposing reasonable restrictions. That is critical here.
The noble Lord also talked about the wider problem—not just buskers and street entertainers are affected. He referenced the Manifesto Club’s report on PSPOs, as I think did the noble Earl. Officials have met the Manifesto Club to discuss its findings and see what its primary concerns are about PSPOs. It is important that PSPOs and the other anti-social behaviour powers are used to deal with anti-social behaviour problems, rather than introduce blanket bans, to which the noble Lord referred.
Noble Lords also referred to the democratic aspect of this, with examples of single officials making decisions. We are examining that in the review of the statutory guidance. We have also discussed such concerns with the Local Government Association. The noble Lord talked about PSPOs targeting activities that are not actually harmful in themselves. The Government’s position is absolutely clear: anti-social behaviour powers are there to protect law-abiding people and enable people to enjoy public spaces and feel safe in their homes. They are not there to restrict reasonable behaviour, as I said, or activities that are not actually causing anti-social behaviour. There are legal safeguards in place and we will look again at the statutory guidance. PSPOs are useful powers for councils but need to be used proportionately. It is critical that councils are able to respond to problems such as street drinking and aggressive begging, because these kinds of behaviours have detrimental effects on a community’s way of life.
The noble Lord also talked about the consultation process. It is clear that a council may make a PSPO only after it has consulted the police, but it must also consult any other interested community representatives it considers appropriate. It is for councils to determine how best to consult, but there will be learning from across various councils; that will come out in the review process. We want to capture that learning as we undertake the review. The noble Lord asked specifically what has been proposed to change the guidance. We are developing a case-study document, as I said. We will write to the noble Lord on the proposed changes when we review the statutory guidance.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, talked about homelessness. He brought up a very good point. The Government are committed to tackling and reducing homelessness. We do not want homeless people to be used as a target. Anti-social behaviour orders are not to be used to tackle the most vulnerable people in our society. They are there purely to deal with anti-social behaviour.
There have been some specific—and, I might say, slightly comical, although I do not mean that flippantly—examples of how councils have used their anti-social behaviour powers to deal with certain things. Some are almost unbelievable, but I do not disbelieve the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I quickly checked on Lewisham and it is not on the red alert list. However, I do not want to draw on the specific examples. How the orders are framed is one issue. Their purpose must not be to restrict reasonable behaviour. The PSPO is there to tackle behaviour that is having a detrimental effect on people’s lives and is persistent and unreasonable. That is quite clear. Those are the tests set out in legislation and they must be met before an order can be made. There are also issues about how they are enforced—again, it must be in a proportionate and reasonable way. I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out some potential solutions, and we will look very carefully at the points that he made.
It is important that we do not go too far in restricting the freedom of local partners to take effective enforcement action, but I do not think that that is what he is suggesting. We know that there are examples of good practice in councils and I want to place on record my praise for them. In refreshing the guidance, I hope that if we have another debate on this this time next year, we will see that it has been greatly strengthened and probably helped by the questions put by noble Lords, in particular those of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.
The Earl of Clancarty
Does the noble Baroness have anything to say about the terms “nuisance” and “annoyance”? As I said in my speech, the way that PSPOs are being applied shows that they are being used very much as a lever.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Earl made a good point; I hope that I covered it when addressing the speeches of other noble Lords. There has to be proportionality in this. “Nuisance and annoyance” could be someone walking their dog, but clearly that would not be proportionate. I think that that is what the refreshed guidance will cover, and I will be pleased to hear from the noble Earl if he thinks that we have not struck the balance right. Indeed, one person’s nuisance is something that another person does not even notice. I thank him for his comments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I was quite shocked by the list set out by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but I am pleased that he brought it to our attention. The examples are absolutely ridiculous. It is important to get the guidance right because clearly one problem with PSPOs has been that they can come down to, “I don’t like that, so it has to be banned”. When the new guidance comes out, it will have to be very clear and state, “These things are not a nuisance”, with examples of what PSPOs can and cannot be used for.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will not pre-empt the guidance, which has not yet been written, but the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, brought up some ridiculous interpretations of the orders. We duly note what he said and the councils he mentioned and I am sure that those examples will be taken into account. It is always dangerous to get too prescriptive because that then allows wriggle room the other way. But we will firm up the guidance and refer back to noble Lords.
Lord Clement-Jones
I hope that the Minister will accept that the essence of this is to try to get the statutory guidance in the right shape. However, I hope she will accept that there is an underlying issue about the definition of anti-social behaviour because if the statutory guidance even after being amended does not do the trick, it calls into question whether the original definition referred to by the noble Earl is right or whether it should be tightened up as per the discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Dear, at Report on the original Bill. That is a fast ball of a question for the Minister, but she should take that into consideration when the statutory guidance is being looked at.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord makes a constructive point: it is all about getting the balance right. Anti-social behaviour can and does destroy some people’s lives, but by the same token some of the examples he has given are utterly ridiculous and in no way could be construed as anti-social behaviour. We needed to deal with anti-social behaviour, but only in a proportionate way. I am sure that the noble Lord will look at the guidance and give his opinion on it in due course. I thank all noble Lords.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to promote Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in welcoming the Minister to her fairly new responsibilities, the lodestar in today’s short debate is Article 18 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated in the aftermath of the defining horrors of the Holocaust and in a century during which 100 million people were murdered because they chose in some way to be different. Today Article 18 is honoured only in its breach. In the light of new genocides, concentration camps, abductions, rape, forced conversions, forced marriages, imprisonment, persecution, public floggings, enslavement, mass murder, beheadings and the vast displacement of millions of people, we should ask ourselves: of what value are such declarations or conventions on genocide if they can be utterly disregarded with indifference and contempt?
Let us look at the evidence. The annual Pew study of religious freedom found that in 24% of countries, in which 74% of the world’s population lives, there were serious restrictions on religious freedom. One-quarter of the world’s countries have blasphemy laws and more than one in 10 have laws penalising apostasy. This has led, for instance, to a death sentence in the case of Pakistan’s Asia Bibi; to the public beating of Saudi Arabia’s atheist Raif Badawi; to the imprisonment for 10 years in Iran of Saeed Abedini, for “undermining national security” after hosting Christian gatherings in his home; to Chinese Catholics such as Bishop Cosma Shi Enxiang, who died at 94 after spending half his life in prison; and to Chinese Protestants, who since the beginning of 2016, have seen 49 of their churches defaced or destroyed, crosses removed and a pastor’s wife crushed to death in the rubble as she pleaded with the authorities to desist. Earlier this week, on Tuesday, Mr Speaker hosted the premiere of “The Bleeding Edge”, drawing attention to the harvesting of organs of Falun Gong practitioners in China.
In countries such as Nigeria, Sudan and Kenya, contempt for Article 18 has led to the targeting and murder of Christians, Yazidis and others by ISIS, the Taliban, al-Shabaab and Boko Haram. In North Korea, a country I have visited four times, 300,000 people are incarcerated in gulags. A United Nations report describes it as a country “without parallel” and highlights the execution and imprisonment of Christians.
I have seen contempt for Article 18 in many other situations: among Rohingya Muslims persecuted in Burma; in degrading detention centres in south-east Asia where fleeing Pakistani Christians and Ahmadis are incarcerated; and at its bloodiest worst among Chaldean and Assyrian Christians and Yazidis fleeing the genocide in Syria and Iraq. Yet, for fear of offending countries such as Saudi Arabia, which have exported so much of the poison, we rarely call things what they are.
In Pakistan, for example, the Government describe events as “discrimination” and refuses to recognise them as persecution. Over the summer I was guest of honour at Liverpool’s refurbished Pakistan centre. It was a wonderful evening of celebration. Pakistan’s green and white flag was designed to represent the green of Islam and the white of the minorities. In 1947, Pakistan’s great statesman and founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, crafted a constitution which promised to uphold plurality and diversity and to protect all citizens. Jinnah said:
“You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the State. Minorities, to whichever community they may belong, will be safeguarded. Their religion, faith or belief will be secure. There will be no interference of any kind with their freedom of worship. They will have their protection with regard to their religion, faith, their life and their culture. They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste and creed”.
However, whether judged against the backdrop of the assassination five years ago of the country’s Christian Minister for Minority Affairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, who questioned the blasphemy laws, or the orgy of bombings, killings, rapes, imprisonment and abductions, notably in Lahore, Pakistan has allowed the systematic targeting of religious minorities in a culture of impunity. This persecution is catalogued in a report that I launched in Parliament.
One escapee recounted how his friend Basil, a pastor’s son, was targeted by Pakistani Islamists attempting to convert him. After refusing, his home was set alight. Basil, his wife and 18 month-old daughter were burned alive. No one was brought to justice and there is little evidence that Pakistan is striving to uphold Jinnah’s admirable vision. Perhaps the Minister, when she comes to reply, will tell us how the more than £1 billion of British aid, given over the past two years, is doing anything to support Pakistan’s beleaguered minorities, often the poorest of the poor, or to promote religious freedom or peaceful coexistence.
The UK fails to name persecution for what it is and, even worse, to name genocide for what it is. Words matter: they determine priorities and policies. The House of Commons, the United States Congress, the European Parliament and others have declared events in Syria and Iraq to be genocide.
In a leading article, the Times said that the destruction of Christians from the Middle East,
“now amounts to nothing less than genocide … That crime, most hideously demonstrated by the Nazis, now enjoins others to take active steps to protect the victims”.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, the right honourable Boris Johnson said that ISIS is,
“engaged in what can only be called genocide … though for some baffling reason the Foreign Office still hesitates to use the term genocide”.
Perhaps when she comes to reply, the Minister will ease Mr Johnson’s bafflement and tell us why the Government still fail to name this genocide for what it is, or to table resolutions in either the General Assembly or the Security Council seeking a referral to the International Criminal Court, or to help establish a regional tribunal to try those responsible. Great nations should not sign conventions or affirm declarations such as Article 18 and then fail to uphold them.
The Minister might also tell us why DfID fails to recognise Christians and Yazidis as “vulnerable” under the criteria for aid and whether it has assessed the reports that Christians and other minorities are too frightened to enter the refugee camps and have even been targeted again when they reach Europe.
ISIS works in a consistent manner, killing men, women and children, but also destroying their holy places, doing its utmost to eradicate any collective memory of a people’s very existence. While the ISIS genocide in Syria and Iraq may simply be seen as inhumane butchery, it is fundamentally an attack on freedom of conscience and belief.
Our failure to prevent, protect and punish contributes directly to the refugee crisis. There are 55 million people now living as refugees, asylum seekers or internally displaced persons, with a further 60 million people forcibly displaced. Conversely, in those countries that promote freedom of religion or belief, there is a direct correlation with prosperity and the contentment and happiness of the populace.
How right is the BBC’s courageous chief correspondent, Lyse Doucet, when she says:
“If you don’t understand religion—including the abuse of religion—it’s becoming ever harder to understand our world”.
But western Governments are often illiterate when it comes to religious faith. We just call it “terror” and have developed a worrying, timid moral equivalence, refusing to call evil by its name for fear of giving offence.
Although I welcome strongly the Article 18 conference, which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will host in October and which I hope the Minister will be able to tell us more about, does the FCO still have only one desk officer dedicated to Article 18 issues? Learning to live together in respect and tolerance, whether we have a religious faith or not, is truly the great challenge of our times. Scholars, the media and policymakers need to promote far greater religious literacy and shape different priorities.
The life-and-death urgency that this task represents was starkly underlined by the recent execution of the 84 year-old French priest Father Jacques Hamel, and by the murder of the Glasgow shopkeeper Asad Shah, who often reached out to his Christian neighbours and customers. Tanveer Ahmed allegedly drove up from Bradford to kill Mr Shah because he said that he was disrespectful of Islam. Mr Shah was an Ahmadi. In Pakistan, millions of Ahmadis are denied citizenship and 10,000 have fled this year. Now it seems that they are to be targeted in Britain too.
If Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists and others are no longer to see one another as an existential threat, we must provide an alternative narrative, based on Article 18, capable of forestalling the unceasing incitements to hatred which especially pour from the internet and which capture unformed minds.
Britain, for all its faults, is a society in which adulterers are not flogged, gays are not executed, women are not stoned for not being veiled, churches are not burned, so-called apostates had not, until recently, been killed, and non-believers are not forced to convert or treated as “dhimmis” or second-class citizens. In thanking all noble Lords for participating in today’s short debate, I conclude by saying that we should be proud of the freedoms we enjoy and must work hard to achieve the same freedoms for all. In that task, Article 18 must remain our lodestar.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing today’s debate and draw attention to my interests in the register.
Only yesterday, at an event hosted by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, the new UN special rapporteur, Dr Shaheed stated: “Freedom of religion or belief is in crisis”.
Last July, my noble friend Lady Anelay stated:
“Freedom of religion or belief is not just an optional extra, or nice to have; it is the key human right”.—[Official Report, 16/7/15; col. 599.]
This is crucial now that the UK itself is entering a new era of human rights and freedom of religion and belief post-Brexit. While the major focus is on Brexit and trade, the UK will no longer be part of the human rights diplomacy of the EU and the EAS, so we need to look elsewhere to replace this avenue. The warmth of the embrace given our Prime Minister by the Prime Minister of Australia at the recent G20 summit gives us the obvious answer: the Commonwealth.
As my noble friend Lady Anelay is also now the Minister responsible for the Commonwealth in Her Majesty’s Government, this gives your Lordships’ House a key role in engaging with this institution. Section 4 of the Commonwealth charter 2013 for the first time references freedom of religion and belief in a Commonwealth instrument and, on 22 January, in a Written Answer, Her Majesty’s Government stated:
“We will also continue to encourage Commonwealth partners to embrace the values set out in the Commonwealth Charter, including the freedom of religion or belief. We also look forward to discussing freedom of religion and other issues with the new Commonwealth Secretary General when she takes up office in April”.
Has my noble friend Lady Anelay indeed met the Commonwealth Secretary-General, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, to discuss the UK’s approach to the promotion and protection of Article 18 in Commonwealth countries? What focus will human rights and Article 18 have at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in spring 2018, to be held here in the UK, and for the two years following when we will chair the Commonwealth? I also hope that Her Majesty’s Government will make time available for a lengthy debate in your Lordships’ House on the UK’s future strategic plan to engage with the Commonwealth.
While the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is looking to strengthen rules-based international systems on human rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it is no longer enough to rely on international compliance with human rights instruments as an effective mechanism for human rights implementation, not least because it can serve as a smokescreen for only prima facie safety compliance. As we can see across the globe today, this is at the expense of ensuring that human rights and, more specifically, freedom of religion or belief, are accessible and meaningful to the individuals who bear those rights.
Unlike the EU, or indeed the UN, the Commonwealth has no binding formal obligations. Rather, its channels are considered informal and relaxed but none the less effective. Will my noble friend confirm that the new £400 million soft power fund will be open to projects to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief and other human rights in the Commonwealth? This neglected, multifaith network is vital to the UK’s future trade, diplomacy and human rights work. My noble friend Lord Howell previously called the Commonwealth the soft power network of the future but, in the light of Brexit, it is the soft power network of today.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead (Lab)
My Lords I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this short debate and pay tribute to him for his continuing mission to give voice to the persecuted minorities of many faiths in our troubled world. In the few minutes available, I will focus on the situation in Iran—a truly dreadful situation that goes on and on. I should add that it is now 30 years since I first got involved in trying to get our Government to talk at the United Nations about the persecution of minorities and the abuse of human rights in that country.
Once again, we are discussing the persecution of religious minorities. This debate is very important, but I and many colleagues in both Houses believe that it should not be a substitute for concrete action to end systematic persecution.
The persecution of Christians, Baha’is and Sunni Muslims in Iran cannot be denied. It is well documented, and the Government and the FCO point to this in their latest Human Rights Priority Country update, published in July. It said:
“The Iranian constitution only formally recognises 3 religions other than Islam: Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism. Despite this, minority religions, and even non-Shi’a Muslims, face persecution and harassment in Iran”.
On 5 August the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, condemned the execution of 20 Sunni Muslims in Iran. It was deplored that:
“In many of the cases, there were serious doubts about the fairness of the trials, respect for due process and other rights of the accused”.
Christian communities in Iran are not allowed to build their own churches. They are forced to turn their homes into churches for their congregations. These in-house churches are repeated targets for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and plain-clothes agents of the intelligence ministry. On 12 August, 11 Christians were arrested during a raid at an in-house church in the city of Isfahan. Several days later, five converted Christians were arrested. They were all charged with bogus national security allegations, similar charges to those used by the Iranian authorities to justify the arrest and detention of British dual nationals in Iran. The Baha’i religion is not even recognised by the authorities in Iran. The Baha’i are hence deprived of their most fundamental rights and constantly harassed. It is essential to understand that the deteriorating human-rights situation in Iran, including the persecution of religious minorities for the past three decades, is a direct consequence of the culture of impunity enjoyed by the perpetrators.
In this context, it is worth noting and highlighting the massacre of 30,000 political prisoners in Iran in 1988, which for 28 years was overlooked by the West and the international community, and it still is. New revelations from a recently released audio file and information exposed by the Iranian democratic opposition, the NCRI, show that at least 59 of those officials responsible at the time are today holding senior and ministerial positions in Iran, including the Supreme Leader Khamenei and the Justice Minister of President Rouhani’s cabinet, Mostafa Pourmohammadi. This shows that those actively involved in oppression of people and annihilation of dissidents are rewarded rather than held accountable. Minister Pourmohammadi recently said of his role in the 1988 massacre, “We take pride in eliminating those who wage a war against God”.
If our aim is to improve the situation of religious minorities in Iran, the best approach by our Government is to take a lead on the global scene and make the perpetrators of the 1988 massacre accountable before an international tribunal. These officials are those who oppose religious minorities. In November last year the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, speaking at the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee about the progress in human rights, said that it was high time for words to be translated into actions. May I respectfully ask the Minister that her words be pursued more forcibly in the coming weeks and months, whenever the opportunity arises?
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate. There are many areas of concern about the implementation and promotion of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The key point is that it is an essential component of the UN charter, from the UN’s original formation when the United Nations Assembly was conceived. It is very important because of that.
There are many parts of the world where Article 18 is not respected but I want to speak about one country in particular and support what the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, has said. I hope that by both of us speaking on this issue this point will be addressed; namely, concerns about Iran. Iran has been identified as one of the worst countries in the world. Article 18, which sets out the right to believe, not to believe, or to change your belief, is broken every day in Iran, which last year executed almost 1,000 people because of their religious or political beliefs. The recent upgrading of our relations with Iran is most puzzling in the light of consistent human rights violations.
It is especially concerning that the Christian community in Iran is so much under attack. Christians in Iran are prevented from openly exercising their beliefs or promoting their religion. It has also been highlighted that Baha’is are being executed, tortured or imprisoned in great numbers. Christians are criticised as illegal and systematically harassed and intimidated. Iran is one of the world’s 10 most inhospitable countries for Christians and those of other beliefs.
It is right that this matter should be addressed. Looking at Iran, we see that many of those who committed the 1988 massacre of political prisoners are still very much in charge so it would be naive to think there will be any change unless the international community raises the cost for the Iranian authorities of committing these atrocities against members of religious minorities and ordinary citizens. I urge the Government to publicly demand the prosecution of those who are known to have committed the 1988 massacre and impose sanctions on the identified perpetrators for their role in the systematic abuse at that time.
Like my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, I am very interested in Iran and have been to the many international events that have been held. I urge the Government to listen to Maryam Rajavi, who symbolises interfaith harmony between Christians and Muslims in that country, and to examine her 10-point democratic platform. Her plan, absolutely required in Iran, is also a possible route for many other countries. I hold it in great regard, and we in this country should support what she says and its implementation in Iran.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate, and for his tireless search for a solution to the problem of promoting universal adherence to the principles that underlie this article. Reduced to its simplest terms, Article 18 seeks to protect two inalienable rights. The first is the right to freedom of religion or belief itself. The second is the right to manifest that religion or belief in whatever way one chooses. Without the first one cannot have the second, and so it is the threats to the first that are of the greatest concern. They are legion, and they affect every faith.
The question is: what can be done to eradicate violations of the article? As a lawyer, I would love to think that there was a legal base for the article so that it could be enforced. After all, rights are not really rights unless the person whose rights are being infringed has access to a remedy. Two examples come to mind of legal bases which are to be found in other human rights instruments. There is the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights, Article 9 of which is a mirror image of what we see in Article 18. As everyone knows, Section 2 of that convention set up the European Court of Human Rights with jurisdiction to say what its articles mean, to receive applications from individuals and to provide just satisfaction if there has been a violation. That mechanism was practicable within a small group of relatively like-minded nations such as we have in Europe, but we have to face the fact that it would have been beyond the reach of the universal convention, which was designed to apply across the entire world. So it is not there.
The other example is the 1984 torture convention. It was entered into having regard to Article 5 of the universal declaration—so there is a link there—and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture. Article 4 of the torture convention provides:
“Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law”.
Article 5 provides:
“Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4”,
where, among other things,
“the victim is a national of that state”.
However, the convention goes even further than that. It requires,
“any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence … is present shall take him into custody”,
and to prosecute him there; failing which, to extradite him to the state of which the victim is a national so that he can be prosecuted in that country. We in this country, as many will remember, were asked to give effect to our obligations under that convention in the case of Senator Pinochet by extraditing him to Spain so that he could be prosecuted there for acts of torture committed in his own country but perpetrated against Spanish nationals, although he was able to escape from the consequences on grounds of ill health.
The Question which the noble Lord asks is directed to the Government. In the absence of a mechanism such as those to which I have referred, which would enable breaches of the article to be brought before a court, it surely is the Government’s responsibility to do all they can to eliminate the appalling violations to which other noble Lords have referred. But perhaps the time has come for someone to develop the idea of a freedom of religion convention along the lines of that which was devised to address the problem of torture. We cannot go on just talking about the problem. Something more fundamental needs to be done. I ask the Minister to at least take this suggestion away for further thought and consideration.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, Pakistan is a country that has prevalent issues in its adherence to Article 18 of the UDHR. Today, minorities are subject to forced conversions and marriages, blasphemy laws and even rape. The current situation is a sad state of affairs when we consider Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s speech to the New Delhi Press Club in 1947 which pre-empted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He highlighted the importance of religious pluralism and freedom of religion or belief, and in his address he set out the basis on which the new state of Pakistan was to be founded. In particular, he forcefully defended the right of minorities to be protected and to have their beliefs respected, saying:
“Minorities, to whichever community they may belong, will be safeguarded. Their religion, faith or belief will be secure”.
Today, however, minorities do not have the safeguards he spoke of and from current trends it appears that the realisation of Article 18 in Pakistan may become a distant dream. One area that is exacerbating the situation for minorities are the curricula and public school textbooks, which contain indoctrinating teachings against minorities. There is considerable evidence that many children from religious minority backgrounds are discriminated against in schools and some do not attend at all due to a culture of intolerance and hatred against them within classrooms. The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has highlighted issues with many textbooks used in Pakistan, which are sowing discord and animosity against minorities. Its major findings are that the content of Pakistani public school textbooks related to non-Islamic faiths and non-Muslims continues to teach bias, distrust and inferiority. This perhaps provides some explanation of the deteriorating state of religious freedom in Pakistan today.
Considering that over 30% of DfID’s aid to Pakistan is allocated towards education, it is important to ensure that Her Majesty’s Government do not in any way contribute towards perpetuating the negative portrayal of religious minorities and the incitement of intolerance and hatred. Instead, we must ensure that we support vulnerable children from religious minority backgrounds and address the discrimination or persecution they may face. Not only would this help encourage more students into education but it would contribute to building peace and stability while countering prospective radicalisation. It is imperative that that these curricula and the culture are reformed to ensure that a generation of children are not brought up with a skewed and intolerant attitude to religious minorities as this provides fertile conditions for radicalisation.
Inevitably, the manifestation of intolerant attitudes will further inflame an environment which is already hostile towards minorities. It will further degrade the fragile condition of freedom of religion or belief in Pakistan. Thus we must ensure that we are doing everything we can to bring about cultural change in Pakistan in order fully to respect Article 18.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I also offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this important debate and for the vast amount of work he does in this field. All too often, debates and questions in this House describe the appalling treatment of religious minorities across the world. Unfortunately, the response from government is in my view far from even-handed. The world, it seems, is still seen in terms of friendly countries to be spoken to quietly, if at all, and the characterisation of those who are not dependent on us for trade or strategic influence as nasty regimes to be condemned in the most strident terms.
Let me give an example. In 2014, the Government described the human rights record of the Sri Lankan Government as “appalling” and called for an international inquiry. I asked whether the Government would press for a similar inquiry into the Government-led massacre of thousands of Sikhs in India. The short, sharp response was that it was “a matter for the Indian Government”. Why the lack of even-handedness? I have asked the same question several times both in the Chamber and in Questions for Written Answer, but always to no effect. On the last occasion, some six months ago, I was promised a considered reply from the Minister, but I am still waiting for it.
In France today, Sikhs are being humiliated by being asked to remove their turbans for identity photos in defiance of a UNHCR court ruling that the actions of the French Government are an infringement of the rights of Sikhs under Article 18. There was no mention of this in our Government’s recent report on human rights abuses across the world. France, after all, is a “friendly” country. These examples of religious discrimination are especially hurtful to the followers of a religion in which freedom of belief is considered to be so important that our Ninth Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur, gave his life defending the right of Hindus, those of a different religion from his own, to freedom of worship.
What is of concern to me and others is that we, like other members of what we euphemistically call the Security Council are still living in a world of 19th-century power politics, a world in which the abuse of human rights was conveniently overlooked in a greed-fuelled era of strategic alliances. If there are any doubts about the failure of our power-bloc politics, we should reflect on the current tragedy of the Middle East, which began a century ago with the carving up of the former Ottoman Empire by British and French diplomats.
As a Christian hymn reminds us:
“New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth”.
The great human rights activist Andrei Sakharov said that,
“there can be no real peace in the world unless we are even-handed in our attitude to human rights”.
We will fail future generations if we do not heed his far-sighted words.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Alton has again raised a major question of conscience on a subject that I approach with trepidation. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is so important that it needs to be read aloud like a catechism. Admittedly, we are dealing with only one article today, but it touches millions who are suffering from flagrant abuses of human rights, freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
I want to look briefly at one aspect of this abuse, which is the condition of the Dalit community worldwide. This is an area about which my noble friend has considerable knowledge and is another form of modern slavery, which this Government say they want to eliminate. I have visited Dalit communities in Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and elsewhere supported by Christian Aid, meeting human rights lawyers, aid workers, journalists and other activists who investigate atrocities. I recall houses burnt down, Dalits raped or murdered, young Adivasis made to worship and become prostitutes, and the daily humiliation of millions of Dalits who carry out the most menial tasks. The responsibility for these crimes may lie with their employers or their higher-caste neighbours, but they are almost always condoned by people in authority—village leaders, police and even judges.
We think of the Hindu and Sikh caste system but Dalits belong to every religion and they are abused, persecuted and killed by their own people, often for petty reasons of long-outdated customs and prejudices. Muslims and Christian Dalits are a persecuted minority within a minority and they are victimised by other Muslims and Christians. I am glad to say that there is a vast international network of NGOs and individuals dedicated to this campaign and some MPs in India have joined it, although that can also be an electoral bandwagon. Plenty of legislation exists to end discrimination but it is rarely implemented and few politicians take it seriously. However, earlier this year, Prime Minister Modi passed minor laws to speed up the judicial process and to support Dalit entrepreneurs. These must be welcomed.
In Nepal, the Kamaiya are a similar group to the Dalits in India. Later this month, I will be there asking similar questions, although the bonded labour system was supposedly banned in 2002.
On 11 July in Una in Gujarat, four Dalits from a sub-caste that skins animals for hides professionally were tied to a car and flogged for skinning two cows that they claimed had died naturally. This caused an explosion of anger from 10,000 Dalits in Ahmedabad, which ended with the dumping of carcasses, roadblocks and burning buses. A month later, on 15 August, Prime Minister Modi celebrated India’s 70th Independence Day in Old Delhi while thousands of Dalits gathered in perhaps the largest ever demonstration. Meanwhile, the Government have again proclaimed their commitment to changing the system. We will have to see whether this is a political move, considering that state elections take place in Punjab and UP next year.
Finally, I remind the Minister that this issue also concerns the United Kingdom, whose response to human rights abuse was reviewed only last month by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. While complimenting the UK on its new legislation on human rights, the committee also expressed concern that several provisions of the Equality Act 2010 have not yet been brought into legal effect, including Section 9(5)(a) on caste-based discrimination and Section 14 on dual discrimination. I know the Equality Act is beyond the scope of this debate and I only point out that on an issue of such international importance the UK may not be putting its best foot forward at home, although I recognise, and perhaps the Minister will repeat, that DfID is very well aware of the condition of Dalits worldwide.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for initiating this debate. It is just under a year since the last short debate on this topic and since then we have seen the publication in May of the department’s excellent Human Rights and Democracy Report 2015. As noble Lords have done in today’s debate, it highlights the harsh reality of the world we live in and the fact that countries that do not respect religious freedom or the right to have no belief invariably do not respect other basic human rights. I also highlight the horrific acts of genocide in Syria and Iraq. I use the term because, as reflected by the unanimous decision of the House of Commons, what Daesh is doing has all the hallmarks of genocide as well as crimes against humanity and war crimes.
In the light of previous assurances that we have received, both in this Committee and in the Chamber, what progress are the Government making in gathering evidence? When do they intend to take the evidence to the UN Security Council so that the matter can be referred to the courts and due legal process?
The FCO’s thematic approach to human rights raised concerns about whether the work on freedom of religion or belief would suffer. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, reassured us last year that it would remain integral to what the Foreign Office does. However, how does this work in practice? How will the Minister ensure that the FCO’s spending on freedom of religion or belief projects under the new Magna Carta fund is not reduced any further?
The FCO’s conference on freedom of religion and belief in October is welcome, too, as is the updating of the FCO’s current toolkit. However, concerns remain, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, highlighted, over how the Government will ensure that they will keep momentum on freedom of religion and belief post-Brexit. Earlier this week we heard that Brexit is about seizing opportunities and putting the national interest first. If that is so, it is important to be clear where those opportunities lie. One area is to hold different nations to account over their human rights and freedom of religious belief violations by including human rights clauses in the trade agreements that the UK will be renegotiating. EU trade policy has increasingly incorporated human rights considerations, and the Commission’s published trade policy states:
“Trade policy can be a powerful tool to further the advancement of human rights in third countries in conjunction with other EU policies”.
What reassurances can the Minister give us today that the FCO’s important work on human rights and freedom of religious belief can be mainstreamed throughout the Brexit negotiations across the three main departments? We need to be serious about human rights not being a constraint on trade but an enabler of it.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this very thoughtful debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Alton, not only for securing it but for his kind welcome to me, which I much appreciate. This is an important issue and I welcome the contributions that we have heard today. Support for the freedom of religion or belief is at the heart of the work that the UK Government do, both at home and abroad, to promote global security and stability. In societies where freedom of religion or belief is respected, it is much harder for extremist views to take root. The noble Lord, Lord Singh, made a very eloquent contribution about the value of human rights and the importance of respecting them. I confirm that the Government remain firmly committed to promoting and protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief, as set out in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The noble Lord made a number of specific points about India, as did the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and I hope I may write to them both about the points that they raised.
Since the last debate in this House, the Government have continued to work hard to promote and protect this basic human right. We have done so through bilateral and multilateral engagement, and through our project work overseas. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has enough staff and raised the important point about having only one desk officer working on freedom of religion or belief. All our foreign and Commonwealth embassies and high commissions are also responsible for raising human rights issues in the countries to which they are accredited. We believe that these issues are best handled by those who understand the individual concerns and countries in detail, rather than trying to do that remotely by a separate policy unit.
We continue to work hard to improve the quality and range of projects that we support under the Magna Carta fund to tackle this whole issue. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, in particular made an important point about that: he expressed concern about the fund, asked whether there was enough money in it and sought an assurance that it would not be reduced further. In the 2015 spending review, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office more than doubled its annual funding commitment to the human rights and democracy fund, newly titled the Magna Carta fund, and in 2016-17 the fund has a budget of £10.6 million compared with £5 million the previous year. I hope that offers some reassurance.
In Iraq we are promoting legal and social protection for freedom of religion or belief, to prevent intolerance and violence towards religious communities. In Syria we are supporting a project that aims to build dialogue between different communities, including between Syrians of different faiths. In south Asia, working with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, we are building a network of human rights defenders and religious minority leaders across the region.
The noble Lords, Lord Cotter and Lord Suri, raised specific issues about Pakistan. They particularly wanted reassurance that we are attentive to the situation in Pakistan and that we are cognisant of the challenges in that country. They were two very thoughtful and eloquent contributions. In March this year, during a visit to Pakistan, the then Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, raised with the Pakistan Government the importance of safeguarding the rights of all minorities, including religious minorities. In April, Philip Hammond raised UK concerns about religious freedom and human rights with Sartaj Aziz, the adviser to the Prime Minister on foreign affairs. Again, under the Magna Carta fund, we are supporting projects in Pakistan to promote greater tolerance and religious freedom. So Pakistan remains a priority for UK development assistance, with programmes to try to improve human rights.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Before the Minister leaves that point, she will know that we have spent over £1 billion in aid to Pakistan over the last few years. Can she indicate to us, if not now then perhaps in a letter to those who participated today and raised the issue of Pakistan, how much of that £1 billion has been used to promote coexistence, to support these beleaguered minorities and to help those who have been fleeing the country and are held in the degrading detention centres that I visited last year in south-east Asia?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for raising that point. I do not have that specific information to hand but I will undertake to try to ascertain it and to write to him.
In general, we also continue to work closely with international partners in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. I am pleased that the UK continues to be represented on the Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief by Dr Nazila Ghanea of Oxford University. She follows in the eminent footsteps of Professor Malcolm Evans of Bristol University. We would like to see the OSCE make regular use of that panel.
The UK Government also supported the meeting of the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief that took place last September at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. That growing parliamentary network shows real promise. I hope we can continue to work together, to strengthen the voice of parliamentarians in countries where freedom of religion or belief is regularly violated.
The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, made the important request that he wants words translated into deeds. No doubt that is a sentiment with which in any debate we have a lot of sympathy, but I hope that what I am telling the Committee today and what I am about to outline will reassure him that there are many deeds taking place and we are not just talking about unfounded rhetoric. For example, my noble friend Lady Anelay will be attending the launch of the Open Doors Hope for the Middle East report on 12 October. That report, which is a call to action, looks at the impact and significance of the Christian presence in Syria and Iraq. My noble friend will continue to work closely with Open Doors and with all our key partners as we further develop our policies to support religious minorities in the region.
We are appalled by the barbarism of Daesh towards all of Iraq’s communities. Daesh is conducting a campaign of violence and terror in both Syria and Iraq and has carried out atrocities against many communities including Muslims, Christians and Yazidis.
Reference has been made to the London conference, which my noble friend Lady Anelay will be hosting on 19 and 20 October, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton referred to. It is an important event that will discuss how protecting freedom of religion or belief can help to combat violent extremism by building inclusive societies. It will be an important forum and if any Members are interested in attending, I urge them to contact my office and I will do whatever I can to facilitate their attendance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, asked whether my noble friend Lady Anelay had met the Commonwealth secretary-general to discuss freedom of religious belief. I reassure her that my noble friend has met the Commonwealth secretary-general on a number of occasions to discuss human rights issues. The Commonwealth secretary-general was very keen to be involved in this forthcoming conference, which we are holding at the FCO. Sadly, she has another engagement, but she herself suggested that she participate virtually in the conference, and she will be recording a visual message for the event. I hope that reassures my noble friend that there is engagement.
The conference will bring together a wide range of experts, including from the environments of government, business and the media, as well as parliamentarians, lawyers and NGOs, to share best practice and identify opportunities for working together. I am delighted to be able to confirm that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has agreed to speak, along with Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah, who may be known to some noble Lords, and the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed of Essex University. The aim of the conference will be to provide staff working on human rights at our embassies across the world with practical and innovative ideas to help in their work to promote and protect freedom of religion or belief. To that end, we will also be updating the Foreign and Commonwealth Office freedom of religion or belief toolkit for staff, which was first published in 2009.
I come to the characteristically erudite and thoughtful contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. He raised the interesting prospect of a freedom of religion convention. I understand that given the polarised nature of discussions at the United Nations, we assess that a convention would be difficult to negotiate as it is not predictable that there would be universal assent to it. The difficult balance that we need to strike is that we need to consider whether our time is best spent negotiating such a convention or whether it is better to spend our time working in individual countries where the freedom of religion or belief is under attack and we feel we can do something about it. That is not to say in principle that this idea is not worthy of being kept on the radar screen, and it was very important that the noble and learned Lord referred to it.
We greatly value the work of all the partners with whom we work on this important issue. Ministers, diplomats and officials continue to meet regularly with leaders of different religious groups from around the world, UK faith groups and civil society organisations. We try to understand their concerns and endeavour to examine how we can better work together to promote a universal commitment to religious freedom.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, before the Minister concludes, as we have a few minutes before we have to finish our proceedings, may I just press her on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and I raised about the declaration of events in Syria and Iraq as a form of genocide? She will record that I cited the current Foreign Secretary’s remarks, before he was appointed, that he was baffled by the failure of the Foreign Office to make such a declaration. What is the Foreign Office doing not just to collect evidence but to take it forward and place a resolution at either the General Assembly or the Security Council so that proceedings may be brought against those who have committed these heinous crimes?
Baroness Goldie
With the change of regime of the Foreign Office, it may be timely to refer the question again. That is all I can offer to do, and I undertake to the noble Lord that I will do it. We can only see what response is forthcoming.
I thank all contributors today for this serious and thought-provoking debate. It is an area where there is no monopoly on wisdom and all worthwhile suggestions and contributions are very welcome and received with great warmth. I reassure noble Lords of the continued commitment of the UK Government in support of Article 18. I hope I have done that by giving just a few examples of how we are working with groupings such as academics, think tanks, NGOs, faith representatives and parliamentarians in further pursuit of this fundamental human right. The Government will continue to work towards the full realisation of the right to freedom of religion or belief for every individual and we look forward to doing that in tandem with everyone, such as your Lordships, with an interest in securing that vital objective and undertaking that vital task.
Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of progress towards implementing the recommendations contained within the report of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, Changing banking for good.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I start this debate by saying how pleased I am to see the Minister responding today in his last time in his present role, although I look forward to working with him when he takes up his new duties at DCMS.
We are now three years on from the publication of the parliamentary commission’s report Changing Banking for Good. Thanks to the decisions made by this and previous Governments, our banking system is taking tentative but important steps along the road to recovery. We must not forget, however, the blunt summary in the report which laid out the scale of the problems with banks over the previous decade:
“Banks in the UK have failed in many respects. They have failed taxpayers, who had to bail out a number of banks including some major institutions, with a cash outlay peaking at £133 billion, equivalent to more than £2,000 for every person in the UK. They have failed many retail customers, with widespread product mis-selling. They have failed their own shareholders, by delivering poor long-term returns and destroying shareholder value. They have failed in their basic function to finance economic growth, with businesses unable to obtain the loans that they need at an acceptable price”.
Some people, not least some bankers, claim that this is now all in the past and that today everything is different. However, even a cursory glance at our newspapers reveals the catalogue of problems that continue to dog some parts of the industry.
I will focus my comments on those recommendations of the commission which sought to shape the corporate culture of our banking institutions. The banking crisis of 2008 was, after all, not primarily a regulatory failure but a moral failure. It was a failure of a corporate culture that came to reward irresponsible and reckless behaviour, eschewed accountability among senior managers and failed to value the interests of its customers, and which refused to acknowledge its duties and responsibilities to wider society.
By the time the commission’s final report was published in 2013, it was clear that the banking industry had become detached from the moral moorings that had helped to shape its activity over past centuries. Gone were the principles of collective endeavour and mutual success, to be replaced by a misalignment of risk and reward which had stripped many parts of the industry of any substantive values besides the pursuit of short-term capital return.
While a tightening of the rules could help bring broken banks into line, the parliamentary commission quite rightly noted that the task of reform would remain incomplete while banks and regulators continued to see those regulations as little more than boxes to be ticked. What was and is still needed is a renewal and a re-embedding of the values by which banking is governed. Only when banks themselves come to take seriously their long-term responsibilities towards customers, employees and the common good will they find themselves in a position in which they can regain trust.
The commission therefore made a number of recommendations aimed at encouraging this renewal of culture and values. Increasing accountability at the top of banks through the new senior managers and certification regimes should help to concentrate the minds of senior management on the importance of embedding good corporate values throughout the bank. The new set of conduct rules and the requirement that banks train staff in their implementation will set a basic standard of values against which all staff can be held to account. Finally, the new rules on remuneration, with a proportion of any bonuses deferred and new facilities for clawback and malus, should strengthen the alignment of individual rewards with long-term risk.
The Government’s willingness to implement these recommendations is welcome, even if there has been some hesitancy to implement them in full—for example, the extent to which remuneration should be deferred. However, the effectiveness of these reforms has yet to be tested, and that will be an important part of the process. Can the Minister inform us what will be done to monitor the implementation of these new rules and regulations? Will Her Majesty’s Government report, for example, on the number of senior managers being held to account by the regulator? Will they keep a public record of the number of staff being disciplined for failing to abide by the conduct rules or on the number of cases of banks exercising their right to claw back remuneration? It is no good banks and regulators being given these new powers if they never actually use them.
These regulatory changes are crucial steps in helping to reshape at senior levels the culture of British banks, but cultural change must go deeper than the top layer. It needs to become embedded within middle management: those individuals who actually drive sales and investments. There is of course a serious question as to how far regulatory changes can successfully embed cultural values into the heart of any organisation —as large, for example, as Barclays or HSBC. Cultural change has to come, at least in part, from within the industry itself.
In this regard the creation of the Banking Standards Board, as recommended by the commission, is an important step towards a sustainable and responsible banking system. The BSB is in a unique position to encourage and facilitate banks to move in a more sustainable direction. It can employ the soft power of public opinion and help to share examples of best practice. It also holds the key to the professionalisation of an industry that has often lacked proper accreditation standards.
I urge the board to act boldly in holding its members to account, but Her Majesty’s Government also have a vital role to play. Crucial to the BSB’s success is a competitive market, but I fear that the recent recommendations from the Competition and Markets Authority do not go far enough in driving transparency and competition, or in levelling the playing field for challenger banks.
Beside the BSB, responsibility for cultural change in banking also requires senior management to ensure that it is rewarding, promoting and embodying those values that are commensurate with the long-term health not just of its organisation but of its customers and the wider economy—the common good. Since the crash, a number of CEOs and senior managers have made cultural transformation a top priority of their tenure. However, it is worth noting that many of them have faced huge problems in maintaining and increasing short-term shareholder returns.
Herein lies a core problem for banking that is noted by the commission but remains unaddressed. While it is clear that long-term thinking over investments, debts and customer care is integral to the sustainability of any bank, there is an inevitable pressure to focus on short-term returns when the average share is held for just six months. Keeping shareholders happy remains the central priority of senior management. As long as that continues, regulations protecting the wider economy will continue to be seen as a hurdle to be cleared and short-term gains will continue to be pursued at the expense of long-term stability.
The parliamentary commission made a number of recommendations on this, including consulting on changes to the Companies Act to remove shareholder primacy in the case of banks that posed a wider economic risk, replacing that with a primary duty to financial safety and soundness. As far as I am aware, this is not something that Her Majesty’s Government have acted upon. Can the Minister comment as to whether this sort of approach might be considered by our new Prime Minister? Can he also inform the Committee what impact the UK’s impending withdrawal from the EU might have on current and future banking reforms?
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, on 19 July the head of HSBC foreign exchange trading was arrested at New York airport. He was charged with making $8 million by abusing a client’s confidence on a foreign exchange deal. Of course, this is but one of a series of foreign exchange abuses that we have heard about in recent years. However, this one was a little bit different: it had been fully investigated by the bank, and its decision was that there had been no wrongdoing. I put it to the Minister that this episode calls into question whether the changes in culture and the stricter controls called for in the banking commission’s report are in fact working. Are we taking the steps to recovery that the right reverend Prelate is so concerned about?
In spite of what has gone on, foreign exchange trading is still more lightly regulated than other sectors of the financial market. This is because of undertakings to treat clients fairly. Are we still seeing exploitation because of this light regulation? The right reverend Prelate is right to raise this report and I congratulate him on his timely Motion. This incident would suggest that it is time to take another good hard look at the incentives given to traders, as he suggested, and whether they are balanced not only by rules but also by the culture called for in Changing Banking for Good.
The predatory attitude in banking affects us all because it rubs off on the rest of business—the current word is “interconnectivity”. As it is, the reputation of business seems to be at an all-time low, with the social contract between business and society coming apart. The Prime Minister has promised a more equal approach to the economy and an industrial strategy but at the end of the day it will be our companies, their boards and the banks that will have to deliver this. It is they who will have to ensure that there is no ambiguity about the social values and behaviour needed to deliver these commercial and financial objectives.
Before coming to your Lordships’ House I spent over 30 years in business. That was a long time ago, but even at that time we knew that our purpose and strategy had to be in line with both our social and commercial values. We did all we could to encourage what we considered to be the right behaviour; we called it stewardship. So this is not new, nor is it rocket science; most people in business know about it. Indeed, it is laid out in guides for corporate governance by organisations such as Tomorrow’s Company, and it is in the senior managers regime and other codes of practice. It is even in the Companies Act, and research has shown that it works in terms of both company performance and public trust. Commentators have been pointing this out for years, and the commission’s report Changing Banking for Good makes many recommendations along the same lines. Much of this is also reflected in the recommendations of the Financial Reporting Council, an organisation that the City itself set up. We all know what is to be done, so let us get on with implementing it and help to stop the growing spread of dissatisfaction with our banks and businesses, which will stand in the way of any industrial strategy.
What brought banking into disrepute is that many innovations clearly breached the golden rule, which may be familiar to other speakers: do not offer your customers a financial deal that you would not accept for yourself. Businesses and investors themselves have to make this assessment as part of their corporate governance.
Earlier today, in reply to an Oral Question, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said the Government will issue a paper later this year on governance. I hope this will be a part of the industrial strategy that we have been promised. Indeed, we now have a department to carry out this strategy, even though it will have to involve every government department. I ask the Minister to urge the Government to include in that strategy the governance principles, which are supported by so many, of building strong companies through governance that delivers strategic commercial and financial objectives through values and behaviour welcomed by society. We would thereby avoid the need for bankers to be arrested at New York airport.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will miss the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, and it is a privilege to be at his last venture into this portfolio. I know he has an exciting set of portfolios in front of him. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on obtaining this debate. I was privileged to be a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards; the most reverend Primate is also here, and the noble Lord, Lord McFall, is listening to this debate. Members of the PCBS often voiced the fear that their recommendations would make a big splash and appear to be accepted but, as time passed and memories faded, Governments, regulators and the banks would return to business as usual.
Some of those fears have been realised. The FCA last year abruptly scrapped its work to challenge the culture of individual banks, its CEO was undermined and morale collapsed. We shall see now if Andrew Bailey can demonstrate the FCA’s independence and its effectiveness. It is crucial that he does. Then the Bank of England Act last spring absorbed the PRA—the prudential regulator—back into the Bank of England, removing a small but significant opportunity for challenge. The same Act also diluted the capacity of the courts to oversee the Bank’s performance and, most significantly, scrapped the reversal of the burden of proof for civil misconduct—a presumption that senior managers are responsible for the banks they run—greatly to the relief of bank CEOs and senior managers.
I know that the most reverend Primate and I disagree on this issue but I felt that it went right to the heart of the PCBS’s work on identifying the importance of culture and making sure that senior managers could not escape a sense of responsibility for everything that happened within their organisations. We must see if the new senior persons regimes give the regulators enough powers that the big players take on that responsibility, take it seriously and achieve the cultural change that is so essential.
I realise I have lost the argument on reversal but I suggest the Government pursue a “one strike and you’re out” policy: if we have one occasion when yet again the regulators are hampered in exposing wrongdoing and senior management walks scot free, we restore the reversal clause. One could say that the banks have proved themselves very effective at lobbying and, indeed, the pace is gathering. In the world of financial services I scarcely hear a speech that does not first stress the importance of not returning to the world of light-touch regulation and then in the same breath calls for a review of regulation because it is evidently too burdensome for the health of the industry.
I think we can safely say that many banks now facing reduced revenues will be arguing for their capital buffers to be lowered. Some also see Brexit as an opportunity to roll back the very regulation in which the UK was a leading force. I do not deny that these are tough times for the banks, but the British public are still suffering the consequences of the abuse of light regulation and the new rules were not intended just for the easy times. I hope the Government will stand firm, not just on their own actions. The EU brought in the cap on bonuses for senior management, limiting them to only one times salary. The British Government did not like that but it has been extremely effective and I hope we do not see that as a quid pro quo for some of the Brexit measures. We must not repeat the past where, salami slice by salami slice, regulation to curb bank misconduct was subtly and gradually weakened.
There are just a few areas in which I particularly want to raise questions with the Government. The first is the issue of the change in bank culture. Frankly, I am rather underwhelmed by the industry’s efforts to bring about change. Will the Government tell us how effective they think voluntary industry efforts are? To what degree are we seeing new blood on bank boards? Has whistleblowing increased? What evidence do the Government have of a shift in power towards audit and compliance? How have recruitment and training changed?
Ring-fencing was a compromise with the industry to find a way to prevent the cross-contamination of retail and investment banking without total separation. Where are we in that process, especially in establishing a framework for the electrification of ring-fencing? I have always been concerned about the viability of bail-in bonds—a key element, we have always been told, in reducing future risk to taxpayers. What assessment have the Government made of the bail-in bond market and has it been undermined by indifference from many of the sovereign funds?
Perhaps most importantly, is the banking sector now meeting the needs of the real economy? The Government have always rejected my party’s arguments to use RBS to create a backbone of local and community banks to serve SMEs and lower-income people, so they must now demonstrate that the conventional banking system is stepping in. My conversations with SMEs suggest that credit is still hard to obtain, and that fits the findings of the Federation of Small Businesses. Export finance for small companies seems virtually unobtainable from UK banks. Charities working with vulnerable people suggest that their banking options have hardly improved, and the Competition and Market Authority’s timid resistance to capping overdraft fees is, frankly, discouraging.
I know that we are making progress with challenger banks and alternative forms of finance, such as peer-to-peer, but those need time to mature. The PCBS report is now two years old. Here is an opportunity to hear from the Government how its implementation has progressed and for them to reassure us that backsliding is not part of the agenda.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for tabling this debate. I declare my interest as president of the Money Advice Trust, the charity which helps people across the UK to tackle their debts and manage their money with confidence. Among other things, the trust runs the National Debtline, which last year provided free advice to almost 400,000 people over the phone or online.
In this debate about a report which focuses on issues to do with governance, professional standards, structure and regulation, I want to emphasise how important it is that we do not lose sight of the interests of the consumer. An important aspect of the debate on banking standards is, of course, the question of trust in financial services. That was undoubtedly damaged in the wake of the financial crisis and, nearly 10 years on, there is still some way to go before this trust is rebuilt.
Key to rebuilding this relationship is treating customers fairly; in practice, that means on the ground, at the point of service. I offer two observations. The first is the need, as others have already said, to embed the fair treatment of customers into the culture of financial services and to make further improvements to competition as a means to this end. Several steps have been taken in recent years to improve the way in which customers are dealt with by financial service providers, including the FCA’s requirement that all firms must be able to show that consistently fair treatment is at the heart of their business model, as laid out in its “fair treatment of customers” outcomes.
Similarly, the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards’ recommendation on the need to improve competition in the retail and SME sectors paved the way for the CMA’s recommendations last month. These included making account switching easier and introducing open banking data sharing, which could unlock huge benefits for consumers by harnessing new technology to help them manage their money. Both these measures are welcome and will improve outcomes for consumers.
However, of even greater concern to many people, and a far bigger barrier to trust in financial services, are the high overdraft fees people find themselves being charged by their bank. The CMA’s announcement that banks will have to place a monthly cap on overdraft charges is welcome, although with customers currently paying £1.2 billion a year, it is debatable whether anything less than an industry-wide cap will make the difference that we need to see. From the consumer’s perspective, getting this right will be a significant part of restoring the trust in the UK banking sector.
My second observation is that improving fairness and trust requires more to be done to focus on one group of customers in particular: those in vulnerable circumstances. For several decades, vulnerable customers have been overlooked, with their treatment by financial service providers varying hugely in the absence of concrete guidance and policy. Whether the vulnerability in question relates to mental health, bereavement, terminal illness or any other factor, the way that these customers are treated by their bank or credit card company can make an enormous difference to their situation, either positively or negatively.
The Money Advice Trust has been closely involved in the work of the Financial Services Vulnerability Taskforce, established by the British Banking Association in early 2015 to address how financial institutions can improve the experience of such customers. The task force brought together major banks, building societies, charities and consumer groups, building on the FCA’s previous work on consumer vulnerability in order to push this issue up the agenda of financial services firms. The good news is that the industry is responding well in addressing the findings of the task force, and vulnerability is now included more comprehensively in the new standards of lending practice, which bring the achievement of improved customer outcomes for vulnerable consumers within the Lending Standards Board’s monitoring regime.
Of course, there is still much more to be done, including better collaboration between different sectors, to make vulnerable customers’ engagement with firms as straightforward as possible. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that real progress is being made in this regard. I ask the Minister, following on from the task force’s valuable work, what specific lessons Her Majesty’s Government think could be learned by public sector bodies, especially those engaged in debt collection, in respect of their treatment of people in vulnerable circumstances.
In conclusion, I emphasise that improving the treatment of customers—in practice on the ground, not just in the fine words of policy documents—and paying particular attention to vulnerable customers will be key to resolving the lack of trust in banking that the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards was set up to address. I hope the Government and regulators will keep up the pressure on this crucial aspect of the agenda.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords on the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, as the Minister at DCMS. I have no doubt that we will come across each other again as “C”, “M” and “S” all seem to cover the Church in various forms. I should also say that I served on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and had the very good fortune to do so with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, from whom I learned a great deal. I am also chairman of the Church Commissioners, who were involved in seeking to buy some of the spin-off assets of the Royal Bank of Scotland.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for arranging this debate. I agree entirely with his speech and indeed with the other four speakers that have been made before mine. I shall try to avoid repeating what they said. As we know, and as previous speakers have said, the key issue is banking culture. Culture comes from actions and decisions, and actions and decisions feed into culture. There is no doubt that changes introduced by the Government and the Bank of England have been extensive, and in many cases very effective. However, there are four linked areas, all of them around “too big to fail”, leading to what must be the long-term aim of ensuring that the Government do not have a contingent liability with respect to large banks that would result in them needing to provide support in the event of serious problems, as they had to do in 2008 at such cost.
First is the internal measure of capital. After some reluctance from the Government to concede this, banks now have a leverage ratio which is set by the FPC. However, in contrast to the recommendation of the Commission on Banking Standards, it is set at 3% rather than 4%. Obviously there is a balance to be met between a low ratio that leads to insecurity and a high ratio that leads to perverse incentives to take on high-risk assets. It would be interesting to know why there has been resistance to the figure of 4%, which has been the unanimous recommendation of all the external experts who have reviewed this case.
Leverage is one way of measuring capital adequacy, and a crude one. One of the great problems in 2008 was that most of the measures of capital adequacy relied on banks’ internal modelling. Recent reports—for instance, concerning the Royal Bank of Scotland and internal transfers of as much as £70 billion across what would after 2019 be the ring-fence—demonstrate that capital adequacy and movement of assets remain very important aspects of the security and good governance of large and complex banking institutions. It therefore remains a matter of concern that significant weight continues to be put on banks’ internal models for measuring capital which the Commission on Banking Standards’ report showed very clearly were not consistent with each other and in addition have a level of subjectivity which makes them almost entirely unreliable.
So long as there is good capital adequacy, the implied subsidy coming from the government guarantee of banking liabilities and assets, which has been measured by the banks themselves as around £30 billion a year, and by external bodies to be as much as £70 billion a year—just think how that might have helped Tata Steel—remains a severely market-distorting factor. Does the Minister agree that it must be a principal target of bank regulation and governance that the Government may formally withdraw any guarantee beyond the fairly low statutory level set for retail deposits, renewing in doing so a culture of risk and reward—not merely reward—and genuine values of resilience in order to ensure that banks remain in business and protect their customers? That leads me to the question of resolution and the importance of the adequacy of plans for resolution which ensure that, especially for banking activities outside the future ring-fence, contagion is avoided and certainty is provided. What progress is being made and how satisfied are the Government with plans for resolution?
Finally, the issue of competition has been raised by other noble Lords. The spin-off from RBS has of course been greatly delayed, in part owing to difficulties around the setting up of independent information technology and governance systems. Be that as it may, it is clear that there remains a lack of new entrants into the banking market; that figures for transfer of current accounts remain very low; that the illusion of free banking in credit is being maintained and is as market-distorting as ever; and that thus one can talk fairly and with reason about a banking market that simply does not function as a market.
The banks have been very clear about their resistance to increases in the ease of transfer of current accounts. Although we now have the seven-day guarantee, more sophisticated and advanced methods that have been available for some years, such as portable account numbers, do not appear to have come over the horizon in practical terms for implementation. They would be of huge benefit, particularly to the retail consumer. Until there is significant competition both for assets and liabilities as well as the essentially utility aspects of banking in terms of money transfers and movement, there will not be competition which keeps things simple, fair and honest, and embeds values.
We need a definitive change of culture to one that says that banks should be treated in ways that encourage competition and reduce government guarantees, and that banks should not be content with being privileged but should have a service mentality growing ever stronger, and should show self-restraint. For me, one of the most memorable quotes from our evidence was from a banker in a state of great distress, who said, “If I had my time again, I would remember that you can have big, simple banks or small, complicated banks but you cannot have big, complicated banks”. When the banks begin to have that sense of restraint, perhaps we may begin to see a more secure future for our banking industry.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing the debate. It is an important issue and he focused on the most important question we have to ask the Minister. We want a report not just on progress thus far, because we can do some of that work ourselves, but on how the Government will monitor their aspirations to success in what we all recognise is an extremely challenging environment, how they will measure their success and how we will get reports on it.
The call, of course, is for a moral dimension to banking. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said that she was underwhelmed by the response thus far. I am a little more disappointed than that. I am pessimistic about it. It seems to me that the City has to a very large extent returned to its prime driver, which is the culture of greed. If we are going to get some moderation of that position and recognition of responsibility to the wider society, the Minister needs to respond to several of the salient points made in this debate.
We all recognise that the financial industry is a very important part of our economy. It is a major earner of overseas earnings and important to our balance of payments. We all therefore want it to be healthy, but that also means hitting higher standards than those which led to the appalling collapse in 2007-08. Since then, we have not had a great deal of evidence of a commitment by the City to improve its level of morality. Its friends in Westminster, of course, blamed the Labour Government of the time—an extremely successful ploy in electoral terms but not much referred to now when we talk about the financial industry, because we all recognise the depths of the issues which bought it low and caused so much pain to our wider society. After all, few in the banking industry have been brought significantly to account. Many have returned to business as usual. Those who were brought to account were on the whole smaller fry than those who had responsibility and took the great rewards.
We want the Minister to give a clear response. The Government have been somewhat selective in the advice which they have taken and implemented. Both the most reverend Primate and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, referred to the key proposals first presented to the Government in the Vickers report. Sir John Vickers indicated that he was severely disappointed at the action taken in consequence of the report. The Government have some explaining to do in circumstances where a very clear model of reform was presented but we have had limited action.
Of course, I give credit to the Government for introducing the Bank of England Bill, the fact that the Bank of England has been put firmly at the centre of banking regulation and that there is an improvement in the bodies now authorised to carry out this exercise. We all recognise the virtue of a concept such as ring-fencing, which was recommended in Vickers, but it does not come into effect until 2019. I therefore cannot feel that driving, effective pressure from the Government is under way when they are prepared to subscribe to a timetable to which substantial delay is built in.
I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—who also referred to this—that the only issue that seems to have given a real shudder of anxiety in the City about its processes and conduct at present and the possibility of government regulating it with some force, was that of the burden of proof. Of course, the Government reversed this so that the regulator has to establish the case, not the person who is being examined on the basis of damage that might have been done. To many of us that looked like a signal to the City that this Government could be and indeed were soft in that instance.
We should also appreciate the extent to which the rewards system in the City seems to have changed very little. The banks can make colossal losses and still pay out very heavy bonuses, which are matched by scarcely any others in society. Surely there must be a recognition, in circumstances where bankers see that they have to pay out for the mistakes of the past, that it cannot possibly be right that significant amounts of money are going to senior staff. One part of the morality of the City is to recognise that its basic unfairness and disregard for the society that it serves are no advantage to it, except in terms of the pockets of those who get the financial bonuses.
What my noble friend Lord Haskel referred to and what also underpins this is that the Government must think about empowering those, in addition to the regulators, who can hold the banks to account. That means changes in shareholder powers. It means a companies Act that gives real responsibility to shareholders rather than to those on the remunerative merry-go-round that they appear to operate at present.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for securing this debate here today and to all noble Lords who have spoken, including distinguished members of the commission itself. I am also grateful for the kind words of those who were wishing me godspeed on my way. There is always doubt as to whether they are longing to get rid of me or want to come to see me in another form.
The theme around today’s debate is that we all acknowledge the problems. We realise that they were incredibly serious and that they had an effect on real people’s lives all over the country. Therefore, the issue demands a huge amount of attention, not only when the commission took place but also as it continues, so it is good that we are having a debate such as this today. There is a theme that some progress is being made—or is it illusory?—and that competition is necessary but consumers should be served well and fairly. I hope to be able to convince noble Lords that real progress is being made and to answer a lot of questions.
It is also helpful that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, took the time to mention that this is a very important industry for the country. It employs 1 million people, two-thirds of whom are not in London and the south-east. They raise £60 billion of tax revenue to pay for things that we all want, such as hospitals. It is very important in the context of Brexit, which I will come on to later. It represents 12% of UK exports.
I think we all agree that the report is an exceptional piece of work. It identified fundamental problems within the banking system and clear solutions to them. In the wake of the financial crisis and a succession of scandals, though, public trust in our banks has undoubtedly been dented, so it will take not only legislative and regulatory reform but a long-term shift in culture if the industry is to fully restore that trust. Culture is a theme that came up throughout the debate.
I shall summarise some of the progress that the Government and the regulators have made in response to the commission’s main recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked me to comment on individual responsibility. A key focus of the commission was the so-called accountability firewall that allowed senior individuals and banks to evade responsibility for serious failings in their firms. Criminal sanctions were introduced for senior managers who recklessly cause their banks to fail, and who can now face up to seven years in jail. We have significantly strengthened the regulator’s ability to hold senior managers to account through the new senior management certification regime, as we were reminded by the right reverend Prelate. This ensures that all the senior managers and key decision-makers in the firm have statements of responsibilities setting out clearly what they are accountable for, enabling the regulator to hold these individuals personally to account if things go wrong. This is because there is now a statutory duty on senior managers to take reasonable steps to prevent regulatory failings on their watch.
There are strong incentives to take such steps because the penalties for breaching the duty can run to an unlimited fine, and firms must review the fitness and propriety of key staff on an ongoing basis. In short, we have taken the steps to create a culture of accountability, sending a powerful message to both senior and junior staff that good conduct is their own personal responsibility.
The regime is still young—it came into effect for deposit-takers and large investment firms in March—but we are already seeing evidence that firms are taking it very seriously. I will come on to the monitoring in a minute. From 2018 the regime will start to be applied to all other authorised financial services firms and firms where misconduct that can undermine the integrity of the market and let customers down can be caused by failings similar to those identified by the commission in banks.
So much for the stick. The commission’s report also highlighted the importance of getting the carrot right. The actions of individual bankers are also influenced by the system incentives that are in place, and again the linkage between risks and incentives was a theme in the debate. As the right reverend Prelate said, one of the roots of the financial crisis was the system of incentives and rewards that existed within financial institutions that meant that the long-term risks were poorly aligned with the short-term rewards. In responding to the commission’s recommendations for reforming remuneration practice, we have created the toughest regime for any major financial services centre. All firms must be able to claw back bonuses if it subsequently emerges that an individual has not met robust ethical and professional standards expected of them. For those who are high earners, or who take significant risks for the firm, at least 40% of any reward must be deferred over five years at least, and at least half must be paid in shares. The Bank of England has also laid out proposals that will enable bankers’ bonuses to be revoked after they have moved employer in the event of misconduct.
As a result of these reforms we have seen a big increase in deferral periods and payment in instruments, with the industry clearly moving away from the kind of remuneration system that promotes a culture of short-term gains over long-term profitability and stability. However, the legislation regulation can only go so far. We think it is important that businesses take responsibility for reform in their own culture.
The commission recommended the creation of a professional body to promote high professional standards, and we are seeing progress being made. The Banking Standards Board, established in response to the recommendation, now has 32 members ranging from the largest banks and building societies to some of the smallest, and has begun valuable work to support a strong banking culture. For example, it has run a comprehensive culture assessment of banks and building societies in the UK to show them their scores benchmarked against their peers along with an analysis of key issues facing their firm. In response to a recommendation by the Fair and Effective Markets Review, the FICC Markets Standards Board was established to improve conduct in wholesale fixed income, currencies and commodities markets, which the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, mentioned. It has already taken important action, publishing some draft industry standards. Therefore I, with the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords, look forward to seeing how the work of these bodies progresses.
In the limited time available I will address specific comments and questions from noble Lords. We agree that competition is important and that it is important to have more of it in banking. However, the CMA report shows that there is more to do. We welcome the report and will be responding within the 90-day deadline; I think it reported in August. We agree that it is not the end of the debate and will continue to keep a firm eye on the actions that may be required to create a more competitive market.
The most reverend Primate talked about the lack of new entrants in banking. There has been progress on that. We saw one new retail banking authorisation up to 2010 and we have seen 11 new retail banking authorisations since then; shortly we will see some of those names filtering through. However, of course, as the CMA report showed, there is more to do.
The right reverend Prelate asked to what extent the remuneration should be deferred, saying that it was inadequate. We have gone some way, deferring it to five years, which was an extension from three. For senior managers the deferral period was seven years in response to the recommendation of 10, so we are not that far apart.
The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked how we are monitoring this, which is an important question. The regulators will keep a public register that will show suspensions and restrictions of public enforcement action for individual senior managers and the FCA will publish an annual enforcement performance account. Since the SMCR has become effective for banks, the regulator has been monitoring its impact with a view to conducting a review of its effectiveness.
Based on his last two questions, the right reverend Prelate obviously has a sense of humour: he asked me to opine whether the new Prime Minister would effectively tear up the basis on which joint stock companies have been working for several hundred years and to comment on Brexit. Having been in post for about four weeks, I feel comfortable answering those questions. At the moment we will not change the principal duty but of course we will keep in mind that the regulators have a duty to maintain adequate financial resources and to take reasonable care to organise and control the affairs responsibly and effectively with adequate risk-management systems. On Brexit, we are determined that the industry and government work together to ensure that Britain takes full advantage of the opportunities. We want the best deal for financial services in Europe and outside and are aware of the implications of things such as passporting and equivalence; clearly, that will be part of the negotiations going forward. Work goes on to deliver those goals as we speak. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that after the Statement yesterday by the Prime Minister and the Leader, I will not go any further than that today.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, says that culture is not embedded. Of course the SMCR came into effect for banks only in March this year. Personally, I think a huge amount depends on the message from the top in organisations, but we are setting up the mechanisms and firms are taking them seriously.
Change will take time. The work of the Banking Standards Board and the FICC Market Standards Board will be key to raising standards. The Bank of International Settlements is making significant progress on a global code for foreign exchange, which is due to be published in May 2017. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, acknowledged that industry is responding well to the taskforce’s work on vulnerable people and things like that. I will come on to that in a minute.
The noble Baroness was honest enough to admit that she had lost the argument in this House about the reverse burden of proof. This was removed after long discussions involving some members of the banking commission, and I am not going to go over those again. I believe, as does the majority of Parliament, that the duty of responsibility is a better approach for embedding senior accountability across the financial services industry.
The noble Baroness also talked about the bonus gap. We did not support the bonus gap but for now it is in place and we have withdrawn the challenge to the EU. We want to build a system of pay in the global banking system that encourages rather than undermines responsibility.
The noble Baroness also talked about public sector organisations in helping vulnerable consumers. I agree that that is an important point—I will continue for a couple of minutes because I think we have until the hour. The CMA identified key groups of consumers who are not well served by the banking sector. No doubt the FCA will want to consider this alongside its high-cost short-term credit costs, and separately it is undertaking an extremely important piece of work on the needs of vulnerable customers.
The most reverend Primate talked about the leverage ratio set at 3% rather than 4%. One of the recommendations was to take this decision away from the Government, so we have left it to the FPC. That includes powers to set an additional leverage buffer to be applied to the systemically important firms that will supplement the minimum requirements if they so feel. It is an important point that this be left to the FPC.
There are some more questions that I have not spoken fast enough to get to, so I will write to noble Lords to answer the questions that I have not answered today. To summarise, we believe that huge progress has been made but also that industry is stepping up to the challenge. We know that momentum, once generated, must not be lost. That is why it is crucial that this vital industry learns from the mistakes of the past and moves on from them to earn the trust of the public once again.
Schools: Admissions
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support parents in navigating schools’ admissions arrangements.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, parents choose schools, or at least we make great efforts to give them that opportunity. Certainly I believe it is extremely good for parents to have that choice. They should have the chance to find the school that suits their preferences and those of their children and not simply be stuffed into whatever school happens to be closest to them. In my life outside this place as the editor of The Good Schools Guide I spend a great deal of time trying to make that happen. I feel and I think the Government agree that parents having a choice is good for the system as a whole. It is a slow mechanism. Parents change their views about schools and schooling quite slowly, but over time it works to improve the system and it certainly works to improve the relationship between schools and parents. When parents have a choice of school, that makes for a much better day-to-day relationship between parents and schools than was the case before when schools tended to shut parents out because they did not need their permission to exist.
In order to make a choice you need high-quality information that is easily available. It also needs to be accessible in the sense that it must be delivered in a form that enables parents to make sense of it without devoting their lives to doing so. Successive Governments have made great strides in this direction. Performance tables are now hundreds of columns wide and contain a great deal of data. Government websites are becoming ever more informative. The latest edition is just out and is a great improvement on the previous one, and no doubt we will see more of that. Apart from the occasional imposed idiocies—I am thinking of my great friend Nick Gibb and the noble Lord, Lord Knight —of excluding GCSE and similar exams from the data, it is pretty high quality and useful stuff.
The attitude of the department over the years has always been open and constructive. However, the one area where this is not true is information on admissions. Yes, it is available after a fashion. Local authorities publish brochures in physical or PDF form. They are all in different formats and do not by any means contain all the information they are statutorily supposed to show. Moreover, they are generally not set out in a way that encourages comparisons between schools and understanding what you as a person located in a particular place on the map with a particular set of circumstances have access to. As the fragmentation of the system has continued, the quality and availability of this information have declined. I know of only one organisation that makes a serious attempt to collect this data, which is 192.com, and indeed a lot of schools are simply delinquent about providing the data. The information is patchy even though it is the best that is available.
Availability also means accessibility, something that can be used to make decisions. Because the data is available only in PDF form, with no standard format within the PDF, it cannot be integrated in any way that helps parents to make decisions. That creates a complex system where, in somewhere like London, you have to look at several sets of data because people live close to local authority boundaries. You have an immense variety of catchment systems. Distance is measured six different ways, I think, in English catchment systems. There are feeder schools, selection or partial selection and multiple streams of entry.
The result is that the advantaged in society become yet more advantaged. They know enough, they know the people to talk to, they have the understanding to find out what opportunities are there, the schools that have ballots that they may take advantage of or understand how to navigate a banding system to their advantage—which band you want to get your child in to have the best chance of getting into Camden School for Girls, or whatever. The disadvantaged become yet more disadvantaged. Even the advantaged, who are the people I spend most of my life talking to, are full of anxiety at this uncertain, unclear, difficult-to-navigate process.
The Government could do something about it very simply and at very low cost. The data are all there. Every admissions authority knows its admissions criteria. They all follow a coherent structure and the information on how an admissions round has gone is not exactly complicated. If each admissions authority had to contribute those data to a common table and the table was then made open data by the Government, that would be all they had to do. The great gods in my world are the property websites. They command so much traffic that we all have to pay attention to what they want. They want as good a set of catchment information as they can get. If the Government were to make these data open, I and a multiplicity of other people would suddenly find ourselves having to spend large amounts to catch up with the market, and that would be no bad thing.
The cost to the Government would be the creation of a table and no more. The responsibility for the accuracy of the data would remain with those who put the data into the table. The benefits, apart from a general reduction in anxiety, would be a better quality of choices, particularly for the disadvantaged, because it becomes easier to give them something that they can use to understand their options and encourage them to look at schools that are opening their doors to them.
Something that some schools are trying, and which I really encourage the Government to consider instead of grammar schools, is opening some of their admissions to ballot rather than things that are gameable. Schools that do so find that they still get only the advantaged applying because the disadvantaged do not know how it works or even that they have the option.
To have serious information systems out there that made it easier to find out your chances of getting in to which schools would be really helpful in giving the disadvantaged access to excellent schools. Local authorities I have spoken to would also find that helpful. They are getting less and less complete information as to what is happening in admissions in their area because crucial data are withheld by academies. They are just a black box. You send them a list of people who have expressed a preference and back comes a list of people that the academy will accept. There is no indication of what process the academy has gone through; no data are flowing back.
If we are to pick up on the White Paper—I would be very happy if we did—and make local authorities the champions of parents, we have to provide excellent data. To have the data open and available would do nothing but good for the honesty of schools in the application of their admissions criteria, because every disappointed parent could see why they failed and whether that was fair.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on securing this important debate and on his contribution. I agreed with pretty much everything he had to say, which often happens, but not always. In particular, when I talk about the relationship between parental choice and those with disadvantages, I will echo some of his points.
I start, however, with the new Prime Minister’s commitment to social mobility, made in her first speech outside No. 10. She said that Britain should be,
“a country that works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us”.
I thought that not only would that have been a nice thing to hear a Labour Prime Minister say going into No. 10—they could easily have done so; it sounded a bit like the “for the many not the few” rhetoric used so much by Tony Blair—but that it was a positive sign of her commitment to education.
Parental choice, which is what this debate is about, is designed to improve the quality of education for everyone. The notion is obvious: if you give parents the power of the market in accountability terms, you can improve schools because they can use their choice to go somewhere else—with per-pupil funding, the consequence will be that schools sort themselves out. We know, however, that this does not necessarily work. I represented a rural area in Dorset when I was in the other place, and in the chunk of my constituency in the Purbecks you basically had no choice. You had to try to get your child into the local secondary school because the distance you would have to travel otherwise was, for most parents, prohibitive.
There is, moreover, an assumption that parents will choose on the basis of standards. That is also not always the case. When I was doing the Minister’s job, I recall being particularly frustrated that there was a Catholic school in the east of England that was doing appallingly in examinations but had full rolls. It was oversubscribed largely because of an influx of Catholics from Eastern Europe who wanted to send their kids to the nearest Catholic school. They were exercising their choice but not necessarily in the way the policy intended. So we have to have some caution about parental choice.
The best recent discussion of evidence that the disadvantaged find it harder in an environment of parental choice is in the department’s own analysis, published in January 2014 and authored by Rebecca Allen from the Institute of Education and Simon Burgess and Leigh McKenna from the University of Bristol. They conclude:
“The evidence suggests that what parents look for in a school may vary by social class: middle classes tend to value performance and peer group; lower SES groups may look for accessibility, friendliness of staff and support for those of lower ability. This may lead lower SES groups to select themselves out of high performing schools to avoid possible rejection or failure. Disadvantaged families (by definition) have access to less in the way of resources, which may limit the range of schools which they can consider due to transport costs. More affluent families tend to have access to higher quality information on schools and be more adept at using it. The publication of performance tables and Ofsted reports aims to level the playing field in this regard, but cannot generate informal knowledge of local schools”.
That sums up all of the reasons why support for parents in navigating schools’ admissions arrangements is really important. We have to try and replace that lack of informal knowledge that more advantaged and better networked people have. How many local authorities now offer a choice advice service? As I recall, this was introduced in the Education and Inspections Act 2006, a piece of legislation that I inherited from my predecessor Jacqui Smith when I was a schools Minister. It all passed by in a bit of a haze, but I think that piece of legislation brought it in. It is a very useful service. I had a quick look today at the council websites for the London Borough of Barnet, Nottingham and Redcar and Cleveland. Those authorities clearly have active sites with active advice and are employing people to try to help families in their areas. I would be interested in how much of that sort of service still continues, given local authority cuts and how effective it is.
It is also important to think about how we might develop more peer-to-peer networks so that families from communities that are successfully navigating the complicated picture of different schools’ admissions policies can to some extent be like the expert patients that we have sometimes had in the health service. They are to some extent the expert parents. Can more be done on what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about the use of data? We can then enable private and third-sector smartphone app developers to develop solutions to make it really easy for parents to show their preferences on transport, as well as standards and faith and all the different things that weigh on parents’ minds when they have the anxious experience of deciding which school to choose.
It is really hard for parents to select schools. It makes me want to ask—this is just about relevant to the debate—why we might want to make it easier for schools to select parents. It is really important that we have a tough admissions code. It is really important that we create as level a playing field as possible for parents so that schools are not going out to choose them to make their job easier in the high-stakes accountability that we have in this country.
It is equally important that we do not extend selection. My parents benefited from a grammar school education, as a result of which my father became an accountant. He joined the professions without going to university. My mum was able to join the banking profession. As a result they were able to afford to buy me and my brother the privilege of an independent school education and we were then the first in our family to go to university. At one level, you could say that is a great story of social mobility, but they were the lucky 25% at a time when in the economy there was perhaps a logic to letting 75% go and work in factories or marry those who worked in factories. That logic no longer persists because we now have a very different economy from the one in which the grammar school system was designed. We need to move away from education being used to sift people and being more about an education than a schooling system. I know the Minister is committed to empowering every single child and helping them achieve the best of their talents. Writing off too many through a selective system does not do that.
I also point to the work of Professor John Hattie from the University of Melbourne, who says the data from all the studies around the world show the two things that work are great teaching and what Carol Dweck would call a growth mindset. How do you develop a growth mindset in a bunch of kids who feel that they failed at the age of 11 and no longer have any life chances? No wonder Alan Milburn, the social mobility tsar, calls it “a social mobility disaster” and the chief inspector a load of “tosh and nonsense”.
I cannot help but be diverted to say in the context of this debate that we must not go back to grammar schools. I do not know what sort of information you would give parents in the context of a selective system, especially once their child had failed. If the Minister wants to answer that, I would be most grateful.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on securing this debate. I declare my interest as a governor of King’s College London Mathematics School, which is a state-funded school for 16 to 19 year-olds, sponsored by my university and employer, King’s College London. I have therefore had first-hand experience of struggling with the construction of admissions codes that can be clearly understood by potential parents and students.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Knight, I found myself agreeing with just about everything the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said. However, I would like to say a little about the nature of the information that is provided to parents. The complexity of that information seems to be a problem in and of itself. There is a very real danger—I will duck the grammar school question, which would just make it even more complex—that in responding to perceived problems we will actually end up increasing the complexity of the codes and the fact that parents are faced with more and more information that they cannot really cope with.
Because it is not my own experience, I have been struck by the perception of many people that schools are already trying to manipulate their criteria in such a way that they are in fact selecting parents. For example, John Dunford, who was once general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, believes that some schools are making it as opaque as possible for parents in order to maximise the chance that those schools will receive fewer applications from children from poorer homes. As I have said, that is not my personal experience in any of the schools that I have had to deal with, but from this very complexity comes the perception that these rules are very hard to understand and that, when it comes to appeals, it is much easier for middle-class and educated parents to know how to appeal and to do so successfully.
I hope I will be able to persuade the Minister that the answer to this is not more and more complex codes. That would be a tempting and easy route to go down but my own experience, which has been borne out by many other people who have tried to create all-singing, all-dancing, totally transparent codes, is that that is not something that works.
Both noble Lords who have already spoken have alluded to the fact that we are in a system of school choice. Obviously, you get rid of admissions problems if you simply allow the state to decide where every young person should go. Personally I am not in favour of that, but if you have a system in which you have oversubscribed schools, as is very likely, you essentially have two options: either you use a lottery or you have rules for deciding who gets a place in an oversubscribed institution. In fact, we have some experience of what happens with lotteries because Brighton and Hove tried it out. The experience was an educational one, in the sense that it was a field day for the researchers, but it was also rather depressing because the reality was that it did not improve access. That was not the result, partly because they did not go for a complete city-wide lottery, which might have resulted in practically every child in Brighton and Hove having a long journey to school.
The experiment also made it clear that many people do not find lotteries fair. There is a perfectly good case for lotteries not being seen as fair because, first, they do not take account of the strength of preferences and, secondly, they do not make it possible to take account of individual circumstances. That is the crux of my point. The reality is that when you are faced with a problematic set of decisions, which school admissions are, either you can try to have automatic algorithmic rules or you are thrust back on decision-making, discretion and judgment. It is very tempting to feel that bureaucratic rules that you cannot get around, where there is no room for discretion, must be better and fairer. However, the experience of human beings is that all too often this is not the case. You have to choose between the possibility that sometimes people will not exercise their judgment correctly and fairly and the certainty that if you have a system that does not allow you to take account of the unexpected, the problematic and individual circumstances, you will always have situations in which a decision is seen by those affected as unfair and unjustifiable. That is just the way life is, but it has tremendous implications for how we might respond at this point.
Schooling is becoming more and more important; more and more parents take seriously where they want their children to go, therefore the issue of oversubscribed schools will get more rather than less acute. There are good reasons for feeling that it will be easier for the educated and the privileged to deal with this. As I said, I argue that the answer is not more and more rules. In preparing for this debate, it was interesting to look at what the previous schools adjudicator said about the current situation. You get the impression that the whole thing is a catastrophe: at least half the schools in the country are breaking the code.
However, when you look at the details, you find two things. I have tremendous sympathy with one of the problems—and anybody here who is a school governor and lives with this calendar of policies and things that have to go up on the website will sympathise. A large number of problems are caused by schools that do not do what they are directed to do because they did not understand that they needed to do it. I do not mean putting up your admissions criteria—clearly, that is important. As an example, a school might have decided that it will just go on doing what the local authority did; the local authority decides to change it, the school does not have a meeting of governors at which it deliberates and decides, and therefore it has broken the code. That sounds so silly that one does not need to take it seriously, but it is important to understand that many violations of the code are of this sort.
However, there is also the very real complexity issue, which I will concentrate on for the last couple of minutes. The adjudicator points out that in many cases you have complex arrangements and over-subscription criteria that are difficult to understand. It is also the case that just about every sixth form out there is in contravention of the code. That is because once you get to that point, there are complex decisions to be made. It is not like admitting somebody to a completely standardised primary school curriculum: you have to make decisions, not just about the number of students in your school but whether or not you will have viable numbers. Do you end up with a set of students and end up abolishing certain key A-levels because you were not allowed to take any account of whether or not the students you accepted would create a viable group, which might be the only group in that city which was offering that A-level? In the current situation, unless you are a special school, like a mathematics school, you do not have any ability to balance out these very real dilemmas. I argue that when you have a code that everybody breaks, which is the case for the sixth forms, maybe the problem is the code, not the sixth forms. When everybody breaks something, maybe there is a real problem.
There have been a number of occasions in the past—for example, national vocational qualifications—when Governments have believed that you could create a set of rules so clear that anybody, trained expert or not, could come along and say, “Okay, this one has passed—that one has not; this one goes in this box—that one goes in that box”. The reality of experience in every case is that we cannot foresee all the circumstances that occur—we cannot foresee the future—therefore in any complex situation we have to allow some room, or some slack, for human discretion and judgment.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will do a great deal to support parents. However, I urge him in doing so to look at procedures, access to help and, above all, simplifying rather than further elaborating the current code and requirements.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing this Question to the House for debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ely normally takes the lead on these matters but he is unable to be here today, so I want to make just a few comments. The subject of admissions is a complex one. As a child’s education is so vital and important, not surprisingly it often leads to impassioned responses. That can be true of the subject of admission to church schools, on which I know that several Members of this House have expressed opinions in the past. Before I turn directly to the topic of faith-based admissions, which your Lordships will not be surprised I wish to address, I would like briefly to set out some points by way of context.
It is important to recognise the role that Church of England schools play in the lives of their families and the wider community. Around 1 million children across the UK are educated in Church of England schools that reflect the diversity of their local areas. In many rural areas Church of England schools form an integral part of a local rural community. Indeed, I saw that yesterday when making a visit to one of our schools in the diocese in Bedfordshire. It is also important to recognise that many parents want and positively choose for their children the vision and ethos that underpin our schools. The Church of England’s vision for education is that every child should have fullness of life and enjoy academic success as well as moral, spiritual and personal development. Sometimes, that is missed. We hear complaints from people who object to Church of England schools, not praise from those who value them.
By way of context, I hope that the House understands that the majority of Church of England schools actually have no faith-based admissions criteria. Church of England schools exist to serve the whole community, not a select faith group. The make-up of the student body tends to be representative of the wider community. Church of England schools have as many pupils on free school meals as the national average, for example, while schools operating in areas with a high population of a religious minority tend to reflect that. A substantial number of Church of England schools have more than 80% intake from the Muslim community. Where faith-based admissions criteria exist, they apply only when the school is oversubscribed and they tend to feature only in areas where alternative provision already exists.
Of course some people have no objection to the principle of schools that embody a Christian ethos but strongly object to the idea of faith-based admissions criteria. They argue that such schools increase social division and tend to benefit the middle classes. I probably do not need to tell the House that those criticisms exist within the Church of England as well as without. The reality is that there is no silver bullet when it comes to achieving a fair admissions policy. Research shows that parents who are the most affluent and best connected stand the best chance of getting through the admissions policy, whatever is put in place. Research also shows that those parents are much more likely simply to have bought a house in their desired catchment than to attend church, for example, in order to get their child into their desired school. Where faith-based admissions exist, at least they allow students to attend from beyond the immediate and potentially sometimes more affluent catchment area.
On the issue at hand, helping people to navigate school admissions arrangements, I am grateful for many of the suggestions that have been made, with interesting points not least from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It is clear that some schools, including Church of England schools, have in the past failed in their duty to provide clear admissions information to parents. The report from the British Humanist Society and the Fair Admissions Campaign called An Unholy Mess identified technical and minor errors in how a number of Church of England schools administered their admissions policy. Examples of errors included forgetting to name the feeder school or failing to have an effective tie-breaker between two applicants living equidistant from the school. It is worth pointing out that none of the errors identified by the BHA in Church of England schools were specific to the issue of faith-based admissions. It is clear that similar areas would be found in any school which acts as its own admissions authority, whether religious or not. However, it is clear from the research that many schools find the process of admissions difficult to administer and this will inevitably make it harder for parents. I believe that the answer is not to attack schools for their failures but to ask how they can be better supported. A rapidly changing landscape of education with its greater focus on autonomy and independence for schools in the academisation process will only increase the challenges for schools in providing clear admissions criteria and advice.
With an increasing number of schools becoming their own admissions authority for the first time, it is more likely that errors could be made. With this in mind, the School Admissions Code, which is available to parents, would benefit from revision and clarification to ensure that both schools and parents are confident in navigating admissions arrangements. It is also important that the Office of the Schools Adjudicator is strengthened and well equipped to prioritise admission complaints that have a basis in legality rather than having to waste its time on complaints that arise only from ideological objections to particular admissions criteria.
As I say, there is no silver bullet for making admissions fair and open to all, but I hope that the Minister agrees that the future lies in all stakeholders working together to help schools to improve their administrative processes so that parents, wanting the very best for their children, are better equipped to navigate what can be a difficult, confusing and sometimes puzzling system.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Whips’ Office for allowing me to speak in the gap, and I promise that I will not delay the Minister for very long at all. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for raising this issue. It is interesting to note that over the almost 20 years that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House, I typically follow the noble Lord in the speakers’ list for debates only to find that everything I wanted to say has already been said by him—sometimes to the consternation of my own Benches. We have been ad idem most of the time for many years.
The wonderful thing about being in this House is that you are able to look back at your own experiences and try to offer them for the future. I should like briefly to give the Minister a short, personal narrative. The day King George VI died, 6 February 1952, was the most important day of my life. It was the day I took the 11-plus exam. I was 10 years old, and indeed most children sat the exam at that age. I have never understood the extraordinary misnomer of 11-plus. I passed, so I got a cap and a blazer and, unlike almost all the other children at my primary school in north London, I went to a grammar school. I never saw my friends from primary school again. An extraordinary wall came down, with them on one side of it and me on the other, and I have never really fully recovered from that.
I am convinced that the only selection component involved in my passing the exam was the fact that my mother took herself off to Foyles bookshop on Charing Cross Road and bought a batch of old exam papers, which I was then required to go through. I vividly remember sitting in the exam room that day and seeing the absolute horror on the faces of the kids around me as the exam papers were turned over. At least I was familiar with what I was about to do.
I put it to the Minister that never can we go back to a system where life’s chances are determined irrevocably at the age of 10. I am here today because of that one day in 1952. As he was reminded yesterday in Oral Questions, the 1944 Education Act had two routes. It offered the opportunity for children to retake the 11-plus exam at the age of 13 or the opportunity to go to a technical college. There were no technical colleges and I think that only around half a dozen were ever built. I am sure that the statistics are held by the department, but I never knew a child to arrive at my grammar school having retaken and passed the 11-plus at 13 years old; it just did not happen. Effectively, my entire generation’s life chances were determined at the age of 10 or 11.
All I would ask the Minister to do is to remember this story. I have the privilege of sitting in the House of Lords because my mum got on the Tube and bought a batch of old exam papers in Foyles. That opportunity was not afforded to the other 30 children in my class.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, in the week in which many schools in England have returned from their summer holidays, it is appropriate that your Lordships’ House has been given the opportunity to debate the important issue of admissions arrangements. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on achieving that, and welcome the fact that we are returning to the subject following the QSD in my name on the specific issue of the admissions code, which the House considered in May. The admissions code underscores everything that has been said in the debate so far because the “schools’ admissions arrangements” referred to in the title centre around the code.
I note what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said about schools themselves needing some assistance with the code, but parents also need help interpreting the code, and that is the nub of the problem. Every parent, and I am one, knows of the tension associated with doing their best to ensure that their children secure a place at the school of the parents’ choice. Around 80% are successful in that venture, which is commendable. However, when they are not, they must, at the very least, have the knowledge that they were competing on a level playing field.
The question of school admissions is very much a hot topic, with the Government—whether wittingly or unwittingly—having reintroduced the subject of grammar schools and the selection that that involves. The debate on grammar schools is for another day—in the not too distant future, perhaps, if rumours of an impending Green Paper are to be believed. However, as we just heard vividly from my noble friend Lord Puttnam, a major and long-established problem with the 11-plus exam, which is used to decide who is admitted to a grammar school, is that well-off parents pay for coaching or to get the exam papers in advance. That is a very sensible tactic, but not one that is available to everyone, as not everyone is familiar with Foyles, far less with the Charing Cross Road. It is an important point that some children have additional assistance to get into a grammar school. That is not a level playing field.
Last evening, the Prime Minister commented to Tory MPs that she already believed there was selection in state schools, caused by the ability of some parents to move to expensive housing in the catchment areas of high-performing schools. I very much agree with her. But those who claim to live at advantageous addresses are not always genuine in doing so and the admissions code should be a means of ensuring that that is not often the case.
The current system is open to abuse, and that is where the admissions code comes in—at least, it ought to. It is not acceptable simply to say that we cannot criticise parents for doing what they believe is in the best interests of their child. Actually, we can and we should, if, in so doing so, parents are wrongly or unfairly depriving another child of a place that he or she is entitled to.
All state-funded schools in England must comply with the School Admissions Code and the School Admission Appeals Code, and the statutory legislation that underpins them. Objections to admissions criteria and procedures can currently be submitted by anyone to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator, whose decisions are binding. However, as noble Lords will be aware, for some months now, the Government have been putting forward plans to restrict those who can object to breaches of the code.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has already referred to the Fair Admissions Campaign and the British Humanist Association survey that was carried out. It demonstrated that there are many schools with intakes more favourable than would be expected given their location, and that these are often faith schools or other schools that control their own admissions. The two organisations analysed the admissions policies of a sample of faith schools and found that virtually all of them broke the admissions code in one way or another. I accept what the right reverend Prelate said: that in many case these were minor breaches. However, they were breaches none the less, and the adjudicator upheld 87% of the objections put to her in 48 schools. People have said that that is only 48 schools, but to repeat a remark I made in our debate in the Chamber in May, we are told that a sample of 1,000 can give the opinions of 60 million. Therefore, 48 schools is a valid sample, and a lot of important information was gleaned from that survey. The title of this debate is particularly apposite in the light of those findings.
The question is this: how do the Government provide support to parents seeking to navigate their way through what can be shark-infested waters? The admissions system is becoming increasingly complicated and difficult for parents to find their way through, favouring as it does those with the skills and the time needed to deal with it.
In the debate in May, I questioned the noble Baroness, Lady Evans—whatever became of her?—as to what the DfE had done to make sure that the schools identified in the survey as having breached the code had changed the way that they operate. The noble Baroness did not, at that time, give an answer, so I hope that the Minister may be able to now—perhaps the civil servants behind him can give him the information. Those schools surely cannot carry on as they were prior to that survey.
The issues identified by the survey are only part of the story, because there are a considerable number of devices used by schools that have been found to be acceptable under the code but which enable schools to gain a more favoured intake. The level of segregation of pupils by faith and, less often, by ethnicity and socioeconomic position is dangerously high. It is a significant threat to social cohesion, which of course all schools have a duty to promote.
I was quite taken aback by the powerful contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I knew that there were problems in the way the code does or perhaps does not operate, but I was unaware of the extent of it. I certainly knew nothing about the sixth-form aspect of it. Perhaps I might arrange to meet her at some time to discuss that in more detail, because it sounds like a serious problem.
In opening the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that parents should choose schools. Surely that is the bottom line; it should be for parents to choose the school that their children go to, not the school that chooses the children. When the Schools Minister led a revision of the code some years ago, it was driven by his wish to allow anyone to object to malpractice. At that time, there was also a Select Committee inquiry. It received evidence from the Sutton Trust, which said,
“all the evidence suggests that those schools that are autonomous or have autonomous admissions are those that are most socially selective when compared to their localities”.
Yet, regrettably, the Government are proposing changes to the code that will reduce the number of complaints. They are supposedly about “unclogging the system”. Neither I nor, I suspect, anyone else has any wish to clog the system; I certainly would not want to see schools overburdened. However, the solution for any school that feels it is being or might be burdened by complaints about code violations is quite simple: stick to the admissions code. If they do that, they will have few if any additional administrative demands placed upon them.
Slightly worryingly, the Secretary of State’s rationale at the time when the changes were put forward was:
“So that parents can be confident that the school admission process is working for them”.
I fear that is little more than a coded message to those who are able to benefit from the present arrangements. Perhaps the Minister can explain how requiring schools to adhere to the rules in some way prevents school admissions codes from “working for them”. Taking issues to the adjudicator is not about changing the rules; it is about enforcing them—unless of course “working for them” means benefiting from the current situation when rules are all too often breached.
There is another issue here: no one is involved in enforcing or even monitoring the code. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, in May whether the Government would bring forward a means of ensuring that the code was at the very least monitored. She did not give me an answer but said that the question was being looked at. Is there any update on that? The noble Baroness said,
“we are looking at whether we need to do more around compliance”.—[Official Report, 11/5/16; col. 1786.]
I hope there may be something to say. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans said that one of the options was to strengthen the role of the schools adjudicator. If she was given more staff, monitoring might be an option.
I contend it is essential that organisations concerned about the manner in which the code is being adhered to should retain the right to raise complaints. If it becomes widely accepted among parents that there is in effect a two-tier system on admissions, cynicism will set in. For parents to come to believe that those with sharper elbows will crowd them out would be a gross distortion of what should be a fair and transparent system. It would lead to greater inequality and social disadvantage, which I am confident the Minister will agree must not be allowed to happen. I hope he will set out how he proposes to ensure that that it is not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely pleased to answer this Question for Short Debate, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, is particularly timely as children across the country take up their new school places this week. I start by making absolutely clear that our priority is to ensure that the admissions system continues to fully support parents. Choosing a school for their child is one of the most important decisions a parent makes and we want to ensure they can easily understand how to navigate the admissions system and obtain a school place. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing this debate today as I have recently taken over responsibility for admissions—it is extremely prescient of him to have organised such a helpful teach-in for me. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for his comments about the Prime Minister’s commitment to social mobility and for bringing his valuable experience to this debate.
Let me reassure noble Lords that right across the admissions system there are good processes in place to support parents in applying for and obtaining a school place. Indeed, it is fundamental to the way the system is designed. All schools, including academies, are bound by the School Admissions Code and other admissions law. The code makes it clear that when drawing up admission arrangements the criteria should be fair, clear and objective. It stipulates that parents should be able to look at a set of arrangements and easily understand on what basis school places will be allocated. This will help parents consider whether their child has a good chance of obtaining a place. The code contains safeguards to ensure that the process of obtaining a place remains fair and transparent. For example, schools are prohibited from prioritising applicants who have named the school as their first preference to ensure parents are not restricted in their choice of school.
The process by which parents apply for places is also designed to make it as easy as possible for them to navigate. Although parents applying in the normal admissions round can express a preference for at least three schools, they only have to submit one application form to a single deadline, directly to their local authority. We require local authorities to then work with all the schools for which a parent has expressed a preference. They then give all parents in their area a single offer of a place at the parent’s highest preference school, which has a place available for their child. We also require this offer to be made to all parents on a national offer day—1 March for secondary schools and 16 April for primary schools—so there is clarity and consistency.
To support parents through the application process, each year local authorities are, as my noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned, required to publish a prospectus on admissions which contains information about how parents can apply for a school place in their area. It also includes the admission arrangements for all mainstream state schools in the area, including academies. Thereafter, local authorities continue to be a valuable champion for local parents and provide them with advice, assistance and support throughout the whole admissions process.
Having read all that from my brief, I was very interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Lucas had to say about data, both as regards their accessibility and usability. I found many of the issues he raised quite compelling and I was put in mind of a talk given by somebody from New York a couple of years ago about the New York iZone, which I think noble Lords will be interested to investigate. He said that when he took over responsibility for schools in New York the admissions requirements were so complicated that the average parent could not possibly work it out, and that the government website, as sometimes can happen, was rather difficult to fathom. They put the service out to tender to a whole lot of companies—no doubt run by young tech wizards—and within a few weeks had a number of apps which basically cracked the problem.
I was looking at this and I would like to read what it says on their website, as some of it might feel familiar. It says that research found that participants struggled to find personal relevance amidst the superabundance of admissions deadlines and data—I am sure that sounds familiar. Proceeding on the premise of certain understandings about how people experience choice-making and how design can influence human experience—for example, that people do not just need data to make choices but ways of evaluating options and relating those options to their own lived experiences —iZone led six software developers through the first school choice design challenge to create prototypes of new digital tools to help students and families identify schools that fitted their interests and qualifications, enhancing the school admissions process. Essentially, they designed ways to actively support more engagement and meaning during the evaluation stage, which led to more informed choices, which produced better outcomes.
I thought that was very interesting and I can assure noble Lords that we will investigate the iZone experience in some detail. I would also be delighted to continue discussions with my noble friend Lord Lucas to see what we can learn from that and other projects to modernise the admissions process and lessen its complexity.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked about advice services. This is apparently not a compulsory requirement, although the school admissions code makes it clear that local authorities must provide advice and assistance to parents when they are deciding which schools to apply for. However—the noble Lord will be familiar with this phrase—the number of local authorities offering choice advice services is not centrally held information. I can assure him that I will investigate the issue further.
The noble Lord also mentioned Carol Dweck’s growth mindset, which I am a great fan of. I strongly recommend that he visits the excellent free school in Bradford, Trinity Academy, which practices this approach very strongly. I was struck by what the pupils had to say about their growth mindsets and I would be very happy to make that introduction.
I do not think at this stage, having been on my feet twice in the past 26 hours in relation to the matter of grammars, that there is anything more I particularly want to say on the subject, except in relation to the very moving points made by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. We have no intention of turning the clock back and will consider all the issues in relation to any increase in selection very carefully.
On a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I repeat what I said in the House yesterday: we are working with the Grammar School Heads Association to develop tests that it will be much harder to coach children for.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, made some very powerful points. I pay tribute to King’s Maths School—which I have visited—which is producing a generation of new mathematicians. It is a very impressive establishment. I assure her that I share her suspicion of complexity and her desire for simplicity, and I was extremely interested in what she had to say about sixth form admissions. I will look at that very carefully in my new brief.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned the vital role that Church schools play in this country. I pay tribute not only to that but to the important role they play in community cohesion. Some years ago, the University of York carried out a very persuasive study to show that, in fact, Church schools were the most inclusive in the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, requested various information. As I said, I have just taken over responsibility for this brief but I will look at his points carefully. We need to get it into context, though. Last year, the adjudicator received 218 objections, which is just 1% of schools.
The system we have in place to support parents ensures that the vast majority of children attend a school of their parents’ choice and 95% get one of their top three choices. However, as we said recently, many parents still cannot get their kids into a good school close to them, and that is partly what any reforms we come forward with would aim to improve.
In the last few years, we have made great strides in creating new places; something that I am also responsible for now. We have created 600,000 new places in the last five years and have funds in place to create another 600,000 over the next five years. We will continue to work hard to ensure that every child has access to a good education so that they can go as far as their talents and hard work can take them.
I thank all noble Lords again for their contributions to this debate.
Legislation
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Framlingham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to consider the proposal that, for a period of time, all government departments should cease devising new legislation and concentrate on sound administration.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, I am greatly privileged to have obtained this short debate. In the time allowed to me I wish to explore a broad yet specific matter of principle rather than an individual problem. I am conscious that the attendance today is rather small but I am sure that the wisdom is great. I suspect that I will learn rather more than I impart today.
I want to talk about the unhealthy balance that has arisen over the years between the quantity of legislation produced and sound government administration. In particular, I want us to acknowledge and accept that while some legislation has succeeded in its objective, much has failed badly and, in some cases, done more harm than good. I am certain we can all think of our own examples.
There can be no doubt that the volume of ill-considered legislation has grown over the years. The average length of Bills introduced to Parliament seems significantly greater than in previous decades. Multi-purpose Bills, sometimes called Christmas tree Bills, are more common than they were. Daniel Greenberg, a former parliamentary counsel, argued in a report earlier this year:
“The length of new Bills and the number of clauses that they include is becoming so great that Parliament is unable to properly scrutinise them”.
He calculated that while the number of Acts passed by Governments had stayed “approximately the same” over the last 50 years, the average number of clauses in them has doubled.
The Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation, prepared by the Secretariat to the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee of Cabinet, says:
“The committee will look ‘favourably’ on bills that have been published in draft for consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny although, if a bill is ‘politically important’, then it may be given a slot in the programme ‘before many of the details have been fully worked out’”.
Green Papers and White Papers allowing the detailed, progressive and lengthy study of a proposed Bill are now rarely produced. Some pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills is undertaken, but not always and not necessarily comprehensively. Because the old, once rare, guillotine system in the House of Commons has been permanently transformed into the routine programming of all Bills, few Bills of any size get the scrutiny in Standing Committee that all their clauses and schedules warrant. As a result, a regular procession of ill-digested Bills makes its way to your Lordships’ House, where we carry out our rightful revising role with as much patience and competence as time and the sheer volume of legislation will allow. In the last Session, while we were dealing with the Housing and Planning Bill, several Peers described it as the worst-prepared Bill they had ever seen in their lives.
Manifestos are often unrealistic. They are frequently designed to be eye-catching and dramatic and many government departments seem to feel obliged to bid for a slot for a Bill. As a result, the House of Lords is continually being set unrealistic and frustrating volumes of revising to undertake, and too often this produces poorer, less effective legislation, with the people affected by it badly served and disillusioned.
This has become routine and accepted although, of course, it is completely unacceptable. It must change. It needs to be looked at through a new pair of eyes at the highest level. Theresa May, our new Prime Minister, has already shown by her words and deeds her willingness to look afresh at some of our seemingly intractable problems. I sincerely hope she will see action on this issue as not only necessary in its own right but also likely to lead the whole government machine in a much more organised and competent direction.
As I said earlier, we are all aware of the effect of legislation in our national life, for good or ill—capital punishment, seat belts, Sunday trading, foxhunting, dangerous dogs. I take great pride in the Private Member’s Bill I successfully took through the House of Commons which had the world-shaking effect of extending the coverage of a gun licence from three to five years. All these Bills had specific and limited objectives. They were not, as has all too often happened in recent years, attempts to micromanage by legislation.
Let us deal with just health and education. Over the last 50 years, there have been 95 Acts of Parliament to do with the health service. In that time, we have banished the traditional matron, who was the backbone of every hospital in the country, totally altered nurse training and completely reorganised the entire health service, and now what a desperate mess we are in. In the same period, we passed 52 Acts relating to education. During this time, educational standards have fallen. Most grammar schools have disappeared. Teacher training has been completely altered and we even stopped teaching children to read in the time-honoured way of phonetics: “The cat sat on the mat”. And we wonder why children leave school unable to read. Recently, a professor responsible for these matters said that social mobility in this country is at its lowest level for 40 years, with all the potential problems that implies.
These are huge issues in massive departments, affecting the lives of millions of people every day. We have got much of it badly wrong and done much damage to our national fabric. We need to get it right—if not impossibly perfect, at least much, much better. I am obviously not suggesting, as the title of this debate suggests, that there should be no legislation at all—although I must say I find that prospect extremely tempting—just that it should not be the first tool we reach for. It is a step we should take reluctantly when it has become essential, not eagerly as a matter of policy. We should then take it only after the deepest and most careful consideration, in the conviction that no other routes are available.
Legislation will never produce caring and competent nurses, thoughtful and inspiring teachers, or aspiring pupils and parents. Personal desire, example and careful instruction are surely the best way to achieve these aims. Having created sound systems in our schools and hospitals, we should, while keeping the closest possible eye on standards, trust those responsible to get on with the job, not seek to micromanage through constant legislative tinkering. Gentle, thoughtful improvement is often much more sensible and effective than drastic and dramatic change, and crucially avoids the inevitable upheaval that is always expensive, so upsets people and systems, and often causes more problems than it solves.
As a country, we face so many difficult issues. It is the task of Parliament, not just the Government, to try to resolve them. Your Lordships’ House, with all its accumulated experience, is uniquely placed to help, but the list is a long one: education and, in particular, the serious problems with the NHS are far from resolved; from immigration to population, from energy supplies to an ageing population, and from Hinkley Point to Heathrow Airport and on to HS2. We have to deal with diesel pollution, and, in a rapidly shirking world, we must decide whether we will continue to allow foreign investors to take control of our strategic industries. All this is on top of the day-to-day issues for the economy, unemployment, welfare and so on.
What is important in all these issues is not to rush to legislate, not even to feel the need to make immediate decisions, but to discuss and debate in depth and at length to come to the right decision and carry the country with us. At the same time, every government department should ensure that it is working as well as it can. Any serious shortcomings require the effort and time-consuming task of legislation, rather than internal, departmental management correction.
In conclusion, I am trying to explain my belief in the need for a different approach to legislation—not too radical, but different; a shift that would see less major legislation, all of it better thought-through and all of it, with no exceptions, subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny. Much more time would be spent, particularly in your Lordships’ House, on debating honestly and at length the major issues of the day, with the time we spend on revising legislation being much more proportionate and constructive. I believe this step change in legislative pressure will be of huge benefit to Parliament as a whole, the House of Lords in particular, and the people we serve.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, has done us a great service—I would expect no less from a distinguished former Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons—by focusing attention on legislation and the alternative, which is getting on with the job of running the country. In that respect, I am delighted to be debating once again with my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who has never left office without buying a return ticket. No Government in which his party is involved can really cope without him, and we well understand why. We have worked together in the past, including during the coalition, and I hope he will agree that one of the benefits of the coalition proved to be a degree of extra restraint in some areas of legislation. If you have to get two parties to agree to proceed with a Bill, you have another hurdle over which to climb.
The noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, referred to the size and complexity of the statute book. As chairman of the Justice Committee, I visited the National Archives. It is a wonderful place in that you see all the records that you expect to see, but tucked away in the corner is a small group of people whom I did not know about until I went there. Their job is to know what the law actually is because they are the people who assemble the statutes, statutory instruments, commencement orders and modifying orders. They are probably the only people in the country who really know what the law is and which bits of it are in force at any one time, because it has become so complex.
In some respects we have improved legislative scrutiny to try to prevent some of these problems, but for much of the time it is like trying to climb up a down escalator. Pre-legislative scrutiny by Parliament has brought about a real improvement. Public Bill Committees in the Commons have also offered some significant advantages, and then there is the essential work that this House does on so much legislation.
As a Liberal Democrat, I believe that some degree of restraint is needed when you decide to bring in new laws. By nature, law tends to restrict the individual and therefore you should think twice and have a strong justification for it. You should not bring in laws because you have to be seen to do something. We are entering that rather dangerous season of the party conferences, when Ministers, in particular, feel that they have to throw some meat to the assembled ranks. Out of that come commitments to bring in legislation.
Nor should you legislate as a signal. When I hear laws described as a signal that things have to change, I know that the content of the legislation will probably not be much use at all. It is really just another way of saying that we have to be seen to do something. That is a particular problem in the area of criminal law, where we have so much criminal justice legislation. I will not even bother to go into the statistics—we all know them. Much of that legislation simply makes the task of those in the criminal justice system more difficult by increasing the number of mandatory sentences, for example.
However, I also believe that law is needed for some purposes. It is needed to establish rights and to protect citizens from violence, fraud, abuse of power and environmental or health damage. It is also how we define the structure of governance—for example, how we might reform the House of Lords, which the coalition proved unable to do. That requires changes in the law. Taxation also requires law. It is better to be regulated by law than by the arbitrary use of executive power. There are some countries that delight in not having many laws because the Executive have an enormous capacity to rule by decree, but that is not what we want. Laws are also required to provide a framework for commerce and trade—in the sense of not just commercial companies but private individuals. At the moment I am one of those pressing for the Government to do what they say they want to do when the legislative opportunity arises and provide legislation on the guardianship of the property of missing persons. These detailed matters are often dealt with in Private Members’ Bills, which are important.
However, legislation can be a distraction from vital things such as enforcement by departments, resourcing in departments and the delivery and provision of services—the things that departments really should get on with. There is an elephant in the room, though, and departments will have to stop devising new laws pretty soon. When I listened to the Queen’s Speech, I thought about what version might have been written if the referendum had already been held and gone the way it eventually went. It would go roughly: “My Government will be wholly occupied with bringing forward legislation to implement our exit from the European Union, and no other measures will be laid before you”. That is not too far from the reality, because there will be a gargantuan programme of legislative change, including repeal of the 1972 Act and replacement of the vast range of EU laws which apply directly in this country. If there are things that have to be temporarily retained, there will need to be measures relating to subsequent changes to EU law in areas on which we continue to rely on what was previously EU law.
It is a massive programme, and anyone who wants to know a bit more about it only needs to look at the report from the European Union Committee on withdrawing from the European Union, which records Sir David Edward as saying that the Government,
“would need to enact in law everything that it wanted to keep in law, which is currently either the consequence of the direct effect of the EU Treaties or, for example, the product of a Directive”.
It really is a massive legislative task. Departments are already finding that their civil servants are being borrowed by the Department for Exiting the European Union, whose Ministers now proudly proclaim that they are increasing the size of their bureaucracy all the time, which is not what Conservative Ministers are supposed to say. Not only that, but their time and energy within the department will be involved in reviewing the whole corpus of European law which affects them. It may please the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, that at least there will be some restraint on other laws being brought forward, but it is a bigger block in our system even than that.
What can we do to improve the laws that we do pass? Before we start, we should ask: is there anything this Bill can do that cannot be done at least as well under existing law? That is the primary question we should always ask. Then, is the Bill fit for purpose? Has it been discussed in detail with those whom it will affect and their elected representatives in Parliament? Has it been through pre-legislative scrutiny and other processes that allow it to be examined by people who really know what its impact would be? Has previous law in this area had adequate post-legislative scrutiny and are there any lessons to be learned from that? Has the proposed new law been tested for unintended impact and legislative clarity?
That, of course, is an argument for the quite often canvassed idea of a legislative standards committee, which is not about the substance of law but about whether the law is framed in such a way that it can achieve its intended purpose. When I think about that proposal, I cast my mind back to the late Lord Renton—Sir David Renton—and the committee that I served on with him years ago, which looked at trying to improve the standard and quality of legislation. We have to apply tests like that and recognise that sometimes in this country we rush to legislation when really Governments should simply be doing their job properly.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beith, who started his professional life as a politics lecturer before being deflected by other interests. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Framlingham on raising this important question. I appreciate the sentiment that underpins the question and want to reinforce some of the points advanced by my noble friend and indeed touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Beith.
We certainly need sound administration, but also good legislation. I have some sympathy for the position of Governments, as they are in a situation that they cannot win. If a Government bring forward a full legislative programme for a session, they are criticised for legislating too much and we hear calls for less legislation. If they fail to produce a full legislative programme, they are accused of running out of steam. We have accusations of a “zombie Parliament”, with parliamentarians filling time by debating issues instead of being able to get to grips with legislative measures.
We could well do with less legislation, but better legislation. Governments are too prone to legislate in haste, usually on the basis that “something must be done”, responding to a moral panic by seeking not to educate but to placate. Too much rests on hope or beliefs and not enough on evidence.
I want to follow up on my noble friend’s speech and identify some ways in which we can move forwards to achieving an improvement in the quality of legislation. As has been mentioned, Parliament clearly has a role to play in ensuring effective scrutiny. I too welcome the use of pre-legislative scrutiny. It is a means of ensuring that a Bill is tested prior to the Government becoming too committed to its provisions while allowing for engagement with those outside Parliament who understand or are affected by the measure.
There are problems in terms of the timeframe for such scrutiny and in the fact that pre-legislative scrutiny is not the norm for Bills. When the Constitution Committee undertook its review Parliament and the Legislative Process in 2004, it was envisaged by government that it would become the standard practice. Since then, the number of Bills subject to pre-legislative scrutiny has fluctuated from Session to Session. There was a welcome increase in the last Parliament; I know that is something in which my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham can rightfully take some pride. Indeed, in replying to this debate perhaps my noble friend could give some indication of the Government’s plans for, and commitment to the principle of, pre-legislative scrutiny.
It is an extremely positive development that your Lordships’ House now has a role to play in post-legislative scrutiny. Post-legislative review by departments has been the norm since 2008. I very much welcome that, as it derives from the recommendation of the Constitution Committee’s 2004 report. However, no mechanism was set in place for post-legislative scrutiny by either House. That has changed, with at least one ad hoc committee being appointed in this House each Session to review one or more Acts covering a subject. That scrutiny has proved productive and we should seek to build on it. Post-legislative scrutiny can improve the quality of legislation, in that if a department knows that a measure will be subject to it, it is more likely to focus on ensuring that the provisions are crafted to deliver what is expected of the measure. In short, the measure of success will shift from being Royal Assent to whether it has achieved its purpose. Stipulating how one will know that a measure has been successful will also help to concentrate minds, providing a clear basis for assessment when an Act is scrutinised.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I am persuaded that there is a case for a legislative standards committee to ensure that Bills meet clear standards when introduced. The Leader’s Group on Working Practices recommended in 2011 that such a committee be created. In 2013, the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee identified various standards that could be applied, including that a policy should be well tested, for example through the use of internal and external consultation. I know my noble friend Lord Young will argue that there is in effect such a committee within government: the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, where Bills are checked against certain standards before introduction. However, I fear that that argument is not persuasive in light of some of the Bills that have been brought forward in recent years.
There is much that both Houses can do to ensure that legislation is improved but the fundamental challenge lies with government. Parties tend to out-promise one another at elections and believe that problems can be solved by legislating them away. We are in danger of moving towards measures that impose obligations that are essentially aspirational—“By such and such a date, sin must be eradicated”—and without any attendant penalties. They do not keep to the Cabinet Office’s own guidelines, a point that my noble friend touched upon. They seek to take action but in a way that is not appropriate to legislative propositions. Like my noble friend, I shall quote the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation. It states at paragraph 10.9:
“It can sometimes be tempting to ask the drafter to prepare a provision that is not intended to change the law but is instead designed to serve some political purpose or to explain or emphasise an existing law. However, non-legislative provisions of this sort are likely to go wrong because the courts will be inclined to attribute legal effect to them on the grounds that that Parliament does not legislate unnecessarily—and the legal effect attributed may be one the Government could not have predicted”.
What is needed is a culture shift in government so that legislation, as my noble friend has already said, is seen as a last resort, not as a useful political tool for giving the impression that something is being done. In the long term, the use of legislation for this purpose undermines the impact of legislation.
I fear that the defence that the number of Bills introduced by government has not increased in recent years will not work. It is the volume of legislation that counts, and that applies to primary and secondary legislation. Nor is the defence open to government that the quality of legislation is improving. That is belied by looking at some of the Acts that have made it on to the statute book in recent years. Tomorrow we shall be debating a Private Member’s Bill designed to correct some of the failings of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. That is a prime example of how not to legislate. Part 1 is supposedly to do with transparency of lobbying. If the short titles of Acts of Parliament were subject to the Trade Descriptions Act, the Government would not have a leg to stand on. The 2014 Act is not concerned with lobbying—it focuses on the person, the lobbyist, and not the activity—and does nothing to enhance transparency.
On the face of it, the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation is a model of best practice, but it comes up against Ministers wanting to get their big Bills on to the statute book and against successive Governments wanting to be seen to be taking action. As has been touched upon, my noble friend Lord Young has gone from poacher to gamekeeper—I estimate four times—in his distinguished parliamentary career. He is ideally placed to recognise the scale of the problem, so I look forward to him telling us what the Government are doing to achieve that essential culture shift and to produce not more but better legislation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and stimulating debate. I must admit, I made some notes before I came in but I wanted to hear the debate first before deciding in what direction to take some of my comments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, who has done the Committee a service today. He has focused our minds on an issue which goes right to the heart of what we do. It feels slightly odd to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, to his new responsibilities in government. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, described him as a poacher turned gamekeeper, but I always thought that the life of a Minister was more that of the quarry in many ways, so perhaps he has gone from poacher to gamekeeper and then, as Minister, back to being the quarry. However, I hope he will not feel that in this debate.
We understand that we are part of the legislature. Our role is different from that of the House of Commons, and as an unelected House it is rightly both constrained and specific. We are a scrutinising and revising Chamber. The proposal today is not to be taken literally—it would be a big leap to go from too much legislation to no legislation—but it is a mechanism to allow the experience in this House to consider the basic principles of why we legislate and how we can do it better. We have heard some of those principles already: we should legislate with care; we should bring in new legislation only if Parliament also ensures that there are the means to enforce it; and we should take post-legislative scrutiny far more seriously.
It is understandable that any potential Government set out the legislative programme on which they seek to be elected. Once elected, there is a duty on that Government to implement the commitments in that manifesto in the lifetime of the Parliament. It is the nature of the political system that new Governments have new programmes. I was interested in the list of legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, referred to. I felt that he did not like the Labour Government’s legislation. Fox hunting and the death penalty are two causes particularly dear to my heart. He mentioned those as things that perhaps we should not have done. They would be at the top of my list of things that should be done. That is the nature of the political system: different parties will have different policies, which by nature will be contradictory. Obviously, some will have a higher priority than others, and issues will come along. Circumstances can change and make legislation in the manifesto more or less desirable, but there is also the matter that all noble Lords have referred to, which is that issues will arise and a response is needed. That response too often becomes a legislative response. “Legislate in haste and repent at leisure” might be worth adopting in this regard.
When looking at the amount of legislation, we have to look at both primary legislation and secondary legislation. Part of the picture is the number of Bills and the amount of delegated legislation, but that is only part of the picture; as we have heard, it is also its complexity. The noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, referred to “Christmas tree Bills”. There are not baubles and presents on those Bills. It seems to me that “kitchen sink Bills” might be a more appropriate term for them. It seems that as a Bill progresses through Parliament, more and more things are thrown into it. I remember dealing with the Immigration Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill, which got bigger and bigger—like snowballs rolling down a hill picking up more and more as they went along. That does not work. It also undermines scrutiny as things are introduced later.
We have not really talked about the use of secondary legislation and its complexity. Tax credits are a good example. Whether we consider that the Government were technically correct to bring the SI forward or were even wise to use an SI for that issue, there is no doubt that a controversial policy matter was brought to Parliament through a statutory instrument. We are seeing that now in primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, quoted the Cabinet Office guidance on politically important Bills, which might not have been addressed in detail before they being introduced to the House. The Childcare Bill was in effect only a framework Bill. It lacked detail. It was a very cavalier approach.
It strikes me that perhaps that is sometimes one of the problems of a Lords starter. Governments always use Lords starters for the most non-controversial Bills, but because a Bill is non-controversial in its principle does not mean we will not want to look at the detail to ensure that the Bill carries out the policy intention that has been announced. The problem with the Childcare Bill was that it was thought it could be started in the House of Lords as it was not controversial, yet the lack of detail was embarrassing. There was no financial information, and we could not be confident that the detail supported the policy objective. There have been other examples in this Session. The Children and Social Work Bill and the Buses Bill have far too many pieces of secondary legislation attached to them, 20 or 30 pieces in both cases, and as we go down the line, we will see more.
We have heard some suggestions about the way forward. All legislation needs great clarity of purpose at the very beginning. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Young, will also recognise that we need to be careful about Ministers coming back from Cabinet meetings boasting about how much parliamentary time they have got for legislation as a mark of honour.
We should also look at how much legislation is not properly enforced. There have been no prosecutions under the FGM legislation. So often now the police are telling us that they cannot implement or enforce certain laws. As there is so much legislation, they do not have the resources to implement it. We have ended up in a position where other agencies are making decisions about which laws to implement and which to not. That has been taken away from Parliament. Does that mean we have too much legislation? It may, in some cases, but it may just mean that we are passing legislation without ensuring that we have the means or resources to enforce it.
My final point is about the adequacy of post-legislative scrutiny. Once legislation is passed by Parliament, there is no automatic, systematic, effective mechanism to monitor its effectiveness. That might deal with some of the issues about how much legislation we have. It could be done through a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. I am not really fussed about the mechanism, but we have to address the issue and look much more seriously at post-legislative scrutiny.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Framlingham on giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject. The bait that he put on the hook may not have attracted very many fish, but it has attracted some very big fish. It has been a good debate with sound advice and recommendations for Governments of all complexions. I am grateful for the kind words that people have said about me personally. I feel like one of those fireworks that everyone thinks has gone out, and you are about to pick it up and throw it away when suddenly it bursts into flame before finally expiring.
Putting this debate in context, legislation is an important function of Parliament but not the only one. There is the key function of holding the Government to account and debating the important issues of the day. In the time that I have been in Parliament, there has been a shift in the centre of gravity away from legislation on the Floors of the Houses towards scrutiny by the Select Committees. I am sure that that is a process which my noble friend would welcome. I recall that in a recent debate my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth noted that Parliament is now arguably at its strongest in modern political history in scrutinising the Executive.
I have enormous sympathy with the proposition that my noble friend has put forward: that there should be reluctance before we legislate and we should do it only when there is no other route. During my time as Leader in another place, I chaired the Cabinet sub-committee responsible for the legislative programme, the PBL, which meant overseeing the process of drawing up the programme of Bills. I can assure my noble friend that under any Government the demand for legislation exceeds the capacity, and it may please him to know that many government Ministers went away empty-handed when they were told there was no slot in the legislative programme for their ambitious social reforms. Part of the job was to ensure not just that the Bills were in good shape but that the totality of the Bills in the programme was commensurate with the capacity of Parliament to scrutinise it.
Government departments have to go through a fairly rigorous process before they are given access to primary legislation; it is a bidding process and quite competitive. One of the things that business managers always do is push back to see whether a policy can be delivered without resorting to legislation, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. During my time as Leader of the House in the other place, we were able to sift out a large number of prospective Bills with that particular challenge.
The Government are of course responsible for a lot of the demand for new legislation, but there are others. Our statute book stretches back to the 11th century, so we have inherited quite a lot. Ministers are lobbied on a daily basis to reform different aspects of the law. Indeed, we need look only at your Lordships’ House where 51 noble Lords have sought a place in the ballot for their own Bills, some of which are to be debated tomorrow. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, a Finance Bill is required each year to prevent certain taxes from lapsing, and quite often we need emergency legislation to respond to events such as in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, eloquently made the case for a measure of legislation.
However, we also need legislation to achieve the changes set out in a party manifesto. This Government have already legislated for several manifesto commitments. Sound administration, which is mentioned in the second half of my noble friend’s Question, in itself requires good, relevant legislation to underpin it. Indeed, in some cases legislation can be deregulatory or can simply consolidate and simplify existing legislation. The Deregulation Act 2015, for example, contained a wide range of measures to relieve unnecessary burdens on public authorities, or the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016 which will improve administration by pushing back on overcentralisation—I am sure my noble friend will welcome those particular pieces of legislation. On top of that, we have regular legislation from the law commissions to update and tidy the statute book.
I know that some of your Lordships have concerns about the quantity of government legislation. That was one of the themes of the excellent debate we had on 9 June when we went around some of this course. I reassure noble Lords that legislation has actually decreased in recent years. Only about 750 statutory instruments were laid in the last Session, fewer than in any other Session since 1997. The average since 1997 is nearly double that, at 1,315. Over the whole of the last Parliament, fewer statutory instruments were laid than in any Parliament since 1997, and of course the last Parliament, unlike most of its predecessors, ran for a full five years. It is a similar story for primary legislation. Twenty-six government Bills were introduced in the previous Session compared with an average of 35 since 1997. The previous Parliament saw fewer government Bills introduced than in any Parliament since 1997—again, despite its longer than average length.
In my experience, as has been said in the debate, Governments are criticised either for legislating too much or for not bringing forward enough legislation, and indeed we had accusations of a zombie Parliament at the tail end of the previous Parliament. From a business manager’s point of view, with fixed-term Parliaments and five equal Sessions, it should prove easier to plan the legislative programme as we move forward rather than worrying that the Prime Minister will push the button after three and a half years and you have to get everything through quickly. However, we also have to be prepared for extra legislation, as we have seen in the wake of the EU referendum, and I will come on to that in a moment.
My noble friend is right to point out that it is important that as well as passing legislation, we continue to deliver good policy. This Government are committed to ensuring that we maintain the right balance between developing new policy and delivering it effectively. Within government and alongside Cabinet committees, the implementation task forces monitor progress on implementing existing policies. The Government also track delivery of progress on their priorities through the single departmental plans. These set out each department’s priority objectives, the key programmes and policies that will deliver them and the metrics by which performance can be measured. These show the importance that the Government attach to ensuring good policy rather than simply reaching for yet another change to the statute book.
The Select Committees—not least the Public Accounts Committee—also have a key role in monitoring existing policies, and I will return to that in a moment. We also have a regulatory policy that requires the equivalent of £3 of regulatory burden on business to be lifted for every £1 of new burdens imposed. That is independently audited and the Government have set a target of lifting £10 billion-worth of burden by 2020.
I shall try to deal with some of the points raised during this interesting debate. I mentioned the number of Bills, but I may have heard someone ask about the number of pages. While the number of Bills and statutory instruments may have dropped, it is asserted that the number of pages has increased. That was true up until 2010, but again in the previous Parliament the number of pages of primary legislation was lower than in any of the three previous Parliaments. Between 1997 and 2010, on average more than 3,000 pages of primary legislation were introduced per year, but between 2010 and 2015, the figure fell to fewer than 2,650.
My noble friend Lord Framlingham made a point about scheduling Bills. It is indeed the case that when he was in another place, in the 2005-10 Parliament, there was regular guillotining of Bills and inadequate time was left. In the 2010 Parliament, it changed. All credit to the Opposition as well as the Government for making that change. Nowadays, programme Motions are increasingly agreed by discussion through the usual channels and it is relatively unusual, although not totally exceptional, for the programme Motion to be voted against because of that discussion. That may not automatically guarantee that there is enough time for debate in Committee, but it shows that a genuine attempt is being made to ensure adequate time.
I think that lessons can be learned from the Housing and Planning Bill, but it is worth making the point that in the first Session of a Parliament there is less opportunity to deal with Bills in draft. The nature of the coalition was such that no one party could pursue its individual policy through the Civil Service, so the first Session was different.
I agree with everything that has been said about the virtues of draft legislation and pre-legislative scrutiny. We are committed to publishing Bills in draft where possible. Examples before the House at the moment are the Investigatory Powers Bill and the draft Wales Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Beith, said quite rightly that the coalition imposed a slightly finer sieve through which legislative proposals had to pass. That was certainly the case and it took slightly more time to develop policy because of the coalition.
The noble Lord asked about the impact of the decision to exit the European Union. All I can say is that, in preparation for the negotiations to leave the EU, the Government are undertaking work across a range of areas, including with their legal teams, to establish how best to deliver the Government’s objectives. That covers the issue that the noble Lord raised about separating domestic law from EU law.
I entirely agree with what has been said about the importance of post-legislative scrutiny. Each government department produces a memo on Acts five years after Royal Assent, which is then passed to the House of Commons but, with relatively few exceptions, the Select Committees have other priorities and most memos have not been scrutinised by Parliament. It is not the fault of the Government, to that extent, that there has not been post-legislative scrutiny; it is simply that Select Committees—for very good reasons, possibly—have other priorities than looking at those reports.
In conclusion, my noble friend has raised an important question, one that Governments grapple with every day, and there is a balance to be struck. Of course, we should not seek endlessly to change the law without stopping to consider whether the current law is working or looking at the impact that there would be on business or civil society. But legislation is often needed simply to make the changes that the people elected this Government to enact. It does not have to and it should not come at the expense of sound administration— on the contrary. It can support and enable effective government.
I heed the warning from my noble friend that we should be mindful about the amount of legislation that we bring forward. I hope he will be comforted that the overall numbers have decreased under a Conservative Government. The lesson that I will take away from this debate is that of the three words used by my noble friend Lord Norton: “Less, but better”. I thank my noble friend and others who have spoken in this valuable debate.
House of Lords
Brexit: Belfast Agreement
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rana, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the future of the Belfast agreement is not, and never has been, in question. The UK’s exit from the EU does not change the commitment of the UK Government and the people of Northern Ireland to the Belfast agreement, its successors and the institutions that they establish. The Government will make a success of the UK’s exit from the EU and continue to build a brighter, more secure future for Northern Ireland.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, the Minister is aware that Northern Ireland has a border with another EU country. Under the Belfast agreement, most people living in Northern Ireland are entitled to dual citizenship. Many people already carry Irish passports and, since the referendum, many more—including unionists—have applied for Irish passports to protect their status as EU citizens. Can the Minister explain how the Government will work to secure the retention of EU citizens’ rights, including the free movement of goods and people across the Irish border? Does he agree with me that this is a unique situation affecting 1.8 million people and can he explain how Brexit affects them?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord quite rightly points out the important rights afforded to the people of Northern Ireland under the Belfast agreement. Let me reaffirm that there is nothing in the outcome of the referendum that undermines the Government’s rock-solid commitment to that agreement and its successors. The Government recognise the very real benefits of the common travel area; the open border for people and businesses has served us well. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been very clear that it is an absolute priority for him that we,
“do not … see a return to the borders of the past”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/16; col. 815.]
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the Belfast agreement is not just an internal agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland but an international treaty between two sovereign states of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland? As such, can he tell us whether it is lodged with the European Union and, if so, what implications would the withdrawal of one of the parties from the European Union have on the status of that international treaty?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It is true what the noble Lord says: it is an interrelated agreement—it is power sharing for Northern Ireland and it is quite a complicated agreement, but there is no reason to suggest that the outcome of the referendum means that the agreement needs to be revisited. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord on that. The UK Government, Irish Government and Northern Ireland political parties are fully committed to upholding the agreement and its successors.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Republic of Ireland has shown some interest recently in associate membership of the Commonwealth? Do Her Majesty’s Government consider that this could be useful in resolving some of the border problems which are being discussed? If so, will the Government consider pressing the Commonwealth authorities to develop the relationship with the Republic of Ireland which is already blossoming quite strongly?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
This is a helpful comment from my noble friend. I know that the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has hit the ground running, if I may put it that way. He has been meeting a variety of parties to ensure that he gets into his new role. I will pass that message on.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, several Ministers have repeatedly stated that our land frontier with the European Union will not be a hard border. What discussions have the Government had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to determine the exact nature of this, our only land border?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It is clearly a priority and I can reassure the noble Lord that discussions are already taking place. There is—and always has been—a strong will to preserve the common travel area and to ensure that we do not have a hard border. This is what the Government are working towards.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, is not the problem that this is the first time in history that Northern Ireland and the Republic will be on opposite sides of a European border? They joined together in 1973; although the common travel area has been in existence since the early 1920s, there were tough security controls and border checks during the Troubles. Is it not unthinkable that, in an era of mass refugee migration and jihadi terrorism, the only land border between the UK and the EU would be completely open?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The point is well made by the noble Lord, who has much experience in this particular area. I want to reassure him that this is very much at the top of the agenda. On the one hand, we want to have a soft, not a hard border. At the same time, all parties are well aware of the security issues and of people passing to and fro.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, the Belfast agreement gives encouragement to the use of European Union resources in Northern Ireland—and across the island of Ireland as a whole. Presently, £3.5 billion is scheduled to be spent between 2014 and 2020 for peace, INTERREG, rural development and agricultural support. What comfort can the Minister give that these resources, planned to be available for the entire period of the 2014-2020 programmes, can be honoured?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The first thing to say to reassure the noble Lord is that the UK will continue to have all the rights, obligations and benefits that membership brings—including receiving European funding—up to the point at which we leave the EU. We recognise that many organisations across the UK which are in receipt of EU funding, or expect to start receiving it, want reassurance about this. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has confirmed that structural investment funds projects, signed before the Autumn Statement, and the Horizon research funding that has been granted, will be guaranteed.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, as someone involved in the negotiations of the Belfast agreement, can I ask the Minister whether the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights is a requirement in the Belfast agreement? Secondly, since there are now more people from Poland than from the Republic of Ireland living in Northern Ireland, will both those with Irish passports and those with Polish passports be guaranteed their future in Northern Ireland after Brexit?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can only repeat what I said in my first Answer which is that the Belfast agreement remains intact and we do not envisage any changes.
Employment: Remuneration
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to address the gap between the remuneration of senior executives and their employees.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
We intend to publish a consultation document later this year which will set out a range of options for improving corporate governance, including measures to strengthen the way executive pay is set and reported. This follows on, and is in line with, the Prime Minister’s statements on this important subject.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for her reply. I wonder whether she has read the report published last week by the High Pay Centre written by Chris Philp, the Conservative Member for Croydon South, which makes a number of recommendations, including requiring firms to create a shareholder committee with the power to ratify pay packages comprised of shareholders with longer-term holdings in the company. Will these proposals be part of the consultation that will be published?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I have not yet read the report, although I know that it was discussed in the House and I think it makes a very useful contribution. As I see it, that idea is in the mix of what we will consult on. The underlying objective is to make shareholders exercise much better oversight over company decision-making. The changes that we will be looking at, and indeed prior reforms, have been directed at this objective—some with more success than others.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend know that many of the big institutions contract out their voting to other organisations at company AGMs? Is not the key to ensuring that remuneration is brought under proper control that those institutional shareholders exercise their rights and that the Government change the rules so that votes on executive pay at shareholder meetings are binding on boards?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My noble friend makes a very good point about voting. I am glad to say that one of the options we will be looking at is binding votes, for the reasons that he says.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, it seems to me that the problem is that companies benchmark their executive pay against other companies in the marketplace. Does the Minister agree that a more diverse range of company models in the marketplace, such as mutuals where workers are also shareholders, would bring a greater sense of proportion to executive pay and have a stabilising effect on pay in the marketplace generally?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Baroness is right that there is a place for comparisons, although, as somebody who sat on a number of boards, I actually think that one needs to look at the overall position and in relation to the wider workforce. That is something that we will certainly look at as part of the consultation that we will publish, because some of this stuff is complicated and we need to make sure that we talk to people on the detail.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend referred to the importance of increasing shareholder power. Is she aware that individual shareholders in particular are increasingly under pressure to hold their shares through nominees? The nominee holder is not required to send on information to the individual shareholder about the company in which he or she has a holding. They are therefore disenfranchised. Would it not be a good idea to make a simple legal change which would require nominee companies to enfranchise and inform the people who actually hold the shares?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My noble friend, as always, brings unusual insights to the debate. It sounds as though this is a point that he and I should discuss further, because clearly we want to make sure that shareholders are exercising the oversight that we all want.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, there is an irony in this Question being answered today, in that later today we will consider a statutory instrument which makes a welcome increase to the national minimum wage by the order of 25p per hour. An earlier report by the High Pay Centre, which is a cross-party initiative, reported that FTSE 100 CEOs had just enjoyed a 10% pay increase to over £5.1 million per annum on average in the last year. Can I press the Minister a little further on what will be in the consultation? She mentioned a number of things, but the Prime Minister’s comments, to which I think the noble Baroness referred, are that she would like to see not just consumers represented on company boards but employees as well, and she wants to see more transparency on pay, including making shareholder votes on corporate pay not just advisory but binding. Will the noble Baroness confirm that?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We are looking at the precise wording of the consultation document, but the idea is to explore the various ideas that the Prime Minister set out so eloquently in this area. That would include binding votes, employee representation, which I am aware of because I used to sit on a German board—it has pluses and minuses—and, of course, full disclosure of bonus arrangements.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that it might help to bring a different dimension to these discussions if, occasionally, we referred not to the “shareholders” but to the “owners” of businesses and not to the “executives” but to the “hirelings” who operate on behalf of the owners?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friend for his interesting and provocative remark.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
Is there not also a deeper problem, which is that many of these remuneration packages of senior executives are geared towards profit targets in various ways? The quickest and easiest way of doing this is to axe the visionary research and development programmes in order to increase the bottom line temporarily to get their rewards. As a result, some of our larger companies are suffering from, I would say, a lack of vision, expansion and innovation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Earl knows that I share his passion for innovation and R&D. I believe we need a governance framework that ensures a good sense of strategy and long-term planning, and that helps to encourage innovation and R&D.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
Some companies publish a ratio between the top salaries and the bottom salaries. As part of the Government’s consultation, are they going to seek some kind of standard—some kind of ideal ratio—for this sort of thing?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As the noble Lord will know, the devil is in the detail in these matters. Certainly however, requiring the publication of the ratio between the CEO’s pay and the relevant average is something we will be looking at. That is coming in in the United States in 2017, as he will know. We need to learn from that experience and, as I have said, try through our consultation to come to the right changes in this important area.
Zimbabwe
Lord Oates
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance they provide to United Kingdom financial institutions regarding the provision of bailout funds to the government of Zimbabwe.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, there is no bailout for the Zimbabwean Government and no British taxpayer money is used to fund that Government. The Government of Zimbabwe are in discussion with private sector banks to arrange a financial package to clear their debt arrears to the international financial institutions. We do not provide specific guidance about the provision of funds to Zimbabwe, but if asked, we would discuss the situation, highlighting the financial and political risks of operating in Zimbabwe.
Lord Oates (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. She will be aware of the deep disquiet among people in Zimbabwe at the news that the British embassy in Harare had facilitated a meeting this year between the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, chairman of Lazard International, and Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa. I am sure the Minister will recognise that the provision of any bailout funds to the ZANU-PF regime in Zimbabwe will only prolong the misery and suffering of the Zimbabwean people. It will inevitably be used to fund the salaries of the Zimbabwean armed forces and the Zimbabwe Republic Police force—salaries which are overdue at present. These are the very organs of state that are currently in violation of the constitution of Zimbabwe, in defiance of the orders of the High Court of Zimbabwe and committing gross human rights abuses against the people of Zimbabwe. Will the Minister therefore give an unambiguous statement to this House, and more importantly to the ZANU-PF regime, that we as a people and a Government will oppose any further funds to the Zimbabwean Government until they have demonstrated a sustained adherence to the constitution of Zimbabwe and an end to the gross human rights abuses of the people of Zimbabwe?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for his extensive observation. He makes an important point. There are justifiable concerns about human rights, governance and the political system in Zimbabwe. I reassure him that the British Government persistently and resolutely make representations to the Zimbabwean Government about our concerns, asking that the rule of law be observed and that democratic rights be respected. I should point out to the noble Lord that we have an ambassadorial presence in Harare, and that is very important. It is a necessary diplomatic conduit for the work that the British Government do—not in funding the Zimbabwean Government but, for example, in providing invaluable help for infrastructure projects by working with implementing partners and NGOs. However, at the end of the day, what other financial institutions choose to do with a foreign Government is not really under the control of the British Government.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, one thing that is clear is that the human rights situation in Zimbabwe is getting worse. There is a lot that the United Kingdom Government can do, particularly in terms of sanctions against individuals, which they currently impose on the President of Zimbabwe. Can the noble Baroness explain why the Finance Minister, Mr Chinamasa, has had that embargo removed? Why are we not exerting more leverage and using the authority that we have now to restore human rights?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord makes an important point about human rights. We consider the human rights situation to be stable but fragile, and, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, we will continue to raise concerns about individual cases. We monitor the situation closely and are able to do so because of our embassy in Harare. We regularly call, both bilaterally and in partnership with EU member states, for an end to all abuses and for the restoration of internationally accepted human rights standards. In relation to sanctions, I reassure the noble Lord that there is an arms embargo against Zimbabwe and active sanctions against President Mugabe and his wife, Grace. That extends to travel bans and all financial dealings, and their assets in the EU are frozen.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, with the rapidly deteriorating macroeconomic situation in Zimbabwe and the growing social unrest, what can Her Majesty’s Government do to support much-needed reforms? More specifically, to what degree are the Government of Zimbabwe genuine in their re-engagement with the West? Does the Minister agree that any financial support to Zimbabwe should be tied to radical reforms in the country?
Baroness Goldie
On the general front, in relation to Zimbabwe’s indebtedness to the World Bank, the UK is party to that organisation and we have made it clear that the indebtedness must be cleared. However, that will not of itself trigger a resumption of relations. We have made it clear that there has to be progress on the very type of reforms to which I alluded earlier. We are endeavouring to support the people of Zimbabwe, who are vulnerable and in a fragile condition. I referred earlier to some of the support that the British Government have been able to provide. We have been able to provide food security for over 1 million people; we have been able to help hundreds of thousands of children to attend primary school; we have been able to assist with clean water and sanitation projects; and we have been helping to reduce the maternal mortality ratio. Those are all moves that we achieve and on which we make progress not by dealing directly with the Zimbabwean Government but by using our implementing partners and other agencies to deliver help to the very people who need support but currently do not get it from their own Government.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, when the time comes, but not before that time, will the Government encourage the Commonwealth authorities and the Commonwealth Secretariat to consider welcoming Zimbabwe back into the Commonwealth family of nations?
Baroness Goldie
My noble friend’s aspiration is positive. Ultimately, there would be a desire to do that but the Zimbabwean Government would have to achieve a very great deal before we were able to enter into a more formal relationship. There is an overdue need for serious fundamental reform. We have to have evidence that the Government in Zimbabwe are themselves serious about addressing these reforms, and we need to see visible and tangible evidence of that before any further relationship can be contemplated.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the original point of this Question. I myself have benefited from facilitation by our embassies and missions abroad, as many other Members of the House of Lords may have done. However, does she not accept that there was a slight error of judgment on the part of our high commissioner in Zimbabwe in facilitating a well-known lobbying group to carry out business on behalf of a financial institution with a Government who are legendary only for their human rights abuses and deep financial corruption?
Baroness Goldie
If the noble Baroness is alluding to the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, to the visit by the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, I should make it clear that the noble Lord visited Zimbabwe in a personal capacity in February of this year. He had been in a private engagement in South Africa. He simply asked the British Government if he could be helpful in promoting their objectives in Zimbabwe and, given his experience, our Government said that he could reinforce the case for reform, which I think is what we all want to see. To that end, the British embassy in Harare facilitated the meeting, which was attended by the British ambassador. It was constructive and focused on the need for economic and rule-of-law reforms. That is precisely the kind of dialogue that is essential if we are to see any progress made.
Brexit: Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
To ask Her Majesty’s Government at what stage or stages of the European Union exit negotiations the requirements of Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 will be fulfilled.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, the precise timing, terms and means by which we leave the European Union will be determined by the negotiations that follow the triggering of Article 50. We will observe in full all relevant legal and constitutional obligations that apply.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister recognised, we are now in some confusion over sovereignty—Bernard Jenkin and others suggest that we can abrogate the limits on external sovereignty and ignore international law. The Minister is too young to remember Margaret Thatcher’s remarks against moving from parliamentary to popular sovereignty, but we are clearly moving away a little. The Government have suggested that we can move towards exerting Article 50 by prerogative sovereignty. Executive sovereignty and popular sovereignty take us a long way away from parliamentary sovereignty, which the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act was intended to strengthen. Can we have a reassurance from the Government that the rules of that Act will be followed very closely as the Government move towards treaty renegotiation?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I think I got that question, and I thank the noble Lord for it. The Government are very clear about the obligations of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which states clearly that both Houses of Parliament have a role in approving treaties as set out in the Act. As I said in my first statement, we will observe in full all relevant legal and constitutional obligations that apply.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, leaving the EU is not a simple step outside but a journey. The Government need to set objectives for their negotiations to get the best deal for what comes after we leave. They need a clear map of the hurdles, the challenges and indeed the opportunities, as well as the ways of handling emerging issues. It is vital that Parliament and, through us, the public are engaged with this every step of the way as to how we leave the EU and our relationships afterwards. Will the Government commit to ensuring that level of engagement throughout the process, so that any final vote that may happen would be on the basis of a developing consensus?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I welcome the noble Baroness to her position. I look forward very much to the conversations that we are bound to have over the weeks and months ahead. I repeat what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said and I repeated in this House on Monday, that,
“we are determined to build a national consensus”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/9/16; cols. 879.]
In doing that, we need to involve this House and the other place and to have as much scrutiny and consultation as possible. I also thank the European Union Committee for its excellent report Scrutinising Brexit: The Role of Parliament, which came out in July. In paragraph 21, it said:
“It is clear, therefore, that parliamentary scrutiny of the negotiations will have to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the desire for transparency, and on the other, the need to avoid undermining the UK’s negotiating position. We note that parliamentary scrutiny has shown itself, in practice, to be highly flexible”.
I am sure that noble Lords may have mechanisms for how we might achieve that in such a way as to address the points that the noble Baroness made.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, there is nothing more irritating on a journey than having people in the back seat saying, “Are we nearly there yet?”. I welcome the positive statement by the noble Baroness, but if we are to embark on a journey, would it also be helpful to not have people constantly trying to make us do a U-turn?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord is right. I am reminded about this tendency by my seven year-old twins every time we get in the car. I repeat that I totally understand and sympathise with what the noble Baroness is saying about the need to provide the appropriate level of scrutiny. However, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the other place yesterday, we cannot provide a running commentary. It is very important that we strike a balance between informing, engaging and consulting while also protecting the national interest.
Lord Myners
The noble Lord is renowned for his courtesy and therefore I could anticipate his response.
Does the Minister believe that it is possible for us to leave the European Union without a parliamentary vote?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, as I said, we are determined to follow the constitutional obligations that apply. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on Monday, the aspects of the European Communities Act 1972 that are required to be repealed and the aspects of the acquis communautaire that need to be carried into British law are important joint issues that have to be decided. Once we have got to the point of deciding what we need to do in that regard, we will come back to the House at the first possible opportunity.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, further to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, does the Minister agree that if one is going on a journey it is important to know the destination? Will he pluck up his courage and say to the Prime Minister that her accountability to Parliament should not be described as a running commentary?
Lord Bridges of Headley
That is not how my right honourable friend’s comment should be perceived. Brexit means leaving the European Union, as we said on Monday.
Business of the House
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 13 September to enable the Finance Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
Business of the House
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debate on the motion in the name of Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town set down for today shall be limited to 3 hours and that in the name of Viscount Hanworth to 2 hours.
Civil Society and Lobbying
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
That this House takes note of the role that charities, trade unions and civil society groupings play in a democracy, including the provision of advice and information to government, and of the case for regulating lobbying activities, including those undertaken by business and private interests.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I notice that after this debate there will be a “Statement on grammer schools”—spelt with an “er”. Oh, it has been changed to an “ar”—congratulations. I wondered whether it referred to “crammer” schools.
I am delighted to open this debate, during which I predict we will hear amazing stories of the brilliant work done by charities, large and small, local and national, which form part of the rich tapestry of civic life. Britain is well known for the Olympics, the Paralympics, warm beer, cricket, football, weather and the Royal Family, but also for our charities and a major political party having been created by voluntary organisations—that is, the trade unions—which represented manual workers at a time when they had no voice in Parliament. Indeed, well before the unions established the Labour Party, they were lobbying on behalf of their members, their families and their communities.
Likewise, charities have transformed society, often driven by extraordinary individuals such as Lord Rix, whose death we recorded so sadly on Monday, who not only ensured that support was available to families but also campaigned on their behalf. He was a shining example of where not only the individual’s own experience but organisations representing such groups give voice to their beneficiaries.
However, despite the role that charities played in providing education, health, pensions and insurance—before the state took responsibility—and despite the testimony of your Lordships about the current work of charities, the Government have sought to clip the wings of charities, and of government-funded independent organisations such as universities, by restricting their ability to share their expertise with decision-makers, be that Government or Parliament. They similarly set out to curtail trade unions by undermining their funding.
What is extraordinary is that, even as they sought to hamper charities’ efforts on behalf of clients, the Government did nothing to increase transparency or lobbying by big business. Neither commercial interests nor the media are constrained in their attempts to influence government, while charities experience a “chilling” effect on their duty to speak on behalf of beneficiaries, as I am sure we will shortly hear from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries.
I am not against legitimate lobbying by industry. Businesses need to thrive and they are helped in that by having understanding of legislative, trade and financial frameworks. However, that lobbying should be open, transparent and regulated, particularly where it may be about international interests gaining secret access to government. However, despite David Cameron’s warning that lobbying was the next scandal waiting to happen, his Government’s so-called register of lobbyists actually omits lobbying by in-house public affairs departments and it ignores lobbying of senior civil servants, Peers, MPs and even chairs of Select Committees completely. We will return to this tomorrow when we debate the lobbying Bill of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.
The issue today is how to promote, encourage and enhance the ability of those without access to power, influence or big money to get their voice heard in our democracy. The Government do not seem to share that objective. Their lobbying and transparency Act left the private sector well alone, even as it tied up charities in red tape and served to chill their work. This was quite unnecessary, given that the combined third sector campaign spend in 2015, at below £2 million, was under 5% of the parties’ spend and probably less than the cost of recording and regulating it.
We will also hear shortly from the noble lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, whose own review of that Act concluded it did not have the right balance with regard to charities’ activities and had produced a “chilling effect” on these. As if the Act had not clipped charities’ wings enough, the Charity Commission then warned them off from becoming involved in the EU referendum. Even that was capped when the Cabinet Office proposed that any independent organisation in receipt of public money should not use it to inform or advise Government or, indeed, even the European Union. No academic would be able to give evidence to a Select Committee. No safety charity would be able to work for better EU regulations. No adoption and fostering charity would be able to advise the Government on better legislation or policy to achieve the Government’s own aim of speeding up such processes.
As the animal welfare charities wrote to us,
“We are closest to the issues. Every day, we see the impact of a lack of education and of the mistreatment of animals. It is essential for the quality of public policy that, as the experts in our field, we can shine a spotlight on emerging issues that have not yet been picked up by policy makers. Evidence based on the frontline experience of charities such as ours is an absolutely indispensable part of effective policy development”.
Historic England, the National Trust, Coram, which helps vulnerable children, Save the Children, which works in conflict zones, and charities demining in former war zones or preventing HIV/AIDS all have expert advice to proffer but are threatened with silence by the Government. Sensibly, that particular nonsense has been set aside, but it is against a background of pressure on any charity with public funding to hold its tongue, even when it seeks to further its objective and help beneficiaries.
Civil Exchange, in its review of the voluntary sector in 2016, felt forced to title its report Independence in Question after detailing numerous attacks on the ability of independent organisations to speak out on behalf of beneficiaries—not only the no-advocacy clauses in grant agreements but a flagrant disregard of the compact agreement signed with the voluntary sector, which promised to respect and uphold the independence of civil society organisations to deliver their missions, including their right to campaign regardless of any financial relationship. When the Refugee Council faced a no-advocacy clause in contracts, its CEO protested that it was,
“axiomatic … that any independent service provider should be free to speak out, without fear or favour”.
The head of Nia, a charity working to counter violence against women, said:
“Increasingly, state funding is driving us into a narrow service delivery role … required to act as an arm of the state rather than as an independent NGO”.
Indeed, some charities fear that mission is following money, rather than the other way round, while the Government dictated that housing associations sell off some of their properties, regardless of the long-term needs and underlying missions of those charities.
The value of trade unions from the 19th century was not just in representing workers vis-à-vis employers but in speaking up for workers and their families within the political sphere, leading to the factory Acts, the ending of child labour, free school meals, compulsory education, old-age pensions and unadulterated food and drink. So it is with charities. They do not simply relieve poverty, important though that is; they seek to prevent it and to give voice to the voiceless—be those children here or abroad, in war zones or in famine areas—drawing on their experience to relieve the causes of poverty or distress.
My noble friend Lord Judd, who is recovering from surgery so cannot be with us today, has run or been involved in a host of charities. That led him to become totally convinced of the role that civil society can, and indeed must, play in a healthy democracy. That was demonstrated to him particularly during the bitter conflicts of Chechnya and the north Caucasus, when he saw the Russians harassing and curbing the activities of NGOs. There is, says my noble friend, an overwhelming responsibility for NGOs to be able to speak out with the “authority of engagement”. I could not put it better.
We need the voice of charities and of their knowledge but also the voice of their beneficiaries. I hope the Government will take this need seriously. I beg to move.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, I am right behind what the noble Baroness said about the importance of charities and I am right behind them—but no charity is beyond scrutiny. During 2016 so far there has been a growing chorus of concern about the lobbying activities and associated behaviour of one charity set up by statute, the National Trust, and particularly the activities and behaviour of those in the regions away from London, with some terrible publicity recently for a once universally revered outfit.
I am not clambering aboard any bandwagons here, for in a short debate I sponsored in your Lordships’ House back on 12 November 2001 on the need to modernise the National Trust’s governing legislation, many issues were raised concerning inadequate corporate governance, lack of transparency, lack of regional representation in particular, and lack of regulation of its activities. All that was missing then, from today’s cocktail of concerns, was growing concern about lobbying by the National Trust.
The distinguished social theorist, the Anglican canon and the London solicitor who set up the National Trust in late Victorian England—and our predecessors in this and another place who passed the statute in Edwardian England—could not have foreseen what a landed leviathan the National Trust would become. The National Trust, indeed, has accumulated holdings that no Whig magnate in our House in the 18th century could ever have dreamed of accumulating. It has more than 600,000 acres of land, close to 600 miles of coastline and about 250 monuments and buildings. Yet the National Trust is totally unregulated, except by itself. Some people say that it is out of touch and increasingly remote. That, perhaps, is simply a function of the scale and size of the National Trust.
I believe that the present scale and organisation of the National Trust is inconsistent with the Government’s modernising agenda, which I strongly support, because devolution and accountability are increasingly part not just of regional rhetoric but of regional reality. Yet in 2016 the National Trust has set off on a totally new course with its additional lobbying activity, producing a new and positive blizzard of lobbying and a maelstrom of demands and advice, in relation to—just listen to the litany—global climate change policy, fracking, wind farms, and then, as if it was Defra, proposing a six-point national agricultural policy for post-Brexit rural times, with farmers, of course, to be denied subsidy or support unless they pursue particular environmental agendas. These environmental agendas may not be wrong but the suggestion is certainly extraordinary.
At the same time, and in lock-step with a change of focus into becoming this new lobbying organisation, the National Trust seems to have developed a new line in what can only be called autocratic and out-of-touch behaviour, whether towards farmers or cricketers. We just heard about cricketers and warm beer from the noble Baroness on the Front Bench. Just listen to what we have seen in the last four weeks. As far as farmers are concerned, there was the gazumping of local farmers in the Lake District, who were all at an auction to bid for a very delicate, upland hill farm area where they have long been active as the last, rather fragile link with our traditional farming heritage, and very welcome low-cost custodians of our man-made landscapes. Up pops some agent of the National Trust, bidding hundreds of thousands of pounds more than any chartered surveyor would suggest the land was worth as farmland, with all the casual insouciance of someone waving the cheque-book of a land-accumulating Ukrainian oligarch.
Let us turn to cricket and football and the National Trust’s attitude to these activities. Just yesterday, as reported in the Times—and therefore it must be true—the National Trust is evicting the local football and cricket teams from pitches in the park of Shugborough Hall in Staffordshire. They have been there for decades—almost time out of mind: father to son, and, I dare say, mother to daughter—playing football and cricket and occupying just 1% of the 900 acres of the Shugborough estate. This was because, as a National Trust representative was quoted in the Times as saying:
“Football and cricket really are non-traditional activities”.
You could not make it up. Generations ago the aristocrats used to encourage people to play cricket and football there. I suppose that was noblesse oblige, which is not always to be sneered at—whereas the new autocrats of the National Trust want to turf them out. Again, you could not make it up.
The trust needs to be better regulated. It was set up by statute for the benefit of the whole nation and its citizens, not just for the executive and paid-up members of the National Trust. There needs to be someone to whom complaints can be made, whether by an aggrieved tenant farmer or a member of the general public such as me or anybody else who just happens not to be a member of the trust. After that there is an urgent need for a full review, best set up by the National Trust itself, into its own governance since 1907. It has grown and grown in a way that is not its fault or that it could ever have predicted. I urge it to do this. The noble Lord, Lord Bragg—I apologise for not having suggested this to him in advance—would make a splendid independent chairman of such an independent commission into the National Trust. It would look at the trust to make quite sure that indeed acts in the national interest, cleaving to its statutory and charitable origins.
Baroness Jowell (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hayter on bringing forward this debate. I begin my brief contribution by underlining the importance of her tribute to Lord Rix who, in his work as chairman of Mencap, inspired by his own daughter’s learning difficulties, is perhaps a shining example of the constructive and enduring purpose of charities. Had Mencap under his leadership not shone a bright light on the circumstances of children with learning difficulties, who were often living with abuse and neglect in long-term institutions for people who were then described as having mental handicaps, we would not have seen the accelerated rate of change that we now take for granted. Nobody now talks about the best care being provided in large institutions, either for people with long-term disability or people suffering the effects of long-term mental illness. That is one example of the extraordinary power of charity, independent of government and with a loud voice to bring about change for the better.
The importance of this debate is that the constituents of civil society, which my noble friend so clearly described, are the fabric of the society in which we live. This central question has been unsatisfactorily answered by the lobbying Act, and to some extent by the now-forgotten initiative of the big society. The balance is wrong between respect and self-confidence in government and the extraordinary contribution that charities can make. Perhaps I should have said at the beginning that I have declared interests in many charities with which I have an association. I was for many years assistant director of Mind; I will come back to that in a moment.
How do we get that balance right between civil society and the publicly accountable responsibility of government? Nobody has put it better than a Gamesmaker who I talked to four years ago during our Olympic Games. She was travelling every day for two hours to get to the Olympic park and two hours home in the small hours of the morning, only to come back again the next day. It was a truly punishing schedule and I asked her why she was doing it. She said, “Because it makes me feel I matter. I have a place here, and I have a contribution to make. To be part of this is something I will remember for the rest of my life”. She said, “I really want people like you to understand that it is important to know how much more people are willing to give if they are not doing so only because government tells them that they should”.
In a way, that was the crudeness of the big society initiative, whose failure can be explained through the clumsiness of that intervention. People, charities and local community organisations felt that somehow the Government were on their back. Suddenly, the supportive relationship between local authorities and local community organisations had been weakened because charities cannot replace the proper responsibilities of an elected Government. That is why it is right to have misgivings about voluntary organisations running custodial institutions and taking on the proper responsibilities of the state.
This takes us to the relationship between civil society and the state at a time when the state is shrinking—the critical recognition of a self-confident Government. I have been on the receiving end of disobliging lobbying as a Minister, and it is at times a nuisance. You wish they would get off your back, but you have to remember that in the end you are going to produce better results. The critical balance is to allow charities the freedom to give voice to what they learn through experience and to do things in ways that are different from the way in which fully publicly funded and provided services are delivered.
In his great book The Gift Relationship Richard Titmuss reminded us about the way we as a society are bound by reliance on blood donation. It is time to modernise the nature of the gift relationship. The new gift relationship is the gift of time, but the gift of time is properly delivered and valued where the relationship between government and voluntary and community organisations is properly worked out in a respectful way that celebrates innovation, is prepared to recognise the risks that many charities face, does not burden them with crushing bureaucracy and enables their independence and freedom.
Finally, last night I was talking to some young men from my former constituency who run the Brixton soup kitchen. It is a wonderful local organisation run essentially on their largely unpaid efforts. I asked what they would say if they were making a speech about this today. One of the young men said, “I think that people like you ought to talk more in ways that people like us understand”. There is still a yawning gap, but the pluralism in our society is the essence of what defines our shared humanity.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has done the House a great service by tabling this debate. I shall confine my remarks to the charity sector and place on record how much I am looking forward to the work of the Select Committee which has been established to look at a range of issues affecting the sector. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Industry and Parliament Trust and as a member of the NCVO advisory council.
Over the last 20 years or so, every set of institutions in this country has come under serious question: the police after Stephen Lawrence and Hillsborough; the Government and intelligence services after Iraq; press abuses through Leveson; and Parliament itself after cash for questions and the expenses scandals.
For charities, more recent concerns about fundraising methods and the questionable governance highlighted by Kids Company and others might not be in the same league, but they have clearly had an impact on public trust. The most recent figures from the Charity Commission show a fall, from 6.7 out of 10 people in 2014 to 5.7 this year. For organisations dependent on public good will for their prosperity and survival, this is worrying.
The debate throughout all this is about whether trust and confidence can be rebuilt through creating new legal and regulatory frameworks or whether it is through the actions of the organisations themselves, especially in changing cultures where bad practices have crept in. Of course, the fact is that you have to have both. My view is that self-regulation should be the preferred option, but always with a robust and powerful regulatory regime as a backstop—the last resort rather than the first. I worry that a Government sometimes make problems look far more widespread and serious than they actually are by proposing draconian regulatory measures. A macho style of government has become all too common.
It is almost certainly a forlorn hope, but in this, as in other areas, sometimes it is best to make haste slowly, not in a spirit of pushing reform into the long grass but because hasty, ill-informed change simply stacks up problems for the future which then require further intervention to put right. All Governments have a tendency to overlegislate, but using new laws as a substitute for good management, high-quality dialogue and thoughtful policy-making simply causes trouble.
In the 25 years since I became involved in local government, I have increasingly seen in the public sector organisations and individuals who are fearful of doing anything new or innovative and who spend increasing amounts of time and money on process and measurement rather than actions. It is not surprising that they have become risk averse because, unlike in the private sector, in the public sector the incentives are all for caution.
I would hate the Government to push the charity sector down that same route. Its very strength is its independence, flexibility and ability to innovate. The public are very clear about what they want. The same report from the Charity Commission tells us that two-thirds of the public say that charities are spending too much on administration. The irony is that measures to improve trust could actually make it worse if the administrative and regulatory burden keeps increasing.
The changing role of the charity and voluntary sector and the growth in the social enterprise sector have blurred what were clear distinctions in years gone by. As more public services are contracted out to the sector, and as the advocacy role becomes more crucial, the relationship between central government and the sector becomes much more multilayered and highly complex.
The 2014 Act has highlighted some of the dilemmas involved in the Government’s relationship with the charity sector and exemplified some rather poor process by government. I speak as someone who has some sympathy with the underlying objectives of that law: namely, that voters should be clear about who is seeking to influence their choice at election times. This is particularly important when it comes to campaigning in individual seats, where targeting national resources on small geographic areas can have a significant impact. At the same time, charities must be allowed to advocate, inform and question throughout the electoral process, as they do at other times. I am very struck by the briefings I have received in which there is a clear divergence of view between the sector and the regulators about how clear the guidance is and how the law is to be enforced. This is clearly not satisfactory.
Most particularly, we need clearer differences between the routine advocacy of particular organisations and the intention of influencing electoral outcomes. In his excellent review, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, highlighted this point—and he was right to do so. Governments must be aware that in this area, as in others, charities are simply not going to run the risk of being non-compliant and therefore the so-called “chilling effect” on their activities in the run-up to an election is a real danger. Perversely, a measure aimed at transparency can end up as a gag.
The aspects relating to electoral law with regard to how one defines a member of the public highlight the perennial problem of how we keep regulation up to date. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, points out, the practical realities of how you differentiate between activities aimed at the public and those aimed at committed supporters and members are very difficult in the social media age.
The Act also demonstrates the other hardy perennial: regulatory overkill. By creating a 12-month regulated period, the Government have effectively neutered charities’ campaigning activities for one-fifth of the time and have added significantly to the costs of compliance. I wonder, in parentheses, how we would manage should we move away from fixed-term Parliaments.
In a similar vein, the so-called “anti-lobbying clause” that was proposed and then withdrawn was a classic example of legislation being inappropriately created by government. It really was a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with no real underpinning evidence of the problem it was designed to solve. But the difficulty is that, despite its withdrawal, it has caused a lot of bad feeling and mistrust, and has further undermined what ought to be the proper, constructive relationship between the charity sector and government. However, even more worryingly, and coming back to the point of public trust, it helps to set the tone that somehow the sector is beset with problems which can be managed only when the Government intervene. That is fundamentally wrong.
We are in for difficult times. Recent events have highlighted some very real divisions in our country, which need addressing and which will take a lot of healing. The charity sector is probably better placed than any other to do this, given the centrality of its role in all aspects of our lives. Government needs to work with the sector and not against it.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for this important debate, and draw your Lordships’ attention to my charitable interests in the register.
The noble Baroness pointed out to us that this country has always had an enviable history of charitable activity. Many of the charities extant today have their roots in the 19th century’s epoch of social reform, and some in that era were the response to specific changes in work or living patterns. I had the privilege of being the volunteer director-general of the country’s St John Ambulance Association in the 1980s—I am delighted to see my colleague from those days, the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, here in the Chamber. That charity had grown from the requirements of communities to respond to the accidents which happened in mines, on the railways, in road construction and later in the electrical and gas industries.
From their beginnings, these charities were run and manned by volunteers, and over the ensuing century this became an important part of their ethos. Then things started to change, perhaps about 30 years ago. Many large charities started to so-called professionalise themselves, paying larger and larger salaries to ever-growing numbers of employees. Volunteers started gradually to find that their role was now to raise money to pay for these employees rather than to do much of the work themselves. Of course, it is true that fewer volunteers were probably available at that time, as charities had relied heavily on women and retired men for their voluntary workforce. As more women, properly, sought employment of their own, careers imposed more onerous obligations and many more leisure activities became available and part of life, voluntary work became less attractive.
Then Governments of all shades began to see that they could outsource the tackling of social problems to charities by paying them large grants to do the work. This has, on the whole, been a successful strategy, although some problems have arisen from it. First, some charities have distorted their founders’ missions—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made—in order to qualify for government funding and to follow, dare I say it, the latest ministerial obsession, however well intentioned. Others have been obliged to put all their eggs into the Government’s basket, with the danger that, if policies change, they can be left high and dry.
Sometimes there has been an acute failure of financial supervision. We have recently had the debacle of Kids Company; a charismatic figurehead assumed almost total control, and public funds went unaccounted for. Also, government funding for charities is not always smooth. I have come across many instances of grants being confirmed for renewal only after the beginning of the financial year, sometimes many months afterwards, with the result that employees have had to be made redundant and have acquired new jobs elsewhere, to the detriment of the continuity of the project.
In recent years, however, there has been a welcome return to voluntary activity, as people realise that they can make a difference by doing it and at the same time gain much personal fulfilment. Labour’s Millennium Volunteers and the coalition’s big society, although neither project was particularly successful, helped raise awareness that our society has an urgent need of voluntary work to supplement the state’s provision in many areas, particularly healthcare.
Every year for the past 16 years I have had the honour of giving awards at the Mansion House to distinguished volunteers, all of whom have given up their time for decades to serve their communities without payment. They work all over the United Kingdom, in hospices, hospitals, health centres, servicemen’s charities, homes for the elderly, and in many other locations, where their efforts are valuable and hugely appreciated. It is iniquitous that a greater part of the twice-yearly honours list is not devoted to recognising voluntary work of this kind. I trust that the various honours committees will bear this in mind. The wonderful work of the Olympic committees has been mentioned, but I very much hope that we will not see too many Olympic athletes adding to their already considerable laurels membership of the Order of the British Empire while hundreds of deserving volunteers have a lifetime’s work left without a sign of the gratitude of the state.
As speakers have pointed out, charities are big business now, but I believe that government departments should insist that charities that receive grants from public funds should have a good mix of paid and voluntary personnel. We are all living longer and longer. We shall need once again to encourage that charitable impulse for voluntary work in our communities to look after each other rather more than we do at the moment.
Charitable work, especially that which is voluntary, is greatly enriching for those who engage in it as well as being immensely beneficial to those served by it. I very much hope that the Government will consider commissioning a review to look at their relationships with charities, especially at those points which previous speakers have made this morning, and how best charities can be helped to continue to serve our society in the coming decades.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for bringing this field of endeavour and experience to the Floor of the House so that we can enjoy a discussion of its various facets and perhaps focus our thinking about the way we would like things to go in the future. In the years that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House, I have been only too aware of how poorly I have served the work of this place.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
Thank you. My noble friend is most generous. This is largely because, having a day job—largely in the voluntary sector, related to so many people involved in charitable work—my field of activity lies there, and I am in no doubt about that. It is, however, a joy to come here when I do, especially on an occasion such as this.
Perhaps I may take up a point that the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, made a moment ago. He correctly said that work in the charitable sector and in civil society often supplements what is done by the state. In an age of austerity and cutbacks, I fear that it is too often becoming a substitute for what ought to be done by the state. The assumption that civil society and the voluntary sector can absorb the outcomes of government policy needs to be checked and tested.
I approach the whole question of charity with very mixed feelings. I am only too aware of how it excites a response on the part of those inclined to be charitable that, if we are not careful, simply maintains people in a position of dependency. Sometimes, of course, such activity is necessary. People who are on the bread line and whose mere existence is under threat need that help, even if they risk becoming dependent on it but, on the whole, I look for activity in the field of charity that introduces the notion of capacity-building, autonomy, an ability to take charge of one’s own life and building those qualities in those on the receiving end, as it were.
Charities ought always in this respect to be free enough to be innovative. The state—even with the finest legislation passed through bodies such as this House—cannot always create the conditions that would impose the right pattern across society, which everyone can then enjoy. In the charitable sector, if there is real freedom to act, some quite startling things can happen, which then become models from which those who provide at a higher level can learn.
Many Members of this House will remember the redoubtable figure of Lord Soper. I inherited responsibility for a lot of his social work for a number of years and have enjoyed after-dinner speaking on the basis of it ever since. I remember my work in a day centre in west London—open 365 days a year and becoming increasingly professionalised in line with modern fashion, as the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, said. It provided a range of services to homeless people, usually street homeless people, who had nowhere else to go—always over 25 year-olds. Youth work is much easier to fund, I can assure noble Lords, than old lads, as these were. Incidentally, is it not a shame that the work that was done by the previous Government—by Members on this side of the House through the rough sleepers initiative—to provide for the needs of the street homeless is being unpicked? We now see more and more evidence of street homelessness occurring than in our day, when we really did think that a solution had been found.
At the day centre, there was one strand missing. We deloused, we fed, we provided advice, housing and all the rest of it—I could give so many stories of incidents and people from those days—but one thing was missing: a psychiatric social worker to help us with the mental problems of so many people living at their wits’ end and on the streets. Eventually, we found the money for that role. My instruction to this long-sought member of our personnel was very clear: “However long the queue of people wanting your services, you will give only 80% of your time to the face-to-face, problem-solving, advice-giving aspect of your work. The rest of your work will be concerned with accumulating notes of the kinds of conditions that you are discovering and statistics about the nature of the problems you are encountering”. I said to her that people like me would need that evidence as the basis upon which we made representations to public bodies and to the Government —it was essential that we did that work and it was integral to her work. I believed that then and I believe that now.
It is so important to give charities the freedom to innovate, to learn and to accumulate experience on the basis of which a view can be brought to Governments—which are often more than one stage removed from the experience of these things—in order that we may form an opinion, frame legislation and take the whole thing forward in a constructive way. I have lots of other experience of institutions where, because they took government money, they found themselves constricted by government pressure to do their work the Government’s way. I regret that, and I want to make a general point at the early stage of this debate. I plead with the Minister—or with whoever is summing up—to give us an assurance that the proper freedoms for charitable bodies will always be respected so that innovation, the accumulation of experience and evidence and a valid point of view put to those responsible for shaping our national life can always be made on the basis of facts that can be proven.
My notes would allow me to speak for another three and a half hours but, at this point, I forbear.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for initiating this debate. As she emphasised, charities and campaigning groups of various kinds play a vital role in our society. The health of our democracy depends not just on political parties but on organisations which are rooted in the varied experiences of people’s lives being able to bring different viewpoints to bear, not least at election time.
It is absolutely right that all such groups should be regulated and that they should be required to be transparent in what they do. At election time it is again right that they should not be able to spend money disproportionately compared to political parties and candidates. However, Part 2 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 was itself disproportionate in the way in which it sought to limit third-party campaigning at election time. It was hastily put together without consultation, driven by a fear of American-style political action committees coming to this country—a fear without serious foundation. The evidence of third- party groups was, and is now, that it would, and does, seriously inhibit their legitimate activity.
The House was, thank goodness, able to achieve some little improvements in this lamentable piece of legislation, one being that there should be a review of how it worked at the last election. That review, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, has now taken place and the report published. We are very grateful to him for it. It bears out many of the criticisms made in this House during the passage of the Bill and urges some significant changes. Many of these were argued for by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which I have the privilege of chairing.
I will briefly summarise some of these recommendations. First, instead of the phrase,
“can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote electoral success”
for any party or candidate—which was thought to be too wide and uncertain—the Hodgson review recommends that this should be changed to one of actual intention to procure success in an election, along the lines of the Representation of the People Act 1983. I believe that this change would be welcomed by charities in particular, because it would be aligned with what their status as charities allows them to do anyway.
Secondly, the review recommends that the electoral period for regulation should be reduced from one year to four months—the same as for European and devolved legislatures. All the evidence submitted shows that third parties focus on elections at the most six months before the date. To require them to delineate expenditure relating to the election from normal expenditure a whole year before is an unnecessary, bureaucratic burden.
A third area of concern is how expenditure for joint campaigning should be allocated. It is good practice for charities to work together when appropriate and possible, but Part 2 of the lobbying Act in effect frustrated this purpose. The Hodgson review recommends important changes in this area.
Those are just a few of a number of important recommendations. My first question to the Minister is: when is the Hodgson review to be brought before the House? When would she see these vital changes, if agreed, being made to Part 2 of the lobbying Act? It is deeply flawed and needs to be amended in order to ensure that third-party groups can play their proper role without the undue chilling effect that the Act, as it now stands, has had.
My other main concern is the anti-advocacy policy brought in and announced by the Government in February. The Government’s stated intention was to prevent funds paid to charities by government being used to fund lobbying. As has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, this has aroused widespread disquiet. The fact is that charities are regularly called upon by officials within departments to bring real-world experience of users and evidence-based expertise into public policy, and to engage with parliamentarians on these issues; for example, through providing evidence to Select Committees.
Clear guidance already exists about what charities can and cannot campaign and advocate on. However, it is critical that charities are able to speak up on behalf of their beneficiaries and are seen to be independent from government regardless of their financial arrangements. Charities are concerned that this clause could be perceived as limiting what they can and cannot say about important issues for fear that this will have an impact on their funding. Therefore, my second question to the Minister concerns this proposed policy—if it is still in place, as there seems to be a great deal of confusion about whether this proposal will be enacted. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that. Does she not fundamentally agree—as put so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port—that charities that are in the front line of trying to respond to human need are best placed to bring before government the way in which policies can help or hinder the meeting of that need, and that bringing this experience and expertise to bear on government thinking is therefore vital and should not be inhibited in any way?
I was very surprised by the bitter criticism of the National Trust expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. As a member of the National Trust—one of its, I believe, 4 million members, the biggest mass organisation in the country—I am deeply grateful to it every time I walk a nice piece of coastal path that it has acquired. The noble Lord particularly supports farmers who want to continue to graze sheep on the uplands. However, his policy is strongly opposed by people with such disparate views as those of George Monbiot on the one hand and Sir Simon Jenkins on the other, who argue that most of the problems of flooding in the Lake District are caused by overgrazing of sheep in the uplands, and that if it is rewilded, as it is called, the water will be able to seep into the ground and the problem of flooding will be greatly alleviated. It is absolutely right that an organisation such as the National Trust should make that view known and, in so far as it is able to implement it on its own property, that it should be able to do so. Of course, there is the point of view of farmers and others but it is right that the National Trust should also be able to express its important point of view gained from its own experience.
However, my main point is that campaigning groups and charities play an essential role in making our democracy vibrant and living and their ability to do this should not be inhibited in any way.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, as I understand it, the Government have put on hold the rules regarding the lobbying activities of organisations that receive taxpayers’ money. They are right to do so because their thinking is very confused.
It is not anti-government to seek the best welfare for our fellow citizens. It is not anti-government to seek the highest standards of health and safety. It is not anti-government to seek the highest standards of truth and accuracy in reporting the news. It is not anti-government to have a say in genetic manipulation. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, who is not in his place, that it is not anti-government to seek higher standards of conservation. These are some of the voices to which my noble friend Lady Hayter referred—the real-world experiences, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, put it—voices which tell us where government policy is failing and where our priorities should lie. These voices want a say in shaping society, not by revolution or violence but by balance—the kind of balance about which my noble friend Lady Jowell spoke. These voices need to be heard. They are not voices that the Government should seek to silence because they are funded by the taxpayer. It will not have escaped the Minister’s notice that the very reason these organisations are sometimes funded by the Government is that both seek the same ends. But democracy and the welfare of society are the not the only reasons why the Government should listen to trade unions, charities and civil society. These organisations are also the voices of progress—social, scientific, medical and commercial—based on experience, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths put it.
We are debating the Investigatory Powers Bill at the moment. Technology has given us new ways of communicating—ways that make our lives easier, our communications quicker, more social and more fun. But these ways are also available to criminals and terrorists. This Bill will clarify to what extent our communications can be intercepted and recorded by the authorities. Previously, powers of interference and access to records were created as and when the need arose. However, in debate on that Bill, we hear quite clearly the voices of civil society, reaching a balance between the commercial interests of the communications business, the concerns of our national security and our right to privacy. Without the voices of civil society, charities and trade unions, I doubt whether a satisfactory balance would be achieved on the Bill.
More technology is on the way which will require this kind of balance. Let us take, for instance, the changing world of work. Several million people are now working off digital platforms. It suits the operators to say that these people are self-employed so that the minimum wage, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, training, safety, pensions and tax are nothing to do with them. It is left to the state to pick up these costs through welfare payments and tax credits. I am sure lobbyists for platform operators and internet service providers put a very good case to the Government for their own commercial objectives. But what about fairness and costs to the public? Trade unions, civil society and charities—yes, sometimes even funded by the Government—are the ones speaking up for these things, and fairly soon some sort of balance will have to be agreed. Digital platforms themselves could be required to ensure that users comply with current regulations, and workers could belong to some kind of trade union co-operative. Then neither workers nor users would be vulnerable to exploitation.
In many other areas of new technology, charities are in the front line to achieve balance. We hope that some of our more serious medical problems will be eliminated by genome editing. For some, altering our chromosomes and genes can be a terrifying prospect. It is contrary to the faith of others. Yet it holds out the prospect of quick and relatively cheap medical miracles. Unless charities and civil society set about explaining these issues through some sort of public understanding campaign, to encourage sympathetic public opinion, the benefits of this wonderful medical research will take a long time to be accepted, if ever. I hope the Government are lobbying the charities and giving them donations to help with this work, for the sake of the nation’s health.
Lots more things are coming down the line where a balance will have to be achieved between commercial interests, security and the public good: the internet of things and digital money, to name but two. My noble friend Lady Hayter is absolutely right to move this debate and I congratulate her. Uncertainty on how to respond to the changes brought about by new technologies will lead to inaction and lost opportunity unless the input from society brings about acceptance and understanding, through balance and fairness.
For the sake of progress and the public good, the Government should listen to all these voices equally and not give disproportionate influence to company voices, nor quieten the voices of tax-supported charities. We need them all equally to better inform our decisions.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for having given us the chance to debate this important topic. As some Members of your Lordships’ House will know, I have prepared a number of reviews of the sector. The work that I have done and the people I have met lead me to associate myself entirely with the noble Baroness’s remarks about the contribution that the charitable and voluntary sector has made to our society, especially as regards social cohesion.
However, there is an important cautionary word, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, who is not in her place, and it is that charitable status is not of itself a guarantee of good behaviour. I fear that there have been too many cases where governance, procedures and approach have fallen short. No matter that the vast and overwhelming majority of charities are doing the splendid job to which the noble Baroness referred; the sector needs to remember that its reputation with the public is as good as the weakest link in the chain. I am confident that the committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, will investigate that, to find ways of making sure that the good stories are not driven out entirely by the bad.
I turn to my review of Part 2 of the transparency of lobbying Act. I am encouraged by the fact that a number of speakers so far have seemed to agree with my conclusion that we should aim for the maximum transparency on the issue of how and by whom the general public are influenced at the time of a general election. That must surely be the only way to maintain public trust and confidence in our electoral system. Elections must not be capable of being bought by third parties of whatever colour or persuasion operating behind a green baize door. At the same time, we need to make sure that the system does not constrain vigorous public debate, and that is the difficult balance that we have to strike.
Within the 100 pages of the review—I take this opportunity to thank everybody in the country who contributed by attending meetings and sending in evidence to the debate; I also thank the Cabinet Office team led by Cathryn Hannah and David Rowland, who helped prepare the report—there are perhaps two really critical matters. The first is: what needs to be regulated? I defined that as electoral campaigning— that is,
“activity focused on influencing the choice of the voting public at an election”.
I do not think that that regulation should cover advocacy of an issue that an organisation may carry out on a day-to-day basis—what I describe in the review as “business as usual”. Nor should it cover political campaigning which third parties carry out in talking directly to government, Members of your Lordships’ House or Members of the other place. Frankly, if we and Members of the other place cannot “aim off” to take account of the blandishments of such people, we are less good than I think we should be.
If that broad approach is accepted—of course, these are not absolutely discrete silos; one washes into another—one can safely recommend a shortening of the regulated period. In my view, the general public in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck become aware of an impending general election only about four months ahead of the date of the election. Therefore, I feel that we can safely reduce the regulated period and thus the associated paperwork to the four-month period, as was mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries.
The second issue is: what constitutes a member of an organisation and therefore someone who can be approached without falling to be included in the cost of any lobbying activity? Historically, membership has been pretty easily defined—you fill in a form or you send in a cheque, a postal order or some money. But nowadays, with social media, these certainties have been blown away. A tick in a box or an email sent to hundreds of thousands of people at very low cost can make you a member. It will be only a matter of time before the concept of a negative pledge is used—that is, if you do not tick the box, you will be considered a member.
In my view, this potentially offers a serious loophole to the whole practice and risks undermining the lobbying activity in a very important way. So I have proposed the concept of a constitutional member who can influence the organisation of which they are a member, and I have laid out a number of tests that should be followed to ensure that that is being met.
However, as other noble Lords have said, third-party campaigning does not itself lead to neat definitions and packages. The continuing rapid rate of change in social media means that there will be a continuing impact on the way that third-party campaigning practices take place. For example, I had an analysis carried out of the use of Twitter in the Bradford West constituency at the last general election. It was a particularly vicious and fiercely fought campaign. Of the 35,000 Twitter users who referred to candidates in Bradford West, only 330—fewer than 1%—marked Bradford as their home address, compared to 12,000, or about one-third, who marked London and 506 who marked Pakistan. So I believe that, increasingly, campaigning will no longer respect national boundaries, and this will represent a challenge to us all.
In March this year, I presented my review to the then Minister, John Penrose MP. The broad conclusions and approach were, I think, welcomed by the sector and by the Government—if I judge ministerial responses at Question Time right. But so far there has been no official response, and I am asked frequently by those who helped me with the review what happens next. We appear to be in a good place. The sector appears reasonably happy and the Government seem reasonably happy. I hope that they will not allow the good will that they have rightly earned to be dissipated by undue delay.
I hope that my noble friend will enlighten the House on progress during her closing remarks. If she is not able to do so, I fear that I may have to intervene to press her a little harder.
Baroness Rebuck (Lab)
I think that most noble Lords would agree that there was much fiction among the arguments put during the recent Brexit campaign. Obviously I am not going to defend the fictitious slogans on campaign buses, one of which stated that Brexit would provide an extra £350 million a week for the NHS, but I am going to stand up for fiction in this debate, the importance of 100% literacy and reading for pleasure as an essential ingredient in our democracy, and the role played by charities and trade unions in achieving this. I declare an interest as a book publisher and from a lifetime’s engagement with most of our literacy charities.
The benefits of fiction have been known for some time. It is associated with high levels of empathy and improved relationships with others. Reading for pleasure has been linked to a reduction in the development of dementia in later life and to helping alleviate depression. Almost twice as many people who have low levels of literacy also suffer from depression. The journal Social Science & Medicine recently reported that cognitive engagement, or deep reading, regenerates the brain, and that people who read an average of half an hour a day—I include in this, I hope, all noble Lords—may well live, on average, two years longer than non-readers.
Studies have shown that visits to libraries improve general health, saving the NHS some £27.5 million a year in England in reduced GP visits. Perhaps we should put this figure on the side of buses. Perhaps we should also put it on the side of mobile libraries and even ambulances, to recognise the value of reading to our health. Sadly, however, our libraries themselves have not been in good health; many have died, and the epidemic continues. We have seen more than one library a week close across England since austerity measures were introduced, and Lancashire just announced that it is about to close 29 of its libraries. We must urgently bring the library network into remission.
Of course, the real patient is our democracy. There has been much analysis of the referendum result but perhaps we can agree on one thing: too many in our society feel disconnected, disempowered and are disengaged from politics, particularly the young. The Prime Minister alluded to this in her first speech in Downing Street when she said that her Government would be not only for the privileged few but for every one of us, and she gave a list of “burning injustices”. If she is to live up to these words, the Government should focus on the lack of literacy, which is at the heart of so many of these injustices. Around 9 million people of working age in England have low basic skills. The proportion of 16 to 19 year-olds who have low literacy is the highest of the 23 countries in the OECD’s 2012 survey. We are the only developed nation where our young people significantly underperform their elders.
I hope the Government agree that reversing this trend would help give people more control over their lives and that in “making literacy and numeracy a fundamental right of all adults” we should begin by harnessing all the innovation in the charity sector. One person in six in the UK lives with poor literacy, as I have said. As a child they will not succeed at school; as a young adult they will be locked out of the job market; and on becoming a parent they will not be able to support their child’s learning, leading to a cycle of deprivation over generations. Lacking these vital skills undermines people’s well-being and stops them making a full contribution to the economic and cultural life of our nation, and it harms our democracy.
If we want to compete in the digital world and the knowledge economy we need to lead in literacy, not trail in it. It makes economic sense as 100% literacy for all adults would boost our economy by some £80 million a year. Sadly, however, many employers still say that they cannot find enough skilled employees. So this does not mean just focusing on raising the numbers achieving entry-level skills but on improving the performance at the very top. Only a quarter of UK graduates have top-level reading and writing skills compared with at least a third of those in other developed nations.
Alongside literacy charities, trade unions are also playing a significant role in helping to meet the skills gap and increasing social mobility. It is 10 years this year since Unionlearn was established. During that time, 35,000 trade union learning reps across the country have helped more than a quarter of a million people improve their functional skills in English and maths. Often training is peer-to-peer, with dinner ladies teaching other dinner ladies, train drivers teaching other train drivers and prison officers teaching other prison officers and prisoners, too, 60% of whom, let us remember, have very poor literacy.
On the literacy charities themselves, we must embrace and value the work of all of them and government should draw on their expertise and innovation. The National Literacy Trust has established ground-breaking hubs to target interventions where they are most needed and partnerships with tailored approaches to meet local literacy needs. For example, three years ago five year-olds starting school in Middlesbrough were 23% below the national average in school readiness. The local hub has transformed this to a gap of just 6% today. In Bradford, over half of its eight to 16 year- olds are encouraged to write something daily which is not for school. They are now almost 10% above the national average, with a transformed attitude to writing.
The Reading Agency—an independent charity, where I declare a particular interest in the Quick Reads initiative—each year commissions major authors to write short books that are specifically designed to engage emergent readers with an average reading age of nine years old. Since 2006, 7.5 million books have found their way to emergent readers, including outreach work via hospitals, prisons, community centres, factories, army bases, libraries and adult education centres.
For many of our most disadvantaged citizens, Quick Reads has been a lifeline, inspiring confidence in more than 90% of emergent readers and encouraging more than 55% to be confident enough to address further learning needs. In Camden in north London, for example, Quick Reads was used in a pilot scheme with white working-class mothers in a book group to address their sons’ underachievement at school, another injustice highlighted by our new Prime Minister. The mothers sped through their first books and quickly became avid readers, taking an interest in their children’s education, often for the first time, with a marked improvement in attendance, confidence and school results.
My last example comes from the Learning and Work Institute’s groundbreaking Citizen’s Curriculum, which teaches the core capabilities needed for life and work in the 21st century. As a result of this training scheme, Rochdale council has found increased take-up of public health services, such as drug and alcohol support, and a 14% decrease in call-outs to police. The latest pilots suggest that public services overall save £3 for every pound invested. This, I argue, is a model for civic engagement. My point is that charities are the seed beds of innovation in our fight against illiteracy and inequality of opportunity and while the Government have assisted literacy charities with funding in the past, over the last five years that funding has been dropping. Surely it is in all of our interests for these charities to be well funded. The private sector plays its part but private money can often be withdrawn, leaving important initiatives in limbo. As my noble friend Lord Griffiths has already so eloquently argued, we also need to ensure that the best and most effective charity pilot schemes are adopted and scaled up by government in a move to achieve a once in a lifetime goal—100% literacy. This is my plea to the Government.
I have one final point. Literacy charities may help many of those without a voice to gain one through improved skills. This helps our democracy to survive and thrive. However, just as the people they help need a voice, so too must the charities be allowed to campaign. They must be able to challenge and lobby government for change. Any attempt to reduce that ability would take us a further step away from the desperate improvement needed in literacy, improvement that is essential to the health of our nation, our economy and our democracy.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and I want, in the nicest possible way, to take for granted what she said, because it was very important and I agree with it absolutely. I want to invite us to look at the last three words, “in a democracy”, as a very important context for this discussion and debate, not least for the role of charities, trade unions and civil society.
Democracy works through two very important elements. One, of course, is the offer of ideas and suggestions about what to do to best order society. It is about answers to problems. The lobbying industry and the contribution that charities make to that, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and others have shown, is very important—“From our experience, here is the answer to this kind of question”.
However, democracy also requires space for those answers to be debated and other options to be looked at, which is the role of a body like Parliament. I want to invite us to recognise that, in our culture, there is an enormous deficit of spaces for lobbied answers to be examined and alternatives explored in a mature and participatory way. Not least that is because a lot of our media offer answers from pretty entrenched ideological positions, and therefore stoke up the lobbying side of democracy rather than provide space for genuine debate and the looking at alternatives.
From my own experience, I can testify to the hunger people have to participate in debate and discussion and not just swallow ready-made packages from whoever is putting up the answer. In the city of Derby a couple of years ago, I set up a commission for the city, and in eight public meetings hundreds of people came to look at education, unemployment, policing and various things. From that has come all kinds of on-going work, where people got engaged in our city about what citizens, charities, the local authority and others can do in these areas to better improve the quality of life. There were no smart answers; there was an invitation to engage in a process of asking the questions and exploring options and partial solutions. With MPs in our county, I regularly organise summits on things like immigration, refugees and slavery and invite citizens to come, from all kinds of persuasions, and look at the options and not just the answers.
Some of your Lordships may think that, of course, I stand for a Church that is always criticised for not having any answers on anything at all and is always prevaricating on the big questions. But if you are to be a broad church, which a democracy needs to value, you have to take seriously a variety of experiences and aspirations, and create a space for them to feel that they have been taken seriously. In a way, that is what my Church tries to do, and I think good politics needs to operate like that, too.
I want to point to three areas that the Minister might like to comment on that might allow us to take seriously the needs of our democracy, which I think at the moment is overloaded with answers but provides very little space to discuss questions and a variety of possibilities which people would be drawn into to participate.
The first area is the potential of trade unions, which the noble Baroness referred to in her opening speech and about which we have heard a couple of other mentions. Trade unions can easily be caricatured as lobbying machines for particular things. In fact, we know from their history and their present practice, as the noble Baroness just said, that they have enormous skill and wisdom in inviting people—in the contexts of work, their communities and broader life—to engage from the micro to the macro. That is a very precious part of our democratic ecology. We need to foster an attitude towards trade unions and what they can bring that is positive and encouraging. There is too much negativity based on a narrow view of what trade unions are about. It will be interesting to hear what the Government think about the potential of trade unions to grow this skill they have to enable ordinary people with ordinary experiences to participate in looking at the questions and not just the answers.
The second area that I invite the Minister to comment on, if we want to take seriously the health of democracy, is that, quite rightly and commendably, the Government are always conducting reviews and consultations, often online. I suggest that these reviews and consultations could be not just a platform for lobbyists to chuck in all the answers but designed for a more participatory exploration by citizens of what options there might be and how new ideas might emerge from the collision of some of the pre-packaged solutions. A great deal of creative work could be done in this whole culture of review and consultation that the Government rightly spearhead to engage citizens in the democratic process and not just indicate that they need to choose between one answer and another.
Finally, I am sure that the Minister will comment on not underestimating the value of churches, civil society and charitable spaces, where actually, as other noble Lords have said, volunteers have passion and commitment and want to explore options not just for particular sectors but for the well-being of the whole of society.
I think that democracy is in danger of being distorted by an oversupply of answers. I hope that this Motion can also be interpreted, therefore, as looking at some of the potential sites and sources to recognise that, besides answers, we must value the importance of questions.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for giving your Lordships’ House the opportunity to debate such an important issue. I join with her and the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell, in paying grateful tribute to Lord Rix.
I spent almost 20 years in public affairs and campaigning in the charity sector, so I will confine my remarks to charities. I count myself privileged to have seen first-hand the vital role that they play in our democracy. Throughout my time in the charity sector I have seen that being able to demonstrate a clear connection between donor support and the tangible benefits of the campaigns that their time and support helped fund was crucial to building trust. It is that trust that underpins the success and sustainability not just of charity campaigning but of the sector itself. Trust is our charity sector’s life-blood, and right now it is in urgent need of a transfusion.
Sadly, I witnessed a serious breach of trust, which underlines that urgency. I bring it to your Lordships’ attention out of the same sense of public-interest duty that first drove me to stand up and be counted on what I still regard as a matter of honour. The duty to speak truth to power without fear or favour is surely all the greater because of the privilege and responsibility that go with being a Member of your Lordships’ House.
The situation I found myself in as head of public affairs at the Royal British Legion underlines the compelling need for far greater protection for whistleblowers brave enough to raise legitimate concerns about ethical issues or mismanagement in the charity sector. Whistleblowers are often dismissed as disgruntled former employees, but I know I will only ever be a proud former employee of the wonderful organisation that is the legion. Happily, the charity is now under new management. Moreover, the excellent new director-general, Charles Byrne, was not there when this situation arose.
If helping to win the campaign to save the chief coroner, with the essential support of your Lordships’ House, was my proudest moment at the legion, being bullied by a then senior director at the charity in an attempt to get me to sign off payment of an invoice that I had advised was of dubious legality—and moreover, to learn subsequently that the then director-general had nonetheless approved payment—has to count as the saddest moment of my career. The fact is that I was unable to prevent his approval of payment of donors’ money to an individual who should never have received one penny of legion charitable funds that were donated in trust. It still haunts me that this happened on my watch as the legion’s head of public affairs and could happen again today at any charity.
I can never forget my disbelief at what happened: the invoice from a parliamentary researcher, on paper giving his Westminster email and phone number, and his personal bank account details; a parliamentary researcher, who, unbeknown to his boss, demanded payment for meetings arranged, briefings drafted and Parliamentary Questions prepared; my written advice that no payment should be made, given that any parliamentary researcher who demanded payment for such services should not be trusted, notwithstanding that a second version of the invoice was submitted by email omitting reference to preparing Parliamentary Questions, but for good measure attaching a list of Parliamentary Questions tabled; the bullying emails sent to me by the then director of welfare at the legion, who is now the chief executive of Combat Stress, asking me to process payment of the invoice now; and the email from the then director-general of the legion belatedly informing me that he had approved payment of the invoice.
I have no reason to believe that the email from the then director-general, confirming that he had approved payment, was a lie. I must take his word at face value and assume that he wrote the truth. But even if he did not tell the truth and payment was not made, it would surely be missing the point entirely if we accepted that somehow that makes such behaviour all right. Either way, if he did not tell the truth, lying to one’s colleagues, quite apart from permitting an environment in which a senior director thought it okay to bully a junior colleague on an ethical issue, is no way to lead a charity. How could such behaviour be in any way deserving of the trust that millions of donors rightly place in the legion year after year? If there is no wrongdoing, why did the then director-general, as I discovered only subsequently, neither consult nor even inform the charity’s then national chairman about such a sensitive issue? Would the trustees of Combat Stress have appointed their new chief executive had they known of her bullying behaviour and involvement in this serious matter? I assume that she did not tell them. Had anyone told me that such behaviour was possible at the legion, I would never have believed them—but for the fact that I experienced it myself.
In closing, surely the main lesson to be learned from situations such as this—to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, has already alluded—is that just because charities do good things does not mean that bad things do not happen in them, that some people in power do not abuse that power, or that some people in positions of trust do not betray that trust. If such behaviour is to be prevented, the integrity of our fantastic charity sector needs to be defended by far greater protection for whistleblowers. Only then will a strengthened charity sector once again enjoy the trust that is so essential to the success of its vital campaigning and policy-influencing work.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hayter on securing this important and timely debate. I thank her, too, for giving prior notice to the House that we will have a debate tomorrow on a Private Member’s Bill that I have introduced. The Bill seeks to repeal the Government’s pale imitation of a register of lobbyists that came in in 2015, and to replace it with a credible register that will allow genuine scrutiny of the activities of professional lobbyists in a wider range of organisations than hitherto, including charities and trade unions. I reserve for tomorrow’s debate the reasons why the current system has failed and what a sensible register would look like, such as the new one in Brussels, the good one in the United States, the one in Canada, or the one our neighbours and friends in Ireland have. Shortly we will also have a new register in Scotland. I will endeavour to set out how we can achieve this in a straightforward and cost-effective manner.
The problem with lobbying in this country has long been recognised, including by the previous Prime Minister. In 2010 he described it as,
“the next big scandal waiting to happen”.
He also rightly identified it as an issue that crosses party lines. My party has experienced its fair share of scandals. Indeed, it was a sting by Channel 4 in March 2010 featuring predominantly ex-Labour Ministers offering to help companies lobby in return for payments that prompted the 2010 incoming coalition Government to promise to shine a light on lobbying.
In recent weeks we have heard rumblings of a new potential source of scandal: the oncoming bonanza arising from the UK’s exit from the EU. When commercial lobbying firms are promising to connect clients with critical Brexit decision-makers so that they can shape the post-Brexit regulatory and business environment, it will not be long, I suspect, before we read more tales of back-room dealings in our press, unless we take action to avoid it. With every lobbying scandal, public trust in politics is eroded. We must do everything we can to raise our trustworthiness, and, where we can, to persuade those with whom we do business to act accordingly.
Many in this House, myself included, will argue that lobbying is an essential part of good governance. It ensures that outside interests are listened to and it leads to better decisions being made. However, it can also pervert our democratic system by allowing those with the loudest voices—and often those with the deepest pockets—to dominate the discussions, and also, in turn, to influence the key decisions. As David Cameron said,
“we all know how it works. The lunches, the hospitality, the quiet word in your ear, the ex-ministers and ex-advisors for hire, helping big business find the right way to get its way”.
Those are the former Prime Minister’s words, not mine, even though you might have expected them to be coming from me. Given the Times article of 24 August, and its related leader article, he might have been talking about his former Foreign Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, who, if those articles are correct, has taken up a paid role at a US lobbying firm that advises its mainly US corporate clients on how to influence the British Government’s Brexit plans. That is very interesting, especially in the light of the number of questions posed in this Chamber, and in the Commons, about the extent to which parliamentarians are going to be able to know what is happening and how they will be able to influence the course of events in the Brexit plans.
The ease with which people revolve out of Westminster and Whitehall and into the lobbying industry only adds to the widespread perception that access and influence can be bought, and that companies have a structural advantage over the wider public. I particularly welcome, therefore, the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s inquiry into the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which is in dire need of an overhaul, to ensure that trustworthiness is high on our agenda.
When it comes to lobbying, the solution is not greater restrictions but more sunlight. David Cameron, again, rightly identified the problem as one of transparency. He said:
“We don’t know who is meeting whom. We don’t know whether any favours are being exchanged. We don’t know which outside interests are wielding unhealthy influence”.
Six years after this speech, we still do not know the answers to those questions. A robust register, of the type that I will propose tomorrow, would tell us precisely this and no more: who is lobbying who, about what, and—if my Bill succeeds—how hard; in other words, how much money is being invested in those lobbying efforts.
Unfortunately, the introduction of the Government’s fundamentally flawed lobbying register was at the time overshadowed by their efforts to clamp down on charity campaigning, as we have heard so much about today during previous contributions. It was pushed through at unnecessary speed, and attempts by this and the other House to improve it were brushed aside. That is why I will return to it tomorrow: to give ourselves time for proper, serious debate over an issue that has not been solved, has not miraculously gone away and will continue to do damage to British politics and our way of life until we act.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Hayter on securing this important debate and for the clarity and conviction with which it was introduced. It is wide-ranging in its scope but, like others, I propose to speak in support of the role that charities can play in a democracy, and explain how they can reach the parts which government sometimes cannot. I do this by sharing the story of one particular charity, NOAH Enterprise—New Opportunities And Horizons—of which I am privileged to be a trustee, as recorded in the register of interests.
I offer the description of its activities as evidence of the need to promote the importance of charities’ campaigning as well as their role in service delivery at the sharp end. I join those who argue for the rejection of barriers that place restrictions on charities, preventing them imparting their experience and pressing policy and funding issues on government, central or local, if for no other reason than that it would otherwise be a tragic waste of their experience and learning, often gained in the most difficult circumstances. It would be letting down the very people who these charities exist to serve.
NOAH is a charity that, out of Christian conviction, seeks to support the most disadvantaged members of the local community, particularly those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness, who struggle with drug and alcohol abuse or sleep rough, who have fallen into poverty, or who are otherwise marginalised and socially excluded. It endeavours to do this in a number of ways, but fundamentally by a holistic offering of services. It offers street outreach, persuading people to engage with the services on offer, including welfare—essentially food, clothing and personal hygiene—access to a GP surgery, mobile dentistry and a mental health clinic. It will seek accommodation for its clients and give advice on budgeting. It will further provide basic training in life and vocational skills and can provide work experience. Part of this activity is funded from a social enterprise involving furniture restoration, as well as from traditional charity shops. This enables work experience to be offered in such ways as warehousing, drivers’ assistance, woodworking, administration and retailing.
To give all this some context, in the year to 31 March 2016 there were 486 accepted referrals of people who needed help of one sort or another, while 22,000 distinct outreach visits were made and 6,426 breakfasts were served as well as some 17,000 lunches. There were also 484 people enrolled on courses at the new NOAH Academy, with 71 reaching employment. Moreover, it can claim numerous active partnerships with a range of statutory and third sector agencies, churches and community groups. It has also had the benefit of volunteers—around 300 a month at the current level—who support the operations in a variety of ways. This might be in furniture recycling, cooking for the day centre or working to provide food in the evening.
For NOAH, this level of support is vital to its continued existence. The motivation for the volunteers might be varied but many undoubtedly develop an understanding of the challenges of the most disadvantaged, which encourages them to give a voice to those without one. Many become unofficial champions of NOAH, spreading the word and building the support network—campaigning about what NOAH does and what needs to change. In a sense, they are like the “Games Makers”: for them, it is a chance to matter. NOAH has also been the recipient of the CSR efforts of a number of corporates, large and small, to the mutual benefit of all. This has been a two-way process whereby a few corporates have taken work placements.
The focus of NOAH is to assist and support the poorest on a journey out of destitution and towards a sustainable future. As the NCVO says, it addresses the causes of social problems and not just their effects. Its approach is to provide a pathway from living on the street to temporary accommodation and daycare, through to settled accommodation, training, work experience and preparation for employment—and then into employment. This pathway can be joined at any point. For individuals on that journey, there is the benefit of its components being delivered under the one trusted umbrella of NOAH, much of it delivered on behalf of the state but not by the state.
As with many charities, the era of austerity has meant pressure on its finances, particularly from statutory sources and at a time when needs are greatest. However, its income sources last year included grants from statutory bodies for programmes such as Single Persons Homeless, the street drinkers project and Jobcentre Plus. Continuity remains a difficulty. Thirty-one foreign nationals were repatriated at their request last year, through a fund financed by Luton Borough Council. It also continues to get support from the Irish Government under their Emigrant Support Programme, which has been commendably sustained despite the recent recession.
Although there are, reasonably, always grant conditions, so far as I am aware nothing has yet emerged which prevents the charity raising public awareness and campaigning, particularly on poverty and homelessness. NOAH’s second annual conference took place in February with the theme of working together to address poverty in Bedfordshire. It was focused on statutory and third sector decision-makers in the county.
If I had to summarise NOAH’s benefits as an example of what a locally based charity can deliver and why it should be encouraged, I would list that it is driven by a clear and consistent vision; that it might be buffeted from time to time by the policy and funding swings of the statutory sector, and may have to adapt sometimes, but its focus is clear; that it can join things up in a manner which we know that government, local and national, finds difficult; that it is anchored in the community through its many partnerships and participation in local life, and through its proactive and articulate chief executive; and that it has the capacity to build trust among its service users and the wider community. It can reach the most excluded in our community, to offer hope, and seeks to recognise the fundamental dignity and worth of every individual.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for initiating this most valuable debate. I declare not only my register of interests declaration; like many Members of this House, I suspect, I have spent much of my life involved in charities, trade unions and other voluntary bodies. It is a part of the rite of passage into this Chamber for virtually everybody.
Charities have a very soft image but that is not necessarily the whole image. Near the beginning of the debate we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patten, about his views on the National Trust, which have been well aired in the Times recently and probably in other papers as well. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, is not here because he wrote a powerful letter to the Times which I found very convincing. I would have liked to have heard his side of that story. The sad truth of the matter is that, as with many institutions in society, charities have also faced their problems. They are facing a loss of trust.
I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned the fact that the charities were not allowed to campaign during the Brexit debate. My prediction is that if charities had been campaigning in that debate, they would probably almost all have been on my side and campaigned for remain. But the most significant lesson of the Brexit debate is how out of touch we were; the fact of the matter is that many charities today are out of touch. There are well paid chief executives, in the name of professionalism, but apparently accountable to no one. They are less accountable than a trade union general secretary or a chief executive officer in a FTSE-listed company. They often exist in an area where there is no apparent democratic structure. Can anyone tell me what the democratic structure is of the Red Cross, Oxfam, the British Heart Foundation or the many charities that we see in our high streets? I do not believe that there is one—but there should be and, as such, it might well be time for this area to be revisited.
I do not subscribe to the philosophy that there are fewer people. There are in fact more people living longer and far more, particularly in my generation, who are available, fit and working. My wife holds a position in the U3A in Cambridge, which has 3,000 members in that one city. Admittedly, Cambridge is probably an exception but there are 3,000 retired people taking part in just one body in one city. There are a lot of people out there but there is a need for some control.
Chugging has been dealt with to an extent but it is still apparent on our streets. We should revisit the need for an extension of the Freedom of Information Act to the charitable sector. Why should what the charities do not be accountable? They are, after all, spending money raised from the public sector or volunteers. It is not, in large part, private money. Why should they use government money to lobby the Government? I do not believe that they should. I think the policy we have on this is quite right. I also believe it would be useful if we knew what some charities do. For instance, I have been told that the NSPCC does not inspect any children any more, but is purely a lobbying organisation. I am told that Barnardo’s no longer runs homes but lobbies. This is probably a useful thing, but the reality has gone a long way away from the image.
My noble friend Lord Shinkwin outlined a very serious and worrying case in which there was no apparent easy redress. It would be useful if the rigour which we apply to the trade union movement, with the forthcoming introducing of a new, beefed-up Certification Officer, was applied to the charitable sector. Perhaps charities should have a certification officer.
I shall make one aside to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on lobbying. I am appalled at the way in which people leave comfortable government positions, in which they are largely underpaid, and immediately go into very highly paid positions in which the only reason they are there is because of who they know from the other side of the case. It appears that the most the body we have for regulating the transition from public service to private service ever does is to send somebody on six months of gardening leave. I have been unable to find an instance of any senior politician or civil servant being prevented from taking a well-paid job on the other side. That is not good service to our democracy.
I shall finally say a word or two about trade unions. Trade unions exist at the other end of the system. They spend far too much of their time lobbying for things that are of no interest whatever to their members. One-third of their members vote for the Conservative Party, which shows a good deal of common sense among average trade unionists. Most trade unionists join a trade union to be defended at work, to be looked after and to be protected in difficult circumstances. They do not join in order to be lectured politically. I am proposing not that we should do anything but that perhaps the unions themselves should take a more careful look at what they do. Every day I get emails from the TUC, and I see that Frances O’Grady has today sent a message to the Labour Party to get its act together ahead of the TUC in Brighton next week, which I shall be attending. I will be looking around, but I do not think it will do that. I look forward to the TUC sending messages to the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party and others expressing the needs of working people. I say to the TUC: butt out. It is not your fight. Let the Labour Party and the Conservative Party sort out their own politics while you fight for the rights of working people, which is what you were set up to do in the first place.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Hayter for introducing this important debate and bringing to your Lordships’ House such a powerful analysis of the issues arising from the Government’s action and inaction in this area. My noble friend’s Motion is wide in its span of civil society as a whole and is focused on the specific area of lobbying and the inequitable and illogical approach the Government have taken to its regulation between charities and the corporate sector. I could not have made the argument on the question of lobbying better than my noble friend, and I wholeheartedly support what she said.
I shall speak primarily about the role of charities more broadly in society and the economy. I therefore draw your Lordships’ attention to my position as a trustee on both the grant-making and operational sides of a number of non-profit organisations which are set out in the register of interests.
The coalition Government launched with the then Prime Minister’s grand idea of the big society, a crude distancing of himself from Mrs Thatcher’s supposed nihilism combined with a convenient and hoped-for piece of sticking plaster for the injuries to be caused by the Government’s doctrinaire public expenditure cuts. The current Health Secretary made his pitch for political advancement from what was then his position of Culture Secretary—look where that got him and us—by rapidly agreeing with the Treasury large cuts to the DCMS budget while assuring the country that the arts would not be adversely affected as philanthropy could replace the lost statutory funding—a wholly unrealistic and implausible assumption, as we have now seen.
We then moved from big society to silent society, as the Government introduced, despite your Lordships’ best efforts, the arbitrary and prejudiced restrictions on lobbying by charities at the centre of today’s debate. Charities and civil society organisations, like the children or servants of a Victorian duke, should be seen but not heard the Government seem to be saying in response to the independent views and campaigning properly pursued by charities large and small. Lying behind this, apart from a thin-skinned unwillingness to allow the Government’s prejudices and actions to be challenged, there was also partisan paranoia within at least parts of the Government and the media by which they are so influenced that because some of the best and brightest of the Labour Government and their advisers had chosen to work for charities after losing office—a continuation of their public service—the voices of those organisations should be restrained.
There is a new Prime Minister and a new era. What, then, after the big society and silent society, do the new Prime Minister and her Government see as the role of charities? The very first decision is unusually difficult to interpret. The Prime Minister moved the Office for Civil Society and responsibility for charities policy from the logical and effective location given it by the Labour Government in the Cabinet Office to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. “I wonder what he meant by that”, said Talleyrand about the death of the Turkish ambassador and Metternich about Talleyrand’s own death. I wonder what the Prime Minister meant by that. She and the new Culture Secretary have both suggested that the work of the Office for Civil Society fits perfectly with the DCMS’s mission to enrich lives. Hmm—it is hard not to suspect that pressure on Cabinet Office resources as a result of the Brexit vote may be the driving reason for this change.
Front Benches in your Lordships’ House are, of course, famously versatile, so perhaps we should not read too much into the fact that the Minister is, I am sure to your Lordships’ delight, spared long enough from her Cabinet Office brief to cover the subject for which the Cabinet Office is no longer responsible. Yes Minister. As the Prime Minister, following the statement of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union about the single market, has ruled that Ministers can apparently express personal views that are not necessarily those of the Government, it may be unreasonable to ask the Minister to say how the Government now see the role of charities, particularly in the light of this apparent ambiguity of departmental responsibilities, but I look forward to her response very much none the less.
In the meantime, I can end only by trying to reinforce the points made by, among others, my noble friends Lady Jowell and Lord Griffiths and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that charities cannot and should not be seen as a substitute for the proper responsibilities of government and should be allowed and encouraged to lead, innovate and, as a consequence, take risks.
I have quoted Bill Gates on the role of philanthropy in the past, but the authority that he brings justifies returning to his argument. From a perspective drawn from founding the largest grant-making foundation in the world, from a base in a country where philanthropy has been deeply embedded for over a century and where, across the political spectrum, the role of government is seen as smaller than here in the UK let alone elsewhere in Europe, Mr Gates has been clear: philanthropy cannot substitute for supra-national, national or local government spending. He has argued that it should take more risk than either government or business. That risk should not be uncontrolled or unsupervised. I agreed strongly with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that self-regulation should be the first line of defence and statutory regulation the second.
While there have been regrettable high-profile failures of governance in the charity sector, the general trend at the micro and macro level has been positive. In that context, I strongly welcome the establishment of the Marshall Institute for Philanthropy and Social Entrepreneurship at the LSE as the latest and most significant initiative to help enhance the effectiveness and impact of non-profit organisations.
There has been unanimity today about the key role of civil society within our overall society and economy. I hope very much that the Prime Minister, whatever the other pressures on her, will in due course set out her vision for civil society alongside her welcome and well-flagged commitment to industrial strategy. It need not—indeed, should not—be grandiose and overambitious like the big society, but should demonstrate her Government’s recognition of the proper role of civil society.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I add my voice to the well-deserved, growing chorus of thanks to my noble friend Lady Hayter for giving us the opportunity to discuss this today. I have sat through every speech and am a regular attender in this House, as some noble Lords know. I have found it one of the most interesting debates that I have ever sat through. It has not been repetitive. We often have debates where people say exactly the same as the person before them, and the same again. This has been really fascinating, not least the excellent speech by my noble friend Lord Chandos—I hope we will hear a lot more from him, because it was tremendous.
Following the speech by my noble friend Lady Rebuck, I am going to rush out and get some books after the debate. That reading is going to do me a lot of good, I now know. I will not just enjoy it, it will actually help me to live longer—so I am looking forward to that. This has been a really fascinating debate. I am very pleased to have sat through it and to be a member of the Select Committee on Charities, which has been mentioned. It is most ably chaired by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, who has vast knowledge of this area. She is chairing our committee with great skill, expertise and insight into the sector. I hope the committee will come forward with some positive recommendations. I think that my noble friend, when she speaks, will confirm that we are already being inundated with lots of recommendations, evidence and submissions.
However, as I have said to the committee—my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley knows this—I do not want us to have just the usual suspects: the ones who regularly give evidence on this subject. Otherwise, we will not get the new, innovative ideas. We have been trying to encourage people to come forward with new ideas and with things that they have tried and that have been successful or not. I think we can learn from that. I am really looking forward to the further formal evidence sessions when we come back in October.
I should have declared at the start—it is in the register of interests—that I am now chair of Age Scotland. Before I was elected to the other place in the 1970s, I was director of Age Concern Scotland, so I have been involved in that area for a while. When I was asked to become a trustee of Age Scotland a few years ago, the current chief executive, my successor, said, “We want you on, George, because we knew you would have an interest in it, having been director of Age Concern Scotland”. But he said, “You’ll have more of a vested interest in the subject now”. I swore at him and said, “What a—something—cheek”. But he was right; I do have an interest in it and I understand the issues much better by being on the wrong end of the age spectrum myself.
I have found the debate fascinating, but I refute almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said. I do not think that he understands the charitable sector at all. He said that we are not accountable. That is rubbish. We have an annual general meeting coming up later this year at which all the members—we have more than 1,000—will be represented. They will decide to re-elect or not the officers of the organisation. In Scotland, we are also accountable to the OSCR, the Scottish Charity Regulator, and in England to the Charity Commission. That is a great deal of accountability.
Having become a trustee, I have great piles of paper about the responsibilities of trustees. The grave responsibilities are putting people off becoming trustees. If they get it wrong, they are in trouble. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe—I was going to say “Comrade Balfe”—should understand that. Trustees are accountable, and certainly more accountable than any member of this House at the moment. It is really important to recognise that.
Most of the debate has been about lobbying. I am not going to say very much about it except that it is a pity that it has become a dirty word because of some of the scandals. There is absolutely nothing wrong in a democracy with any body, organisation or individual making representations, particularly to elected Members in the other place. That is what it is all about in a democracy. They are supposed to take account of the views of all the organisations working in our communities and in society. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it; it is democratic accountability—representation at work. That is all I want to say about lobbying.
My main point is that we on the Select Committee are already finding, and I am finding at Age Scotland and I know other people in other charities are finding, that charities are currently between a rock and a hard place, to use that old phrase—the upper and lower grindstones of the mill—and are being really squeezed. Charities are expected to do more and more. The need is growing, particular among the elderly. The number of old people is growing almost exponentially. As we live longer, the needs become greater. Loneliness is a huge problem that we are having to tackle. I echo what my noble friends Lord Chandos and Lord Griffiths said earlier: charities should not be taking on the responsibilities that should rightly be carried out by statutory bodies. That is clear, but we are still being asked to do more and more of the work that is rightly done by voluntary organisations.
At the same time, it is becoming more difficult to raise the money to do the work. We heard earlier about chugging. That is being questioned and challenged—and rightly so. Philanthropy is not as widespread as it ought to be. Sometimes, it is the poorer people who are giving more—and certainly a larger percentage of their income and wealth—to charities than anyone else. It needs to be recognised that raising money is becoming more difficult. I hope that we will take account of this when we look at it in the Select Committee.
I have one last thing to say. We have three hours, so the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, should not worry too much—or indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for whom I have great respect, whether she is responsible or not, as my noble friend Lord Chandos said. I want to say a positive word about trade unions. I am a member of the General and Municipal Workers’ Union, and did a bit of work in this place for USDAW, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Again, this comes back to what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said. USDAW asked me to take up an issue because its members were being attacked in shops, particularly when selling alcohol, and were being threatened; they were under tremendous pressure. I took up the issue and moved an amendment here. That is exactly the kind of thing that trade unions do to look after their members, so I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will listen carefully when he goes to the Trades Union Congress next week. I think that he will find a message there that he ought to take account of, just as he ought to take account of the message that charities are democratic, are accountable and, equally, are doing a damned good job.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I join all other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness very much for initiating this debate and allowing us an opportunity to talk about one of the brightest jewels in the crown of our national public life, which is our charities. I should declare that a number of the bodies with which I am involved as a trustee are registered charities, and these are listed in the register.
For me, as we have heard so often during this debate, there is one golden thread which links together all those organisations which make up the rich tapestry of Britain’s charitable sector, and that is the care they give to the vulnerable and the needy and the voice they give them. I want to talk about one specific group that looks after perhaps one of the most vulnerable groups in our society—our pets and animals. I welcome this opportunity to pay a heartfelt tribute to the vital work of the UK’s animal welfare charities. I was delighted that the noble Baroness, in her opening remarks, was able to put over some of the vital points that they have made to her. A great deal of the work they do, and how they deliver it, is highly relevant to this debate and to the important issues that have been raised.
We are a nation of animal lovers and pet owners. More than half of homes own, between them, 9 million dogs, 11 million cats and many other types of pet, including a growing number of exotic animals. I am an unabashed cat lover, and there is nothing my husband or I would not have done over the years to look after the seven cats who have been in our care. Indeed, the vast majority of the UK’s pets are looked after extremely well, but not all are so lucky. We have a real problem with stray animals and with pets being abandoned, often due to economic circumstances or because owners failed to do research about caring for a pet before buying one online. Tragically, there is the ever-present horror of animal cruelty.
Those are the cases where our nation’s animal charities—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I think—go to the places that government cannot go to. That is where Cats Protection, Blue Cross, the Dogs Trust, PDSA, the RSPCA and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home step into the breach. The scale of the challenges they face, and of their achievements, is huge. Dogs Trust estimates that 100,000 stray dogs a year are handled by local councils, and it cares for a significant proportion of them—more than 15,000 last year. With cats, neutering is a real problem, and Cats Protection helped neuter 159,000 cats and kittens last year, in the largest companion animal neutering programme in the world, as well as rehoming 44,000 cats. For those pets in need of urgent medical attention, the PDSA provides more than 2.7 million treatments to pets every year, delivering wonderful care alongside the RSPCA and the Blue Cross.
For me, all these great organisations share five things in common which are central to the issues we are debating today. First, they are all civil society organisations that rely hugely on the tremendous, selfless support of volunteers—highlighted so well by my noble friend Lord Lingfield earlier on. Cats Protection, for instance, has 9,700 volunteers, the stalwart volunteers at Battersea Cats & Dogs Home last year gave 73,000 hours of service, and the PDSA saves £12 million each year thanks to its voluntary workers. Those are fantastic achievements.
Secondly, all the animal welfare charities are major providers of independent advice, information and education, helping people look after their pets responsibly and preventing neglect and cruelty. Blue Cross and Cats Protection last year spoke to more than 100,000 children and young people about responsible pet ownership, while the Dogs Trust ran more than 6,000 workshops in schools and youth clubs. That work would be much enhanced if young people were also to learn about these issues at school. If the Government could do one thing to help these very hard-pressed charities and their volunteer armies, it would be to make animal welfare part of the national curriculum in primary schools. Would my noble friend perhaps be able to look afresh at that?
Thirdly, these organisations all provide services that government cannot provide and which otherwise would not exist, including Blue Cross’s Pet Bereavement Support Service, Cats Protection’s Paws to Listen helpline for those struggling with the loss of a cat, and the Dogs Trust’s Hope Project, which helps the dogs of homeless people—all important services provided with no burden on the taxpayer.
Fourthly, these charities are an invaluable source of data and information for government, and also provide front-line services which help deliver on public policy. The best example is probably compulsory microchipping of dogs, where charities campaigned for the change—and it was absolutely right that they had the ability to do so—and have now undertaken to deliver much of the chipping. Hundreds of projects nationwide are now involved in implementing this policy. Such has been the success of the initiative, I believe there is now a case to make microchipping of cats compulsory, too.
Another area where the sector works in partnership with government is in making online pet advertising more responsible, with excellent results. Thanks to the work of the Pet Advertising Advisory Group, more than 100,000 irresponsible advertisements—for instance, those advertising pregnant animals—have been removed from websites. Provision of data which government does not or cannot collect, for instance the PDSA annual benchmark about the well-being of companion animals, is also crucial in informing the development of policy and shaping future legislation.
Finally, perhaps the most important characteristic that all these charities share in common is that they provide a vital independent voice speaking out for animals and making sure they remain on the political agenda, and we must ensure they continue to have the ability to do just that. That message has come through loud and clear in the debate today. They all have skilled advocates researching issues, advising government, pushing for change and indeed holding us all to account for the delivery of policy. That is a hugely important role, and one we should cherish and encourage. We should not add any further regulatory burdens on to them.
We all know that our pets provide pleasure, companionship and a unique form of unconditional love which enriches our lives. We should do what we can to repay that. So let us salute the work of all those charities which, in advising and working with government, providing vital services at no cost to taxpayers, helping to educate young people and, above all, acting as champions for the voiceless, are a crucial part of the fabric of our civil society. These organisations do so much to care for some of the most vulnerable creatures in our society.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this debate today and declare my interests as set out in the register. I am speaking today in my capacity as chair of the recently established Select Committee on Charities. I also thank my noble friend Lord Foulkes for his kind remarks—I will pay him later. The committee was established in June of this year to,
“consider issues related to sustaining the charity sector, and the challenges of charity governance”.
This is a broad remit, but one we will endeavour to tackle.
The charitable sector in this country has a long and proud history, as your Lordships know only too well. However, it is clear to me and my committee—and, indeed, I think to your Lordships’ House as a whole—that the sector is under pressure. In fact, in 40-plus years of working in and with the sector, I have never known it under such pressure. I know that none of this will be news to any of your Lordships, but it is worth reflecting on those pressures.
The scandals of recent years mean that the sector is under intense scrutiny. The impact of that scrutiny has been for the general public to start thinking more carefully about where its money is going. There is no doubt that there has been a decline in levels of trust in the sector, and though recent research suggests that trust is on the rise again, the sector can never be complacent. We know that the worst stories do not represent the best of the sector, but, equally, we know there is work to be done about regulation.
Of course, anyone who has anything to do with the charitable sector cannot fail to be aware of the huge financial pressures it faces. We are a very long way from the heady days of the early 2000s, when we all felt flush, when government money was being dished out to all sorts of strategic partners, to many different initiatives, and when local authorities were keen to go into partnership to deliver innovative schemes for tackling deprivation. We even had an advisory body in what was then called the Office of the Third Sector, now called the OCS, which I had the honour to chair. What is more familiar now is the winding up of charities, their disappearance rather than their expansion and innovation. At the same time, the demand for charitable services has increased with rising levels of poverty and deprivation and the results of austerity, as noble Lords have said.
To add to these pressures, there is the current political and economic uncertainty in light of Brexit. Your guess is as good as mine on what will happen next, but even the risk of instability is a challenge for the sector. We know that, as the country adapts to a post-Brexit landscape, the charity sector will be expected to adapt and evolve. I have every confidence that it will do so because the sector’s record of adaptation and initiative is well documented, but the road ahead may be hard.
We also have the new Act. I hope that the Charity Commission powers will be used cautiously and proportionately. The powers to make social investments are also an important step forward for charities, and I hope they will prove to be of benefit—I should declare my interest as chair of the Big Society Trust, which is set up to keep the Big Society Capital true to its mission of supporting the social sector. We should not, however, be deluded into thinking that social investment is a panacea for the money problems of the charitable sector. It is an important element but an element only.
Noble Lords know that the sector has had its share of both positive and negative parliamentary attention in recent years, but there was an appetite to look more widely at the challenges faced by the sector and how it can be most effectively supported in its important work. I acknowledge the hard work of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in bringing this to the attention of the Liaison Committee and for its decision to set up the ad hoc committee. The committee wants to help and support the sector and for this to be a positive engagement exercise which truly reflects the problems for everyone working with charities.
I have described the pressures, but part of what the committee wants to understand is the opportunities, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has said, that exist for charities to thrive. We are clear as a committee that what must not be allowed to happen is that the excellent and essential work of so many charities should be blemished by the actions of a small minority. If we encounter complacency and poor practice, we will of course challenge them, but we are seeking to celebrate success and innovation more than anything else.
I am delighted to say that we have received more than 150 submissions to our call for evidence, the deadline for which was last Monday—but of course we are being flexible about that. Of those submissions, 112 were from charities themselves, and, of those, 28% were from charities with a turnover of less than £1 million. I think it is particularly important for the members of my committee to hear the voices of small and medium-sized charities. My committee and I have a busy few months ahead and some big questions to consider. We are up to the challenge and committed to making sure that the right policies and support systems are in place for the sector to continue to be such a valuable part of our society.
I turn now to the issue of lobbying. It is inevitable, when we think about charities, that we tend to focus on the services they provide, because that is what we are most familiar with. I am delighted that the title of our debate today includes the issue of lobbying activity because, to my mind, this lobbying, this voice, this representative function is one of the most important functions which charities perform.
I was proud to be, for more than 10 years, the CEO of Carers UK, whose sole function was to advocate on behalf of carers and to bring to the attention of government, the media and the general public the contributions made by carers and to ensure that they receive support in the important but stressful role they play. When I first worked in this area, the very word “carer” was unknown—indeed, it was nearly always misspelled as “career”. Now carers are out of the closet, and that is almost entirely down to the work of carers’ organisations enabling carers to make their case and gain support. There is still not enough support, of course, so the work must go on. Therefore, anything which in any way restricts the ability of vulnerable groups to lobby or put their case must be resisted at all costs.
I have spoken on this issue all over the world. Our tradition of charities being funded by government to lobby government is the envy of the world. It is the envy of many countries which are not so fortunate as the United Kingdom is to have that philosophy. I know many noble Lords feel as passionate about this as I do, and I hope the Minister will assure us that she does, too.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, what an extraordinary debate—absolutely fascinating. I wish to declare an interest: I have a daughter who is a director of Hanover Communications, though I have to say we speak mainly about babies rather than lobbying.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for tabling this fascinating debate, and take a moment to pay a tribute to Lord Rix, who was also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell. He is going to be hugely missed for the extraordinary work he did with Mencap—and in the theatre. My first theatre experiences were going to the Brian Rix farces, which brought so much joy to us all. I also say that we wish the noble Lord, Lord Judd, a very speedy recovery.
The richness of the debate highlights the breadth of civil society expertise in this House and demonstrates the importance we all place on preserving and championing the vital roles of charities, trade unions and civil society within our democracy. I therefore welcome the efforts of the Lords Select Committee on Charities, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I know that many other of today’s speakers will continue to make a valuable contribution to the future work of this committee.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, mentioned the role of the Office for Civil Society versus the Cabinet Office. I think this is the moment to say that this debate is focused on issues that cross departmental boundaries. The Cabinet Office remains responsible for grant-funding policy and the Transparency of Lobbying Act. It is the Office for Civil Society that has moved to the DCMS, where there are clear synergies, but obviously we all work in a joined-up way.
This Government are committed to supporting a healthy, diverse and sustainable civil society. Civil society is uniquely placed to respond to many of the social challenges we face and occupies a special place in our national psyche. Certainly, from the right reverend Prelate’s speech, it is clear how much the Church does in this area. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said that the Government need to pay heed to the voices of charities. Other noble Lords also mentioned this. The Government remain absolutely committed to engaging with and listening to charities. By way of one example, earlier this week, the charity sector leaders were invited to a round table with three Ministers to discuss the implications and opportunities for charities of exiting the European Union. I think that many charities feel anxious about how this is going to affect them, and it is very important that we engage with them from the beginning.
Charities fulfil many different important roles, from delivering public services, to supporting those in need, to raising awareness of particular issues. All these roles are important, and we are very keen to make sure that we are fully engaged. It is for this reason that we have recently reformed charity law with the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016 and have supported sector-led changes to fundraising regulation. A sound legal framework provides the essential space in which charities operate. These changes are strengthening charities’ protection from abuse and helping to rebuild public trust and confidence in charity fundraising. I know that several noble Lords speaking today made important contributions to the development of these changes and I put on record my thanks for their involvement and commitment to supporting that vital work.
My noble friend Lord Patten mentioned problems with the National Trust. It is important to remember that members of the public, and indeed noble Lords, should raise these issues directly with charities where they feel that there are problems. Noble Lords have heard what my noble friend has said today about the National Trust; it is important that they engage with him on these subjects.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, mentioned that charities need freedom to innovate and to provide evidence of what is happening on the front line. Certainly, charities are independent and the law recognises that. They are free to innovate and campaign to further their charitable purposes. There are many good examples of charities innovating with great success and where charities’ evidence has been heeded in government policy.
We work in close partnership with civil society to make sure that we deliver our vision for a bigger, stronger society. We are working together and there have been a number of significant achievements. I will highlight just a few of these successes. Last year, 3 million more adults volunteered than in 2010—a tremendous increase in the number of people giving up their time to support good causes. More than 200,000 young people have taken part in the excellent National Citizen Service. They are volunteers; they are not forced to take up these roles. Volunteering among 16 to 25 year-olds is up by more than 50% since 2010. Our social economy is thriving: 200,000 social enterprises now employ more than 2 million people and the UK is recognised as a world leader in social investment and social impact bonds. Social action contributes £34 billion each year to public services, reducing the pressure on public services such as the NHS and schools. We have recruited more than 6,500 community organisers, who act as local leaders bringing people together to take action on the things they care about.
Despite what some may think, the number of registered charities has risen since 2010; their income is up by almost 35% to more than £71 billion and their workforce has continued to grow. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, talked about NOAH; this shows just what a local charity can do. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned the importance of giving and philanthropy. The CAF World Giving Index 2015 ranked the UK as the second most generous nation in the world, up from eighth in 2010. This is indeed quite an achievement.
We will continue to support civil society with our ambitious agenda for the remainder of this Parliament. At the heart of this is our expansion of the National Citizen Service, guaranteeing a place for all young people and progressing with the NCS Bill. We are committed to scaling up social impact bonds in areas such as youth unemployment, mental health and homelessness and have launched the new £80-million life chances fund. This fund will catalyse many more social impact bonds, tackling complex social issues locally, including drug and alcohol dependency. We have proven the concept of social investment—the task now is to scale up the model, so we can help even more of our fellow citizens. To this end, we have built a five-year partnership with the Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University to create a government outcomes lab. This will become a centre of expertise for SIBs and innovative government commissioning, by increasing the information, data, evidence and technical support available to commissioners to develop more SIBs locally. We are working ever more closely with businesses to support and enhance their socially responsible activity, with the particular priority of promoting employee volunteering in large companies.
My noble friend Lord Balfe mentioned charity accountability. Charities are publicly accountable through their annual accounts and trustees’ annual reports. These are publicly available on the Charity Commission’s website.
I turn to third-party campaigning, which was mentioned by several noble Lords, including the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. We need to strike a balance between the freedom to campaign and increased transparency of third-party campaigning during election periods. I think that we can all agree on the need for effective controls that limit the opportunity for groups to exert an undue or improper influence on government and help to make the political system more accountable. Lobbying plays an important role in ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard in Westminster, but lobbying must be transparent.
The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 is about giving the public more confidence in the way that third parties interact with the political system. Importantly, and quite rightly, the rules prevent any individual or organisation exerting undue influence on an election outcome. The Act was never intended to restrict the freedom to campaign by charities and other campaigners but instead to make the political system more accountable. Remaining above the party-political fray in all forms of communication is vital to maintaining public trust in charities and the important work that they do. Under charity law, charities have the right to undertake campaigning and political activity where it supports their charitable aim, where trustees consider it to be an effective use of charitable resources, and provided they do not engage in party politics.
I move on to the excellent and thought-provoking review done by my noble friend Lord Hodgson. The review clearly set out the need for regulation of third-party campaigning and recommended that some of the existing regulations be tightened—as my noble friend noted in his report, these recommendations interlock and are to be seen as a package. The report recommends some strengthening of the regulatory regime, such as clarifying the exclusion for supporters of the organisation and requiring campaigners to submit more detailed information to the Electoral Commission regarding their planned activities. My noble friend Lord Hodgson’s report is one of a number of reports that have been received following last year’s general election, including the Law Commission’s interim report and reports from the Electoral Commission with recommendations for change. It is obviously important that the Government consider all these reports carefully. I am sure that my honourable friend the Minister for the Constitution will pay close attention to the points raised in this debate as he considers the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s third-party campaigning review.
My noble friend wanted to know when the Government would respond to his report. I cannot make any promises but there are new Ministers in the post who will need to carefully consider everything. I am sure that they would be very happy to meet my noble friend to discuss his report; I will ask the Minister for the Constitution to provide an update to him.
I turn to the regulation of lobbying activity, which I know excites a lot of noble Lords in this House. We will of course discuss this in greater detail tomorrow. It is obviously the regulation for the activity of businesses and private interests. The statutory registry of consultant lobbyists is designed to shine the light of transparency on those who seek to influence the Government. It complements the existing transparency regime whereby Ministers and Permanent Secretaries publish details of their meetings with external organisations. Before the lobbying register was established, it was not clear from diaries alone whose interests consultants were representing. The register requires people who are paid to lobby the Government on behalf of others publicly to disclose their clients. The register also has enhanced scrutiny on consultant lobbyists, who must declare whether they subscribe to a code of conduct. Our aim was to avoid unnecessary regulatory burdens, not to establish top-to-bottom regulation of all who lobby. That is why we set up an appropriate and pinpointed way to ensure high levels of transparency in the specific areas of the lobbying industry where they were needed.
We believe that a statutory register of consultant lobbyists is a proportionate and appropriate approach to the identified issue—that it is not always clear whose interests are being represented by consultant lobbyists. Calls for extending its scope would duplicate a transparency system already in place. The lobbying industry has welcomed the continuation of self-regulatory codes of conduct and, to date, 130 lobbying companies have registered with the registrar. We will be talking about this further tomorrow, so I am not going to go into huge detail now.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, brought up the proposed anti-lobbying clause in government grants. The Government are committed to ensuring that taxpayers’ funds are spent on improving people’s lives and good causes, rather than on improper lobbying for new regulation or for more government funding. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned, the anti-lobbying clause in grant agreements was never targeted at charities. The voluntary sector, which includes charities, makes up less than 7% of all government grant recipients. The collaborative process we built into the development of the anti-lobbying clause has enabled us to understand further its impact on the many and varied recipients of government grants. That led to a decision to pause the implementation pending further consideration of the wording of the clause and its effects. We are continuing to work with departments, academics, research organisations and the voluntary sector to ensure the effective implementation of this policy. This is taking time and changes will be announced and communicated in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned the chilling effect. It was never the intention of the grants clause to stop charities providing independent, evidenced-based advice to government policy through either giving evidence to Select Committees, or meeting with Ministers or officials to discuss the progress of taxpayer-funded grant schemes. The aim is to ensure that grant funding is used as intended.
The noble Baroness also mentioned that the grants clause stops charities from lobbying and from speaking out on behalf of beneficiaries. Restrictions in grant terms and conditions are not new. Existing terms and conditions limit the use of grants to activities set out in the grant agreement. Such restrictions do not stop charities from using other funding to support lobbying or political activity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also referred to the chilling effect. She said that charities were unsure about what compliance means in grants’ terms and conditions. It is robust, and mutually agreed that the grant agreements make clear to charities what delivery entails.
The noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, mentioned ineffective grant funding management. The Government are focused on improving its effectiveness and efficiency. This will ensure that we work more effectively with charities to deliver value to the taxpayer.
My noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned trade unions. The Government recognise the role that trade unions have played and can play in developing the economy, maintaining positive industrial relations and supporting employers in upskilling their staff and in participating. However, we are determined that we must balance their rights with those of working people and businesses. They have their own right to expect that the services on which they rely are not going to be disrupted at short notice by strikes with the support of only a small proportion of union members.
Before I finish, I want to highlight the positive relationship between charities, wider civil society, trade unions and Government. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby mentioned this. Joined-up thinking is so important and the round-table discussions that he started in Derby are interesting. This is often the way forward. They get people together. It may not be with a specific charity, but it gets them thinking about how we might help people in their various neighbourhoods.
Looking to the past, there are many examples of where the Government have responded to the voice of the voluntary sector. I shall give just one. Towards the end of the last Parliament the Office for Civil Society launched a £20-million local sustainability fund. It came about as a direct response to concerns voiced by the sector—that small and medium charities were struggling more than many others to respond to the challenging operating environment. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned that charities are finding it difficult. The launch of this fund will certainly help particularly the medium and small charities. It is now helping more than 260 charities to reform and secure the future of their services. I am sure there will be many more such examples of collaboration between the Government and civil society in the future.
I look forward to debating and discussing with your Lordships what more can be done to continue our support of civil society in the months and years ahead. In a debate such as this, it has been almost impossible to answer every point, but I assure all noble Lords who have spoken that I have made a note of what has been said and will take all these points back to the department. We will discuss and make sure that your voices are heard and I hope that we will have another debate where we continue the important work that has been mentioned today.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all the speakers. I obviously regret that the response to the report from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was not forthcoming. I look forward to hearing the outcome of the meeting and I hope that it might be transmitted to the whole of your Lordships’ House.
I also regret that the Government are only pausing the anti-advocacy clause. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Black, who said that charities provide care and voice. That has been the overwhelming view of those who have spoken today. The front-line experience—that day-to-day contact that charities have—is essential to feed back into the legislative process, adding a voice that would not otherwise be heard. My noble friend Lord Chandos may be right when he says that the Government seem to want a silent society. It is no good saying that charities can find other funds for their policy and advocacy work. As my noble friend Lord Griffiths said, that is fine if you are running a charity looking after children, or indeed animals. It is very easy to raise money then. However, it is much more difficult if you are doing it for unpopular causes. Those of us involved in those areas are highly dependent on public funds and there is not necessarily other money available to look after those broader interests.
I should have declared my interest as a charity trustee and, indeed, as a proud member of the National Trust. If every organisation were as popular as that, we should all be very grateful. We have heard today about the extraordinary work being done by NOAH, Unionlearn, St John Ambulance, the Cat Protection League, Quick Reads, Carers and all sorts of organised charities, the stress on their potential for innovation and about the fruits of their experience that otherwise are not discovered. Therefore, I hope that the Minister’s final words about listening and taking back our comments to whichever department they concern will happen. I think that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said that these charities are a precious part of our democratic ecology. To continue their work they need a relationship with the Government which is not where it is at the moment. At present, they feel that the Government want to tie them up in anti-advocacy clauses and prevent them lobbying. That surely is not good for any of us.
On behalf of the whole House, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who have taken on particular roles. We look forward to the future work of the Select Committee. Charities are much loved by this House. We hope that we can trust the Government to be a great help rather than a hindrance to them.
Grammar Schools
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education to an Urgent Question in the other place earlier today about grammar schools. The Statement is as follows.
“As the Prime Minister has said, this Government are committed to building a country that works for everyone, not just the privileged few, and we believe that every person should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential, no matter what their background or where they are from. Education is at the heart of this ambition. We inherited a system from the last Labour Government, however, where far too many children left school without the qualifications or skills they needed to be successful in life. Our far-reaching reforms over the last six years have changed this: strengthening school leadership; improving standards of behaviour in our classrooms; ensuring children are taught to read more effectively; and improving maths teaching in primary schools. As a result, there are now 1.4 million more pupils in schools rated as good or outstanding than in 2010. This means more young people are being given the opportunity to access better teaching and to maximise their potential. This is what we want for all children and we are continuing our reforms so that every child can have the best possible start in life. It is why we are doubling free childcare to 30 hours for working parents of three and four year-olds.
As I said in July on the issue of academic selection, I am open-minded because we cannot rule out anything that could help us to grow opportunity for all and give more people the chance to do well in life. The landscape for schools has changed hugely in the last 10, 20, 30 years—we now have a whole variety of educational offers available. There will be no return to the simplistic, binary choice of the past where schools separate children into winners and losers, successes or failures. This Government want to focus on the future, to build on our success since 2010 and to create a truly 21st-century schools system. We want a system that can cater for the talents and abilities of every single child. To achieve that, we need a truly diverse range of schools and specialisms. We need more good schools in more areas of the country responding to the needs of every child, regardless of their background.
We are looking at a range of options and I expect any new proposals to focus on what we can do to help everyone to go as far as their own individual talents and capacity for hard work will take them. Education policy to that end will be set in due course”.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement although it must be said that it was rather vague and unconvincing. Indeed, anyone listening to the Secretary of State this morning would have been struck by just how unconvinced she herself sounded when making it. The Minister will regard it as a backhanded compliment that his delivery was slightly better.
On the day that she assumed office, the Prime Minister announced that she would put social mobility at the heart of her agenda. That pledge was cast into doubt when she quickly abolished maintenance grants for students and any doubts were removed yesterday when she defended plans for new or expanded grammar schools. The Minister said that he was open-minded on the matter; the Prime Minister has already moved at least one step beyond that because whatever claims in support of grammar schools can be sustained, advancing social mobility is not one of them. I was surprised to hear the Minister tell your Lordships’ House yesterday that there is no clear evidence to support the views of the Chief Inspector of Schools, who said that the idea that poor children would benefit from the return of grammar schools was, “tosh and nonsense”. In fact, the Minister need look no further than Buckinghamshire or Kent to have Sir Michael Wilshaw’s opinion confirmed —an opinion, it might be said, that was supported yesterday by the Minister’s colleague and former Education Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts.
In answer to a question following her Statement today, the Secretary of State said that the Government’s plans will not involve a return to secondary moderns. Well, perhaps not in name, but as that suggests that a considerable amount of policy development must have taken place already, will the Minister explain how the Government believe that a return to the entrenched inequality and social disadvantage of the 1950s and 1960s can be avoided? We fully understand why some parents are attracted to grammar schools and accept they want only what is best for their children, but to expand grammar schools by a non-legislative route at a time when school budgets are squeezed and teaching posts remain unfilled shows a skewed sense of priorities. Therefore, can the Minister give an assurance that newly created academies or free schools will not be used as a backdoor method of reintroducing selection into state-funded schools?
Lord Nash
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his compliment. I will take any compliment I get from him, backhanded or not. As I said yesterday, I am a great fan of Sir Michael Wilshaw. He has played a big part in improving our school system and I am delighted that he is in the Chamber today. I am fully aware that there are arguments on both sides of this debate. However, we do not want this to be a dogmatic, ideological debate. Just because things may not have worked well in the past does not mean that we cannot find ways of making them work in the future for all pupils. We will make any changes against a background of ensuring that we improve the system for all pupils and against our drive for social mobility. However, we need more good and outstanding school places and we want all schools in the system that are good and outstanding to help us to do that. As I say, we have not made a policy announcement but I am sure there will be further Statements in due course.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, it has been reported that the Prime Minister wants a new generation of inclusive grammar schools and yet selection at age 11, which the grammar school implies, excludes those who fail the selection test. Many young people do not reach their full potential until they are in their teens. To write them off at the age of 11 would deny them the opportunity to succeed. Why do the Government not concentrate on the Liberal Democrat achievements in the coalition, not just free early years education but also the pupil premium for disadvantaged youngsters and free school meals—measures that will deliver a truly inclusive educational system?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree that the coalition Government’s policy on pupil premium has been a clear success. We want an inclusive system. As I said yesterday, one of the ways that we think grammar schools can help improve their intake of pupils on free school meals, which I accept is very low, is by taking responsibility for some of their feeder primaries so they have a vested interest in them and can improve the performance of many more pupils on free school meals at an early age so that they can go to those schools. I take the point about the cut-off age of 11 and whether pupils cannot move at a later date. I assure the noble Lord that that is something we will consider and are looking at.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a former chair of two academy schools—one of which involved seven pupil referral units—and as the mother of a daughter who is a teacher in an outstanding academy school in London. Can the Minister tell me whether any review will include an examination of the availability of pupil referral unit places in England? Many pupils are either excluded from school while awaiting a place, or remain in mainstream schools—at a disadvantage to themselves as individuals, while also often providing a challenge to the effective learning of other students in their classes. The most disadvantaged and needy should have equal rights to having their potential fulfilled. I firmly believe that, if we consider reintroducing selective schooling, we will need to look at both ends of the spectrum, because I am certain that grammar schools would not keep such pupils if they had problems.
Lord Nash
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about alternative provision and PRUs. We have in fact created many more alternative provision free schools. There are some excellent examples in London—for example the TBAP free school in Fulham—and we are looking more closely at this area to improve alternative provision. We are also keen to make sure that provision for pupils with SEN and behavioural difficulties in all schools and academies can be well accommodated.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, we have a policy which we fought extremely hard for—that every child has a right to an academic education. We need a very high proportion of our pupils to be academically excellent. How on earth does a grammar school policy fit with that?
Lord Nash
We have had a very strong drive over the last six years of improving academic quality in the curriculum. I reminded the House recently that sadly, in 2010, only one in five pupils in state schools was studying a core suite of academic subjects—something that would be regarded as basic fare in most successful education jurisdictions and in any independent school. Through EBacc we doubled the number of pupils doing this. We are determined to see many more pupils doing the EBacc and doing a core suite of academic subjects. It gives disadvantaged pupils in particular the cultural capital they need, as they do not get that at home. We have been very focused on improving the academic achievement of all our pupils.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, however carefully the Statement is worded, will the Minister acknowledge that if you select young children at 11, there is no way of avoiding the fact that up to 80% of the children in the area will be labelled at that age as having failed. I know people who took the 11-plus 60 years ago who today, not far below the surface, feel bitter and hurt by what happened to them half a century previously. In one case three passed and one failed; you can imagine the effect of that in a family. How on earth can he introduce a policy of this sort that does not include those insuperable disadvantages?
Lord Nash
We do not wish to go back to the past. We want a modern policy for the future. We shall be consulting widely on anything we come up with and we believe many of these issues may be overcomable and may result in an improvement across the board in our school standards.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that progress over the last few years in schools—and there has been significant progress—has owed nothing to the argument about whether we should have grammar schools? That is a political argument, which unfortunately some on each side would like to resurrect. The issue is excellence in schools. There is already selection; setting takes place in schools. There are schools already within the system which can select on the basis of special aptitude—for example the King’s College specialist school in mathematics, where there is no point attending unless you have particular ability in mathematics. Selection can take place, but there has to be a rationale for it that is not political.
Lord Nash
The noble Lord, as always, makes a good point and he is, as we know, very experienced in this area. We want to harness the excellent ability of all schools to improve the performance of a school. He is quite right that there is selection in schools. Many schools are now setting; I know the chief inspector believes strongly in setting, and I have seen much evidence that parents support that kind of selection in schools.
NHS: Health and Social Care Act 2012
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Hanworth
That this House takes note of the impact of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 on the current performance of the National Health Service and its future sustainability.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the very existence of the NHS is in danger, as is the principle of a universal healthcare provision free at the point of delivery. The NHS is being turned into a market-based system. The proponents of these changes envisage that the system will be financed by private insurance policies that will allow individual policyholders to determine the extent of their insurance cover and the level of care to which they will be entitled. The services will be provided by commercial organisations under the rubric of the NHS. Many of them will be displaying the familiar NHS logo in a deceptive manner. These changes have been proceeding gradually for the past 25 years, but they have been accelerating under the coalition Government and under the succeeding Conservative Government.
Notwithstanding the rubric of this debate, which will be concerned mainly with the developments since the passing of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, I shall begin by recounting the slow and inexorable process by which the original intentions of the NHS have been subverted. It will be helpful to understand how the NHS has been brought to a state where it has become easy prey to the provisions of the 2012 Act. The NHS, at its inception in 1948, was an egalitarian system. In the alliterative words of one commentator, it was envisaged that “judges and janitors” would occupy adjacent hospital beds. The NHS was to be funded by taxation, and no one was to be charged for its services.
The 1948 Act took hospitals into public ownership, but it left GP surgeries in private ownership and seemingly allowed GPs the dignity of continuing to be self-employed. Indeed, many of these surgeries were located in the private residences of the practitioners. Latterly, group practices in dedicated buildings have become the norm; and most doctors are now virtually salaried employees of the state. However, the enduring private ownership of surgeries has allowed them increasingly to fall into the hands of commercial enterprises.
It has been said that the intentions of the Conservative Party to privatise the NHS have been hidden in full view of the rest of us, and it is a wonder that they have so often and for so long escaped our notice. A statement of these intentions was contained in a Conservative policy document of 1988, authored jointly by Oliver Letwin and John Redwood and titled Britain’s Biggest Enterprise: Ideas for Radical Reform of the NHS. Others have drawn attention to this text. The polemic of these authors centred on their unjustifiable claims of administrative inefficiency in the NHS. Their pamphlet also inveighed against the supposed discomfort of the service, which it likened to that of a prison.
The authors were irked by the absence of such modern facilities as private telephones and television sets which, in their opinion, should be available to all those who cared to pay for them. They appeared to dislike the prospect of rubbing shoulders with the masses. To them, the prospect of being placed in a queue was a clear indication of the dysfunctional nature of the system. Their prescription for eliminating queues was to establish a market mechanism which would ration medical services by pricing them.
A minimum list of the measures proposed that should be taken in reforming the NHS may be enumerated as follows: first, the establishment of the NHS as an independent trust; secondly, increased use of joint ventures between the NHS and the private sector; thirdly, extending the principle of charging; fourthly, a system of health credits to be supplemented, if so desired, by the patients; and, fifthly, a national health insurance scheme.
In a telling admission, the authors acknowledged that these reforms could not be achieved in a single step, for the reason that the public would find them unacceptable. Therefore, they accepted that the agenda would have to be fulfilled gradually and in stages. True to this agenda, the current Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, is on record as having called for the direct funding of the NHS to be replaced by an insurance system. I would like to suggest that this agenda has been firmly in the minds of the Conservative policymakers from that day to the present. It is on account of its cunning concealment as much as its gradual realisation that many of us have failed to recognise what has been afoot.
The story goes back further in time. The process of reform—that is, the process of turning the NHS into a business—began in a modest way in 1983 under Margaret Thatcher, when she commissioned the so-called Griffiths report, which led to the introduction of a body of managers into a system previously run by clinical professionals. It was not until January 1989 that Thatcher announced a major review of the NHS, which aimed, so she said, to extend patient choice and to delegate responsibility to where the services were provided. These have continued to be the misleading mantras of most of the Conservative reorganisations.
The resulting National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 created GP fundholding in order to promote a quasi-market within the National Health Service. The subsequent Health Authorities Act 1995 abolished the 14 regional health authorities, which were replaced by eight regional offices of a newly established NHS Executive. Here, we see another theme of the Conservative reorganisations, which claim to promote decentralisation but which actually accomplish the reverse.
There were indications that the incoming Labour Administration of 1997 would reverse some of these reforms. Thus, in 1997-98, GP fundholding was abolished by the Labour Government. However, Labour soon took over from where the Conservatives had left off. In 2001, primary care trusts were established. In 2002, NHS foundation trusts were announced by the Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, and they were established via the health and social care Act of 2003. These trusts were centred on large hospitals, which were to be given a degree of independence from the Department of Health and from the strategic health authorities, and which were to have a degree of financial autonomy. At the same time, an extensive outsourcing of ancillary services was encouraged.
That autonomy enabled the trusts to pursue private finance initiatives, or PFIs, whereby a massive investment in the NHS was achieved under the Labour Administration. The PFIs have bequeathed a crippling legacy of debt to the NHS. Many hospital trusts have been bled dry by contracts that are demanding exorbitant rates of return for periods of as much as 30 years. A typical hospital refurbishment costing perhaps £9 million will eventually yield the private contactor as much as £80 million, and it is estimated that the NHS is currently paying £2 billion a year in PFI-related costs. Much of this income is going offshore in avoidance of taxes. Of course, one of the purposes of PFI was to shift the cost of big projects out of government borrowing figures. The fallacy of that approach to social investment should now be clear to anyone.
In the campaign that led to the election of 2010 and to the formation of a coalition Government, David Cameron asserted that the NHS would be safe in the hands of the Conservatives and that there would be no further top-down reorganisations. These were flagrant deceptions. Within a short period, the Secretary of State for Health embarked on the preparation of a major piece of legislation, which was to become the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Perhaps that was par for the course. As Professor Turnberg—my noble friend Lord Turnberg—remarked in a speech in February this year, there have been eight reorganisations of the NHS in the 16 years that he has been in the Lords; that is, one every two years. However, as the NHS England chief executive, David Nicholson, famously said in a speech to the NHS Alliance conference, the reforms demanded such a big reorganisation that “you could probably see it from space”.
The Bill was a huge document, but we may remind ourselves of its salient points. To begin with, the leading clause has been widely interpreted as relieving the Secretary of State of the duty to provide a universal and comprehensive health service in England. That duty has devolved on to the newly created NHS England health executive. This interpretation of the clause is debatable. Nevertheless, it has allowed the current Secretary of State to criticise the NHS when things have gone wrong, instead of taking the blame himself.
Under the 2012 Act, NHS hospitals are allowed to make up to 49% of their money from private patients. Presumably, this allowance was intended as a means of alleviating the financial problems of the hospitals. The Act abolished the primary care trusts and the regional health authorities, and replaced them with clinical commissioning groups, or CCGs, which now control a large proportion of the NHS budget and commission local services.
The Act proposed that general practitioners and other health professionals should be given the responsibility for commissioning the majority of health services. However, that is not what has happened; nor does it seem to have been what was truly intended. The CCGs are told what they can and cannot do by the bureaucrats of NHS England, which is the newly styled NHS Executive, and by its secretive local area teams. They have imposed stringent controls on what can be provided, and those controls have become increasingly restrictive in consequence of the financial exigencies of the NHS. Notwithstanding the centralised and hierarchical control that it has imposed, this reorganisation has created a so-called postcode lottery in the provision of services, of which the availability now varies widely across the regions.
The clinicians are typically represented on the CCGs by a small handful of GPs from the largest and most prosperous practices. Smaller practices working under increased pressure cannot afford the necessary time to be involved. In 2013, the British Medical Journal used the Freedom of Information Act to discover that more than a third of the GPs on CCGs have conflicts of interest due to directorships or shares held in private companies. Much of the work of the CCGs is already being undertaken by commissioning support units, which were due to be outsourced to commercial companies in 2016.
Perhaps one of the most significant provisions of the Health and Social Care Act is to be found in Section 75, which has established the requirement for competitive tendering for the provision of services. It is extraordinary that commercial interests, represented by commissioning support units, should have become, in some instances, both providers of health services and the providers of advice on commissioning.
The requirement for tendering has imposed a huge administrative burden on the NHS, which is entailed in the commissioning, invoicing and billing of these services. This is wasting money and it is wasting the time of already overburdened clinicians. It is also seriously undermining the provision of services. The introduction of commercial profit-seeking providers means that services may be pared to the bone.
Private clinics are now competing with hospitals to conduct routine surgery on the understanding that, if complications arise, NHS hospitals will be obliged to provide the remedy. Hospitals can be financially unsettled when cheap and easy functions are subtracted in this manner. Also, if they are teaching hospitals, the experience of routine operations is denied to trainee doctors.
There have also been significant commercial inroads into general practice, where there is now a serious shortfall in the number of GPs. The response of NHS England to the resignations and retirements of the members of a group practice has been to put the services out to tender under a so-called APMS contract, with a limited five-year term. Such contracts are liable to be taken by commercial enterprises motivated by profit and intent on saving costs. The short-term nature of the contracts discourages investment, and the cost-saving motive results in inadequate levels of staffing, with peripatetic locum doctors in place of resident GPs. The costs and risks of tendering mean that independent GPs will struggle to compete with larger healthcare corporations.
Why are politicians of all parties and senior civil servants so attracted to the prospect of the commercial provision of health services? In answer to this, I should observe that many of them have strong affiliations to private health that often entail pecuniary interests. Simon Stevens, the current chief executive officer of NHS England, spent 10 years as a senior executive in UnitedHealthcare, which is the biggest multinational healthcare corporation in the United States. I should also observe that, with Andy Burnham as a notable exception, the majority of former Secretaries of State for Health have financial interests in commercial healthcare.
The conditions are now in place for a wholescale takeover of the NHS by commercial enterprises. In spite of numerous withdrawals of the private sector due to unprofitability attributed to the exigencies of the NHS finances, and in spite of some outstanding cases of fraud and malfeasance among private providers, it appears that the proportion of the NHS budget devoted to purchasing from private providers is increasing apace. Some commercial enterprises, such as Serco and UnitedHealthcare, have pulled out of providing medical services to patients, leaving behind them a wake of disorganisation. The overstretched NHS has had to pick up the pieces. Nevertheless, the accounts provided by the Department of Health in July of this year have shown that 7.3% of total NHS expenditure in 2014-15 went to private providers, which represents an increase of 1.2% over the previous year. This is the biggest annual rise in both absolute and percentage terms since 2006.
Meanwhile, so-called sustainability and transformation plans are being demanded from local NHS areas by NHS England. These are aimed at saving large sums of money, while improving the quality of healthcare. It has become abundantly clear that such plans amount to dangerous fallacies. They have already been widely discredited. They would lead to widespread closures and amalgamations of hospitals, and they would strip the NHS bare. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that we are grateful to the noble Viscount for initiating the debate. I hope that the debate will be more directed towards the future of the National Health Service, its sustainability and how it can achieve improving quality. I do not, therefore, propose to examine in detail the many assertions made in the noble Viscount’s speech, but I put on record that I think there were many errors in what he had to say about the past.
On one particular point, from my personal point of view, I will just say this. As the Conservative Party’s lead spokesman on health for more than nine years, I am proud that, with David Cameron’s active support, we made it very clear that we would not at any point countenance a shift away from the NHS as a comprehensive, universal service, available free at the point of use and funded out of general taxation. I am also proud that, in the midst of the financial imperatives that we faced in 2010, he and I, together with our Liberal Democrat colleagues in coalition, gave the NHS the priority that it needed and increased its budget in real terms through the last Parliament.
What did the Health and Social Care Act set out to do? It was and has been a structural change. It was founded on a set of principles that were not new to the National Health Service at all. Over the preceding 20 years, pretty much every Secretary of State agreed, with the exception of Frank Dobson—the noble Viscount in his speech was at least even-handed in condemning past Labour Governments and coalitions as well as the Conservative Party—that we needed to devolve responsibility within the National Health Service, to give greater freedoms to providers to promote patient choice and indeed to be very clear about the distinction between the commissioning function and the provider function. I make no bones about the fact that it is designed to create a stronger commissioning structure. Where I agree with the noble Viscount is that that is as yet an unfinished task.
There is a constant pressure within the National Health Service for the providers to control the structure of activity and for commissioners, not independently, to use their budgetary and statutory powers to determine what is in the best interests of patients. That actually is what is in the Bill. It does not say that there has to be compulsory competitive tendering. It does not tell the commissioners how they should go about it in terms of the use or otherwise of competition. What it says is that they have to use their powers in order to deliver what is in the best interests of patients, and if there is something that does not involve competition, they are entirely at liberty under the statute to do exactly that.
Secondly, what did the Health and Social Care Act not do? It did not introduce competition. There is a reason why the noble Viscount referred to 2006 as the starting point for his analysis of private sector activity on outsourcing in the National Health Service. It was in 2006 that the previous Labour Government introduced it. PFI is the largest element of privatisation, and there is nothing in the 2012 Act that requires any extension of privatisation. On the contrary, it did away with the past Labour Government’s ability under the law to discriminate in favour of the private sector. There is no potential to do that. The only reason why any commissioner should use the private sector is because it would provide a better service and at a lower cost. Actually, we shifted the structure of “any qualified provider”—which is not in the Act—from a cost basis to a quality basis; it has to provide a better quality and they are on the same tariffs.
What the Act also did not do is create deficits in the National Health Service. I am proud of the fact that, in the three years during which I was responsible for the financial situation in the National Health Service, it was in surplus all that time and, indeed, not on a declining trend. The number of trusts in deficit in 2013-14 was proportionately the same as in 2009-10. There are subsequent reasons why the NHS has shifted into financial deficit. It is partly to do with the Francis report, which came after I ceased to be Secretary of State. It is not that it was not a good report, but the response to it focused on the extension of staffing and measuring staffing, with the consequent impact on agency costs not least, rather than a focus on outcomes. I am proud of the fact that the outcomes framework for the National Health Service and a focus on quality and outcomes were at the heart of the reform process—and should be, and often still is not. Too often, the debate about the National Health Service is completely obsessed with inputs and activity levels, and far too little focused on outcomes. We have an outcomes framework and we should focus on it.
What do we need to do in the future? We should not, in my view, revert to monopoly. Sustainability and transformation plans, while they are rightly the product of collective and collaborative working, should not attempt to create monopolistic structures in the NHS because a monopoly in the NHS would do exactly the same thing as it does anywhere, which is to pretend, through offering short-term benefits, to provide long-term benefits but actually to entrench provider interests as opposed to the patient interests. We should not restrict choice and we should not end clinical commissioning. We should not allow the commissioning function and the provider function to be submerged into one organisation; they are distinct and separate, and the conflict of role between those two should not be confused. As to sustainability and transformation plans, we should not allow them to become what they were back in 2006, when there were substantial deficits, albeit at a time of rising resources. We should not allow them to be an effort to try to constrain demand by restricting supply, which is what tended to happen back in those days.
What we need is more integration, and the Act led, through health and well-being boards and the role of local government and its ancillary additional functions on public health, to a real opportunity for greater integration. The commissioning function should involve local government and the NHS very much working together. One of the principal reasons for the deficits is the lack of reform in social care, and we should implement Dilnot. As I have said in this House, there were reasons why it was not done, which I do not accept. It should have been done, it still must be done and it should form part of an input to social care.
Finally, we must acknowledge the necessity for the NHS to have the resources it needs for the future. Time does not permit me to explain all that, but we never would have anticipated in 2010 that we would go for a full decade with a less than 1% real-terms increase year by year. We have to accept that the sustainability of the NHS requires resources for the NHS and for social care on a scale that is not presently anticipated in the current spending review.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on securing this vital debate. The starting point for our debate is the impact of the 2012 Act—legislation which is etched on the memory of many in this Chamber, and I suspect none more so than the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who has just spoken. It was the first Bill I was actively involved in after joining this Chamber and, my goodness me, it felt like a baptism of fire. It is fair to say that it was a highly charged and contentious piece of legislation. However, rather than rehearse the heated arguments again, today I will focus primarily on how the system has responded to the changes and what it means for the future.
We probably all agree that there is no appetite for further structural reform, and I doubt whether there will be in the years ahead. Therefore, the current immense problems of sustainability will need to be resolved within the current architecture. This will require huge ingenuity, creativity, cultural and behavioural change, and transformed styles of leadership at both national and local level, along with very different financial incentives.
As we have heard, the 2012 Act introduced major structural changes—I am not going to run through them again—but how has the system responded to these changes in the face of huge financial and operational pressures? To answer that question it is important to highlight some key factors. First, whatever their rights and wrongs, the geography of clinical commissioning groups is not strategic. Simply put, there are considerably more CCGs—some 209—than there are hospitals, of which there are just over 150. That is not helpful. Such fragmentation militates against strategic planning and decision-making.
Secondly, the more market-based system that competition and the introduction of foundation trusts by successive Governments heralded may have been okay during times of plenty, but during a period of unprecedented austerity, coupled with a major growth in demand, it has proved much harder to sustain. Each trust fights hard to protect its own position, making collaborative working and the significant shifting of resources much harder.
Thirdly, in practice it has proved very hard for GPs to undertake the role envisaged for them of fundamentally reshaping the services provided by hospitals for the benefit of their patients. Too often they have been overwhelmed by rising demand, making effective collaboration between GPs and hospital consultants, which can be hard at the best of times, a distant dream.
The simple truth is that there is not enough money in the system to do all the things being asked of the health and social care system at a time of rapidly rising demand from a growing and ageing population—and that is before we come to the newest policy goal of seven-day working. We would all like to see that in an ideal world, but it must be properly resourced and planned if it is ever to become a reality. The current approach of trying to ram it through on resources that are not really adequate for five-day working, let alone seven, is clearly not viable.
There has been no shortage of recent reports demonstrating the parlous state of NHS finances. Reports from NHS Improvement, the King’s Fund, Nuffield Trust, the Public Accounts Committee and others have all shown rapidly declining financial performance and an alarming scale of deficits. In short, the NHS ended 2015-16 with an aggregate deficit of some £1.85 billion—a threefold increase on the previous year and the largest deficit in NHS history.
It is not at all clear how the £22 billion funding shortfall by 2020 will be achieved. When resources and demand are so out of kilter, what is urgently needed is a system-wide response, with system-wide thinking at its very core. This means putting far greater emphasis on geography—or place-shaping, as it is sometimes called—and, in essence, thinking in terms of local health economies rather than in terms of individual institutions or bricks and mortar. That system-wide thinking needs to be based on trust, collaboration, innovation and sophisticated networking—in short, the key ingredients of a joined-up response.
In fairness, the Five Year Forward View—widely regarded as an excellent document setting out a long-term vision—coupled with the planning guidance are both attempting to do just that. We have recently had the introduction of the five-year sustainability and transformation plan, which highlights the need for systemic leadership and a truly place-based plan, with local leaders, including from local government, coming together and developing a shared vision of what will work best for the local community.
This is a welcome shift in emphasis towards collaboration rather than competition in the way NHS services are planned, even if it is being done somewhat by stealth. It also provides a much-needed opportunity to plan for a health service focused far more on people living in the community with long-term conditions rather than on treating illness in hospitals.
The country is divided into 44 sustainability and transformation footprints, as they are being called. Getting the geography right is essential, and they should have the strategic scale to look at major reconfigurations of services, including shifting resources from the acute sector into primary care, community care and, critically, social care—something that the smaller CCGs clearly struggle to do.
The approach feels right if the focus can be on far greater integration, collaboration and system-wide thinking. It is a real concern that the general mood music around these plans, due to be published in October, is negative at the moment. We have had reports of excessive secrecy, lack of local engagement and a strong emphasis on preventing immediate financial collapse at the expense of proper long-term thinking and planning towards long-term sustainability.
A recent statement from the chief executive of the King’s Fund, commenting on the plans, was blunt. He said:
“Almost all the additional funding provided by the government this year is being used to reduce deficits in acute hospitals, leaving little if any to invest in services outside hospital. Sustainability and transformation plans will not be credible unless they demonstrate how money and staff for these services will be found”.
Similarly, a recent Nuffield Trust report concluded the same thing. It had in it the memorable phrase that we would have to “preserve the NHS in aspic”—meaning having to halt any further advancement in healthcare quality and new treatment.
The final sentence of that report reads:
“The political acceptability of that—following a Brexit campaign which highlighted a potential £350 million for the NHS a week—is highly questionable”.
That is putting it mildly. We must have an honest debate which recognises that the service transformation needed for a health service fit for the future will take much longer than one Parliament, must be properly resourced, even if that means raising extra taxation, and, critically, have the financial incentives which encourage and reward collaboration and system-wide thinking. Otherwise we will simply limp from one crisis to another, and that is to no one’s benefit.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be involved in today’s debate, although it is a troubling area of policy. The Minister has heard me on this before. The introduction of this legislation and the way that things have gone have not been a happy tale for the National Health Service—and, most importantly, for too many patients who look to the National Health Service and rely on it.
We know that one of the biggest challenges facing the NHS is the change in the nature of the population. Those changes in the population, and therefore the patient profile, were not addressed in this legislation, which was about structures. I am the last person to say that structures do not matter, but in the National Health Service people work with what they are given. They have to spend so much time trying to sort out what the legislation means in terms of structures and who is responsible for this, that and the other that they have not been tackling the issues that really affect patient care.
I am concerned particularly, as the Minister will not be surprised to hear, about the integration of the different sectors—the integration of the National Health Service with social care—which is one of the real priorities at the moment. They are two totally different systems and the changes in the Act have not enabled and helped those two systems to work more closely together. It is a real problem. There are many other problems but I am leaving it to other people to talk about them. I will concentrate on this issue.
What has happened is that there has been a greater concentration on trying to sort out hospital provision, and subsequent government policies have added to the total inability properly to deal with social care. It is social care that is absolutely critical to hospitals in terms of bed blocking, but also to the most vulnerable: the elderly and people with disabilities. Their voice is not as loud as other people’s in the system—it would not be, for obvious reasons—and their ability to have choice and quality of care differs hugely across this country.
I could weep over the Government not having worked more effectively across government on this issue. The idea that 40% cuts in local government—when so much of local government money is spent either on the elderly or on children—would not affect social care and not have consequent effects on the NHS, and not to have worked that out before the Government initiated certain policies, is risible.
As I uncovered in written PQs, the position is particularly difficult in the north-east—I suspect the Minister knows what I am going to say. I applaud the Prime Minister’s ambition that no area should feel left behind and that no individuals should feel that they do not have an equal opportunity to prosper. But look at what has happened and what is happening in the north-east. The actions that the Government have taken have exacerbated the problems and not eased them.
Poverty affects health. We should not need to say it but we still need to. The incredible reports from Marmot and so on show us just how much they affect health. In the north-east we have many more people who do not have the financial means to assist their own healthcare, so we have a much higher proportion of the population who are dependent on public subsidy in social care. As the Minister knows, I uncovered through these Parliamentary Questions that we have the highest proportion of people who are reliant on public funding for their care needs and the lowest ability to raise money in council tax because of the low value of housing.
The Government took a decision that one of the main ways of further funding social care would be through a 2% levy. When that happened, not a single authority in the north-east gained sufficient money from the 2% levy even to meet the rise in the minimum wage that the Chancellor announced on the same day. Whereas some authorities—I am told—have as a little as 1%, 2% or 3% of their social care users who are reliant on public funds, in South Tyneside, as one example, 89% of those who are dependent on social care rely on public funding. That authority got some £794,000 from the 2% increase and it nowhere near covered the costs in the social care sector of the minimum wage.
There is also, as the Minister knows, a crisis among the private sector providers of residential social care because they are not getting enough money. The Government have made a small attempt to alleviate that. But I am saying to the Minister that he really has to persuade his colleagues that if they want to get anywhere near meeting the Prime Minister’s ambitions, there has to be an urgent national review of how they fund social care and not to push it on to impoverished people in local authorities that have taken the cuts and do not have the council tax base that other parts of the country do. This is unfair, it is unequal and it has to change.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for having secured this important debate and in so doing declare my own interests as chairman of University College London Partners, professor of surgery at University College London and a member of your Lordships’ House ad hoc Select Committee for this Session on NHS sustainability.
We have heard that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 introduced new structures and new organisations to assist in both the commissioning and the delivery of healthcare, but it also put on the Secretary of State for Health, for the first time, new duties with regard to research, education and training in the National Health Service. The research function is vitally important because it is with research and innovation that we are able to develop the novel therapies and technologies that will over time transform healthcare. The duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that this is promoted throughout the restructured National Health Service—ensuring that hospital trusts, primary care and all the other arm’s-length bodies were sensitive to this requirement—is vital. The adoption of innovation will provide the opportunities as we move forward for more precision medicine and, as a result of that, to ensure that personalised medicine will transform the prospects for our fellow citizens and hopefully drive improved clinical outcomes delivered more effectively and efficiently throughout the entire NHS.
Can the Minister say what assessment has been made, since the passage of the Act, with regard to this duty of the Secretary of State? Has the NHS as a whole become more effective and efficient at delivering the research agenda? Has the performance of organisations within the NHS with regard to clinical research improved? As a result of increased research activity, have we seen greater adoption of innovation throughout the system? Are we able to demonstrate that the adoption of innovation at scale and pace, through a variety of health economies, is providing clinical outcomes for patients availing themselves of NHS facilities?
Beyond the question of research, there is the question of education and training, and once again new arm’s-length bodies, by way of Health Education England, were established as part of the Act. There was also a duty placed on the Secretary of State for Health to ensure that education was promoted and that we developed a workforce fit for purpose, recognising over time that the changing demographics of the national population availing themselves of NHS services and the change in the nature of disease that the NHS would have to deal with, with more chronic disease, would require a much more flexible workforce. We need the ability for those committing themselves to a professional career as healthcare professionals to be provided with the opportunities not only to establish themselves at the beginning of their careers but also to adapt and change over time to ensure that they can address the changing needs of our fellow citizens and the NHS itself.
How successful has Health Education England been in achieving those objectives? These were important new obligations and duties on the Secretary of State that provided excellent opportunities to transform the workforce to ensure that it was better able to deliver the changing needs of the NHS.
As part of the discussion during the passage of the Bill, there was much emphasis on ensuring early post-legislative scrutiny of the legislation to ensure that these important objectives were established. I know that in 2014 the Department of Health did undertake some post-legislative scrutiny. The outcome of that demonstrated that the principal provisions of the Act had indeed been established, but beyond that what has been achieved by way of the anticipated outcomes in those two important areas?
We have also heard in this important debate about integrated care and how so much of the purpose of the original Act was to ensure that integrated care could be delivered. This is a vital objective. The fact we will see the need to manage so much more chronic disease over time in the National Health Service demands a different approach to the delivery of care, focused no longer on the boundaries of individual institutions but on understanding the pathways that the large numbers of patients with chronic disease will have to follow—pathways that will require interaction with the hospital sector and with highly specialist centres at some times during their disease’s natural history but predominantly in the community.
One of the concerns raised during the Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House was whether the bodies charged with regulation of the healthcare system were in a position to determine the quality outcomes achieved through true integrated care, rather than care delivered in institutions. I ask the Minister what assessment the Department of Health has made of the ability of the Care Quality Commission and NHS Improvement to assess outcomes of integrated care packages delivered across hospital and community boundaries, and their performance in terms of their clinical effectiveness and their value to the health economy across those institutional boundaries. As we move to greater integrated care, it is vital that we understand that the systems we currently have in place are adapting themselves to ensure they can assess how quality and efficiency are delivered beyond institutions and in such a way that the investment of valuable healthcare resources in new models of care always delivers the very best for our patients.
We have also heard in this important debate about the vital need to explore further the link between healthcare and social care. Sir Cyril Chantler, a distinguished clinician, in a letter to the Daily Telegraph last month reflected on the fact that in the United Kingdom—in England—it is easy to get into hospital and very difficult to get out. One of the best-performing countries for healthcare in Europe is the Netherlands, where it is very difficult to get into hospital because there is such an emphasis on well-integrated care in the community prior to the hospital stage that they save a huge amount of resource by keeping patients in the community.
In assessing the impact of the Health and Social Care Act and the opportunities avoided by it, what has been demonstrated to date is the need to improve the collective and integrated nature of care in the community prior to hospital admission to ensure that patients might be best managed in the community, rather than admitted to institutions.
Lord Colwyn (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a retired dental surgeon and a fellow of the British Dental Association. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for securing this debate. Although I shall need to read his speech in Hansard to make full sense of it, he gives me time to make a brief intervention to remind noble Lords of the importance to the long-term sustainability of the NHS of improving the nation’s oral health and ensuring good dental care.
We were reminded of this very starkly earlier this week when the front page of the Times and other newspapers reported the results of the research carried out by the British Dental Association, showing that 600,000 people a year seek help with toothache from their doctors—their general medical practitioners—who are neither qualified nor set up to deal with dental issues. This puts unnecessary pressure on the system, costing the NHS at least £26 million a year and wasting GPs’ time, resulting in longer waits for people whom they can really help.
People are seeking a free GP appointment instead of going to see a dentist because of the chronic underfunding of NHS dentistry and constantly increasing dental patient charges. The fees for NHS dental treatment continue to rise much faster than inflation and people’s earnings, having gone up by 5% this year and increasing by a further 5% next year. I have been arguing that this unprecedented increase will discourage patients who most need to see the dentist from going to see one, but this latest research clearly shows that it also puts an avoidable burden on the rest of the already-strained NHS.
While NHS care is supposed to be free at the point of use, this latest increase means patients now cover 26% of their NHS dentistry costs—up by more than a third compared with a decade ago. If this trend continues it will take just 15 years before patients pay for most of their treatment. This is set against the backdrop of £170 million of NHS dentistry funding having been cut by the Government since 2010, with patient charges increasingly used to make up the shortfall.
Neglecting oral health puts pressure on not only our general practitioners but our hospitals. The number of people going to A&E with emergency dental problems has been rising sharply and tens of thousands of people continue to be admitted for scheduled tooth extractions. It is frankly a scandal that tooth extractions under general anaesthesia remain the number one reason for hospital admissions in young children, with 160 youngsters and their parents going through this painful and stressful procedure, which is not without its risks, every day. The cost of these completely preventable treatments has gone up by more than 60% in the past four years and now stands at £35 million a year. Again, it is the kind of avoidable pressure our struggling hospitals could really do without. We simply cannot continue to treat oral health as separate and inferior to other areas of health, neglecting prevention and reducing NHS dentistry funding while topping it up with inflated patient charges. It is not only bad for people’s dental and general health; it is also a false economy that puts unnecessary strain on our GPs and hospitals. It is an important part of our health service which we must not overlook when discussing the long-term sustainability of the NHS.
Lord Rea (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hanworth for bringing this important topic forward.
Before the 2010 election David Cameron specifically ruled out “a disruptive top-down reorganisation”, but this is what the Act has proved to be. It was also largely unnecessary: many of the changes brought about by the Act, particularly the beneficial ones—and, yes, there are quite a few—could have been achieved without new primary legislation. In my seven minutes, I will concentrate on public health and prevention, which is where my current involvement with health lies.
Twenty-three years after retiring from NHS clinical practice, I declare an interest as honorary president of the UK Health Forum, an independent but publicly funded body representing some 60 national organisations with an interest in “upstream” prevention of non-communicable disease—the “causes of the causes”. The Government have repeatedly emphasised the importance of prevention as the way to approach our current increasing load of chronic non-communicable disease. The Five Year Forward View, whose findings have been accepted by the Government, referred to the work of Derek Wanless, who warned some 15 years ago that unless the country took prevention seriously we would be faced with a sharply rising burden of avoidable illness. The Five Year Forward View points out that that warning has not been heeded and that the NHS is,
“on the hook for the consequences”,
with an increasing burden of largely preventable chronic illness that can be expensively treated or cared for but mostly not cured. So I will concentrate on the sections of the 2012 Act which concern public health and the reduction of social inequalities which are at the heart of any policy to improve the health of the population.
Theresa May pointed out, in her first speech as Prime Minister, the “burning injustices” of the wide gap in health between the highest and the lowest socioeconomic groups of the population. As the noble Lord, Lord Prior, knows very well, this gap has been extensively studied by Sir Michael Marmot and his colleagues at UCL. They have shown that the mortality rates and incidence of most diseases—particularly those which form the main burden on health services today—are consistently related to social status across the board. The concept of the social determinants of health, first described in detail by Michael Marmot, is now recognised worldwide as basic to public health thinking. The 2012 Act includes changes in the provision of public health services that are potentially beneficial. Among measures that were given a guarded welcome by public health professionals in local government was the transfer of many public health functions from PCTs to local authorities. This change was logical, since local authorities have always been involved in some important public health activities. I could list other desirable changes related to the wider determinants of health, but it would take too long in a time-limited debate.
The concern of public health professionals about the move to local authorities was twofold: would the rearranged services be properly funded and would the status and independence of public health professionals within local authorities be assured? As noble Lords know, these concerns have been more than justified. The House of Commons Select Committee on Health’s report Public Health Post-2013, published just a week ago, states:
“There is a growing mismatch between spending on public health”,
which is set to reduce,
“and the significance attached to prevention in the NHS 5 Year Forward View”.
In fact the ring-fenced levels of local authority funding for public health were cut by £200 million last year, a move that was questioned in the House at the time by my noble friend Lord Hunt. This funding is on a steady downward trend until 2020, and will then have fallen in real terms by 25% since 2013. In addition, overall central government funding allocations for local authorities have been cut drastically since 2012, as everyone knows, affecting many local authority services which have a public health component. The Commons Select Committee on Health’s report concludes:
“Cuts to public health are a false economy. The Government must commit to protecting funding for public health. Not to do so will have negative consequences for current and future generations and risks widening health inequalities”.
These are strong words for a Select Committee.
The committee reports many other concerns about the functioning of the new arrangements and makes useful suggestions about how difficulties can be overcome, often using verbatim reports from witnesses describing both good and bad practices. I commend its excellent report—it should have a green cover but in the Printed Paper Office it has a white one—to the Minister and hope he will be able to say that the Government will accept its recommendations and enact them in full.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for bringing forward this important debate, and I congratulate him on getting the time.
I always thought that the best thing about the Health and Social Care Act was its title. I was not alone in thinking that. It gave us hope that, at long last, the issue of social care would be put on a par with health in the delivery of services. Over the many years that I have been concerned with these issues, I have lost track of the number of times I have heard people say, “You cannot run a patient-focused NHS without regard to the whole patient experience”, which of course includes their experience of social care. Admission, discharge, post-discharge and follow-up are all inextricably entwined, especially for those with long-term conditions. So we had high hopes from that title and were repeatedly assured that the Government understood the importance of social care, that the new arrangements would ensure collaboration and co-operation between health and social care providers, and that adequate funding would be provided to local authorities to ensure that their obligations could be met.
Like many noble Lords, I had major misgivings about the disruption that the Health and Social Care Bill would cause and the money it would cost—especially as the promise had been made that there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS, as my noble friend Lord Rea has reminded us. The Bill appeared to presage not just a top-down but a bottom-up reorganisation. However, the idea of better integration certainly appealed to me. In 40 years of working in this area, I have noticed two things repeatedly. First, there is the absolute inability of any patient of any kind to understand the lack of integration, or sometimes the lack of communication, between the two services. Patients will always say, “But I don’t understand—why are they so different? Why don’t they talk to each other?”. Secondly, there is the repeated response of any professional involved in delivering patient care that more integration and co-operation is not only desirable but essential. So the test which I now apply to the Act is how we are doing on integration.
The Government were warned at the time that their proposals for structural reform were going too far, too fast. So far as social care is concerned, it is perhaps not fast and far enough. We have seen a social care system which is neither well funded nor sustainable and which, as a consequence, contributes to the problems in the NHS that so many noble Lords have mentioned. Two weeks ago, I visited an elderly friend in an acute ward. She had been ready for discharge for two full weeks but was unable to be discharged because of the lack of social care provision. Eight more people in the ward she occupied were in the same position.
A well-funded and sustainable social care system underpins a sustainable NHS. Delayed discharge is possibly the most pressing concern for the NHS and the Department of Health at present. It is inextricably linked to rising social care demand, caused by the greatest social and political challenge of our time: the ageing population. That ageing population is of course also a triumph and we should celebrate it, but we cannot ignore the strain that it puts on our provision of health and social care services. Social care is the largest area of spending at local level and has been hit hard by central government-enforced austerity. Meanwhile, demand for social care is of course rising; it is predicted to increase by 44% by 2030. More people are living longer with more complex, long-term conditions that require a higher level of expertise and intervention. The Nuffield Trust has estimated that by 2020, there will be a funding gap in adult social care of between £2 billion and £2.7 billion, despite the social care precept and the better care fund.
I hope the Minister will not use the better care fund and the precept as a panacea, a cover-all, for these difficulties because they are already inadequate and do not compensate for the 37,000 social care beds which will be lost before 2020 nor for the introduction of the national living wage.
The Health Select Committee conducted an inquiry into the impact of the spending review on health and social care, and the chair, Dr Sarah Wollaston, concluded:
“Historical cuts to social care funding have now exhausted the opportunities for significant further efficiencies in this area. Increasing numbers of people with genuine social care needs are no longer receiving the care they need because of a lack of funding. This not only causes considerable distress to these individuals and their families but results in additional costs to the NHS. We are concerned about the effect of additional funding streams for social care not arriving until later in the Parliament”.
Will the Minister say when additional funds will be achieved and when they will arrive, and will he give us his estimate of how they are going to cope with many of these problems? I remind him that ADASS calculates that the sector will need £1 billion per year just to allow it to stand still and that most local authorities say that they will have to spend the whole of their budgets on social care within five years or so.
I have been disappointed in my hopes for social care from the Act, but I have also been disappointed in my hopes for the strengthening of the patient voice which was promised. Local Healthwatch and local health and well-being board organisations have been patchy, as we warned the Government at the time that they would be, while the disempowerment of Healthwatch England by denying its independence and clipping its wings has not been an edifying spectacle.
As far as social care and integration is concerned, there are some excellent examples of good practice, as the Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday, but they are far too few and, as she also said, further review is necessary. I was very pleased to hear her say that at PMQs yesterday. I hope the Minister, who is so knowledgeable on this topic, will assure us that this review will take place soon, as it could not be more urgent.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, I sit on the Select Committee on the sustainability of the health service, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Last week, I came out of St Thomas’ Hospital, where I had had a TAVI—an operation on a heart valve—to sit down to the backlog of papers from the committee. The first paper I picked up said quite clearly that unnecessary treatments should be eliminated—for example, TAVIs, which are completely ineffective. All I can say is, in that case I have had the mother and father of a placebo effect.
I mention this simply to say that in the general gloom that so easily pervades debates on our health service, we can forget what it is really like. My experience was marvellous—clinical marvellousness, caring marvellousness—and I was in and out, after a general anaesthetic, within three days. So let us not play down what our health service is delivering. It is because it delivers these things that it is so precious and our people will never let it go.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hanworth for introducing this debate. I think he sometimes got a little carried away with his own rhetoric. The moment at which he accused the party opposite of cunning concealment by putting their proposals in a pamphlet struck me as one example. In general, I cannot share his view of the 2012 Act and its consequences any more than I can share that of the Secretary of State who introduced it. My take is that only three years have gone by since its provisions came into force and it is clearly too early to form any sort of verdict, particularly since there is a much more important effect, which is the amount of spending that is taking place and the staff and resources available. It is far too early.
However, Sir Muir Gray of Oxford University, a most distinguished witness who appeared before our committee on Tuesday, said:
“I speak as a veteran of 22 re-organisations, most of which have made no difference at all”.
I expect that this one will be broadly the same. Talking to people who understand, work in and know the work of the health service, there is a consensus that it works not because of the Ozymandian bureaucracies erected by Governments—and endorsed by Parliaments, let us remember—but in spite of these bureaucracies, which mostly serve only to add cost and complexity.
I will say a word or two about the sustainability of the health service. This language has become embedded in all sorts of words. We even have sustainability and transformation plans—words which fill me with gloom at their lack of transparency. The trouble with sustainability is that it suggests black or white. We either have a health service that works or a health service that has collapsed, in which case we have to have a new system: private healthcare as in America, a Bismarckian system as in Germany, or whatever. But, of course, it is not like that at all.
First, we have to ask what it is about the health service that has to be sustained. A phrase that is trotted out as if it were obvious the whole time is, “free at the point of use”. We do not have a health service that is free at the point of use. Lots of healthcare is paid for, as the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, made clear in his speech on dentistry. We have north of £500 million of prescription charges—which, incidentally, are becoming quite a barrier to some people taking the care they need—for across-the-counter medicines. John Appleby of the Nuffield Trust suggested to the committee that private spending on health in this country amounted to 1.5% of GDP. It is not as big as public spending, but it is a pretty big chunk. So let us be clear that there is a wide range of “free at the point of consumption”.
Another phrase is “a national health service”. We do not have a national health service. The provision of specific treatments varies hugely from place to place, in a way that is very difficult to account for—factors of fourfold and even tenfold, as Sir Muir explained to our committee. Different social classes get widely different provision and as a result have widely different expectations of life. For example, in some areas 78% of people die at home and in others 46%; that is the range of experience.
There is a more sensible way of looking at sustainability. Somehow or other, the supply and demand for healthcare has to be balanced—that is inevitable. The main factor affecting supply is how much money the Government, and by extension society—taxpayers—are prepared to raise to pay for it. Healthcare is a menu with prices and we can imagine a health service in which people can choose only thin gruel and one which provides caviar for all. It depends almost entirely on how much money people are prepared to put in.
The real question is therefore not whether we have a health service that is sustainable, but what kind of health service we want. When we have decided what we want, are we prepared to pay for all of it, some of it, or rather little of it? Importantly, how can we get the maximum of what we want for the minimum we put in? I am afraid that those people who think there is a magic wand that can be waved and surgeons can double the number of operations they do in five minutes are barking up the wrong tree. From these core questions, the 2012 Act was essentially a distraction. I hope your Lordships’ committee may do a little better.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for initiating this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for what he said at the beginning of his remarks. I think we all have a great deal to thank the NHS for and we should always remember that.
There is no doubt that the 2012 Act was the biggest reorganisation the NHS has ever seen. It was also probably the most controversial. It was opposed by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of General Practitioners. While accepting the principle that doctors should have a role in commissioning, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians were highly critical of the proposed mode of implementation.
I would judge the success of the Act by whether it minimised the health inequalities in this country, whether it treated physical and mental health equally, and whether it made health and social care sustainable for the foreseeable future. Whatever David Cameron and the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, had hoped would be the benefits, I suggest that we are yet to see them fully realised. Experts agree that none of the many reorganisations has really benefited patients in the end, and this was a particularly expensive one. One wonders how many treatments could have been paid for by the £1 billion redundancy bill alone.
The stated purpose was to “liberate” the health service. Well, it certainly liberated a lot of money which is now in the pockets of many private providers who have come into the health service since 2012. I am not saying that I believe any participation of private companies is in itself a bad thing—of course not—if they can provide better services at an equal or smaller cost to the public purse than that offered by NHS providers. The primary principle must always be that healthcare is, as far as possible, free at the point of need and cost effective to all of us taxpayers. The problem is that we are now seeing evidence that the criteria for whether we need the services or not, and therefore whether we get them, are being tightened in both health and, particularly, social care, as some services close down and the rest try to provide for a growing and ageing population, and pay for healthcare price inflation.
Of course, one cannot attribute all the cost inflation to the profits made by privatised services. Some of it is attributable to the increasing cost of the research that underpins the development of wonderful new drugs and treatments. That of course is something that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, welcome, although there is always room for effective price negotiation at a national level. However, the fact remains that the NHS is struggling in a way that we have not seen before, and this is surely unsustainable. The NHS budget for this Parliament, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield, will be short of £22 billion by 2020, and the solutions outlined in the Five Year Forward View are not yet showing convincing results. It is right that all services are scrutinised as to their efficient use of money, and I understand that millions could be saved if the least efficient took several leaves out of the books of the most efficient. However, as with many other things, you need money up front in order to save costs down the line, especially if you are going to replace face-to-face consultations with digital communications and home testing kits.
On top of that, the Government promise £8 billion extra for the seven-day NHS, which even Simon Stevens says is not enough. A majority of acute hospital trusts are in deficit, and many GP practices are ceasing to take new patients because of unacceptable waiting times for appointments. Everyone knows how concerned the junior doctors are about all this. Although I believe that the planned series of five-day strikes should not go ahead without a further ballot of all BMA members, this historic reaction of the doctors to government policy does indicate that the dispute is not just about the detail of their weekend pay or training structures. They are worried about the survival of the NHS as we know it. Clearly, they have made their judgment about the effects of the 2012 Act.
Sustainability was a key word in the noble Viscount’s Motion for this debate, and it has to be one of the key criteria for judging the 2012 Act—apart, of course, from whether it improves services for patients. Nobody I have talked to believes that the current proposals for economies and efficiencies will deliver what is needed, especially given the continuing rising demand. There is evidence that the preparation of the sustainability and transformation plans is not going well. The STP process has been very top down and has become focused on short-term savings rather than longer-term sustainability. This could lead to fragmented care and wider inequalities. Neither has it been very transparent.
A current example of short-term savings is the recent closure for three months without consultation of the 12-bed ward at Rothbury Community Hospital in Northumberland. The hospital is only nine years old, purpose built to serve this very rural community, and is a valued resource. It serves a remote and ageing population, providing care to patients whose families would have enormous difficulty visiting them if they had to go to the nearest general hospital. There are serious concerns about whether due process has been followed. I am not sure, frankly, whether it is part of an STP, but it certainly does not sound like the result of a thoughtful, long-term review of local need, and is opposed by the local people and the local GP practice. Would the Minister care to comment?
Accountability is another issue which has not been well served by the 2012 Act. Even when the Bill was going through Parliament, there were concerns about this. Senior figures from the King’s Fund said at the time:
“At a national level, it is difficult to see who, if anyone, will be in charge of the NHS”.
It is still unclear how the five national bodies interact with each other, and where the Secretary of State comes into the picture. Does the buck stop with the DoH and Jeremy Hunt anymore, other than providing the money? It seems that when it is inconvenient for him to take responsibility Mr Hunt relies on the fact that powers have been delegated to these five agencies.
At local level, fragmentation, as we have heard from other speakers, makes accountability difficult. Although the principle of clinicians having a role in commissioning is one which most of us would support, there are concerns about the abilities of some of the clinical commissioning groups and about the fact that their very existence means a postcode lottery. Devolution to a local level has its advantages, but there are dangers, such as to patients with rare but expensive diseases which may not be funded by their local CCG. This is where national strategies come in, but they need money too.
Mental health, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is still a work in progress. Only today, my right honourable friend Norman Lamb has published evidence of the shambles in CCG provision for psychosis.
My greatest hope for the 2012 reorganisation was the local health and well-being boards. I hoped that they would bring together local services and resources and make the most appropriate provision for public health and social care in their areas with the involvement of the local authorities. Sadly, repeated cuts in public health funding have got in the way of local authorities’ realising their potential in making a difference to the health of their local communities. When public health funding is cut, and cannot be subsidised by cash-strapped local authorities, prevention suffers, leading to increased costs in the long term. We have seen preventive services being cut all over the country. In addition, local council representation on the boards is in the minority. The boards’ powers are not really broad enough for them to influence matters such as housing and air pollution, both of which have major consequences for health. Colleagues on health and well-being boards believe that the cultural divide between the self-determination of local government and the top-down NHS is a huge hurdle to these boards achieving better health and social care integration.
I strongly believe that the public do not want to be treated by more and more doctors on more and more days of the week. What they want are services to help them remain well for longer and for appropriate services towards the end of their lives, and they want that period of acute need to be as short as possible. Sadly, this country falls behind others in that respect. In the Scandinavian countries, the period of high-level need for health services at the end of life is, on average, much shorter than it is here. People remain well longer. Why is that? I would judge the 2012 Act on whether it promotes the Scandinavian standard. In order to do so, it would have supported more preventive services. I for one would have cheered. But it did not, so I have not.
What we need now, as has often been said by my right honourable friend Norman Lamb, is a genuine cross-party debate on how much we need to spend on health and social care and the fairest way of raising the money. I encourage all parties to consider this proposal seriously.
I would also propose that one of your Lordships’ excellent ad hoc Select Committees should do post-legislative scrutiny on the effects of the 2012 Act, along the lines of the very useful report of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on the impact on disabled people of the Equality Act 2010, which was debated in your Lordships’ House on Tuesday and was a very useful exercise.
Will the Minister consider supporting proposals for such a committee on the impact of the Health and Social Care Act 2012? It would be able to take evidence in a way that has not been possible for noble Lords preparing for today’s debate. I think that we would learn a great deal from it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as this is such a general debate, I remind the House of my interests as president of GS1 UK, the Health Care Supply Association, the Royal Society of Public Health and the British Fluoridation Society, as a trustee of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and as a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Eden.
I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Hanworth opened this debate today with an extensive, and indeed passionate, analysis of the NHS. He thinks that it is in a critical position, and I agree with him. Whether it is down to the overt privatisation of the NHS encapsulated in the 2012 Act or whether it is essentially down to underfunding is, I think, a matter for some debate. On the matter of privatisation, I should say that I have no problem whatever with the involvement of the private sector in the NHS; indeed, I think that there is much to be gained from partnership with the private sector. The noble Lord will know that, as a Minister, I was responsible for some of the contracts that were put in place to enable us to reduce waiting times, which I think was an excellent thing to do.
I agree with my noble friend that the NHS seems to have been forced to tender out services willy-nilly, at great expense and, frankly, with very poor outcomes. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said that it was not his intention that clinical commissioning groups should be forced to do that; it was going to be down to them. Indeed, when he introduced the Bill and talked about it, the emphasis was very much on local GPs making the decisions. The problem is that CCGs themselves—and certainly NHS England—misunderstood those messages, and CCGs felt under pressure to put some services out to tender. I do not think that the outcome has been very satisfactory at all.
I say also to my noble friend that I disagree with him about the NHS foundation trusts. I believe that the local governance that they have, making them much more accountable to members locally, is something to be treasured and supported.
I will just address PFI. Yes, there were some schemes that were expensive and not well-managed contractually, but the fact is that, as a result of PFI, we were able to invest huge amounts of money in the infrastructure. If you want to look at PFI, I would look no further than my own local district general university hospital, Birmingham QE, which is a magnificent example of a PFI scheme, delivering fantastic services and which, overall, is affordable. It is worth saying that unpublished figures to the Health Select Committee from the Health Foundation, which look at expenditure on PFI in 2013-14, showed that it accounted for 1% of providers’ total expenditure. It is not PFI that is breaking the bank.
We need to be more dispassionate about the kind of health service we want and how we want to see it organised in the future. What happened in the 2012 Act is a salutary lesson to us all. I, too, was surprised at the Government’s decision to go for wholesale reorganisation. After all, it had a pretty good inheritance: there had been investment; waiting times had been reduced; and the infrastructure had been invested in. I tempt fate to try to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to say at some point, but I never understood why he simply did not get PCTs to do what they should have done, which was to delegate much more decision-making with budgetary responsibility to GPs, rather than going for the wholesale reorganisation that we saw. I accept that the health and well-being boards—the potential integration of health and social care—were a very important and supportable part of that Bill. The problem is that the rest of it has produced a chaotic system in the field.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey mentioned Sir Muir Gray. He said that no reorganisation has ever produced anything of any use. I have some sympathy with that, although I suppose I must own responsibility for two or three of them. The fact is that this reorganisation produced great confusion and fragmentation at local level and, above all, a sense that no one was in charge.
My reading of sustainability and transformation plans is, essentially, that they have been established by NHS England to replace strategic health authorities because they have to have some kind of local plan and leadership. The problem is that they lack legitimacy; I am afraid they lack openness and I hear that, in many parts of the country, they have not involved local government at the start. That is a great pity.
More worrying, I hear too that STPs have come up, in the main, with tired, old solutions. So they are going for heroic reductions in acute sector capacity. They say that they are going to have fantastic, demand management approaches to reduce the intake, but the reality is that there will be no leverage over GPs, primary care or local government to make it happen. It was fascinating listening to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, about the Netherlands and the way in which it should be done. I am afraid that, so far, there is very little evidence that STPs are going down that route.
In July, the chief executive of NHS Improvement said that the NHS is “in a mess”. That was putting it kindly. We have huge deficits; performance has gone completely south, and I doubt that the Government are going to get back to any of those targets in any substantial way over the next four years. No one else in the health service believes that the targets are going to be recovered. At heart, we have this issue of an increase in demand for services, coupled with demographic changes, and the growth rate in resources is less than the health service has ever had in the past. We know that, historically, up to 2015, average real terms growth was 4% a year; it is now down to about 1%. It is abundantly clear that it simply cannot be done.
When you look at the OECD comparisons, they are pretty shocking. There are 29 countries which have more CT scanners per capita than we do. There are 28 with more MRI units and 25 have more hospital beds per capita. That gives the lie to those who think that the acute sector in this country is overinvested. Thirteen have more doctors per capita; 18 have more health expenditure; 18 have more nurses. On comparative terms, I agree with my noble friend Lord Lipsey, it is almost a miracle that it achieves what it does with the kind of resources that it is given.
My noble friends Lady Armstrong and Lady Pitkeathley spoke eloquently about the issues in social care and the funding squeeze. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was right about the disappointment over the implementation of the Dilnot report. It is very difficult to see where we are going overall in health and social care, except into a long-term decline. It feels like we are going back to the days when you had long waiting lists and disintegration between different parts of the service. The rhetoric is there. Ministers talk about integration, as do the STPs, but, from talking to anyone in the field who has either to do it or is a patient or a client experiencing the service, things just seem to be getting worse and worse and worse.
I do not have the time to talk about Brexit but, at the same time, there are issues to do with staffing. My major concern is about long-term investment in the life sciences in this country. The research issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, referred is very serious.
We have the Select Committee, two members of which spoke in the debate today. It has a very important task ahead of it. It could come up with a soft report, looking at all the options one way or the other and then ducking out of a hard recommendation. I urge it to go in hard. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, we face fundamental questions about what sort of health and social care system we have, what we are trying to do and about the demographics and how we are going to afford it. It would be all too easy to shy away from making the kind of hard decisions that have to be made. I very much hope that our Lordships’ House and its Select Committee will help us do that; I do not think the Government will.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, first, that was an extremely good, incisive speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I do not agree with all of it—he would not expect me to do so—but it raised all the right issues.
I join everyone in thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for raising this subject. I do not recognise the picture that he painted of the NHS and I have been involved with it since 2002. For the avoidance of any doubt at all, I put it on the record that Jeremy Hunt, myself and the Conservative Government believe wholeheartedly in a tax-funded comprehensive National Health Service. I do not want there to be any doubt about that and I want it to be on the record. I know that Jeremy Hunt would absolutely refute any thought that he believed in an insurance-based National Health Service.
I want to focus noble Lords’ attention on today’s debate, which is about the Act. Therefore, if noble Lords will forgive me, I will not address the social care settlement and will not give our response to the Public Health Post-2013 report, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. We have only just received this report. I think that response will come in due course. I say to my noble friend Lord Colwyn that I will not address in any detail the questions he raised about dentistry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, gave a list of all the people who opposed the Act. I hope she will not think me churlish if I remind her that the Liberal Democrats supported the Act at the time. On the impact of the Act, I find myself in almost total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey—not total agreement, but almost—because if we look at what drives healthcare and the changes in healthcare in this country, it is not the numerous reorganisations, however big or large they may be. It is in part demography, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Armstrong and Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned. Demography is at the heart of it. We have an ageing population yet we have a healthcare service which is not geared up to serve an ageing population, many of whom have multiple long-term conditions. It is also a question of lifestyles. I was in America for much of August and obesity is a massive problem there. It is a huge problem in this country as well. The comments made about Michael Marmot and the social determinants of healthcare were equally true. Poverty is a huge contributor to health inequalities, as we know.
The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, raised technology and its uptake. Technology will have a huge impact on how we deliver healthcare over the next five, 10 and 20 years. Genomics, bioelectronics, integrated health records, big data and personalised medicine will have a huge impact. We will publish the accelerated access review later in September, which I think will address some of the questions that the noble Lord raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the much wider issue about life sciences in the post-Brexit world. We cannot address those issues today but it is an absolutely critical area that we as a country have to address.
My noble friend Lord Lansley was absolutely right that money is critical in this regard. When the Act came in, he did not know then as Secretary of State that we were looking at a 10-year period with an approximate 1% real growth in healthcare spending against a background when we were spending 4% or 5% a year for many years, and, of course, a very tight local authority financial settlement as well. Finally, there is an issue of culture. People always say culture eats strategy before breakfast. Well, it devours reorganisations. In a people-centred organisation like the NHS, where you have deep vocational and professional attitudes, culture is hugely powerful. We may think that we can tinker with the healthcare system in this House or in the other House, but getting behavioural change from clinicians takes many years. Let us look at NPfIT, the national programme for information technology, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was very much involved with. You can fiddle around with these things in Richmond House, but to persuade people to change the way they work is much more difficult. I think Sir Muir Gray and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, are by and large right: we exaggerate the impact these reorganisations can have.
Let us look at the current performance. I acknowledge it is really tough. The targets for acute hospitals—the four-hour waiting times, the 18-week RTT—and the ambulance service are very hard to meet. I totally acknowledge that. It is not surprising, because over the last five years, the number of attendances in A&E have gone up by 2.4 million people. Over the same period, 1.7 million extra people with suspected cancer have been seen; 6 million more diagnostic tests are taking place this year than five years ago; and there are 22,000 more daily out-patient appointments. I could go on. The growth in demand over this period, at a time of great financial stringency, makes things extremely difficult. We should be under no illusion about it. The NHS is doing magnificently against this difficult background; the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, gave a personal example. The Economist Intelligence Unit recently found that, in its view, our end-of-life care was the best in the world. The Commonwealth rankings are still very favourable. The OECD has reported on improving outcomes in a number of cancer specialties. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right; we have fewer doctors per capita in this country, fewer nurses, fewer MRI machines, and fewer CT machines. Despite all the PFI investment over the years, many hospitals are in desperate need of refurbishment, renovation and rebuilding. The NHS performs fantastically well in very difficult circumstances. I still believe that it is the best-value healthcare service in the world. All this has been helped a great deal by the overhead savings that came out of the Act introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley: £6.9 billion of overhead reduction in the last Parliament, at a one-off reorganisation cost of £1.3 billion. I accept that is a huge amount of money, but nevertheless the overhead savings have been significant.
At the heart of many reorganisations is the issue of how we drive improvement. During the new Labour years, we went through a period of command and control from the centre, moved to targets and then moved to more devolution with foundation trusts. Competition and choice were put at the heart of the new Labour efforts to get sustainable change in the NHS. The Act went no further than that. In many ways it put things on a more even footing. Talking to my noble friend Lord Lansley, it is clear that he is agnostic. I think we are all agnostic about who supplies. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is agnostic; the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is agnostic. We want the best suppliers to the NHS, whether they are from the public, private or third sector, or anywhere else. I clearly remember the then Secretary of State for Health, John Reid, now the noble Lord, Lord Reid, talking in 2007 or 2008 about perhaps 15% of supply for elective surgery coming from the private sector. Today, the scale of private provision is 7%.
This is where we come back to culture being stronger than anything that we, or the previous Labour Government, do in these Houses. The culture in the NHS is not all that open to private provision, but where private sector companies can provide a better service at a better price, they should be entitled to do so. However, we have to recognise that the opening up of the market, with choice and competition, has not had the success that we would have hoped for. Healthcare is not a perfect market; it is about as imperfect a market as you can find. So we have moved beyond choice and competition to a new approach—one based on transparency and on trying to identify and eliminate unwarranted variation, whether through the Right Care programme in NHS England or the Getting It Right First Time programme in NHS Improvement. I have huge hopes that we will be able to engage clinicians and try to drive improvement through a process of transparency.
Turning to the future, I want to give noble Lords two short quotations. The first is from the NHS Plan of 2000:
“The NHS is a 1940s system operating in a 21st century world”.
I think we would all agree with that. There is a similar quotation from 2014—14 years later—from Simon Stevens in the NHS Five Year Forward View. He says that there is,
“broad consensus on what that future needs to be … It is a future that dissolves the classic divide, set almost in stone since 1948, between family doctors and hospitals, between physical and mental health, between health and social care, between prevention and treatment. One that no longer sees expertise locked into often out-dated buildings, with services fragmented, patients having to visit multiple professionals … endlessly repeating their details because they use separate paper records. One organised to support people with multiple health conditions, not just single diseases. A future that sees far more care delivered locally but with some services in specialist centres where that clearly produces better results”.
We are all agreed on what the future should be. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, says that she has heard this for 15 or 20 years. That is true, but it does not make it wrong. We have to join up health and social care; we have to integrate healthcare. Yet, since 2000—the date of the first quotation I gave—we have gone in almost the opposite direction. We have driven more and more care into acute hospitals.
I shall give your Lordships an interesting statistic. Between 2000 and 2014, the number of hospital consultants rose by 82%, the number of GPs by 22% and the number of community nurses by 14%. That shows where the money has gone—it has, I am afraid, gone to the wrong place. We have to reverse that trend but it is very difficult to do so. We have to take resource away from where it has been going for the last 15, 20 or 40 years and put it back into the community, back into mental health and back into primary care. That is the genesis and essence of the five-year forward view. It is the essence of the devolution to Manchester and it is behind the STPs that we have been talking about.
In response to the question, “Does the 2012 Act hinder or facilitate this process?”, I have to say that I do not think we would have had the five-year forward view without the Act. If that forward view had not been an NHS forward view—if it had involved Tony Blair and Alan Milburn or Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron—it would not have happened. The devolution of a great deal of operational power—away from politicians and away from the Department of Health and Richmond House to the NHS—at least gives us a chance of integrating care in the way that we all know it should happen. Whether we are going to be able to do it, I do not know. We have heard a lot of pessimism today about the STP process. However, I am much more optimistic. I shall not stand here and say that I think we are going to have 44 STPs and that they are absolutely marvellous, but most of these plans are genuinely local. They are being drawn up by local people—by hospital trusts, but also by CCGs and local authorities—many of them are led by local authorities.
I think the jury is out. These plans will come out at the end of October; we will have a chance then to see them. They will not all be good, but if a number of them are good and we can get behind them, it will make a difference. In Simon Stevens’s document, there are a number of care models, which are nearly all based on reducing demand on acute hospitals. It may be that finally we have won the argument. I hope that this will not embarrass the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, but three or four months ago Paul Corrigan wrote a very good blog—he is always incisive, and it was a very incisive blog—in which he said that the pressures on acute hospitals are great, and that if we carry on putting resources into acute hospitals, they will not change; there will be no need to change.
For the first time, there is a real possibility that we will get this change, although I do not for one minute underestimate the practical difficulties of doing so. I think it was Mao Tse-Tung who said, when asked about the impact of the French Revolution, that it was too early to say. It probably is too early to give a final verdict on the impact of the Act brought in by my noble friend Lord Lansley. However, like all reorganisations, it will be smaller than originally anticipated. If it enables the fulfilment and the implementation of the five-year forward view, I think it will be judged a resounding success.
Viscount Hanworth
This has been an interesting and disturbing debate. We have had a diversity of opinions regarding the state of the NHS and its likely future, not many of which have been favourable. I am heartened by what I understand to be the reaffirmation of the founding principles of the NHS by the noble Lord, Lord Prior; however, I am very doubtful of his optimism.
Be that as it may, I draw attention to the National Health Service Bill, a Private Member’s Bill that had its Second Reading in the Commons on 11 March. The Bill, which was known in a previous version as the NHS Reinstatement Bill, proposes to reverse the 25 years of privatisation in the NHS by abolishing the essential purchaser-provider split, by re-establishing public bodies and by enshrining that the NHS reverts to an accountable public service. The Bill, which has been presented again for the 2016-17 Session, had another First Reading in the Commons on 13 July. It received the support of numerous Labour MPs and even from some Conservative MPs. This Bill merits our attention, as do the speeches that accompanied its introduction.
I reiterate that I am very grateful for all contributions to what has been a very fruitful debate—at least I hope it has been.
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 4 July be approved.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of these regulations is to increase the hourly rate of the national minimum wage and increase the maximum amount for living accommodation that counts towards minimum wage pay to ensure the provision of higher-quality accommodation by employers, in line with the recommendations from the Low Pay Commission.
The national minimum wage is designed to protect low-income workers and provides an incentive to work by ensuring that all workers receive at least the hourly minimum rates set. It helps to deter unscrupulous employers from competing on very low pay.
Following advice from the Low Pay Commission, the Government are uprating the minimum wage from 1 October, so that the main rate for 21 to 24 year-olds will be £6.95 per hour. This represents an increase of 3.7%, despite CPI inflation currently being 0.6%.
Younger people aged between 18 and 20 years-old will be entitled to a minimum of £5.55, a 4.7% increase on the rate currently in force, and those between 16 and 17 years old will have a minimum wage rate of £4 an hour. For apprentices aged under 19, or those aged 19 and over in the first year of their apprenticeship, we are increasing the minimum wage by 3% to £3.40. This follows the 57% increase to the apprenticeship minimum wage last year, the largest increase to date.
For 21 to 24 year-olds, this is the largest increase in the main rate of the national minimum wage since 2008. It will mean that someone working full time on the national minimum wage will see their earnings increase by around £450 per year. The new main rate of the national minimum wage is expected to be at its highest level ever when accounting for the general increases in prices, surpassing its pre-recession peak. In all, we estimate that around 500,000 workers are expected to benefit from the national minimum wage increases being debated today.
The accommodation offset was introduced in 1999. It limits the amount that employers can recoup through accommodation charges. This year we followed advice from the Low Pay Commission and increased it significantly by 12% to £6 a day from October 2016. This is intended to ensure the provision of higher-quality accommodation by employers.
Since its introduction in 1999, the national minimum wage has been a success in supporting the lowest-paid UK workers. Over that period it has increased faster than average wages and inflation without an adverse effect on employment. It has continued to rise each year during the worst recession in living memory and the new main rate is expected to be at its highest-ever real value.
These increases to minimum wage rates are of course in addition to the national living wage for those aged 25 and over, which we implemented in April. It is the Government’s ambition for the national living wage to reach 60% of median earnings by 2020. In addition, the national minimum wage cycle will be aligned with the national living wage cycle from April 2017. This will reduce the burden on businesses that have to update their workforce’s pay more than once a year and will mean that the statutory pay floor for all ages is uprated simultaneously.
I note the findings of the recent research conducted by the Federation of Small Businesses and understand that some concerns have been raised about the impact on businesses’ profitability. Let me address this point specifically. The Government are committed to ensuring that the new rates work for businesses of all sizes and we continue to work closely with the LPC to consider the wider economic and business impact when recommending and setting national minimum wage rates. We have already introduced measures to mitigate the cost to business of our ambition to move to a higher-wage economy, including increasing the employment allowance from £2,000 to £3,000 this year. This measure will benefit up to 500,000 employers and take 90,000 employers out of NIC payments altogether.
For smaller businesses we have extended the doubling of the small business rate relief for a further year until April 2017. Around 600,000 small businesses benefit from the small business rate relief and about 405,000 businesses will pay no rates at all as a result of the extension.
The most recent employment statistics show that the employment rate is at a record high, with almost 32 million people in work and the unemployment rate at its lowest level in more than 10 years, with fewer than 1.7 million people unemployed and wages up 2.4% on a year earlier, while inflation has, of course, remained low. While the referendum result may have introduced uncertainty over forecasts and assessments made before June, we should remember that the UK labour market was remarkably resilient during the worst recession in living memory.
The new rates are recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission, which consulted extensively with stakeholders representing both business and workers, as well as conducting comprehensive research and analysis. Crucially, the Low Pay Commission has proven that a rising minimum wage can go hand in hand with rising employment. The carefully considered independent advice from the Low Pay Commission is central to maintaining this balance. In particular, its remit is clear that, when considering the pace of increased minimum wage rates, the state of the economy should be taken into account. The LPC has stated that the labour market has continued to perform well, with robust employment growth in low-paying sectors.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister is right to suggest that we have high or record high employment levels. We are also at record levels of zero-hour contracts. The minimum wage is not actually a wage; it is a minimum hourly rate and people fight to get sufficient hours to get that minimum wage. Can the Minister comment on the way in which the Government will approach the zero-hour part, which is diminishing the minimum wage for many people across the country?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We have debated zero-hours contracts in this House a number of times. I continue to believe that they have a part to play in the modern flexible market. There were some abuses to those contracts, which we discussed last year, and we have banned the use of exclusivity clauses so that people have the freedom to look for and take other work opportunities and have more control over their work hours and income. However, I believe that a strong minimum wage framework with good enforcement, which I am going to talk about, is the right way forward. The effectiveness of this system—I think that this is true in every regulatory area that I deal with—relies on proper enforcement.
We are clear that anyone entitled to be paid the national minimum wage or the national living wage should receive it, whether they are on a zero-hours contract or not. The enforcement of a minimum wage is therefore essential to its success and we are committed to cracking down on employers who break the minimum wage law. That is across all sectors of the economy. That is why we have increased the enforcement budget for HMRC, which enforces the minimum wage on behalf of our department. That is £20 million in 2016-17, up from £13 million last year. That bolsters its resources and ensures that it can respond to every worker complaint. We will continue to take a tough approach to employers who break minimum wage law. As of April this year, the Government have also doubled the national minimum wage penalty paid by employers, so it is up from 100% to 200% of the arrears owed to the worker, up to a maximum of £20,000 per worker—penalties that really hit those who do not comply with the law. Finally, HMRC will continue to refer the most serious cases of wilful non-compliance for criminal investigation.
The Government believe that the rates set out in the regulations before the House today will increase the wages of the lowest paid while being affordable for business. I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, first, I express my apologies to the House for not being present at the start of the discussions. I looked at the Annunciator and thought that I had about 10 minutes to spare, because the last speaker in the debate had only just started, but apparently he cut his speech very short. I was entranced by a debate going on in the Moses Room on access arrangements for going into secondary education, which was so good that I have completely lost my place. I am sorry that I was late.
However, I have heard the Minister speak on many of these issues before. Indeed, we debated them as recently as the end of last term. I am fairly aware of the issues and I will certainly read what she said carefully, in case I have missed anything. I have no objections at all in principle to the proposal that is being brought forward. For all the arguments made by the Minister, this process is now well-entrenched. The increases are very modest, but they are done in accordance with the procedure set out. I have absolutely no doubt that it is appropriate and good that wages will be lifted, which will benefit a large number of people on lower pay. Women in particular will see these benefits in their pay packets.
I have four small points that I want to raise and to which I would be happy to hear the Minister respond, but if there are complications I am happy to receive a letter in due course. The first is a technical one, which was that the paper supplied by the Printed Paper Office includes an impact assessment. It is extremely well-written and I compliment officials on that. I enjoyed reading it and I felt that it dealt with all the issues well. However, it said that the RPC opinion was awaiting scrutiny and I have not been sent that. I would be grateful if it could be provided. I am sure that there is no difficulty around it, but it would be nice to have a complete set of papers when we are considering these issues. On technical issues, I again congratulate the Minister on living the life that she promised, which was to bring these things in on the common commencement date of 1 October. She will have expected me to say that.
Secondly, the evidence base for many issues, but particularly for non-compliance and to some extent apprenticeships, depends on a rather oddly named survey called ASHE—a survey of employees completed by employers, which can be used to identify jobs paid below the national minimum wage. Clearly non-compliance is important here. Two points arise from it: is that the best we can do, and does the department have any plans to improve it? A survey of employees completed by employers aimed at establishing whether the national minimum wage is being paid at the correct rate may not be the most appropriate and independent way of checking whether it is happening in practice. Having said that, we note that some 209,000 employees’ jobs were paid less than the national minimum wage in April 2015. That is a significant number and ought to be of some concern, even though the individual amounts are small. It is the methodology that I pick up on. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has plans to improve it, because, as she said, it is important to ensure that the national minimum wage and, as we get to it, the national living wage are paid. If we do not have an adequate means of checking, I do not see how we will do so.
My third small point raises a similar issue. Quite an important part of some people’s pay packets is the accommodation offset rate. Accommodation is the only benefit in kind that can be offset against minimum wage pay. It is only up to the limit. I suspect that it is therefore quite an important element for quite a large number of the people involved, but the trouble is that we do not know how many that is, since apparently no statistics are available that give any details around it. The increase this year is 12%. It is a substantial amount of additional money, which goes up to £6 per week, but because of the uncertainty in knowing how many employees in scope of the national minimum wage offset rate receive it, it is not counted in analysing what the benefits, costs and disbenefits would be of any increase. I do not wish to delay consideration but, in the need to improve the quality of the public administration, surely we could do a bit more to survey and get accurate information. If it does not lie in BEIS, perhaps it lies in DWP—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, is taking note of the points that I make, because I am sure it is relevant to what he will say.
Finally, in a week where we have been given a lot of information about the activities of a particular sportswear manufacturing and delivering firm, it seemed a little ironic to read about the enforcement regime and the relatively small number of firms that have been reported on and investigated. Sports Direct—it may as well be named—clearly has a large problem on its plate in what it has been paying, or not paying, its employees. The situation with Sports Direct arose from a private investigation by a newspaper, not from the additional money available to HMRC. Has that taught the department any lessons about how this is to be taken forward? Might it wish to investigate other firms as a result? Its approach seems to be one of responding to complaints. That might miss some of the most obvious cases where not enough action is taking place.
What sort of approach would be better? Is there not a suggestion to be made of a tougher approach to large employers employing large numbers of people on zero-hours contracts, where it is clear that the combination of that arrangement, particularly in companies controlled perhaps by an original owner, might suggest that there will be some difficulty in ensuring that these things happen? Will the Minister confirm that in the case of Sports Direct, since it is fairly clear that there has been failure to comply with the arrangements, the doubled penalties to which we agreed in the then Enterprise Bill and the additional more difficult approach—not in numbers of employees, but in the amount per employee—will be applied in full in this case?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his courteous comments about his lateness—I am sorry to have dragged him away from such an important debate—and for his support for the regulations. The minimum wage came in under the Labour Government and we have had a lot of cross-party support for the system that they set up, including the Low Pay Commission. We agree on that. I am also grateful for his comment about common commencement dates, because we have a joint campaign to ensure that they are respected. It is not always possible, but when they are we should celebrate it. The points that he raised are technical and testing. I will start with the impact assessment. I think that the noble Lord was saying that he had not seen a copy.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am sorry to interrupt. On the front page of the impact assessment, which is attached to the explanatory memorandum—it is what I was given when I asked in the Printed Paper Office—there is usually a note in the top right-hand corner on what the RPC opinion is. That is obviously useful, because it is a traffic-light system as to whether it thinks that the assessment has been properly done. I fully expect it to have been properly done, but its opinion is not recorded there.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Perhaps the noble Lord remembers that the RPC had an issue with our impact assessment on the October 2015 uprating of the apprentice national minimum wage. It has, however, indicated that it is content with our new approach with respect to the assessment of the impacts of the 2016 upratings. Indeed, the assessment now looks at costs over two years, rather than one year, in response to RPC feedback. I hope that that clarifies the RPC position.
On the non-compliance estimates, we are working to improve them. I note what the noble Lord says about enforcement—he was saying, in a way, that we should look at higher-risk employers, and was talking about size and zero-hours contracts. I will take a look at the noble Lord’s comments and write to him about that whole area. I think that my spirit is the same as his.
With regard to Sports Direct, that is clearly a concerning matter. I have to be careful about commenting on specific employers, as noble Lords know. The double penalties have come in and, in relation to offences since the adoption of the regulation, they would of course apply. We are very much committed to ensuring that workers receive the money that they are owed and that unscrupulous employers face tough penalties. I like the combination of civil penalties, which have led to quite large amounts of income being recovered for people, and the occasional criminal penalty, where there is an egregious case and we can take totemic action. That is the way that we try to do things.
Pensions Act 2014 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2016
(8 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the draft Order laid before the House on 4 July be approved.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, you will recall a previous set of consequential amendments connected to the introduction of the new state pension, together with a set of affirmative regulations that were discussed in February this year. This order makes a small number of further such consequential amendments. They do two things.
First, they ensure that existing administrative arrangements which are designed to facilitate the annual uprating exercise will continue to operate as they do now. Secondly, they give appeal rights to decisions about national insurance credits that count for new state pension purposes.
Article 2 amends provisions of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 which deal with alterations in the payable amount of certain income-related benefits: income support, income-based jobseeker’s allowance, income-related employment and support allowance, universal credit and pension credit. These provisions allow the income-related benefit award to be adjusted without the need for a further decision if the adjustment is due to uprating—whether it is the benefit itself that is being uprated, another benefit is being taken into account, or both. They also enable the decision-maker to take account of the new rates from the uprating date in determining new awards that begin before the uprating order has come into force. These are long-standing administrative easements which help to ensure the effective operation of the annual uprating exercise.
As your Lordships know, where a person is a member of a couple, their entitlement to benefits can be affected by their status as a couple. Therefore, where a working-age income-related benefit is in payment for a couple but the non-claiming partner is a pensioner, the benefit income could include state pensions. The amendments made by Article 2 simply ensure that business as usual will continue where a person’s benefit income includes new state pension. The forthcoming uprating exercise which will determine the rates to be applied from next April is, of course, the first to apply to the new state pension.
National insurance credits which count for new state pension purposes are provided for under Part 8 of the State Pension Regulations 2015. These are new regulations, made under a new power inserted in the legislation by the Pensions Act 2014. The policy is that decisions made in relation to these credits should, as is the case with decisions made in respect of existing credits awarded under the old credits regulations, have the right of appeal. As the law stands, they do not. The amendment being made by Article 3 gives that appeal right. This amendment should have been in place from 6 April 2016 but, unfortunately, it was overlooked. Having identified the omission, we have acted as quickly as we could to put it right. This is why the order will come into force on the day after it is made.
My officials have been working closely with HMRC, which administers credits on DWP’s behalf, to devise a workaround. Once the order has come into force, HMRC will be revisiting the decisions made before it came into force. Where fresh decisions are made, they will carry an appeal right. There will be no substantial difference in outcome between an original decision, had it been appealable and successfully appealed, and a fresh decision that is successfully appealed. A successful appellant will have credits awarded to them. I should stress that to date there have been no appeals. That there have been no appeals is understandable. First, this issue relates only to decisions made in the period between 6 April 2016 and the date the order takes effect, which is around five months. Secondly, it only affects credits which a person has to apply for.
The practical impact of the gap in the law is restricted to decisions about credits which a person has been able to apply for since 6 April 2016. These include new credits to cover past periods in which a person was accompanying their Armed Forces spouse or civil partner on service overseas. Ordinarily, credits awarded for the tax year 2016-17 would be taken into account only in the assessment of new state pension awards made on or after 6 April 2017. However, the new credits for Armed Forces spouses and civil partners could affect awards made this year. A further mitigation is that before a disputed decision can be appealed, it goes through a process of mandatory reconsideration. So the decision-maker has to look at it again and if, on reflection, they consider that the decision should be changed then it can be revised, without the claimant having to go through an appeal process.
We also know that in relation to the new credit for an Armed Forces spouse or civil partner made under Part 8 of the State Pension Regulations 2015, out of 1,647 applications which have been decided up to 5 September 2016, 324 were refused—and of those refusals, 201 were because the tax year in question is already a qualifying year for other reasons.
Finally, based on data from last year—2015-16—about credits decisions made under the 1975 regulations, we know that only a tiny number of disputed credits decisions actually proceeded to appeal.
So with the change in the law imminent, and if they are needed, we anticipate that the contingency arrangements we have put in place will be required for only a very small number of cases. I can also confirm that, in my view, this statutory instrument is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope this gives noble Lords reassurance that while it is accepted that justice may be delayed, it will not be denied. I beg to move.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, it is unfortunate that there has been an oversight in providing a right of appeal in respect of certain decisions on NI credits for the new state pension, but clearly it is recognised that this SI seeks to correct that.
However, I am a little confused because, as I understand it, the decisions potentially impacted by the oversight in relation to the appeal relate to credits for, in certain circumstances, people caring for children under 12, carers and spouses and civil partners of members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify exactly which classes of credits were impacted by this appeal oversight, because it is difficult for the layperson to work it out. In particular, will he say whether that category or class of credits includes applications for credits from those caring for at least 20 hours a week, including grandparents?
The concern has to be over the extent to which the omission of a right of appeal may have affected individuals’ access to such credits and whether this SI addresses that sufficiently. Again, it was quite complex trying to follow what exactly was the answer to that question. Is it possible for the Minister to confirm or indicate the number of claimants who have been denied a right of appeal to date as a result of this omission—that is, the population denied that right rather than those who sought, in the absence of that right, to appeal?
The oversight concerning an appeal embraces all decisions on the relevant credits made between 6 April 2016 and the date when these regulations restore a right of appeal. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to minimising,
“the period when there is no right of appeal”,
for these certain classes of credits, but I am not sure how that impacts the individuals who may have sought to exercise a right of appeal during the period. Does this mean, for example, that all those who made applications for such credits which failed will automatically be written to and told that they now have a right of appeal? I am not quite sure how they will be addressed under this SI. It would be helpful to have that clarified.
As the Explanatory Memorandum observes, some credits are posted automatically while other credits must be applied for: for example, the credit for caring for at least 20 hours a week. The omission of an appeal sits alongside what appears to be government reluctance to report on the success of measures to improve the take-up of claimable benefits. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, as Pensions Minister, commented that it was regrettable that the number of carers claiming for NI credits was still so low—so I will take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether it is possible to be advised on how many carers claim such credits and the number the DWP estimates could be eligible for such credits, so that we have some idea of what the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, was referring to when she referred to the regrettably low number of claimants.
My final point is on the uprating of the new state pension and the consequential adjustment to income-related benefits. Sections 150, 150A and 151A of the Social Security Administration Act refer to uprating by no less than earnings or prices. There is no reference to the triple lock in the new state pension. I cannot miss this opportunity, given that there has been much speculation and comment about the longevity of the triple lock, not least from the Government’s previous Pensions Minister. Can the Minister confirm the exact extent of the Government’s commitment to retaining the triple lock?
Given the introduction of universal credit, over time the adjusting of income-related benefits to take account of the uprating of the new state pension will largely be in respect of awards of universal credit and pension credit. The experience of the poorest pensioners will continue to be influenced by the extent to which the uprating of the pension guarantee credit is comparable to, or less generous than, that applied to the new state pension. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s policy for the uprating of pension credit, not least over the course of this Parliament?
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I will make a short contribution to this debate. I think the House is grateful to the Minister for coming forward with these two corrections to omissions. It is reassuring to hear, if I understand the Minister accurately, that these things have been caught in time, so that there has been no real loss to individuals. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, I would like more reassurance, because it was quite a complicated explanation. I think the Minister said that no results in terms of loss of appeals to national insurance credit were discernible.
It would be valuable if the Minister could take careful note that some of us might like to come back to monitoring this in the uprating debate next spring, so that we will have a better chance to look at all the downstream consequences of the changes. In addition, I would like to hear a little more reassurance about paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum, Monitoring and Review, which says:
“We will not monitor these changes specifically, but will do so through established customer feedback processes”.
I wonder what that means and how meaningful it is when these changes might be affecting tiny numbers, but the tiny numbers might be significantly affected. I am a bit nervous about leaving this to customer feedback. Will the Minister take that point on board?
On another process point, I have always been amazed at the extent of the expertise available to the professionals in the department, the Pensions Directorate and the Pensions Agency, its predecessor. They were expert at coping with this immense detail. The regulations contain two omissions, and that is two omissions too many. They may be relatively minor in their extent, but, as I keep saying to the Minister, the ministerial team has to make sure that there is enough resource in the department to ensure that parliamentary draftsmen get all the details they need, so that omissions are not made in future. The department continues to suffer staff cuts in a way that puts unreasonable pressure on the experts who are good enough to provide us with the regulations that we consider here in Parliament. Will the Minister reflect on that?
It may be that these are two completely one-off exceptions. I hope that it is not the beginning of a trend. Those of us in Parliament who look at these things will be watching very carefully. I do not blame the professionals in the department: if they are underhanded in terms of dealing with the immense volume of ineffably complicated minutiae of legislative proceedings and provisions, they need all the help that they can get.
Again, I welcome the fact that this seems to have been picked up in time, but if the Minister could give us some more reassurance about winners and losers, even if it takes him over the coming months until the next uprating in the spring, I am perfectly content to support these regulations. I support the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, but I am perfectly happy to support these regulations and allow them to go forward.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall follow the usual incisive contribution of my noble friend Lady Drake and the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, in thanking the Minister for his introduction of this order. It is quite like old times. I also take the opportunity to thank the officials who spent a bit of time yesterday with us trying to unlock for us some of the intricacies of these provisions which, although small in terms of drafting, are quite complicated.
We note the Minister has confirmed at least in one respect the judgment of his predecessor, concerning compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. I state from the outset that we do not seek to challenge these provisions, although we add our concerns to that expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, that overlooking an appeals mechanism within three months of a new pension scheme starting does not inspire confidence. My noble friend Lady Drake has rightly chided the Government in stronger terms, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made the point that two omissions are two too many.
As we have heard, the order seeks to address two distinct issues. First, it extends the automatic adjustment of certain benefits where a recipient or their family are in receipt of another benefit which is uprated. In particular, it ensures that the definition of benefit income includes the state pension under the Pensions Act 2014—that is, the new state pension—and that definitions of alteration include those transitional provisions of the new state pension which have to be uprated by no less than the increase in prices. That includes protected payments, certain increments inherited from a deceased spouse or civil partner, and certain other deferred amounts inherited under the state pension. Secondly, as the noble Lord explained, there are appeal rights to secure certain national insurance credits.
On the first issue, the automatic adjustment would apply only to income-related benefits including income support, JSA, ESA, pension credit and universal credit. The Explanatory Note to the order sets out the limited circumstances where the state pension will form part of the benefit income of a person claiming a working-age benefit. Its application is asserted to be—perhaps the Minister will confirm this—for pension credit awards and potentially for so-called “mixed” couples, where there is currently a choice of pension credit or the working-age benefit. We are told that this choice is to be phased out. Perhaps the Minister will also confirm the timing and mechanism for this to happen.
To the extent that income support, JSA and ESA are to be replaced by universal credit, the Government anticipate that these arrangements in due course will apply to universal credit and pension credit only. This raises a number of questions. First, there is the timetable for universal credit. It is understood that the most recent plans—pre the resignation of IDS—were for universal credit to be rolled out for all new claimants between 2016 and June 2018, with gateway areas becoming full service areas. This was to be followed by migration of current claims of legacy benefits to be completed in 2021. Is this still the plan?
How does the Minister respond to the article in Tuesday’s Times, which refers to the involvement of GCHQ in alerting No. 10 to security flaws in the programme, with significant numbers of claimants facing significant issues? Can the Minister assure us that, now IDS is out of the way, the reported chaos under every stone has been dealt with? Quite apart from this order, however, we should find time to debate this fully.
So far as pension uprating is concerned, Sections 150, 150A and 151A make reference variously to uprating by not less than earnings or prices. My noble friend Lady Drake pressed this issue. There is of course no specific reference to the triple lock in these statutory provisions, although it can be catered for within the drafting formulation. I press the Minister, as has my noble friend, to confirm the Government’s position on this matter, particularly in light of his predecessor’s recent comments. Will the triple lock continue to be applied, as now, at least until the end of this Parliament?
We have been told that Article 3 amends an omission of a consequential amendment arising from the 2014 Pensions Act, and this omission being included in the right of appeal for decisions concerning awards for credits made under Part 8 of the State Pension Regulations 2015. We are told that any credit decisions under these provisions in respect of the tax year 2016-17 will need to be reconsidered once the law has changed. My noble friend, again, pressed on that matter. As my noble friend said, these could relate to decisions on credits for spouses and civil partners of members of HM Forces, people caring for a child under 12, foster carers and people approaching pensionable age. These are important provisions.
The Explanatory Note suggests that this omission will have very little effect because it concerns only one class of credits—post-April 2016 class 3 credits to cover gaps in the records of those accompanying HM Forces, as spouses or civil partners, in a posting outside the UK. This seems to be on the basis that generally decisions on tax credits for 2016-17 will be relevant only in determining the new state pension for those reaching state pension age for 2017-18, by which time the problem will have been fixed. The exception appears to be spouses and civil partners of HM Forces personnel, where credit from 1975-76 can be relevant to pension awards for 2016-17. Can the Minister confirm that that is correct and that is why it is of limited effect?
Can the Minister say generally whether the appeals rights apply only to those credits which have to be claimed and not those applied automatically? I think he did that in his presentation, but I ask: if that is the case, what is the remedy, should the latter be subject to error? Is this a matter of administrative adjustment?
The Explanatory Note seems to be suggesting that, notwithstanding that there is no current right of appeal in certain circumstances, HMRC can in the interim undertake a reconsideration, which would be the first stage of an appeal should the right to one exist. Again, I think that that is what the Minister said, but perhaps he would confirm that.
The issue of National Insurance credits takes us back to an earlier debate about generally improving take-up of these credits, which are not awarded automatically—again a point pressed by my noble friend Lady Drake. In resisting a reporting process to Parliament on a take-up strategy, the noble Lord said that,
“we intend to review these systems to identify what efficiencies can be put in place to make the system of national insurance credits as simple as possible”.—[Official Report, 18/12/13; col. 353.]
Would the noble Lord please now offer us an update?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions, which made it rather a more interesting debate than I had anticipated. I will go straight into the questions that were raised rather than reprising the content.
There have been two omissions. One was something that has actually potentially affected people; we are getting that first one back in time. We take this seriously. It is not the first time that I have had to grovel somewhat about redoing regulations; I suspect that some noble Lords on the other Benches have had similar experiences.
Lord Freud
Never! So, clearly we need to take this seriously. In this case, however, the impacts have not been great. On how the feedback works, we have an established complaints and resolution procedure—and it is particularly valuable doing it this way because, as the noble Lord said, the numbers are small—whereby people can either write or phone in. We will catch these and assess what is happening.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that I described in my speech a process that, so far, no one has tried to appeal. If they do, there is a workaround, so in practice there will be no gap at all for people. The minimum guarantee for the pension credit standard will continue to be uprated, at least by earnings every year. I am in a position, I think, to confirm to noble Lords that the triple lock is in place through this Parliament, as has been said several times in the past.
On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about credit decisions, the oversight affects all decisions on credits—which includes grandparents—made under the powers in the Pensions Act 2014 from 6 April 2016 to when the law is changed. The specific decisions affected relate to credits for spouses and civil partners of members of Her Majesty’s Forces, child benefit recipients, people caring for a child under 12, foster carers and people approaching pensionable age—and, as I mentioned, it includes grandparents. I am afraid that we do not have data on the numbers. There are around 400,000 eligible for carer’s credit and, in August, there were 10,900 recipients. There are 200,000 service spouses eligible and, since April, we have had 1,850 applicants.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, enjoys reading newspaper articles on universal credit. I can confirm that there was a most imaginative use of the present tense in the Times—all references to spies are pretty historical by now. We have been working with GCHQ all the way through to make sure that universal credit is secure. It has monitored and is content with the system; that is something that has been of immense value to us as we have developed the system.
We made an announcement in July on the timetable. We now envisage universal credit being completed by March 2022 instead of March 2021, but nine months of that difference is contingency.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about credit applications. Decisions on credit applications made in respect of 2016-17 will be relevant in determining the new state pension entitlement only of people reaching state pension age from 2017-18, as this will be the first cohort for which 2016-17 will be a relevant tax year. What he was asking was therefore correct.
On his question about a review, we carried out a review and found that the main issue was lack of information. This is being addressed in the new state pension awareness campaign. I think I have covered most of the questions, but I will go over them carefully afterwards and I will write to noble Lords.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the noble Lord sits down, I imagine he has a note from the Box ready, so perhaps I could ask him to comment on the right of appeal in respect of credits where they are awarded automatically. From what he said, I think the right of appeal applies to credits that have to be claimed. If there is an error in the application of automatic credits, what is the remedy and how is it applied?
Lord Freud
I will confirm this in writing, but my impression is that there is a right of appeal in these circumstances. It may be that there was no gap in the legislation. I will confirm that, but that is my starting position for 10.
Baroness Drake
Before the noble Lord sits down, I just want to take advantage, if I may, to ask about the issue of pension credit. It has been confirmed that it will follow the earnings link, which we know is in the legislation. But in recent times we have seen increases in pension credit greater than what is required by legislation in order to ensure that the poorest pensioners do not receive a smaller increase than those receiving state pension. Given the kind of statements made in the Budget in 2015, is the disposition of the Government still to say that there will be a focus on the poorest pensioners through pension credit and that they will not feel constrained to stay only within what the legislation says but may go above it in order to protect those poorest pensioners? I am interested so I am pushing the Minister on this point.
Lord Freud
I always love to answer the noble Baroness in a positive way, but I am not in a position to speculate on the precise levels in any particular year. We do not have long to wait until we see some of the figures. I am feeling incredibly confident about my last answer, almost to the extent that a letter is not required on this particular point. With that response, I beg to move.
Motion agreed.