House of Commons

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

Monday 16 January 2017

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Act 2017

Savings (Government Contributions) Act 2017.

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

1. What discussions he has had with local authorities on 100% business rate retention.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

4. What progress he has made on enabling local authorities to retain 100% of business rates.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

Councils have long campaigned for 100% business rate retention. Last week, we introduced the Local Government Finance Bill, which will establish the framework for the reform system. We will continue to work closely with local government during the passage of the legislation to shape the detail of the reforms.

[Steve Double]

I welcome the decision that Cornwall will be a pilot area for the retention of business rates. However, business rates in Cornwall are low, particularly when compared with urban areas. Will the Secretary of State reassure the people of Cornwall that Cornwall Council will not lose out on any funding as a result of the changes?

[Sajid Javid]

I am pleased that Cornwall will be one of the areas to pilot some elements of the new 100% business rate retention system. The pilot will help us to develop the system and make it work for all local authorities, including rural authorities. We have been clear in setting up the system that we will ensure redistribution between councils, so that areas do not lose out just because they collect less in local business rates.

[Mr Baker]

As you know, Mr Speaker, Buckinghamshire is the entrepreneurial heart of England. What assurances can the Secretary of State give the people of Wycombe that the needs-based review and the new business rate system will result in rebalanced service funding to reflect better economic growth in entrepreneurial areas such as ours?

[Sajid Javid]

I have visited the area with my hon. Friend several times, and he is right to call it entrepreneurial. Under the new business rates retention system, the redistribution of resources will continue, with baselines set through the fair funding review, so that all authorities are treated fairly.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government was supportive in principle of the Government’s proposals when it considered this issue, but it wants a lot of details. A major question of detail that needs resolution is this: future demand for adult social care is likely to grow far more quickly than the growth in business rates, so does he recognise that, in addition to retaining 100% of business rates, local authorities will need additional funding for adult social care? Will he agree to a review to consider that?

[Sajid Javid]

I am sure that the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee welcomes last month’s announcement of additional resources for adult social care, but he quite rightly points to the need for longer-term reform—something that the Government are taking seriously.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

The Government’s plans to devolve attendance allowance as part of business rates retention has caused great distress to the over 1 million elderly people who rely on it to maintain independence and remain in their own homes. Will the Secretary of State reassure them today that the reform will not in any way strip them of that vital allowance?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady highlights the fact that councils will have an additional £12.5 billion a year when the 100% retention reform takes place. More responsibilities need to be pushed down to councils as a result. She asks what might make up those responsibilities. We have not yet made a decision, but we will do so in due course.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

In two-tier local government, it is the district council that allocates land for important commercial development. Will the Secretary of State ensure that districts are appropriately awarded for taking often difficult decisions?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about districts and their role in promoting business and development. We introduced the Local Government Finance Bill last week. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that councils outside London can also promote business development districts.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

The Government’s autumn statement showed an increase in business rates income to the Treasury of £2.4 billion in 2017-18, but that remains unallocated. Will the Secretary of State protect local people from massive council tax increases by investing that money in social care and ending the precept, as suggested in October by Unison, the largest trade union supporting careworkers?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady will be fully aware that this country had a huge budget deficit back in 2010, thanks to the previous Labour Government. All areas of Government have had to make a contribution to dealing with that, including local government. I am sure that she will welcome the changes to adult social care that were announced last month.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the new system allow local authorities any discretion with regard to business rates levied on hospitals that, like Southampton general hospital, face a rather large increase in business rates following a revaluation?

[Sajid Javid]

I can tell my right hon. Friend that the new system does allow some discretion to councils, but I do not think it will apply to hospitals. It will apply to businesses, and only in one direction, but as he has made the point, I will take a further look.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), when the Government committed to letting local authorities keep 100% of business rate income, they promised, alongside that, commensurate further cuts to their funding from Whitehall. Given that the Local Government Association estimates that councils are already underfunded for their legal responsibilities, including social care, to the tune of almost £6 billion, when will the Secretary of State tell the House what further cuts in funding the people of England can expect their local services to suffer?

[Sajid Javid]

As we have publicly announced the numbers, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that 97% of councils have accepted the four-year budget deal and have come forward with efficiency offerings. In return, the Government have guaranteed the funding. That does not mask the fact that, of course, so many councils find it challenging to deal with their settlement, but many councils are able to deal with it. He should look at that carefully.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding for adult social care.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

Our actions through the spending review in 2015 and the provisional local government finance settlement have brought the total dedicated funding for adult social care to £7.6 billion over the four years from 2016 to 2020. How much a local council spends on adult social care is rightly a matter for local councillors, who know these pressures best.

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Local Government Association has been clear that the money raised through increasing the social care precept will not be nearly enough to address the £2.6 billion gap facing adult social care by 2020. Instead of exacerbating the postcode lottery, will the Secretary of State not commit to additional ring-fenced resources for social care to tackle this crisis?

[Sajid Javid]

In the last spending review, the Government allocated an additional £3.5 billion a year by 2020 to adult social care. Just a few weeks ago, I announced £900 million of additional help over the next two years. Local councils do have to play a role in this, and I note that in Sunderland the average council tax bill is down in real terms since 2010. If a local council in Sunderland chooses to allocate more, it can do that.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

For many of my constituents the fundamental problem in all too many cases is that we still separate healthcare funding and social care provision. That makes no sense to my constituents and increasingly little sense to me. I therefore urge the Secretary of State to speed up the integration of health and social care provision, so that we can actually deal with patients’ needs in the round and put them, rather than budgetary arguments, first.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is that adult social care is not all about money. Of course, money and resources have a huge role to play, but it is also about how those services are delivered. The many councils that are able to approach integration in a better way have seen significant efficiencies, and we can all learn from that.

[Mr Speaker]

I appeal to the Secretary of State to face the House, so that we can all benefit from his mellifluous tones.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

19. Between 2010 and 2020, around £40 million will have been taken out of the adult social care budget in Hull. The effect could be seen this weekend in what is happening in our local NHS hospitals. Will the Secretary of State think again and make sure that the problems that local authorities such as Hull are facing are addressed by central Government ring-fenced money?

[Sajid Javid]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the announcement made a few weeks ago that tried to recognise the pressures that she identifies: there will be £900 million of additional funding over the next two years, on top of the £3.5 billion by 2020. She rightly highlights that we need to keep looking at this situation to see what more can be done.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk). Most Members have had somebody come to their constituency surgery who desperately needs help, with local government and the health service agreeing that they need help with social care, but with both blaming each other, and it becoming a complete mess. Would it not be a good idea, on a cross-party basis, to look at a new model for social care?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to point that out, and I have seen many situations such as he describes in my constituency. He also highlights the need for all of us to talk about this issue to see what we can do, working together.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

20. According to Stoke-on-Trent’s clinical commissioning group, there is, on average, a 26-day delay between someone being ready to leave Royal Stoke University hospital and getting social care in place, and that despite a £6 million subsidy from the CCG. Is that the fault of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, or is it because of the Government’s lack of funding?

[Sajid Javid]

Again, the hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that for many areas, delivering adult social care is challenging, which is why I know he would welcome our recent announcement of additional funding on top of the funding settlement announced in the spending review in 2015. But the Government also recognise that there needs to be a long-term, sustainable solution, and I know that is the reform he would welcome.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

I spent a day with carers just before Christmas, seeing the amazing work they do across Rossendale. They, like me, feel frustrated that they are constantly under financial pressure, so will the Minister look at what can be done about increasing funding for social care, in addition to what we have already done, and making sure that the funding has a cast-iron ring fence to make sure that the money goes where it is needed most?

[Sajid Javid]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to look at the resources applied to adult social care, from both local councils and central Government, to make sure that they are adequate. We will also continue to push the case for reform to ensure that all councils realise that more can be done, besides just getting more funding.

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that local authorities are able to move patients in need of social care from hospitals to a more appropriate facility in a timely manner, thus preventing bed-blocking?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady will know that both my Department, working with local authorities, and the Department of Health have a role to play in doing just that; they are working together closely on integration plans with all local councils. Part of the funding— £1.5 billion a year by 2020, in the improved better care fund—is designed to do just what the hon. Lady suggests; it is money that goes towards trying to promote just such integration.

[Kate Hollern]

Library figures show that between November 2013 and November 2016, instances of bed-blocking for which social care needs were solely responsible increased by 89%. In the 12 months to November 2016 alone, bed-blocking has increased by 39%. Does the Minister recognise that the precept package brought forward by the Government in December is insufficient to solve the crisis in our social care system, and is putting further pressure on our already stretched NHS?

[Sajid Javid]

What the Minister recognises is that the additional funding announced in December will make a big difference: £240 million of additional money is coming in from the new homes bonus repurposing; and an additional almost £600—[Interruption.] It is new money. An additional almost £600 million is coming in from the precept changes. When it comes to using that money, we all want to see a reduction in delayed transfers of care. The hon. Lady will be aware of big differences between local councils on delayed transfers of care, and some councils can certainly learn from others.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

3. What discussions he has had with local authorities on long-term funding certainty.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

15. What discussions he has had with local authorities on long-term funding certainty.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

Ninety-seven per cent. of councils have accepted our historic offer of four-year funding certainty, and the Local Government Finance Bill will ensure that councils keep 100% of locally collected taxes by the end of this Parliament.

[Nigel Huddleston]

The Secretary of State will be particularly aware that Worcestershire is a very attractive place to live, work and visit, and a particularly attractive place to retire to, which is why we have a disproportionately large elderly population. How is the Department factoring into its long-term funding plans the additional needs of areas with a more elderly population?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As a Worcestershire MP, I wholeheartedly agree with his opinion of our great county: it is a great place for anyone to visit, live and holiday in. I recognise that demographic pressures are affecting different areas in different ways, which is why we are undertaking a fair funding review to introduce a more up-to-date, transparent and fairer needs assessment formula—something that I know my hon. Friend will welcome.

[Mrs Gillan]

Mr Speaker, as you will know, the Secretary of State has received a proposal from Buckinghamshire County Council to create a new unitary authority to serve the whole county. He is also meeting the district councils, which are submitting to him a proposal for two unitary authorities. Will he confirm that he will give both those proposals equal and full consideration, including by consulting local residents, as happened in Dorset? Can he assure me that unitary status will not lead to any reduction in funding for Buckinghamshire residents?

[Sajid Javid]

I can give my right hon. Friend the assurance she seeks. Of course, I will give careful consideration to all proposals from local authorities, such as those in Buckinghamshire, including any financial implications. We need to ensure that any reform is right for local people and can deliver better services and strong local leadership.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

I should declare that I am an elected member of the council of the London Borough of Redbridge. Local authorities such as mine face a double whammy of pressures from an ageing population and a high birth rate, which lead to funding pressures on our local authority. Does the Secretary of State accept that even if local authorities like mine divert resources from other council services into adult social care and charge the maximum social care precept available, they will still face a shortfall in funding for vital services for older people? What is he going to do about that?

[Sajid Javid]

The measures we announced in December will help the hon. Gentleman’s local authority; they will help every local authority in the land to deliver more adult social care services. Nevertheless, as I have said, as well as more money, we need reform. Some councils need to learn from others.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

A 2015 Public Accounts Committee report outlined a 37% reduction in central Government support for local authorities between 2010 and 2016. What does the Secretary of State have to say to my Bristol South constituents, who are concerned about how the £64-million cuts announced by Bristol City Council last week will affect them?

[Sajid Javid]

I say to the hon. Lady’s Bristol South constituents, “Don’t forget where a Labour Government gets you.” The deepest deficit of any developed country, the biggest recession in almost 100 years and the largest banking bail-out—all that has meant that this Government have had to make some difficult decisions, and every part of local government has had to contribute to that.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long-term financial stability of local government is a function of not only funding from Government but good management in local authorities? What does he think we can do to attract people with business experience to running good local government?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is also about leadership, which means local authorities having many businesses in their area and promoting them. They need someone with a good track record and experience from which local people would benefit. I can think of someone like that in the west midlands: Andy Street.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State knows full well that leaving patients in hospital when they are medically fit to be discharged, as has happened to 130 people currently at Aintree hospital, is a very expensive way of looking after people. Why is he not shouting from the rooftops for the £4.6 billion that was cut from social care to be reinvested, so that councils can address the problem now and in the long term?

[Sajid Javid]

Helping with adult social care is about resources, which is why I know the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the announcement a few weeks ago of an additional £900 million over the next two years. I am sure he will agree that it is also about reform, and that he will have noticed the big difference in delayed transfers of care between one authority and another.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

5. What plans he has to increase funding for social care.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

The Government have listened to calls from local government and to representations from right hon. and hon. Members across the House. New changes outlined in the provisional local government finance settlement in December provide access to an additional £900 million over the next two years.

[Tom Brake]

The social care precept in Sutton would raise about £2.5 million, but Sutton is losing £8 million in revenue support grant. A one-off social care grant will give Sutton about £750,000, but Sutton is losing £1.5 million from the new homes bonus changes, which are paying for the one-off grant, resulting in a loss of £800,000. Does the Secretary of State agree that, as long as the Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul, we will see cancer operations cancelled and patients left in distress because of bed-blocking?

[Sajid Javid]

As a result of the spending review announcement of £3.5 billion extra to be paid into adult social care by 2020—£3.5 billion a year—and the announcement that I made a few weeks ago of £900 million over the next two years, all councils, including Sutton, will have more resources to deal with adult social care challenges.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I know that the Secretary of State will agree that the progress made with Torbay’s integrated care organisation was very welcome, but does he also agree that it was concerning to see that very strict financial rules from NHS England are now prompting a renegotiation in terms of a risk agreement even though no extra money will be spent? Will he agree to work with the council, the trust and colleagues in the Health Department to see whether we can resolve this?

[Sajid Javid]

I am happy to work with my hon. Friend to see what can be done and to listen to the concerns that he raises. Torbay is a good example of how integration can work and how it can really help local people.

[Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

6. What recent steps his Department has taken to help rough sleepers and homeless people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

The Government are committed to tackling homelessness. We have launched a £50 million homelessness prevention package and are backing the most ambitious legislative reforms in decades through the Homelessness Reduction Bill. I am delighted that Chelmsford will be one of the country’s first homelessness prevention trailblazer areas announced by the Prime Minister last month.

[Sir Simon Burns]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that in the 21st century rough sleeping is totally unacceptable? Will he tell me more about what is being done not only in England as a whole but in Chelmsford to end this stain on our society?

[Mr Jones]

The whole House will agree that rough sleeping is totally unacceptable and that we should do all we can to end it. Our £20 million rough sleeping grant will fund 54 projects working to provide rapid response support for rough sleepers across England. It will help to prevent people from spending a night on the streets in the first place. I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend that Chelmsford will receive almost £900,000 funding for preventing homelessness in partnership with neighbouring local authorities.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. The inspirational ladies football player, Fara Williams, was homeless at 17, but went on to play 157 times for England, including as captain, and is now at Arsenal. Fara supports Centrepoint’s appeal for funds to set up the first national freephone helpline for 16 to 25-year-olds who are homeless and at risk of living a life on the streets, as she was. Does the Minister agree that that is a tremendous, long overdue initiative and that it should be funded by the Government?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady is right to bring that prime example to our attention. The fact that somebody is rough sleeping does not mean that they do not have the ability to reach their full potential, but we need to encourage them to do that. The Government currently pay for a service called StreetLink, which people can ring, or use an app, to report those who are sleeping rough. The details are then brought to the attention of the local housing department.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council.

Will the Minister congratulate Kettering Borough Council and its inspirational housing director, John Conway, on the measures they have taken during the recent cold weather to get all rough sleepers off the streets in Kettering and give them the appropriate housing advice they need?

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving that very important and heartening example. Some local authorities across the country are doing excellent work to prevent homelessness and rough sleeping, and the type of initiative he mentions should be followed by other local authorities.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On Wednesday, Glasgow City Council will consider a report that shows the devastating impact the universal credit roll-out is having on homelessness services in the city. So far, it has resulted in 73 homeless individuals racking up debts to the council of £144,000, an average of £1,971 per person. That is completely unsustainable both for the individuals and the council. What impact is the UC roll-out having on local authorities across the UK?

[Mr Jones]

The Government have increased discretionary housing payments to £870 million across this Parliament to mitigate some of the short-term challenges people face from the welfare changes. As for the local housing allowance rate, 30% of the savings from that policy will be repurposed to help people in the highest value areas with the challenges in affordability.

[Alison Thewliss]

I am afraid that is completely inadequate. Since 2011-12, welfare reform has meant that homelessness services in Glasgow, Scotland’s largest city, have seen cuts of more than £6 million to their temporary accommodation budgets. Does the Minister not accept that really to help rough sleepers and people who are homeless there must be co-ordinated work across all Government Departments? We cannot have one Department undermining the services of another.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady makes a good point and I assure her that we are working extremely hard across Government through a cross-governmental working group, which I chair. She mentions the fact that temporary accommodation and the temporary accommodation management fee, which originates from Department for Work and Pensions policy, is being devolved to local authorities and to the Scottish Government.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Rather than patting themselves on the back, should not the Government be apologising for allowing rough sleeping to double since 2010? This is not an insoluble problem; it merely requires action such as that taken by the previous Labour Government, which cut street homelessness by three quarters. Will the Minister adopt the initiative announced last month by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and commit to an extra 4,000 homes to end rough sleeping altogether?

[Mr Jones]

It will not be lost on the hon. Gentleman that under the Labour Government, in 2003, homelessness was at its peak. This Government are absolutely committed to making sure that we eradicate rough sleeping and we are working extremely hard, with a £20 million fund for local authorities, as I mentioned earlier, and £10 million for social impact bonds to get our most entrenched rough sleepers off the street.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

7. What estimate his Department has made of the number of high street store vacancies.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)]

We have taken significant action to help high streets adapt to changing shopping habits and to thrive. Shop vacancy rates are well down from their peak in 2012 and figures from Savills estate agents show that investment in high street retail property last year was up 17% from the year before.

[Justin Madders]

High streets in my constituency continue to struggle, as they do up and down the country. My local authority does what it can, but the support it can give is limited. It needs Government intervention and support to make the necessary transformation. Will the Minister agree to meet me and other interested colleagues to see what can be done?

[Andrew Percy]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. The business rate revaluation will have a positive impact for his constituents, and I discussed the issue of high street regeneration with the chair of his local enterprise partnership, Christine Gaskell, just before Christmas, but I am more than happy to meet him to discuss that. We are also looking at proposals that we are working up with Revo on how we can share best practice, because this is very much a varied picture across the country.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

14. Our small market towns are being stripped of their banks: there is no bank now in Caistor, and Market Rasen is down to one. What is the Minister’s policy to try to encourage more competition in the retail banking sector so that we can try to encourage banking in our rural towns?

[Andrew Percy]

This is an important point—the issue has affected my constituency—and one that I am happy to discuss further with the Treasury. The business rate revaluation will have a positive impact on retail property in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as it will across many parts of the north and midlands.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

8. What steps he is taking to ensure that adult social care is adequately funded.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

We recognise the pressures faced by the social care system. On top of the funding that we announced in 2015, which will deliver nearly £3.5 billion a year by 2019-20, we are providing an additional £900 million over the next two years for social care.

[Helen Goodman]

Unfortunately, Durham has already had to make £55 million-worth of cuts. The precept will bring in £4 million, but another £40 million of cuts are in the pipeline. Some villages will face private contractors being unable to afford to provide any social care whatsoever. May I suggest that the Minister go back to the Treasury and ask for another announcement on 8 March?

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Lady will know that Durham will benefit from the additional £900 million to which the Government are giving local authorities access over the next two years. It will also significantly benefit from the improved better care fund, which is £105 million this year, £825 million the following year and £1.5 billion in the last year of this Parliament.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Given that so much of the funding for adult social care goes towards care homes, and given that so many care homes are failing their Care Quality Commission inspections, will the ministerial team consider wrapping care home reform into the adult social care reform that has been announced? In particular, will they consider requiring local authorities to build new care homes, just as they have to build schools and GP surgeries?

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive suggestions—we are always willing to listen to those. As he might be aware, the Department of Health is looking carefully at how care homes are provided, and particularly at regulation and the role of the CQC.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

Funding per head of population in Westminster and in Kensington and Chelsea is almost double that received by Enfield, and Enfield is facing spending pressures of £5.9 million in adult social care in 2017-18 alone. Can the Minister confirm not only that will he look at the ring-fencing issue, but that he is serious about properly reflecting the assessed needs of our communities in the future local government funding formula?

[Mr Jones]

I met the chief finance officer of Enfield Council last week, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), as part of the local government finance settlement consultation. The right hon. Lady will be aware that local authorities across the country will benefit from the £900 million that they will have access to over the next two years, and from the improved better care fund, which is ramping up quickly over the next three years.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

9. What plans he has to enhance and extend neighbourhood plans.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)]

The Neighbourhood Planning Bill and my recent written ministerial statement will further strengthen neighbourhood planning, ensuring that communities have the ability to shape the development of their area, not speculative development.

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the Minister for that welcome answer. It has been encouraging to watch local communities develop their neighbourhood plans over the past few years. Will the Minister clarify how much time councils and communities will have to update their neighbourhood and local plans once data on new housing numbers have been published, and will he ensure that neighbourhood and local plans carry full weight for that period?

[Gavin Barwell]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend on that point. The Government’s expectation is that plans should be reviewed every five years, but when new data come to light it does not mean that existing plans are automatically out of date.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister ensure that when we have neighbourhood plans we involve local and national businesses more in the planning procedure? So many of the global and national chains suck the money out of our communities, and many of them put little investment back. What incentives can he introduce?

[Gavin Barwell]

First, there is the possibility of having neighbourhood plans purely for business district areas, which the hon. Gentleman might want to look at in his constituency. There is also the wider issue of ensuring that we capture the uplift in value when businesses apply for planning permission, and there is a review of the community infrastructure levy and section 106 on my desk at the moment.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to the hundreds of people in Mid Sussex who have devoted a great deal of time to putting together neighbourhood plans, and will he assure us that in his White Paper steps will be taken to secure the integrity of the plans?

[Gavin Barwell]

I pay tribute not only to the people my right hon. Friend mentions but to him, because he has been a huge champion of neighbourhood planning in Mid Sussex and has spoken about it repeatedly. I hope that my written ministerial statement has helped addressed some of his concerns, but there will certainly be further action in the housing White Paper.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Pressure on local authority budgets is leading local authorities to encourage the building of high-cost homes to boost the council tax take. That completely misses the point regarding the local need for starter homes and affordable family homes. What can be done to encourage and, indeed, perhaps to incentivise local authorities to ensure that housing need is matched by housing provision?

[Gavin Barwell]

The national planning policy framework is very clear on that point. When local authorities conduct their assessments of housing need, they should not just look at the total number of homes required, but the right mix of housing to cater for the demographic profile including, for example, the number of elderly people who might need specialist housing. The hon. Lady is quite right to draw attention to that issue.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I very much welcome the increase in housing starts, the number of which has doubled since the first quarter of 2009. To get to the level we need, we need a resurgence of small and medium-sized house builders. Does the Minister agree that we need local authorities and local communities to allocate more small sites in their local plans and neighbourhood plans?

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are far too dependent, at this point in time, on a small number of large developers. Therefore, we need to ensure that the land that has attracted small developers is released and that those developers have access to finance.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

10. What steps he is taking to promote the building of more homes.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)]

Since July, we have announced: a £3 billion fund to support small and medium-sized enterprises; an additional £1.4 billion for affordable housing; a £2 billion accelerated construction programme; a £2.3 billion infrastructure fund; funding for starter homes; and support for 17 garden towns and villages. The White Paper will contain further measures.

[Oliver Colvile]

As my hon. Friend knows, the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment, of which I am the chairman, published its findings into the quality of new build housing. Would he be willing to meet the all-party group to discuss our findings and our suggestions of inclusions in the forthcoming White Paper?

[Gavin Barwell]

I would be delighted. I have attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for the private rented sector, which my hon. Friend also chairs; he is a busy man. He is quite right to say that, as we address the fundamental challenge of getting the country to build the homes we desperately need, we must not lose sight of quality as well as quantity.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) is very busy. He has many commitments and an extremely full diary. I do not think that anybody doubted the point.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Is Westminster City Council right to expect other local authorities across the south-east and as far as the midlands to take on the responsibility of housing as well as providing education and social care for London’s people in housing need?

[Gavin Barwell]

I would think that London MPs, Westminster councillors and, indeed, everybody would expect that, as much as possible, local authorities should meet the need to house in their area those who are homeless in their area. Our guidance is clear about that. The fact that some local authorities have to place people outside their areas is an indictment of the failure of the country, over 30 or 40 years, to build enough homes. We are going to put that right.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Local authorities and communities are incentivised to deliver vital new homes through the new homes bonus. However, very few residents are aware of the new homes bonus, so do not see the gain of development. Does the Minister agree that local authorities should set out how they spend their new homes bonus in the annual council tax bill statement?

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I am happy to look into. There is a wider issue of ensuring that communities see the benefit of new housing. With the community infrastructure levy and section 106 payments, we must ensure that communities know the benefits that they are getting in return for accepting housing.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Dudley would be able to do much more in the area if its budgets were not being cut by 20% compared with just 1% in Surrey and 2% in Buckinghamshire. That has put pressure on a whole range of council services, not just housing. For instance, libraries are closing and social services are under pressure. Over Christmas, hard-working, low-paid staff in Dudley had to take three days unpaid leave—effectively a pay cut of 1%—because of this Government’s cuts. How can Ministers sit there and tell me that the cuts they have imposed on Dudley are in any way fair?

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Gentleman is certainly creative. The question was actually about building more homes. I point out to him that, over the course of this Parliament, the Government are doubling the housing capital budget, which will enable more homes to be built in his area.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

11. What progress has been made in the review of business rates.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

The Government concluded the business rates review in March 2016. Following the review, the Government announced a £6.7 billion cut in business rates over the next five years and a permanent doubling of small business rate relief. As a result, 600,000 small businesses will pay no business rates at all.

[John Pugh]

I thank the Minister, but has he done any serious analysis of the process in order to give any comfort to the hard-pressed average high street currently competing against the internet and trading in very, very difficult circumstances?

[Mr Jones]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. There is no doubt that many external factors do challenge our high streets, but there is a significant package of £6.7 billion. He may want to encourage some of the business owners on his high street to check the revaluation of their business rate following the 2017 business rate revaluation, which is now online.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

12. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of homeless people sleeping rough between 2010 and 2015.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

No one should ever have to sleep rough. Our £20 million grant fund will help those new to the streets. The £10 million for eight social impact bonds covering 48 areas will build on the success of the world’s first social impact bond, which we funded in London. This has helped over 400 entrenched rough sleepers to get back on to their feet and into accommodation.

[Holly Lynch]

I appreciate that response, yet Calderdale Council tells me that the number of non-statutory rough sleepers in our district has never been higher. While local charities are doing everything they can to tackle homelessness, the council’s supporting people budget has been slashed by 50%. Does the Minister agree that unless we support and empower our local authorities to do this work properly, we stand no chance of reducing the numbers sleeping rough on our streets?

[Mr Jones]

As the hon. Lady will know, this Government are backing the Homelessness Reduction Bill, currently going through the House, which will put a number of obligations on local authorities to help people earlier so that they do not become homeless. The announcement on funding for that Bill will be made very shortly. We are also, as she has heard, providing £50 million to start that work at this point so that we do not waste time waiting for the legislation to come into effect.

[Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)]

In Derby city we are currently looking at alternative ways of giving to homeless people, such as vouchers, an app, or through a website. Will the Minister consider looking at these alternative giving methods to see whether it is possible to take them forward?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is generally for members of the public to consider the way in which they might want to give to homeless people. As I have said a number of times today, the Government are absolutely focused on helping rough sleepers. The £10 million being put into the social impact bond will help to get some of the most entrenched rough sleepers off the street, and I am sure that is what we all want to see.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

13. What assessment he has made of the effect of permitted development rights on pub closures.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)]

Pubs are at the heart of community life. That is why we have made provision for assets of community value to be placed on the register by communities that value their pub. That takes away the permitted development rights automatically.

[Mr Shuker]

The co-operative pub model is saving valuable locals right across the country, but the asset of community value designation process that the Minister mentions, which enables this in the first place, can often be far too clunky and lengthy. Would not a better approach be to remove permitted development rights and protect all pubs by default?

[Andrew Percy]

There are now already in excess of 1,750 pubs listed as assets of community value. The moment a nomination goes in, the permitted development rights are removed. Moreover, local authorities are free, if they wish, to apply for an article 4 direction to remove those rights across a whole area.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

As the hon. Gentleman now knows, the Minister for Housing and Planning was misled by the British Beer and Pub Association about the fact that removing permitted development rights would not have any effect on improvements to pubs, so will the Department now confirm that it would simply change the use class order?

[Andrew Percy]

As I have made clear, this is an area where we have to balance competing interests. I am keen to continue looking at it as I continue in this role. We want to support community pubs. That is why today I can announce to the House that we are providing £50,000 of funding to Pub is The Hub, which will help more pubs to be transformed and to be valued by their communities. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), who has lobbied me quite hard on this.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

16. What steps he is taking to raise standards in the private rented sector.

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)]

We are in the process of introducing banning orders for serious offenders, civil penalties of up to £30,000, a database of rogue landlords, and mandatory licensing for smaller houses in multiple occupation; and we are banning letting agency fees.

[Mike Kane]

Manchester is doing some very innovative work on cracking down on rogue landlords, but there are issues with the geographical scope of the licensing scheme. Will the Minister meet me, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Residential Landlords Association to see how we can raise standards together?

[Gavin Barwell]

We have in the past provided £100,000 of funding to Manchester for this work. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman. This is a critical area, and we need to drive out the rogue landlords so that decent landlords do not face unfair competition.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Peterborough City Council is just about to commence a selective licensing scheme to crack down on rapacious slum landlords and protect vulnerable tenants under the Housing Act 2004. Will the Minister keep under review the bureaucratic burden that falls on local authorities? The whole process, from start to finish, is not timely and takes far too long.

[Gavin Barwell]

I am very happy to give that undertaking, and to meet my hon. Friend if he wishes to discuss these matters in more detail.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

18. What steps he is taking to support the midlands engine for growth.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

As announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor at the autumn statement, we will shortly publish a midlands engine strategy. This will include £392 million for our local growth fund for the midlands engine local enterprise partnerships.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and I was delighted to see that he led the first ever midlands engine trade mission last year. Will he update the House on progress on that?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend has also done a lot to champion business and economic growth in the midlands. That first mission—the trade mission to north America—went well. It went so well that we went ahead with a second mission—to China—for the midlands region. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are working with the Department for International Trade and other Departments across Government, and we will shortly publish a midlands engine strategy, reaffirming our commitment to the area.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

At DCLG, we are starting 2017 as we mean to go on. The housing White Paper is nearing completion. The Local Government Finance Bill was published last week and, as we have heard, it creates the framework for business rate retention. It also features what my briefing refers to as discretionary relief on public toilets, which is, I am sorry to say, not quite what the name suggests.

[Mr Betts]

I will try not to follow the Secretary of State’s joke.

I thank the Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse for his helpful comments in support of the Sheffield city region in the last few days. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the Government want the city region deal to go ahead as agreed and that they do not support this vague concept of a mayor for Yorkshire, which will not deliver better local services or improve economic growth and which is, arguably, outwith the legal framework for mayoral combined authorities contained in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016?

[Sajid Javid]

It is very good of the hon. Gentleman, the Chair of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, to thank the Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse. We remain strongly committed to the devolution deal for the Sheffield city region. We will continue to work with local leaders, who have proposed a mayoral election for May 2018. We will also continue to discuss with local partners proposals for a devolution deal elsewhere in Yorkshire, including Leeds.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

T4. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to creating a housing market that works for everyone. In my own local authority area of North West Leicestershire, new housing starts are now 273% higher than they were in the year ending September 2010. May I give the Secretary of State a challenge as he sets out his new housing White Paper: can we do even better?

[The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)]

I hope we can rise to the challenge. If every local authority was building at the rate that my hon. Friend’s local authority is building, we would be building 370,000 homes a year. That is a sign that it is possible to build the homes that this country needs; it just requires the political will to do it.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

My question is for the Secretary of State: where is his housing White Paper? We were promised it in the autumn. We were then promised it alongside the autumn statement, then before the end of the year, and then first thing in the new year. We were told that it was in the Government’s grid for publication today. It has been delayed more times than a trip on Southern rail. I say to the Secretary of State: what is the problem?

[Sajid Javid]

The right hon. Gentleman will not have to wait long for the housing White Paper. When he sees it, he will see that it does a lot more than happened under the previous Labour Government. When he was the Housing Minister, I understand house building fell to its lowest level since the 1920s.

[John Healey]

The right hon. Gentleman has shown us exactly what the problem is: the huge gap between the Government’s rhetoric on housing and their record. Under Labour, we saw 2 million new homes, 1 million more homeowners and the largest investment programme in social housing for a generation. For seven years under Tory Ministers, we have seen failure on all fronts—higher homelessness, fewer homeowners and less affordable housing. Even the Housing Minister has said that affordable housing is “unacceptably low” and “feeble”. Does the Secretary of State agree, and what is he going to do in his White Paper to deal with this crisis?

[Sajid Javid]

Under Labour, we saw housing affordability, measured by median income compared with the average house price, double—going up from three and a half times to seven times. We saw the number of first-time buyers fall by 55%, and the number of units available for social rent decline by 421,000. That is Labour’s record on housing.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Short questions and answers, please, because there is a lot of interest. A single sentence will do.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

T5. Chiltern and South Bucks District Councils are preparing a new local plan, and have consulted on the options for meeting development need using the green belt. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that green-belt land is vital to preserving the character of places such as Chesham and Amersham and the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty, and should not be developed other than in truly exceptional circumstances?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. The purposes of the green belt are very clear. It should preserve the setting and the special character of historic towns—for example, those in her constituency. Where councils look at the green belt, they should always make sure that the national planning policy framework rules are met: the circumstances must be exceptional, and brownfield land should always be prioritised.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T2. The recent publication of the voluntary right-to-buy pilot schemes for housing association tenants shows that very few completions were achieved in return for the enormous time and effort expended. New affordable housing is a key element in Cambridgeshire’s devolution deal. Will the Minister promise no distraction from the opportunity this gives us to build the supply of homes needed in our area?

[Gavin Barwell]

Voluntary right to buy provides replacement affordable housing. The hon. Gentleman should be supporting it, because it helps people who could not otherwise own their home to do so and provides new affordable housing.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

T8. Earlier this year, the Secretary of State announced an extra £7 billion fund to expand the Government’s affordable housing programme. I welcome this, and it will help my constituents. However, there is also a concern that the need for new homes will outweigh the need to protect our greenfield land, so will the Minister assure my constituents that he remains committed to it?

[Gavin Barwell]

I absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I congratulate her on championing brownfield land. The new brownfield registers that we are introducing will help to ensure that development is, rightly, focused on brownfield first.

[Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. Does the Minister agree that available housing provision is the key to reducing homelessness and that his Government should look to the Welsh Labour Government’s legislative pledges of £5.6 million in 2015 and £3 million in following years to fund affordable homes to rent as well as to buy?

[Gavin Barwell]

The hon. Lady will have heard, in the autumn statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer adding £1.4 billion to the affordable housing budget. We are doubling the housing capital budget over this Parliament. That is not rhetoric, but proof of our commitment to delivering the housing that is needed.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

T9. Together with the starter home land fund, the new locally led Welborne garden village in Fareham will deliver new homes and support first-time buyers. Will my hon. Friend explain how the Government are working with local authorities to deliver the new garden villages, and will he agree to visit Fareham to see how the local community will benefit from this new scheme?

[Gavin Barwell]

It was a pleasure to announce support for 14 new garden villages, which will between them provide 48,000 new homes, and it would be a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and see the progress being made.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

T6. Stoke-on-Trent City Council is proposing to cut children’s centres. Does the Secretary of State think that is acceptable?

[Sajid Javid]

Every council needs to provide certain statutory services, including children’s services. We want to make sure that every council is properly funded. Stoke-on-Trent council, like many others, has accepted the four-year settlement, and that is good news.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

T10. Labour city councillors in Lincoln are determined to build homes on the Swanpool floodplain in the heart of our city, even though a private developer decided that the site was unsuitable. What message will my right hon. Friend want to give Labour councillors such as ours who act in such a reckless manner?

[Sajid Javid]

I hope my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on a specific planning case, but we have strict, clear rules that say that councils must consider strict tests under the national planning policy framework that protect people and property from flooding. Where those tests are not met, that development should not go ahead.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

T7. A year ago, local authorities were hit with a £200 million in-year cut in public health support. The Select Committee on Health described it as a “false economy” that will add to future health costs. What impact does the Minister believe those cuts will have on health inequalities, and will he meet me and representatives from Hounslow so that they can raise their concerns about the impact on children and others in the community?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

As 25% of Government expenditure takes place through local government, there will always be situations where funding has to be reduced. As the hon. Lady knows, the health budget is being increased by £10 billion across this Parliament. In terms of public health, I think the cuts she mentioned equate to about 1% to 2%, which was not ideal. I am sure that local government is more than able to meet the challenge.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

While it may be true that Ministers have been in touch with councils directly hosting proposed new garden villages, they have not necessarily been in touch with neighbouring councils, which may be more affected by the proposals than those hosting the development. May I suggest that Ministers spread their nets a little wider when deciding which schemes to promote and, in my case, contact Basildon and Thurrock Councils as a matter of urgency?

[Gavin Barwell]

My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me outside the Chamber, and I will make sure that both he and the council have the information. The scheme has not yet gone through the planning systems; there will be every opportunity to address concerns.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

In 2009-10, there were 40,000 building starts for social rented homes. Last year that was down to 1,000. Why is that?

[Sajid Javid]

The number of socially rented homes declined by 421,000 during Labour’s time in office. Since the change of Government in 2010, we have invested billions in socially rented homes, including the additional £1.4 billion that was announced in the autumn statement.

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

Last week, Bath received £259,000 of funding as part of the rough sleeping grant. Will the Minister join me in endorsing the great work of the council and charities such as Julian House, the Genesis Trust and Developing Health and Independence, as they put together those plans to ensure that no one else ends up with a winter on the streets?

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I certainly endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. That was exactly what we wanted to achieve with the funding that we provided: local authorities working with charitable and third sector organisations to deliver the support that we need and all want for people who are rough sleeping and homeless.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Today is Martin Luther King Day, which we have just celebrated in your state rooms, Mr Speaker, by launching Freedom City 2017, the year-long festival that commemorates the 50th anniversary of Dr King’s visit to Newcastle to receive an honorary doctorate from the university. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), the shadow Minister for diversity, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), the sadly outgoing US ambassador Matthew Barzun and you, Mr Speaker, all spoke to King’s great work and the challenges he highlighted of race, poverty and war. Mr Speaker, you emphasised the need to champion those values exemplified by King in our House and also our communities. Does the Minister agree that Freedom City 2017 provides an excellent opportunity to do just that?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady. She is quite right to point out the importance of Martin Luther King on this day, which is a celebration of his life and work. We would all do well to remember what he taught us, and one thing that he said is that we must live together as brothers or we all perish as fools. We can all learn from that, no matter who we are, whether in the US or the UK.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Will the housing White Paper envisage a greater role for the public sector?

[Gavin Barwell]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that this Government want to see everybody get involved in building more homes, so if he is referring to local councils and their role, then absolutely: the more people who can get involved in building the homes we need, the better.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

Councils across the country are highlighting the enormous gap between what the social care precept raises and the increased costs of social care as a consequence of the increase in the minimum wage and increasing needs among the population, as well as the cuts that they—the councils—are already having to make. Does the Secretary of State accept that his approach to social care funding is simply not credible, and will he commit to taking a different approach to ensure that people across the country get the care that they need?

[Sajid Javid]

We have taken the pressures on our social care very seriously. The hon. Lady will know from the announcement of just a few weeks ago about an additional £900 million for the next two years, which will make a difference. We also accept that there is more to do.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I want to hear the conscience of Christchurch. I call Mr Christopher Chope.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Last summer, the nine Dorset councils submitted a proposal to my right hon. Friend to establish a combined authority. Will he ensure that the order establishing that authority is brought forward in sufficient time to enable the authorities to be set up on 1 April this year?

[Sajid Javid]

[Official Report, 19 January 2017, Vol. 619, c. 6MC.]We have only just received the proposal to which my hon. Friend refers. We want to make sure that we take the right amount of time to consider it carefully. Whatever the result, we will make sure that enough time is allowed for this House to do its business.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I welcome the fact that Bristol has been named as one of the trailblazers for homelessness prevention and is getting additional money for it. Does the Minister share my concern, however, that in some cases it is far more attractive for landlords and developers to move into providing houses in multiple occupation or emergency accommodation rather than providing decent, proper family homes?

[Mr Marcus Jones]

Yes, I certainly understand the hon. Lady’s point when it comes to the practice of flipping temporary accommodation for the uses that she mentions. We hope that the devolution of the temporary accommodation management fee will make it far more attractive for people to be able to maintain temporary accommodation in the way we want it to be provided.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

The new garden village at Deenethorpe will bring thousands more new homes to East Northamptonshire. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that new infrastructure to support those new homes will be at the forefront of his mind as this project progresses?

[Gavin Barwell]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance, given that it is part of the concept of garden villages. More generally, if we want communities to accept more housing, we have to make sure that we get the infrastructure in place at the same time. That is why the Chancellor’s announcement of a £2.3 billion housing infrastructure fund was so welcome.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry that we have run out of time. I shall, however, take one more question. I call Imran Hussain.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

Last month, I asked the Health Secretary how many local authority leaders he had met to discuss social care. The answer was not very positive, so I ask this Secretary of State how many cash-strapped local authority leaders he is willing to meet to discuss the real crisis in social care.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

I have met a number of local authority leaders in the last few weeks, as a result of local government finance settlement consultations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done the same, and we will continue to meet local authority leaders and chief executives to understand the challenges that they face.

Points of Order

1st reading: House of Commons
Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

15:37

[Hon. Members]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I would like to save up the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin)—he is a specialist delicacy.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have seen reports at the weekend that the Prime Minister is now blaming family doctors for the NHS crisis. It is not the fault of GPs that social care has been cut or that general practice is underfunded. Has the Prime Minister or the Health Secretary given you notice that they are going to come to the House to make a statement, or should we assume that they want to avoid scrutiny for their floundering response to this NHS crisis?

[Mr Speaker]

The answer is that I have received no indication of an intention for a Government Minister to make a statement on that matter. I have received notification of other intended statements for the coming days, but that is not among their number.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last Tuesday at Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, the Foreign Secretary was asked whether the UK would be participating in yesterday’s summit in Paris on the Israeli-Palestine peace situation. He told us that we would be participating and would “reinforce our message”, yet we read in press reports today that, alone among the western nations, the UK had no Minister present, and only a civil servant was sent to observe without the authority to sign the final communiqué. Have you been given notice that the Foreign Secretary intends to make a statement on the summit, and if not, what can Members do to compel the Foreign Secretary to divulge the full intentions of his Department when answering questions?

[Mr Speaker]

In the short time—approximately 20 months, I think—for which I have known the hon. Gentleman, I have come to realise what a persistent fellow he is. In response to the last part of his observations—about what can be done, and what facilities or recourses are open to him—let me say that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the concept of the written question and, I think, with the location of the Table Office, in which he can submit such questions. Knowing the hon. Gentleman, I rather suspect that he will keep raising the matter.

I am, of course, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. He has registered it with force, and what he has said will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. If the Foreign Secretary feels that inadvertently the House has been misled—it is not immediately clear to me that the words were inaccurate; it may be that there has been a change of mind, which is not without precedent in our proceedings—no doubt he will take steps to correct the record. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman can go about his business with an additional glint in his eye and spring in his step in the knowledge that he has put his point forcefully on the record.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the whole House, but you in particular, will want to join me in paying tribute to the great Professor Anthony King, who was one of our country’s foremost political academics, psephologists and commentators, and who made a huge contribution to public life. He helped to educate thousands of young people in Britain, including yourself, Mr Speaker, the Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and, of course, me—although, as I recall, Mr Speaker, you were the only one who got a first. I am sure that you and the whole House will want to pay tribute to the late Professor King.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and, more particularly, I rather imagine that Professor Anthony King’s widow, Jan, will be especially appreciative when she hears of the noble step that the hon. Gentleman has taken today. Colleagues will doubtless have noted that Professor King died last week, aged 82, after a stellar career and vocation as one of the most distinguished political scientists of this generation. He was a brilliant teacher, he was an outstanding communicator, not least on television when giving his analysis of by-elections, and he was a prodigious and illuminating writer. Personally, I feel every day a sense of gratitude to Tony for what he did for me; and God, I must have been an awkward student to teach 30 years ago—[Interruption.] And, indeed, I still am. He stuck with me, and I am hugely grateful.

The hon. Gentleman and I got to know each other at the University of Essex 30 years ago, and I say in affectionate tribute to him that he is as noisy today as he was when he used to heckle me in student union meetings between 1982 and 1985.

Tony King was a great man who did wonders for the study and teaching of political science in the United Kingdom, and we should honour his memory.

BILL PRESENTED

Organ Donation (Deemed Consent)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Paul Flynn, supported by Kelvin Hopkins, Ronnie Cowan, Mark Durkan, Kerry McCarthy, Kate Green, Michael Fabricant, Mike Wood, Yvonne Fovargue, Dr Philippa Whitford and Siobhain McDonagh, presented a Bill to enable persons in England to withhold consent for organ donation and transplantation; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 123).

National Citizen Service Bill [Lords]

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

15:43

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The National Citizen Service is a huge success. More than 300,000 young people have taken part, and many of them say that the NCS has changed their lives forever. For those who do not know, the NCS is a summer programme that lasts for up to four weeks, with no cost to parents who cannot afford it. It is open to all 15 to 17-year-olds in England and Northern Ireland. Indeed, the foundational strength of the programme is that it brings together people from all backgrounds. There is a focus on fun, and personal and social development, along with the design and delivery of a social action project. As Michael Lynas, the chief executive of the NCS Trust, has written:

“We build bridges across social divides and ladders to opportunity. We bring young people together in common purpose to change their perspectives and lives for good…Above all we try to show them that life is not a spectator sport.”

I got a sense of how transformational the programme is when I visited Liverpool last summer and met representatives of Everton football club’s NCS project. There was tremendous enthusiasm, and I was told by several people that they had become firm friends with neighbours from the same street whom they had not previously known at all. That is not untypical. An independent Ipsos MORI evaluation found that the vast majority of NCS graduates leave feeling more positive about people from dissimilar backgrounds and about themselves. Expanding the horizons of young people while increasing social cohesion is a massive win-win.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to warmly thank NCS East for its superb work in helping young people in Peterborough to develop as good citizens, one of whom, Tapiwa Tandi, is beginning a work experience scheme with me tomorrow?

[Karen Bradley]

I suspect that a theme of this debate will be the experiences that we have all had in our constituencies with NCS graduates, and the enthusiasm and self-belief that doing NCS projects gives them. I commend my hon. Friend on taking his NCS graduate into his office. I look forward to hearing how that work experience goes.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I have also been impressed when I have visited NCS in Bradford, but I wonder what the Secretary of State’s response is to the National Audit Office report about the NCS, which says that it has not met its participation targets in six years and that the cost works out at an estimated £1,863 for every youngster who is expected to take part. What is the Government response to that NAO report?

[Karen Bradley]

I welcome the NAO report because it is important, with any programme of this type, that we understand value for money and what is being achieved. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that this was a very ambitious target. We have had great success in getting towards that target, but there is still more to do. The Bill is important so that more of the young people such as those he has met in his constituency will have the chance to participate in the NCS.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that more than 3,000 people from Lancashire have had the benefit of the NCS, including some 71 from my constituency last year—I saw the figures today? Has she, like me, been struck when she has visited NCS programmes by how well they have reached out to two particular groups: those from lower income families; and, most importantly, disabled constituents, who have been greatly involved in these programmes and have played a vital role in making sure that they are so successful?

[Karen Bradley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that the NCS has an above-average success rate in reaching those hardest-to-reach young people. We have all seen NCS projects in which there are young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, young people with disabilities and young people from more affluent backgrounds, all working together with the common purpose of achieving their social action project, and in doing so making lifelong friends. That work should be commended. I am very pleased to hear that 71 people from my hon. Friend’s constituency were involved last summer, and I am sure there will be more this summer.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

I concur with all the positive things that have been said about the NCS. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking former Prime Minister David Cameron for all that he did to drive the programme forward, Lord Blunkett, who was also a key guiding hand behind the project, and my friend Michael Lynas, who has taken this from a small seed to the great success that we see today?

[Karen Bradley]

I will, of course, join my hon. Friend in so doing. Former Prime Minister David Cameron is now chair of the patrons board of NCS. The work that he achieved in government will have a lasting legacy. My hon. Friend is also right to suggest that the noble Lord Blunkett has been instrumental in this, as has Michael Lynas, the NCS chief executive. They have done great work to get this far. Let us remember that that has been achieved from a standing start, and that 300,000 young people have now gone through the programme. Congratulations are definitely in order.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

When I went along to the end-of-project session at Somerset College in Taunton Deane, I was impressed by the confidence of the children who had undertaken the course and the skills that they had gained. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in these days when we are trying to upskill our young people and to make them fit for business—even if it is just by teaching them to be polite and to communicate—we ought to promote this scheme much more widely because it has such a great future?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is why we want to grow the NCS as quickly as possible, in a way that is sustainable and that continues to be successful.

We have all seen the sense of self-worth and confidence that working in a team can give to young people, and I have seen them achieving some really stretching targets. That is a fantastic testament to the scheme, and we want to see more people taking part in it. The NCS can break down barriers just at the time when they could become entrenched, and 95% of participants said that the NCS had allowed them to get to know people whom they would not normally expect to meet. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) made that point a moment ago.

Although the programme is for young people, it is not only the young who benefit from it. For example, NCS participants have prepared and distributed care packages to the parents of premature babies in east Durham, raised funds for the Huntington’s Disease Association on Merseyside, and built a sensory garden for the residents of a Weymouth care home. Moreover, volunteering can become a lasting habit. The NCS Trust estimates that in the 16 months following the summer programmes, the 2013 and 2014 graduates did an additional 8 million hours of volunteering in their communities. The Government are determined that the NCS should become even more popular and successful, but adventure and inspiration need to be underpinned by nuts and bolts, which is what the Bill puts in place.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karen Bradley]

I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove).

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

I, too, would like to thank and congratulate everyone involved in delivering the NCS in Corby and east Northamptonshire. My right hon. Friend has said a lot about the benefits of the scheme. Does she also agree that employability is one of its key achievements, as young people learn lots of skills that transfer well into the workplace?

[Karen Bradley]

I absolutely agree. The soft skills that the NCS can bring to young people make them much more employable and much more valuable in the workplace. That is exactly what we want to see from the NCS, among its many other benefits.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

When I visited Somerset’s NCS scheme in Exmoor last summer, I was struck by the number of students from previous years who had returned to be leaders and mentors. Is there any way in which the Secretary of State could reward those who go back as leaders and give them recognition for that further service?

[Karen Bradley]

We have announced a long-term review of young people in volunteering. My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion about the way in which the NCS can encourage volunteering within the scheme in future years.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the examples that she has set out demonstrate clearly the Government’s continuing commitment to the big society and that, in contrast to some of the mischievous reporting in some of the media, that is wholly compatible with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s welcome promotion of the shared society?

[Karen Bradley]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. This is an aspect of a country and a Government that work for everyone, and of the shared society that we all want to be part of. I shall now give way to my newly knighted hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier).

[Mr Speaker]

A Kentish knight, no less.

[Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

We did that last week, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Not everyone was here then, so I thought that that the hon. Gentleman would welcome an encore.

[Sir Julian Brazier]

I am most grateful, Mr Speaker.

Speaking as a huge supporter of the NCS, locally as well and nationally, does my right hon. Friend agree that the adventure content is critical? We must be careful about the continuing erosion of adventure in residential centres up and down the country, in terms of both numbers and quality, if the NCS is to continue to deliver success.

[Karen Bradley]

I agree that the adventure side of the programme is incredibly important—it might mean that some young people get to reach the dizzying heights of being a knight of the realm like my hon. Friend—and represents an opportunity for young people to be away from home and to manage in an outward bounds situation. I met some young people from Liverpool who had camped in the Peak district, just outside my constituency, and they were astonished to discover just how hilly some bits of the country are and how cold they can be at times—although very beautiful, of course.

This short Bill is focused on establishing sound, transparent governance arrangements. It works in conjunction with a royal charter, making it clear that the NCS is above partisan politics. A draft of the charter was published as a Command Paper and laid before the House when the Bill was published. I have published an updated version today, which we will lay before both Houses, that reflects commitments that the Government made in the other place and will accompany the Bill as it goes through this House.

The Bill begins by outlining the royal charter and the functions of the NCS Trust, which will be a new body in a new form that is designed to last. However, we do not want to lose the talent and experience of those who work in the current body, which is also called the NCS Trust, who have overseen the fastest-growing youth movement in this country for 100 years. The Bill makes provision for schemes for the transfer of staff, property rights and liabilities from the current body to the new trust, and allows the Government to fund that trust out of money authorised by Parliament. It also allows the trust to charge participation fees at variable rates to maintain the principle that anyone can afford to take part. At present, the maximum fee is £50, but many participants pay no fee at all. The royal charter requires the trust to ensure equality of access to the NCS.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

I visited an NCS scheme in Fareham this summer where 70 youngsters were engaged in a stimulating project that was helping the community. I applaud those who have led the success of this scheme, including Michael Lynas, whose steadfast commitment has been critical. In the light of the Casey review’s recommendations and findings about segregation among our young people, does my right hon. Friend agree that that participation fee—or lack of it—has been critical in enabling the breaking down of barriers so that people from different backgrounds, classes, religions and ethnicities can come together to restore civic pride and solidarity in our country?

[Karen Bradley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to make the point that money should never be a barrier to such social cohesion and integration. We want young people from all backgrounds to have the chance to participate in the NCS. It must never be the case that money is the barrier that prevents them from doing so.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

The NCS represents an impressive cross-party effort. Its precursor came under the previous Labour Government in the form of the “Be Inspired” programme in which Lord Blunkett and Gordon Brown, among others, were involved. How much work will be done on successor programmes for the hundreds of thousands of young people who will be going through the NCS? I must declare an interest here: the UpRising leadership programme works closely with the NCS, and one issue is the need for mentoring to enable people to continue their progress. I will be delighted if the Secretary of State looks into the programme’s new initiative to recruit and train 1 million mentors over the next decade and to deploy them to organisations such as the NCS.

[Karen Bradley]

I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), who has responsibility for civil society, has had discussions with the hon. Lady about precisely that point. We are looking at mentoring programmes and, of course, the #iwill programme is an important part of making sure that there are places for young people to continue developing the work that NCS starts.

It is vital that any expenditure of public money is transparent, accountable and proper, so the bulk of the Bill is a series of measures on that front. The NCS Trust must prepare annual accounts, which the National Audit Office will audit before they are laid before Parliament. At the start of every year, the trust must publish an annual business plan setting out its strategic priorities and annual objectives. At the end of each year, the trust will produce an annual report, which will be laid before Parliament, outlining how the trust has fulfilled its priorities and main functions. Furthermore, the Bill lists specific metrics that that report must assess, including value for money and the extent to which the NCS has mixed people from different backgrounds, which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) mentioned. The Bill requires the trust to notify the Government in the event that a breach of contract has serious financial consequences, if a provider is in serious financial difficulty, or if a staff member commits fraud, which will allow the Government to take rapid steps to minimise the loss of public money.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am very supportive of the Bill. Will the Secretary of State define how value for money will be gauged?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend will know that the National Audit Office is responsible for looking at value for money. Of course we will look at the findings of each year’s report to make an assessment of value for money.

Following an amendment in the House of Lords, the trust must also notify the Government of any police investigation into an allegation of criminal activity that could have serious consequences for the NCS. The trust will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, the Equality Act 2010 and the Public Records Act 1958. Together, the measures will ensure that the NCS Trust works efficiently, effectively and transparently.

The Bill has one other purpose: to advertise NCS. The Bill allows Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to pass on information about the NCS to the young people, parents and carers whose addresses it holds. Receiving a national insurance number at the age of 16 is a rite of passage, and we want that letter to arrive with an invitation to participate in the NCS, too.

As the Government continue to work to build a shared society that works for every one of our constituents, the NCS has already transformed hundreds of thousands of lives. The Bill can ensure that it transforms millions more.

16:02

[Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)]

I suspect that the House will not be subjected to too much of a bunfight this afternoon. Labour is delighted to support the Bill, and its passage through the Lords smoothed over some of the more contentious issues, so it is extremely welcome that the NCS therefore has strong support on both sides of the House. My one small regret is that the Secretary of State referred to a new draft of the royal charter, which was laid before the House only two minutes before this debate began. We have checked with the Vote Office, and it is not yet available in hard copy.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We just got it. Here it is.

[Mr Reed]

My hon. Friend has just received a hard copy, but I have not had a chance to read it.

[Karen Bradley]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I understand that there has been a problem in the post room, but the document is now available. I apologise if he did not receive it before the debate.

[Mr Reed]

I thank the Secretary of State for that. I look forward to reading it. I am sure she will tell me if any of my points have already been miraculously addressed in the new draft.

Before getting into the detail of the Bill, I will talk briefly about its context. The Secretary of State said that the Prime Minister mentioned the NCS in her speech on the shared society, and we need to make sure that that vision does not end up hollowed out like the previous Prime Minister’s big society. The big society shrank down to little more than an attempt to replace paid professionals with unpaid volunteers, which is a shame because there is an urgent need to reshape politics in this country around people, family, community and shared institutions in a way that strengthens society and gives people more direct power. For all their talk, so far the Government have tended to do the opposite, rather than matching the power of the words they speak in this Chamber.

If we want people to feel they really have a share in society, they need two things: a voice to articulate what they are looking for; and the power to make it heard, be it at work, in their community or about the public services they use. In all that, there is a real big vision about national renewal based on sharing power, reshaping politics and opening up opportunity to everybody. We already see the potential of that in communities that have taken more control through projects such as tenant-led housing organisations, user-directed social care, community land trusts and community energy generation, to name just a few. The NCS can play a significant role in building young people’s capacity to participate; but the Government’s approach, including what we have heard of the “shared society” so far—I accept that that is not much yet—is still too narrow and too centralised to tear down the barriers that frustrate wider and deeper engagement by citizens. I hope that will change. The NCS will achieve great things, but it could achieve even more if the Government really understood the power and potential of communities freely co-operating for the common good, and allowed that principle to influence and shape the direction of Government policy right across the board.

Let me move on to some of the detail in the Bill, most of which, as I said earlier, is not contentious, unless the changes I have not seen have suddenly inserted a raft of things we are not expecting—I doubt that is the case. One of the most powerful aspects of the NCS is how it brings together young people from a range of different backgrounds. The divisions so starkly exposed by the EU referendum, and, I am sorry to say, widened by the Government’s unfair approach to funding cuts since 2010, show just how important it is that we promote better integration right across society.

I had the privilege of meeting some young people in Croydon who were taking part in the NCS, and their passion to make change real was tangible and moving. They had clearly learnt a lot from living, working, eating and facing challenges with other young people from backgrounds that were very different from their own. Let me give an example of why it is so important that we break down barriers. In some parts of urban Britain we see a growing problem with violent gang crime. Mercifully, the problem is still small at national level, but if you live in one of the neighbourhoods most affected, it is disfiguring and destructive in a way that is hard to imagine without having experienced it. In London, I have worked with people living on housing estates where violent, gang-related youth crime is endemic, but right next door there were streets full of better-off people leading completely different lives, with completely different expectations. The two communities live parallel lives that never touch. Young people on one estate that I visited spoke as if the borders of their world ended at the borders of the estate they lived in and the world of opportunity beyond was closed to them.

We have to break these barriers down, and I hope the NCS has a real role to play in that. I would like to hear the views of the Secretary of State or the Minister on strengthening the focus on integration in the Bill. It talks about “cohesion”, but not about the process of integration necessary to achieve it. A change along those lines in clause 1 has the support of a number of delivery organisations. We will revisit this in Committee, but I hope that any change can be achieved through cross-party consensus.

It is fundamentally important that the NCS continues to offer opportunities to young people from different backgrounds, so it is a concern that the proportion of participants from poorer backgrounds, as measured by eligibility for free school meals, has fallen since the NCS was created in 2011. Indeed, the National Audit Office states that

“in many…areas a disproportionate number of young people from certain backgrounds participate”.

It is of course very important that the NCS is an organisation for every young person in the country, whatever their background.

[Tim Loughton]

It is slightly disappointing to hear the hon. Gentleman making quite a lot of negative comments about a scheme that I thought his party had come to support, after several years of trying on behalf of many of us. Does he not acknowledge that the number of young people going on this programme who qualify for free school meals has been put at 17%, which is more than double the proportion in society as a whole? In that respect, this programme is actually doing rather well.

[Mr Reed]

The points I am making are intended to strengthen and improve the NCS; if we do not make them, it may never change, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in the spirit of seeking to offer constructive criticism to improve what the Government are doing.

Applications in general are below the target set by the Government—they were 13% behind in 2016. That must be addressed, and although the delivery organisations are aware of that, we look to the Government to provide the support that they need to reach more young people. In particular, we encourage the Minister to look again at introducing a specific duty on the NCS to promote the programme to young people from socially excluded backgrounds and explore new ways to reach them.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

To proceed in the tone that I thought had been set for the debate, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the work the Government are doing, through the Bill, to authorise HMRC to work with NCS to reach more people is a key part of ensuring that the NCS reaches a far wider range of eligible young people? Hopefully that will increase participation rates, as well as diversity in the schemes.

[Mr Reed]

That is certainly helpful, but if that is the limit of the hon. Gentleman’s ambition for the NCS, he needs to find a little more of it, in the way that Opposition Members do.

A truly shared society requires everyone to have a voice and the power to assert it. There is no single model for achieving that: how we give people more control depends on the circumstances and context in which we operate. When the state sets up new organisations or services, it often fails to give people on the receiving end a real say, despite the fact that organisations benefit from higher levels of input from their users. If the NCS is to remain relevant to young people and in touch with their lives, it is important that they have a real voice in what it does and how it operates, now and in future. That means giving young people a direct role in NCS governance and decision making.

I was involved in setting up one of the biggest community youth trusts in the country, the Young Lambeth Co-operative, which took control of a number of the council’s youth services. The intention in setting it up was to give young people a real voice by reserving half the positions on the governing board for them, and ensuring that those young people who were appointed properly represented young people from more deprived backgrounds who had the greatest need of the services on offer.

In the absence of a mutualised structure, which is not being proposed for the NCS, it would still be good to see the NCS take a similar approach to that of the Young Lambeth Co-operative and ensure that young people have a key role at every level. That will be critical to making the NCS credible and attractive to as wide a range of young people as possible, particularly those who are categorised as harder to reach. The governance changes in the version of the draft royal charter that I have seen are important. There is to be a new board of patrons, but the NCS would benefit from more young people, and fewer politicians, at the top.

The NCS has the Opposition’s full support. I am raising concerns in the spirit of constructive criticism, with the intention of improving the organisation’s operation. We want to see some changes in the Bill that we believe will strengthen the focus on integration, ensure that the NCS reaches as wide a range of young people as possible, and give young people a bigger voice at every level in the organisation. Such changes would help the NCS to meet its laudable objectives, and we hope that they can be achieved through consensus.

We live in a country with a generous and open spirit, full of talented and ambitious young people who want to make a difference to their own lives, their families, and the community around them. But to do more, they need a bigger voice and the power to make it heard. Civil society organisations such as the NCS have an important role to play in making that happen. Ours is already a sharing society in which people instinctively co-operate; it is government that needs to catch up. The measure will be whether the Government make real progress in opening up and sharing their power with people so that they can make, or at least influence, the changes that affect their own lives.

The Bill may be small, but it has some very big ideas behind it: power, opportunity, community and contribution. Given the chance, young people and the NCS have much to teach us, and the Government, about those great national themes. We wish them every success in doing that in future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It might be helpful to the House if I say that there is no time limit on Back-Bench speeches at this stage, but that an informal limit involving a certain self-denying ordinance might help. An informal limit of 10 minutes per Back-Bench Member seems reasonable and well within the capacities of a Kentish knight. I call Sir Julian Brazier.

16:14

[Sir Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The House must be getting very bored with that reminder, although I was extremely grateful for the much undeserved honour.

I welcome this Bill, as I am a strong supporter of the NCS. I had the opportunity to meet some of the 130 constituents who did their National Citizen Service last year, and I was very impressed. Clearly, they had enjoyed the earlier adventure training phase and were producing some really interesting ideas for working with local charities. That combination of challenging activity and a sense of service will be a very important part of our former Prime Minister’s legacy, and I was really delighted to see that he has agreed to be chairman of the patrons.

I will focus my remarks on the first bit of the programme—the adventure training. Although I strongly support what is being delivered and the very strong team headed by Michael Lynas and chairman, Stephen Greene, whom I had the opportunity to meet just before this debate, I am concerned that there are some wider trends that lie outside the strict confines of this Bill. However, knowing how tolerant you are, Mr Speaker, I hope that you will allow me to touch on those trends as they are highly relevant to the supply chain for the NCS.

Adventure training, which every NCS student does for at least one week, and sometimes two, usually at the beginning of the programme, develops team work and confidence. It involves pushing the boundaries and learning how to manage risk in a positive and constructive manner. It is very, very important and also increasingly rare. As far back as 12 years ago, the then Education Committee pointed out that this country, which produced the team that cracked Everest, had actually slipped down the league and was, arguably, below average around the world in our capacity for adventure training.

Five years ago, the English Outdoor Council produced a list of residential centres that deliver good quality adventure training. Of those 180 centres, 30 have since closed. Equally disturbing, a number of others have been taken over by providers, which are giving a good commercial offer in the sense that their insurance premiums are low because their risks are extremely low, but which, according to one expert in the field, typically deliver every meal indoors for the children. In other words, these so-called adventure opportunities involve nothing that lasts for more than two or three hours at a time.

The NCS is firmly aimed at the right end of the market. All the NCS students I have met have had extremely good experiences drawn from good parts of the sector, but we must be clear that that element is shrinking. The reasons for that are twofold: our litigious culture; and the worry about prosecution. Two surveys that have been done—one in 2003 by the Sport and Recreation Alliance and the other in 2006 by the Scouts— revealed that the blame culture was the No. 1 concern among adult volunteers. We are also in the era of the corporate manslaughter charge, which is a very serious concern for the local authorities that run these providers.

I suggest that we have made some progress in rolling back the litigious culture. After an all-party effort behind a private Member’s Bill, which I was privileged to promote, the Labour Government introduced a small measure, called the Compensation Act 2006, with only one substantial clause that reminded the courts that if they make an award against an organisation, they need to take account of the damage to the wider interest in that activity. It had support on both sides of the House, but, interestingly, was opposed by a number of highly articulate lawyers on both sides of the House and in both Chambers.

The threat of prosecution remains serious. There has been a certain amount of banter in the media about stories alleging phony regulations and the Health and Safety Executive—I strongly welcome its new chairman, Martin Temple—has debunked lots of myths. The problem whenever I discuss this with people providing adventure training is never with regulation; no one has ever raised regulation with me as a problem in a serious adventure training context. The problem is the risk of prosecution if something goes wrong.

Perhaps the worst case of this was at a place called Bewerley Park. In 2005, a boy of 14 was drowned in a caving incident at Yorkshire’s top adventure training provider. The HSE decided to prosecute the local authority and the case took more than five years to come to court. Finally, in 2010, the local authority was acquitted, but that happened because a critical body called the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority, which considers standards in such organisations, had given the body a clean bill of health and testified in court that the standard of instruction and leadership was extremely high, that the freak and completely unpredicted weather conditions that had led to rapidly rising water could not have been anticipated and that in fact it was a remarkable achievement of the instructors that they got all but one of the children out alive. Had that prosecution gone the other way, we would have lost not only that centre but many others up and down the country would have decided that they were no longer willing to take the risks of continuing.

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

My hon. Friend and I have often discussed these issues. Does he agree that that example shows the importance of ensuring that the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority remains in a condition in which it can take such a stance?

[Sir Julian Brazier]

My right hon. Friend, who is an absolute expert on this matter and did so much in this area in his time as a Minister, not just with the National Citizen Service but in the adventure field more widely, anticipates my next sentence. That is why it is crucial that at a time when we are about to start a public consultation on the future of the AALA, which will be conducted by a panel appointed by the HSE, the licensing authority not only survives but has its brief expanded so that it can ask why such centres have been closing over the past few years and, crucially, ask not just whether the practice is safe in the centres but what the quality is of the adventure that is being delivered. It is very easy to make so-called adventure training safe if it is not adventurous, so the authority needs to be able to ask what the character-building quality of the activities is.

I am delighted to say that the HSE has taken the decision to include on the panel one outside member, Ian Lewis, the director of the Campaign for Adventure— one of the patrons of which is, I should mention, another former Prime Minister, Tony Blair. I very much hope that when we have a National Citizen Service whose patrons are headed by one former Prime Minister and the Campaign for Adventure is represented on the panel considering the future of the AALA, that panel will come up with a conclusion that will guarantee a future for the AALA that ensures it can continue to speak independently and expands its brief so that we discover why the centres are closing and get the focus back on the high-quality adventure that is so essential to the future of the National Citizen Service.

16:24

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Bill. It is a small Bill, and in many ways uncontroversial, its key strategic objective being to establish the effective governance of the National Citizen Service, but my sense is that seeing it in that way hides its true significance. What it really focuses on is how we live together, and there is no more important issue facing our country. How do we create a nation at ease with itself and foster a notion of service to others among our young people? Obviously that is vital, given the divisions in our society—so clearly exposed last year—around class, race, geography and religion, and a general fear that these tensions might continue to escalate. Those divisions suggest a brittle country, so resolving this and healing division will indeed take time, but the Bill will help. So although it is a small Bill, it is significant.

More generally, how do we ensure that our young people are knowledgeable about the country they inhabit in all its complexity, and how do we build an ethic of service among the younger generations? Really the clue is in the name: a programme of national service on behalf of our fellow citizens, the National Citizen Service. It is a simple notion, but an important one in shaping the character of our young people and the future character of our country more generally.

Across my east London constituency, which is one of the fastest changing communities in the UK, and one that has recently experienced issues with extremism and violence, I have seen at first hand the benefits of the programme: increasing the breadth of young people’s experiences; mixing with people from other backgrounds; and building links between generations, for example through new volunteer support for the elderly in the community. It is helping to integrate communities such as ours.

Across the country some 275,000 young people have already taken part in the programme, and a couple of the results are worth noting. An Ipsos MORI evaluation found that 82% of people leave the programme feeling more positive about people from different backgrounds and better prepared for the future. The programme is building a legacy of service and volunteering. I was struck by one statistic that the Minister mentioned earlier, which is that in the 16 months following participation in the programme, the cohort that went through in 2013 and 2014 contributed a further 8 million hours of service in the community. The ethos of the NCS—social cohesion, social mobility and social engagement in order to build resilient young people—appears to be working.

I think that we can all agree that in order to develop further, the NCS needs to be beyond party politics. The Bill will help to ensure that no one party can lay claim to the NCS. The governance changes will help develop it into an enduring, independent national institution, one beyond party politics, that appeals to everyone. That has to be a good thing. In order to be successful, it cannot be seen as another Government scheme, because that would put people off, and the evidence so far suggests that participants do not see it that way. That is further evidence for why we need to maintain the cross-party support.

The Bill will ensure the transition from a community interest company to an organisation with a royal charter. The NCS Trust will be a new body, and the Bill will ensure the effective transfer of staff and functions to the new trust from the current body. The royal charter requires the trust to ensure equality of access irrespective of background and ensures a flexible fee structure that will not inhibit participation. Much of the Bill is about the accountability of the trust. Accounts audited by the National Audit Office will be laid before Parliament. The trust must publish an annual business plan and at the end of the year it will supply an annual report to be laid before Parliament. That all seems pretty sensible and uncontroversial.

I want to make four points. I hope that they will not be seen as controversial, because they are intended to strengthen the Bill.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the importance of the annual report cannot be overstated? In addition to laying the report before Parliament, should the Minister not consider ensuring that it is debated and discussed?

[Jon Cruddas]

I totally agree. If a stated objective of the Bill is to learn how to live together and all be virtuous citizens, it should not be beyond our collective wit to organise a few debates in Parliament every year so that we can test how successful we are, so I support my hon. Friend’s comments.

My four points begin with the question of links with public bodies. The original draft of the Bill included an obligation on public bodies, but that has gone. I can understand that public bodies might see this as a bit of an imposition, particularly as quite a bit is being thrown at local authorities at the moment, so there is no need to enshrine an obligation in the legislation. However, if we are to succeed, surely we must ensure that the programme is a core activity for our public institutions. I raised the matter with my local council and a number of schools, and found that it was not the concern that I thought it might be, not least when I found out that 95% of London schools are already involved in the programme, although I do wonder about the effect on the independent sector. When will the guidance for schools and local authorities on how to better engage with the NCS be published? More generally, I understand that nearly £20 million a year will be earmarked for advertising over the next four years to increase participation from 100,000 to some 300,000. That is a hugely ambitious task that raises the question of what role schools and colleges will have in the programme’s promotion.

Secondly, on questions of integration, I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) earlier. One point made to me from within the sector is whether the language used in the royal charter and the Bill, when laying out the functions and purpose of the trust, is sufficiently focused on the integration aspects of the NCS. Social integration— the act of mixing and forging bonds with those from different backgrounds—is a process and it should not be confused with social cohesion, which is the outcome that we seek to achieve.

At its best, the NCS helps integration through the intensive nature of the programme whereby participants spend almost three weeks together, through the social atmosphere as they cook, live and eat together, and through the levelling effects of the activities in which they are pushed out of their comfort zones as they engage in challenging activities on an equal footing and rotate leadership roles. The setting of shared goals—confronting participants with a shared challenge more easily overcome through teamwork, rather than an individual effort—is a key element of inspiring previously unlikely friendships. So, could we ensure that the integration function is enshrined in legislation? The integration elements are arguably the most important part of the NCS’s work. Is there enough about integration, not just cohesion, in the Bill and the royal charter?

Thirdly and briefly is the question of integration and inclusion. For a programme to have integration at its heart, it must include the hardest-to-reach young people. Doing so requires dedicated outreach teams and support workers on the programme. Should not some of the funding that delivery organisations receive be ring-fenced for this purpose to ensure that, in all areas of England and Northern Ireland, the NCS is genuinely a programme for all?

Finally, on the ambitions of the Bill, more than £1 billion over five years is a lot of money for a relatively young programme, especially given the austere times we live in. So is the Bill ambitious enough? For example, how does it link with wider questions of citizenship? Citizenship might well fall off the school curriculum, and that would appear at odds with the driving philosophy of the Bill and the programme. We regularly hear talk of a proposed year of service, advocated, for example, by the excellent City Year UK, although there is no mention of that in the Bill. In contrast, the NCS provides short programmes for 16 and 17-year-olds. It is a clearly defined programme but, if we were to be bolder, we might want to discuss certain issues. For example, City Year UK recruits young people to serve for a year in some of the most challenging communities, but the status of the volunteers is not clear. In other countries, such as the USA and France, full-time volunteering has a clearer legal status, and Governments are active in incentivising participation. Should we not consider a more systematic Government approach to the idea of a year of service including help with university fees and the like? As I understand it, full-time volunteers are currently characterised as NEETs—technically not in full-time education, employment or training. In other countries, full-time volunteering has a proper legal status. Why should we not move in this direction? Where have the Government got to on the issue?

In conclusion, I admit that I am one of the few people left who does subscribe to the idea of the big society. The NCS is what the previous Prime Minister called

“the Big Society in action”,

of which I am very supportive. I think it a good thing that the recently departed Prime Minister has agreed to chair the NCS patrons.

The Bill, although small and technical, has a big ambition behind it to build virtuous citizens and help us to live together peacefully. It is a little Bill, but one that is hugely significant for the future character of the country we wish to build. Nothing could be more important. If the Bill helps the NCS to achieve and endure, it will have achieved plenty.

16:34

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas), whose remarks I received warmly. Having believed that this was a Bill to which it was not possible to make any objection, I thought that the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) had to cast around fairly widely in order to disguise his enthusiasm for it. Four years ago, I had my first encounter with the NCS, and I decided then that it was a good thing. This Bill seems to be designed to make it more of a good thing, and that is why I welcome it so warmly.

I think back over years to when one of the siren calls that one heard from young people was, “There’s nothing to do here”, whether “here” was a town or a village, and so on. In reality, of course, there were things to do, but there was no obvious way of making a positive contribution to the community beyond, perhaps, the Scouts and the Girl Guides. Then from an older generation one would hear the call, “Youngsters these days need discipline: bring back national service”—something that our professional armed forces rather disdained as an idea. People would say, “Well, it did me good, and I’m sure it’s what everybody needs today.” That view began to fade, quite rightly, but talk there was of a civilian equivalent. Yet somehow it never got going. It is to the credit of the former Prime Minister, the then Member for Witney, that he took this up and made a real achievement of it. Many of us always felt that there was scope for it, perhaps because we were enthused by what the late President Kennedy did with the Peace Corps in involving and harnessing the views and enthusiasm of young people. At last, with the National Citizen Service, we have a scheme that has taken root and is flourishing.

My connection with the NCS has simply been that I have tried dutifully to visit a group in my constituency in each of the past four years. I have seen a whole host of things that young people have been engaged in at various stages of the four-week process that they follow. I can certainly attest to the growing confidence I have seen among those young people, the interaction between them, coming as they do from many different backgrounds and never having met each other before, and the enthusiasm that they have. I welcome that. I never heard a voice raised to say that it was a waste of time or a bad thing; it was all about wanting to go back and tell other people that it was something they should think about when their chance came. I therefore accept the trust’s own findings of greater positivity among people whom it has managed to persuade to come into the scheme. The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham referred to the Ipsos MORI poll evaluation, which is good evidence that young people themselves feel positive about it.

So what are the concerns? I suppose there is the possibility that the NCS has an effect on recruitment to other organisations, whether it be Voluntary Service Overseas, Médecins Sans Frontières, UN Volunteers, Save the Children, Oxfam, the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme or the Prince’s Trust, but that is not the right way of looking at it. It is more likely that the NCS will be a stepping stone to looking around for other things that people may do in life having had the knowledge and experience of what being part of it was all about. In short, I do not see anything that the NCS can spoil. It is about inculcating a habit and an approach among young people, and that can only be for the good of our society.

Of course it is right that we should be concerned about governance. One or two colleagues have mentioned how we control the scheme, make sure it is offering value for money, and so on. It seems to me that an annual report presented to Parliament offers us all a way of checking that. I support the idea of a debate about it, because we should talk about such things more often. The achievements of young people as they are manifested in the NCS each year should be highlighted in Parliament. Too many people are ready to believe the worst of young people simply on the basis of a story that they read in a newspaper that puts young people in a bad light, while completely ignoring the fact that the vast majority of young people mean well and, indeed, do well in their contribution to society, the local community and so on.

Having had the pleasure and privilege of some involvement with voluntary organisations over the years, I believe that one thing we must be careful about is supposing that we can attach a precise value to the benefits of being involved with the NCS. How can we measure somebody’s contribution—the enthusiasm with which they go out to collect money for a cause that they have become familiar with, and the way in which that becomes an ongoing part of how they want to run their lives? How can we measure that? We cannot. We cannot measure how a person’s outlook on society has improved, to make them a more positive citizen than they might otherwise have been. Although we must be responsible about the amount of money that is spent, we do not want to pretend that we can implement a view that amounts to knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. I have visited schemes throughout my constituency, and three of my children have attended the NCS or been a mentor on the NCS. The benefit is some way down the line, in growing their confidence and their ability to understand where other people come from. One of my daughters is studying at university with a young man whose background, before they were both on the NCS, was somewhat challenging, but everybody equals out in that place. One of the fundamental benefits of the NCS is to level the playing field, both educationally and in ability. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

My hon. Friend’s rather lengthy contribution has extended my speech. I absolutely applaud what she says, and I am grateful for her support for the remarks that I have just made.

The Local Government Association has expressed some concern about the idea that the money that will go into the NCS is money that the LGA will not get, or that the LGA might lose some money in the process. I do not think that any of us wants to decry what many local authorities, to their credit, do in providing youth services, and I have always been an advocate for such work. The NCS is a special organisation that in no way negates what local authorities do. We might actually find that more people want to take part in the various other youth services, thus extending the reach of those bodies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) raised the issue of safety, and of course that is important, but I hope that he did not overdo it. I thought about some of the schemes I have seen, where even the use of a fork in the earth to tidy up a community garden could cause an injury, or where someone on a street corner bravely advertising the fact that they are operating a car wash some little distance away could be knocked down in an accident. All sorts of horrors could befall people in the more ordinary things, not just in the high adventure activities. It is, of course, quite right that we should not assume that anything goes or allow people to be put at risk.

[Sir Julian Brazier]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I was not really disagreeing with my hon. Friend, but I will give way to him.

[Sir Julian Brazier]

My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. My point is that we have to be very careful to make sure that an unhealthy obsession with trying to eliminate all risks does not end up squeezing the opportunities for real adventure out of children’s lives.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst]

I do agree with that. Of course, the adventure part of the NCS is distinct from the ordinary activities in which there could be a safety risk.

It seems to me that the real test to which we should apply our minds is whether the core programme is delivering—whether the numbers going through are continuing to rise. What I have found so encouraging is that those who have graduated, if that is the right word, are increasingly ready to take on a further role, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham, and come back as mentors, tutors and so on. I had the pleasure of meeting some of them earlier this afternoon, and it is great that they admit their eyes have been opened and their experience deepened and that they are so willing to pass that on. The best recruiters are those people going back to their schools to talk about it among their acquaintances and encourage further participation. If we keep on raising the numbers wanting to go into the NCS, we will do the quality of our social life in this country a great deal of good.

Schools should be encouraged. I heard what the Secretary of State said about the role of HMRC. Yes, that is good, but we need to get to the schools. If I may say so, the fact that only about 150 Members of this House have as yet found the opportunity to meet a group on an NCS project is way below what is needed. I encourage all colleagues to find an opportunity to do it, so that they are well informed from their own impression in their own constituency of what a good project and concept the NCS is.

It is absolutely right that we are conferring royal charter status on the NCS, which will give it a higher profile and make it more obviously a proper organisation in the eyes of anybody who might doubt it. Finally, we should build, with enthusiasm on our part, a movement that already seems to have established firm foundations.

16:44

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) and other hon. Members. I join them in welcoming the Bill and the provisions it puts in place, because I believe that the National Citizen Service should be a rite of passage for young people across our country. The Bill will embed the NCS as a national institution and make it an important part of our national fabric.

In Yorkshire, I have seen at first hand the great work that the challenge trust and the English Football League Trust do on behalf of the NCS. Last year, Barnsley football club’s community sport and education trust oversaw 326 people taking part in the scheme. The fact that this is well over double the number that took part in 2013 gives me confidence that, with the right support, the scheme will become more and more successful.

For many, the NCS is the first step on their youth social action journey, and their involvement in the programme embeds in them the value of service. I am very supportive of the role it plays, because the NCS is a part of the youth social action sector that is going from strength to strength. That fact is very clearly demonstrated by the good work of organisations such as City Year, V Inspired, the Prince’s Trust and the Scout Association. I could speak about the achievements of each of these organisations and many others at length, but I want to confine my remarks to the NCS and what makes it so special.

President Obama said in his farewell speech just the other day:

“For too many of us, it’s become safer to retreat into our own bubbles...surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook, and never challenge our assumptions.”

The NCS consistently pushes our young people out of such bubbles and brings young people together from different backgrounds, across socio-economic and ethnic lines, which must be both applauded and built on. This is a timely moment to be having this debate, because 2016 was a year when the divisions in our country became more apparent than ever. Accordingly, it is hugely important that national institutions such as the NCS exist, where people can come together and meaningfully engage with those from different backgrounds to bridge those divides.

I would like to draw the House’s attention, however, to research showing that the number of NCS graduates from hard-to-reach backgrounds has fallen since the introduction of the scheme. The hardest to reach are, by their very nature, hard to reach. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), I would like the Government to consider what more can be done to make the NCS open to those who need and would benefit from it most. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister considered whether the language used in the royal charter laying out the primary functions and purpose of the NCS Trust is sufficiently focused on the integration aspect of the NCS. Social integration—the act of mixing and forging bonds with those from different backgrounds —is a process. Cohesive communities are the outcome.

For many young people, taking part in the NCS is the beginning of creating the diverse social networks they need to flourish. Therefore, we should focus on ensuring that the hardest-to-reach young people can take up the opportunity afforded to them by the NCS. Programme providers such as The Challenge are doing fantastic work to that end, employing dedicated personal coaches to support young people with complex needs prior to and after completing the NCS, to ensure as few barriers to entry as possible for these young people.

[Jo Churchill]

One of the mentors said to me that one of the young people who got the most out of her course was a young carer. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is perhaps a group that should be targeted? They often have a hard job accessing holidays or recreation or are unable to lift themselves out of their current environment in a way that is helpful and meaningful.

[Dan Jarvis]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. If I might say so, I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North was slightly unfairly chided for seeking to make the most constructive of contributions to this debate, because there is a consensus across the House that this is a great scheme and that young people benefit enormously from it. The challenge that Government and all of us find is that those who would perhaps benefit the most are, as I have said, the hardest to reach. Opposition Members are offering a constructive critique of the scheme—a scheme that we support and believe in—to ensure that it maximises the benefit for all those who we think would benefit from it.

Prior to the hon. Lady’s most helpful intervention, I was alluding to the incredibly important work done by The Challenge in dedicating personal coaches to support young people with complex needs and ensuring that they have the same opportunities as participants from more affluent backgrounds. For the programme to have integration at its heart, it must be a programme for all and providers must have adequate resource to focus their attention on this work. Although the NCS plays an important role in enabling social mobility, it should not be seen as a ready-made remedy to the problems caused by cuts to other youth services. It must be part of a sector-wide investment strategy.

My life both outside and inside politics has shown me the value of service and active citizenship. The National Citizen Service is a 21st-century manifestation of those values. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the Opposition’s point—which, I think it is fair to say, was made most constructively—about the NCS’s role in facilitating integration and including the hardest-to-reach groups in our society, but most of all I look forward to the programme growing from strength to strength as a result of this Bill and the royal charter.

16:54

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). I speak both as a local Member of Parliament and as chairman of the all-party groups on heritage rail—the link will become clear in a moment—and on democratic participation.

This debate is being watched in the House and outside by those with an active involvement in the NCS, and they might think, “Why isn’t there a packed House to celebrate such an important scheme?” However, they should draw some comfort from the fact that that means it is not a contentious scheme, but one that has cross-party support. All right hon. and hon. Members want it to succeed. It is, in a way, a good sign that while there is not that much interest, there is not too much controversy about this Bill.

I welcome the fact that the Bill will place the NCS on a statutory footing and bring it close to being a national institution and a rite of passage for 15 to 17-year-olds. I want to join others in paying tribute to the former Prime Minister and Member for Witney, David Cameron, who was a great champion of the NCS, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who is now a Minister in another Department but who did so much to get the NCS up and running in the last Parliament. I pay tribute to those working on the NCS at a national level and to those who, as we have heard, participate as volunteers and mentors in all the schemes. Without their great dedication, the schemes would not have been so successful. Finally, I pay tribute to the current Minister and Secretary of State for championing the NCS. It would be fair to say that my family and that of the Secretary of State already know the benefits of outdoor activity, because we often take them on route marches in the summer recesses.

I wish to deal with three issues today: the building of skills that our young people need for life in 21st-century Britain; the community cohesion and integration aspects of NCS; and the specific amendment tabled in the other place, which I also intend to put down, on volunteering for what is considered to be an industrial undertaking.

The NCS is often the first step for young people on their youth social action journey, and it places emphasis on creating more integrated and engaged citizens. The Prime Minister’s recent speech unveiling the shared society has already been mentioned. She rightly said that it is time to tackle the culture of individualism that seems to have grown up. The NCS is about ensuring that young people are equipped with the necessary skills to get ahead in life.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) talking about character, because I championed character education when I was running the Department for Education, and I set up the character awards and grants. I have had conversations with both local and national providers, and I believe that the NCS will play a hugely important part in building the individual and national character of young people.

The NCS is a vital extracurricular activity, but is also about civic engagement. Recent research shows that participants in the NCS are more likely to vote. Bite the Ballot, partners with the NCS via the Challenge Network from 2014, has provided the tools used to run sessions on political engagement. As a result, 95% of all participants have gone on to register to vote. At a time when we often lament the fact that young people are not much engaged in the political process, that just shows one of the benefits of the NCS.

Through NCS programmes, young people are able to work with local businesses and social leaders to develop their resilience, grit—one of my favourite words—teamwork and leadership skills, and to discover more about their area through delivering local volunteering projects that matter to them. I recently met Education Business Partnership, the regional delivery partner of the NCS, in my own constituency, which has worked with more than 5,000 16 and 17-year-olds in the east midlands since 2011. It has been supported to carry out over 100,000 hours of social action.

In Loughborough, I have worked with a number of organisations that benefit from NCS social action, including Rainbows children’s hospice and the Falcon centre, which provides homeless people with accommodation. I suspect that all hon. Members in their places today, in common with my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), will have met local NCS cohorts. I have met at least three of mine during their residential week in Leicester, at the end of their social action project to renovate the community room at Hind Leys College and the project at Fearon Hall in my constituency. The last one involved the great sacrifice of eating cupcakes on a Saturday morning. It was very difficult, and I was delighted that they had chosen to raise funds in that way.

There is an intensive nature to and seriousness behind the NCS programme. Hon. Members have already spoken about the levelling effects of the activities, and the setting of shared goals that contributes to the development of a common identity between the participants who often come from diverse backgrounds. People have been right to speak about the national importance of the NCS. The result of last year’s referendum has meant that discussions about national identity are ever more to the fore, and I believe that the mixing of people from different backgrounds is a vital part of what the NCS offers. I also welcome the fact that the Bill will encourage more young people to take advantage of the programme.

Schools are clearly an important way of reaching young people and informing them of the benefits of participating in the programme. When I was Secretary of State for Education, I had some conversations with the Minister. I was very much of the view that schools should facilitate the giving of information to young people about the benefits of the scheme. It is sometimes tempting to ask our schools to do an awful lot, and I used to say that if we asked schools to do everything that other people asked of them, they would never get round to teaching until about midnight every night. We must have a balance, but there must be a way for schools to facilitate the giving of information about the programme both to future participants and to parents and families, and to allow those who have participated in the scheme to come back and talk to future cohorts about why they should sign up.

I hope to pick up an amendment that was tabled in the other place, and I hope that we may be able at least to debate it. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Bill does not unintentionally prevent young people from working as volunteers on a heritage railway or tramway as part of a programme provided or arranged by the NCS. A similar amendment was tabled by Lord Faulkner, and has already been debated in the other place. As I have said, I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on heritage rail, and I recognise the considerable contribution that that sector makes to local economies through tourism and employment. Indeed, the Great Central Railway, which is in my constituency, attracts 138,000 visitors per year. In 2015, the value of tourism to Leicestershire grew for the sixth consecutive year, reaching a record high of £1.57 billion and providing employment for more than 20,700 people.

Young people will be vital to the success of the industry, as they provide voluntary maintenance and operational support. In turn, heritage railways and tramways help to engage young people, and provide a platform for them to learn the important new skills that the NCS is instilling. However, it appears that the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 excludes “children”, defined in section 558 of the Education Act 1996 as

“an individual who has not yet reached 16”,

from working in what is described as an industrial undertaking. It seems, therefore, that it is illegal for young people to volunteer on heritage railways, although the current push towards volunteering did not exist when the 1920 Act came into force. A new clause has been proposed to clarify the Bill and to make it clear that that Act should not prevent young people from volunteering on heritage railways and tramways.

Health and safety have been discussed this afternoon; I should emphasise that the standard health and safety, safeguarding and supervisory requirements would, of course, still apply. We need more young volunteers on our heritage railways, and the all-party parliamentary group will be considering the role of apprenticeships and the development of employability skills that are vital in the 21st century.

Let me end by expressing my wholehearted support for the NCS and the Bill, and my wish to see maximum participation in the NCS in the future. It is a good thing—in fact, a great thing—for the individual young people who participate, but it is also a great thing for this country. I hope to have an opportunity to ask Ministers to think about updating the law in respect of heritage railways and industrial undertakings.

17:02

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

I join colleagues in taking a consensual and comradely approach to the Bill. I am extremely supportive of the National Citizen Service and the brilliant work that it does with young people in my constituency. Redcar’s youth unemployment rate is two and a half times the national average. Some 30 or 40 years ago, young people leaving school knew that they would have a guaranteed job at the steelworks, at ICI or on the docks, but those jobs and industries have gone, and young people now face a much more insecure and challenging environment for jobs and opportunities. My greatest fear is that those who are growing up in Redcar do not see that they have a future in the region, and believe that if they are to get on, they must move away. One of the most important functions of the NCS is giving young people a stake in their local communities and restoring civic pride. That is fundamental to communities such as mine when we are building for the future.

I have seen our NCS regenerate football clubs, paint meeting rooms for young carers and turn concrete roadsides into gardens, and I have seen it raise a huge amount for fantastic local charities, organisations that deal with domestic violence, young carers, and a number of other worthwhile causes. The programme’s emphasis on the development of life and work skills, particularly self-esteem and confidence-building, and its encouragement of the next generation to take a stake in their communities are extremely valuable. I was privileged to attend some of the award ceremonies and to see young men and women stand up and address a room containing 200 or 300 people, which they openly admitted that they would never have done a few weeks before they started the programme. The programme gives them fantastic skills such as budgeting, project management and fundraising. Those skills are fundamental to young people’s success but, as we have heard, in an increasingly squeezed school curriculum, we do not have time to teach them. I therefore value the NCS highly and welcome the role that the Bill will play in establishing it as a national institution that more young people can access.

I also share the view that many hon. Members have expressed that one of the greatest strengths of the NCS is the way in which it brings together young people from all walks of life, helping to bridge social divides and overcome prejudice. This ensures that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are able to access the same opportunities as those from wealthier and better-connected families. Social inclusion and social mobility are intrinsic to the principles of the NCS and I strongly believe that these principles must be maintained when it is placed on a statutory footing. It must not be the preserve of young people who are already confident enough to put up their hands or those whose parents have the sharpest elbows.

I know that the NCS is committed to making every effort to reach the most socially excluded young people. The National Audit Office report on the NCS that was published last week noted a higher percentage of participants from minority groups, such as those on free school meals, than in the wider population, which is a positive achievement, but we must make sure that this motive remains a key purpose after the transition of the NCS to a royal charter body—it cannot ever be relegated to something of lower importance. I therefore support the calls made by our Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), and by The Challenge for the wording of the royal charter specifically to reference social integration as one of the primary functions of the NCS programme. Furthermore, I support the case for funding to be specifically ring-fenced for targeting hard-to-reach groups. Those aims are fundamental to the NCS and it is important that they are formally written into the governance fabric of the new body.

I was also initially concerned that some of the Government’s proposals could place unnecessary burdens on schools and local authorities, which are already overstretched. It is a welcome change that no formal duties on either will be included in the Bill.

Ensuring that the programme grows sustainably will be a particular challenge, especially because the NAO has highlighted rising costs and lower than expected participation rates. One of the most important aspects of the Bill is to learn the lessons of the Kids Company debacle and to ensure that proper reporting and accounting structures are in place for this organisation, which receives a large amount of Government funding.

We should remember that although the NCS is important, it is not the only youth service in town. Other services play a vital role in diverting young people away from crime, supporting young carers and overcoming exclusion. They must not be deprived of the funding that they need to operate.

The Local Government Association survey to which the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) referred found that 90% of English councils had cut services for teenagers. That is a result of huge reductions in central Government funding. Research by UNISON estimates that between April 2010 and April 2016, £387 million was cut from youth service spending across the UK. Youth services of varying kinds play a vital role in our communities, providing real and ongoing benefits for the young people who need them. Crucially, in many cases, they result in savings for the taxpayer because they reduce demand for other public services further down the line. The importance of wider youth services must not be overlooked by the Government.

I am proud to say that I support the principles of the Bill. I am pleased that there is such wide cross-party support of the value of the NCS programme. With a bit of clearer language in the royal charter, its value would be greatly enhanced. Young people on Teesside have great energy, great ideas and an enormous amount to contribute to their local community and their country. I hope that the Bill will help more of them to fulfil their potential.

17:08

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). I particularly want to highlight her comment that the National Citizen Service should not be the preserve of just those who are confident. Many young people who might lack confidence need encouragement to come forward.

Over the past couple of years, I have been delighted to attend a number of NCS events in Crawley. I have had the opportunity to present certificates to local graduates of the programme on a number of occasions. We often hear people say that our young people simply do not care about their local area and have no interest in getting involved in the community. Given our experiences, I am sure that everyone in the House would contest that assertion.

The National Citizen Service leads to increased community engagement, awareness and social action. I have seen this for myself from NCS participants in my constituency, where the initiative is delivered by the Crawley Town Community Foundation. Cohort after cohort have shown they are extremely committed to helping those less fortunate than themselves, and through the NCS programme, they continue to come up with ways to raise awareness and funds for important local causes. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has previously called for more collaboration between the voluntary sector and the NCS, and such closer working together could lead to an even greater difference.

I am sure that other operators would be able to learn from what I have seen in Crawley. Last year, through their social action projects, NCS participants worked alongside a host of local good causes, including Crawley Open House, the Springboard Project, St Catherine’s Hospice, the Olive Tree Cancer Support Centre and Save the Children. I would like to use this opportunity not only to commend Crawley’s NCS graduates, but to thank them sincerely for raising more than £7,400 across the three NCS programmes last year, and for volunteering a total of over 7,500 hours of their time to help those local organisations. This consists of more than just fundraising; they have put together packs for the homeless and organised renovation work to help a charity as well.

A little over six months ago, our new Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), took office. Before entering No. 10 for the first time, she stood on the steps of Downing Street and talked about the importance of ensuring greater opportunity for all. The National Citizen Service helps with that opportunity. A key hallmark of the NCS is ensuring that young people are taught skills that they cannot learn in class. More than nine out of 10 participants believe that the NCS provides the opportunity to develop skills that will be useful in the future, and analysis has shown that in the year after participation, the majority of NCS graduates state that they have used those skills already. The programme increases wellbeing and lowers levels of anxiety, with the greatest impact being found among those from the poorest backgrounds.

Financial support is available for the one-off £50 fee. In fact, the National Audit Office states that the average contribution in 2016 was £30 as a result of concessions and bursaries. In contrast, estimates show that in 2016 the cost per participant will exceed £1,800—I am sure Members agree that that is an investment worth making. In 2015, 17% of NCS participants were eligible for free school meals, compared with around 10% of young people among the general population. Analysis of the summer 2014 programme has shown that the NCS is estimated to have delivered social benefits valued at between £70 million and £250 million, giving a benefit-to-cost ratio of between £1.12 and £3.98 for every £1 spent.

Research also shows that fewer than half of 18 to 24-year-olds voted at the last general election. While more continues to be done in this regard, I welcome NCS figures showing that participants are more likely to vote and engage in our democracy after finishing the scheme. Indeed, thousands of young people registered to vote while taking part in the NCS. I am grateful to the Government for their continued enthusiasm for supporting the initiative and, like other right hon. and hon. Members, pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, for establishing the National Citizen Service and his ongoing involvement after leaving public office.

The running of the NCS is not simply a case of a host of local operators doing their own thing, independent of one another and of established charity groups. My own constituency’s local provider, the Crawley Town Community Foundation, works not only to help charities in West Sussex, but alongside the Football League Trust, which supports a host of league clubs in delivering the programme. Crawley Town football club has backed the NCS over the years, including by having the programme’s participants hold bucket collections for local good causes on match days and hosting the graduation ceremonies in the stadium suite overlooking the pitch. That commitment will go further with additional events and announcements in the near future. There is also regular exposure on the club’s website and in the matchday programme. The impact of the association with the local football club cannot be underestimated.

The Bill will place a duty on schools, colleges, and local and national Government to inform young people and their parents, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, of the skills and benefits that can be gained from the National Citizen Service. One of the most powerful ways in which the NCS can be promoted is directly by the very people who have taken part. Just under half of last year’s Crawley graduates are still involved in the scheme, which is the highest figure across Kent and Sussex. Will the Minister tell the House what assistance the Department may be able to give to NCS providers to ensure that that rate increases across the country? Will the Department go further to assist the NCS Trust in ensuring best practice?

This month, Crawley celebrates the 70th anniversary of its designation as a new town. It has been a time of reflection on not only the challenges facing us today, but what makes us such a strong community. The National Citizen Service helps and encourages social cohesion, social mobility and social engagement. The young adults who take part in such programmes—let us not forget the staff who help to deliver such schemes and therefore the opportunities—are people of whom we can all be proud. Long may their fine work continue.

17:16

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). It has been heartening to hear widespread praise for the National Citizen Service and I want to join in that praise—it is an excellent scheme. The Secretary of State mentioned that it operates in England and in Northern Ireland, but I want to put on the record my praise for the excellent volunteering element of the Welsh baccalaureate. One good thing about such programmes is that we are able to share expertise and good ideas, wherever they come from, both within these islands and internationally. That is a great strength and has always been the case with the best volunteering programmes.

The Minister will be familiar with them, but I want to discuss some points made about the Bill by some voluntary sector organisations. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations spoke with some eloquence about the NCS being part of

“a longer journey of social action and volunteering”,

of diversity of participants being more important than numbers, and about how crucial it is that young people are involved in the design of the programme. The Charities Aid Foundation makes a plea in the form of asking for a new article to be inserted into the royal charter to ensure that the scheme is a way of encouraging younger people into other social programmes, such as charity trusteeship. Its point is that while 18 to 24-year-olds make up 12% of this country’s population, they make up less than 1% of charity trustees. It is important to develop the scheme and get its participants involved in being trustees and in other leadership roles. Of course, many of us here who are in middle age will recognise that one does not stay aged 15 to 17 forever. [Interruption.] One of my colleagues points out that not everyone here is in middle age.

How do we develop volunteering, and how do we develop a type of volunteering that brings people together? What is the next step for volunteering after this Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) spoke powerfully about how volunteering does not have any legal status in this country. Indeed, volunteers aged 18 and over, or anyone else, could be designated as not in employment, education or training. For those aged 18-plus who go on volunteering programmes, there is no agreement that that should mean national insurance contributions and the like. We need to develop those ideas as we take forward the National Citizen Service.

Many Members on both sides of the House have spoken passionately today about integration, diversity and bringing people together. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) cited a moving quote by President Obama. This is not all about being in one’s own little bubble and talking to people who agree with ourselves; it is about coming together with different people. I remember a television programme from a few years ago—I think it was a “BBC Parliament when we are not here” type of programme—and sitting on a stage were former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, who were discussing with young people some sort of leadership programme that they had established in the United States. I always remember former President Clinton talking about the idea of bringing together young African-Americans who are active in their community and getting them on the same programmes as young people involved in the Tea Party movement who believe that the world would be a better place if everything operated in their small town. He spoke about bringing together those energies and about how the synergy between them creates something better for society. I am not sure how many of those ideas are at play in the US at the moment, but what a fantastic idea it is to bring together different groups of young people so that they can share their different ideas. Who knows what might come out of that?

When we look at different sorts of schemes, we do not know where they will lead. For instance, I hope that one area we look at is volunteering for former young offenders and for people who have been in prison. That step, which is sometimes very great, can take people out of a life of recidivism in which they offend, go into jail, reoffend, go back into jail, and on and on. Is there a specific role for volunteerism that can bridge that gap between prison and employment? We need to be thinking of that as a next step.

I warmly commend the Bill and the ideas behind it, and I hope the resourcing, the collaboration and the involvement with voluntary groups will be in place. There are so many ideas for us to think about in relation to volunteering and how it creates the sort of society that not everyone might want to see at the moment but that we are certainly going to need.

17:23

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

I am proud to be here to support the NCS Bill. The NCS is one of the best things done by the last Government, led by Prime Minister David Cameron, and I am delighted that it is being put on a statutory footing, safeguarding its future as a national institution. The NCS will give hundreds of thousands of young people the momentum they need for a lifetime commitment to volunteering.

I chaired the debating society at school, and indeed at university, and one motion that we used to debate was whether national service should be reinstituted. It was difficult to argue for the motion, both because of the cost and because we did not need a large force prepared for military action, but there is a lot of evidence for the other benefits of national service, which I can see in the National Citizen Service. When I was researching the motion on national service I needed to go no further than my late father, who did national service in the 1950s with the Royal Marines and the Durham Light Infantry. He would always tell me what a great social leveller national service was, because in basic training someone could be in a dorm with people from Eton, stockbrokers and electricians—people from all walks of life and every conceivable background. Any pre-existing airs and graces someone had would quickly be squashed by a diet of exercise, hard work and learning new skills, and having to live, eat, sleep and work—do everything together—as a team. People who had been through national service were better able to adapt to the challenges life threw at them, and to work together and interact better with people from all different walks of life.

Let us wind forward 50 years to the NCS. Although it has none of the military training of national service, it does have those positive features we saw with that: the levelling effects, with individuals from all different walks of life coming together, where people are pushed out of their comfort zone and engaged in challenging activities on an equal footing; and the social atmosphere of people living, eating and cooking together with others from every walk of life. In addition, the NCS has provided 8 million hours of voluntary work in communities in the UK. Graduates of the NCS are likely to contribute six hours more per month of voluntary work than people who have not been through the scheme. Eight out of 10 graduates of the NCS also said that they are more likely to get on with people from different backgrounds whom they would not otherwise have had the opportunity to meet.

In Kingston upon Thames, in my constituency, I have been to see the NCS in action in both the years I have been an MP. In 2015, I went to see volunteers doing their voluntary week, when they were helping with the Weir Archer Academy’s disability sports taster day. Last year, I was one of the dragons at the NCS “Dragons’ Den”, where groups bid for extra funding for their social action campaigning projects. On both those occasions, I took time to speak to the young people involved, and two things came up time and again: that the NCS programme had brought them out of their shell, giving them a confidence they had lacked before; and that they had the opportunity to mix with people from the same borough whom they had never met before. These were people who had been to different schools, different types of schools, and were from different backgrounds. In the same way as President John F. Kennedy’s Peace Corps and President Lyndon B. Johnson’s AmeriCorps did, the NCS brings together young people to go out and do good things in their communities and in the world, and to come back with a mindset to help their local communities.

The NCS also does a huge amount for social integration, which is why organisations such as The Challenge, which supports many of the NCS projects in urban areas such as London, are calling for social integration to be added to community cohesion as one of the stated aims of the NCS in the draft royal charter. The Prime Minister has spoken of the importance of social integration. In my view, the best way to get social integration right is to start when people are young and to give them opportunities to integrate that do not exist readily in every community. In her report on social integration, Dame Louise Casey noted the role of the NCS in

“improving understanding and relationships between young people from different backgrounds.”

Some 30% of NCS participants are from ethnic minorities, with the figure in Kingston being 65%, and 17% are on free school meals, The low admission fee, which can be waived if parental circumstances require it, is undoubtedly very important in achieving that, which is why the huge financial investment in the NCS for the lifetime of this Parliament is crucial. The NCS can and should become one of the key tools of social integration, so I am delighted it is being expanded and put on a statutory footing today.

Before I conclude, I want to make it clear to other organisations that encourage voluntary service and teach young people life skills that the focus on the NCS in no way denigrates the fantastic work that they do. I include among those organisations Girlguiding; the Scouts; the International Citizen Service in my constituency, which is run by Voluntary Service Overseas; and many other charities, such as Restless Development, formerly Students Partnership Worldwide, with which I spent several months as part of a charity project in Tamil Nadu in south India. All are part of the rich tapestry of volunteering and voluntary services for the youth of today, but, with funding behind it and the statutory footing it is going to receive today, the NCS will lead the way.

The NCS should make sure that, when it puts young people into voluntary placements, it works with local small charities. That is important first, because such charities often have much less by way of human and financial resources than the large national charities, so they could really do with additional man-hours from young, enthusiastic NCS volunteers; and secondly, because if the NCS participant is going to develop a long-term relationship with a charity or voluntary organisation, it is much better that it is a local one in the community where they are based, so that they can continue to serve.

The NCS is the fastest growing youth movement of its kind for a century. I hope that it becomes a rite of passage and a national institution, like the Peace Corps and the AmeriCorps are in the US. I hope that it gives young people from all backgrounds the chance to mix and to learn how to give something back to their community. I hope that it leads to a better society, with more active and responsible citizens, better engaged in their communities.

17:31

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry). I very much agree with the remarks he made about the contribution made by the Scouts and Girlguiding, and by the other organisations. I also agree with his really good point about how the Peace Corps and the AmeriCorps in America contribute to many of the aims we seek to pursue here in Parliament today. I say to the Minister that all Opposition Members, along with our Front-Bench team, very much welcome the Bill, which we think is an important step forward in achieving the goals we all share.

At a time when Brexit quite rightly dominates the national debate and many of our debates in Parliament, we should say to the media and the public at large that alongside that some hugely significant and important debates take place. The Government make important statements and introduce important Bills, and we respond. Today is one such occasion. The NCS is a hugely important initiative, and the Government are seeking, through the Bill, to develop and build on the progress that has already been made. Other Members have recounted their experiences of going to see the work done in their areas, and I have seen for myself in Nottingham that there is no shortage of brilliance in some of the work that takes place. I have seen the influence of the programme on young people from different backgrounds.

There is a word that I do not think has been used yet, but that is of particular importance. When I went to the graduation ceremony in Nottingham, I saw the self-esteem that it brought to people. If there is one thing that holds back many of our young people—alongside opportunity, background and so on—it is a lack of self-confidence, of self-esteem, and of belief that they have something positive to offer. In many circumstances, the NCS has generated that self-esteem, and the belief that they have worth and something to offer. If that will help them through their lives, it is an enormous step forward.

The other reason why this debate is important is that there are clearly different views—in this House, in the country and, indeed, around the world—on Brexit and its implications and consequences, but there is no division between us about the need to continue to promote people coming together and the universal values of tolerance, self-respect, and respecting others, whatever their ethnic background or religion. The NCS has at its heart the promotion of those universal values. At a time when there is some concern about tolerance and about divisions in our community, surely it is right for us as a Parliament to say, “Look at this as a model for the way that we want our country and our communities to go.” The scheme is hugely important.

I offer this challenge not just to the Government, but to all of us and to this Parliament. According to the National Audit Office report, 96,000 people are participating in the scheme at the present time. It is the Government’s intention, and an intention that we all support, for that to rise to some 360,000 by 2020-21. That requires, as the NAO points out, 40% annual growth. As this Bill goes through Committee, it will be a challenge to look at how we will achieve that and how we will increase those participation rates. We also need to look at the barriers to participation. The NAO report points out a couple of things: the importance of brand awareness and the need to try to ensure that more people are aware of the opportunities available through the NCS; and, importantly and significantly, access to schools and how we promote that. I am sure that much good work is done in schools, but, alongside that, we need to do more. All of us need to understand that we need to promote more effectively the NCS, what it is and what opportunities it offers.

[Jo Churchill]

That 40% is a large growth, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of that broadening of numbers will mean that there will need to be a large number of additional volunteering projects from which those children can benefit? That is something that those of us in this Chamber can help with, but I would be interested to know how the Government will fulfil that need so that we get more children helping in those residential homes, playgroups and all the other groups right across the spectrum.

[Vernon Coaker]

That is a very good and well-made point, and the Minister will have heard it.

The challenge for us is to see how we can increase the number of volunteering opportunities, and how we as a Parliament can challenge ourselves to deliver the objectives. It is not a criticism to turn around and say that we have not got the numbers that we would all like; it is a challenge. It is not for us to say that the Government are wicked and the Opposition are terrible. It is for us as a Parliament to say that this is a collective view about what is good for our country and for our young people, and therefore what do we have to do to achieve our objective? That is the big challenge for us. Imaginative and different things need to be considered.

There are 1.5 million 16 and 17-year-olds in our country—my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) looked that up for me—every one of whom would benefit from an NCS-type programme. We are talking about how we increase participation to 360,000—again, I say to the Minister that I am not criticising him—and how that is a massive challenge and yet we all agree that it is something that we would like our young people to experience. How do we deliver that? That is the challenge and the question that we need to ask ourselves.

Finally, this business of integration and of how we bring people together is so important. Members have talked about the need to reach the hard-to-reach groups and about the worrying statistics in the NAO report. Clearly, participation is an issue, whether it is about the hard to reach or other young groups.

Integration is hugely important, whether that is between ethnic groups, social groups, hard-to-reach groups and people who are well off, and so on. I say to the Minister that we should also consider integration between the regional divides that there appear to be in our country, and the divide between urban and rural areas. The divide is not just between white and black and all those other areas in which we would wish to see it overcome—what about the generational divide?

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point that I will discuss further if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. He talks about bringing people together from different parts of society and also from different parts of the country, and one of the original ambitions, which is yet to be achieved, was about the fact that although people in my constituency in Sussex come from different parts of society, they do not mix with his constituents in Nottinghamshire, and vice versa. We need to extend the scheme so that we can bring people from different parts of the country and different parts of the kingdom together to share that experience.

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree absolutely, and that is the point I am making.

One of the most interesting things—I am sure that we have all done it—is getting young people talking to old people because, with their different perspective, they bring history alive. As a former history teacher, I know that when older people talked to young people about history it brought it alive to them. Those ways of bringing people together and overcoming division, whether it is between social classes, regions or generations, are one of the great strengths of the NCS. We need to be more open in saying that we have a huge ambition for ourselves and our country. We should not be afraid of having that ambition. The challenge is in how we deliver it, and is not something we should shy from.

17:41

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker).

I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. We should recognise all the work that has gone into the NCS programme from those who work on and have developed the scheme. I add my thanks for all the work that David Cameron has done and continues to do with the NCS. Before I came to this place, I was involved in a number of social action projects, as my hon. Friends will probably be aware, both in the UK and overseas. One thing that I took away from that was that although we had some young people and some older people, a social action project can bring together people from all walks of life. They find themselves in a challenging situation, experiencing things that they have never experienced before; there is a lot that we can all learn from social action projects.

In the summer of 2015, just over a year ago, I was invited to join young people who were taking part in an NCS project in my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency at a place called the Hothouse, on the Redhouse estate in Aldridge. I think it is fair to say that I turned up with all my usual enthusiasm for all things social action and, much to the surprise of some of my constituents and to some of the young people, too, was prepared to get stuck in with more than a little bit of painting. What I took away was that these young people, who were from different schools and had been brought together by the NCS programme, were working together as a group. Members of the community came into the Hothouse during the time that they were undertaking the project. The Hothouse is a very special place in the constituency. It is at the heart of the Redhouse estate and the heart of the community, and does a lot of support work. It was a good example of the NCS at the heart of the local community, with people of different ages and from different backgrounds working together, and—this is the important thing—doing so for the mutual benefit of the community. It is a great example of how social interaction and integration really can work. That is what is so special and unique about the NCS. We must hold on to that ability to reach out to a broad base of young people as we move forward.

We know that the NCS already reaches out, but we must do all we can to build on that further. The programme is reaching out to hard-to-reach groups, such as those on free school meals and black and minority ethnic communities—the figures are really good—but I just wonder whether we need to find ways to reach out to other groups, such as the families sometimes described as “just about managing” or the young people who might not see the NCS as something for them, perhaps because they lack the confidence to put their name forward. We must do all we can to ensure that those people have that opportunity if the NCS is to be a truly national service—I think that is what it is edging towards, and what it has every potential to become.

The Bill is an important step towards making the NCS a national institution. As we have heard this afternoon, the NCS is often the first step in young people’s participation in social action. As I have seen for myself, it can make a huge contribution to volunteering capacity, social integration and social cohesion within communities. According to the research I have done, a typical programme is 30 hours long. Thirty times 300,000 young people adds up to an awful lot of time spent in the community working on social action and building social capacity—my maths is not good enough to work out quite how many hours that is, but it is safe to say that it is makes a massive contribution to our country.

In 2016, 78 young people from Aldridge-Brownhills took part, and across Birmingham and the Black country the total was 5,786. That is terrific, but I want us to see more. I want us to ensure that it will reach out to young people from all walks of life and achieve more. When I was doing my research, I was interested to find out how many schools in my constituency were involved in the project. I was really pleased to learn that all of them had been involved. That is a good example of how the NCS is starting to reach out across all schools and groups of young people in my patch.

We have heard this afternoon about the Casey review into opportunity and integration in the UK. I want to reiterate one of the points it made. It stated that the NCS programme is

“having a positive impact in improving understanding and relationships between young people from different backgrounds.”

That is really important.

However, it is not just about the social action and the doing in the community; it is about so many other things, such as intergenerational integration, social integration and community cohesion. The hon. Member for Gedling spoke at length about the impact of Brexit and the need to bring our country together, and the Prime Minister has spoken about the need to bring communities and the country together. I think that the NCS has an important role to play in that.

As has been said this afternoon, and as I have seen myself, it is also about developing those life skills that are not always taught in school or even at home. They can be taught and developed through the NCS programme. I believe in an environment where people feel safe to develop those skills and learn from one another.

The NCS programme is an excellent opportunity for young people to experience social action in a way that, bit by bit, across communities and across the country, is really making a difference and contributing to social cohesion and integration. As I said earlier, I hope the Bill can build on that. The programme is not just about the young people of today or the young people of tomorrow. It is about the future that we all want: a country that works together and is cohesive. We must not forget that at the heart of the NCS is, and should be, the fact that young people come together from all walks of life. It does not matter whether they are black or white, working class or middle class; whatever background they come from, they all have the opportunity to take part in the NCS programme.

17:50

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am proud not only to be part of the debate and to see this Bill come of age—and the NCS comes of age with the Bill, just as the NCS is a coming-of-age project—but of the small part I played in its genesis. I was there back in 2005 when it was a germ of an idea from the then Prime Minister. He spoke to a number of youth leaders and tasked Paul Oginsky, who later became David Cameron’s youth adviser and who runs the youth training organisation, Personal Development Point, with developing a programme. I was asked to be part of that and we published, in, I think, 2008, “It’s time to inspire Britain’s teenagers”, which was effectively a White Paper that raised and consulted on the whole subject of what became the NCS.

The scheme was designed on the principles laid out in that unofficial White Paper with the help of people such as Steve Hilton, whom some may remember and who had an even more ambitious idea for the scheme, which was that it should take at least six weeks throughout the summer, be called national service, be much closer to the original scheme of which it has some echoes, and be compulsory. After a great deal of research—I remember spending many weekends with groups of fantastically gobby young people from Leeds, Liverpool and London who had some amazing ideas about how such a scheme should develop—we put together what then became the NCS.

The NCS was intended to be a rites of passage scheme. In this country, we transition into adulthood really badly. In other cultures and other countries, there is a point in a teenager’s life at which they can be said to transition into adulthood and gain the society’s respect as an adult. Here, we do not really do that. Too often, growing up is characterised by negatives. Did a young person become an adult when they had their first fag behind the bike shed, when they became a teenage pregnancy statistic or some other negative? Too often, that is how we judge and gauge the progress of young people. The NCS scheme is all about positives. If young people go through a scheme that is designed to be rigorous and challenging, and make those sacrifices as part of it, they deserve the right to be respected and valued as an adult with a voice in society. That was one of the guiding principles behind the scheme.

The scheme was absolutely about social mixing. For many years, we have had many other good schemes, but none is as successful at social mixing as the NCS has become. Too often, kids from the same school or the same neighbourhood may go out on an outward bound project or be part of some local youth organisation. But not often enough are they mixed up with people they would never come across ordinarily or pass the time of day with in the street—people from the other side of town, the other side of the tracks or the other side of the country. Social mixing was at the heart of all this. It was also about challenging young people and taking them out of their comfort zone. I have been on many NCS challenges over many years and it is not a holiday camp. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said that she took up the challenge of painting. I have been forced to go on Jacob’s ladders and climbing walls, which is no mean feat, particularly for the young people who have to haul me up part of the Jacob’s ladder. The challenge was just as much for me as for them.

I have met kids who had never been out of a city, been out on a moor, or waded through a stream in the Brecon Beacons or the Lake District. These were new, challenging and often frightening experiences, but that was part of the NCS—it took them out of their comfort zone and showed them that there is more to life and that, with the help of their team, they are able to conquer these challenges. I have seen a kid fresh out of a youth justice establishment holding one end of the rope while on the other end, precariously dangling on a climbing wall, is an Etonian, and vice versa. Two people who might never have come together ordinarily are thrown together and absolutely rely on each other in order to get through the challenge. That was one of the guiding principles of the scheme, and that is why it is so successful. It is about sustainably engendering a sense of social responsibility and community cohesion.

It is also, as the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said, about self-esteem and confidence, as we hear in so much of the feedback from young people who have been through the scheme. When they go to the graduation ceremony and have to perform, speaking up in front of an audience of hundreds, they all say, “I would never been able to do this if it hadn’t been for this scheme.” Then there are the other challenges that it inspires them and instils them with confidence to do. There is a great saying from the late, great Anita Roddick: “If you think you are too small to make a difference, try going to bed with a mosquito.” The whole point of the NCS was to unleash a swarm of mosquitos—young people who on their own might not have much of an effect, but emboldened by being valued in such a scheme, and working together with other like-minded people, had the confidence to go out and make a difference.

The “Positive for Youth” policy that we developed in the Department for Education was another part of the scheme. The NCS should not be seen in isolation. It exists not for its own sake but as part of a bigger jigsaw of how we empower, engage, inspire and instil confidence in young people. It is also about society gaining respect for young people. One of the biggest challenges we still have in our society, as other hon. Members have said, is an intergenerational divide. Too often, older people regard younger people as being a bit reckless and a bunch of hoodlums. Too often, younger people think that older people are too set in their ways, a bit detached, or retrograde—I could go on. The NCS is about young people doing, and being seen to do, something worth while, making sacrifices, and gaining the respect of the rest of society, not least older people. It is about trying to bring the generations together.

My great vision in helping to develop the NCS was that around the country sustainable social action projects would be set up, whether on nature conservation or sexual health—a huge variety. We heard some very good examples from the Secretary of State. There will be a big sign saying, “This project is part of the National Citizen Service, set up by and run by young people”. What a fantastic billboard and advert that is for the constructive stuff that its young people do, while too often being denigrated by the rest of society, particularly the media. Proportionately, young people are much more likely than any other generation to spend their time volunteering, yet they are not given the credit for it. The NCS is one way of making that much more high profile.

When the first pilot started in 2009, 160 young people went through it. I feared at the time was that it would perhaps be used as a cheap summer holiday camp by some of the middle classes. How wrong I was. On that first pilot, 60% of the young people were black girls from inner cities, who did fantastically well. We had to encourage the middle classes and others, saying “Look, you can get involved in this too”, and eventually that happened.

Then in 2010 we came into government, and the responsibility for the scheme was shared between the Cabinet Office and the Department for Education. On a very small budget to start with, and certainly with no budget for promoting and publicising it, the scheme really took off. At a difficult time of austerity, a lot of money was put into it. At a time when youth services were being unduly and unfairly hit through local authority cuts in funding, the scheme got off the ground. Six years on, more than 300,000 teenagers have taken part in it, some 93,000 of them in the past calendar year.

The hon. Member for Gedling is right: the cohort is about 720,000, and the scheme should absolutely be available to all of them. To be realistic, we need to make sure that we do not diminish or dilute the quality of what is offered. The only thing holding the programme back is the availability of good-quality, well-trained leaders. I do not want to try to reach an artificial target, when to do so might dilute the value and the quality of the programme. There is a big question mark over the capability of the the NCS to continue to train up leaders within the organisation—and, as we have heard, to ensure that NCS graduates come back as youth leaders—rather than poaching them from other youth groups, which would not be helpful.

To return to the figures for the social and ethnic mix, 30% of the young people doing the scheme at the moment are from BME communities, and 17%—more than double the percentage in the population—qualify for free school meals. Many of us have been to the graduation ceremonies, where young people get up on stage to be given their certificate and, in many cases, to strut their stuff. I went to a ceremony at Wembley stadium for 1,000 young people who had graduated from the various football schemes. Every one of them got up in front of the 1,000 people in the audience and did their bit. It was a hugely uplifting and emotional sight.

Numerous parents come up to me after such ceremonies and say, “This is the best scheme that my son or daughter has ever been on. Why do you keep it such a secret?” That is part of the problem. The scheme is hugely undersold given the outcomes, the achievements and the good that it does. As was envisaged, I want some really good examples of the social action projects that have come about through the NCS to feature in television programmes and in national newspapers and magazines. I want a competition every year, as there was, between the best social action projects in certain categories. We need an equivalent of the Oscars for the National Citizen Service to show people what is being achieved by the most inspiring and dedicated young people, and by all those behind them.

I am a big supporter of the NCS and of the Bill, but I have a couple of technical comments about the Bill. Clause 1(2) states that:

“For the purposes of this section…‘young people’ means 16 and 17 year olds, but may also include other persons who are 15 years old or have attained the age of 18 but are under the age of 25”.

I do not know many 16 or 17-year-olds, or 15 or 18-year-olds, who are not under the age of 25, so I am not quite sure what that clause is doing there. The other point I want to make about subsection (2) is that it talks only about England. We know that the scheme at the moment is confined to England. We have tried to extend it to other parts of the kingdom, but of course it is a devolved matter. Northern Ireland, in particular, showed a lot of interest in the scheme. I hope that the National Citizen Service can become a United Kingdom-wide programme with the buy-in of the Assemblies and Parliaments in the other parts of the United Kingdom, and I hope that we will not need new legislation to make that possible. The Bill, in its terminology, limits the scheme to England.

The clauses about preparing accounts, business plans and annual reports are all standard. To be constructively critical, however—I raised this point with the Secretary of State earlier—this is not just about numbers, the quality of this specific programme or the amount of money we are spending on it; it needs to be seen in the context of the wider youth offer. As was raised in the other place, there needs to be a mechanism that allows us to judge the quality of what the NCS is achieving against other youth programmes, and to compare the value for money we are getting from it against investments in other youth organisations.

The NCS cannot be seen as a stand-alone intervention for young people: it is not there just for its own sake. It starts only at the age of 16 or thereabouts, but the problems it tries to address start earlier and need early intervention. Some 42% of young people, being more fully committed to social action, began getting involved before the age of 10. The Scouts point out that the NCS three-week programme costs about £1,500 per person—the National Audit Office has come up with a new report that raises the cost to £1,862—and claim that they can establish a place for a young person in an area of deprivation for between £400 and £550, but there are 45,000 people on their waiting lists to join because they do not have sufficient people to be scout leaders. That is fine: there are places for both organisations, particularly if the NCS is providing leaders, as was intended, not just for the NCS but to help all the other youth and community organisations. If it works properly, the NCS is a recruiting sergeant for a whole host of other youth organisations, whose expansion may often be curtailed by the lack of youth leaders and properly trained youth experts.

My plea is that we need more detail to make the NCS more sustainable and more complementary to, rather than conflictual with, other youth organisations that are doing some really good stuff in other parts of the kingdom. We need to make sure that we can justify its expense and its quality in the greater context of what else is going on. There is a lot of ambition in the NCS, much of which has already come about, but we need to do much more to make it more widely available to a great many more young people who can benefit from it, just as 300,000 have so far, as the evidence shows. We need guarantees about value for money and quality across the whole sector and about the sustainability of ongoing volunteering among NCS graduates. Such volunteering is not just for the duration of the scheme itself, and social action projects are not just for a matter of weeks, but for perpetuity, with other local organisations —with the local authority, local businesses and local volunteers—helping to run those projects for the NCS cohorts in between other summer experiences.

I wish the Bill well. Questions will come up in Committee that will add yet further to the quality of the programme and, more importantly, to the enthusiasm of other people involved in helping young people in our society. Lots of good things came out of the Brexit debate, which has been mentioned even on this subject, but which I have avoided so far, but if we can all agree on one good thing that did so it was that the turnout of young people in the Brexit referendum—it was not called that, but that is what it became—was some 63%, against a turnout of young people in a normal general election of some 43%. The NCS can be part of the solution to persuading and encouraging young people to be part of decision making in our society. It is a great example of involving young people in its design, and it should be a great example of young people continuing to be involved in the fabric of the future of our country as a whole.

18:08

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Like everyone else who has spoken, I welcome the Bill, which will secure the future of the NCS through a royal charter. I join hon. Members in congratulating former Prime Minister David Cameron on his role as the driving force behind the scheme.

My constituency has had considerable success with the NCS. When the scheme started, just 45 people joined the initial cohort, but the number of participants has now increased to more than 1,200. One of the reasons why is the dedicated and dynamic leadership of Lee Stephens, who is sitting in the Public Gallery. I pay tribute to him for showing his dedication by not only leading the scheme, but sitting through the whole of this debate, as well as the preceding Question Time.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) mentioned the divides in our country and how the scheme brings people together. He spoke of rural, urban and regional divides. Representing a coastal community with the problems of poor educational standards and the like, I recognise the important role that the NCS has played. Those who participate gain new skills, enhance their CVs and are helped with the transition from school to further education. The value of the scheme has been recognised, certainly in the North East Lincolnshire part of my constituency, by the fact that every secondary school and academy has signed up to the programme, along with the two colleges, which are both working to integrate the NCS into their curriculums.

Only last Friday I visited my old school, Havelock school in Grimsby, where the headteacher explained to me the difficulties she has with a catchment area that is, shall we say, in one of the poor towns. It includes the East Marsh ward of Grimsby, which is ranked among the 20th poorest wards in the country by various socioeconomic indicators. There is no doubt that the NCS has played a major part in involving young people from all parts of the community in the Cleethorpes constituency and the surrounding areas.

Over the past three or four years, I have visited many projects in the constituency. They include, to mention just three, the St Andrew’s hospice in Grimsby, the Harbour Place centre for the homeless and the Alzheimer’s Society, which a number of young people did some work for. Indeed, I recall a year or two ago visiting a care home at which young people were working where some residents were suffering from dementia. It is important that young people realise that that is a growing problem in our ageing society. Many of those young people went on to work with those sufferers when the scheme finished, which is a great tribute to them and those who organised it. There have also been schemes such as tidying up local cemeteries, and I also remember visiting a very enthusiastic group last summer that was involved in repainting New Waltham village hall in very vivid colours. The list could go on.

To turn to more technical aspects of the Bill, I particularly welcome clauses 5 and 6. They relate to the business plan and the annual report, both of which will focus attention each year on the targets, helping to ensure that the scheme does not run out of steam but continues to prosper.

Young people can get a bad press but, as we all know, the vast majority are a credit to their families and their local communities. Society today faces many challenges, as it always has. If we can develop the natural skills and enthusiasm of our young people, they will make a major contribution, through the NCS, to society. The scheme gives them a sense of satisfaction, a growing sense of self-confidence and a realisation that by giving to the community in which they live, they can not only fulfil many of their own aspirations, but contribute greatly to the society and community in which they live.

I give my wholehearted support to the scheme. Many of us will have seen groups of young people and individuals who have prospered and gone on to greater things as a result of the NCS. I welcome the Bill and urge Ministers to take note of what has been said. This is a debate in which there has been mutual support and respect for the Bill from all parts of the House. At a time when we have been talking about divisions and trying to bring a cross-party approach to some of the more contentious aspects of policy, this is an example of something we can learn from. I hope that Members of all parties will bear that in mind.

18:14

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) as he described some of the NCS social action projects in his constituency. In fact, I have agreed with almost everything that has been said today by Members on both sides of the House. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) when he spoke in his comprehensive speech about the jigsaw of empowerment for young people to which the NCS contributes. I agreed with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about the importance of coming together and learning tolerance. I also agreed with the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) about the power of the NCS to inspire volunteering, although she was holding her papers so far from her face that I wondered whether, in the spirit of the NCS and volunteering, I should have dashed across the Floor and offered to lend her my specs.

Today, we celebrate the transformation of the NCS from an idea to something that has shaped the lives of more than 300,000 young people and now heads towards gaining royal charter status—an extraordinary journey. The three key aspects of the NCS—social cohesion, social mobility and social engagement—can be seen through various statistics. I was surprised by the fact that 30% of all participants are from ethnic minorities. All those three things can be brought alive by any of us who have hosted sessions with NCS groups or given out certificates at an NCS graduation.

I will never forget meeting a father whose daughter did her NCS with Gloucestershire College in 2012. He told me that his daughter had changed completely after going on that course, that she had seen much more of life than she had before and that she was now much more confident. According to him, it was all “down to the NCS”. It should come as no surprise that an independent evaluation of the NCS found that nine out of 10 young people feel that they have learned important skills for the future. It is no surprise either that three out of four feel more confident about getting a job later on.

The figures show some room for improvement, but I say that in the spirit of a sports coach telling the winner of an Olympic gold medal, “You can do better than that.” That was roughly the thrust of and ambition behind the contribution from the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed)—there is always room for improvement.

Today is a good moment to look back to the start of the NCS when none of the success was predictable or even expected. It is right to congratulate former Prime Minister David Cameron on his vision, and all those involved in the difficult business of a start-up. I thank those in the Cabinet Office at the time—my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd)—and it was good to hear the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) saying the same thing from the Opposition Benches. I thank all the civil servants involved in putting the programme together.

In the five years of the NCS’s existence, the number of participants from Gloucestershire and Gloucester has expanded rapidly. So far, there have been 1,192 participants, which I believe puts us, as a county, at 30th out of 127, so just inside the top quartile. Of those, 216 this year alone came from my Gloucester constituency. I have been absolutely delighted by that, and I am delighted to support, contribute and encourage participation in the NCS. If I could wave just one magic wand, it would be quite simply to involve every teenager in our city of Gloucester and throughout the country in joining the NCS programme.

Two groups this year went on the Pelican tall ship—up the mast, manning the crow’s nest and working night shifts—and that shows how comfort zones have been stretched. Such experiences will stay in the minds of the participants forever. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier), who also represents a cathedral city, made a plea for retaining adventure training, and I am sure he would heartily approve of such experiences.

Work for the community is also incredibly important, such as the redecoration of the Gloucester city farm community café or the work for Teens in Crisis on making a video to promote its online counselling service. In fact, participants from the Gloucestershire College courses alone have raised some £60,000 of cash and £24,000 of goods for good causes in our city and county. That really has made a difference. Putting the NCS on a permanent footing, following the Ipsos MORI evaluation and the report by the National Audit Office, will mean building on success, and increasing scale and transparency.

Let me comment briefly on the room for improvement that constitutes the second aspect of the debate. I agree that if the average cost to the taxpayer is £1,800 for each participant, it must be possible to reduce that, making the programme available to as many people as possible but not, I hope, at the price of squeezing out some of the more expensive adventures. I also hope that the letter from HMRC—presumably the same letter that gives national insurance numbers, which means no extra cost—will inspire more participation and get the message out more widely.

I am not entirely sure about widening the eligible age group to include people up to 25. The social benefits that are gained when teenagers from all and any backgrounds spend a month together are huge and proven, but I fear that mixing 25-year-olds and 16-year-olds would introduce more difficult dynamics. The Minister shakes his head, which I will take as an indication that that will not happen.

There is certainly room for improvement in one respect. If the figure is correct, participation by Members of Parliament stands at only 25%. I think that all who have spoken today would agree that this is a rite of passage that we should all directly support.

I have some sympathy with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) about measurement, but I believe that there is something important that can be captured, if not precisely measured: what happens to people who have been on an NCS course in terms of the volunteering habit acquired, the confidence gained and, ultimately, the jobs won. It is the young themselves who will put a value on the NCS through their recommendations to those younger than them and their analysis of what has led to their future growth.

There is no doubt that the NCS has been a success. Its founders and everyone else involved should be proud, but we should not forget to congratulate those who make it happen on the ground: the colleges, charities and other organisations that have run courses, the volunteer mentors, and the participants themselves, who have created and run such spectacular social action projects.

Today’s debate is more than an NCS lovefest; it is about the next stage. It is about reaching more young people, and more difficult-to-reach young people. It means everyone taking part in new and challenging adventures, outdoors and indoors, so that more and more families throughout the land see the NCS as not yet another acronym—they are not quite sure what it stands for—but the symbol of a life-changing month in their lives that will do as much to build stronger communities all around us as anything else I know, and, on its way, will change perceptions of what our young people are capable of.

18:22

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). I wish that he had that magic wand, because I know that he is a real champion of young people. I have seen him do a huge amount of work in his constituency to create opportunities that young people often seize and from which they benefit directly. It is a wonder that he has not yet been made a Minister.

I am delighted to speak in the debate. The NCS has come a long way since the 2009 pilots. Nearly 300,000 young people have benefited from the opportunity, and 93,000 did so in 2016 alone. I am staggered that only 25% of Members of Parliament have had an opportunity to see at first hand the fantastic work that is going on in our communities. I have had the pleasure of experiencing every stage of the transformation: I have been on assault courses, I have been a dragon, I have been a mentor, I have taken part in dodgeball—I have still not forgiven the five-year-old who took me out in about 20 seconds—I have attended the graduation ceremonies, and I have bought a lot of cakes in the charity sales.

I speak not just as a Member of Parliament and a local resident, but as a former employer who employed a great many young people. I was particularly impressed by the genuine, total transformation of the young people who had taken advantage of this fantastic opportunity. A number of Members have already highlighted many of the skills involved: team skills, confidence, the public speaking ability referred to by the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley)—many of us could learn from some of those skills—and the ability to understand and appreciate their local communities. We have seen that that has led to 8 million additional hours of voluntary work within our local communities, which is fantastic. There is also the issue of maturity, of building young people’s life skills that are important in transitioning from school into the real world and securing first jobs. The NCS logo is “NCS Yes”, which genuinely refers to the opportunities for those who apply.

I noticed from the graduation ceremonies just how proud parents are in the transformation of their children. They talk about how nervous their children were about signing up, and how even at the last minute they questioned whether it was the right thing to do. I must give credit to the NCS website; most things vaguely connected to the Government do not do particularly well when it comes to the internet and website presence, but the NCS website is fantastic. It has lots of FAQs and success stories, and it is bright, confident and enthusiastic. We can see why those nervous youngsters take the brave step of signing up.

What surprises people about the NCS is that the young people do not all sign up together. It is often assumed that the young people all know each other—perhaps they are all in the same class at a local college that has collectively decided to go. In fact, it is actually a random collection of people stepping outside their comfort zones and giving up their valuable summer holidays to do something constructive. Yes, it is enjoyable, but often they do not realise how enjoyable it is until the end.

I want the NCS to succeed even more, and to match the ambition shown by our Secretary of State and our Minister. They are so passionate about the opportunities created. I want to see their passion fulfilled, and I have a few small requests.

First, a number of speakers have highlighted how we would like every young person to have this opportunity but many are not aware of the scheme. There has been a problem in promoting the scheme. I welcome the fact that in the planned royal charter every young child will be written to with all the information set out; I used to love getting post when I was younger, so this brings back happy memories. That will give every child the opportunity to sign up. I also urge that that information should be extended to schools, to remind them of the bursaries that are available. I have spoken to a number of headteachers in my constituency to say what an opportunity this would be for children from more challenged backgrounds, and many of those heads were not aware that there was a bursary scheme and wrongly presumed this was something their children would not be able to afford.

All the speakers have highlighted some of the brilliant social action projects that have taken place. I have seen some fantastic ones, but I do think the NCS nationally needs to do a bit more to build a database, because sometimes groups have struggled to come up with meaningful projects. The best cases are where there is a tangible link between the members of the group. For example, a confident young girl was presenting to me to say why the group had chosen the Swindon women’s refuge. I had not appreciated the fact that she was so passionate about that because when she was younger her family had had to use that refuge. She had personally benefited from that service, and had convinced her friends and colleagues that they should put all their energies into this refuge. They therefore had an extra incentive to go and make a difference.

I also think there should be more information on how best to deliver social action projects. I have seen some fantastic ones that have engaged with the business community and called in favours. One of the great things about young people is that they are very cheeky, and when deploying that with their endless enthusiasm and energy they have had some very successful social action projects. But I have also seen some lost, and a little confused about what to do, which has meant that they have missed an opportunity to really make a difference. I would also encourage the bringing in of mentors wherever possible to road test the ideas before starting to deliver the social action project. There are countless local businesspeople who would be more than happy to give up their time to support these fantastic aims.

Finally, I want to talk about quality. I have been visiting such schemes since 2012 so have seen every part of the process repeatedly, and I have seen some fantastic projects and some less good ones. I am concerned that in recent years, with some of the changes to some of the contractors, a number of the staff delivering the schemes are a little too young. Initially, in Swindon, it was delivered by New College and Swindon College. They are two well-established colleges, and the staff involved were lecturers doing additional work over the summer. They instantly had the respect of the young adults, which is a particular challenge at the beginning, as those young people have not quite developed all the skills that they will have acquired by the end. Some of the younger staff struggle to hold the line; they are a little too integrated with the students. It is important that we get that right. The advantage of having those colleges involved is that they already have the buy-in of the students. It is no surprise that the numbers have fallen away since the colleges ceased to lead on this. That has also led to a lack of local knowledge. This is a vital matter. I know that ensuring that we do not have a postcode lottery is complicated, but there needs to be some really deep thinking in the procurement exercise.

Many speakers have talked about the £1,800 cost, and one of the challenges is finding facilities for the scheme to use. I do not really understand why the NCS providers should have to pay to hire facilities when we have fantastic college and school facilities that are often empty during the school holidays when the NCS courses take place. They could use those existing facilities without being charged for them, freeing up that money to be deployed to provide additional support elsewhere in the programme.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I would like to echo some of my hon. Friend’s thoughts. Katy Stockdale leads the Huddersfield Community Trust NCS, which had 455 graduates last year. I remember the project at Beechwood care home, where they worked on disability access with local businesses and other local volunteers. People donated wood, stone and fountains, and the project had a lasting effect. My hon. Friend makes a good point about ensuring that all these projects are highlighted.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really powerful intervention. He highlights the real boost that these projects can bring to the local community, and the difference that the team in his area has made is a credit to it.

Many speakers have been tempted to suggest how we can tweak what we are doing and how we can empower people. The dreaded “Brexit” word was even mentioned. Please do not do this. Please do not ruin something that is working so well. There is nothing worse than out-of-touch adults prescribing what young people want. The vast majority of this country’s youth clubs started to fail because “right-on” adults decided to prescribe what the young people should be doing. This scheme is a success because the students have been allowed to shape it. The NCS Youth Board is integral to what the scheme delivers. Its members know best because they have done it, they are young and they still understand what young people want. I know that we are well meaning, but please let the young people decide how to do this. Our involvement should be as mentors and supporters, showcasing the work and highlighting in the local media the very best that our young people can offer. That is something that the parents are extremely grateful for.

18:32

[Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)]

It has been fantastic to sit through the debate and hear so much passion for this amazing organisation, the National Citizen Service. It is a huge pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham), as well as the many other Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to the debate. They have all been huge advocates during their time in Parliament for engaging with young people in their constituencies. It has sometimes been a little bit awkward for me, aged 30, to speak to an NCS group about what young people are thinking, because I was about 10 years older than them when I first went to an NCS event. However, we in this place have to do an awful lot more to engage with young people, and I believe that the NCS plays a huge part in the work that Members of Parliament do in that regard. I echo the comments that Members on both sides of the House have made about the fact that we should do more to engage with and attend NCS events. That is for sure.

I rise today to speak in support of this fantastic Bill. I should really declare an interest, in that I am very, very jealous of what the National Citizen Service does. I have seen at first hand some of the amazing things that happen at an NCS week away or day away. Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) I would probably end up having to be pushed up the rock-climbing face. Something that has perhaps not been mentioned today, and that underpins what the NCS does, is the element of fun. The main reason that young people want to get involved in the NCS is that it is fun. They enjoy getting involved. This is not about the Government telling young people that they have to join the NCS; this happens through word of mouth. The rampant rise about which we have heard across the House today comes as a result of young people who have been through the programme telling other young people that they enjoyed it, that they had a great time and that others should join up. That is why we have seen such a huge increase in the number of people joining the NCS programmes.

For the past two years, I have had the honour of presenting NCS graduation certificates for Joining Forces Training, which runs the NCS programme in my constituency. These ex-servicemen are really starting to promote their work, which has been so successful that it is being expanded into other areas, such as the east of England. Joining Forces Training has designed a range of programmes for young people and adults to help them succeed and progress in life. One example from the graduation ceremony that I attended early last year really sticks in my mind and shows how great the NCS is: a young man stood up to make a speech and said that if it was not for Joining Forces and the NCS programme, he would not be able to speak in front of the 200-strong audience of parents and his peers—a difficult thing for any young person to do. He had previously struggled in conversations with two or three people and could not imagine speaking to such a large audience. The NCS programme gave him the confidence to push boundaries that he had never expected to exceed. I am pleased that this Bill will give even more young people the chance to develop skills that will help them later in life. Where else do 15 to 17-year-olds, whatever their background, get the opportunity to develop key life skills in a safe environment away from their parents?

In Bath, the NCS provider is dedicated to inspiring the next generation. NCS is a fantastic programme for challenging and developing young people individually in addition to building greater social cohesion, as many hon. Members have said, by mixing teams and getting young people to think about their local community. I asked Ed Hodges, the director of Joining Forces Training, why he thinks NCS makes such a positive contribution and he told me:

“One of the most rewarding aspects of the programme is the response you get from parents, teachers and most importantly the young people who take part. You see them grow in confidence, whether overcoming their fear of heights or standing in front of their peers and pitching an idea, and to see them grow as a team to plan and deliver some outstanding projects is great to be a part of.”

Young people also receive a session on democracy and how they can participate in bringing about positive change even before they reach voting age. They have contributed to some fantastic local and national campaigns and can look further afield into how they can make a positive difference to the world through global campaigns, which the International Citizen Service can enable them to do. In fact, one thing that sticks out for me given the current debates about international development is that on asking those young people what they would like to see prioritised in Government spending, they say that they would like to see not 0.7% but 10% spent on international aid. That might give good hope to the Secretary of State for International Development in the next Budget discussions.

I hope that the royal charter and the clear statement that the NCS is open to all will mean that more children from a wide variety of backgrounds, including those who are less fortunate, will take up the chance to join the scheme. I also support the use of HMRC to get out information to all young people alongside their national insurance number when they turn 16. That is an excellent way of publicising the opportunities available to all young people, enabling even more to benefit from this excellent scheme.

As many hon. Members have said, this is probably the least divisive debate that we have had in this place. The NCS is an excellent initiative that is going from strength to strength, and the Bill will give more young people the chance to take part. Joining Forces Training in Bath has made a fantastic contribution to the city and has delivered so much change into people’s lives. I look forward to supporting it over the years as the programme develops.

18:39

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I thank all the hon. Members who contributed to this important debate. Youth social action plays a huge part in our society and, at both local and national level, we see its positive impact not only on individuals but on entire communities. Many Members cited the figures that more than 130,000 young people have already taken part in the NCS and that 300,000 are expected to have participated by 2020. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) expressed that and challenged us to increase the numbers even further, if possible.

I congratulate all those who have graduated from the NCS, as well as all those who help to deliver the programme each year. I also encourage all 16 and 17-year-olds to apply and take part. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) said, everyone should be encouraged.

As good as the statistics are, and as fantastic as the experience gained by all these young people will be, the Opposition are still concerned about social action, civil society and youth opportunities on a wider scale. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) made an important point about not just staying within our bubbles. We have already heard the slogan of a new shared society many times from Government Members. Civil society and the work of the NCS fit into that, but the reality we are facing is one of slashed funding for youth services, failure to develop citizenship education and an Office for Civil Society that is being moved around Departments when it should be working across Whitehall.

To that end, although the Opposition will not be dividing the House on Second Reading, we have concerns about the future course that Government policy might take. The issue of youth action is much wider than this Bill alone. In each of our constituencies we see local youth organisations working tirelessly to provide opportunities to our young people. I am sure that either we in this Chamber or our children have benefited from such opportunities—we have heard great examples today—but, with funding being slashed across the country, local youth services are closing, particularly in areas of high deprivation. The new shared society has a lot of work to do if it is to deliver for our young people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) spoke with passion about the importance of creating a cohesive society, and I am pleased to see that our National Citizen Service goes some way towards doing that. However, I will outline some of our concerns on the Bill. First, as many hon. Members have said today, the NCS finds its unique selling point in its ability to successfully mix people from all backgrounds and to allow young people to interact with others with whom they might otherwise never have had the opportunity to build relationships. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) talked about that with passion and eloquence. I was able to do it from a young age through sport, and it is such a pleasure to stand here speaking about the NCS in the knowledge that young people from across the country are also benefiting from that interaction, which is nothing but a positive not only for the individuals themselves but for society as a whole.

Having said that, I do not believe that the Bill goes far enough in emphasising the importance of that interaction. I and others, both Members of this House and those who deliver the programmes on the ground, would have hoped to see the Bill’s wording include “social integration.” Will the Minister commit to that? Otherwise, the unique nature of the NCS risks being watered down, which would benefit nobody.

Secondly, I do not wish to be accused of stating the obvious, but the hardest-to-reach young people are called that for a reason: they are the hardest to reach. I say that not to add a bit of humour to the debate but to reiterate what others have said today about inclusion within the NCS. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) made a wonderful analogy stressing the importance of inclusion, with which I wholeheartedly agree. With another approximately 170,000 young people set to participate in the NCS over the next three years, the Bill has a duty to ensure that barriers to participation are broken down, not raised. The hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) cited the wonderful example of young people pushing boundaries.

The National Audit Office report on the scheme is concerning. It states that, in order to meet spending review targets, spending per participant must fall by 29%, which is a significant cut that, if not managed well, could have a detrimental effect on those who participate in the scheme. Recruitment of the hardest to reach inevitably costs more, because more outreach must be conducted and more time must be taken. Without that, the NCS runs the risk of becoming yet another opportunity for the few, which I am sure would disappoint us all.

To run the risk of stating the obvious again, barriers are what keep people away. Barriers are what stop people applying, or even knowing about the NCS. However, perhaps the Government need to hear the obvious. Dedicated work to include the hardest-to-reach groups is a necessity, as we are already seeing a falling percentage of NCS graduates coming from the lowest-income families. Will the Minister commit to ring-fencing a proportion of funding to engage with the hardest-to-reach groups?

Thirdly, I must pay tribute to the outstanding work of so many volunteer centres and civil society organisations, which provide so many opportunities to young people and whose staff work tirelessly to ensure the best programmes are available. Without those organisations many young people would be left with little to do in their communities. With the commitment of a funding injection of £1 billion, there is concern that this will squeeze out other youth service operators, as well as other operators who support the work of the NCS, and that they will not receive adequate resources to be able to do that to best effect. I was, however, pleased to learn that the Minister for Civil Society has written to the chair of the NCS Trust to outline his expectation that the trust will report on relationships with the voluntary sector. It would be comforting to hear this commitment again today from the Government, so as to ensure the continued good working relationship with voluntary organisations.

Finally, integration and inclusion should come at not only participant level, but all levels of the NCS. All too often, young people are looked over for governance roles, but there would be nowhere better suited for a young person to play an active role in the development of a programme and organisation than in this instance.

[Jason McCartney]

There was a bit of a bleak outlook in what the hon. Lady was saying there. I think the NCS is amazingly transformative, and certainly in Huddersfield it is bringing people from all communities together. Would she say a few words about her personal experiences of attending graduations in her constituency and about how well the NCS is doing in her part of the world?

[Dr Allin-Khan]

First, I agree that the NCS is a wonderful programme that should be supported, as indeed Labour does. But I would not be doing my role justice and we would not be doing our role justice if we were not to ensure the best possible outcome for all NCS participants and graduates. The hon. Gentleman asks about work in my constituency, so I can tell him that I have had the absolute pleasure of meeting people who have completed the NCS. In fact, over the summer a group of young people in Tooting were holding a food drive in a local superstore as part of their social action project and I personally contributed to the food collection. [Interruption.]

Let me continue by saying that the NCS develops the skills and confidence of young people, many of whom go on to graduate and work in future NCS cycles. Why should this development not lead to more young people on the board of patrons or being consulted on to inform plans and improvements? I am sure the Minister would agree about that. I wish to put on the record the fact that I support the call from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations for focus groups of young people to be brought together to inform a review of the social action element of the programme—as I said, I participated in that element in my community. These are young people who have lived these experiences, so why not capture that and learn from them directly? Does the Minister agree about that? What recommendations will be made to the NCS Trust on the inclusion of more young people in the development of the NCS going forward?

Young people harness so much positivity, passion, energy and drive that we should not seek to bottle this; we should seek to ensure it has the opportunity to be expressed. The NCS provides that, and providing opportunities for social action ensures it. We in this House have a responsibility to the young people in all of our constituencies to ensure that no barriers are set in place, and no opportunity is passed by to upskill them or develop their confidence. The NCS should be seen as an entry point to a longer journey of social action and volunteering. To do this, we need to ensure that all aspects of the NCS are high quality, that no participant feels their experience has not been the best it could be and that the NCS focuses on impact for both the participant and the community. As a starting point, the NCS should lead in to future opportunities for involvement in communities. I hope today the Government can see this as a wider opportunity outside of this Bill. The increased promotion of social action and volunteering is not a negative one. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) made an excellent point about ensuring that the legacy continues.

There are 1.8 billion young people in the world today, and we are at a peak of youth; it is estimated that at no other time will there be more young people in the world. If we do not harness their passion, creativity and drive for change now, when will we? This Bill is a good step forward in ensuring that we do that here. I just hope the Government listen to our concerns, and the concerns of those in the voluntary sector, so to ensure that we can harness the potential of young people to the fullest. They are our future politicians, after all.

18:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Rob Wilson)]

I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate. Not only that, but I thank them and all the others who have helped to make the NCS a success so far. I have been delighted to see how many Members have embraced the NCS in their own constituencies by visiting events, encouraging participants and taking part in “Dragons’ Den”-style panels that award funding to young people’s social action projects. It is fitting that a programme that unites people from different backgrounds should be endorsed by both sides of the House. We will no doubt have debates and discussions—indeed, we already are—but I hope we can continue with the Bill in the spirit that has been discussed, with the common goal of making the NCS the best possible experience for future generations.

The NCS should be one experience among others. As Minister for Civil Society, I had the pleasure of seeing in action a huge number of programmes run by really excellent organisations. The NCS is not here to compete with other opportunities for young people—quite the opposite. I want the NCS to give young people an appetite for service, for other opportunities and for trying new things. Our vision is for the NCS to be a common experience for all, with scouts, cadets and other people who are familiar with service in the same team, sharing their experience with people who have never done anything like it before.

The NCS sees people with different backgrounds, faiths and interests coming together at a formative age and learning the effect they can have on the community around them. The independent evaluations show that we should not underestimate the impact of these four weeks on the young people involved. We can take the participants’ own words for it. NCS providers ask their graduates what they would say to someone considering the NCS, and one said:

“It is the most amazing experience you will ever have. Take it with both hands and mould your future.”

It is crucial that we get the delivery of this amazing experience absolutely right. Together with the royal charter, the Bill is designed to create a delivery body that the public will trust, and that spends money wisely and has the right priorities.

I turn to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) earlier in the debate. Many Members spoke about social integration, a subject that the Bill and royal charter already cover extensively. The royal charter includes an objective

“to promote social cohesion by ensuring equality of access to the programmes by participants regardless of their background or circumstances”.

The Bill requires the National Citizen Service Trust to report on the extent to which participants from different backgrounds have mixed on the programmes. There are many excellent examples of social integration in practice on NCS programmes, including specific interfaith NCS groups. The NCS will continue to play an important role in promoting social integration, but I am of course willing to consider what has been said today.

On the duty to promote the NCS to people from disadvantaged backgrounds, the trust’s primary functions include enabling participants from different backgrounds to work together. The trust is tasked to be absolutely focused on promoting NCS to young people, regardless of their background.

On the National Audit Office report and some backgrounds being disproportionately represented, the NCS is working to increase the representation of disadvantaged people. There is a higher proportion of participants on free school meals than in the general population, and eight out of 10 participants feel more positive about people from different backgrounds as a result of their involvement, according to the 2014 Ipsos MORI survey.

Young people are at the centre of the NCS. There is a national youth board that feeds views into the trust from 19 regional youth boards throughout the country. There are also 120 NCS leaders—the hon. Member for Croydon North has spoken to them here in the House—who are ambassadors for the programmes and represent the interests of their peers. Under the new arrangements, a new board will be appointed as part of the process and will look at all suggestions for whom that might include.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Sir Julian Brazier) made some excellent points about adventure training and the challenges that that represents for residential centres. That matter is not within the scope of this Bill, but I am happy to look at the issues he raises.

The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) was right to highlight the non-partisan basis of the Bill and the royal charter. The aim is to strike the balance between independence of the NCS Trust and the accountability that it has to Parliament. He did raise a number of issues, including whether the annual report should be debated in this House. Of course the Bill requires the report to be laid before Parliament, so that Parliament can debate it if it so wishes.

Officials in the Office for Civil Society are drafting non-statutory guidance for local authorities and schools on the benefits of the NCS and how they can engage further with the programme. On ring-fenced funding, particularly for the hard-to-reach students, the Bill gives the trust the freedom to set its own commissioning practices, but requires it to report on the mix of its participants from different backgrounds so that we can assess it on outcomes—we are interested in outcomes rather than inputs.

[Vernon Coaker]

Just to rewind back a sentence or two, will the Minister explain why the Government are drafting non-statutory guidance on the NCS for schools rather than statutory guidance?

[Mr Wilson]

We want to ensure that there is the right balance between independence and accountability. To make the guidance statutory would enforce what the NCS Trust has to do and that could be a problem. We do not really want to go down that route.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) for the fantastic support that he has given to the NCS. He quite rightly paid fulsome tribute to the former Prime Minister, who is the reason why this transformational programme has seen the light of day. I did like the idea of building a movement. He asked about the threats to other parts of the sector. May I say to him that the trust is part of Generation Change, which is a group of youth organisations that is looking collectively to increase the scale, quality and status of youth social action programmes? The trust is committed to helping the NCS become a gateway to other programmes and opportunities, helping young people to see volunteering as a habit for a lifetime.

A number of Members talked about the detriment to other local authority services. This is additional funding that we have announced. There is also funding for other programmes such as #iwill and the Youth Investment Fund, and that is additional to local authority funding. There are some very good examples of local authority provision on youth services.

[Anna Turley]

rose—

[Mr Wilson]

I only have a couple of minutes available, so I will push on.

We want the NCS to be accessible to every young person. A number of Members have asked about young carers and young offenders. There is a place for all of them on this scheme; every young person who wants a place can have one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) mentioned heritage railways. Lord Ashton has asked the Office of Rail and Road to look into that, so I hope that that reassures her.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) asked about assistance for NCS providers to keep up the rate of participation and to promote best practice. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working with the trust to issue guidance to the NCS providers to help them build relationships with local authorities, schools and other local organisations. That will ensure that NCS social action projects take on the needs of communities and that young people can participate in even greater numbers than now.

There were a number of questions about the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales. The NCS Bill will help the NCS Trust to continue to deliver the NCS programme across England. The Government would welcome the expansion of the NCS in the future, and the devolved Administrations are considering how the programme would work for them.

Northern Ireland is supportive of the NCS. Co-operation Ireland is a separate provider of the NCS in Northern Ireland. It is a charity that supports the peace process and it has unique and long-standing expertise. The Government have licensed the NCS intellectual property rights to Northern Ireland to allow the delivery of the programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked about the devolved Administrations, and the Bill extends to England and Wales as they are one jurisdiction but applies only to England as this is where the NCS Trust operates. The majority of the Bill therefore relates to England only, but there are some provisions relating to reserved matters, such as the clause pertaining to HMRC, that mean that the Bill as a whole does not meet the test to be certified as England-only. Though HMRC would only write to people in England, the functions of HMRC are a wholly reserved matter.

As for the question of why the same outcomes could not be achieved by running the same programme through the scouts or cadets, the recent NAO report finds that the NCS is distinct from other programmes, particularly as regards its focus on mixing people from different backgrounds. It is available, affordable and has a distinct combination of personal development and the chance to mix with people from other backgrounds. It is designed to be a single unifying rite of passage for young people that sits alongside the many other fantastic opportunities for young people.

This is a small Bill, but it is very important. It sets the framework for the delivery of a programme that will influence hundreds of thousands of young people—indeed millions in due course. Alongside the royal charter, it will ensure that there is a body that the public can trust that provides value for money and a quality programme. Public confidence is key to the success of the NCS. The Bill will help the NCS grow and become a rite of passage for future generations. Establishing the NCS for the long term is, in a small way, part of defining what sort of nation we want to be in the future. That is a nation that invests in young people, fosters social integration and believes in the values of service. More than 300,000 young people have benefited from the NCS already. The Bill is our opportunity to secure the same life-changing experience for generations to come: a National Citizen Service for everyone and a commitment to greater social cohesion, social mobility and social engagement. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

National Citizen Service Bill [Lords] (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the National Citizen Service Bill [Lords]:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 26 January 2017.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed. —(Graham Stuart.)

Question agreed to.

National Citizen Service Bill [Lords] (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the National Citizen Service Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Graham Stuart.)

Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 28 November 2016, be approved.—(Graham Stuart.)

Question agreed to.

Committees

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With the leave of the House, we will take motions 5 to 7 together.

Administration Committee

Ordered,

That James Gray be discharged from the Administration Committee and Mary Robinson be added.

Finance Committee

That Jake Berry be discharged from the Finance Committee and Stephen McPartland be added.

Regulatory Reform Committee

That Andrew Percy and Christopher Pincher be discharged from the Regulatory Reform Committee and Stephen McPartland and Mark Menzies be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Defibrillators in Public Areas

Monday 16th January 2017 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Graham Stuart.)

19:03

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Defibrillators save lives. That is the truth that drives the work of the Oliver King Foundation, a charity that campaigns to ensure that defibrillators are available in public places and that people are trained to use them. Every year, ambulance services in the UK treat about 30,000 people for a non-hospital cardiac arrest, but fewer than 10% of them survive—fewer than one in 10. Of the average 82 people who suffer cardiac arrest outside hospital every day in the UK, just eight live.

Cardio pulmonary resuscitation is often championed as the best way to treat cardiac arrest before the emergency services arrive. Indeed, in some cases it can double the likelihood of survival. But even then the chances of resuscitation are still as low as 20%, and that is only in some cases. Clearly CPR alone is not enough.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

A little over a year ago, on 7 December 2015, my 28-year-old son had a cardiac arrest. He is one of the few lucky ones who got to hospital in time and survived. He has his own defibrillator, but does the hon. Lady agree that, in conjunction with defibrillator training, it is incredibly important that people are trained in CPR? In my son’s case, his girlfriend was trained in CPR and saw him through the process until the paramedics arrived.

[Maria Eagle]

The hon. Gentleman has had a frightening experience in his family, and also learnt the incredible importance of not only having defibrillators available, but having people who know how to use them. I could hardly better his family’s example of how important that is.

A study by the British Heart Foundation found that for every single minute without defibrillation, chances of survival fall by between 7% and 10%. The Care Quality Commission sets a response target of eight minutes for emergency ambulance services, but we know that ambulances cannot possibly arrive within that time in every case. Even if they did, the chances of survival without immediate defibrillation and CPR will have already plummeted to 20% or lower. Access to a defibrillator can therefore make a huge difference. If cardiac arrest is recognised, basic first aid is given, 999 is called and CPR is applied, in combination with rapid and effective defibrillation, the chances of survival can exceed 50%. In fact, in some cases it can be as high as 80%. However, immediate action is vital. A defibrillator must be at hand for those survival rates to be realised.

Three people who know that better than most are my constituents Mark, Joanne and Ben King. In 2011, Mark and Joanne King lost their son Oliver, and Ben lost his brother. Oliver tragically died following a sudden cardiac arrest while racing in, and winning, a school swimming competition. He was just 12 years old. He had a hidden heart condition, and without access to a defibrillator at school his chances of survival on that day were dramatically reduced. Had he lived, this Saturday would have been his 18th birthday.

I never met Oliver, but I have been struck by talking to those who knew him well. He was clearly a very happy and popular boy, judging by the tributes that poured in from those who knew him following the shock of that terrible day. He was known as a big character at King David High School. His teachers recall his “uncompromising zest for life” and how he was loved and respected by boys and girls and teachers alike. His best friend David recalls Oliver’s charm and how it was deployed on more than one occasion to get them out of a tricky situation. This year is particularly difficult for David, as he will be celebrating the milestone of turning 18 without his best friend.

Everyone mentions Oliver’s love of football—he was a staunch Evertonian. His family and friends all recall his great talent and potential on the pitch. One of his teachers describes him as

“a sportsman at heart and a natural at whatever he turned his hand to”.

Above all, Oliver was caring, loving and incredibly close to his family:

“family was everything to Oliver.”

It goes without saying that Oliver’s death left many who knew and loved him with a great sense of loss. His family and friends are sadly not alone in going through this terrible ordeal. As well as the thousands of people who die every year following sudden cardiac arrest, there are thousands more who are now faced with the agonising reality of living without their loved one.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for bringing this important subject to the House and for her good fortune in having, potentially, three and a half hours in which to debate it. She has given an emotional case of somebody for whom, for the sake of a relatively simple and inexpensive bit of kit, the outcome might have been different. Does she agree that public buildings—certainly places such as schools—should automatically be fitted with a defibrillator?

Will the hon. Lady pay tribute to Sompting Big Local in my constituency, which has a lottery grant for the enhancement of the village? Its first priority was to install four defibrillators in every corner of the village, including one outside the local pharmacy, because it saw it as a worthwhile thing to do. Many other people have imaginatively used things such as redundant telephone boxes by replacing them with defibrillators as an obvious help point for local people. Should not we just be doing those things automatically?

[Maria Eagle]

I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. He has set out an example from his constituency. Around the country, there are many ways in which communities are starting to ensure that they have access to defibrillators so that, if needed, they are there. I welcome that. We should try to ensure that defibrillators are available throughout our land—up and down, north and south, and east and west. What happened to Oliver is not as rare as we might hope. In the UK, some 270 young people tragically die every year of sudden cardiac arrest while at school. That furthers the hon. Gentleman’s point that having defibrillators routinely available in schools seems to be a no-brainer.

In 2012, Oliver’s parents, Mark and Joanne, set up the Oliver King Foundation in memory of their son. It aims to raise awareness of the conditions that lead to sudden cardiac arrest, which is vital as the family did not know that Oliver had any condition that might have led to what happened. If they had known, probably with the diagnosis of a simple electrocardiogram test, they may well have been able to take steps that could have avoided what happened. Other aims of the foundation are to purchase and place defibrillators in schools and sports centres, to train staff how to use them and to hold screening events to enable simple, painless ECG testing to help diagnose such conditions and ensure that what happened to Oliver does not happen to the children of other families.

Mark and Joanne have done an incredible job. Their aim is simple: to ensure that no more families have to go through what they did, knowing that the death of a son, daughter, mother, father or friend may have been prevented. They campaign tirelessly and effectively to ensure that every school in the country is equipped with an automated external defibrillator. They have the support of more than 200 hon. and right hon. Members of this House, across parties.

Automated external defibrillators are specifically designed for use by non-medically trained people. They are remarkable, life-saving machines that are not difficult to use. The machine will apply an electrical pulse only when it detects an irregular heart rate and it talks the user through the process, step by step. However, at about £1,200, AEDs are not cheap and, even if provided, some people are often afraid of using them. As a result, many schools and high-risk public areas in the UK are still not equipped with them. As a direct result of the work of the Oliver King Foundation, more than 800 schools and public places now have this life-saving kit and people who are confident to use it. In Liverpool, Oliver’s home city, not a single school is now without one thanks to the work of the foundation and Liverpool City Council.

The foundation has also managed to train 15,000 people around the country in how to use an AED, thus making sure that in sudden difficult circumstances the confidence is there to use this life-saving kit. As a direct result, 11 lives have been saved that would otherwise have been lost, including an elderly gentleman who suffered a heart attack at his local gym. Thanks to the staff’s quick thinking and use of the gym’s defibrillator, he was sat up and talking by the time the emergency services arrived. In Woolton in my constituency, where Oliver used to live, an AED provided by the foundation was deployed three times this December alone. If the defibrillator is available and training is provided, people will use one: it is as simple as that.

However, we cannot and should not be reliant on charities to do all the heavy lifting and work in this policy area. In November, the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) introduced the Defibrillators (Availability) Bill under the 10-minute rule procedure, with the purpose being to

“increase the rates of survival rates from non-hospital cardiac arrests across the UK”.

Its objective is basically to do for the nation what the OK Foundation has done for Liverpool and is continuing to do in its work in other places: providing defibrillators in public places and training people to use them.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is aware of the impact that these defibrillators have in cardiac ambulances. When I qualified, an ambulance just picked someone up and took them to a hospital, but the big, boxy ambulances have more equipment in them than was in a casualty unit in those days. Even in professional hands, this technology has transformed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

[Maria Eagle]

I thank the hon. Lady for that very useful information, from her own experience as a doctor. It is important that the availability of this kit is widened across our society in order to save lives.

Current legislation surrounding public access to defibrillators is practically non-existent. Last year, the Government produced a guide for schools recommending the purchase of AEDs. While I welcome that move to highlight the issue, the Government should do more. Will the Minister undertake to meet Mark and Joanne and the OK Foundation to discuss a realistic programme of providing AEDs in public places and training for people such that they feel confident to use them? Will he facilitate a meeting with the Prime Minister? I know that the OK Foundation would welcome an opportunity to argue its case at the highest possible level of Government.

[Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising such an important issue in this Adjournment debate. I, too, pay tribute to the Oliver King Foundation for all its hard work. This is one of those rare occasions when there is cross-party agreement. We agree on the need for these defibrillators, but the Bill that will come here for its Second Reading on 27 January is unlikely to make progress simply because of its nature as a ten-minute rule Bill. Does she agree that it would be good if the Government adopted the Bill, because this procedure does save lives, it is relatively cheap to introduce, and it would make a difference to young people? As she eloquently explained, 12 young lives are lost each week through these incidents.

[Maria Eagle]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward her Bill. Yes, it was done under the 10-minute rule procedure, but it is now there, and I echo her call for the Government to adopt it. As she realistically observed, the only reason it may not progress in this Session is that there is no time given its position on the list for private Member’s Bill Fridays. The Government could transform that in an instant by taking on board aspects of the Bill—or the whole Bill, preferably—and putting them into some of their own legislation. The Minister might have something to say about that.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the eloquent and forceful speech she is making. She has already paid tribute to the King family. May I add my tribute to them for their great dignity and the constructive way in which they have taken the issue forward? I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) that the ten-minute rule Bill has virtually no chance of getting on to the statute book, but the Government could, if they had a mind to, adopt it and turn it into a Government Bill. Of course, if it is defective in any way, it could be amended, but nevertheless the spirit of it could be carried forward.

[Maria Eagle]

My right hon. Friend is completely correct on both those things. I know that he knows the King family, as many of us on Merseyside do. Many colleagues from across the House have met either the family or the campaigners associated with the Oliver King Foundation, which does a stunning job of getting across its campaigning efforts and its ask to Members across the House.

Losing Oliver was devastating for Mark, Joanne and Ben, and for Oliver’s friends and his local community. Who knows what he would have been capable of achieving, had he lived? It would have been something remarkable, I have no doubt, given the way in which he had started off in life.

I would like to finish by saying how much I admire the positive and successful way in which Oliver King’s family and friends have channelled their grief into ensuring that no other family has to endure what they did. They have done such good work in Liverpool and elsewhere, and they are moving on to other places to start installing AEDs in schools, sports centres and other public places. Only the Government can help them to achieve their goal nationwide, and I very much hope that the Minister, in his reply, will want to take the opportunity to announce a Government initiative to make that dream a reality. I think it would be a fitting tribute to Oliver King.

19:21

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her excellent and thorough speech. I want to make only a few points. I absolutely agree that this is such a vital matter that it is for the Government to take some initiative. Although charities—including, as I have learned, the Oliver King Foundation—do amazing work, the matter is so important that it must be overseen by the Government.

In my constituency, thanks to the British Heart Foundation, we have some amazing kits for CPR work. I have had great fun going round businesses that have taken up my offer of hiring out those kits for nothing. They do the training in their lunchtime or before work, and in 20 minutes they are confident about doing CPR, thanks to the excellent “Mini Anne” resus kits, as we call them. That is fabulous.

Another Member mentioned defibrillators in red phone boxes, which is the work of the Community HeartBeat Trust. I do not know about others, but when I am travelling around I now notice when there is a defibrillator in a red phone box. It is a wonderful initiative, and, again, it is being done by a charity.

One of my concerns is about a situation I have encountered in my constituency. After one business had enthusiastically taken up my offer of use of the CPR kit, I said to those in charge of it, “You are in my central town of Twickenham. Would you consider having a publicly accessible defibrillator?” They looked into it, but they were put off not just by the initial up-front cost—as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood said, it is realistically £1,000-plus—but by the maintenance costs and responsibility. If a defibrillator is used once, it has to be reset and checked, and there is some money involved in maintenance. I think it was the idea of having the responsibility for such vital equipment that put off my local business.

Public Health England or clinical commissioning groups could map the location of publicly accessible defibrillators and encourage schools, sports facilities and stadiums to have them. In London, we have the community toilet scheme, but we do not have an equivalent community defibrillator scheme whereby everybody would know where the nearest defibrillator was and somebody would be responsible for maintenance. That is all that would be required.

The great thing is that Members on both sides of the House—and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield)—are all thinking the same way, and there is an appetite among charities and the public for this, but I believe that now is the time for the Government to lead.

19:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)]

The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) started her excellent speech by saying that defibrillators save lives. We accept that; there is no question but that that is the case. Before I respond to the points that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) made, I want to add my congratulations to the Oliver King Foundation on its work, and to the family on turning a terrible tragedy into something positive. We have heard about what has been achieved in Liverpool, as well as more widely.

One of the asks of the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood was that I meet her and the family to talk about how to take this matter forward. I confirm that I would be very happy to do so. Indeed, the sports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who is with me on the Front Bench today, also feels passionately about this matter, which was in the sport strategy that was published about a year ago. I am happy to set up such a meeting. I am not in a position to set out tonight the Government’s view if the private Member’s Bill does not go through, but if the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood organises the meeting, I would be happy for it to be more widely attended by interested Members.

[Mr George Howarth]

I think the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) accepts, as I certainly do, that although a ten-minute rule Bill might have been a good way to raise the issue, it is not a suitable vehicle for taking this forward. The request is that the Minister and the Department look at the Bill as it stands, and that, if it needs to be amended or redrafted, they suggest ways of doing so, or even take it on themselves. The Government should bring a measure forward, rather than leaving this to a legislative vehicle that simply will not work.

[David Mowat]

As I have said, I am not in a position to say tonight what the Government will do in respect of the Bill. I am willing to say that we will meet and talk about it after this debate. As I will come on to say, there is a question about the extent to which defibrillators should be mandatory, as was raised in relation to schools, versus dealing with this through guidelines and other forms of help. I will try to make some of those points later.

The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood made the point that the survival rate of people who have an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is in the order of about 10%. It varies a little by ambulance service—it can be between 7% and 12%—and if we could get all ambulance services up to 12%, that in itself would save many lives. There is no question but that if defibrillators were available in time, the figure would be at least doubled and perhaps increased by more than that. We also accept the figure from the British Heart Foundation, which I think she cited, that every minute of delay reduces the probability of success by something like 10%.

We need to achieve two things: we need to create more access to defibrillators; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker), who is not now in the Chamber, said in relation to the incident in his family, we also need to increase training and CPR awareness. I recall doing CPR training and being taken through all this two years ago in a church hall in Warrington. It really did not take very long, and I hope I can still remember how to do it. Using these things must be done in parallel with other training. I understand that some defibrillators work fairly easily without too much training, but experience of and ability in CPR buys time, which is what we need to achieve.

I will talk about what the Government are doing in relation to public places, schools, the workplace more generally and, as I have mentioned, sports. I will also take a few minutes at the end of my speech—I do not think that we will be here until 10 o’clock—to talk about screening, which was mentioned as something we ought to consider.

Since 2007, ambulance trusts have had responsibility for the defibrillators around the country. That is because they are where 999 calls go, and they ought to know where the nearest defibrillator is when they get one. If there is a code or the defibrillator is locked, they are responsible for that. In addition, the British Heart Foundation in England—this is also happening in Scotland—is trying to create a database of the defibrillators that we believe are out there. The BHF thinks that there are something like 14,000 defibrillators. Unfortunately, for historical reasons that have grown up over time, there could be maintenance issues with some of them. We need to bring all that up to date, and the BHF is leading the charge on that.

In the past two years, the Government have allocated £1 million per annum for defibrillators in public places. That money is for England only and has led to some success. We had 700 new defibrillators last year as well as the cabinets that go with them, in addition to a range of CPR training, and we expect the same thing to happen this year. That represents an appreciable increase in the number of defibrillators. As I have said, we are doing that because we believe that defibrillators save lives, as does the training around them.

The Member for Garston and Halewood talked about schools. She rightly said that schools have been issued with guidance saying that we expect them to consider the installation of defibrillators, but it is also true to say that not every school has a defibrillator. The hon. Lady also talked about defibrillators costing in excess of £1,000. The scheme that we have put in place for schools uses NHS Supply Chain, which means that they can source a defibrillator for something like £435, which is clearly better than £1,000. I accept that that still comes out of a school’s budget, but nevertheless a great number of schools are taking that up. Schools can also apply to the British Heart Foundation scheme that we talked about earlier, provided that the defibrillator is publicly accessible, which in many cases it would be. However, I accept that we have not mandated such provision, as the Bill asks us to—I will talk about that a little later.

There are workplace health and safety aspects that every employer must consider. We have put in place a requirement that, from 1 January this year, everybody in a workplace who is first aid-accredited—obviously health and safety regulations require that there are such people—must have defibrillation training and be in a position to use those facilities. That is now happening, and it includes everybody who will have to do a first aid refresher course.

As I mentioned, sport is a priority area. Sports governing bodies will have formal responsibility, and many sports are taking this forward. We know of the incidents that have occurred. I think it was Fabrice Muamba during a Tottenham game who was saved by a combination of a defibrillator and a doctor in the crowd who knew CPR, and rugby league and rugby union are also involved. The Football Association has made available a £1.2 million grant to buy 1,300 defibrillators for use at football grounds up and down the country—and not just at the very large grounds. I am involved at Warrington Town football club, and we will be getting a defibrillator under that scheme as well. All FA-accredited coaches will also have to be CPR trained.

I know from the sports Minister that the sport strategy has made defibrillators in sports a priority. She has nominated Baroness Grey-Thompson to take this forward, in terms of putting a duty of care on the various governing bodies. It is an area of priority.

It is also important to understand more about sudden cardiac arrest and to make progress through research. The Government have provided funds through the National Institute of Health Research particularly to deal with the genetic aspects of the condition, given that it has a generic element. Work on gene discovery is also going on at the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. I am not saying that we are close to a solution or a clear way forward, but this is a research priority. If we understood the genetics better, it would help us to do screening better, so let me move on to screening.

There is a school of thought that screening for children’s genetic predisposition to heart problems could make a difference. In 2015, the UK’s screening authority, the screening committee, considered screening people between the ages of 12 and 39. It did not support that, however, and I believe that that position is consistent with that of every other country in Europe. We have looked into this, and my understanding is that no other country carries out such screening. A number of reasons have been given: it is difficult to get clarity about the numbers of people who would be affected; there is concern that even if screening were to identify people with a potential weakness, there is no consensus on how that should be managed; and, finally, there is a significant concern about the efficacy of a test, especially regarding the number of false negatives and false positives, which it was felt could do more harm than good. If peer-reviewed evidence came forward, based on the findings of places that had conducted screening work, the matter would be reconsidered, but without that, it will not be looked at again until 2018. That leaves us with the issue of how to make more progress on the number of defibrillators available. Perhaps the difference between the hon. Lady’s remarks and my response is not whether it is a good thing to make progress on defibrillators, but whether the Government should mandate putting defibrillators in every school and sports facility.

[Maria Caulfield]

I understand the Minister’s concern about whether this should be mandated. However, these days we would never operate a school without a smoke alarm or fire extinguishers, and we would not put children on a school bus without seat belts. For me, defibrillators are as essential a piece of safety equipment as any of those things.

[David Mowat]

I accept that. As I say, the guidelines are clear: any school can make use of the NHS Supply Chain facility to put in a defibrillator for £400 or so.

[Mr George Howarth]

The Minister talked about screening, which my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) also mentioned. Although I understand the conclusions and the advice that has already been given, to ensure that there is no confusion, is it not appropriate that if somebody has already been affected, screening should be available to their family, particularly their siblings?

[David Mowat]

I accept that. Also, a number of sports governing bodies offer screening for people who participate in their sports, but of course that is not the national screening of all 12 to 39-year-olds, which was the issue that was looked at.

Let me finish by reiterating my willingness to meet the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, other Members and people from the Oliver King Foundation.

[Maria Eagle]

I conveyed a request for the Prime Minister to meet the Oliver King Foundation and Oliver’s parents. Could the Minister help me to facilitate that?

[David Mowat]

I can do many things, but I cannot answer for the Prime Minister. I think I am right in saying that those people met the Secretary of State a couple of years ago. Perhaps when we meet, however, they can start at the bottom end of the food chain before working their way upwards.

When the Government invest in any aspect of health, whether it be cancer drugs or access to GPs, efficacy and cost-effectiveness must be evaluated. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence uses the criterion “quality-adjusted life years”. Investment in defibrillators must be judged against investment in other necessities, such as cancer drugs, but it is clear from what has been said in a debate that has attracted interest on both sides of the House and the border that defibrillators save money as we start to save lives. The Government accept that, and I want us to make progress in this regard.

Question put and agreed to.

19:40

House adjourned.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [ Lords ]

Second Reading Committee debate: House of Commons
Monday 16th January 2017 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Mr George Howarth

† Argar, Edward (Charnwood) (Con)

† Berry, James (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)

† Bradshaw, Mr Ben (Exeter) (Lab)

† Caulfield, Maria (Lewes) (Con)

† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)

† Eagle, Maria (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)

† Green, Chris (Bolton West) (Con)

Jarvis, Dan (Barnsley Central) (Lab)

† Johnson, Joseph (Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation)

† McCaig, Callum (Aberdeen South) (SNP)

† Mann, Scott (North Cornwall) (Con)

† Morton, Wendy (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)

† Onwurah, Chi (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)

† Oswald, Kirsten (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)

† Pawsey, Mark (Rugby) (Con)

† Pincher, Christopher (Tamworth) (Con)

Marek Kubala, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Second Reading Committee

Monday 16 January 2017

[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords]

00:00

[The Chair]

Before we begin, it might be helpful if I remind Members that the Second Reading of this Bill is being debated in Committee, rather than in the Chamber, because it is a Law Commission Bill. Under Standing Order No. 59, Law Commission Bills stand automatically referred to a Second Reading Committee. As this is a Second Reading debate, no Member may speak more than once without the leave of the Committee. Permission is conventionally granted, however, to the Minister moving the motion to do so, at the end of the debate.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee recommends that the Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the law commissioners for bringing the Bill to the House in this state. It has had a consensual passage through the other place. I recently inherited the role of Minister with responsibility for intellectual property from Lucy Neville-Rolfe, who has gone to the Treasury, and I am pleased to be responsible for introducing the Bill to this House.

The intellectual property regime is crucial to the UK’s economic growth. IP-intensive industries are estimated to generate more than 25% of UK employment and 37% of UK GDP. IP is also vital to protecting and building our strong research base, creating economic growth from our fantastic universities and world-class scientific research. The importance of IP is reflected in our manifesto commitment to make the UK

“the best place in Europe to innovate, patent new ideas and set up and expand a business.”

The Bill is just one of a number of ways in which the Government are taking action to improve the IP regime. We have brought the unitary patent and Unified Patent Court one step closer, giving businesses the option to protect their inventions in up to 25 countries with a single patent. Furthermore, the Digital Economy Bill, which left the House in December, contains important IP provisions, including reforms to the penalties for copyright infringement.

Of course, improving the IP regime is not limited to legislation. The Intellectual Property Office is continually improving its services and increasing the availability of digital IP tools. We also continue to make considerable progress through international harmonisation of IP laws and practice, as well as IP education, outreach and enforcement activities on a number of fronts.

The Bill is of narrow scope but fits perfectly with the Government’s wider work on the IP regime. It gives effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission following in-depth analysis and extensive consultation. The Law Commission is a statutory independent body, tasked with reviewing the law to ensure that it is modern, fair and fit for purpose. Like other Bills resulting from the Law Commission’s work, the Bill follows a special parliamentary procedure that facilitates uncontroversial but important law reform.

I am grateful to colleagues in the other place who have given the Bill their detailed attention. Their enhanced scrutiny, as required by the special procedure, is greatly appreciated. In particular, the Special Public Bill Committee considered detailed evidence from industry, the legal profession, the IP judiciary and others. I am also thankful to the Law Commission and stakeholders who have worked together and with Government to produce and refine these much-needed reforms. As a consequence of those efforts, the Bill comes before us in very good shape.

I will briefly explain the complex and specialist aspect of our IP framework with which the Bill is concerned, namely unjustified threats—that is, a threat to sue for infringement of an IP right where no infringement has taken place or where the IP right in question is invalid. The considerable financial burden of IP litigation means that many businesses seek to avoid it at all costs. Small businesses in particular are disproportionately affected by the drain that such litigation places on their limited time and resources. The mere threat of being sued for IP infringement can therefore drive customers or retailers away from an entirely legitimate business. As a result, unjustified threats can cause significant commercial damage. To combat that, the threats provisions have existed in some form for more than 100 years. They offer much-needed protection and provide appropriate remedies to those affected by an unjustified threat.

Unfortunately, the existing threats provisions are not as effective as they should be. They are overly complex and have developed in a piecemeal fashion across the different IP rights. The law is inconsistent and difficult to navigate as a result, which is why the Government asked the law commissioners to review this area of law in detail in 2012. The Law Commission made a number of detailed of recommendations, which are reflected in the Bill. It substituted new threats provisions for old within the relevant parent Act for the relevant IP rights: patents, trademarks and both registered and unregistered designs. The main clauses repeat the same substantive law across each of those rights.

There are five main parts to each clause. The first sets out a clear test for whether a particular communication contains a threat. The second sets out which types of threat trigger the threats provisions. The third gives guidance on what can be safely said. The fourth sets out remedies and defences. The fifth introduces an exemption so that threats claims cannot be brought against regulated professional advisers acting under instruction.

I hope that the Committee has found that brief explanation helpful. The provisions have been the subject of a great deal of detailed work, including at the Law Commission stage, with a wide range of stakeholders, including the Law Society, and during the Bill’s scrutiny thus far. The new provisions form just one small part of the wider IP regime that is so important for this country’s prosperity, but they are nevertheless worthy and important reforms that will make a real difference to UK innovators, inventors and designers.

16:39

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I start by joining the Minister in thanking the Law Commission for its invaluable work. I also thank the Minister himself for moving the motion recommending that the Bill receive its Second Reading, and the Government for taking the Law Commission’s recommendations forward in this important and complex area.

Although intellectual property law is complex, it is an essential means of ensuring that innovation is rewarded. It provides a crucial source of motivation and reassurance for investors when supporting new products from which we all benefit. As someone who has spent most of her career outside of Parliament, as an engineer building and designing new things, I understand the importance of IP rights in undergirding the creation of new ideas.

UK investment in intangible assets protected by IP rights has been estimated at 4.2% of total GDP, while 50% of our investment in the knowledge economy is protected by IP rights. It is therefore welcome that the Government are taking steps to ensure that IP laws remain up to date and consistent; we can all too quickly find that legislation is overtaken by technology.

The Labour party is keen that the Government’s industrial strategy creates a fairer and more prosperous Britain; to be fair, we are keen to see some inkling of a Government industrial strategy. I will not focus on the lack of a Green Paper—or any paper on this area—but simply say that no discussion of industrial strategy can omit mention of IP.

Industries frequently highlighted as central to our national success, such as the creative industries, are often those that invest a higher proportion of revenue back into intangible assets that are protected by IP rights. Reforming current legislation to protect IP rights while avoiding an overly litigious culture is, in my view and that of my party, the right step to ensure that our creative industries, and others highly dependent on IP, can prosper.

I am less convinced, however, that the Bill makes sufficient provision to protect manufacturers from unjustified threats. In introducing the Bill, the Government claimed that

“manufacturers and importers of infringing products…do more commercial damage”

than retailers, stockists and customers. They also suggested that manufacturers, having invested in the products,

“are better placed to determine whether a threat of infringement proceedings is justified.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2016; Vol. 773, c. GC2.]

Is the Minister confident that the Bill will not leave manufacturers vulnerable to unjustified threats, from which others are quite rightly protected? I am sure we will all agree that this is no time to undermine our great manufacturing industries, on which our future prosperity can and should be based.

Moreover, we are disappointed that the Bill offers little in the way of alternative remedies to claimants. The greater use in recent years of alternative dispute resolution as an affordable alternative to lengthy legal battles is a positive development. Drawn-out and costly court battles invariably hand an advantage to the party with the deepest pockets, as well as supplement the incomes of lawyers—that is certainly true with respect to intellectual property. It is therefore unfortunate that the Bill offers no new remedies.

Despite those omissions, we owe a great debt of gratitude to the Law Commission for its work on the Bill. Perhaps the primary reason for changing the law is that the present arrangements are not merely deficient in certain areas but complex and inconsistent. The Bill is clearly an attempt to remedy that and to adopt what the Law Commission calls an “evolutionary approach”. The Labour party welcomes this—and, indeed, any—attempt to make the application of the law less costly, less uncertain and therefore more accessible. That has to be praised.

The next step should be to incorporate the thrust of the Bill’s provisions into the general law of competition, to bring it in line with the Paris convention for the protection of industrial property. I do not say that to criticise the Bill, but to use it as a starting point for something broader, specifically a new tort in relation to the wider issue of false allegations in trade and of problems with the general proprieties of business practice and business ethics, of which unjustified threats over IP are only one symptom.

Finally, I have some general comments on IP rights and what we know about their relation to the real economy. It has been claimed on numerous occasions that the number of patents possessed by any given company or companies within any given nation is a proxy for the level of innovation. As shadow Minister for industrial strategy, science, and innovation, it is part of my job description to engage with such claims, about which I am quite sceptical. As the innovation economist Mariana Mazzucato has argued, a

“rise in patents does not reflect a rise in innovation but a change in the patent laws and a rise in the strategic reasons why patents are being used”.

I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced to reduce the misuse of IP law to stifle competition, but we would benefit from a broader debate on how IP law can be further reformed to encourage and promote real innovation in our industries.

16:43

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I, too, thank the law commissioners for their work and the Minister for his useful overview. I have only some brief comments.

The Scottish National party believes that a robust threats provision is a vital means of creating a level playing field with a more equal legal footing for those with fewer resources. It is a way of encouraging healthy competition and innovation in our economy. We broadly welcome the Bill’s aims and believe that putting such measures in place will enrich the law on unjustified threats, encourage compliance and deter manipulation of the legal framework.

Threats can be unjustly utilised to discredit and financially undermine legitimate competition in the marketplace. The SNP supports action to distinguish legitimate threats from unjustified exploitation. We believe that the Bill is a step in the right direction towards providing smaller companies with a more equal footing in the legal system. However, it is worth noting that the UK’s decision to leave the European Union may have an unfortunate impact on IP law. The UK Government must therefore exhaust all options to ensure that their plans for Brexit do not have adverse consequences for IP law in the UK.

16:45

[Joseph Johnson]

This has been a good debate, during which we have been graced by the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby on his 60th birthday. Inventors and manufacturers in Rugby will have followed our proceedings with interest, and I am glad that they will have heard members on both sides of the Committee express support for the Bill. I am grateful to them for acknowledging that the Government have taken up the Law Commission’s good work. Getting the threats provisions right is important in supporting our creators, innovators and businesses—large and small—and, as I have said, I am grateful to the hon. Members who have contributed to our brief but useful debate.

Turning to some of the points raised, threats to manufacturers or importers and their equivalents rightly will not trigger threats actions. That will allow rights holders to approach the trade source of a potential infringement. Manufacturers and importers are likely to be able to assess whether a threat to sue is justified. Having invested in the product in question, they will also be more willing to challenge a threat, if required. The provisions therefore encourage rights holders to approach the most appropriate person or business while protecting others, such as retailers, from unfair approaches and unreasonable threats. Making threats to primary actors actionable would stifle the ability of rights holders to enforce their rights. We therefore believe that the Bill strikes the right balance, and there is no evidence that stakeholders want that aspect of it to change.

On remedies, the threats provisions are just one crucial part of the wider toolkit available to those seeking to resolve genuine issues, and can be used alongside a range of alternative dispute resolution measures, such as mediation, to resolve disputes without resorting to litigation. For example, the IPO itself provides a flexible, quick and effective IP mediation service, which helps parties who are in dispute to reach agreement. There is simply no evidence that the sensible current remedies are deficient.

Reform of the threats provisions is long overdue, and this small but well-formed Bill will allow us to deliver valuable change now. It will help businesses to negotiate fairly in IP disputes, provide clarity and bring much-needed consistency to the complex area of IP law. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to discuss these issues, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

16:48

Committee rose.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 16th January 2017 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 16 January 2017

Culture, Media and Sport

Monday 16th January 2017 Ministerial Corrections

Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill

The following is an extract from the Second Reading of the Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services Bill on 13 January 2017.

[Matt Hancock]

There have been some big changes in the past couple of years, including in the car market. Nearly 95% of new car radios are digital. The change is happening and it is a good thing, but we must do it sensibly and carefully, and the Bill has no impact on those plans.

[Official Report, 13 January 2017, Vol. 619, c. 637.]

The correct statement should have been:

[Matt Hancock]

There have been some big changes in the past couple of years, including in the car market. Nearly 85% of new car radios are digital. The change is happening and it is a good thing, but we must do it sensibly and carefully, and the Bill has no impact on those plans.

Written Statement

Monday 16th January 2017 Written Statements

Monday 16 January 2017

Winter Flooding

Monday 16th January 2017 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)]

I would first like to thank all of those who supported local communities in the wake of the flooding in December 2015 and early January 2016. It is important that we recognise the enormous amount of effort that has gone into supporting households, businesses and communities repair and recover from these floods.

In the days that followed those storms, the Government very quickly identified that the immediate priority was to respond to the urgent needs of those affected and we have paid out almost £300 million to help householders, communities and businesses to get back on their feet. Furthermore, we have supported repairs to vital transport links, including getting the A591 in Cumbria open ahead of schedule, as well as improving flood defences and providing match funding for charity appeals.

Alongside this early response, Ministers informed the House of our intention to apply to the European Union Solidarity Fund. We submitted our initial application on 26 February 2016. The application was made within the 12 week deadline and included a provisional estimate of the cost of direct damage incurred by the floods in December 2015 and early January 2016.

The European Union Solidarity Fund is limited in principle to non-insurable damage and does not compensate for private losses, such as damage to private property. Long-term action—such as lasting reconstruction, economic redevelopment and prevention—are not eligible for support. In the case of a regional application, the Solidarity Fund retrospectively reimburses member states for 2.5% of the direct costs associated with the damage incurred. As the assistance received is therefore dependent on the extent of the costs incurred, it has been important that we ensure the application represents our best estimate of the damage. Subsequent to the initial application, my Department continued to work extensively with devolved Administrations, local authorities and other Government Departments to refine and update our cost analysis and comply with the complex rules of the Fund. As a result of that work, the Government finalised the UK’s application to the European Union Solidarity Fund in September 2016.

The Commission has now completed its assessment of our application and has proposed to the European Parliament and Council that the UK receives a notional €60 million in assistance (subject to approval by the two bodies). However, owing to the costs involved in making an application and the effect of clawback through the UK rebate, the overall net benefit to the UK is only estimated to be €17 million (circa £15 million). This will be further offset by a payment of £14.5 million that the UK is legally obliged to make to the EU in respect of the UK’s 2007 application (by the then Labour Government) for Solidarity Fund assistance following the serious floods that year. The Commission carried out an assurance review in 2010 and 2011 to verify that all of the expenditure incurred was eligible. The UK Government are obliged to repay funding where there was ineligible spending under the Labour Administration. Consequently, this funding does not offer additional support, but is only eligible to reimburse a small portion of the extensive financial support that has already been given by the Government to the areas affected.

The UK Government continue to stand squarely behind those flooded, working with local authorities to ensure households and businesses receive all eligible support. Furthermore, we are focused not only on ensuring the recovery from these floods, but also on preventing future damage—we are exceeding our manifesto commitment by building 1,500 new flood defence schemes that will better protect 300,000 more homes.

[HCWS412]

Grand Committee

Monday 16th January 2017 Grand Committee

Monday 16 January 2017

Arrangement of Business

Monday 16th January 2017 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:30

[The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Brexit: Fisheries (EUC Report)

Monday 16th January 2017 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

15:30

Moved by

[Lord Teverson]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Brexit: fisheries (8th Report, HL Paper 78).

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, this is the first debate on a series of Brexit reports produced by the Sub-Committees of the European Union Committee. If you are here, you know that it is about fisheries, but I stress that these reports are about identifying the challenges and opportunities of Brexit: they are not about defining what the future detailed policies in these areas should be—we leave that to our more boring colleagues at the other end of the building to sort out. We are at the front end of this, and this report therefore does not go into detail about management regimes or any other such thing.

Fisheries is different from the other subjects in a number of ways. Perhaps I could go through some of them. First, the great reform Bill will be important to regulation of fisheries, but it will in no way be sufficient. Why is that? Because the moment we leave the European Union, the EEZ will become our exclusive economic zone, exactly as it says on the tin. There will be no automatic right for us to fish in other people’s EEZs; nor will there be any automatic right for other nation states to fish in ours. We will be excluded immediately, if we have not renegotiated access, from agreements with Iceland, Norway and the Faroes, which are particularly important to our Scottish fleets. Fisheries is also all tied up with the maritime environment—the sea and the oceans—which is shared with all our neighbouring littoral states. Fish and other forms of sea life do not tend to know boundaries, so we will not have exclusive control over our stocks of biomass, even though we may have control over the EEZ boundary itself.

Importantly, in comparison with many of the other industries that are talked about in terms of Brexit—financial services and the motor industry—the fisheries industry accounts for a full 0.5% of UK GDP. You might think that that does not necessarily give us a lot of leverage in this area, but it provides the livelihood of 12,000 fishers in this country and jobs for 14,000 people in the fish processing industry. It is particularly important for coastal communities across the United Kingdom, especially in Scotland and the south-west of England—elsewhere as well, but it is concentrated in those areas.

One issue with fisheries is the curse of the commons, in that if there is no regulation, whether international or national, people are incentivised to go out to catch whatever they can while they can, before the person in the next port or in the next nation state manages to catch those fish first. Immediate individual welfare challenges long-term community welfare. That is why, wherever we live on the globe, fisheries management is an important and difficult issue. When we talk about the number of fish caught in particular EEZs or nations, we must remember that life cycles will change from area to area. For instance, it is pointed out that sole tend to spawn mostly outside the British EEZ, even though most stocks are caught within it. So we have complex systems that makes this area difficult.

When we launched this report and issued a press release, many people assumed, given my stance on the referendum, that the report would look upon fisheries as simply challenges and threats. In fact, fisheries is one area where there are perhaps good opportunities for rebalancing the UK’s position. Much of that will depend on negotiations, and I will return to that later.

One thing is certain: as we say very strongly in the report, we must have a management system. Indeed, we probably agree with the Minister on this. In many ways, I praise the appearance of the Minister, George Eustice, before the Committee. Frankly, my experience of other Ministers—I am referring, of course, not to the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, but to other Ministers from the Commons—is that they have often avoided questions or not gone into much detail. George Eustice did quite the opposite. He was well in control of his subject and gave a good indication of where the Government might go on these issues.

One area on which we agreed with him entirely is that we continue to need management systems. Almost certainly, they will be based on quotas. That is not the only way things can be done; it is the way our coastal neighbours, including non-EU states such as Norway and Iceland, operate, so it would be very difficult and probably counterproductive to come out of that system, certainly in the short term. We agree with the NFFO that it would be possible to change the regulations to make them far more specific to the needs of the UK national fleet. Changes to technical regulations could happen, and the committee hopes the Government will address that in the right way: not deregulation but different regulations to make sure they reflect the needs of the fleet.

Our most important recommendation is probably that quotas and management be based as much as possible on scientific evidence, rather than on political decisions. In the past the CFP has been based too much on politics, rather than scientific evidence. Scientific evidence on fisheries, as on all marine areas, is not perfect, but we should remain a member of ICES, we should use that evidence and we should continue to move towards sustainable seas. I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, will talk about maximum sustainable yield and other issues, but basically, we must continue with scientific evidence.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market for the work the committee has previously done on regional fisheries policy. We feel very strongly that, because fish know no boundaries, we must try to keep regional co-ordination with EU and non-EU states, particularly in north-western waters and in the Celtic Sea with the Republic of Ireland and others. That must continue.

Turning to international agreements, we will have to have follow-on agreements with the EU, but if we wish to have an overall plan, control and management with nations that share our stocks, we need agreements with Norway, the Faroe Islands and Iceland. They have agreements with the European Union, which are very important, for Norway in particular, and we have an agreement with them for the Scottish fleets. We will leave that, so we have to make sure that we negotiate those relationships as well. As I said, that means concluding an interim or a permanent agreement before we leave in April 2019, as it is reckoned to be. Indeed, in leaving the common fisheries policy through Brexit, we have what is rightly named a cliff edge—a sea cliff edge—if we do not sort out international agreements. That is particularly true outside international waters and in the area of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, one of the regional organisations. Although we are a member of it, we have to become an active member, as we will not have the European Union working with us, although we very much led those negotiations at the time.

The committee was quite surprised to learn from our academic experts that there is no obligation on us internationally to continue to respect historic rights. However, when we change the quota allocations, which have been quite negative for parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in the Channel area, we have to make sure that we take historic rights into consideration to a certain degree, not least in trade, to which I am about to turn. Quota-hopping is more a matter of business ownership, rather than the common fisheries policy itself.

Trade is one of the last major areas of discussion. It is often said that we export 80% of the fish we catch, and some 60% of that goes to the European Union, and we import 80% of the fish we eat. That is more in value terms than in volume. So trade is incredibly important, and there are various tariffs on fish products. Some are set at zero, going up to about 25% for farmed salmon; that will probably present a great challenge to the Scottish industry. That is why Norway tends to inward invest in Scotland, to keep within the customs union. So we need to make sure that we maintain access to the single market and our broader international economies, which have trade agreements with the EU, as well as our ability to import to satisfy our own needs. In trying to readjust what is called relative stability—the amount of fish stocks that we catch in our own EEZ—making sure that we keep market access is equally important.

I have a couple of other important footnotes. Fisheries, like agriculture and environmental policy generally, is a devolved subject. The details of the management regimes will fall to the Scottish Government, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as to Defra. We think it important that some framework be maintained, but it is particularly important that the devolved nations be kept very close and involved in the Brexit fisheries negotiations. That is paramount, particularly as the Scottish industry is the largest in the United Kingdom.

In many ways, Defra has the greatest challenges in the changes arising from Brexit. Agricultural policy has to be redesigned and the fisheries policy dealt with through a number of international agreements. Then, there is the whole issue of the environment, given that some 80% of UK environmental legislation comes from Europe. So Defra must be well resourced and informed, and it must play an important part in the Brexit negotiations.

When I was an MEP, I was extremely critical of the common fisheries policy, which I felt did not succeed in its conservation aims; it was not particularly fair to the United Kingdom, and there were a number of other issues. The irony is that, through the great work the British Government have done over the last few years, we have regionalisation and the banning of discards, and European fish stocks are moving much closer to sustainability. Much of that work was done by the British lead on the CFP negotiations, and it showed that that change was possible. The committee thought it was important that, although there are many opportunities for further change to make the common fisheries policy work better for the United Kingdom, we should not throw away the advantages we have gained.

Lastly, despite the fact that the fisheries industry represents only a small amount of GDP—it is important to certain regional communities—for environmental, economic and cultural reasons it is vital that it not be used as a bargaining chip and then forgotten, compared with the United Kingdom’s other great industries. I beg to move.

15:45

[Baroness Wilcox (Con)]

My Lords, I thank our committee’s chairman for a most wonderful exposition. He has not looked at one note. I feel really drippy now. I register my interests in the fishing industry. I have owned and worked inshore fishery boats for most of my life. I established, and am now patron of, the National Lobster Hatchery in Padstow, Cornwall, which is doing jolly well.

Joining this House enabled me to put forward a Private Member’s Bill to license lobster ranching. This was to encourage fishermen to trust the scientists. As our chairman said, at that time, every time the scientists told us something, the fishermen said, “What do they know? They’ve never fished in their lives”. It was important for us to come up with something that would allow the scientists to get closer to the fishermen. Therefore, it has been a great success for us to have built this aquarium right down on the edge of the water where the boats come in, where fishermen can walk up with the lobster, hand it over, and a year or so later we can hand them back a couple of thousand baby lobsters and say, “There we are, see if you can carry on growing those”. It has been a great success. It was funded by the European Community, so we must say a hurrah for that. We have an aquarium for children to learn about fish and fishing, and for PhD students to complete their studies, find new ways for lobsters to be raised and hand them back and forth between what were, in the beginning, two great enemies.

Our chairman wisely advised Members to speak to one area only. That did not apply to him, but it applies to us. It is a very good thing, otherwise we will be here all day. I will devote myself to quotas, for it is by quotas that I have seen two particular things happen. Quotas have stopped the rape of our seas that technology allowed us. I remember the first time I looked at a screen and saw that we could see the fish swimming around down there. We could pick exactly where we wanted to go fishing. When the Scottish boats came down with a cod-end net with an opening at only one end and fished in two boats, pulling the net behind them, all they had to do was look down at the screen at one or two miles of pelagic fish, which always swim together, put the net down and rape the sea with it. Standing and watching that happen, I realised this could not continue. Very quickly, they raped out their own area of pelagic fish and ours too.

I am keen on quotas in that way because they have stopped us doing that. The thing that has been difficult and caused a great deal of unhappiness for our fishermen is the lack of enforcement that has followed. It has infuriated us to see the Spanish fleet come swanning up and take as much as they like. We are not allowed to police them. They can be policed only by their own police, who sat in Madrid and never came down. As far as that was concerned, our fishermen were only too delighted to lead Cornwall to vote to leave the European Community.

Withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is an opportunity for the UK to review fisheries management practices and develop a management regime tailored to the United Kingdom. It is also an opportunity for the United Kingdom to address concerns regarding the current fisheries management regime and to reflect the needs and interests of coastal communities, the wider marine environment and the industry. However, this will need enforcement and monitoring. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: how will the Government resource the policing of the UK zone waters?

I finish where I began with science and the fishermen. As we have just heard, our UK domestic production consists of 451,000 tonnes of fish landed by UK vessels into UK ports, but 215,000 tonnes of fish is produced by United Kingdom aquaculture producers—back to the lobsters. It is amazing to see how much has been done through scientists and fishermen working together. We will do better and better at this but we still need monitoring and enforcement, as I have asked for. Will the ministry encourage this increasingly successful industry by bringing fishermen and scientists together to ensure a brighter future? Let us face it: the way they fish, there is no need for a quota.

Adam Nicolson said that the experience of evolving as an island race, with intimate contact with the waves, has had a profound effect on who we are, from love of liberty to xenophobia, practicality and propriety, our water, our common law. After never having been invaded for a thousand years, we are again to be an island race. Sink or swim, I believe we shall enjoy our freedom yet again.

[Lord Teverson]

I apologise to the Committee that I forgot to declare my interest as a board member of the Marine Management Organisation. That must be recorded.

15:51

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords, the preservation of fish stocks in the face of unbridled consumption is one of the greatest challenges to human social organisation. It is a challenge on a global scale, and it has been met with widespread failure. The failure to preserve European fish stocks is one of many examples of this all too common tragedy.

As we have heard, in spite of highly efficient modern technology aimed at locating shoals of fish and capturing them, the quantity of fish landed in UK ports is less than a third of what it was in 1930, when it reached a maximum. The UK fisheries statistics to which I refer are readily accessible in a briefing paper from the Commons Library. The quantity of fish landed today is significantly less than it was in 1890, when much of the fishing fleet consisted of small vessels under sail. The decline of the catch in the face of the ever-improving technology of fishing points unequivocally to a decline of fish stocks.

The two world wars saw sharp reductions in the size of the catches, which was largely restored when the wars ended. Leaving aside the effect of the subsequent war, there has been a steady downwards trend since the 1930s, on the back of which there have been significant annual variations. However, after 1973, the decline accelerated. That happens to be the year when Britain joined the European Union. This was also the era when the confrontation between the United Kingdom and Iceland regarding fishing rights in the north Atlantic ended with Iceland’s victory. Iceland established an exclusion zone around its territories of 200 miles from the coastline, and British trawlers ceased to fish in Icelandic waters. The fishing fleets of Hull, Grimsby and Lowestoft, and elsewhere along the east coast of Britain, were decimated.

At the same time, Britain’s accession to the European Union ensured that all European waters should be accessible to the fishing fleets of the members of the Union. In the years that followed, there was a growing recognition of the radical depletion of the fish stocks, and in 1983 a version of the common fisheries policy—the CFP—of the European Union was enunciated that has prevailed until recently. By limiting the total allowable catch, the policy aimed to address the problems of depletion. The common fisheries policy has been strongly criticised by British fishermen. They attribute most of their distress to this EU policy. They have been virtually unanimous in declaring that its constraints and empowerment of fishermen of rival nationalities are responsible for the threat to their livelihoods. They feel that others have robbed them of what is rightfully theirs.

In 1992, the European Commission proposed a policy whereby fishermen would be encouraged to scrap vessels that were surplus to their requirements. This was intended as a means of alleviating the pressure on fish stocks. The Commission proposed that money should be provided from the European Union budget for the purpose of purchasing the vessels for scrap. In the case of the UK, that money would have been deducted from the rebate to their contribution to the budget that Margaret Thatcher’s Government had won. Instead of participating in this policy, Britain proposed to allow our fishermen to dispose of their surplus vessels by selling them on the open market.

Foreign owners were keen to buy British boats because, under British regulations, if you own a boat you also have a guaranteed share of the British national quota. It was a policy of the British Government to break down the national quota boat by boat and to allow the sale of quotas in this manner. The result is that numerous Spanish and Dutch boats fly British flags and catch part of the European Union stocks allocated to Britain. Their catches are counted against the British quota. This arrangement, known as quota-hopping, exacerbated the opinion of British fishermen that they have been robbed. In fact, the ineptitude of the British Government, rather than the policies of the European Union, is to blame.

By general consent, the EU common fisheries policy enacted in 1983 has been, until recently, an unmitigated failure. It was based on a concept of allowable catches, intended to limit the amount that each nation may extract from the seas. Those quantities have been guided by scientific advice but almost invariably that advice has been ignored in the process of the competitive bidding of the nations for their quotas. Much of the blame for this can be attributed to Britain. We approached the negotiations in an aggressive manner in the belief that we were denied our rightful share of the resources. There have also been suspicions of widespread disregard of the quotas. It has been incumbent on the European Union nations to enforce the quotas but most have been lax in doing so.

The Scottish black fish scandal of 2012 was notable for uncovering illegal landings designed to evade the European Union quotas. Fraud of almost £63 million was revealed. The common fisheries policy has also been vitiated by allowing fish that have been caught in excess of the quotas for their species to be cast overboard. It has also allowed undersized fish to be discarded as well as fish of lesser commercial value. Invariably, discarded fish are dead when they hit the water.

The most recent revision of the common fisheries policy took effect in January 2014 and promised to address some of the principal defects of the former policy. The most significant revision is the intention of gradually introducing a landing obligation whereby all catches of regulated species must be landed and counted against quotas. This would ban the practice of discarding unwanted or surplus fish. Further features of the revised policy concern rules on access to waters, controls of fishing effort, and technical measures to regulate gear usage and to determine where and when fishing is allowed. There are signs that the CFP is making progress towards the objective of preserving fish stocks. Nevertheless, the policy is bedevilled by its failure to take proper account of the biological, ecological and economic principles of fish stock management.

The policy makes frequent reference to the objective of catching the fish at the rate of their so-called maximum sustainable yield or MSY. This term seems to suggest both sustainability and economic efficiency, but the pursuit of the MSY achieves neither. The MSY is the maximum rate at which the fish are capable of replacing themselves in the face of the depredations of fishing. If such a rate of fishing is exceeded for any length of time then, inevitably, the fish will be driven to extinction. To pursue the fish with such intensity is also uneconomic. It would be more profitable to derive a smaller harvest from the more abundant population that would result from lesser depredations.

I have already noted that, in 1890, more fish were caught by sailing boats from abundant stocks of fish than are caught today from depleted stocks, using technology that was unimaginable in the 19th century. A communication from the European Commission of June 2015 not only declared the objective of fishing at the MSY, but made allowances for the difficulties of achieving that objective immediately. Thus, it stated that if the policy of fishing at the MSY,

“would imply very large annual reductions of fishing opportunities that seriously jeopardise the social and economic sustainability of the fleets involved”,

then,

“a delay in reaching the objective beyond 2016”,

would,

“be acceptable, through a more gradual reduction of fishing opportunities to achieve MSY”.

This defies logic. If the harvest were allowed to exceed the MSY, then the only way the population could recover is if the harvest were to be reduced subsequently to a level substantially below that of the MSY. Otherwise, the extinction of the fish stocks would be guaranteed. To allow the harvest to be reduced gradually from a higher level towards the MSY would be to guarantee extinction.

The deficiencies of the CFP suggest that it should be replaced by something more rational and more effective. I have little faith that this could be achieved, as many have proposed, by our taking full possession of the fish that lie within our so-called exclusive economic zone. That would be an unprecedented assertion of our fishing rights at the expense of other European nations, and it would be met, inevitably, by counterclaims. This could have a disastrous impact on the fish stocks. The impact on our negotiations to leave the European Union would also be severely affected by an attempt to exclude the fishermen of other European nations from our EEZ.

An exclusive economic zone is a concept adopted at the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1982. We call this conference UNCLOS. This was some time after Britain’s accession to the European Union, when the basic features of the common fisheries policy were determined. An EEZ stretches out from the coastline of a maritime nation for up to 200 miles. In the case of two adjacent maritime nations, the common perimeter of their zones is equidistant from their shores. By virtue of its geography, Britain has by far the largest zone among the European nations, both in absolute terms and in proportion to the area of its landmass. Other maritime nations, such as Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, have highly constrained zones that are of negligible area in comparison to that of the UK. Therefore, it is wholly inappropriate to propose that their rights to fish in European waters should be in proportion to the size of their zones. This would imply a significant reduction in their existing rights. Nevertheless, that is what appears to be proposed by our fishermen, seemingly with the support of at least one government Minister.

I propose that the only sensible way forward, in view of Britain’s intention to leave the European Union, is to build on the existing common fisheries policy. This is notwithstanding its history of failure. The present objective of conserving the fish stocks should be supported and reaffirmed by the adoption of more appropriate regulations and directives, which the UK should help to formulate. The prevailing spirit should be one of mutual trust and co-operation.

I end by mentioning proposals to resolve the problem of quota hopping. This was attempted in 1988 when a Labour Government passed a law requiring three-quarters of the shareholders of British-registered trawler companies to be British. Three years later, the law was quashed by the European court as contrary to EU rules on freedom of movement of people and capital. If a similar attempt were to be made, after our leaving the European Union, to disbar foreign owners, then I fear there would be damaging political consequences.

16:03

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Teverson, his committee and its staff on producing a report that is well researched, evidence based and very clear in its conclusions. Some seven months after the referendum, at a point where we expect Article 50 to be triggered imminently, there is an urgent need for an informed debate about the complexity of the choices we face and the likely consequences of various courses of action open to the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and the EU Committee have therefore made exactly the right decision in focusing its attention and that of the sub-committees on issues which bring thoughtful and reasoned arguments to the table. I would like to think it might catch on, but I am not holding my breath.

Given the range of topics covered by the Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, it might seem strange that it chose fisheries—a sector that employed fewer than 12,000 people in 2014 and, as we have heard, accounts for only half of 1% of our GDP. But I am pleased that it did, partly because, although it is a small industry, it has a proud tradition which is a strong part of our heritage as an island nation, and because in the communities where it still holds, it is an important part of their modern economic well-being. I am also pleased because themes emerge from this report which resonate with many other sectors and are in many ways typical of the issues we will face in the coming years as we leave the EU. There is the complexity of working out transitional arrangements so that we do not create a regulatory gap. There are decisions about our future relationships with the EU27 and with neighbouring countries that are not members but are bound to the EU in various ways, and with countries—some very far away—with which the EU has fisheries agreements. Then, there are the different interests and legal frameworks governing the devolved Administrations, and the way in which different policy areas interact with each other—in the case of fisheries, predominantly environment and market access issues. Finally, there is the question of control. A post-Brexit UK will still have to operate under a number of international rulebooks, and may choose to do so in other cases.

I think it is fair to say that the CFP is not the most beloved of EU policies, although the competition is quite fierce. The committee received much evidence suggesting that it has not been fit for purpose, and I agree that all too often, its one-size-fits-all approach has been problematic. Until fairly recently, insufficient account was taken of regional variations; applying the same policies to the Mediterranean and the Baltic was clearly never going to end well. This has greatly improved in recent years, with more bespoke multi-annual plans and the development of regional fisheries management organisations. These organisations include participation from non-EU states, so I hope the Government will still seriously consider remaining part of them. There is also some justification to the argument that the CFP has not taken into account the needs of smaller local fisheries, and that many of the technical measures were simply not grounded in the realities of the harsh conditions of working life at sea.

It is clear from the evidence received from Norwegian and Icelandic representatives that Brexit provides a potential opportunity to refocus fisheries policy on wider community benefits. Revisiting quota allocation to give less advantage to larger businesses is entirely within the gift of the UK Government now, and could be a quick win. Given that €243 million has been allocated to the UK from the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund for the next four or five years, thought needs to be given to what, if anything, will replace it.

It is fairly clear from the evidence that the fishing industry would like some quick changes to technical regulations, and I can see why, but there is a dilemma for the Government in how they handle such piecemeal repeal and reform, which can result in emerging policies that end up out of step with broader objectives. This danger is implicitly recognised in the approach that the Government intend to take with the great repeal Bill.

The problem of quota hopping is often cited as a major shortcoming of the CFP, and it is worth emphasising that the allocation of national quota to fishers is a national competence. The issue arises from decisions made by UK fisheries companies selling their companies and their quota allocation to EU businesses. We appear to have no idea what the future arrangement will be for either quotas or the right of a foreign-owned business to buy UK assets. However, when foreign companies wish to buy UK assets, government normally regards it as inward investment and welcomes it. As far as those currently in operation are concerned, perhaps the Minister can confirm that this will be part of a wider discussion about acquired rights not just of citizens but of businesses in any post-Brexit framework. A similar issue presumably arises with the existing agreements whereby member states fish within our EEZ.

It is worth emphasising that for all its shortcomings, the underlying objective of the CFP, which was to deal with overfishing, has met with some success. The report covers very well the challenges of, as one witness described it, a common resource which can be accessed by many but which can be consumed only once. Evidence received by the committee highlighted that limitations, such as TAC and quotas, have delivered improvements in fish stocks, and the New Economics Foundation reports improved profitability.

The almost total collapse of cod fisheries in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland is a salutary lesson about what happens when overfishing and habitat destruction is allowed to continue. By the time the moratorium there was finally agreed, it had to be drastic, and it resulted in the loss of the jobs of 30,000 fishers and 15,000 ancillary workers. It is not in the best interests of the UK fishing industry to lose the momentum that we have gained, and nor should we understate the scale of the broader challenges that we face. The European Environment Agency’s 2014 Marine Messages reported that less than 20% of all biodiversity features could be considered as of good environmental status. The sub-committee’s 2015 report The North Sea Under Pressure goes into some detail on this, but for now I wish simply to make two points.

First, there is much we do not know about the marine environment. The creation of the European Marine Observation and Data Network has done much to ensure that data are shared and available. It is exactly the sort of body to which we should continue to belong and which we should support after Brexit. Secondly, the health of the marine environment has been a priority for the EU. I fully accept that the maritime spatial planning directive and the marine strategy framework directive might not be day-to-day topics in the Dog and Duck, but they are important parts of how we manage the seas and, given that the North Sea is a shared space, we will continue to be impacted by these policies even after we have left.

To return to fisheries specifically, the evidence received by the committee and that given to the balance of competencies review two years ago suggests that there has to be some sort of supranational body to manage fisheries. I was very interested in the points made in the report about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which obliges coastal states to co-operate, based on scientific evidence, in the management of their fish stocks. Does the Minister agree that for this reason alone, and put alongside environmental considerations and the need to maintain good diplomatic relationships, the UK will need to remain a close and considerate partner?

The report fairly describes the opportunities for the industry which may come from Brexit, but it also makes the complexities clear. My time as chair of this sub-committee led me to see that the team in Defra, like most of the Civil Service, is highly competent and committed, but I am concerned that it was overstretched before the Brexit decision and will need more resource to ensure that the fishing industry, coastal communities and the marine environment are still to thrive.

16:13

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the sub-committee on an excellent and very interesting report and welcome, in particular, the opening remarks of noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about the opportunity that this represents and about the need to manage being crucial to delivering an improved fisheries policy.

It is worth starting with the point that, despite recent improvements that have been mentioned, the common fisheries policy has been an abject failure in comparison with other policies around the world. Some 80% of EU fish stocks are still overfished, which compares without about 25% globally. EU catches are 25% below their peak in 1997. Most other fisheries are getting better at managing stocks. The EU is getting better, but it is rather too slow, and 1 million tonnes of fish have been thrown back in some years, which is equivalent to 2 billion fish dinners.

Rightly or wrongly, the common fisheries policy was seen as a great act of betrayal in 1973, so it is symbolically important that we should regain control of it in leaving the EU and that we should resume our full place on the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission alongside Norway, Iceland, Russia, Greenland, the Faroe Islands and, of course, the European Union.

The report states:

“The UK Government will be in a position to renegotiate its quota of Total Allowable Catches”.


Can the Minister explain how that point interacts with the historic rights issue raised by a number of other speakers—in particular, the sale of fishing licences to foreign vessels over the past few decades? I do not fully understand that spider’s web myself. The organisation which I think is called fishermen for Britain says that 70% of the total allowable catch is likely to come back; some are bound still to remain in foreign hands. Is that number right, and what can we expect?

My main point is that, outside the perverse incentives of the common fisheries policy, which has imposed rather than evolved solutions to fisheries management top-down, whether from politicians or scientists, we should be in a position to design from first principles, on a blank sheet of paper, using best practice from recent experience around the world, a system of fisheries management that works much better. In taking best practice from around the world in casting the net as wide as we can, we should take into account the possibilities opened by new technology, in particular, to make fisheries management much more robust and sustainable than it has been in the past.

I want to touch on two examples of good practice from around the world that emphasise individual as opposed to national quotas. The first is the Falklands, which fortunately has something to do with this country, where the squid fishery was a free for all from 1986; by 2007, it was decided to impose individually transferable quotas, whereby each vessel bought a proportion of a total quota and was able to transfer it through sale. Since it was a proportion, it could increase in total tonnage. Therefore, they had skin in the game—they had the right incentives, and they were interested in policing the management of the fishery themselves. It has turned into a highly sustainable and successful fishery, economically and ecologically; it is very productive, and it deals with the problem that is rightly addressed in the report, that of shared stock. In this case, it deals with the illex squid, which come in from Argentinian waters at a certain time of year. Likewise, a similar system is working extremely well in South Georgia.

The other system, which is slightly different, is in the Faroe Islands, at the other end of the Atlantic, which regulates fishery by days at sea—by regulating effort rather than catch—and insisting that all catches be landed on shore so as to be able to check that there is no bad practice going on at sea. Again, it is crucial that those days at sea are transferable between vessels; in a sense, you can sell your days at sea.

In both cases, the Falklands and the Faroes, real-time information is being used to manage the fisheries. Instead of politicians sitting around a table in Brussels at two o’clock in the morning using two year-old data to decide a quota, in the Falklands there is live transmission of data overnight on what each boat is catching. Any vessel taking on too much by-catch is moved on the next morning. Iceland does the same thing at an hour’s notice. So technology has brought great improvements as a management tool, with transponders on vessels and things like cameras on nets.

In designing that blank sheet, we need to take into account the latest science on no-take zones. It seems clear that, if you shut off certain parts of the ocean from fishing, you have remarkably good effects on the ability of stocks to replenish themselves, as long as you choose the zones carefully. Practice around the world has proved surprisingly successful in that respect.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that we are seeing competition increasing for taking fish in the sea. What I mean by that is that seal and whale numbers are recovering remarkably well throughout the north Atlantic. For example, off Iceland, humpback whale numbers have gone from 1,800 in 1987 to 14,000 today. They are now eating 6 million tonnes of fish around Iceland. That compares with the total Icelandic catch of 1.5 million tonnes, so the whales—all of the whales, not just the humpback whales—are taking four times as many fish as the fishing fleet. That does not mean that we should kill all the whales or anything like that, but it does mean that we have to take these factors into account.

The UK grey seal population has grown from 30,000 in 1985 to roughly 100,000 today. Of course, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, that is all pointing in the direction of aquaculture. It is very important to note that the proportion of fish eaten in the world that comes from farmed, as opposed to wild, fish—I had very nice piece of farmed salmon for lunch today—is now about 50%. It is overtaking wild fish, and that is the right way to go, because it worked on land to go from hunting-gathering to agriculture, and it will work in the sea as well, although, of course, marine aquaculture still depends heavily on wild-caught fish as a feed stock.

16:20

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his excellent chairmanship of our committee, and our committee clerk and policy analyst for their outstanding drafting skills and ability to synthesise the evidence that we heard. I will spend a few minutes talking about international trade, which, as the noble Lord mentioned in his introduction, was one of the themes of this inquiry, along with access to territorial waters and allocation of quotas.

First, however, I want to set the scene by talking about what we actually do with fish: namely, eat it. A large proportion of fish that is caught is for human consumption. Given my past as the former chairman of the Food Standards Agency, I cannot resist talking for a few moments about diet and health and fish. I am tempted to pose a quiz question to noble Lords, which I posed to my wife and daughter over the weekend: how many fish and chip meals are eaten per annum in this country from fish and chip takeaway shops? My wife and daughter both guessed around 5 million to 10 million. The answer is 380 million meals a year, according to the Sea Fish Industry Authority, from the 10,500 fish and chip shops in the UK.

In spite of that apparently large figure, it is nevertheless true that most people in this country do not eat the recommended amount of fish, which is two portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily. I said that many times when I was chairman of the Food Standards Agency; it just rolls of the tongue without having to use the brain at all. In fact, three-quarters of adults in this country do not even know what the guidelines are. Although there are a large number of fish and chip meals eaten, and 97% of households buy some kind of seafood, only a quarter of the population eats the recommended amount. The average intake is only one portion per week, 140 grams. Among younger consumers —18 to 24 year-olds—a third of them are not even aware of what an oily fish is. As a nation, therefore, we should be doubling our fish consumption, although this is not the current trend. There was a steady increase in per capita consumption from the mid-1970s up until 2008, but for some reason the financial crash coincided with a crash in fish consumption, which has gone down by 14% since 2008.

I am leading up to international trade; noble Lords should not worry. Suppose we were all to eat more fish, where would the fish come from? There is a problem, which we have heard about eloquently from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and from the noble Viscounts, Lord Hanworth and Lord Ridley, of sustainability. The figures I will quote are slightly different from those of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, but not seriously. Daniel Pauly, the fisheries biologist, estimates that about a third of the world’s fish stocks are seriously overexploited, a third are close to overexploitation, and a third are still being exploited at sustainable levels. As we have already heard from other noble Lords, an important part of European fisheries policy over recent decades—not necessarily totally successfully—has been to try to reduce over- exploitation. After Brexit, it is really an imperative, as others have already said, that we in this country manage our fish stocks sustainably. If consumption were to increase, where would the extra fish come from?

That brings me to the question of trade. Let me give a few facts. Some 70% of the seafood that we eat is imported, with cod, salmon, tuna and prawns or shrimps occupying the top slots in the league table by value. The top four countries from which we import are Iceland, China, Germany and Canada, with 32% of our imports coming from the European Union. At the same time, we export about three quarters of the fish caught by UK fishers or grown in fish farms, with salmon, langoustine—Dublin Bay prawns or scampi, depending on what you prefer to call them—scallops and mackerel topping the value league. France, the USA, Spain and Ireland are the top destination countries. Two-thirds of our exports go to the European Union. In short, international trade is vital to the UK fishing industry, both for fishers who catch and fishers who farm fish.

The fish processing industry is, in terms of turnover, an order of magnitude larger than the fish catching and farming industries and relies heavily on imports from third countries, such as Norway, Iceland, the USA, Russia and Canada. The UK is able to access key species of fish from third countries at low or even zero tariffs because the EU has negotiated so-called autonomous tariff quotas with third countries. The UK Seafood Industry Alliance told us:

“A future relationship with the EU must maintain existing market access and our ability to import zero or reduced tariff supplies from both EU and non-EU countries”.


Does the Minister agree with this statement and can he reassure us that, in the Brexit negotiations, meeting this requirement will be a priority of the Government in order to sustain the fishing industry in this country?

Defra told us that, if the UK fails to negotiate a special trade deal with the EU, it would trade under WTO rules. For the top five fish products that we export to the EU, the tariffs would range from 2% to 20%. At the same time, EU countries would face tariffs in exporting to the UK. Will the Minister tell us what assessment his department has made of the likely impact of such tariffs both on the viability of the fishing industry and on per capita consumption, because presumably the price of fish would go up?

It was particularly instructive for me to hear the evidence from Norway and Iceland, which are both members of the European Economic Area and therefore in the single market for most purposes. Even under that relationship with the EU, these countries face substantial tariff barriers, ranging from 2% to 25% on some species. These tariff barriers were seen as a serious obstacle to trade, as were the export quotas. Perhaps it is an irony that the Norwegian witness, Mr Vidar Landmark, told us that Norway had not managed to negotiate tariff-free access for salmon to the EU. He said:

“We have not managed to do that largely due to the Scottish producers”.


Those producers have argued strongly against Norway having access. I imagine that Norway will be delighted to be able to compete with Scotland on a level playing field after Brexit, if the UK does not manage to negotiate a special trade deal.

Fishing industry witnesses were divided on whether the loss of preferential access to EU markets would be bad overall for the UK. Fishing for Leave told us that fish destined for the EU would be channelled into the domestic market or into exports to third countries. On the other hand, the Seafood Industry Alliance said that UK consumers were resistant to changing their eating habits to match the fish caught by the UK fleet. We also heard that negotiating trade deals with third countries after Brexit will be a long and complicated process.

From the evidence we heard, it would seem that international trade, both with the EU and with third countries, will be essential for the future health of the UK seafood industry. In a helpful evidence session, the Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, told us that his officials are analysing the most appropriate options for the UK post Brexit. Can the Minister give us an update on current thinking within his department? Does the department’s position align with that of Fishing for Leave, which thinks that there is a great opportunity, or that of the Seafood Industry Alliance, which thinks that there will be real challenges?

Finally, I come to the question of trade-offs in negotiations. A number of our witnesses told us that the Brexit negotiations may require balancing the benefits of trading access against quota shares and access by other countries to our waters, which really underlines what we heard from other noble Lords: the complexity of the Brexit negotiations. I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

16:30

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, we all owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for securing this debate on such an important issue. I apologise that I was not here at the very start of his remarks and am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to continue.

We were fortunate to be able to interview a wide range of experts in the whole field of fishing. I thank the committee clerk and staff for putting together such an excellent summary of all that came before us. Brexit has caused all kinds of upset to our erstwhile continental partners but I suggest that the changes to fishing are likely to cause even more upset than other areas. The simple reason for this, touched on by my noble friend Lord Ridley, is that in the UK’s initial negotiations for entry to the common market we gave away rather more concessions in fishing than any other field. Now we are looking at how much of this we can reclaim.

I received fairly extensive briefing jointly from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish Association of Fish Producers’ Organisations, pleading that this time the Government, in considering any concessions on fishing, should look only at those that will assist the economics of the industry rather than a trade-off against other economic areas. In the final analysis, fishing—like agriculture—will have further issues to work out because the actual management competence of the activity is in the hands of the different devolved Administrations, whereas dealings with Europe must be carried out by the United Kingdom as a whole.

I find it very encouraging to hear that at this stage the fishermen’s organisations across the UK are prepared to take a joint approach as this will be important to securing the best possible deal. However, the Scots will watch these negotiations with particular interest. The UK’s exclusive economic zone was finally defined in the 2013 EEZ order, but the competence of the Scottish Government in this field goes back to the Scotland Act 1998. Many of your Lordships will be aware that 62% of the UK exclusive economic zone comes under the responsibility of Scotland. The impact on Scotland is further illustrated in a 2004 review by the Royal Society of Edinburgh which stated that although Scotland contains only 8.6% of the UK population, 60% of the total UK catch is landed there. That shows the importance of fishing in that context; it is rather more important than in the UK as a whole.

The brief from the industry states that currently 58% of the fish caught in what will become exclusively our waters is taken by other EU fishermen. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, touched on this. As an independent coastal state, we are told we will have the power to say who fishes in our waters and, as our report outlines, there are currently about 25,000 jobs involved in the fishing and processing industry. One must look at both elements together. This can only mean that there is scope for a massive expansion of the UK industry if most of this asset is retained for our fishing fleet. This is of particular interest to the more remote coastal communities, which are numerous in Scotland and various extended parts of the United Kingdom. A great expansion in our fishing industry could put us at the centre of world sustainable seafood production.

For those who set their heart on various forms of independence there is a small consequence not mentioned in the report and which might just bear a mention. Marine conservation and biodiversity have been functions of the EU Commission. All participating states had to follow its directives and were subject to sanctions if found to be negligent. This is now an area where each Administration will have its own authority, as far as we can see, as to how far they wish to go. This puts an extra lot of work on anybody who wishes to increase biodiversity regulation because they will have to deal with each independent Administration separately.

16:35

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I speak as a member of the committee who has had the benefit of listening to and reading the words of expert practitioners and thinkers in this industry. Experts may not be the flavour of the month post-Brexit, but some of those on the leave side on the argument who gave evidence to the committee, either written or in person, are included in that term. We certainly welcomed their views. I thank my noble friend Lord Teverson for the sure touch he displayed in chairing this very complex topic, and the clerks for producing a very well-presented document, all in record time. I take my hat off to the clerks, who must be putting in a great many extra hours in fulfilling all the requirements that producing these sector-by-sector reports must place on them.

I draw attention to one aspect of this excellent report: the great importance of adhering to scientific advice if we are to avoid depleting fish stocks to unsustainable levels, to the detriment of all. MAD—mutually assured destruction—is an acronym that can be applied not only to nuclear warfare; the fishing industry has its own version to contend with. We have already heard about the mobility of commercial fish stocks, which requires states to manage them jointly or risk destruction of the stock altogether. With the stock goes the livelihood of thousands of people in coastal communities who depend directly or indirectly on the catch. The tragedy of the commons inevitably leads to overexploitation unless there is recognition that, over its lifetime, a resource is finite. To be sustainable it must be managed jointly and/or severally by all concerned, otherwise all parties risk reaching a position where nothing is left to share.

The United Kingdom’s approach to managing fisheries is largely determined by the EU’s common fisheries policy, which ensures that fishing is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable among fishers of member states. These stocks of highly mobile or migratory commercial fish species—plaice, cod, sole, haddock, herring and mackerel all fall under one of these categories—are typically managed by setting catch limits, total allowable catches, and divvying them out in quotas. This ensures that, to the best of their knowledge, fishers of all nations will not risk over- exploitation of their livelihood. Every year, based on scientific advice from the independent International Council on the Exploration of the Sea—ICES—and the EU’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, the European Commission proposes a TAC for commercial species for each area in the EU zone. It is scientists who provide an assessment of the health and state of a given fish stock—an assessment that will become more important as climate change impacts on stocks and migratory patterns.

In disengaging from the EU, the UK will no longer be part of the common fisheries policy and in a position to reset its approach to the exploitation of its fishing waters within the EEC. The complexity of disentangling ourselves from the CFP and emerging with a fisheries policy that satisfies UK fishermen in all the devolved nations in terms of access to affordable markets, restricted access to the EEZ for EU vessels, and maintaining supply for the processing and production industries—is not to be underestimated. The Minister, George Eustice MP, indicated in his evidence that the great repeal Bill may prevent a regulatory vacuum while we negotiate our future relationship with the EU and non-EU states. However, other elements of the CFP do not lend themselves to a great repeal Bill approach. When the UK leaves the EU, it will no longer take part in Council negotiations or the annual assessing of TACs for shared stocks. The UK will also cease to be included in the quotas and mutual access agreements that the European Commission negotiates on behalf of member states with third parties. Without this framework for co-operation, stocks that are shared between the UK and the EU risk becoming overexploited. Therefore, it was reassuring to hear the Minister fully recognise the pitfalls. He has said that he will resist mismanagement of resources. It was also reassuring to hear that witnesses unequivocally agreed that fisheries management should continue to be based on scientific evidence alone, which should remain an uncrossable line.

There was also widespread agreement that the UK should continue to fund and take advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. That is an absolute must, because although the TACs are informed by science, the ultimate decision is a political one. Sometimes political considerations lead to the scientific advice being ignored. According to the New Economics Foundation, the TAC currently held by the UK was on average 17% higher than that recommended by scientific advice, and TACs negotiated by the EU and third countries such as Norway and Iceland were often higher, so the temptation is there and is not always resisted. Therefore, I, for one, applaud the recommendation in the report that the Government’s approach to fisheries management must be based on scientific advice. I hope the Minister will confirm today that that will remain the case, as the outcome of Brexit for the fishing industry must not mean a return to past scenarios such as cod and mackerel wars.

16:42

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, who rightly stressed the importance of managing stocks and sustainability and the expertise of the clerks. They helped to produce a report which, due in large measure to the work of the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is thoroughly comprehensive and will stand us in good stead when it is relied upon in later years. When the report was prepared, I was concerned that it should not in any way give the impression that the interests of our fishing industry are undervalued, or that they can be bargained away to benefit other sectors of the economy when Brexit negotiations get under way.

Bertie Armstrong, the chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, claimed that leaving the European Union’s common fisheries policy offers the industry “a sea of opportunity”. However, he also warned that this opportunity must not be traded away. The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments must work together as a team to ensure,

“the best possible deal … for our hardworking fishermen”,

he told the Shetland Times.

The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, working alongside the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, wants the Brexit negotiations to achieve their aims of full control over fishing fleets’ access to the waters in the UK’s exclusive economic zone, which normally stretches 200 nautical miles from a state’s coastal baseline. It also wants the creation of a mutually beneficial trading relationship with the EU and other countries and a new, ambitious management strategy. In fact, our final report stressed that the hopes and aspirations of those who live in coastal communities around the UK must not be marginalised, even if some compromises may have to be accepted in the interests of the industry’s sizeable export trade, as new arrangements are agreed with our former European partners.

Achieving a successful outcome will take dedication and commitment on the part of our Brexit negotiators. Our report refers to the huge challenge facing the Government in Recommendation 29. It also states in Recommendation 24:

“Trade with the EU in fish products will be a key factor to the future success of the UK fishing industry and fish processors. We therefore urge that the fish sector should be included in the Government’s consideration of priorities for a future trading relationship with the EU”.


Fishing may make only a small contribution to our GDP—less than 1%—but its value to local societies and their sustainable economic growth is hugely important to the places around our shores where fishing communities are embedded. It is also of great importance to the health and well-being of our nation, through the provision of nutritious seafood brought up from our seas in what are often dangerous and life-threatening circumstances.

The essential importance of the role of the fishing industry in our national life should certainly not be measured solely in terms of GDP. We all know the hymn written by the Anglican churchman William Whiting in 1860, traditionally associated with seafarers, which urges God’s protection:

“For those in peril on the sea”.


One of the worst disasters ever in the waters around Scottish shores befell the fishermen of Eyemouth some miles down the coast from where I live. On 14 October 1881, a terrible storm took the lives of 189 men from the port and surrounding area, capsizing their boats and dashing them on rocks at the entrance to the harbour. A starkly poignant memorial in granite depicting a broken mast commemorates that black Friday. In addition, on the 135th anniversary only last October, a bronze sculpture entitled “Widows and Bairns” was unveiled to commemorate the many women and children who were left widowed or fatherless.

I remember, when I was very young, asking what was the purpose of the lookout, referred to as a crow’s nest, which I had spotted high up on a house on the east coast of Scotland. I was told that such places were where the concerned mothers, wives and daughters of the fishermen would stand during storms, scanning the horizon to discern the fate of their next of kin far out to sea. Fishing is a global occupation, and since then I have learned that you can see similar railed cupolas, known as widow’s walks or widow’s watches, in north American seafaring communities.

I had a very small taste of the dangers of the deep when, as a boy, my father took me out in a rowing boat off the shore at North Berwick heading for a small island. We were quite a long way from safety when the wind got up suddenly and mountainous waves began to tower over our small boat. Rowing back in such high winds might have become impossible, and eventually we were rescued by the pilot boat. I remember the kindly old fisherman who greeted us at the harbour when we arrived back with the wonderfully understated observation: “I see you’ve had a wee sea breeze”. For me, this is a painful memory because, very sadly, despite his great seafaring skills, he would fall victim to a storm and be drowned at sea.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to assure us and make certain that the Government’s Brexit negotiators will be equal to the challenge which the UK’s exit poses for the future of our fishing industry, as identified in the report. Can he promise that the Government will not let down those who routinely put their lives on the line on behalf of their country men and women? Can he pledge that when they are sitting around the table in a comfortable conference room in Brussels, those representing the UK will not forget for an instant that they are negotiating on behalf of a very special community of people who have served and continue to serve their country well and with courage, come hell or high water?

16:50

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his excellent chairmanship of our committee and this report. I echo the thanks of several noble Lords to our clerk and policy analysts for a fantastic job in pulling together a huge amount of evidence, analysing it and writing it up in a very digestible form. They are at the minute doing something like a PhD thesis every three or four weeks and are to be much commended for their efforts.

In 1833, William Forster Lloyd, an economist, wrote an essay in which he used the example of the unregulated grazing of common land to describe a situation where individuals acting out of self-interest in exploiting a common resource will tend to deplete that resource contrary to the common good. This “tragedy of the commons” has been mentioned by several noble Lords already, though it was more than a century later, in 1968, that the concept became widely known following a much-cited publication by the ecologist, Garrett Hardin.

Apart from economic situations, the concept applies to many biological, environmental and ecological situations and is especially relevant to fisheries. Indeed, it is even more complex for fisheries than Lloyd’s example of a piece of grazing land that is geographically fixed. In the seas, fish are not only a resource potentially accessible to many but they move around and migrate, spawning in one area and perhaps growing and feeding in another. Although post-Brexit we will have control of our exclusive economic zone, fish do not and will not respect such boundaries.

Others in the debate have already discussed this issue and many like it that must be considered in negotiating with the EU 27. However, the tragedy of the commons also applies to how, within the UK, we will manage our EEZ among the devolved nations. A coherent plan of how, post-Brexit, we want to manage our fisheries within UK waters is an essential prerequisite to how we approach our external negotiations. The fishing industry has particular and significant social and economic importance for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in different ways and in different parts of each of those countries. The economic importance of fishing to rural and coastal communities in particular is much greater than its overall contribution to UK GDP suggests. The particular needs and concerns of the devolved Administrations are important.

Several of our witnesses emphasised that Brexit provides an opportunity to design a UK-based fisheries policy better suited to UK needs. As Fishing for Leave argued, the UK could,

“implement a decent, fit for purpose management policy for the benefit of the whole UK industry ... and the coastal communities that depend upon it”.

This is a great opportunity, but equally our evidence indicated the variable priorities of the devolved nations. The importance of resolving and agreeing within and between ourselves what in toto best suits the component parts of the UK was accepted by our witnesses. Mr Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation told us that the size of the UK EEZ,

“creates a critical mass that gives ... a very powerful negotiating position, which we would wish to retain and not have diluted by any—what you might call arm wrestling north and south”.

It is thus regrettable that, quite recently, following the latest quota negotiations in Brussels, the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, which represents fishermen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, has been publically critical of our Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, for what they regard as an unfair quota concession in favour of Scotland, to the disadvantage of the Humberside-based Fish Producers’ Organisation.

I am not competent, nor is it my role, to comment on the rights or wrongs of that particular issue, but I suggest that washing our proverbial dirty domestic linen in front of the EU is not likely to be to our collective advantage. As John Donne famously said, “no man is an island”. Ironically we are an island kingdom, but in the forthcoming negotiations we will still need to recognise the relationships with neighbouring states both within and outwith the EU, and with the adjacent parts of the UK. One hopes that before negotiations get serious, we will have worked out an optimal plan among all parts of the UK for how we are sustainably to manage the fisheries within our UK EEZ for the collective and long-term benefit of all the UK. Finally, what mechanisms have been set up to ensure that all the devolved nations have adequate input into formulating a UK negotiating position, a position that, by inclusivity, they can all support?

16:56

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his sub-committee on their excellent and wide-ranging report. I fear that I will not heed his advice at the outset of this debate as, in common with other speakers, I will stray into the territory of future arrangements. I agree with many of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas in his excellent speech, which set the scene for those future negotiations so well.

The UK became a net importer of fish in 1984, a year after the common fisheries policy and its quotas were introduced. The industry has been shrinking ever since, from 948,000 tonnes at the end of the 1970s to 451,000 tonnes in 2014. Although it is, perhaps, a small industry in terms of its 0.5% contribution to the UK’s GDP, it is still one of significant value to the 11,800 UK fishermen and the communities in which they live.

Brexit represents an opportunity to rebalance the industry back in favour of UK fishermen. While the UK will act as a single coastal state in its negotiations with the rest of Europe, domestic fisheries management activity is, as others have said, a devolved matter. It is therefore crucial that a co-operative management regime is established between the four states: Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England. Any new post-Brexit domestic regime should reflect the needs and interests of all coastal communities, while ensuring the sustainability of a valuable, renewable, but—by definition—very mobile resource.

There will be significant differences between the needs of the four countries. Scotland lands the greatest tonnage of fish, generally from the largest vessels in the UK fleet. Fish constitute 3% of all Scottish exports. Wales, however—my home country—has the smallest fleet and the smallest number of fishermen in the UK, but the seafood sector is disproportionately important to many of its coastal areas. Professional sea fishing is worth millions to the Welsh economy. It was worth £7.6 million in 2015, up from £4.9 million in 2012.

Despite the huge diversity of species caught by the Welsh fishing fleet, whelks, scallops and lobsters account for some 70% of the value of landings. Indeed, I am told that many of the lobsters caught in north Wales are flown to China each Wednesday from Manchester airport. Equally, the Spanish are keen importers of Pembrokeshire lobster and the French of spider crabs. Mussels constitute 44% of landings by weight, but less than 1% of the total value. The reason for the focus on non-quota shellfish stocks is related to the value of the fish and the small size of the vessels. The industry in Wales is characterised by a large proportion—more than 90%—of small fishing vessels under 10 metres. When devising a new regime, it is vital to support local concerns operating smaller boats, the very sector that has been damaged most by EU regulations and legislation and by the current method of allocating quotas within the UK.

The UK is responsible for international negotiations. As a result of successful talks at the meeting in Brussels in December 2016, the EU Fisheries Council agreed a deal with Wales allowing the retention of selective netting within the sea bass fishery, a roll-over of the arrangements for recreational sea bass fishing and a 5% increase in the total allowable catch of commercially important skate and ray in the Bristol Channel.

I hope that as all devolved Administrations facilitate joint working with Her Majesty’s Government on the regimes to be put in place once we leave the EU due regard will also be given to the importance of recreational sea angling to the Welsh tourist industry. Studies by Bangor University in 2015 reported some 76,000 sea anglers resident in Wales, with approximately 6% of all tourists to Wales engaging in sea angling. The total annual expenditure of all sea anglers in Wales was estimated to be an average of more than £100 million, and total employment directly created from sea angling spending was estimated at 1,706 full-time equivalent jobs. Many regular tourists who visit coastal villages own small boats and lobster pots—including me, the proud owner of a 10-foot fishing boat and two lobster pots—operate in accordance with Defra regulations and are actively policed by the local fisheries authorities. In contemplating the new, post-Brexit world, it is vital that we create a regulatory framework that allows professional and recreational fishermen to continue their significant contribution to their local economies.

17:01

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for introducing this report with such clarity. I am also grateful to all members of the committee, who have worked hard to produce a timely and authoritative piece of work. I echo a number of noble Lords’ comments about the usefulness to this House and the wider parliamentary process of the work that the committee has done.

If anyone was in any doubt about the complexities of the negotiations ahead, a quick read of this report would quickly expose the fact that, even in this one compact policy area, huge challenges and pitfalls lie ahead. As we go on to debate other issues in the coming months, that issue will be replicated time and again. As with so many other farming, food and environmental obligations, it becomes clear that we are bound not just by ongoing EU agreements but by other agreements beyond the EU. The future is not just about exiting one organisation, as some would have us believe—we have to think about our future in terms of all the other international agreements and obligations that we will continue to have. So I do not envy the Ministers, and their officials, who carry high expectations on their shoulders, for the many competing interests that they will have to balance, as well as for the impossibly short time that they have to come up with something better than the status quo, which is what lots of people expect of them.

The report captures very well the moveable feast of fish spawning and maturing around our waters. Unlike many other aspects of our EU trade, they truly have a mind of their own and cannot be neatly counted in and out. They can travel hundreds of miles from their breeding grounds to their feeding grounds. They do not respect borders and fisherman do not stop fishing at the end of their country’s territorial waters. This presents a real challenge to the scientists who are advising the EU on the total allowable catches for commercial fish stocks. This uncertainty is being compounded by the impact of climate change on warming sea temperatures. So what used to be the case no longer necessarily is. Fish are moving out of their old feeding grounds in search of cooler waters. The species on which the old fishing quotas are based are moving north, making the scientific system and calculations increasingly outdated. On the one hand, this could provide new opportunities for us, but only if we can negotiate new multilateral quota agreements. As we have learned in the past, there cannot be just a free-for-all, which means declining fish stocks for all, so acting unilaterally cannot, and must not, be the answer. Therefore, in that context, there are a number of challenges for our negotiators.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised the important issue of the necessity for us to eat more fish, and therefore questioned where it was going to come from. Historically, the UK has not eaten the fish caught by British fishermen: 80% is exported to other countries and four of the five biggest export countries are in the EU. Therefore, if we withdraw from the single market, as appears to be the Government’s intention, there is no guarantee of preferential access to that EU market in the years to come. In these circumstances, it seems almost inevitable that some tariffs will need to be paid. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, detailed the kinds of tariffs which have to be paid under the WTO trade schedules and which are paid by others. They vary from 2% to 20% and would have a significant impact on the profitability of UK fishing fleets, as they do for the Norwegian and Icelandic fleets, for example.

At the same time, we import the majority of fish which we consume within the UK, 32% of which comes from the EU. Potentially that imported fish, of which we all want to eat more, would also be subject to EU tariffs. Therefore, the cost to us of importing and exporting fish within the EU could adversely affect profitability unless a special deal is done, which is desirable but highly unlikely given both the lack of precedent for this type of agreement and the limited timeframe we will have to negotiate it. Therefore, will the noble Lord clarify how these negotiations will be structured? Will the Government seek a comprehensive UK-EU trade agreement, of which fisheries will be only a very small part, or will there be some separate negotiations purely Fisheries Minister to Fisheries Minister, if I can put it that way? If this is the case, has the Fisheries Minister had any initial conversations with his EU counterparts in the light of the fact that we do not have many precedents on which to base the discussions? Whatever strategy is adopted, what will happen if the negotiations are not completed within two years? Does he envisage a transitional agreement being put in place and, if so, what are its likely terms?

These negotiations will need to go well beyond trade and tariff agreements. Between 2014 and 2020, the EU allocated €243 million to the UK for sustainable fishing initiatives, diversifying coastal economies and training initiatives. As we know, many of our coastal communities are blighted by low pay and high unemployment, so these subsidies have been crucial to them. What will happen to those EU subsidies that they currently receive? The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations seems to think that this funding will continue post-Brexit. But, realistically, for how long are the Government able to guarantee these funds, and what will be the process for deciding priorities for subsidy post-Brexit? Perhaps the Minister could update us on the Government’s thinking on this issue, particularly in the light of the WTO restrictions on subsidies of this kind.

We then come to the issue of where our fishermen expect to be able to fish in future. During the referendum, lots of promises were made about reclaiming our waters and giving UK fishermen open access to our seas once more but, of course, this is not as simple as it first seems. As we have heard, the exclusive economic zones, when they were first agreed, took into account historical precedent of fishing activity around our shores. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, was right when he said that these arrangements cannot simply be ignored or be unilaterally cancelled when we have other international obligations which will also come into play. There would have to be a new deal with those countries claiming those historic rights.

There is a public perception of UK fishermen as brave and hardy trawlermen, and the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, captured the perils under which they operate extremely well, but, while our trawlermen are undoubtedly hard-working, the majority of the UK’s quotas have been allocated by the UK Fisheries Minister to large commercial fishing interests, which run huge factory ships off our shores. To complicate matters further, as my noble friend Lord Hanworth described, over a period, some of those vessels have been sold and are now owned by EU-based companies, giving them access to UK quotas—so-called quota hopping. I echo the question of several noble Lords to the Minister: can he clarify what will happen to those quotas post-Brexit? Will they be redistributed among UK-owned fleets, with an emphasis on supporting smaller enterprises, or will the Government continue to respect the current multinational ownership and involvement?

Finally, I hope that it goes without saying that we should continue to enforce genuine environmental and sustainability standards. The UK has played an important role in EU negotiations to strengthen the use of scientific evidence on the sustainability of fishing stock. Although that is not perfect, I believe that we have made progress in that area. I hope that we will continue to champion this approach and adopt it for our own total allowable catch limits and ensure that we continue the enforcement of a ban on discards. However, there may be other EU legislation that may no longer apply but is equally essential to sustainability in the longer term: for example, the EU’s marine strategy framework and the water framework directives, which act to keep areas where fish live in high-quality condition. I hope that the Minister can assure us that continued environmental protection in the broadest sense will be a priority for this Government and that the associated directives will be transposed unamended into UK law.

In conclusion, this report and today’s debate have once again underlined the complexities of the negotiating task ahead; the financial threat to our economy, if we are unable to secure favourable tariffs; and the fact that, whatever happens, we will need to be part of an ongoing international community if our global fish stocks are to be managed successfully. Sadly, I suspect that many people living and working in coastal communities will be unhappy with the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, because it simply will be unable to match the promises made during the campaign. In particular, this is why it is important that we do not hit a cliff edge, with all the detriment that could flow from that. It is also why it is important for everyone, including those coastal communities, to be kept informed of the progress of those negotiations.

I hope that, in responding, the Minister can indicate how the Government intend to keep us and those stakeholders with a direct interest in the loop as the discussions continue, so that there are no horrible surprises at the end of the process. I look forward to his response.

17:13

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and all members of the committee for holding this inquiry on such an important issue and for the thought-provoking and timely debate today. Fisheries will be a key area in the UK exit negotiations, which give us a once-in-a-generation chance to regenerate UK fishing grounds and improve the conditions under which they are finished.

The committee’s valuable report highlights some of the complex and challenging issues. It was quite right that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, used the words “complex and challenging”, as did the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I do not underestimate those challenges because they will clearly have to be addressed if we are to make the most of this opportunity, and I welcome the debate that the report has stimulated today and which I am sure it will continue to stimulate.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, also said, since time immemorial, fishing has been a key part of the national fabric of our island race, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our fishermen, who do such a difficult job in often dangerous conditions. My noble friend Lord Selkirk spoke powerfully and movingly about this. I know that noble Lords will join me in expressing sincere condolences and sympathy to the families and friends of fishermen who have lost their lives or are missing as a result of their work. We should never forget.

In the UK, the fishing, aquaculture and fish-processing sectors account for 34,600 jobs, and in 2015 UK vessels landed 708,000 tonnes of sea fish in the UK and abroad with a value of £775 million. The sector is economically significant to Scotland, where fish accounts for 3% of exports, as well as to local coastal communities across Wales, Northern Ireland and England. I was very pleased that my noble friend Lady Bloomfield expanded on the features of the Welsh fisheries industry and raised the issue of recreational sea angling, which is a very popular activity.

This Government take seriously their role in supporting the fishing industry. To deliver a profitable fishing industry, we must fish sustainably now and in future. This is why the UK has been at the forefront of arguments to ensure that catches are within sustainable scientific limits. In referring to some of the historical records and catches, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, framed this very strongly. The approach we have been taking has started to bear fruit, and I am pleased that in December, at the Fisheries Council, we were able to agree a balanced package, including further increases in quotas on some valuable species, as stocks have recovered, especially in the North Sea. This year, 1 January saw the implementation of the next phase of the landing obligation to include two additional species, North Sea cod, and north-western pollock, which must now be landed and should no longer be wastefully thrown back into the sea. This is an important step towards helping the UK achieve sustainable fishing levels by 2020.

As we move towards leaving the EU, we will continue to work as constructively as we have always done with other member states and the European Commission to promote sustainable management of the seas and to safeguard the interests of the industry. In leaving the European Union we have an opportunity to build on this work to improve the health of our fish stocks and to improve their management in our waters. We want to take this opportunity to create a resilient, competitive and, ultimately, more profitable UK seafood sector and to deliver a cleaner, healthier and more productive marine environment. I very much agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said: it is very important that we have a cleaner and healthier marine environment. I was also very interested to hear my noble friend Lord Ridley’s examples of best practice.

As the committee’s report indicates, leaving the EU and the common fisheries policy means a new legal baseline on fisheries. This is something to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred in his opening remarks. As an independent coastal state outside the EU, the UK will be fully responsible, under international law, for control of the waters in our exclusive economic zone—EEZ—and for the management of the resources within it, including fisheries. The Government will continue to champion sustainable fisheries. We are also committed to ongoing co-operation with other countries over the management of shared stocks. In future, our role in the annual setting of quotas will change fundamentally—something that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised—but our overall objective of championing sustainable fisheries and ending wasteful discards will be as strong as ever.

The committee’s report rightly points out that as an independent coastal state under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN fish stocks agreement, the UK will be required to manage the living resources in a sustainable way. This will include continued co-operation with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to produce the best possible stock assessments and working within regional fisheries management organisations, such as the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, and with neighbouring coastal states to ensure a fair share of quotas and proportionate and consistent enforcement measures. We will need to develop and implement a domestic fishing policy to do this. My noble friend Lady Wilcox referred to enforcement. We need to consider a wide range of issues, including how we would police an enlarged fishing zone and how that would be funded.

A number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, my noble friend Lord Ridley and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to quota hopping and historic rights. On quota hopping, we are aware that some sectors of the industry raised particular concerns about this. As the committee’s report rightly points out, this practice is possible because of the EU freedom of movement rules rather than the common fisheries policy. Issues of foreign ownership are indeed complex but we are looking at the rules on the economic link as part of the development of our future fisheries management arrangements.

The common fisheries policy has set the framework for managing fisheries since we joined the EU. Our exit will require the establishment of a sustainable fisheries management regime. Any UK regime we put in place will need to be underpinned by a legal framework. We are currently looking at the different options for doing this, and I assure your Lordships that we will consult on our plans when they have been further developed. We are working closely with the industry and other stakeholders to understand their priorities for reform. We are also looking closely at different fishing management regimes across the world to support the development of our policies in the UK. The committee heard from Iceland and Norway as part of the inquiry. We are keen to learn the lessons from these and other coastal states.

As a number of noble Lords highlighted in the debate, fisheries is a devolved matter which is important to all parts of the United Kingdom. My noble friends Lady Bloomfield, the Duke of Montrose and Lord Selkirk mentioned this, the latter two in particular in relation to Scotland, but I am very much aware of the interest in Northern Ireland as well. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, also mentioned the diversity within our islands: the different characteristics of fleets in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland reflecting the rich variety and abundance of species around different parts of our coast. Obviously, we must work—and are working—as closely as we have always done with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations and Crown dependencies as we develop our positions, and will ensure that their views are fully taken into account as negotiations move forward.

The committee rightly notes that even after we leave the EU, co-operation with it and other coastal states will remain of upmost importance. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. For instance, we will remain a signatory to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This makes clear that coastal states control fishing within their territorial waters and EEZ but also includes obligations to co-operate with other countries to manage shared fish stocks. For instance, I am aware—the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned this—that some EU member state vessels currently enjoy historic access rights to fish in some parts of the UK’s inshore waters under the 1964 London convention. The Government are also considering this issue very carefully and will seek to resolve it as soon as possible.

Whatever our approach on access to UK waters, we recognise that most of our commercial fish stocks are shared between UK waters and those of other EU and European coastal states. We will continue to co-operate with all parties when we leave the EU to ensure that our stocks are managed sustainably and that decisions are science-based.

As the committee’s report rightly indicates, the setting of total allowable catches in line with maximum sustainable yield is an important tool for ensuring sustainable fisheries. We have always pushed for evidence-based policy which reflects the very latest science, and we will continue to do so on leaving the EU. This was a particular point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, rightly raised. Sharing quota is also hugely important to prevent overfishing. Under the common fisheries policy, quota is shared using the so-called relative stability mechanism, but this is based on outdated information and has resulted in some perceived unfairness in the allocation of quota. We estimate that other European countries, both EU and third countries, such as Norway, fishing in the UK EEZ account for more than 1 million tonnes of fish compared to in the region of 150,000 tonnes for the UK fleet in EU waters and third-country waters—predominantly Norway again—so there is a significant imbalance. We have commissioned work by experts at Cefas to look at zonal attachment of fish stocks and spawning grounds. This work is not yet complete but will better inform future discussions. My noble friend Lady Wilcox referred to the desirable partnership between scientists and industry. The two are highly interdependent, and we will be working with both to determine how best they can work together under a new management regime.

The committee also pointed out that a key issue in the negotiations will be access to waters. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, explained, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, coastal states control access by other countries’ fishing vessels to their waters out to 200 nautical miles or, where appropriate, the median line with other countries. This will be the case for the UK when we leave the common fisheries policy and so will form the basis for negotiations on access to waters and share of quota. As recognised in the report, catching statistics suggest that other EU countries benefit considerably more from access to UK waters than we benefit from access to their waters. Our best estimate is that EU vessels caught 784,000 tonnes of fish worth £578 million in revenue in UK waters in 2014. EU vessels have a clear interest in preserving access to UK waters.

The committee noted the significance of trade. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, specifically mentioned trade. Discussions are ongoing about the kind of trading relationship we want with the EU after we leave. We know how important market access is to the industry, a point which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, rightly raised. The catching and processing sectors export around £900 million-worth of fish to EU countries every year. The processing sector imports significant amounts of fish from the EU as raw material. It will therefore be crucial to secure access for imports and exports so that these sectors can continue to operate effectively in the EU marketplace.

I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for highlighting what a wonderfully nutritious source of food fish is. It was interesting that we had not reflected that this is a wonderful resource for our diet. It is essential that we ensure that it is a sustainable source.

We are committed to securing a balanced deal for British fishermen and processors, and we are already working closely with colleagues across government to taking our vital fishing interests forward. On leaving the EU, a key priority will be to take our own seat at the table in future international negotiations where the EU currently leads. An example is the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The UK fleet benefits from significant pelagic fishing opportunities for species such as mackerel, herring and blue whiting under the coastal states agreements brokered by that commission. Indeed, the western mackerel fishery is the single most important for the UK fleet both by volume and value. In 2015, the UK fleet landed approximately 250,000 tonnes of fish with a value of around £160 million.

We will also be able to negotiate with fellow coastal states. The EU-Norway agreement remains the most important fishery agreement to the UK, with an estimated total annual value to the UK fleet of around £220 million in 2015. The agreement with the Faroe Islands provides additional opportunities to the UK fleet. I assure the Committee that Defra is aware in all these matters of the scale of the challenges and has already taken steps to ensure that suitable resources are in place to meet them. Not only have your Lordships had excellent officials working on this inquiry, but it has been my privilege to work with and see the many officials working on these matters at Defra. We are lucky to have such an outstanding team of officials.

It is very clear that there is a huge level of interest in the future of the UK’s fishing grounds and its industry as we leave the EU. We will continue to engage with all interests and take all views into account as we prepare for exit negotiations and begin to put new management measures in place. As your Lordships’ report rightly highlights, leaving the EU raises a number of complex issues for fisheries. We should be under no illusions that the discussions will be easy, but the negotiations also present great opportunities to set a future direction for sustainable fisheries which support our coastal communities.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee for producing this really very insightful report as we proceed to negotiations. This is the first in a series of reports, and it was a great privilege to study and consider it—and it is very clear from all the remarks that have been made that it has been an outstanding committee, drawing together the expertise and knowledge which, I have to say, has always struck me as being of the essence of your Lordships’ House. The report flags up many crucial issues, such as the clear importance of working with international partners and, as I have said and many noble Lords have said also, the absolute imperative to manage our fish stocks sustainably. The sustainable management of fish stocks is the most crucial part that we need to reflect on. After all, if we do not look after our fish stocks, how will our fishing industry do all the things that we want it to do and provide that extraordinary resource of food? We have a responsibility to get this right and international commitments to maintain a healthy marine environment, which we will honour.

I can understand your Lordships wanting to know more—I probably would like to know more—but in answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on arrangements, we are about to start negotiations, and it would be wrong of me or the rest of the Government to set out unilateral positions in advance, including what transitional measures might be. But I well understand your Lordships’ consuming interest in this. Over the coming months we will be devoting all our energies to securing the future of a vibrant UK industry and managing the stocks of fish in our waters. It is a complex matter, and this report has been of enormous value, as we work for a successful outcome—not only domestically, but internationally too.

17:34

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very thoughtful reply and as I said, I also thank the Minister in the other place, George Eustice. In this area we have had more back from the Government in terms of intention, if not so much of evidence, than we have in many others. That is valuable and will help the industry to be more hopeful and confident about the way things might turn out.

Like others, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, for again bringing to our attention the fact that this is the most dangerous industry in terms of lives lost and injuries sustained. I have known people who have suffered in this regard.

The common fisheries policy is one of the most technical policy areas, and I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate for getting underneath its skin. Believe me, it makes the common agricultural policy look easy, and there are not many things you can say that about. The Minister mentioned quotahopping—Defra may say, “That is not our problem, it is BEIS’s problem”—and historic rights, which are very much a constitutional area. Those issues will have to be resolved but that will be very hard to do, and we do not necessarily know what is happening about that.

I particularly thank the non-committee members who have contributed to the debate—the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bloomfield. It is good to have a Welsh input, because I have to admit that we did not have a strong Welsh input on the committee. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I absolutely agree about information technology and fisheries, but sometimes it is the other side which resists that in practice, not the bureaucrats. I say that from the heart. I of course thank our clerk, Celia Stenderup-Petersen, as has everybody else, who drew the report together excellently.

Finally, it seems to me there are two fundamental challenges. First, the fishing industry should not be forgotten about again. There was little forgiveness the first time that happened: if it happens a second time, there will be no forgiveness whatever. The second issue concerns a point made by our Norwegian witness. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, mentioned individual transferable quotas, which I have long advocated to a certain degree. Some time ago I visited New Zealand, which has some of the best regimes, as does Iceland. Both those countries operate that system. However, if you do not stratify those regimes, you have a total concentration of the industry. It always helps if you have your own continental shelf, as those two nations do. However, New Zealand probably has about four fishing companies with about six vessels each. It is a fantastically successful industry but with very few participants. I am not against that but, as our Norwegian colleague said, the Government need to decide what sort of policy they want. Do they want a policy like Norway’s, that looks after coastal communities, or one like Iceland’s, that looks for total efficiency and GDP? That decision will have to be made.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.38 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Monday 16 January 2017

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Death of a Former Member: Earl of Snowdon

Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:37

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death on 13 January of the Earl of Snowdon. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Earl’s family and friends.

Royal Assent

Royal Assent (Hansard)
Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

14:37

The following Acts were given Royal Assent:

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Act,

Savings (Government Contributions) Act.

Assisted Dying: Legislation

Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Baroness Meacher]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill capacitous adults, with appropriate safeguards.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, the short Answer to the Question is no. Like previous Governments, we have always made it clear that such legislation is a matter for Parliament, not the Government. When the other House considered a Bill to legalise assisted dying in September 2015, it rejected it by 330 votes to 118.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As he indicated, there has never been a Government-supported Bill on this issue. The Minister will be aware of Noel Conway, a terminally ill mentally capacitous patient who is taking his case to the High Court and, no doubt, ultimately to the Supreme Court. Noel is challenging the current law, which denies him his fundamental human right, when his suffering becomes unbearable, to have help to achieve a dignified death. Does the Minister agree with the 82% of the population and the 86% of disabled people who support Mr Conway and want a change in the law so that when their turn comes to face death, they can live their last months in peace, safe in the knowledge that if their suffering becomes unbearable, they can have professional help to end it? Will the Minister seek the support of his colleagues for an ethical Bill along these lines in the future?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, it remains the Government’s view that any change to the law in this area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide, rather than one for government policy. I am aware of the case of Noel Conway. As it is now in court, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the circumstances of that case.

[Lord Ribeiro (Con)]

My Lords, this subject has been debated in this House on many occasions and, as my noble and learned friend said, has been rejected. Should it ever be considered again, it is important that the medical profession be excluded. The majority of doctors do not wish to be associated with taking life. Their responsibility is to save lives. While it is possible that there are those who might volunteer to undertake such a task, it is important that it should not be legislated that the majority of doctors are required to undertake it.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I note what the noble Lord has said and understand the reasoning behind his observations. I can reiterate only that this Government do not intend at this time to legislate in respect of this matter.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government may be aware that I have had to watch both my late wife and my father die a lingering death. Can I suggest that the Government need to accept responsibility for this matter? They should not duck the decision to give people the opportunity to make this important decision about how they die.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

Again, I can understand the noble Lord’s interest and concern in respect of this matter but I would observe that Parliament has twice addressed this issue in the recent past and has determined not to relax the provisions of Section 2 of the Suicide Act.

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the campaign to legalise assisted suicide or assisted dying is not supported by one single organisation for people with progressive conditions, including the motor neurone disease organisation and the MS Trust, the very people who would be the main beneficiaries of assisted dying, and that growing numbers of disabled people and their organisations are campaigning against such a Bill because they feel that it is desperately unsafe?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I entirely understand the noble Baroness’s observations in this context. The whole question of risk associated with such legislation was addressed by the Supreme Court when it opined in 2014 in the case of Nicklinson and Lamb. The President of the Supreme Court and Lord Sumption both observed that the data on risk were plainly way short of establishing that there was no risk in such legislation. Lord Sumption went on to observe that there were further societies engaged in this area which had clear reservations about the development of any legislation on this matter.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the CPS updated its policy in cases of assisted suicide in February 2010 and in October 2014. Whereas I well understand the reluctance to change any particular legislation, will the Minister consider in consultation with his colleagues and the CPS what further reforms are necessary in relation to the CPS policy on assisted dying?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the matter of CPS policy must be left to the CPS to determine independently of Parliament. It is not for government to dictate what that policy, which is regularly reviewed, should be. For example, in the period from 2009 to 2016 the very large majority of cases referred to the CPS were not proceeded with in the context of prosecution.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have to be very chary of these surveys that support the subject in hand? For instance, one survey stated that 96% of the British people wished for a pain-free death. Does that not leave us wondering what the other 4% wanted?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, it may be that the other 4% were not referring to themselves. Nevertheless, it is of course important that any such surveys should be carried out rigorously and by reference to defined terms, otherwise their results can be misleading.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, are the Government concerned that in an overburdened health service with a large number of old people, there is a considerable risk to the attitudes of healthcare staff within the NHS?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I do not believe that any challenges faced by our health staff in hospitals will alter their view as to issues of life and death. I do not believe that for one moment.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, the Supreme Court judgment in 2014 that the Minister quoted a moment ago, among other things, implied very strongly that the current law is incompatible with human rights legislation and hinted that Parliament should resolve this issue, otherwise the courts themselves would. If there is an incompatibility between the blanket ban on assisted dying and human rights legislation, should it not be resolved in Parliament rather than by judges?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, in the case of Nicklinson, the Supreme Court determined by a majority of seven to two that there should be no declaration of incompatibility with the convention on human rights. It did of course observe that this was a matter that should be looked at by Parliament, and since that judgment, it has been looked at by Parliament on two distinct and separate occasions. Parliament has expressed its views on this matter.

New Art Gallery

Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:46

Asked by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will take steps to ensure the future of the New Art Gallery, Walsall.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government support arts and culture in Walsall through investment by Arts Council England, which is currently working closely with Walsall Council and local cultural organisations on the New Art Gallery’s future, helping culture to continue to flourish in Walsall. Arts Council England met the council in December and awaits the gallery’s application to the national portfolio. Arts Council England has agreed in principle up to £12,000 match funding to explore potential new fundraising and philanthropy opportunities and governance and management models.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, when are the Government going to allow councils enough money to do their job properly? The threat of closure of our regional museums is the direct result of continuing cuts to local government funding. Would the Minister agree that if the New Art Gallery Walsall, a museum of international stature, were to close, it would be a terrible waste of a significant public investment, not least for a region which in these times needs as much support as possible?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

Of course I agree that it would be a terrible waste of the considerable amount of public money that Arts Council England has put into the New Art Gallery. That is why it is working very hard to prevent exactly that occurring. We want to find new methods of joint partnership arrangements, not only with Arts Council England but with other local organisations, to enable art galleries such as the New Art Gallery to continue.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the New Art Gallery Walsall was absolutely fundamental to the regeneration of Walsall town centre, that it houses a world-renowned collection and that it was a brilliant example of collaboration between the local authority, the art gallery and the Government—not forgetting the European Union, which put substantial money into it—would it not be an act of cultural vandalism if it were not allowed and encouraged to survive?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I completely agree that it is a very good thing that local arts organisations are absolutely key to the regeneration and ongoing prosperity of an area. Just to put the amount of money we are talking about in Walsall into perspective, the proposed reduction is £163,000 a year in the next year, but Arts Council England is putting in nearly five times as much as that—£880,000.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I add my plea to those of the noble Earl and the other speaker and the thousands of people in the Walsall area in the West Midlands who, like me, have been inspired and delighted by this literally state-of-the-art gallery, which is only 15 years old. I suggest that this is not necessarily the moment to cast blame on the local council, which in turn is blaming the government cuts, or central government, who are squeezing council budgets. However, the people of Walsall have very little in the way of cultural facilities to inspire them. I ask the Minister to please use his creativity to help us to find a solution.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

DMCS is working with Arts Council England to try to address these problems and get some kind of partnership with other organisations. However, there are other examples of local councils that are suffering from cuts, as all local councils have. For example, in Stoke-on-Trent, which is a place that several noble Lords may be visiting soon, the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery was awarded £300,000 to support local arts and cultural organisations, led by Stoke-on-Trent City Council, to team up with partners including Visit Stoke and the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery. That is an example of where joint working together can make a difference.

[Lord Harrison (Lab)]

Given that the birthplace of Jerome K Jerome was Walsall, perhaps the Government could do a bit better than “three men in a boat” in actually supporting these important sculptural, as well as painting, collections.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I have already said that the Government are putting in a considerable amount of money. In the last five years, I think we have spent £12 million in the area of Walsall.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, while endorsing everything that has been said about the Walsall gallery, which I know, I ask my noble friend to reflect that local authorities are under great pressure all over the country. Can something be done fairly expeditiously to try to ensure that other galleries currently under threat do not go under? If we deprive people of the spiritual sustenance that galleries and museums bring, we are impoverishing them.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I completely agree with my noble friend. That is why the DCMS culture White Paper was so keen on highlighting the importance to local communities of the arts and heritage sector. However, it is right that when difficult decisions are made, they should be made by local people, not centrally by Ministers.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Could the Minister confirm that if there is a problem sufficient to force the closure of this wonderful gallery, the Arts Council will not be obliged to withdraw its match funding of at least £900,000 a year or—this is really important—to claw back some of the initial capital grant towards the building and the £500,000 refurbishment that it had recently?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The Arts Council funding is a partnership. In what I sincerely hope is the unlikely event of it closing, obviously there would be a problem in giving that money to an art gallery that was not open. However, I do not want to think about that. There is a very good incentive for local partners to keep this very good art gallery going. It has some amazing and world-class art in it, and it should be encouraged.

Animal Welfare: Penalties

Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:53

Asked by

[Baroness Parminter]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to increase the penalties for animal welfare offences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, while there are no current proposals to increase the maximum penalties for animal welfare offences, the Government want to see courts use the range of penalties available. We will continue to keep the maximum penalties for animal welfare offences under review.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that reply. The maximum sentence available for extreme and premeditated cruelty is six months. We lag behind the rest of mainland Europe and Northern Ireland, whose maximum sentence is five years. Given that the EFRA Select Committee has now recommended a rise to five years, is it not time that the sentence matched the crime?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, obviously I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness. Some of the examples of animal cruelty cases are, frankly, beyond belief, and that is why I am very pleased that the independent Sentencing Council aims to ensure that the most serious cases of animal cruelty could receive longer sentences within the maximum six months’ imprisonment. The council is currently considering the consultation responses, and will draft the definitive guideline with publication due later this year.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, while it is important that we increase sanctions for animal welfare offences, sanctions are but nothing without enforcement. At the minute, there is no statutory requirement for local authorities or the police to enforce animal welfare legislation. Have the Government any plans to introduce such a statutory requirement?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, there are no current plans, but imprisonment is not the only penalty, and I think that is important. The increase to an unlimited fine, community service orders and orders disqualifying people from ownership of dogs and animals for life are among the range of penalties, which I think are also very important if we are to address this matter.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Do the Government intend to issue updated guidance under the Animal Welfare Act to bear down more decisively on the appalling practice of puppy farming?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, on what my noble friend has said about puppy farming and indeed, other matters to do with animals, it is very important that the Animal Welfare Act is applied. It is one of the most advanced pieces of legislation in the world. It was reviewed in 2010-11 and, obviously, I and my honourable friend Sam Gyimah in the other place would consider and review anything that we felt was not addressing the situation.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, last week I joined a cross-party group of Peers and MPs who wrote to the Secretary of State calling for a total ban on ivory sales, to prevent the needless and cruel slaughter of African elephants. The recent Great Elephant Census showed a decline in their numbers of 30% over seven years. While the Government have taken some steps to ban newer ivory imports, it is clear that only a total ban can prevent that cruel trade from continuing. Will the Minister agree to take back our plea for a total ban on ivory imports to prevent elephants becoming an endangered species, which would be a great regret?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, whether it is elephants, rhinos or any animals becoming endangered, it is our generation’s responsibility to ensure that they continue to have their place in the natural world. Of course, this country has been one of the leaders on the ivory matter and, in fact, we have said that there should be a ban on ivory sales for up to 70 years—before 1947, they are deemed to be antiques. It is very important that that is part of our arrangements.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has raised the issue of endangered species. Is he concerned about the paucity of the level of sentencing in cases where people are caught persecuting and killing endangered species of birds? Have the Government considered switching the responsibility from possibly the gamekeeper to the landowner?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, obviously all these matters are already subject to the law. No, there has been no consideration about moving liability to other than where it is now. We think that we have a robust law in place. Obviously, as I have said, if any issues needed to be reviewed, we would do so.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, has any relevant body actually said that it is against the increase in the penalties and, if so, on what grounds?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, it would be fair to say that most animal welfare organisations would like an increase. However, when I reflect on this, in Northern Ireland, which has been mentioned, of the 66 convictions between 2012 and 2016, only one offender received a prison sentence of more than six months, which was suspended. I have already mentioned the independent sentencing guidelines. With an average custodial sentence of 3.3 months, we are looking to see whether there are ways in which magistrates can have enhanced guidelines.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not true that when one looks into the past of many of those who have been found guilty of either torturing or killing human beings, they have done exactly the same to animals, and there is a linkage?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

Cruelty, whether it is to our fellow human beings or to animals is equally reprehensible. There have been such connections, and that is why I think some of the remedies other than imprisonment have been very important, including, in the community orders, things such as programmes to change behaviour, exclusion, curfew, drug treatment and mental health treatment. There are a number of ways in which we can help.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, further to the question of my noble friend Lord Trees, I was recently involved in a case of animal cruelty and was told that, while trading standards have the power to prosecute, they do not have the funds. I understand that this happens particularly with farm animals and that farmers are just advised rather than prosecuted.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is very clear. Anyone who has any concerns about animal cruelty cases should, of course, report them to the local authority or the police.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, badger baiting was the most despicable crime, but does my noble friend agree that, where a list is drafted to put species such as bats or newts on to a protected basis, this should be reviewed at least every seven years? When was such a review last undertaken by the department?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I will have to look into my noble friend’s precise question. Obviously, it is good practice that all laws should be kept under review.

Brexit: Single Market and Workers’ Rights

Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

15:01

Tabled by

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what response they have given to the request made by the TUC General Secretary on 7 December that the United Kingdom secure full European Union Single Market membership to protect workers’ rights.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, we do not need to be part of the EU single market to have strong protection for workers’ rights. The Government will not roll back EU rights in the workplace. All workers’ rights enjoyed under EU law will be preserved by the great repeal Bill and will be brought across into UK law.

[Viscount Waverley]

My Lords, on behalf of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, I thank the Minister for his reply, which follows on from the article by the Prime Minister in the 8 January edition of the Sunday Telegraph. The Minister has touched on this, but will he go one step further and reassure the House and the TUC that all the relevant directives will be contained in the great repeal Bill?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that, under this Government, workers’ rights will not be eroded and will be not just protected but enhanced. The Government’s commitment is absolutely clear. As we regain sovereignty over these issues it will be up to subsequent Parliaments to make these decisions themselves.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, it is a sad day when the TUC no longer has faith in the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and this British Parliament to defend the rights of British workers. Is it not the case that British workers enjoy rights far beyond EU requirements, for example in respect of maternity pay?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

Yes, there are many examples where people who work in the UK have stronger rights than those guaranteed in the EU. Maternity rights are one case and rights to statutory leave are another example.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, can I probe a bit harder about how robust these assurances about the great reform Bill are? At the weekend, the Chancellor said that if the EU takes a hard approach to the negotiations, the British Government are going to have to go downmarket and undercut our EU neighbours on corporate tax. Will the same thing not happen on labour standards? Is there not a big risk that the Government will be forced by the logic of Brexit into undercutting and beggar-thy-neighbour policies?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, it would be a huge misjudgment and mistake for any British Government to think that eroding the rights of UK workers and making them less engaged and productive would contribute in any way to us being more competitive. In the same way that we want to have low tax rates, we want to have a fully engaged and well-trained workforce.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister confirmed, the Prime Minister has agreed that all workers’ rights enshrined in EU law will be transferred into UK law—but then “where practical” was added. Which workers’ rights cannot be practically transferred into UK law?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

Off the cuff, I cannot think of any rights that would fall into the area of “not practical”. The Prime Minister went further: she is committed, as is our whole industrial strategy, to bringing decent, well-paid, skilled jobs to Britain, including to many parts of the country where they have been sadly depleted over many years.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, do the Government agree that it is the single market which imposes Brussels’ overregulation on the 90% of our economy that does not sell into it? Do the Government know how many jobs that has cost us over the years?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I cannot answer that question specifically. Clearly, being part of the single market has increased the number of jobs in this country. The Prime Minister is making a speech tomorrow about global Britain, and we are absolutely clear, being part of the global economy, that we believe fully in free trade and that our country must become more competitive.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, should trade union leaders not be very careful about calling for the United Kingdom to remain in the single market when that brings with it free movement of labour, and so many of their members voted leave because they were alarmed by unlimited immigration?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My noble friend raises an interesting point, which I think many trade union leaders recognise. Unquestionably, there are parts of the country where high levels of immigration have undermined the wage rates of local people. I think we would all agree that one of the benefits of having control over our immigration policy is that we can have a policy which is more directly suited to our requirements.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, why is it that I find it very difficult to believe every word that I have just heard from the Minister? It sounds great, and I am sure that parsnips are waiting to be buttered in order to benefit from that, but it is really not a very convincing argument from the party that brought forward the Trade Union Bill in the last Session. Is this not really about what we will be negotiating for? In its brilliant paper the TUC has no problem in setting out what the UK negotiating position should be—why can the Government not do so?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I think the Prime Minister, in a speech tomorrow, will be setting out the strategic objectives of our negotiations and what we are trying to get out of the negotiations that will take place over the next two years. It would be foolish of me to speculate in any more detail today about what those objectives are.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

Given the reality of the global economy, surely the only effective way of protecting employees’ rights is through international agreements? To avoid international agreements is merely to undermine the sovereignty of this country.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, there are many other aspects apart from international agreements. When one looks at the performance of the UK economy, what absolutely stands out above all else is that in many industries our productivity levels are too low. Increasing productivity in this country, partly through better training and skills but also through more investment in the research base of this country, is the best way to increase our trade overseas.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that I get very confused at times, being a simple-minded fellow, about all these rights that people keep talking about? Is it not the case, for instance, that in the United States Volkswagen has pleaded guilty to criminal misconduct about emissions, has paid a fine of nearly £4 billion and has offered consumers more than £12 billion in compensation? Yet in the EU, with all our rights for consumers and everybody else, so far the consumer has been offered absolutely nothing. Can he clear up my confusion and tell me why?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I fear that clearing up my noble friend’s confusion might take me longer than I have this afternoon. There is no doubt that consumers have very strong rights in the US and that having a very strong, competitive market is probably the best way to ensure that companies such as Volkswagen behave properly.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:08

Clause 11: Scheme funder requirements

Amendment

Moved by

[Lord Henley]

Clause 11, page 7, line 16, at end insert—
“( ) The regulations may include provision— (a) setting out requirements relating to the audit of accounts;(b) applying some or all of the provisions of Parts 15 and 16 of the Companies Act 2006 (accounts and report; audit), with or without modifications.”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, this is a technical amendment and simply clarifies the scope of the regulation-making power in Clause 11 to ensure it meets the policy intention. Clause 11(4) provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations setting out requirements relating to a scheme funder’s accounts. The Government have always intended that the power would enable regulations to be made requiring scheme funders to produce full audited annual accounts, if they are not otherwise required to do so—for instance, in accordance with the Companies Act 2006. This is set out in the delegated powers memorandum, which has been published. However, it was brought to our attention that specific provision about audit in existing legislation might cast doubt on the breadth of the power, so this amendment is intended to put that position beyond any doubt.

The Secretary of State will be able to require in regulations, where appropriate, that scheme funders’ accounts must be audited. This is an important clarification because the scheme funder’s accounts, along with the scheme accounts and the business plan, will provide key financial information on which the Pensions Regulator will base its assessment of the master trust’s financial sustainability. The scheme funder’s accounts will enable the regulator to monitor the scheme funder’s financial position and assess the strength of any financial commitment to the master trust set out in the business plan. Requiring the accounts to be audited ensures that the scheme funder’s financial position is independently verified by a qualified auditor.

The amendment makes it clear that the regulation-making power may be used to apply some or all of the provisions in Parts 15 and 16 of the Companies Act 2006, which relate to the preparation and auditing of accounts and other related matters in respect of different types of scheme funders. Having this flexibility will enable the Secretary of State to take account of the range of master trust structures and financial arrangements with their scheme funders.

Before I conclude, I offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate for the generally positive approach they have taken during the passage of the Bill. I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Freud has already offered his thanks to all who have been involved in the Bill. However, as he moves on to pastures new, I echo those thanks and offer my thanks to him and to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for the help they have given me and for ensuring that I was appropriately briefed for this final and, I hope, rather short stage. We all trust that another place will be able to give it equally effective scrutiny, as it always manages to do.

To conclude, the amendment is intended to ensure that the scope of the regulation-making power in Clause 11(4) is wide enough to enable the policy to operate as intended. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment from Her Majesty’s Government, as I very much welcome the Bill. However, it still raises the outstanding problem in Clause 10, on scheme funding. The point is that a master trust can, if it so chooses, be treated as a separate legal entity and, as the Bill stands, can still transfer the risk to another entity. That remains one of the problem areas, because solvency for any of these master trusts is absolutely vital to current and future pensioners. I place on the record that although what we have heard this afternoon is an improvement, it does not solve that problem.

While I am on my feet, there is still concern from insurance companies that run master trusts that, under the Bill, they may be required to keep separate solvency requirements for the master trust element of their business when the majority must already comply with Solvency II financial regulations, which are extremely stringent and ought to be enough to cover any of the required security for their master trust business.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I echo some of my noble friend’s concerns. I welcome the Minister to his position and wish him much success.

Obviously, I welcome the Bill, which is much needed. It is vital that we protect members’ pensions and ensure that accumulated savings are safe in the event that the master trust scheme fails. Therefore, I broadly welcome the measures in the Bill. However, having engaged with Ministers to try to tidy up some important points to ensure that the Bill works as intended and needed without serious side-effects, I would like to place on record some issues that still require attention.

15:15

There are three substantive points now that the amendment passed last time on tail-risk insurance is included and will go to the other place. First, the provisions that could see master trust members stripped of their pension rights during a pause order need to be reconsidered. It cannot be right that just because the regulator has some concerns about the scheme they are in, the law should override members’ legal and contractual entitlements to pension accrual and impose an effective pay cut on them. During the pause order, members’ and employers’ pension contributions, together with the tax relief, should still be collected and accrued rather than lost forever, as the Bill would permit. Pause orders could last for a long time, even if that is not the intention.

Secondly, it is strange, as my noble friend has just indicated, that the Government are not making special provisions for master trusts already backed by an insurance company that meets PRA capital adequacy and solvency requirements. These are tougher than those that will be imposed by the regulator on master trusts. Such insurance company master trusts can run at lower costs and are generally more secure than they would be if backed by a stand-alone business entity instead of a multi-pronged larger business. As things stand, the Bill’s requirement for a separate company to back each master trust will impose higher costs on both providers and members, while in many cases also reducing the security of insurance-backed master trusts.

Thirdly, the requirements in Clause 25(4)—which I know the Government are consulting on—relating to bulk transfers, need, perhaps, to be relaxed. For some time the pensions industry and pensions lawyers have been calling for a more appropriate transfer regime for DC schemes. However, the current wording could make the DC to DC bulk transfer process much worse than the current DB-based rules because it is so prescriptive.

Finally, there are two issues that have not been included in the Bill at all, which is rather a missed opportunity. I will just mention them here and hope that they may be followed up in the other place. One is the plight of plumbers who are facing personal bankruptcy due to the draconian Section 75 debt requirements of non-associated multi-employer schemes, which force remaining employers to buy annuities for workers they have never employed, while other employers have walked away or left.

The second is the issue of net pay schemes, which impose an extra 25% charge on the pension contributions of their lowest-paid members. While we are drawing up requirements for master trusts and assessing their adequacy, surely we need to ensure that master trusts treat their lower-paid workers equitably and find ways to give the tax relief to these staff if they have a net pay structure. The Treasury could also help here by allowing schemes to claim tax relief for these low-paid workers; the current situation, whereby the lowest earners can be denied the 25% government bonus they would have in another scheme without being warned, must be addressed.

On the whole I welcome the Bill and I thank the Ministers for their hard work in putting it to the House.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend of many years’ standing, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. She is an expert on these things and is right that opportunities have been missed and there are still some bits of unfinished business. However, the House has acquitted itself well in the consideration so far. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to his post. Those of us with long memories remember that he has been in this role before, so he is not without experience in these matters and our expectations of him are extremely high. I wish him well in his new responsibilities. I am sure he will continue his predecessor’s attempts at making sure that Members of this House are fully briefed on some of the technical provisions that we still have to deal with.

The Government were right to bring forward amendments to change a lot of the first-time affirmative resolutions and procedures for the statutory instruments that flow from some of these provisions. In passing, I note that this amendment to Clause 11 would introduce a negative procedure. I hope that is sensible, because the more affirmative instruments we get, the better our chance of understanding what is being brought before us. Despite that, I agree with the amendment as it stands.

I hope—this is merely a request for a repeat of an undertaking that was given earlier—that the Government will bring forward an updated impact assessment when, later this year and in 2018, we consider the secondary legislation that flows from this primary legislation. The impact assessment and the continuation of the consideration of the fine print of the provisions are still required to make sure that the Bill achieves its purposes in a way that is fair to all. In the process, I hope that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, the other place can pick up some of the opportunities that have been missed during the Bill’s consideration in this House. However, I wish the Bill well and I hope we continue to have the constructive and positive relationship with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that we had with his predecessor.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to his role, even at this 12th hour on the Bill.

We certainly do not oppose the amendment. As explained, it is intended to put beyond doubt the ability to introduce regulations relating to audit, particularly in relation to scheme funders, which under the Companies Act are not required to provide audited accounts. Perhaps for the record the Minister can set out the nature of scheme funders which might fall into this category. Presumably they could be partnerships, entities incorporated overseas or smaller entities, although I am not sure how they might feature in these arrangements. Can he also tell us whether it is planned to use these powers differentially in respect of scheme funders that fund benefits other than money purchase benefits? As an adjunct to that, we very much share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, about how Clause 11, as it will now be, will work.

As the Bill passes to the other place, it is time to offer our thanks to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for the courteous and inclusive manner in which he has handled the Bill. We look forward to the same from the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on subsequent Bills. We have already given our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for the role that he played. This is a narrow Bill but one with significant implications, which is why we want to see it make speedy progress. It has not been the easiest Bill to scrutinise, given the combination of the technical nature of its subject matter and the raft of regulation-making powers that it contains, but we have seen a Government in listening mode in some respects—although of course not all, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, identified some of those.

I should take this opportunity to thank my noble friends who have participated in our deliberations—in particular, my noble friend Lady Drake for the expertise and precision that she has brought to our work. We trust that the important amendment concerning the scheme funder of last resort which she pressed on the Government will endure.

I also express our thanks to the Liberal Democrats, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, the government Back Benches for their constructive approach, and indeed the Cross Benches. We have seen a Bill team who are thoroughly on top of their brief and have patiently spent time explaining to us aspects of the Bill which might otherwise have fallen on stony ground. Taking this matter forward now falls to the tender mercies of our colleagues in the other place.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their very kind words and in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for his high expectations of me in replacing my noble friend Lord Freud. If I do only half as well as my noble friend, I think I will be doing pretty well—I hope the House accepts that I will try my best. I can also confirm to the noble Lord that impact assessments will be updated for the new regulations. The timing for the formal consultation on the draft regulations will obviously depend on a number of factors, but we would expect that the initial consultation will take place some time in the autumn of this year.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for not opposing the amendment. He had a number of questions, particularly in relation to scheme funders and I would prefer to write to him about those. He also asked whether the Government were going to table an amendment on scheme funders of a master trust that offers both money purchase and non-purchase benefits. I can confirm that they intend to table such an amendment and that can be a matter for another place.

My noble friends Lord Naseby and Lady Altmann raised concerns that go wider than this simple amendment, which merely relates to audit. Those matters can be considered and no doubt, will be noted by my noble friends when they take this Bill through another place. As I said in my introductory remarks, I expect another place, as always, to look at this Bill with its usual due diligence and I am sure that it will take note of the comments made by both my noble friends. If it can assist them, I shall try to write to them before that, but everything they have said will be noted by my honourable and right honourable friends. With that, I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in thanking all those who have been involved in this Bill.

Amendment agreed.

A privilege amendment was made.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day)

15:28

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 2: General duties

Amendment 60

Moved by

[Lord Storey]

60: Clause 2, page 2, line 8, at end insert—
“( ) In giving guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must have due regard to any advice given to the Secretary of State by the OfS.”

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, who is not well, I shall move this amendment and speak to this group. We wish her a speedy recovery. The Bill proposes to reverse the current legal position that prevents Ministers giving guidance and directions about particular courses of study. We have been told that the power is needed to resolve an existing legal lack of clarity about the Secretary of State’s power to communicate his—in this case—priorities. While the Government’s amendment means that the Secretary of State cannot now guide or direct the Office for Students to prevent the closure of existing courses or the creation of new ones, it will, nevertheless, still allow the Secretary of State to decide, in part, what subjects should be funded.

Although most funding for teaching will come from fees backed by student loans, direct funding from the Office for Students is essential to meet the additional costs of subjects that are expensive to teach; for example, chemistry and engineering, et cetera. The Bill would give the Secretary of State a new power to tell the Office for Students not to fund a particular subject if that subject cost more to teach than the maximum fee that the university was allowed to charge. This goes significantly beyond the current power to give general directions about ministerial priorities, which the Funding Council translates into allocations to universities.

With these proposed amendments, Ministers would still be able to give the Office for Students guidance and direction about their priorities for the funding available but the final decisions on funding for high-cost subjects would be taken by the Office for Students, as they are now by the Funding Council. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group to which I have added my name and those that have come from the Cross Benches—Amendments 69 and 510—on which I think we will be hearing shortly. These amendments come out of the report from the Delegated Powers Committee, which claims that the wide range of functions that are now being conferred on the Office for Students will give it the ability to bring change to the whole of the higher education sector. We consider that the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 2 will act as a significant control over how the Office for Students exercises its functions. However, we cannot guarantee that Secretaries of State will always be wise and non-interventionist, and I think that these amendments will provide much-needed safeguards in the Bill.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 65 and 510 in this group were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who is unable to be with us today. I wish to make a few comments in support of those amendments.

The concept of quasi-legislation—the generation of rules and guidance by public authorities—is not new. However, the use of such quasi-legislation appears to be growing: it is convenient to government, it provides some degree of flexibility and it may also put it beyond legislative scrutiny and approval unless provision is made for such scrutiny and approval.

This Bill is of extreme importance. It creates a body, the Office for Students, that is much more powerful than HEFCE. The functions that it draws together are quite substantial and extensive. They enable the OfS, essentially, to shape the nature of higher education. That in itself raises issues which we will be discussing further. However, here, under Clause 2(2), we have the power to give guidance but without any transparency and with no parliamentary involvement. That matters, especially in the context of this Bill. Through the power to give guidance, the Minister may, effectively, usurp the power of the OfS. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will say that guidance will be rare and benign, but there is nothing to stop a future Secretary of State with less than benign intent using the power on a scale that is significant, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

As the noble Baroness has just said, this provision has been commented on by the Delegated Powers Committee. It stressed that there is no parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance and no requirement for it to be published. In response to the Government’s defence of the provision, the committee goes on to say:

“We are wholly unconvinced by the Department’s reasons”.


That includes, as I have already stressed, the fact that the remit of the OfS goes far broader than HEFCE, and the guidance that the Minister can give to HEFCE has no statutory basis.

The committee also makes the point, of course, that the requirement for the OfS to “have regard to” guidance rather limits it. The Office for Students could, if it had cogent reasons, discard the guidance. However, there would have to be compelling reasons for that, and, as the Delegated Powers Committee points out, under Clause 71(1), the Secretary of State has the power to give the OfS “general directions” about the performance of its functions.

There is a powerful case for ensuring there is parliamentary scrutiny and engagement in respect of the power to give guidance—that is the purpose of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. Other provisions in the Bill are clearly Henry VIII provisions. The measure is extensive in terms of the concept of quasi-legislation. I am sure we will be coming back to this on several occasions during the passage of the Bill. However, I look forward to my noble friend’s response acknowledging the significance of the powers that are being confirmed and I look forward to hearing what the Government plan to do about it.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and draw attention to my own interests in the register. We have a perfectly clear piece of legislation in Clause 2(1), in which Parliament tells the OfS what it must do and what it must have regard to. We then have the creation in Clause 2(2) to Clause 2(6) of guidance which has absolutely no parliamentary scrutiny, whether before or after the Secretary of State chooses to issue that guidance. It looks like legislation, because it is contained in Clause 2, but it is not legislation and it should be.

There is a remarkably strange feature if we turn 44 pages onwards to Clause 71, where we have the power granted to the Secretary of State to give directions. Of course, that is going to be a necessary ingredient of the Bill. The strange thing about it is that in the directions, Clause 71(2) is in identical terms to the guidance authorisation in Clause 2(3); Clause 71(3) replicates Clause 2(4); and Clause 71(4) replicates Clause 2(5). In other words, there are identical provisions in these two clauses: one creates the power in the Secretary of State to give guidance, the other gives the Secretary of State, after Parliament has agreed, the power to issue directions.

As far as I can see, there is no indication about the criteria which should be applied as to whether a particular directive by the Secretary of State should be treated as guidance or legislation. The fact of the matter is that there is now going to be power to give guidance with no statutory scrutiny and power or authority to give directions which will be subject to statutory scrutiny. There is no logical reason why we should have such an absurd situation. The amendment proposes simply that the guidance should be brought before the House at some stage in the process so that the House can have a look at it. We should have a chance to consider guidance issued by the department in this influential new arrangement.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

I support the amendment. I think there are wider reasons for feeling that not everything can be well done by guidance. Among other things, guidance sits there in the cupboard, so to speak, and there is no reason for the Executive or Parliament to review it until somebody is tripped up in an unfortunate way.

Guidance seeks a sharper definition between what may and may not be done—between compliance and infraction—than is probably feasible. There is much to be said for a somewhat more formal procedure that will make it clear what has parliamentary backing, because it is a statutory instrument, and what does not. Excessive reliance on guidance would weaken the structure of the Bill and create a degree of persisting uncertainty. People are frequently being tripped up by guidance of which they have never heard which lives in an obscure place. That is unnecessary.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may briefly comment on these amendments by looking at them from the perspective of how the old system has functioned. We have been told about the powers of the OfS, and your Lordships are scrutinising those very carefully. I think that perhaps the powers of the old HEFCE have been understated. In reality, HEFCE was not only the funder but was using its funding power to be the regulator—a highly discretionary regulator that operated with very little transparency and few constraints.

HEFCE was the extremely successful buffer body between government and universities, and the Government communicated with HEFCE notably through the grant letter—and the grant letter, I suspect, is the origins of the guidance provision in front of us today. The grant letter is the way in which the Government have historically set out their policy, week by week, year by year, for universities, and so, for example, it has been historically possible for the Minister for Universities to go to the Chancellor and say, “High-cost subjects are not being sufficiently funded. We do not think that the extra costs of doing them are properly reflected in the higher cost bands. Will it be possible to have extra funding attached to that?”—and then in the grant letter to suggest to HEFCE, “In the light of the funding we have available, it would be excellent if HEFCE were able to identify and set aside more funding for high-cost subjects”. Indeed, I used to write such grant letters with my excellent former colleague Sir Vince Cable.

What is happening—this goes back to discussions we had last week—is that as we are now moving from that old discretionary high-trust system to a new rule-bound system with a regulatory function, quite understandably your Lordships, at each stage of the process, are trying to pin down what kind of decisions will be taken and how they will be taken. I think that a power to give guidance distinct from a power to give instructions, and a reasonable amount of flexibility for Ministers to use it so that they can communicate the same kind of messages that they used to in the old HEFCE letter, is in the interests of the sector as a whole.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the group contains several common-sense amendments that would strengthen the Bill and one of the amendments within this group seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State should have regard to any advice given to her or him by the Office for Students. The Government are placing a huge amount of faith and power in the Office for Students and it makes sense that the Secretary of State should not only give guidance to that body but should have regard to what the OfS says to her or him. Why would it not be sensible to do so?

It is not enough for the Minister to say, as he did several times in Committee, that he does not want to see too much detail on the face of the Bill. In effect, he is saying, “Trust me. There is no need for it. Everything will be fine”. With the greatest respect, even were we to accept that from such a find upstanding Member of your Lordships’ House as the noble Viscount the Minister, he cannot of course bind his successors, who, I suspect, would not be willing to be bound by him and his colleague Mr Johnson. Who knows what might or might not follow in the months and years after this Bill passes into statute? For that reason, it is helpful to have this sort of detail in the Bill. At the end of the day, it is only a question of having regard to what the OfS says, but it will have built up considerable experience and wisdom over time and the Secretary of State should surely benefit from that.

There are also amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Garden and Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on the need to ensure that the Secretary of State does not take any action that would prohibit the Office for Students from funding a particular course of study. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, eloquently explained the reasons behind that and there was some discussion on this last week as well. I trust that the noble Viscount has taken note of the arguments advanced in support of those amendments.

The most important amendments in this group are Amendments 69 and 510, which seek to make the Secretary of State’s power to give guidance to the OfS exercisable by statutory instrument. Last month, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House reported on its consideration of the Bill. When commenting on Clause 2(2) which requires that the OfS,

“In performing its functions … have regard to guidance given to it by the Secretary of State”,


the committee said:

“There is no Parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance and there is no requirement for it to be published. The absence of any Parliamentary scrutiny is explained in the Department’s memorandum”,


but that,

“We are wholly unconvinced by the Department’s reasons”.


However, it did not stop there. In summation of its consideration of that part of the Bill, the committee concluded:

“The wide range of functions which are being conferred on the OfS will give it the ability to bring change to the whole of the higher education sector. We consider that the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under clause 2 will act as a significant control over how the OfS exercises its functions. Therefore, far from having no Parliamentary scrutiny, we recommend that guidance issued under clause 2 should be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and that the affirmative procedure should apply”.


That does not leave much room for doubt, and I am not aware that the Government have yet responded to the committee’s report, but I hope that they will be able to take such trenchant criticism on board—or will this be yet another example of the Government saying in effect that, “We know best. We have a monopoly on wisdom and we intend to plough on regardless”? I certainly hope not. The Delegated Powers Committee is of course cross-party and in this case was actually chaired by a Conservative. If its role is to be treated with respect, its considered view should surely be weighed heavily by the noble Viscount and his colleagues.

Last week the Minister undertook to reflect on the amendments debated and it is to be hoped that, as regards Amendments 69 and 510, the issue really is rather a black-and-white one. I hope that he will be able to give a considered response to it when he rises to speak in a few moments.

15:45

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, we have had another good but much shorter debate on this important Bill. Once again it goes to the principle of autonomy, which is the cornerstone of our higher education system. I would like to say at the outset that I am sorry to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, is indisposed. I am sure that all noble Lords will wish her a speedy recovery.

Before I speak about this group of amendments, let me be very clear. I heard the strength of feeling expressed in Committee last week about the need to protect institutional autonomy. I would like to inform noble Lords that, along with the Minister in the other place, I am actively considering what further safeguards may be needed to protect institutional autonomy and academic freedom as the Secretary of State and the OfS carry out their duties under the Bill. No doubt we will return to this issue on Report, so I will keep the rest of my remarks relatively brief.

We certainly want an open dialogue between the Government and the OfS, and the systematic involvement of the OfS in the policy-making process, just as there has been with HEFCE over the past 25 years—something to which my noble friend Lord Willetts alluded. As currently drafted, the Bill does not constrain the OfS from giving open and honest advice and analysis to the Government on matters within its regulatory remit. Let me also reassure noble Lords that the Bill prohibits the Secretary of State from framing guidance, setting terms and conditions of grant or giving directions to the OfS in terms of course content and how courses are supervised or assessed. The powers we have discussed today relate directly to the spending of public money and the accountability of the OfS. The Government have a legitimate role in setting priorities in these areas. That is why we are taking the time to think carefully about how we are going to ensure an appropriate level of oversight while at the same time properly protecting the vital concepts of institutional autonomy and academic freedom.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised the issue of guidance and stated that there was a reversal of the 1992 Act. No reference is made to guidance in that Act, and we are strengthening the protections on ministerial guidance by making reference to institutional autonomy and academic freedom. An express power to issue guidance means that the Government do not automatically need to have recourse to setting the terms and conditions of grant or directions, which are less light-touch, so this is surely a sensible intermediate step.

I will now address the issue of parliamentary oversight, about which we have heard some speeches this afternoon. We have thought carefully about the use of these powers. The general focus of the contributions of my noble friend Lord Norton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was that the guidance must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. But the duty in Clause 2 is to “have regard to” guidance. As my noble friend Lord Norton said, where the OfS has cogent reasons, it can act outside that guidance—so the provision does not impose any obligation other than that the OfS should consider it. Directions under Clause 72 are different: they must be followed. That is why there is parliamentary scrutiny when those are made.

It is absolutely right that the Secretary of State should be ultimately responsible for the guidance that he or she gives the OfS, especially when it relates to directing public money towards government policy priorities. We envisage that the Government will issue regular guidance to the OfS in much the same way as they do to HEFCE. Imposing parliamentary oversight and approval on the giving of the Secretary of State’s guidance to the OfS would create a far less flexible process and would risk inhibiting the ability of the Secretary of State rapidly to issue ad hoc guidance in response to changing events. However, I reassure my noble friend Lord Norton that our approach to guidance will be transparent in a similar way to the guidance given to HEFCE—for example, with a published annual grant letter.

I hope that I have given a flavour of the careful balance that we continue actively to work to achieve here. I have noted the points raised and will actively take them into account ahead of Report. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, I think that it was a former Prime Minister who used the phrase, when losing the vote on bombing in Syria, “I get it”. I think that the Minister now gets it. I was pleased to hear him say that autonomy goes to the heart of our higher education, that he heard last week the strength of feeling on this issue and that the Government will actively consider that. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 60 withdrawn.

Amendments 61 and 62 not moved.

Amendment 63

Moved by

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

63: Clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“( ) the standards applied to a particular course of study.”

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 129, 130, 131, 137, 167, 168, 169, 170, 180, 184, 206, 210, 214 and 215, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and I have put our names. The amendments all relate to the important but distinct areas of quality and standards in higher education provision. We all want high-quality higher education provision delivered innovatively by a diverse range of autonomous providers, and a wide choice of subjects with different learning and teaching delivery approaches suited to students’ different learning styles and assessed in different ways appropriate to the subject and the pedagogical approach. Students should have real choice to select a degree programme that suits them—a programme that suits the time they have available, offers the intensity and style of learning that will enable them to progress, with physical and/or virtual delivery, and allows for future options well beyond those that I have listed.

The wording in the Bill could significantly hinder—unintentionally, I believe, in light of my discussions with the Minister and the Bill team and from reading the technical note on market entry quality assurance—the delivery of such a vision. The problem is that the Bill elides quality and standards. Almost every time a mention of quality appears, it is as “quality and standards”. For example, Clause 13 states that the registration conditions will include,

“a condition relating to the quality of, or the standards applied to, the higher education provided”.

Clause 23 states:

“The OfS may assess … the quality of, and the standards applied to, higher education”.


In Clause 25, the OfS may arrange to give ratings to,

“the quality of, and the standards applied”.

I promise the Committee that I will not go through any more, but I think I have made the point. I understand that this is a dry and technical area but it is, I repeat, critical. Quality and standards sound very much like the same thing but over the past 20 years they have come to have quite specific and distinct meanings in the higher education quality system, which the technical note indicates that the Bill is not trying to change.

We have had some very engaging quotes in the debates so far. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, quoted from a Papal bull. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, quoted Wittgenstein. I am afraid I offer your Lordships three very important quotes from the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. The first is the definition of “threshold academic standards” as,

“the minimum acceptable level of achievement that a student has to demonstrate to be eligible for the award of academic credit or a qualification. For equivalent qualifications, the threshold level of achievement is agreed across the UK”.

This agreement is sector owned. The threshold standard is collectively agreed between higher education providers, facilitated by the QAA. It is then defined in something called the subject benchmark statement, which sets out expectations and defines what can be expected of a graduate in terms of abilities, skills, understanding and competence.

My second quote is the more general definition of standards:

“Academic standards are the standards that individual degree-awarding bodies set and maintain for the award of their academic credit or qualifications. These may exceed the threshold academic standards. They include the standards of performance that a student needs to demonstrate to achieve a particular classification of a qualification”.


Thirdly and finally, I will give your Lordships the definition of quality:

“Academic quality refers to how and how well the higher education provider supports students to enable them to achieve their award”.


In other words, quality is about the systems and processes the provider has in place to support students and ensure that appropriate standards are delivered—and, indeed, can be achieved—by the students.

Ensuring that providers meet threshold academic standards and deliver academic quality is entirely and appropriately the concern of the Office for Students and its quality assessment of higher education providers. Academic standards themselves, on the other hand, including agreeing threshold standards, are and should remain the responsibility of the degree-awarding bodies, as is the case today. Having the OfS control academic standards would be a major infringement of the autonomy of academic institutions and would inhibit innovation and diversity in the provision of higher education qualifications, to the detriment of students.

Only the higher education provider is in a position to use academic judgment on things such as how the student has performed against the requirements of the course in the context of the emphasis or specialism of a particular curriculum, or indeed the stage of competence and understanding in an element of the course that a student should have reached at any particular point in their studies. Different providers will teach the same subject in different ways with different emphasis and specialism. This provides choice for students and benefits employers; for example, it is good to be able to recruit economists who have specialised in different areas and have developed different approaches to their subject.

The HE sector is very concerned that the Bill allows the Government or the OfS to be involved in determining curricula and standards on individual higher education courses. From my discussions, I really do not think that this is the intention but it can be inferred from the current wording. Amendment 63 and many of the other amendments in this group are intended to remove this inference, giving the OfS oversight of academic quality and ensuring that all providers meet threshold standards, but not giving the OfS an all-embracing responsibility for standards. Indeed, a small addition to the Bill—that is, including the definitions of quality and standards from the QAA quality code—would ensure clarity and provide assurance to the sector.

I hope the Minister will feel able to agree to continue the discussion on the wording of the Bill in these areas to ensure that we get both a rigorous approach to quality and the benefits of an autonomous system of providers responsible for their academic standards. I beg to move.

16:00

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, in deferring to the noble Baronesses on the Cross Benches, Lady Brown and Lady Wolf, I now have pleasure in supporting the amendments in this group to which I have added my name. They express concerns raised by Universities UK and GuildHE, two bodies with immense expertise in this sector and fully committed to its standards and reputation.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, has said, central to our concerns about the erosion of university autonomy is the need for the Government and the Bill to be clearer in their approach to standards. UUK and others have noted that the Bill unhelpfully elides quality and standards—we have had reference to this already in debate in this Chamber—but they are two separate concepts in higher education policy. While there is a legitimate role for the new Office for Students in assessing quality, standards are the preserve of independent academic institutions and should be free from political interference. The proposed changes to the Bill would therefore: separate quality and standards to enable different treatment in subsequent clauses; clarify the definition of standards to focus on threshold standards and a condition of registration focused on academic governance of standards; recognise that academic standards are sector-owned and ensure a sector-owned process for agreeing threshold standards; and remove or limit the reference to standards in relation to the teaching access framework, as it is inappropriate to attempt to rank standards.

Quality and standards are separate, distinct concepts in higher education. Amendments 63 and 129 to 131 would remove references to standards to make what was one potential condition of the OfS into two separate conditions for quality and standards. Amendment 131 would make robust academic governance a condition of registration with the OfS, which protects the principle that self-critical autonomous academic institutions are responsible for the maintenance of academic standards.

Amendments 167, 169 and 170 would ensure consistency of definition when it comes to quality and standards and, again, that governance of academic standards sits with the institution. Amendments 168, 180 and 184 seek to clarify that the proposed assessments of teaching quality established by these clauses is based on the quality of teaching in an institution and not on standards, while Amendments 214 and 215 would ensure the separation of quality and standards once again.

At various points the Bill brackets quality and standards together, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, has pointed out, when they are in fact related but distinct elements of quality assurance and assessment. Academic quality covers how an institution supports students to enable them to progress and achieve their award; academic standards are the student outcome standards that individual degree-awarding bodies set and maintain for the award of their own academic credit or qualifications. As drafted, the Bill risks the OfS being able in future to define and determine the standards applied, rather than ensuring that the standards set by autonomous universities are met.

During Committee in the Commons, the Minister gave some reassurance, saying:

“Let me be absolutely clear … this is not about undermining the prerogative of providers in determining standards. This is about ensuring that all providers in the system are meeting the threshold standards set out in the ‘Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications’, a document endorsed and agreed by the sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, Higher Education and Research Bill Committee, 15/9/16; col. 308.]


This was helpful but the lack of clarity in the Bill should be addressed. It is essential that student outcome standards remain the responsibility of autonomous institutional academic communities and continue to reflect the pedagogical diversity of higher education. I hope the Minister will respond favourably to these amendments.

[Lord Willetts]

My Lords, briefly, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, on her lucid explanation of the thinking behind her amendments. She makes an absolutely correct point: quality and standards are distinct. As they were always put together in some of the original drafting, the understanding of their different functions in the system was being lost. She is right to remind the House of that. I do not know about the exact way in which her proposals have been drafted but the spirit in which she is trying to make that distinction much clearer must be right. We already have, through the QAA, a direct role in the regulation and inspection of quality, and that is right.

However, to just comment on what the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, there also is and has been a legitimate role in standards. Of course universities and higher education institutions have to be responsible for the specific decisions about standards, but threshold standards have been part of the QAA’s remit. At the moment, for example, in response to I think widespread concern about the effectiveness of the external examiner system—a concern raised by the Minister for Universities and Science, who it is good to see with us again today—HEFCE is investigating how that system operates. It is absolutely not, and should not be, intruding on the autonomy of individual institutions, but it is undoubtedly, in a broad sense, investigating and considering standards.

Provided that we have the capacity for that type of engagement in standards to occur—as we heard from what the Minister said in the other House, the threshold standards is a legitimate function as well—I hope it will be possible to find a way forward which embraces the spirit of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, is doing but at the same time recognises that any regulator has some legitimate role in standards, not just in quality.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, in urging the Government to think again about the way in which they reflect their intentions for academic standards in the Bill. This picks up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, made, which I will come back to. In his recent letter of 11 January, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, helpfully clarifies several points, but again seems to muddle up “quality” and “standards”—and is not clear to which “standards” he is referring.

There are many other issues in the Bill that have attracted more attention. This is, however, possibly the single most significant issue. Those with long memories know that this is a subtle but significant red line in the relationship between universities and government. The distinction between quality and standards is often misunderstood or missed entirely, but it is one of the defining features of a system in which universities have the freedom to determine the content of the courses they offer, to differ from each other, to innovate and to offer variety to students. The current system requires universities to meet commonly agreed threshold standards, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said, but avoids the straitjacket that is an inevitable consequence of defining standards across the board.

It is worth setting out why this matters. The disagreement with the Government reflected in this large number of amendments is not just a rather precious academic conceit; it is a fundamental underpinning of academic autonomy. Academic standards are the levels of attainment associated with specific awards and the grades required within those awards: in other words, how well Judy Doe has done against the requirements of her psychology course at, let us say, Reading, and whether she merits an Upper Second. It has to be that specific because different universities teach different curricula that reflect the specialisms of their particular institution.

These judgments are made by groups of academics who are subject experts and who are best placed to judge a student against academic criteria. The decisions against those standards are and have always been the prerogative of universities themselves, acting autonomously, freely and independently of any government or quasi-government interference. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said in last Monday’s debate, it is unfortunate that she was given such a disingenuous, rather flip answer to her question about degree classification by some academics involved in these judgments when they said that they trusted their gut feeling. In fact, their judgments are made within a clear framework of sector-owned national principles and are backed up by the external examiner system, although it has its weaknesses—as indeed the noble Baroness subsequently discovered.

That setting of academic standards I have just described is separate from the threshold standard or the minimum requirements that every degree course must meet in order to reassure students that they are studying at degree level. These requirements include the robustness of the processes that underpin them, and the design and delivery of courses. This process is driven by the Quality Assurance Agency through the sector-wide quality code. Here the Government have a role, in partnership with the sector’s designated body, in ensuring that a degree is worthy of the name.

It would be helpful if the Minister could put beyond doubt that when the Bill talks about “standards” it is referring to threshold standards and not to academic standards as they are normally defined and as I have described. In the other place the Minister did just that, very clearly—as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, indicated. Given that the Minister is in what is now his very familiar place, the Bar of our House, I do not want to quote him again. Since this clarity has not yet been reflected in the wording of the Bill, I hope that the Minster here will undertake to bring back amendments to achieve this. Amendments 136 and 167 offer ways of doing this, as do others.

UK higher education has an international reputation for excellence, due in no small part to the attention given to the management of both standards and quality. Governing bodies of institutions take both very seriously. They are, of course, interlinked: a high-quality learning environment is necessary for students to attain the levels of knowledge, understanding and skills required to obtain their awards, as the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education points out in its advice to governors on these matters.

“Quality” is a broad term, applied to the overall academic provision for learning, including teaching and assessment, student learning opportunities, the nature of academic programmes, the design of the curriculum and student engagement. It is worth remembering that each institution has its own agreed criteria for assessing the quality of learning and teaching. By international standards, as the former chief executive of the quality assurance body has said, mechanisms of internal control are really quite elaborate.

As yet the Government have provided little in the way of concrete reassurance that they understand the significance of the issues I have described. At this late stage in the passage of the Bill, we really need to see some evidence that the Government understand that it is precisely because universities have the freedom to determine the standards that they require of students in relation to the enormous range of programmes on offer that we have one of the strongest university systems in the world. The argument for greater comparability is superficially attractive but masks the inevitable consequence: a more limited range of provision, which is less open to change as academic subjects evolve. I cannot believe that the Government are deliberately doing that, given the high expectations they have of our universities to support innovation, to support local, regional and national economic priorities, and indeed to support social cohesion.

The higher education system is changing at an unprecedented rate, and the quality assurance system needs to change with it. That is surely what the Bill should seek to do. The challenge is to keep the best features of the current quality and standards systems but also adapt to the new conditions. There are some key principles that will keep reappearing in our debates: non-interference by government in what is taught, a high threshold for degree-awarding powers and university title, encouraging innovation to flourish, the provision of excellent public information and, in the case of this part of the Bill, autonomy over academic standards. This is one that the Government, through the Minister in the other place, have already explicitly accepted. It is one that the Minister in this House ought to be able to ensure is included in the Bill—and I urge him most strongly to do so.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my interests, which I have already declared. I support the amendments in front of us, and I thank in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Warwick, for so clearly setting out the tissue of issues around quality and standards. Unhelpfully, the Bill conflates the two at many points.

We are talking here about three different points. First, there are threshold standards, which are legitimately a matter for the Government on behalf of the British public in ensuring that there is a basic threshold, a sine qua non, in order to qualify as a university. Secondly, there are academic standards, which are surely a matter primarily for academics to determine, with a robust system in place to ensure that the process is testing, challenging and accurate. Thirdly, there is quality, and there must be a role for the Office for Students. Indeed, the entire Bill is largely focused on ensuring a proper assessment of quality. There must be a role for government in that process and we will doubtless be discussing this further on quite a number of occasions. Making clear the distinction between the three different things is very important, and the Bill sadly does not do so at the moment.

16:15

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

A couple of my amendments have washed up in this group. Amendment 192 asks whether the OfS will be able to collaborate with other organisations, for instance, the Times Higher Educational Supplement, which is also involved in rating universities in this way. It seems foolish not to be able to use the work that these organisations have done or, indeed, to share intelligence with them to enable them to do their job better.

The second amendment picks up a point made by my noble friend Lord Willetts. I want the OfS to be able to prompt discussion on the system of degree classification in the UK. The class of degree that people come out with from university matters a lot to them. The line between a 2.1 and 2.2 can have a very big effect on people’s careers. It is not at all clear to me that the system really operates in students’ interests so that someone with a 2.2 should be marked down to the extent they are in terms of employment. We have to have a nationwide conversation on this. Since the universities have not prompted it, the OfS should be able to prompt it. It would be a valuable thing to do. It should not be able to impose an outcome but we ought to have a serious conversation. There are obvious disadvantages in the system we have; I am not saying that I know of a better one but we ought to review it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a good and useful debate about, as everyone has said, important issues which at the moment are not as well established as they could be in the Bill, so I hope there will be an opportunity to return on Report to get them better organised. I do not think that any one of the amendments in this group, with respect to those who have tabled them, takes the trick. This also has to be interfaced back to what we will decide to do on institutional autonomy, which to some extent is the other side of the same coin.

As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, the two contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Warwick, gave us a real insight into the difficulties that will arise if we do not get this right. I do not want to be too critical of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is doing his best to raise a series of interesting questions, but Amendment 192 refers to making arrangements for the rating of the quality and standards of higher education. That is exactly the problem although I agree that the amendment is more subtle in some ways. If we do not approach this with real intelligence about how we use the two terms we will run into difficulty as we go further down the track. That being said, I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. We will probably have to come back to some of the issues that he raises at a future date.

I shall speak briefly to our Amendments 131 and 136. Amendment 131 is an attempt to try to ensure that in a particular part of the Bill, in assessing the quality of higher education providers as a whole—I am not talking about the individual quality; I am falling into my own trap here—there has to be a robust system to get people to a point at which they can be registered as higher education providers. Those systems must include a consideration that the provider has in place appropriate standards that they may apply. I apologise for the typo in the last line of the amendment which should read “providers”.

Amendment 136 tries to give a slightly more detailed interpretation of what a threshold standard is and relates it to,

“a student undertaking a higher education course provided by it, is sufficient to merit the award of a degree or other higher qualification”.

I agree with all noble Lords who have said that the breakdown here is between the sector, which is responsible for the threshold standards, and the necessary quality assessment, which should be done by an external body—it is currently done by the QAA. I also accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and others have said, that the QAA has a very important role, which we will be revisiting in relation to establishing the conditions under which a body gets on to the register, therefore becoming a higher education provider, and is eligible for access to student support.

Listening to this debate, I was struck by two things. First was the sense that we are all grouping around a particular area which needs to be unpicked. As I said, no one of these amendments does it exactly, but we know what we are looking for. Secondly, the Government need to signal—if they can—their willingness to look at this again on Report. I welcome what the noble Viscount said in his opening remarks: there will be a statement or a further chance to come in and discuss how we are going to make sure that, as it leaves this place, the Bill has appropriate wording for institutional autonomy, which is at the centre of all we are discussing.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, this has been another helpful debate. I stress that I have listened carefully to the arguments made today on this issue. I reassure the House that, based on the strength of feeling expressed here, the Minister for Universities and Science and I will actively consider what more we can do to address the concerns raised about the Bill in relation to standards. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that this matter is an integral part of the Bill and I understand its significance. We may want to return to this on Report. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, too.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The Minister has now used a third variation. I think he is trying to say that this is an issue which will come back on Report. We can do it or he can do it, but if we agree that it is something we will be discussing we do not need to hedge around it. It is clearly an issue that we will want to return to in future. If the Minister can confirm that, it will calm us all down considerably.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It is amusing playing around with words. We may, indeed, want to return to this on Report: I would not want to go any further than that. However, I hope that the warmth of the words gives an indication of the direction we wish to go in. It is right that I keep my comments on this group of amendments relatively brief. In addition, I am happy to write to noble Lords on this matter to provide further clarification. I hope that noble Lords will have received quite a long letter from me today, based on the last day in Committee. I hope that all the points raised were helpful.

My noble friend Lord Lucas made some helpful comments on Amendment 192. I reassure him that the OfS can already collaborate with others as part of this assessment. HEFCE, which currently administers the TEF, has collaborated with the QAA and others without specific legislative provision allowing them to do so. HEFCE currently undertakes an important role in assessing standards as part of its quality duty. As my noble friend Lord Willetts said, standards are currently part of the QAA’s quality code. However, I acknowledge that the current lack of an explicit mention for standards has created uncertainty. That is why standards are mentioned on the face of the Bill. I hope we can all agree that it is essential that the Office for Students can ensure that providers are genuinely offering qualifications of a suitable standard to be considered higher education, even if we need to discuss precisely how we have achieved that within the current drafting.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Garden, spoke about separate quality and standards. I understand the points raised on the difference between the two. However, decoupling quality and standards is not the approach taken by the sector in the UK quality code. Any assessment of quality and standards may need to consider both in order to protect the value of a qualification. However, the OfS can apply a condition on quality or standards: it does not have to apply both. I hope this provides some helpful clarification on that front.

On degree classification and grade inflation, I agree that the sector needs to do more here. We are committed to supporting them in this: HEFCE’s work with the Higher Education Academy to implement approaches to training external examiners, and the teaching excellence framework, which will recognise providers that are genuinely stretching students and delivering good outcomes for their students, are examples of important actions in this area.

We do not want to undermine the prerogative of providers in determining standards. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, this is about ensuring that all providers in the system are meeting the threshold standards that are set out in a document endorsed and agreed by the sector, as she mentioned—Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications. I reassure the Committee that there is no intention to rate standards in the TEF. However, part of excellence in teaching is ensuring that students are stretched to achieve their full potential. One of the TEF criteria is, therefore, the extent to which course design, development, standards and assessment are effective in stretching students to develop independence, knowledge, understanding and skills that reflect their full potential. For this reason, we believe that the inclusion of standards is crucial to ensuring that the TEF can make a true, holistic assessment of teaching excellence.

I repeat that the standards that are regulated against should be, first and foremost, standards that are set by the sector, rather than prescribed narrowly within legislation. As I have said, I will be reflecting carefully and expect that we will return to this issue on Report. I therefore ask that Amendment 63 be withdrawn.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

I have listened with interest to the Minister and I am very pleased that he has offered to write to us. I think he also offered further discussion in this area. We are actually in strong agreement about much of what the Bill is trying to achieve in this area, but there remains some concern about the wording used to describe it. On the basis that there is further engagement to come in this area—indeed, the Minister has indicated, I think, that it is likely to come back on Report—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 63 withdrawn.

Amendments 64 to 67 not moved.

Amendment 68

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

68: Clause 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“( ) All bodies on which the OfS places responsibility for the execution of its duties shall be open to and governed by all classes of registered higher education providers, and all individual registered higher education providers shall have a role in choosing who on each such body’s board is chosen to be representative of them.”

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, Amendment 68 seeks to make sure that bodies on which the OfS places responsibility under the Bill are truly representative of all providers, which has not historically been the case for higher education bodies. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I expected full-blooded and voluble contributions from all sides of the Committee. I realise that noble Lords are accustomed to the courteous, urbane and patient demeanour of my noble friend Viscount Younger, and I appreciate that my appearance at the Dispatch Box may cause a slight frisson. Let me reassure noble Lords that, while I may not be able to match my noble friend’s skills, I shall do my very best to emulate his virtues.

By way of preface, although not a current, registerable interest, I served for many years on the court of my alma mater, the University of Strathclyde, of which institution I am an honorary fellow. I also spoke regularly in the Scottish Parliament during the passage of the Higher Education Governance (Scotland) Act 2016. I have to say that, in my opinion, that was an unwarranted, intrusive and unnecessary piece of legislation, which I voted against. By comparison with that inedible fodder, this Bill is to me haute cuisine. I realise that some noble Lords may have a different dietary definition, but I think that, in contrast to the position in Scotland, this Bill is trying to offer, frankly, 24-carat gold standard protection for university autonomy.

I turn to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I am very sympathetic to the issues raised via this amendment. The OfS will be introducing a new regulatory system that will govern all types of provider, from our longest established universities to those new providers joining the register for the first time. It is essential that the OfS’s systems are fit for purpose and also understand the needs of all types of providers. In operating a single register for all HE providers, the OfS will have a duty to ensure that its regulatory systems, and those involved in running them, fully take account of the diversity of the sector and the full range of different HE providers. This will be a responsibility of the OfS board, which will include representatives of a diverse range of HE provision.

16:30

We recognise the need to ensure that any bodies which might be appointed to carry out functions on behalf of the OfS are truly representative of the whole sector. That is why we have made it a mandatory condition of designation for the designated quality and data bodies that they be able to represent a broad range of registered HE providers. This is fundamental, because there can only be meaningful, representative regulation if all parts of the sector are involved. This amendment is therefore not required to embed the principle of sector representation into the working of the OfS via its partner organisations, and I respectfully ask my noble friend Lord Lucas to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am grateful for the comfort which my noble friend has given me and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Amendment 69 not moved.

Amendment 70

Moved by

[Lord Storey]

70: Clause 2, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
“( ) The OfS may provide the Secretary of State with such information or advice relating to its functions and the provision of higher education in England as it thinks fit.”

[Lord Storey]

The Bill creates separate regulatory and funding bodies for teaching and research and in so doing risks undermining the positive interaction of teaching, research and innovation activity in our universities. The Government have gone some way to address this problem by giving the OfS a new duty to monitor the financial sustainability of the sector and by publishing a note on joint working between the Office for Students and UKRI. However, the Bill could do more to deliver what the higher education White Paper promised: that the OfS would take a holistic view of the sector and institutions. The Office for Students should have the same power to provide advice to Ministers without the specific instruction to do so that is being proposed for UKRI. I beg to move.

[Lord Willetts]

My Lords, briefly, the thought behind the amendment makes a lot of sense. Currently we have had for decades close exchange between Ministers and HEFCE; it goes both ways, and the point I tried to make earlier is that we should not regard all that as equivalent of passing a statutory instrument through Parliament. It is important that Ministers can communicate their concerns to HEFCE and its successor bodies, but it is equally important that the communication goes the other way. I hope that we may hear from Ministers that they believe it will still be possible for these communications to happen, and anything that assures us that that flow of ideas and information in both directions will continue in the new dispensation will, I think, be welcomed by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, on the amendment. It is a good one, and although it may not be high profile it is certainly worthy of further consideration. If there is a defect in the current drafting, the Minister may wish to look at it before we get to Report. He can give one of his equivocal answers if he wishes, but of course the more clarity, the better.

I was not going to speak in particular about the amendment, although I was interested in the substantive clause to which it is applied. The current wording says:

“Guidance given by the Secretary of State to the OfS which relates to English higher education providers must apply to such providers generally”—


so far I am with the drafting—

“or to a description of such providers”.

At that point I got completely lost. When the Minister responds, perhaps she could give me a better—perhaps Scottish—interpretation of this. Clearly, the Scots are much sharper on these matters than English drafters. As I understand it—and I normally understand draft legislation relatively well—guidance must apply to the providers, which are defined as “English higher education providers”, generally. That is quite fine. I accept that. However, I do not get the next bit:

“or to a description of such providers”.

To whom or to what does that description apply?

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I fully understand the motivation behind this amendment, which seeks to give the OfS an independent voice in the future policy-making process. The OfS, as the principal regulator of the HE sector, will have some level of relationship with every registered provider and will gather a comprehensive set of information about the sector. Indeed, as the operator of the register, the OfS will engage closely with new market entrants, and because of its duty to monitor the financial health of the sector under Clause 62, it will have a clear and detailed understanding of how the market is operating and developing. I think that was a point of particular concern to the noble Lord, Lord Storey. Because of its duties to operate in the interests of students under Clause 2, it will also have a clear understanding of demand-side issues.

No sensible Government would want to make major policy decisions on the registered HE sector without engaging with the OfS, and we confidently anticipate that the OfS will be involved, where appropriate, in the policy-making process, just as HEFCE has been. There is nothing in the Bill which prohibits the OfS from giving advice to government on matters within its regulatory remit and there is no reason to suggest that it would be constrained in giving such advice or not be able to provide open and honest analysis. My noble friend Lord Willetts was concerned about whether the OfS will be able to give advice to the Secretary of State and I hope that observation reassures him. Further, there is also a specific duty in Clause 72 for the OfS to provide information and advice to the Secretary of State when it is requested.

I do not think that it is necessary to give an additional explicit statutory power in the Bill for the OfS to be able to give unsolicited advice to the Secretary of State. Nor do I think it would be wise, as I believe there could be unintended consequences of doing that. It also could lead the OfS to spread its limited resources too thinly across its core role of delivering a fair and effective regulatory system and additional role of developing policy advice. In addition, the sector is well represented by a large range of representative bodies, mission groups and other organisations, which engage in debate and dialogue with the Government about policy decisions. It is the Government’s aim that the OfS remains independent of the sector if it is to regulate providers fairly. The OfS will also in part be funded by registration fees paid by registered providers, so it will be held to account by them, and must operate as efficiently as possible.

I am confident that the provisions in this Bill will make the OfS an indispensable source of expert analysis and advice on which the Government will want to draw in the formulation of future policy. In these circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe]

Can I ask the noble Baroness to reflect on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about the role of the current body, HEFCE, as a buffer body? She said that the new Office for Students will fulfil much the same function as HEFCE. When the Minister reflects on this debate, will she consider the way in which the requirements on HEFCE express that role as a buffer body and see whether it is also reflected in the way in which we are asked to confirm the role of the OfS?

[Baroness Goldie]

I thank the noble Baroness for raising an interesting point. I am sure it is one on which I and my colleagues will want to reflect.

[Lord Storey]

I am very grateful to the Minister for her full and frank reply. I will reflect carefully on what she has said. If there is nothing in the Bill prohibiting the OfS from giving advice and being involved then we need to explore that a bit further. I will withdraw the amendment currently.

Amendment 70 withdrawn.

Amendment 71 not moved.

Clause 2 agreed.

Amendment 72

Moved by

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

72: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—
“Meaning of higher education
For the purposes of this Act, the provision of higher education by English higher education providers comprises higher education provision by—(a) universities,(b) colleges of further education, and(c) other higher education providers, both registered and unregistered.”

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I beg to move this amendment, to which I have added my name. It attempts to ensure that a proper meaning of higher education is in the Bill—the public deserve to know what the Bill means by it. In the absence of a clear definition, it is important to specify the organisations that can provide it. Universities and colleges of further education are important providers of higher education and must not be overlooked in the Bill, but there are other providers, which may be registered or unregistered. There are different criteria for registered and unregistered providers, and both have a part to play. We also need to make it clear that not all providers are universities. So, not necessarily on the face of the Bill but somewhere in the guidance, there should be clarification, as provided for in the amendment.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests, as declared in the register.

I support the amendment, to which I have added my name. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, has already pointed out, the majority of higher education will be undertaken in traditional higher education institutions, including further education colleges. Those institutions are accountable for innovative, appropriate curriculum design, as outlined earlier by my noble friend Lady Brown. It is appropriate that curriculum design includes enabling students to have degrees awarded when a proportion of their programme is either with employers or on placements. In health, for example, students need to learn in hospitals and communities, and some very innovative new approaches in higher education are associated with degree-level apprenticeships. At the University of Exeter there is an ambitious approach to the new degree-level apprenticeship schemes, which involve working with employers and their staff. The first of these programmes commenced in September 2016—a BSc honours in digital and technology solutions. It involves working with four employers, including IBM.

A degree-level apprenticeship offers a new route to achieving a university degree in collaboration with employers. Apprentices are full-time, paid employees of the business partner, but a proportion of the student’s time is spent participating in a programme, using blended learning, residential teaching blocks and assessed projects and placements.

Therefore, it is imperative that we are clear in the Bill about the definition of higher education and that we recognise that, whether it is in health or industry, part of students’ higher education experience is increasingly in a workplace. Amendment 72 would encompass, and make provision for, this approach through the definition that it provides, thus strengthening the Bill at this point.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords, when the Minister replies, can she clarify a key term of the Bill—namely, the English higher education provider? I think we all understand—and this clause makes it very explicit—that we expect a diversity of institutions to provide higher education in England. What is unclear to me is whether English higher education providers have to be incorporated under English law. May they, for example, be incorporated under the law of the Cayman Islands? If they are for-profit organisations, may they pay their taxes—if any—there? It would be clarifying to know whether English higher education providers are to be incorporated under English law.

16:45

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a topic that came up on the first day in Committee when I was asked a question, which I was unable to answer, by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, as to what the definition in that amendment would have meant in terms of incorporation, location, geographical reach, et cetera. These are issues that I think are within, although not explicit in, this amendment.

I think the genesis of this amendment, which was well explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, is the worry that nowhere in the text of the current Bill is there an inclusive notion about how our education is expressed. There would be some value in having one, not because of any particular concerns about status or legal position but more to ensure that in seeking competition over quality, for instance, or more innovation, we are not by accident or lack of design excluding those who might be effective in terms of that operation. It is perfectly possible, as the previous speaker clearly said, that much of the innovative work that may come out of the degree-level apprenticeships will be done outside the universities and current colleges of higher education. It may even be done outside colleges of further education or in the workplace and other areas.

We have later amendments that will attempt to introduce an alien concept into much of UK higher education—and possibly more particularly, into English higher education—by getting away from the hegemony of the three-year undergraduate degree. It is always resisted by policymakers that the concept of a university course that they have in mind is one that is entered into by people who have just reached their 18th birthday, have left school and will study perfectly for three years and then go off to have wonderful careers elsewhere while using the skills they have acquired, whereas the truth, of course, is that higher education in its widest definition is extraordinarily broad and diverse, and rightly so. Indeed, one of the problems that we all hoped would be solved by this legislation was to try to bring in some ways in which we could see a more discursive route—if that is not too much of a word—through higher education for those who wish to stop halfway through, take a job, reflect on what they have learned, go back in and perhaps do something else. All the things we see in other higher education systems—such as multiplicity of access and different routes through experience as well as academic learning, both of which are valued and built in to the solution—are not the cornerstones of what we currently see in our higher education system. There will be difficulties in applying them, problems in assessing them and extraordinary circumlocutions, I suspect, in trying to incorporate them into the present arrangements, but come they will. Even if new technology was not going to be a major player in terms of what we are doing for the future, the changes that would be necessary to accommodate young people who are starting their journey in higher education would mean that we would have to think about this again. This is a long way away from the exact wording that we are considering in Amendment 72, but that proposed new clause would at least give us an inclusive version of the current scene in our education and I can commend it for that.

The question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, is important, and we would still like to hear from the Minister. If he is not prepared today to give us a response on this narrow point of where “English higher education providers” takes us in terms of provision of higher education, can he write to us as soon as possible? I think it will influence how we take forward this particular matter.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I can understand the motivation behind this amendment. At the outset, I would like to address a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, when discussing definitions. As she will know, we want to encourage innovative approaches, and the question of degree apprenticeships very much comes into that. We wholeheartedly support the need for innovative provision and I want to assure her that the Government are fully committed to degree apprenticeships—this is captured by the OfS’s duty on promoting choice. In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I would be happy to further discuss this amendment outside the Chamber with her or any other speaker in today’s debate. For now, I shall keep my comments relatively brief.

I fear that this amendment inadvertently goes too far in that it seeks to extend the regulatory coverage of the OfS to all higher education providers as defined by the proposed new clause, including those not on the register. The OfS must focus its resources and regulatory activity where public money is at stake. Extending its duties in this manner—for example, in promoting quality, choice, opportunity, competition, value for money and equality of opportunity—increases the OfS’s regulatory purview and risks decreasing its ability to focus attention where it is needed most; that is, on monitoring those institutions which pass the regulatory entry requirements to the OfS register.

We discussed definitions at some length last Monday. The Bill uses “higher education providers” as a blanket term to mean any provider of a higher education course as defined by the Education Reform Act 1988, including further education colleges providing higher education. This is already defined in the Bill in Clause 77. I very much noted the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on clarification of what “English higher education provider” means. Although I have, I hope, reassured noble Lords that it is defined in Clause 77, I do feel another letter coming on to clarify to the House exactly what we mean by that. I hope that that is of some help. Therefore, we believe that introducing a new definition is unnecessary and could have unintended consequences.

I understand the sprit in which this amendment has been tabled. However, the OfS’s regulatory role is defined by those providers that it registers. I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I thank the Minister for his reply and note that Clause 77 includes the meaning of “higher education providers”, but not in quite the same clear way that we have set out here. We look forward to hearing a fuller explanation in answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. This amendment was on a point of clarification. It was not the intention that it sit on the face of the Bill but rather that we have a simple explanation of “higher education” which would include full and part-time students and all the other different points we will come to later in the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 72 withdrawn.

Clause 3: The register

Amendment 73 not moved.

Amendment 74

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

74: Clause 3, page 3, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must, after a period of consultation,”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a relatively brief group of amendments that are primarily concerned with drafting issues, although I would like to make a substantive point about consultation with respect to Amendment 428.

In moving Amendment 74, I want to draw the attention of your Lordships to the subsection referenced, which is at page 3, line 9. Noble Lords may not have a copy of the Bill with them, but it is a very short subsection and I will read it out so as to not to trouble noble Lords with having to fuddle with their papers. It reads:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the information which must be contained in an institution’s entry in the register”.


The question on whether or not these regulations will be negative or affirmative needs to be resolved, and I would be grateful for confirmation from the Minister when he comes to respond as to which variety we are talking about here. However, assuming that there will be regulations in a secondary legislation format, the question that then arises is: why is it a discretionary power?

All too often in your Lordships House we question whether the wording of the statute should be “may” or “must”. This subsection contains both “may” and “must”—it allows the Secretary of State to require information which “must” be contained in an institution’s entry in the register. Noble Lords will understand why that is the case; registers would be worth nothing if they did not contain, or had a discretionary amount of, information, so the register would not be complete, and in that sense it is a “must”. However, I am concerned about the wording that the Secretary of State “may” by regulations make provision. Does that mean that the Secretary of State has an opportunity not to make regulations about those provisions? I would be grateful for confirmation on the record from the Minister.

Amendment 77, which seeks to amend Clause 5(5), is again a drafting issue. Noble Lords may feel that I am obsessed by that, but every now and then it seems important to focus on the wording. This subsection says:

“Before determining or revising the conditions, the OfS must, if it appears to it appropriate to do so, consult bodies representing the interests of English higher education providers which appear to the OfS to be concerned”.


That is a double concession to the possibility that the OfS has discretion in these matters. Surely, it is always appropriate for the OfS, given its responsibilities, to consult bodies representing the interests of English higher education providers. The Minister may well say that it is inconceivable that it would not do so, but in that case why give it the discretion not to? There is a case for revising that drafting. It has a “must”, which I like—“the OfS must”—but I do not think the legislation can qualify a “must” by saying “if it appears to it appropriate to do so”. It is almost certainly always appropriate to consult before a body as important as the OfS determines or revises its conditions.

Amendment 428 proposes that, under Clause 69, the OfS must consult bodies representing the interests of English higher education providers, including staff and students, as well as those who appear to the OfS to be concerned. There is a discretion there, which I am not challenging to the same extent, but the question whether the providers will be sufficient to represent the staff and students’ interests which may be affected seems to me to be important. I would be grateful for the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I assure the Committee that there is a clear obligation on the OfS to consult when it first determines the initial and ongoing registration conditions and on significant subsequent changes. This will be taken forward through the consultation on the regulatory framework under which the OfS will operate. Clause 69 is clear that, before the OfS can publish its regulatory framework, it must first undertake a wide-ranging consultation.

Subject to the passage of the Bill, the consultation on the new regulatory framework will take place in autumn 2017, so the OfS can begin accepting and assessing applications from new and existing providers in 2018, in time for the 2019-20 academic year. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has taken note of this timetable. We mentioned it earlier in Committee—I think on the first day. We are deliberately taking our time over the introduction of the new regulatory framework and regime. We are not rushing into this. The OfS must have time to consult fully and take on board the views of a very wide range of stakeholders. The new regulatory approach to higher education will be very carefully introduced.

Clause 69 places a very clear duty on the OfS to take into account representations from every part of the sector. It makes provision for the OfS to consult any persons that it considers appropriate and is drafted in such a way that it gives the OfS discretion to consult higher education staff.

On the question of students, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised, we will look to the OfS strongly to encourage providers to engage and consult with students and other stakeholders as a matter of good practice. However, we do not believe that it is right to be prescriptive further than that.

The OfS register will cover all providers regulated by the OfS and will share some similarities with HEFCE’s register of providers. However, whereas HEFCE’s register is primarily a regulatory tool, the OfS register is aimed squarely at students. I reassure the Committee that, although the Bill states that the Secretary of State “may” make regulations, this is standard legislative drafting. It is not meant to imply that the Secretary of State will not do so; I can assure noble Lords that she will. I can also assure noble Lords that the Government firmly expect the OfS to consult on how it will run the register. With that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank the Minister for his response. I notice that he did not confirm whether the regulations would be affirmative or negative. Perhaps he could write to me on that point—it is not a significant thing. I think his wording is sufficient to reassure me on the main point. I am never going to win this “may”/“must” battle, but I am not going to stop. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 74 withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed.

Clause 4 agreed.

17:00

Clause 5: The initial and general ongoing registration conditions

Amendment 75

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

75: Clause 5, page 4, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Subject to subsection (1C), initial registration conditions of all providers under subsection (1)(a) must include a requirement that every provider—(a) provides all eligible students with the opportunity to opt in to be added to the electoral register through the process of enrolling with that provider, and(b) enters into a data sharing agreement with the local electoral registration officer to add eligible students to the electoral register.(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A)—(a) a “data sharing agreement” is an agreement between the higher education provider and their local authority whereby the provider shares the—(i) name,(ii) address,(iii) nationality,(iv) date of birth, and(v) national insurance data of all eligible students enrolling or enrolled (or both) with the provider who opt in under subsection (1A)(a);(b) “eligible” means those persons who are—(i) entitled to vote in accordance with section 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, and (ii) a resident in the same local authority as the higher education provider.(1C) Subsection (1A) does not apply to the Open University and other distance learning institutions.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and with her consent, I shall introduce her amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Lexden, all of whom are in their places, for their support.

This amendment was moved in Committee in another place by my honourable friend Paul Blomfield. It raises an issue he has been concerned about and has experience of, in that he sits for a constituency in Sheffield which is alleged to have the highest number of students who are registered to vote. The underlying issue is the move to individual electoral registration under which all of us are required to sign up individually to vote. This has had a huge impact not only on family households, where many people have dropped off the register, but on the practice which had been going on for many years in universities. The standard way in which that operated was that universities which had halls of residence, or at least organised accommodation for students, registered them en bloc. That, unfortunately, has been outlawed and there is a real danger that students will not be on an electoral register—not necessarily the one where the university is, but any one.

That has two implications. It is important that people should be registered to vote. If you do not have a chance to vote, you are not a part of the overall democratic process. That is a bad thing, particularly for students and young people, who should be brought in at the earliest opportunity—perhaps even younger than today—in order to ensure that they get into the habit of voting and participate as a result. It is a particular issue for universities, which will not have the voice of those who are participating at university in the wider democratic process. There are two sides to this.

If students are not registered in the university or higher education institution they are at, those constituencies will not only be disadvantaged in terms of the representation of people who live and operate in those places but will shrink, which will affect the size of constituencies and therefore have an impact on the way in which they are drawn up. Many issues arise from the initial proposal.

The background to the particularity of this amendment is that attempts were made to see whether universities could help and assist in this. It was found early on that universities already collect most of the data needed to register students. All that is needed is a national insurance number. This is not routinely collected by universities because students are not employed there.

Obviously there are ways in which one could pose questions to students at points in the process of being at university without being intrusive. The example I have here is from the University of Sheffield—but there are other institutions—which worked with the city’s electoral registration officer and introduced questions for students at the time they were registering or reregistering for their courses. The first question was, “Do you wish to register to vote?”. If they said no, no further action was taken; and if they said yes, they would like to register to vote, they had to provide their national insurance number. The results were amazing: 64% of students opted to register to vote within Sheffield, although there were difficulties in getting some students to find their national insurance number—a problem not confined to students; I can never remember where mine is. I have now memorised it because I got so cross about being unable to complete forms online at the time I wanted to do them. I now have it and can give it to you now, if you want it, without breaching any personal information, of course.

The Cabinet Office then made a change and issued new guidance, which meant that it did not have to have a national insurance number. This was a sensible and unexpected move in support of the process by the Cabinet Office, and I am delighted it happened. We have an opportunity to help in that process. It has a more general particularity than just this Bill, but it is an opportunity that we should take to do it.

The amendment would create an opportunity within which universities could help participation using their function, not as a public sector body but as a public body with wider interests in the public well-being, in order to achieve the good outcome of having more people registered to vote. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment for the good reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to ensure that all eligible students are provided with an opportunity to opt in to the electoral register at the location in which they are studying. Since I have been in the Chamber I have been handed a helpful briefing from the Cabinet Office on this very amendment, which points out that as part of the Government’s Every Voice Matters campaign, the Minister for the Constitution is holding a series of round tables, including with the higher and further education sector, to assess what barriers there may be to electoral registration and what the Government could do to address them, so this issue is under active discussion.

As the noble Lord has said, under the old system of block registration, universities could go quite some way in assisting their students to become enrolled, but under individual electoral registration that has ceased to exist and the focus is on individuals to register. The benefit is that this system is more resilient to fraud, has a reduced risk of a student being registered at two locations, and—which I think is rather more important—has a reduced risk of a student being able to vote at several locations. But as we know, when someone is moving house, registering to vote is a low priority and many people realise that they did not get around to registering only when it comes to election time and it is already too late. Analysis by the Electoral Commission shows that areas with a high concentration of certain demographics, including students, private renters and especially young adults, where people move on a regular basis are particularly in danger of having low registration numbers. It is therefore important that special care is taken to prevent at-risk groups failing to register and have their say at an election.

We are well aware that universities already encourage students to register and vote, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, spelled out. Sheffield has been successful in increasing the number of students registered and many other institutions are already taking steps to encourage young people to ensure that they are on the register. Surely it is vital that the student voice should be heard in the democratic process, and that young people should get into the habit earlier rather than later of making their voices heard in elections. For all those reasons, I hope that favourable attention will be given to this amendment to try to make sure that as many students as possible are both registered to vote and then use their vote.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very important amendment. I want to make two points. First, we have already spent a great deal of time talking about the purposes of higher education and the desire to see fully educated, rather than just trained, people going into society and playing their part. Elections are occasions that provide real opportunities, so if we are serious about our earlier discussions on the Bill, logically we ought to ensure that everything possible is being done to enable students to participate.

My second point is simply that it is most important for society as a whole to ensure that we have the fullest possible participation in elections. There should be no unnatural hindrances whatever. Although we should of course have safeguards—I am the first to agree with that—we want to make sure that as many people as possible have the opportunity to participate as they should. Students have a particularly important contribution to make in the democratic process. Therefore this amendment makes absolute sense, in terms of both achieving our objectives as a democratic society with full participation and making sense of what we talked about at great length earlier in our deliberations: we want students to become fully participating and informed citizens.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, the case for the amendment has been explained clearly and persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and its other supporters; I, too, support it.

The amendment reflects a strong cross-party conviction, in both this House and the other place, that the underregistration of young people for electoral purposes is a most serious and pressing problem that needs to be tackled resolutely in a number of ways. The amendment embodies one of them.

Its objective was recommended strongly in last year’s report entitled Getting the ‘Missing Millions’ on to the Electoral Register, prepared by Bite The Ballot and others for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democratic Participation. That authoritative study makes it clear that university registration procedures could easily be adapted to incorporate provision enabling students to opt in for electoral registration, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, explained.

The Government should associate themselves firmly with the cross-party proposals to increase electoral registration of our young people. They need to demonstrate a clear commitment to working in a bipartisan spirit so that our democracy can be strengthened by bringing those missing from the register on to it. By supporting this amendment, the Government would make a significant contribution to the bipartisan progress that we need so badly.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the University of Cambridge. Before I entered your Lordships’ House, I had responsibility on Cambridge City Council for democratic services when the individual electoral registration pilots were going through. Before individual electoral registration, the university, or at least the colleges, had an extremely efficient relationship with the city council to register all undergraduate and graduate students. The shift to individual electoral registration has many benefits, but we lost that link. Colleges could no longer simply offer the data to the city council. The amendment would bring back something that worked effectively in the past but do so in line with current legislation. It would enable the Government to ensure that we really could register young people. At the time of the EU Referendum Bill, the Government repeatedly said that everything that linked back to the franchise needed to be dealt with in a representation of the people Act. I ask the Minister to consider whether on this occasion an amendment could be made that ensured that as many young people as possible could be on the electoral register.

[Lord Storey]

I was drawn to an Answer from the Minister to a Question on the effectiveness of the Sheffield pilot project on electoral registration. I think all of us in this Chamber—certainly those Members who have put their names to this important amendment, whom I thank—believe that it is important in our democracy that as many people as possible take part in elections. The best place to start that lifelong commitment to voting is at a young age. Sadly, we see many young people, perhaps as a result of all sorts of factors, not registering to vote and not getting into the habit of voting. Some of us had hoped that the immensely successful Belfast model, where electoral registration officers go into schools, give citizenship lessons and ask people to register to vote there and then, might be adopted in the rest of the UK, but that has not been the case. Government should surely seize every opportunity to ensure that more young people take part in elections and are registered to vote.

As has been said, we saw with the introduction of individual electoral registration a huge slump in the number of people who are registered. The Minister said in his Answer:

“The Government part-funded the University of Sheffield pilot, integrating electoral registration with the process of student enrolment, and has encouraged other providers of Higher and Further Education to implement a similar system”.


The Bill is a wonderful way, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Young, to encourage other higher and further education providers to implement a similar system. He went on:

“An indicative assessment shows this project had successful outcomes. For example, in the 2015/2016 academic year, the university had 76% of eligible students registered to vote compared with figures as low as 13% for similar sized universities. The Government will further evaluate the University of Sheffield pilot to understand—in detail—the impact of the pilot and its critical success factors. We understand a number of institutions have already introduced a similar approach, or are actively considering doing so”.


To be fair to the Minister, he said that there were differences between different higher education providers and the scheme might not be appropriate for all. I do not want to censor what he said. But his Answer contains a way forward. I would have thought that young people going away from home, being in a different environment, saying on day one, “Now is the time to register to vote”, is the way forward. I hope we might include it in the Bill.

17:15

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

I shall be very brief indeed. The comments of the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Benches hit the nail on the head. We have introduced a scheme that worked in Cambridge prior to its introduction. With the introduction of individual registration, we have complicated the scheme. We need to go back to why it was introduced: there was electoral fraud in a very small number of local authorities in the United Kingdom. To be frank, they were areas of the country with high ethnic-minority populations, where for cultural reasons it was felt acceptable within some of those populations to conduct elections in a way which proved fraudulent under the law of this country.

It was a Labour Government who introduced this scheme and we spent tens of millions of pounds—it must be much more than that now—implementing it out of political correctness to deal with a problem that should have been dealt with in individual communities where a particular problem arose. Now, of course, it is too late and we are left to pick up the damage that was done. This amendment, in its simple way, seeks to remedy at least some of the damage. But the only way of dealing with the damage that has been done through individual registration is to abolish the scheme and do what the Electoral Commission seems to recommend in its most recent report, which refers to taking action in specific areas, particularly those areas of the United Kingdom where there is a problem with electoral fraud.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, I will reflect very briefly on what actually happened in Cambridge on 23 June last year. That fell at just the end of term. A lot of students were graduating and a lot of them were still in Cambridge. As the head of a college, I had spent rather a lot of time over the preceding two or three months encouraging students to register and explaining to them how they could register individually. For many of them, the decision made on 23 June was about their future. They were very strongly engaged with the issues. But quite a number of them ended up unable to cast a vote on 23 June because they had not got round to registering.

Yes, of course, it was their fault in not registering. They should have done so. None the less, we as a society ought to make it as easy as possible to ensure that every young person is registered and has the ability to vote. The amendment would solve the problem. I support it.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I support the intent of this amendment. When I was vice-chancellor at Aston University, we were not able to implement a system which allowed our students to opt in, but it was very simple to provide on the online registration page a reminder to students that they should register to vote and a link to the site where they could do so. Even if it were not possible to go all the way, as this amendment envisages, it would not create difficulty to require higher education providers to encourage students to do so, and to give students the ability to find the link from the university’s online registration site or through their virtual learning environment.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships for your contributions. This has been interesting and, by way of general introduction, I listened with interest to the broader electoral point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. However, as this amendment deals specifically with students and young people, perhaps he will understand if I deal specifically with that aspect.

The Government fully share the aim of increasing the number of younger people registered to vote, as part of creating a democracy that works for everyone. This is an important subject but, although we support the overall aim of this amendment, we do not believe that placing a prescriptive, statutory duty on all HE providers is the best or most appropriate way to deliver that aim. Let me explain.

The Government have already shown their commitment to ensuring that students are registered to vote by supporting, and contributing financially, to the pilot project integrating electoral registration with student enrolment at the University of Sheffield. I commend those behind this successful pilot, which produced encouraging outcomes, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, indicated. I am pleased to note that many providers are already implementing this system voluntarily, such as the University of Bath—the university of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall—Sheffield Hallam University, Cardiff University, the University of Birmingham, Coventry University, Lancaster University, Manchester Metropolitan University and Newcastle University. Other providers are looking at this of their own volition and we anticipate that more will choose to do so this year. To encourage take-up of this system, or at least of one of the other models which institutions deem most appropriate, we have committed to write out to other HE and FE providers later this year.

With many universities already embracing this system, we expect and are confident that many more will do so voluntarily, which we believe is the right approach. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that we are looking at the University of Sheffield scheme to fully evaluate it and ensure that it is fit for purpose before we share the outcomes and encourage wider application. We will continue to work closely with sector partners, the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators to evaluate and share the outcomes from this and other schemes, and to consider other solutions for areas such as London where this system is impractical to deliver.

There will obviously be an administrative burden associated with such a system as used by the University of Sheffield. Larger providers may have the resources to accommodate the introduction of an integrated voter registration system, and to absorb the costs of such an arrangement, but I hope the Committee will agree that it is not appropriate to include such a mandatory condition in the Bill. The conditions of registration in the Bill are primarily to provide proportionate safeguards for students and the taxpayer, and to take forward social mobility policies. The imposition of other mandatory conditions risks undermining this proportionate approach to regulation, which is a key element of the system. This is a deregulatory Bill from a deregulatory Government.

Moreover, it is not a case of “one size fits all”. Providers should be able to choose from this or other options, such as the one used by De Montfort University, which offers students the opportunity to register automatically when logging into their student intranet. In places such as London, with its 33 boroughs, there are major issues to contend with, such as students with a term-time address in a different registration area from their university, which makes this system impractical to deliver for electoral administrators.

It must be for HE providers, working in partnership with their students and electoral registration officers—the acknowledged experts in registration—to determine how best to increase student registration. Yet this does not mean that we cannot do more to encourage registration. The Government are also looking at modernising and streamlining the annual registration canvass. Impacts on students from the current process will be picked up as part of the modernising electoral registration programme. We are also considering other options to increase student registration, including as part of the Government’s democratic engagement strategy. We expect to set out more about this later on this year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, referred to the Cabinet briefing note, a copy of which I have in my hand. I confirm to your Lordships that we will circulate a copy to all Peers and will place a copy in the House Library. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised the issue of including local electoral registers in university areas. According to YouthSight, 60% of students actively choose to be registered at their home address. That is their choice, but it means that underregistration is not perhaps such a material issue—students simply elect to register elsewhere.

Although the Government fully support the aim of increasing student voter registration, we do not believe that this amendment is the most effective or appropriate way of meeting that objective. In these circumstances, I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Judd]

The noble Baroness made the point that a growing number of universities are, of their own volition and initiative, taking action in this area. That is something to be admired and is absolutely right, but democracy is immediate and in the meantime there will be elections. Are we really accepting a situation in which there will be two opportunities available—one where universities have chosen to enhance the quality of democracy and another where they have not? There is some urgency on this matter, and I do not think that the Minister, on reflection, will really believe her own argument.

[Baroness Goldie]

With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I do not think anyone is suggesting that there is a desert of electoral registration by students. Everyone is agreed on the importance of ensuring that as many as students as possible register to vote and that they are encouraged to do that. The distinction we have to draw in securing that objective is whether putting something into this Bill and making a mandatory provision is proportionate and the best way of achieving that aim. As I have just explained to your Lordships, the Government feel that that is neither appropriate nor the best way to achieve that objective. That is why we invite the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am afraid I was a bit disappointed in the noble Baroness’s response to the amendment. Given the widespread support for this measure and the wider context which many noble Lords gave for that, as well as the willingness to try and spread the word and get people interested in the electoral process and all the other matters that she referred to in terms of other programmes that are going ahead, this would seem to fit in very well. In fact I felt it was rather a tawdry list. To talk about this being a deregulatory Bill is just a complete nonsense: it is a re-regulatory Bill, and indeed it gives new powers to bodies that previously have hidden in darkness. The idea that espousing this as a deregulatory Bill means that she has an excuse not to bring forward a proposal in this area is a little rich.

At the end of the day, the Minister’s figures were instructive: 60% may well register at home, but that leaves 40% who do not, and 40% of 600,000 students is a lot of people who are not going to be able to vote. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Smith, what happened on the ground in Cambridge on 23 June. This is not satisfactory and I am sure it is something we will want to return to on Report—I can give that assurance unequivocally. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75 withdrawn.

17:30

Amendment 76

Moved by

[Lord Storey]

76: Clause 5, page 4, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Subject to subsection (1B), initial registration conditions of all providers under subsection (1)(a) must include a requirement that every provider—(a) provides all eligible students and staff with a mental health support service, and(b) notifies all students and staff of this service.(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply to the Open University and other distance learning institutions.”

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, your Lordships’ House has an excellent record on the issue of mental health. In fact it was this House that persuaded the Government, by insisting on it, on parity of NHS treatment of physical and mental illness.

On many issues we are persuaded by our own personal experiences. I remember taking my daughter the couple of hours’ drive to university, five years ago now. A couple of years later she said to me, “You don’t realise the abject horror that was. You put me in the car with all my possessions and dropped me off at this strange place where I knew no one and had to sink or swim”. In her halls she befriended and became close to a girl who was in her first year and whose sister, a year older, was at another university. Very tragically, those girls’ father then died at a relatively young age. Both sisters were completely traumatised. You would be; you are a young girl away from home for the first time, and your father dies. One university was absolutely stunning in the support that it gave that girl. Her sister at the other university did not even get to see her personal tutor; no support was given at all. That is the difference. That is why this amendment says, importantly, that the university “must”—not “may”—provide services for mental health.

It is often said that when it comes to mental health, ignoring the problem—if it is even recognised in the first place—is not the solution. However, neither is dealing with it alone. Nationally, only 13% of the NHS budget is currently committed to mental health services, despite the fact that mental health illness accounts for 28% of the total burden to the NHS. The problem in many universities across the UK is the same: the underfunding of support services does not accurately reflect today’s reality. Many thousands of children and young people when at university are isolated, unhappy and—because of the pressures of the new regime, if you like—perhaps have eating disorders and self-harm. Tragically, of course, some can take their own lives.

There is still huge stigma around mental health, which means that young people are not getting the support they need. The amendment is important not only for those who might develop mental health problems during their time at university but for those who have experienced mental health problems in the past. Young people who need help and support from mental health services can find themselves with no help or support when they most need it. To get any service from adult mental health services, the threshold in terms of severity of illness is higher than for children and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, so many young people are locked out from receiving the service. For some, their illness has to reach a crisis point before they receive the service that they need, with the effect that their entry to the service is more traumatic and costly to the young person, their family and the service than if their needs had been met earlier. Differences between service locations and the style of the two services alienate many young people, who end up slipping off the radar of services. Ensuring that mental health support services are available to students when they need them is really important.

I have one final observation. There is a clear link between poor mental health and student retention. The emphasis on student retention is higher in those institutions that provide proper mental health support than in those that do not. I hope we will realise that, just as we have done in the education service as a whole and in the NHS, providing a service in universities is hugely important. Sometimes we say, “Oh, there’s no money available”, but of course there is money available. I sometimes have a little wry smile on my face when I get to Euston station and see all the billboards advertising different universities. The cost of that runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. Surely we can find the money for every university to provide mental health support for its young students—not “may”, but “must”.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. In coalition, our Health Minister, Norman Lamb, campaigned staunchly for parity of esteem and funding for mental health in order to bring it up to the same standards as physical health. We are still a long way from achieving that parity.

My noble friend has spoken particularly about students. In the amendment we included care for university staff, many of whom work under intense pressure. The introduction of new assessment measures in the Bill may well increase those pressures on staff, many of whom may be on insecure contracts, with high ambitions, high expectations and long hours. We know that many universities already have a great duty of care to their staff as well as their students, but this measure would see all universities, as places of study and work, fulfil their duty of care to both their staff and their students.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I commend the amendment. It is enlightened and imaginative. University should be a thrilling and fulfilling experience. Of course it should be testing—there is no question about that—but it should be an experience in which a person develops their potential and begins to flourish intellectually and as a being. There is no doubt now, with our increasing awareness of the nature of mental illness, that there are disturbing numbers of students for whom that is just not the reality, and university becomes a hell. As a civilised society, we should not tolerate a situation like that when very often quite a small amount of highly professional help can enable students to come out of this nightmare and join the rich learning experience. The amendment is just the sort of thing this House should take part in.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

I wholeheartedly support the amendment. I wish to make a limited point. Why should it refer to “must” rather than “shall”? Both words seem to come to the same conclusion, but I would have thought that by and large the word “shall” has more of a legislative pedigree than the alternative. In saying so, I declare an interest as a former president of a Welsh university for 10 years and as the chairman of its council. I am sure that if one produced a friendly document entitled “Words and phrases judicially defined”, one would probably find “shall” and “must” in many Acts of Parliament, but I would have thought in this case that “shall” was probably far more appropriate than “must”.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, I will forgo the opportunity to discourse the difference between “shall” and “must”; I would simply observe that both tend to be better than “may”. However, I commend the amendment. The mental well-being of students in our universities is hugely important, and is becoming even more so because of the increasing stresses on students in our universities. That is partly due to the increasingly competitive post-university market in getting careers and jobs; the determination to do well in order to perform well after university is now a very great pressure on our students.

However, I have to say that that impact is exacerbated by the increasing development of social media. Anything that is said or observed about a fellow student now becomes magnified a hundred times through the use of social media. The stress that can follow from that on individual students can be intense. It is incumbent on universities—“shall” or “must”—to provide not just detailed day-to-day pastoral care through a tutorial system for students but, if necessary, to have expert, trained counsellors available if things start to go seriously wrong. To those who would say, “This will cost money”, yes it will cost some money but it would cost far more if we did not do it and then things went seriously wrong for a number of our students. I urge the Government to give every sympathetic consideration they can to the points that have been made in this debate and to the amendment.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I want to further emphasise the importance of mental health support to the areas of access and progression. We appropriately attract more students who do not come from a family background where higher education is the norm, who do not have the support from home to ensure that they understand the experiences they are having and the ups and downs of their university careers. As we stress in the Bill, we want to see those students progress and succeed in their degrees. For this to be successful it is critical that universities provide mental health support to their students.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a rather important measure which I hope will be reflected in the Minister’s response. On parity of esteem, one would want the same approach to mental and physical health given by professionals and those who care for others to spread into the university sector. I suspect that one of the arguments used by the Minister will be that this is something which all citizens—we should not make a special case for students—should be able to access wherever they are and therefore wherever they study. However, the point has been well made that there is something significant about the process of being at university that raises the question of whether there has to be additional provision. It may well be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said, that access and progression measures are ones where this might find the most obvious hook. That issue will probably be dealt with by the Minister when he responds.

My question is slightly different. This issue of mental health support services being a requirement of the OfS to place on providers which offer students and staff positions within their institution is of a quasi-regulatory nature. Will this be something that will inevitably come to the OfS because if not, I imagine it will come to the CMA at some point? The CMA as currently configured will be the regulator under which most OfS activities will be supported, and will be there to take action presumably if the OfS does not do that. Therefore, it might well be that there is a regulatory bite on this issue which we are perhaps not seeing yet.

I mention that because later amendments—Amendment 110 onwards, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—refer to protected characteristics. How the equality legislation plays within the university sector and whether the bodies that are currently supervising and regulating it are aware of the implications will be an issue that we will pick up in some substance. It could be a game changer in terms of how universities are currently configured and how they will operate in the future as these regulations become more of the part and parcel of things. The narrow point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and supported by others who spoke in the debate, is still a very important one and should be dealt with on its merits. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

17:45

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for raising the important issue of mental health support for students. I know that there has been some discussion in the Corridors not far away on this very subject. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord will know how seriously I take this subject.

We have heard today from noble Lords how deeply mental health issues can affect students, staff and families. I particularly listened to the very sobering anecdotal evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I am sure that many of us could relate our own experiences that illustrate similar issues.

Mental health is a priority for this Government. Noble Lords will be aware that just last week the Prime Minister announced a package of measures to transform mental health support in our schools, workplaces and communities. The reforms will have a focus on improving mental health support at every stage of a person’s life. This will include a major thematic review of children and adolescent mental health services across the country, led by the Care Quality Commission, which will identify what is working and what is not. A new Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health will set out plans to transform services in schools, and importantly universities, and indeed for families.

As we have discussed at length, higher education institutions are autonomous bodies, independent from the government. Each institution is best placed to identify the needs of their particular student and staff body and to develop appropriate support services. There are many examples of universities providing excellent support for their students and, of course, their staff, which the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, raised, both for mental health and in the context of wider pastoral care. But as we know, there are also too many examples of universities that could certainly do more. The higher education sector itself is working to improve mental health support. Universities UK recently launched a programme called Wellbeing in Higher Education. It will focus on the need for a whole university or institution approach to mental health and well-being.

UUK is working closely with Public Health England, expert voices from student services and charities such as Student Minds. Let me be clear: the Government expect higher education providers to provide appropriate support services for all their students and staff, including those with mental health issues. This is a deeply important issue. The upcoming Green Paper provides the excellent opportunity to look at this issue in greater detail. We believe that we should not pre-empt the issues or any recommendations that may come out of this particular Green Paper.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised the link between mental health and retention. We agree that retention is extremely important for universities and that is why we will take retention metrics into account as part of the TEF. The Director for Fair Access and Participation will be looking beyond just the point of access to the whole student life cycle, which is something that I have spoken about in previous debates in Committee.

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions, but ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Storey]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thoughtful reply. I am delighted that mental health is a priority for the Government. The Minister said that the Government expect universities to make provision, so as well as “shall” or “must” or “maybe” we now have “expect” on the list. I just want an amendment that makes it happen. At this stage—we will no doubt come back to it—I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 76 withdrawn.

Amendments 77 and 78 not moved.

Amendments 79 to 81 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 5 agreed.

Clauses 6 and 7 agreed.

Clause 8: Mandatory ongoing registration conditions for all providers

Amendment 82

Moved by

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

82: Clause 8, page 5, line 30, after second “which” insert “materially”

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, I will move Amendment 82 and speak briefly to Amendments 84 and 88, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. These amendments are aimed at avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy, both for the Office for Students and for providers, by helping to ensure that the mandatory requirements of the OfS, set out in Clause 8, are both reasonable and proportionate. In the Bill, governing bodies must notify the OfS of any change that affects the accuracy of information in the register. We suggest that governing bodies might notify the OfS of any change that materially affects the accuracy of such information. We are sure that the OfS does not want to know about full stops and commas.

Similarly, governing bodies must provide the OfS with such information as it or one of its designated bodies “may require”, and we suggest inserting “reasonably” so it becomes information that the OfS or its designated bodies “may reasonably require”. I hope the Minister will feel able to support this reduction in potential bureaucratic load. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, these are sensible and appropriate amendments for the Minister to consider. They are there because of a feeling that the balance between what is reasonable and what is bureaucratically required may have got slightly out of proportion in the drafting. There is not much in them, but a few additional little words would make a huge difference to how institutions have to operate in the regimes within which they work. When the noble Baroness responded to an earlier amendment, she said that it was important for the OfS to be seen as independent of the institutions to which it relates. Because it is a regulator it would be inappropriate for the OfS to be engaged in too much detailed negotiation and discussion, so it would not be appropriate for it to get involved itself in assessing what type of material is done. It would therefore be quite appropriate for the drafting to reflect a sense that there is a stop in the broader flow of information to only those things which are material, important or relevant. I strongly support the amendment.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, the mandatory registration conditions placed on all providers are important and it is right that they are being debated. While I understand the reason for these amendments, existing provisions in the Bill provide sufficient protection for providers from unnecessary or unreasonable requests for information; the amendments are therefore unnecessary, but I will give some fuller explanations.

A key element of the Bill is that the OfS must act in a proportionate manner when formulating and exercising its regulatory powers. In accordance with Clause 2, the OfS must have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice including the principle that regulatory activities must be accountable and proportionate. As such, I can provide noble Lords with an assurance that any information the OfS requires for inclusion in the register will be restricted to that which is necessary for it to perform its functions or to enable students and others to make informed choices. We anticipate that a provider’s entry in the register will be factual and will include, for example, the provider’s registered name, the addresses of the governing body and the registered locations at which courses are delivered. We also anticipate that it will include the category of registration of a provider, whether that provider is subject to a fee limit and details of any quality reviews that have been undertaken. The Secretary of State will make regulations setting out the information to be contained in an institution’s entry in the register. I hope this reassures the House that the OfS will not seek excessive or unnecessary amounts of data from providers and, therefore, the requirement to notify the OfS of changes will not be frequent or onerous. Even then, the failure by a provider to notify the OfS of a change of detail would not necessarily, in itself, lead to sanctions. It would need to adopt a proportionate response taking into account the subject matter and the nature of the omission.

I turn to data that the OfS may request to perform its functions. Once again, proportionality is key here, as described in Clause 7. This stipulates that the conditions of registration, both initial and ongoing, must be proportionate to the degree of regulatory risk the provider presents. So the OfS must ensure that its requests for information are reasonable and proportionate. In respect of information that the OfS may require to enable publication of English higher education information, Clause 59 states that the OfS, or the designated body, must have regard to the desirability of reducing the burden on providers of collecting information and to the availability of data from other sources. The OfS must also consult higher education providers and persons who represent, or promote the interests of, students and employers. This is to ensure that the data being requested are of demonstrable benefit and have the support of the sector and students. This should ensure that providers will only be subject to requests for information which are judged by the sector as adding value.

That was a little bit of a lengthy explanation but I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, can agree that there are a number of important controls in place and that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

I thank the noble Viscount for his detailed reply and for his assurances about controls on the proportionate behaviour of the OfS. While disappointed, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 82 withdrawn.

Amendment 83

Moved by

[Baroness Goldie]

83: Clause 8, page 5, line 34, after “OfS” insert “, or a person nominated by the OfS,”

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Younger regarding the designated data body. The Bill preserves the existing co-regulatory approach where the regulator has overarching responsibility for information services and the information is gathered and published by an independent body which has the confidence of the sector. We know from the thoughtful and considered amendments proposed that many noble Lords share our concern that the designated data body is provided with the clear statutory footing needed to ensure that the information needs of students, prospective students, employers, providers and government are adequately supported. We look forward to returning to these issues later in the debate. Today I am simply putting forward some technical clarifications intended to enable the designated data body to continue to perform vital functions currently undertaken by the Higher Education Statistics Agency.

Amendments 83, 86 and 87 clarify that the legislation enables the OfS to nominate the designated data body to perform the data collection, specifically required by the OfS, in order for it to perform its functions. Amendments 367, 369, 370, 372, 373 and 381 provide further specific powers of delegation, enabling the OfS to require the designated body to make appropriate arrangements for the publication of the data and to consult on data publication. As noble Lords will recognise, the effect of these amendments is to support the already stated intention that the OfS can delegate these duties to enable it to work in a coregulatory partnership with a sector body.

I turn to the new clause proposed by Amendment 365. We have worked in consultation with the Higher Education Statistics Agency—HESA—to ensure that essential elements of the data body role will be fully enabled through the Bill. In particular, Amendment 365 seeks to broaden the role of a data body to include the essential function not just of publishing information but, where required, gathering and holding information not intended for publication where such data are required by the OfS, UKRI or the Secretary of State and making that information available to them. This amendment gives the designated data body more scope and flexibility to gather and compile information required by government, the OfS and UKRI. I also provide assurance in response to concerns raised about the extent to which the designated data body could use data collected for statutory purposes to carry out a wider information-sharing role with the sector and other interested parties, continuing the type of services currently offered by HESA. This is not a matter for legislation, since it does not relate directly to the OfS’s statutory functions. However, I assure noble Lords that there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent the designated data body from using data collected in its capacity as a designated body or from engaging in any other activities beyond its designated functions. This wider co-operation with the sector and other interested partners is part of what contributes towards the benefits of coregulation. I beg to move.

18:00

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I think we are all slightly struck dumb by the flow of information that has come out about this. I must say I had not fully appreciated, until the Minister started speaking, exactly where she was going on this. I am still slightly confused and I shall ask three questions at the end for her to come back to if she can. As I understand it, representation has been made sufficient for the Ministers to decide that a body will be created, separate from the OfS and not dissimilar to HESA, which will carry out the functions that the noble Baroness talked about and hold data in addition, as long as that is within the purview of the OfS. There is obviously a little detail missing, because I could not find in the Bill, in the short time I had to look at it, exactly where are the powers, the bodies, the functions or the establishment of HESA—or, rather, the quasi-HESA, if it is to be that body. If I have not found it by the time we get to the end of this short debate I would be grateful if the Minister could say exactly where I will find it, so that we can check it when we compare it with Hansard.

The reason for being slightly tentative about this is not that I object to the principle—I think the principle is absolutely right. Indeed, there is a bit of a trend developing whereby the functions that were previously within HEFCE, broadly, and within a set of bodies which were set up specifically for the purpose but without statutory backing, have been merged into a single body under the Office for Students. However, we are now realising, as we begin to unpick this, that separate institutions will probably be established. Certainly, I have a later amendment which proposes that the body responsible for quality assessment—the standard of the institution as it approaches and is made into a higher education provider in England and therefore eligible to be appointed to the register—will be independent of the Office for Students. That is because I take the point made earlier by the noble Baroness, that the regulator should not be too close to the other institutions. That is a point we made about the last amendment, but we should also make sure that the regulator is not also a validator or a cheerleader for the sector. It would not be possible for a body appointed as a regulator also to be responsible for carrying out the work which it is regulating. I think we need to think again about the Office for Students. I thought this debate would come a little later in the considerations of the Committee, but we now have an opportunity to pick up at least one area of that.

If I am right that that is where we are coming from, where does this take us on the journey? It is clearly vital to the long-term guidance and the policy directions we need to take in higher education to have a clearer understanding of what the statistical background and basis of that will be. It is conventional in other areas to have separate bodies responsible for information gathering and dissemination, therefore it would be slightly odd if higher education did not follow down this track. To that extent I am absolutely on all fours with Ministers on this; we are not on a good position on that. What I lack is information about how this body is to be established and how certain it will be about its future. HESA is a creature of HEFCE, as I understand it, and therefore does not have its independent funding or constitution. If this is to create that, then we need a little more information before we can tie it off. In terms of where we are coming from, of the 24 amendments that are down in the name of the noble Viscount the Minister, I think that this is a good start and I hope that it will be endorsed as we move forward.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

I want to be sure that I understand. The designated body will be able to perform some of the duties which the Office for Students has, under the Bill, if that option is taken up, but the designated body will also have responsibilities which the Office for Students does not have under the Bill at the present time. Am I right in that? If so, are the extra responsibilities that the new designated body has in relation particularly to the fixing and consideration of standards?

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am sorry to come back so quickly but I am prompted by the noble and learned Lord to make a point. The reference he makes to the responsibilities of the OfS is not, of course, in Part 1 of the Bill as we have considered it—I think he has picked up that point. There is a schedule which contains further information, but a quick reading, which is what I was trying to do while the noble Baroness was speaking, does not seem to pick up exactly the point he has made, so I endorse it and look forward to hearing the response.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. To answer the specific point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about where all this appears in the Bill, my understanding is that Clause 59 and Schedule 6 cover the duty to publish English higher education information, as originally drafted. We are clarifying and expanding the rules and data, by the amendments to which I have just spoken, to build on what is provided for in this core clause and in Schedule 6. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern raised a fairly technical issue and I hesitate to give a full response at the Dispatch Box in case I get it completely wrong. With his approval, I shall write to him on that issue.

Amendment 83 agreed.

Amendments 84 and 85 not moved.

Amendments 86 and 87

Moved by

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

86: Clause 8, page 5, line 38, leave out from “its” to end and insert “duties under sections (Duty to compile and make available higher education information)(1) and 59(1) (compiling, making available and publishing”

87: Clause 8, page 5, line 39, after “the” insert “designated”

Amendments 86 and 87 agreed.

Amendment 88 not moved.

Amendment 89

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

89: Clause 8, page 5, line 39, at end insert—
“( ) a condition that requires the governing body of the provider to collaborate with other registered higher education providers and with the OfS in the evaluation of elements of, or proposals for elements of, access and participation plans, and the publication of such evaluations.”

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I shall also speak to the other amendments in this group. All have to do with collaboration and my wish that the OfS, in the structure of the Bill, should be able to generate collaboration between universities. The first area, in Amendment 89, is in access plans. Universities spend a lot on encouraging access, but they do not do so in an evidenced or collaborative way. For instance, it was in the papers yesterday, I think, that Oxford is still spending £12 million a year on bursaries, which has been shown to be the least efficient way possible of encouraging access. I have seen several examples of projects which do not have any form of evaluation at the end.

People commonly comment that we do not seem to be generating best practice, learning from it or spreading it. That is a great waste of money, which we are extracting, mostly, from individual students as part of their fees. Now that we are taking control of this process through the OfS, we ought to have much greater stewardship of the money that is being extracted from students, and make sure that it is being spent effectively. To my mind, the OfS should be responsible for making sure that that happens and it does not happen, in my experience, at the moment.

The second area, in Amendment 91, is the GREAT campaign. This was one of the innovations of the 2010 Government and has been, to my mind, a great success in many areas, but it has been half-hearted in knowledge and education. The principal reason for that has been that universities and schools have not collaborated to nearly the extent that they should have. The strong go out and market on their own name; the others are reduced to using agents that the British Council no longer controls properly. Particularly after Brexit, we need a much stronger and more co-ordinated effort to establish the value of British education. I would like to see universities wholeheartedly collaborating with this—and with a degree of compulsion, if my amendment is encouraged—to say that, yes, they all have a role to get students for themselves but they also have a role to promote British education as a whole as they do it, and to collaborate with what we are doing to promote British education.

Amendment 92 requires that the OfS be allowed to communicate with current and former students of providers. If we are to build something worth while out of all the work we are doing in the universities, as a basis for trading worldwide and for our relationships, a modern way of doing that would be through an electronic network. To build such a network, we must have contact with, or a means to communicate with, the people we wish to be members of that network. Yes, of course overseas students who have been to a particular university may well be cultivated by that university, to some extent to extract money from them but also to communicate with them. However, it ought not to be a separate system of 100-plus individual providers—or, if we take all the higher education providers, rather more. We ought to support all our graduates in China as a network of our Chinese graduates, giving them access to similar networks elsewhere in the world and to the network in the UK.

The difficulty with trying to run such a thing over LinkedIn is that you do not know who people are and you do not know who to trust. A network we ran on the basis of who had been to our universities would be much stronger and would have a strong community of values in that everybody in it would have been through the same long experience of receiving a university education in this country. It would form a great basis for international trade over the years, providing strength to us but also to them. Much more than just the education in this country, they would have a lifelong connection with each other and with this country, which would serve them well. To do that, we have to be able to require higher education providers to allow the Government, through the OfS, to communicate with their students; obviously not to extract their details willy-nilly against the Data Protection Act but to require the higher education providers to communicate with their students and say, “The Government would love to involve you in this new network they are building. If you want to join, sign here”. That is an important thing to do. We need somewhere in the Bill the ability to give the OfS the permission to require higher education providers to communicate with their students on behalf of the Government or the OfS.

On Amendment 93, we do not have the information we should on destinations after university. We make attempts to do it; we have a six-month survey, which is sort of complete, and we make various attempts to sample what is happening later in life. We need to do better than that, and for that we need universities’ collaboration. To understand where each university course leads is an important part of informing students what is going on.

Lastly, Amendment 445 picks up the Student Loans Company as a source of ways of communicating with domestic students. That is to some extent an adjunct to the earlier amendments but it is also a proposal made by the Higher Education Policy Institute as a way of improving our student loan recovery from people who have gone to work overseas. They instance the experience of New Zealand as a country that has instituted a similar system and has found that its recovery from graduates who are now overseas has been much better since they have had this kind of access.

I hope the Government will take all these amendments positively, because they lead to positive results. I beg to move.

18:15

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

My Lords, it would be difficult to ask universities to tell the Government about their overseas students, as this is, as it were, part of a university’s commercial business. However, I understand entirely and sympathise hugely with the reason for wanting to do that. An alternative way to achieve the same end might be to provide additional funding to the British Council, which works closely with all UK universities and is a great asset to us, co-ordinating our engagement with our overseas graduates and bringing them together for all sorts of overseas alumni events. In a post-Brexit environment, the British Council is a treasure that we need to make sure is adequately funded to support us in this important area.

[Lord Willetts]

My Lords, briefly, I support this amendment but ask my noble friend Lord Lucas whether the obstacle is not somewhere else. The universities do not necessarily have as much data about their graduates as we think they do. Sadly, the Foreign Office and the British Council do not have enough. They try to host parties for Chevening scholars in embassies around the world and have a limited database of who the people are who were on the scholarships in the past. There is, sadly, surprisingly little information. The organisation that has the data is the Student Loans Company, and the legislation around it is heavily constrained because it is treated essentially as an arm of HMRC, with all the confidentiality that goes with that. If I were a university that wanted to communicate with my alumni, instead of putting an obligation on me, I would say, “Please, can there be some way in which we can communicate with our alumni via the Student Loans Company database?”, as that is where the contact addresses are. I hope there might be some way in which, in the spirit of these excellent amendments, that could be facilitated. That is the infrastructure we do not have. The American universities have built it up over generations. There was the great observation: “If only Osama bin Laden had been to Harvard Business School, because the Americans would have found him within 24 hours”. They are very good at tracking down their graduates, we are not so good at it, and access to the Student Loans Company data would make that a lot easier.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to collaboration across the higher education sector. I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for highlighting these issues and for allowing this short and interesting debate. I value his knowledge in this area and, should he wish, I would be happy to meet him to discuss these matters further. I reassure him that the Bill does not preclude collaboration on any of these important issues, which I suspect he knows. The Government support collaboration where it is in the best interests of students and where it is not anti-competitive. Furthermore, the OfS has specific duties to promote quality, choice and equality of opportunity. If it considers that promoting collaboration is necessary to achieve these aims, it has the capability to do so.

I will take each of my noble friend’s amendments in turn. He draws attention to the importance of collaboration to evaluate access and participation proposals. I reassure the House that the Government absolutely agree with the importance of widening participation, which will be a key part of the remit of the Office for Students. The new Director for Fair Access and Participation will be at the heart of the new regulator and will sit on the board. This reflects the high priority that this Government are giving to widening participation. The OfS will be able to use the information it gathers from access and participation plans and through working with higher education institutions and sector bodies to evaluate what works in widening participation, building on the good work already done by OFFA.

My noble friend also raised the need for collaboration between providers to attract international students to the UK. He mentioned the well-received GREAT campaign, which does an excellent job. The Government acknowledge that, as well as competing for individual students, the higher education sector has a shared interest in promoting the excellent education provided by our universities to prospective international students. Various sector bodies and mission groups already do an excellent job in promoting UK universities on the global stage and there are many instances of successful collaboration between providers. Furthermore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, rightly pointed out, the British Council also plays an importance role in this respect.

The third issue raised by these amendments is the importance of greater collaboration to enable more effective communication with current and former students. Many universities already run effective alumni programmes. There are also a number of existing routes to communicate with current and former students, such as through the Student Loans Company—as my noble friend Lord Willetts said—and we expect the OfS to work in partnership to deliver effective communications.

The fourth issue is collaborating to keep track of former students’ locations and employment statuses. The Government appreciate the importance of monitoring the long-term outcomes for students finishing higher education. It is very much an important part of our reforms. The OfS will work with the designated data body and others to ensure appropriate data gathering. As your Lordships will know, there is already a graduate destination survey and we are developing the longitudinal education outcomes data.

I turn now to Amendment 445. As my noble friend Lord Lucas will be aware, the Student Loans Company administers student loan accounts in the UK. I am happy to reassure my noble friend that the SLC already shares information with other government departments where this is of assistance in recovering student loan debt. The Government also published the joint repayment strategy in February last year, which provides more detail of the work under way in this area. We do not believe that this amendment is necessary, given that other frameworks are in place for the SLC to share information where this is of assistance in recovering student loan debt. I thank my noble friend for allowing me to give, I hope, some reassurance to him on all his amendments and I ask him to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his answer and I will certainly take him up on his offer of a meeting between Committee and Report. To reply briefly to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, I say that Cambridge is part of the United Kingdom as well as being a university with commercial interests and there are some things that one does because they are of interest to us all rather than just the interest of oneself. Responding to the need to boost the economy abroad, boost trade and improve our international relationships, we can all act as individual actors and say we will reserve to ourselves all our knowledge and skills or we can share them. This is a time when a certain degree of sharing is necessary and Cambridge and others should recognise that though they are grand and important and have great reputations they consequently have a great ability to contribute to the nation through sharing.

As far as my noble friend Lord Willetts’s remarks are concerned, we have just given the National Citizen Service the right to require HMRC to communicate with its customers on behalf of the National Citizen Service, so the precedent for allowing the Inland Revenue to send out messages has been established. We really ought to open up the Student Loans Company in the same way because we must surely be able to make great use of that kind of communication with the alumni of British universities. It is just communication. It is just sending out information. I will look further into the proposition that we do not need any help in improving our loan recovery rate from overseas students and I will incorporate that in my conversations with the Minister when we get there, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 89 withdrawn.

Amendment 90 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendments 91 to 93 not moved.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed.

Clause 9: Mandatory transparency condition for certain providers

Amendment 94

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

94: Clause 9, page 6, line 3, leave out “of a prescribed description”

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am afraid the Committee will get tired of hearing from me on this. This is all about information and Amendment 101, which would give the OfS the power to specify after consultation additional matters in which it thinks should require information, is perhaps the key amendment. It would give the OfS and the Government plenty of time for consultation and consideration before going down any of the routes I advocate in other amendments.

Amendment 94 picks up “of a prescribed description”. My experience in this area is that if you have differential requirements for information, anyone required to provide less information has an immediate commercial advantage and the people being asked for more information raise their hands and say, “We’re being asked to put ourselves at a commercial disadvantage”. This creates great problems. Everybody should be asked for the same information and then there is a level playing field.

Amendments 95 to 98 pick up the first of several areas in which the current practice of UCAS and universities greatly advantages well-off schools. There are a number of bits of knowledge that are not publicly released and not easily available but which schools with sufficient funds to research and preserve knowledge efficiently from one year to the next can use to advantage their students. One area is the month in which it is best to apply to a particular university course. It is supposed to be all the same but it is not. There are particular courses where applying early can raise an advantage; that should be known by everybody, not just by a few.

Amendment 99 is one of a number that ask for information from providers to allow the rest of us to understand what they are doing and to enter into an informed conversation with them about whether we might like things to be different. My particular interest in this area is with sexual harassment. I want to know what universities are doing to improve the situation they find themselves with—making sure that freshers’ week is civilised and that the relationship between the genders in university is properly respectful and understood to be so; and that all those who come to university with bad attitudes learned from schools that are not well organised and well set-up in terms of relationships between the genders have an opportunity to learn a proper way of going about things. The evidence on this is mostly from the United States, where it appears that about 40% of male students arrive at university with exceptionally disrespectful ideas of how to treat female students. I do not know the figures here but I imagine that they are not wildly different.

The recent work very courageously done by Imperial College on sexual harassment and gender relationships reveals that there is a lot of work to be done. There is scope for great improvement here. This amendment would apply also to such matters as anti-Semitism and homophobia and other aspects of the relationship between the members of the university community. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure that we get to a position where higher education providers regularly release information that is of use to prospective students but also to others concerned that we should see improving practice over time. Amendment 100 reflects that in the case of mental health.

Amendment 102 reflects it in the case of freedom of speech and academic freedom—not to give the OfS or anybody else the power to intervene but to make sure that we know what is going on so that we can be part of a conversation with academia about what should be done.

18:30

Amendment 103 opens the very thorny issue of the continued practice of some universities of taking money away from humanities students and giving it to science students. A student charged £9,000 a year for a history degree, for instance, may find that £3,000 of that is spent on physics students. I know why this practice grew up. It grew up in the old funding days when students did not pay for, or paid markedly less than, the cost of their course. However, I do not think that the current position in which a student is put into debt not for value that they are receiving but for value that some other student is receiving, without being told about it, should be allowed to continue. It will take a gentle hand to manage the transition but this practice should not continue.

Amendment 104 picks up the question of the interaction between students and staff, and the seniority of the staff on each course. The pattern of teaching provision in a course matters a lot. It is a question not just of teaching hours but of who teaches you and when in the course you are taught by particular kinds of people. Some universities are now experimenting with having their best teachers—the most experienced and highly qualified—teach in the first year. They get people really revved up with an understanding of the subject, and those students are then the PhD students who take it on from there. However, there are universities that do it the other way round. The amendment would be part of telling a prospective student what the deal is and what they will get in exchange. We ought to improve on what we do at the moment and the OfS ought to have the power to drive that improvement.

Amendment 105 goes back to Amendment 99. This is another area where the behaviour of schools can advantage students if they really understand the rules—the ways in which predictions work, the ways in which the outcomes of offer predictions work, and how to make the best approach to a course that you want to end up on. Amendments 106 and 107 also reflect that.

Looking at the data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, it is really noticeable how some groups of schools put their students on courses that, for those students, are easy to get on to. They noticeably shoot below the target that they could have aimed for. On average, given their qualifications, they can get on to courses that are much more difficult to get on to, but they do not—they shoot low. Why is that happening? It happens because the output from UCAS is what the university says the course admission requirements are, which can be substantially different from what the course requirements actually are. They admit at a much lower level than they say they do, let alone what they might choose to admit in clearing, and they let people with offers undershoot by a couple of grades. However, that is not known—there is nothing out there that says that that is the case, but of course the good independent schools and others that put time into this know these things. They know that, although a university may say that a course requires three As, a student will actually get in with two Bs and an A and so should have a go at it. It is entirely unacceptable that disadvantaged people in disadvantaged schools should be further disadvantaged by a deliberate lack of information from those in the admissions system who provide information to students. I want to see the OfS have the power to drive that up.

Amendment 108 takes a further look at the financial arrangements for students. Amendment 109 is another way of looking at the provision for students in terms of hours. Amendment 114 turns to the other end of this clause and looks at other important aspects of all this information, such as types of qualifications. What type of qualification does it really take to get on to a course? You look at what a university requires and it does not list BTEC, but you talk to the university and it accepts BTEC. How do you know that? You know it only if the school has time for someone to do the necessary work.

Amendment 116 is about giving the OfS the power to ensure that, whatever information an applicant to a university course should have, they have it as part of the process of applying to the university. The information should be sensibly available in UCAS. It should not belong in a little secret garden to which only some people have the key but should be routinely available to all students.

Amendment 116A says that UCAS does not know everything. There are some good sources of information out there—a lot of information is calculated by Unifrog, Which?, SACU and other such sources. They complement what is provided by UCAS and that information ought to be made available to help students make good decisions. If we are to allow there to be a monopoly provider of university admission services—which is effectively what UCAS is—we should make sure that it provides all the information that is available.

Lastly, noble Lords will be glad to hear, Amendment 434A picks up on Clause 73, which concerns the power to require application-to-acceptance information for the purposes of research. If we are to understand the pattern of applications by the segments of society that we wish to help, such as white working-class boys or girls who might take an interest in STEM subjects, particularly engineering and physics-based subjects, we do not just want to know what they ended up applying for; we want to know how they behaved on the university application website. We want to know the track of their interest. Did they ever look? If they did, where did they look? What was the last point they looked at? What put them off? We do not want to know for the purposes of making that information public but as a matter of research so that we can really understand people’s behaviour and start to experiment, asking ourselves, “If we worded that page differently, would more of them continue beyond that point?”. That would enable us to get a real understanding of behaviour on a large scale.

The only people who have that information are those in UCAS and, so far as I can discover, currently they do not release it. The Bill specifies what the Government wish UCAS to make available for research and, to my mind, that should absolutely include every detail of the way that students use the site so that researchers can really get their teeth into how to do better for the segments of society that we do not think we are doing well enough for at present. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I apologise for the delay in getting to my feet, but I was just wondering whether others with more direct experience of current university arrangements wanted to comment.

I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and his very interesting disposition about the information needs. I could see where he was coming from on his request for research materials. That was a good point, which may well be of value in later years. If we can find out a bit more about the processes that are going on, I do not think anybody would object to that.

Obviously, there are boundaries around personal information, personal choices and other matters, but his general point was that we do not know enough about the choice matrix that students go into. Particularly as we move to a more market-based economy, that must be the right decision. I could see where he was coming from on that, and I broadly support that, although I have some reservations about some of the detail he was looking for.

I have raised this point before in Committee—and will come back to it, whether in Committee or on Report—about where the boundary is between the Office for Students and the CMA. The Competition and Markets Authority has been doing some work on universities, as I am sure the Minister is well aware. Indeed, several of the universities—including one of which she is an alumna, I think—were required to give undertakings to the CMA about the sort of information that should be available, under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, to provide the appropriate level of assurance about the information that is required in decision-making. As one of the staff of the CMA said, the choice to go to university is an expensive “one-off decision” for many people—£50,000 seems to be the direct cost that will be involved in going to university, and that can either be paid directly or borrowed. Clearly, that is a significant amount of money, and the consumer rights issues involved in the decision to apply and then receive an offer of a place at university need to be clear in general terms. We must also work out—and I do not see it well expressed in the Bill—where the OfS has responsibilities and where the CMA has responsibilities. Is it, for example, in the Minister’s mind that the OfS will take over from the CMA the extensive series of undertakings that are now being sought from a number of universities up and down the country? I raise that point because I think it is at the other end of the area that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was beginning to mine. I will come back to that in a moment.

I am afraid that the rest of what the noble Lord said left me a bit troubled, and I hope that the Minister will respond in the negative to them. I do not think that it is appropriate to begin to look at matters such as relationships between staff and students, even if that information were available. I am quite surprised that he thinks that way, and I think that there are a number of other things in this area which would not have really worked. However, on the other hand, there are some which might fit into either of my two categories relating to the decision points within the process of accepting a place at university, in which the CMA will have responsibility, and the issue of research.

The CMA material is really interesting. The undertakings that it has sought broadly lie in the area of information around the costs of courses and the type of engagement with staff that will be available. I have heard, although I have not been able to find it in my research in preparation for this debate, that when requirements for courses are advertised, for example in prospectuses, the student applying to that course should be able to establish, at the time of the application, which staff members are teaching the course, how many contact hours they will have and what sort of contact will be involved. Such matters have not been routinely dealt with by universities very well, although I am sure that in the round they do them well, but I do not think that many universities—certainly not the one that I worked at—would have been able to tell you, nine months before the start of term, which teachers would be teaching which courses. There would be a standard and it would be an appropriate standard, but it would not be a named person. However, the CMA seems to want institutions to name the individual who will be teaching the course. It may be right, and I am not saying that this is right or wrong; I am just saying that it is an interesting move. In a sense, that is beginning to go down the route that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has gone down. To that extent, we are at the beginning of a journey. The CMA says that it is making progress and that the change in responses from institutions between 2015 and 2016 has been quite significant, so clearly it is having an impact right now.

To go back to my earlier point, where exactly will that rest after this Bill becomes law? I would be interested to have any advice that the Minister can give on this matter. But, wherever we are, we are clearly in a different world, in terms of consumer rights and responsibilities, than we were five, or even 10, years ago. We are definitely in a situation where there are existing contractual rights and responsibilities and, as the CMA says, at the end of the day much of what it is currently doing will have to be tested in the courts, because only the courts can determine whether what is being offered is within in the law or needs to be challenged.

These are responses to the amendments which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I hope that the Government will not give a blanket response, because there are bits in there which should be picked up and taken on board. However, there is also this underlying question of what the CMA is doing here, where its responsibilities will begin and end and who will take over the burden of the extra responsibilities. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

18:45

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for bringing forward these amendments, which seek to expand the scope of the transparency duty. His engagement is greatly appreciated and I wish to reassure him that we will never tire of hearing from him, as was his apprehension. These amendments have raised a number of important issues. I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for a very reflective and helpful contribution to the debate.

As set out in our White Paper, the purpose of the transparency duty is to shine a spotlight on institutions that should be going further to widen access and participation. Our intention is for the duty to apply to all providers whose students can claim student support. This is in keeping with our proportionate approach to regulation. Given the number of amendments, rather than discuss each of these at length, I would like to offer a meeting with my noble friend Lord Lucas to discuss these in person. I would, however, like to touch upon some of the key points raised here.

My noble friend raised an important point about access, with his concern that in certain months a student’s chances of access are improved. I refer him to the UCAS equal consideration deadlines. UCAS states explicitly that the undergraduate admissions service uses two equal consideration deadlines: 15 October and 15 January. An equal consideration deadline means that universities will treat all applications received by that deadline with equal priority. I hope that does reassure my noble friend.

I can assure your Lordships that I share the aim of ensuring that students and prospective students can access all the information they need. That is why we are introducing the teaching excellence framework to provide students with robust, comparable information on teaching quality. From this year, institutions will be asked to provide detailed course information, including contact hours, on their websites. These links will be added to Unistats—the official website for comparing UK higher education course data. This will provide a central resource for students easily to compare different institutions.

My noble friend Lord Lucas raised the point that students need to have all the relevant information, such as contact hours and so on, and that the OfS should be given the powers to require that. I reassure him that our reforms aim to ensure that all students have all the right information in the right format and time to help them make decisions which are, in turn, right for them. Clause 59, which we have already referred to this afternoon, establishes a duty for the OfS—or, where there is one, the designated data body—to publish appropriate information about higher education providers and the courses they provide. When determining what information to publish, the OfS must consider what would be helpful for current students, prospective students and registered higher education providers. In deciding what to publish, the OfS must periodically consult with interested parties, including students, to ensure the approach for information still meets their needs.

Amendment 99 raises the question of relationships on campus. The Government are keen for universities to take their responsibilities around sexual harassment seriously. We expect every institution to put in place the right arrangements to ensure the welfare of their student body and continuously work to improve them. That is why we asked Universities UK to see what more could be done to tackle harassment on campus. We must now ensure that the task force’s work goes on to make a real difference to students.

On Amendment 100, HE providers, as autonomous bodies, are best placed to decide how to support the mental health of their student population. That said, this is a very important issue that the sector needs to grapple with. I am pleased to note that Universities UK recently established a programme of work on well-being in higher education to support and strengthen the work that universities are already doing in this area.

On Amendment 102, academic freedom is central to our higher education system. The Bill introduces new protections for academic freedom, making the Secretary of State’s powers to guide and direct the OfS, and set conditions of grant made to the OfS, subject to a general duty to protect academic freedom. It includes specific areas in which the Secretary of State may not interfere, including the content of courses and the criteria for appointing academic staff and selecting students. On Report in the Commons, the Government introduced a further protection prohibiting the Secretary of State from requiring the OfS to operate in a way that causes the opening or closure of particular courses.

In response to my noble friend Lord Lucas’s comments on predicted grades and actual grades, in terms of tariff scores Unistats publishes the percentage of entrants in each tariff band commencing on each course at each institution in the past three years. Publishing information on the median and standard deviation of tariff scores would provide less clarity than the existing data available. Information on entry requirements, course descriptions and other course data is already widely available through providers’ own websites and through UCAS. HE providers are incentivised to make those data readily available in order to attract applicants.

In summary, my noble friend Lord Lucas has raised a number of very important points, and, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, interjected a number of observations that are worthy of consideration. I intend to meet my noble friend Lord Lucas, and I hope I have reassured him that we agree in principle with the points he has raised. In those circumstances, I ask him to withdraw Amendment 94.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether she could possibly come back to the question of where the OfS stops and the CMA starts. Will that be subject to further discussion and debate?

[Baroness Goldie]

I hope that the noble Lord will permit me to respond to him in greater detail by writing to him.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for her offer of a meeting. Of course, if any other noble Lord wants to attend that meeting, I should be delighted if they would let me know and I will make sure that that happens. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 94 withdrawn.

Amendments 95 to 109 not moved.

Amendment 110

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

110: Clause 9, page 6, line 14, at end insert—
“( ) the number of students who completed their course by each degree classification.”

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 110 and also to Amendments 112, 117, 228 and 233 standing in my name. These amendments have been prompted by the discussions and engagement I have had with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Obviously, higher education institutions are public bodies for the purpose of the public sector equality duty and, as a result, have existing obligations placed upon them under the Equality Act 2010. The concern that has been expressed, and which these amendments seek to address, is that in the very worthy objective of trying to promote transparency with the publication of equality data and to have participation plans with key equality objectives, because there is not a proper match between the requirements in the Bill and those under the public sector equality duty, higher education institutions may find that they are somewhat confused as to what their obligations actually are. They may well think that if they have satisfied the Office for Students, they have probably satisfied the public sector equality duty as well, only to find out that that may not be the case. I am sure the whole House would agree that when Parliament imposes obligations on bodies, it is not satisfactory that there should be confusion or lack of clarity as to their full extent. As I said, these amendments seek to address these issues.

Amendment 110 relates to the subject we have just been discussing: the mandatory transparency condition under Clause 9. Clause 9(2) relates to the information that will be sought, which covers most of the cycle of higher education provision including the number of applications for admission; the number of offers made by the provider in relation to these applications; the number of offers that were accepted; and the number of students who accepted those offers and who subsequently completed the course with that provider. Amendment 110 seeks to extend that to require the publication of information on the grade of degree that those who completed the course achieved.

In many respects, that is an important part of the information that would be provided, for obvious reasons. Look at the situation. It is all very well saying, “Here is the number of students who applied and here is the number with different characteristics”—I will come later to the characteristics that are relevant—“Here is the number who were given offers and here is the number who completed the course”, but it seems crucial to have some information as to what level of degree they achieved. For example, the information given to me is that, in 2013-14, a higher proportion of white undergraduate students achieved a First or a 2.1—76.3%—compared with 60.3% of ethnic-minority undergraduate students. The gap was particularly high among male undergraduate students. As we well know, very often the higher the degree, the greater the potential for higher earnings at a subsequent stage. If one is seeking to embrace the Government’s objective of greater social mobility and employment for disadvantaged groups, it is important to have that information. If it shows disparity—and a continuing disparity—clearly that is something that the institutions need to address to see how they can achieve greater parity among different students from different backgrounds.

Amendment 112 relates to the characteristics for which information should be sought. At present, the Bill seeks information on the gender and ethnicity of the individuals to whom the numbers relate—it goes only as far as that. This takes me back to my original point. Those are only two of the personal characteristics that are covered by the Equality Act 2010. The amendment seeks to remove Clause 9(3)(a) and (b) and extend the definition to include,

“the particular protected characteristics of the individuals to which they relate”.

Amendment 117 defines “protected characteristics” as those listed in Section 149(7) of the Equality Act 2010. Again, this goes further than is proposed in the Bill, but it appears to me to be relevant. I seek to argue—and hope that the Government have some sympathy with this—that characteristics such as age, and perhaps particularly disability, are important, as well as ethnicity and gender. A Government who seek to address issues of discrimination against people with disabilities would, I hope, be sympathetic to including disabilities within the definition in Clause 9.

The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy last year asked the Director of Fair Access to target his focus on access, retention and outcomes for students with specific learning difficulties or mental health needs. There is a concern that this objective and very worthy goal could be compromised if the Office for Students does not in turn require higher education institutions to submit data on disability. The Minister in the other place said that it was a personal matter of self-declaration, and that seemed to be the barrier to including it here. However, all personal data, including those on gender and ethnicity are self-declared. Public bodies should be able to create the kind of environment where people feel safe and able to self-declare so that the data can be used and will be useful.

I hope that the Government will accept the spirit of this amendment. My concern is that if only two of the personal characteristics have been singled out, will higher education institutions feel that they have fulfilled their obligations in circumstances where other important personal characteristics are not also included?

19:00

Amendment 111 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, very much reflects the spirit of this. What it does not do is retain what is already in the Bill in subsection (3)(c) on “their socio-economic background”. It is worth while keeping that. I do not know if it was just oversight that it was taken out. Otherwise, I think Amendment 111 sits fair and square with what is proposed in the amendments I have spoken to.

In a similar vein, the amendments to Clause 31 relate to the access and participation plans. Clause 12 will require an access and participation plan if a higher education institution seeks to be able to raise its fees. Again, the Government make a very worthy proposal in Clause 31, but when it relates to what the regulations might include, Clause 31(3)(d) talks about,

“setting out objectives relating to the promotion of equality of opportunity”.

Unfortunately, the promotion of equality of opportunity is nowhere defined in the Bill. Amendment 228 seeks to make it clear by adding the words,

“set by the institution in compliance with specific duties imposed under section 153 of the Equality Act 2010”.

Amendment 233 would add a further definition:

“The ‘promotion of equality of opportunity’ describes the matters set out in section 149(1)(a) to (c) of the Equality Act 2010”.

In other words, if the higher education institution already has a plan or is already doing things to honour and fulfil its public sector equality obligations under the Equality Act, it will be meeting the requirements under Clause 12. That should take away any dubiety or confusion, because one can certainly anticipate someone turning around and saying, “We have fulfilled the obligations under Clause 31. Does that not mean we have also done it under the Equality Act of 2010?”.

It is only fair that when we make laws in Parliament and impose important obligations on bodies, they are very clear as to their extent. There is a real concern that what we have here can lead to confusion. Although there is a considerable overlap here, it does not go as far as the Equality Act 2010. I think it would be regrettable—I hope it is not the Government’s intention—if the obligations of the 2010 Act were diluted in any way for higher education institutions. I beg to move.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve]

My Lords, we need to clarify a point that I have raised a couple of times already, which is whether English higher education providers are indeed public sector bodies and therefore fall under the 2010 Equality Act. I speak as a former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. That legislation, which I think is better than it is usually given credit for, is very clear that it applies to public sector bodies. We do not yet know whether the definition of an English higher education provider in the Bill means a higher education provider that is a public sector body or even whether it has to be incorporated under the laws of England.

I suspect that there will be many overseas higher education providers which are extremely tempted by the high prestige, the system and the fact that students here are entitled to student loans, to seek to become higher education providers in England without being incorporated under English law and certainly without being public sector bodies, as the 2010 Act would require them to be to fall under this legislation.

Even were we talking only about a subset of English higher education providers that are incorporated under English law and that are going to fall under that Act, I am not sure that we would want all nine protected characteristics to carry the same weight. In particular, one has to think extremely carefully about age. It is not, of course, right to discriminate against people on the ground of their age, but to refer to disproportionality in the age distribution of a student body of an institution might seem ludicrous in view of the fact that, on the whole, people seek their higher education before they seek their careers.

There may be other difficulties here. I suspect that many people discussing equality fail to note that the 2010 Act sets out “due regard” duties. Those duties are met providing someone has due regard to the different characteristics at the point of making a decision. That seems to me to be correct, but it has no read-across to the question of proportionality and disproportionality, although that is a common misunderstanding. Perhaps we need not worry about the obvious implications of thinking that the proportionality would be an important consideration in these matters in that the fact—they are now facts—that more young women than young men go on to higher education in the UK and in England and that poor white boys and poor boys in particular, but not other ethnic minority students, are less likely to go on. It is quite surprising when one looks at the profile of different groups going on to higher education. I suspect that this is something that we need to untangle before we go any further.

[Lord Willetts]

My Lords, that fascinating intervention gets to the heart of the direction of travel that is being debated in many different amendments this afternoon.

My understanding—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that universities and higher education institutions are not public sector bodies. Nevertheless, in a range of different contexts, Parliament has decided to impose on them the obligations they would have if they were. The public sector equality duty could be one example. Freedom of information is another example. My concern—here I am a bit of a purist—is that universities are not part of the public sector and it is quite important for universities that they are not. If I were running a university—which I am not—I would start feeling two kinds of pressures on me. On the one hand, a significant number of Members of this House and elsewhere want to treat universities as if they are public bodies, so that whenever there is a nice public sector duty around they say, “Let us add it to universities although they are not part of the public sector”. Both FoI and public sector equality are examples. On the other hand, at the same time the Government—and this process goes back before 2010—are saying, “There is a private contractual obligation to deliver a service to a student so really they have got to be subject to competition law and the CMA and so on”. They end up being subject to a pincer movement, where they have got all the private obligations as if they were a company that needs to be competing, plus we throw in all the public obligations as if they were in the public sector when they are not.

The dynamic of these debates begins by saying we must do more to preserve the autonomy of universities and then spend the rest of the time adding extra obligations we would like them to comply with. If at the end of the legal process of preparing what will become an Act of Parliament we have ended up with more obligations on the universities, making them subject to the CMA, and more public sector duties despite them not being in the public sector, we will leave universities even more burdened than they are at the moment. We require some self-denying ordinance so that we do not keep piling more obligations on them. We have already imposed on them a range of obligations that go way beyond what any other private body is susceptible to. At some point there is a danger that universities will end up in the public sector. There is a danger that we all talk about them as if they are part of the public sector and treat them as if they are hospitals, schools and so on. They are not. They are independent bodies outside the public sector and we should be wary of imposing obligations on them as if they are inside, especially when we are in parallel and subject to greater market competition as well.

[Lord Kerslake (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has said. I declare an interest as chair of the board of Sheffield Hallam University and the chair of Peabody. An explanation for that will follow

There is a cautionary tale here in relation to housing associations and the story around their public body status. For a long period of time they were regarded as not public bodies and therefore able to exercise borrowing and take forward proposals outside of the public sector. The effect of successive changes of regulations and controls on housing associations then led to a reclassification by the ONS as public bodies. As a consequence we are now in a process of seeking to deregulate housing associations to move them out of that situation. We do not want to go through the same process for universities. We should proceed with care on this issue.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I always proceed with care. I am not afraid of that sort of gibe. We could get ourselves in an awful tangle if we start following the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, down this route. It is a familiar theme that he runs with all the time whenever he gets close to something he does not want to do. We must all be careful not to have too many loads on us. We can worry too much about form and not enough about content and I want to challenge him on that. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, is saying on this, but these bodies are, if you stand a little apart from the close intricacies of how they operate, performing a public function, a function that is valued by the public. I have said already that they are public bodies but not public sector bodies, but as the noble Lord said, there is an issue about FoI and the implications around that. We have got to find a balancing point on that.

Let us park the philosophy for a second and return to the substance of the original amendment. Our Amendment 111 is a probing amendment to try to get a little further on this, because I could not reconcile the drafting in the original Bill with what I thought would be the sorts of issues reflective of the health or otherwise of the sector and would be required as mandatory transparency conditions. The obvious point about using the existing equality legislation occurred to others who are more versed in these issues than I am. I tabled a probing amendment on those lines to try to get that out and it has revealed an interesting topic. I do not know where we go with this. I understand the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, gave us an insight into and which we will need to reflect on.

Three things occur to me. It was rightly pointed out that our Amendment 111 would delete the socioeconomic background requirement in Clause 9(3). There was a reason for our madness on that point in that it seemed a wide-ranging issue on which to request transparency. We are talking about mandatory transparency and socioeconomic background is a term of art, not a term of science, although one could get close to it from a number of directions. It is so imprecise as not to have a particular value. Moreover, ethnicity is not the same as race and the gender of individuals is a multiple, complex issue. These issues are raised within the Equality Act and we have to be much more subtle about how we approach them. I was looking more at the detail and working back from that.

19:15

I do not object to the mandatory transition policy; it is right, and there should be a minimum core of information made available. I find it extraordinary that disability is not listed as one of the issues given that it is not only a material factor in many people’s decision about whether to go to university but an issue for which the Government—until recently at least—had significant sums available. Somehow those sums have not survived through to the current day but very large amounts were taken up under the 2010 reforms and brought forward in a way that gave specific advantages to places such as the Open University, which has a terrific record of encouraging applications from students from disadvantaged areas, many of whom would have fitted into the protected characteristics.

I align myself with the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. He is absolutely right on this. There is a judgment here to be made about how we do what we do, but there is no sense in setting off on completely the wrong track. If this clause is to work, it must reflect better where we currently are in relation to the law of the land, and the Equality Act is a very good starting point.

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions, which have certainly provoked thought. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to include data on attainment and the transparency duty raises an interesting and important point. For example, there is a difference between the proportion of white students and BME students obtaining a First or a 2:1. Another aspect of that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill. That is why we asked the Director of Fair Access to look at unexplained differences in degree attainment in our most recent guidance. While we know the sector takes this issue seriously and has acted, problems persist. We will reflect on the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, which raises a significant point.

Amendments 111, 112 and 117 would mean that all eight of the protected characteristics to which the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 refers would be included in the transparency duty. This would expand it considerably to include age, disability, gender, gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief and sexual orientation. The transparency duty is focused on those characteristics where the greatest impact can be achieved through greater transparency and where comparable and robust data are available. Such data are not currently available for all the protected characteristics. The Equality Challenge Unit has shown that information on religion and belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment was unknown for more than half of all students in higher education. With such low returns, comparing institutions using such data as are there would be both unreliable and unfair.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, raised the important issue of disability. That will be extensively covered under the following group of amendments at Amendment 110A and, with his leave, I will deal with that issue specifically in the next group of amendments.

Under the transparency duty, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic background are captured. Universities may voluntarily publish further information if they wish. Again we have been mindful of the need to be proportionate when making this new legislation.

There is also a risk that by including protected characteristics, the transparency duty confusingly begins to resemble aspects of the existing public sector equality duty. Institutions may operate under the misapprehension that by complying with the transparency duty, they have met the requirements of the public sector equality duty. That would not be the case because the PSED is a vital policy, underpinned by the Equality Act, and requires institutions to publish information to show their compliance with the Equality Act. In addition, it requires institutions to publish equality objectives to demonstrate that they have consciously considered the aims of the PSED as part of their decision-making processes.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, raised a very important and significant question: are English higher education providers public sector bodies? I know that the noble Baroness, earlier in our consideration of the Bill, asked about the definition of “English higher education providers”. I would be very happy to respond to her on the additional question on higher education providers as public sector bodies when we write to her in response to her first question. I hope she will find that acceptable.

The transparency duty, in contrast to the public sector equality duty, is deliberately discrete and narrowly focused on widening access to higher education by shining a spotlight on universities’ admissions records. These two duties are designed to be complementary. We expect the sector to comply with both duties wherever relevant. This will be made clear in guidance issued on the matter by the OfS.

I turn to Amendments 228 and 233. An access and participation plan is a condition of registration for those fee-capped providers charging fees above the basic fee level. That means that the OfS can apply sanctions for failure to comply with registration conditions. Let me make it clear that, in order to be approved, access and participation plans must include provision relating to equality of opportunity. Amendment 233 would have the effect of limiting efforts to widen participation through access and participation plans by reference to protected characteristics only, and this does not take into account the importance of action to support those suffering from other disadvantages, such as care leavers or people who are carers, or those with disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds entering higher education. I do not consider that there is benefit to be gained by duplicating reference to the Equality Act in this Bill, given that compliance with the Equality Act is already required by law.

On the other amendments, I assure noble Lords that we believe the Bill already delivers the policy intent behind amendments 236A and 236B. The OfS will be required, through Schedule 1, to provide an annual report covering all its functions. Given that the OfS will have a general duty covering equality of opportunity in connection with access and participation, we expect this to feature prominently in its annual report. Clause 36 allows the Secretary of State to direct the OfS to report on equality of opportunity issues if there are specific concerns.

I trust it is clear that the Government take very seriously equality of opportunity through this Bill and the duties on institutions set out by the Equality Act. In the light of my comments, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 110.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her reply. In the noble Baroness’s first point she indicated that she would be willing to look at the issue of attainment, and she herself echoed the points that I made about the different levels of attainment between students, particularly male students from both white and BME backgrounds. There is an issue there and I am grateful to her for agreeing to look at it.

The noble Baroness also made the point that we do not need the whole range of personal characteristics; obviously, some were more personal than others. She made the point that in trying to promote transparency there might be a limited value where information is not always readily forthcoming. That is something I obviously want to reflect on and discuss further with the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It is a personal point; I am not saying that it is a killer point.

The point that the noble Baroness did make, and it was the one that I was trying to make too, was that there was a concern that some higher education institutions may well feel that by meeting their obligations under the transparency requirements, that would somehow mean that they met the public sector equality duty. She made it very clear that that was not the case: they are two separate things. The fact that she made it clear is helpful, but I think she will recognise the point that has been made, that there is still the opportunity for confusion.

The point which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, made about what constitutes a public body was very pertinent. Obviously, it is accepted that HEIs in England are subject to that duty under the Equality Act, and this was only to put it on a par. An interesting question is whether those which are, perhaps, coming into the market and registered abroad would be subject to the same extent of equality duties under the 2010 Act. Certainly, my amendments would take away any dubiety in that regard, but it is still a point that probably needs to bottom out. The points made by the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Kerslake, are important; I have heard them rehearsed already at previous stages. I do not think they are particularly pertinent to this set of amendments because we accept and agree that the PSED actually applies at the moment. There would not be any extension in that regard.

With respect to the second set of amendments, about the participation plan, I hear that the Minister’s point is that it might actually be limiting to go down the route of the definition that I have proposed. I certainly would not wish to limit plans brought to increase participation. Again, that is a pertinent point that I would like to reflect on. This debate has been useful, and some important issues have been raised, but in the light of the Minister’s comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 110 withdrawn.

Amendment 110A

Moved by

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

110A: Clause 9, page 6, line 14, at end insert—
“( ) Information provided to the OfS and published under subsection (2) must separately identify the number of care leavers within each overall figure.”

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I recognise that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is not here to move the initial amendment in this group, but the other two are my Amendments 113 and 115, which have already been spoken to, largely by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. These amendments have been proposed by the Open University which, of course, has a tremendous record in encouraging diversity of applicants, both through age and through disability.

An analysis of current statistics demonstrates the dramatic decline in the number of part-time students aged 21 and over. In England, the number of part-time students aged 21 and over has declined by 57% since 2007-08. Since then, nearly 400,000 part-time students aged 21 and over have been lost from higher education. Most initial entrants into higher education studying part-time are aged 31 to 60. Participation by this age group has declined more steeply than any other, a decrease of nearly 60% since 2007-08 compared to 2014-15. As age group data are already collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency from HEIs, it would not be overly resource-intensive for HEIs themselves to publish such data if this is included in the Bill.

The second amendment refers to disability, which is also seen as a disadvantage to social mobility. The Bill makes no provision for compulsory reporting to improve transparency. By introducing compulsory publication of data relating to the access, participation and attainment of disabled students, not only will transparency be markedly improved but HEIs will be encouraged to take greater responsibility for working towards eliminating the disabled student attainment gap. The Equality Challenges 2015 data report indicated that 68.7% of disabled students attained a First or 2.1 degree qualification compared to 70.4% of non-disabled students. Therefore, closing or substantially narrowing gaps such as these between those with or without disabilities is a key theme in the recently published Green Paper on work, health and disability.

I recognise the point made that disabled students may choose not to self-declare, but, in any event, it could be helpful in raising both aspiration and attainment to have these characteristics listed. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

19:30

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and, in his absence, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for bringing forward these amendments, which would expand the scope of the transparency duty. The amendments raise important issues, and the Government recognise that there has been considerable interest in including the categories of information proposed.

As noble Lords know, we must always seek to ensure that new legislation is balanced and proportionate. This is paramount where we are introducing a new duty on independent and autonomous bodies such as HE providers.

We know that the numbers of students with the characteristics covered by the amendments progressing to higher education are too low. I can see that the amendment is about changing those statistics, but imposing further requirements under the transparency duty is not the best way to achieve it.

The transparency duty is designed to be a minimum requirement, and we are prioritising those areas that we recognise as having the greatest need for a renewed focus in widening participation, where the data are comparable and the publication of those data is not too intrusive. We are mindful, too, of the importance of accurate data—a point to which I referred in my previous comments to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—to ensure that the transparency we are aiming for is successfully achieved. The data also need to be readily comparable so that we know that comparisons drawn between institutions are fair.

Universities are taking a number of steps to address the important issue of the low number of care leavers in higher education through measures such as all-year-round accommodation, substantial cash bursaries and tuition fee waivers, and providing a named contact. Care leavers are a priority group for the Director of Fair Access, and four-fifths of access agreements detail the activity that universities are undertaking to support care leavers into and through higher education.

However, in terms of the transparency duty, the data collected on care leaver status are self-declared and so are not completely comparable, which makes it difficult to draw reliable conclusions from the data available. In addition, individuals do not necessarily wish to disclose their care leaver status when they apply for university, which is their choice. Furthermore, they may not wish to have that information published where it may be possible to determine who that individual is because of the relatively small numbers involved. That is a personal matter, and we must respect their right not to have that information made public. Equally, where this information is suppressed due to small numbers, it would further limit the comparability of the data.

Amendment 115 refers to disability. On disability in particular, we cannot currently be completely confident in the comparability of the data. UCAS and HESA collect data on disability, but again this is self-declared and not exclusively focused on registered disability so it may not provide an accurate depiction of disability across institutions. Additionally, some students may choose not to declare their disability and we must respect that because, again, it is a personal choice.

Amendment 113 covers age. We have chosen not to include age as a category at this time due to the volume of activity in this area already taking place. Many mature students study part-time, so we have introduced tuition fee loans for part-time study and intend to introduce part-time maintenance loans so that the way one chooses to study does not impact on the support available. It is worth noting that HE providers are already subject to specific legal duties in relation to age and disability under the Equality Act 2010.

The amendments raise important and interesting points and we will reflect on them.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)]

Will the Minister reflect also on the fact that the HESA statistical database is not available for public scrutiny? Many issues which should be in the public domain are not because one cannot access the information other than through a particular route and by paying fees. Even our own Library here in the House of Lords cannot access that database without paying for it. That information should be in the public domain. When reflecting on these amendments, will the Minister also look at ways in which the HESA database could be made much more readily available?

[Baroness Goldie]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point; it is something of which I was unaware and it seems an important matter. We will reflect not only on the comments that he has just made but on those made by others of your Lordships during the debate. I undertake to write to the noble Lord on the specific point which he raised.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The Minister spoke again about the problems of self-declaration in relation to disability and personal data, but personal data on ethnicity and gender are also self-declared. Is she saying that data in those two regards are much more reliable than they are for disability and, if so, what is the Government’s position? By how much are they more reliable? Should we not accept that it is the same principle?

[Baroness Goldie]

For reasons which I think are apparent to us all, there are issues of sensitivity there. It would be ill-advised either to disregard or underestimate the significance of that sensitivity. I repeat that interesting and important points have been raised. We will reflect on them. On the specific issue raised by the noble and learned Lord’s colleague, I undertake to write. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding, in particular to the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who as we all know is a tremendous champion for those in care. All the amendments aim to make it a more level playing field for groups which have not hitherto had the same advantages. I also thank my noble friend Lord Willis and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace for their interventions—my noble friend Lord Willis raised an interesting issue about the data of HESA not being accessible. We shall all seek ways of increasing the engagement of these particular groups in higher education. In the light of the Minister’s remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 110A withdrawn.

Amendments 111 to 117 not moved.

Clause 9 agreed.

House resumed. Committee to begin again not before 8.38 pm.

Courts and Tribunals: Administration Charges

Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

19:38

Asked by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on litigants in person of the introduction of administration charges and other costs when bringing claims in courts and tribunals.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, in opening this debate, I remind Members that my declaration of interests is in the register. I am raising this matter today because I find it cause for great concern that the rights of the individual to deal with their own problems have been seriously eroded. It is essential that this does not go unrecognised. Whereas in the past everyone had direct, affordable access to some fair processes of resolution, these have been and are being removed. In my opinion, this is a retrograde step and, whatever our means, we should not be forced to line the lawyers’ pockets. I deplore the changes to tribunals, which were accessible and affordable for so many people. It seems wrong that self-help has gone.

I intend to concentrate my remarks on the employment tribunal and the leasehold valuation tribunal, where I have had direct personal experience. Employment tribunals were introduced by Ted Heath in 1974 under the name “industrial tribunals”. At the beginning, panel members were appointed as individuals and it was only later, when the value of the system was appreciated and agreed, that the lay nominations came from the TUC and the CBI. Normally, two lay members sat with a chairman. I sat in central London. Because so few women had been appointed at the beginning, my appointment was picked up by the CBI and I served from 1974 to 1997. The cases were very wide-ranging and some were very lengthy. No fee was payable by the applicant. Now it is £160 to £250 to issue a claim, and £950 to have a hearing. Any employee who considered they were wrongly dismissed or unfairly treated was entitled to bring their case in person to the tribunal. I believe they always got a fair hearing.

One day my faith in the fair hearing was thrown into question when the hearing panel members assembled prior to the case. We had a considerable quantity of paper about the case of a man who had worked for a large beauty products company for 40 years. The TUC representative said to the other two of us, “This is a scandal. This man has worked for the company for 40 years and they are putting him off. It is not right”. The chairman said we would know more when we heard the case. I said nothing but I was worried that a member’s mind might be set prior to the hearing. There were many witnesses and the case took all day. We retired to consider our decision. The chairman sought our views and the TUC man immediately said, “Forty years? I don’t know how they stuck him for that long. They did everything they could, moving him from job to job in the firm. They could do no more”. This restored my faith in the importance of actually hearing both sides of these cases. I believe the system was fair and well used.

When this House was on Report on what became the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, I was responsible for an amendment which outlawed frivolous or vexatious litigants. The head of the Tribunals Service advised me in the drafting of the amendment and the Government, after changing one lower-case letter to a capital, accepted the wording in its entirety. The need for that amendment was brought to my attention when an applicant appeared before our tribunal and it emerged that he was making a full-time living travelling around the country, basing his cases on failed job applications. He was a qualified radiographer. He applied for every hospital radiology job advertised and if he did not get an interview he went to the tribunal on grounds of discrimination. He had all travel and accommodation expenses paid, in many interesting places, and often got good compensation. He was abusing the system and being paid to do so. If he did get an interview, he never got the job as hospitals needed radiographers who had worked with human beings and his experience was specifically with concrete blocks and other inanimate objects.

There are charities which try to help individuals with advice. As they do not charge fees, they rely on grants and donations and the lawyers are generally not very well paid. The citizens advice bureaux still exist but their resources are really stretched and in many cases are simply not available to people. My neighbour, an employment lawyer since 1990, has volunteered to help others through the citizens advice bureaux for years. Welfare and debt account for the largest number of cases. Employment cases were 6% of 10% of the more than 10,000 applications they had last year. She has told me that a major problem is that the individual very often has no idea what their terms of employment are, and that they do not know that under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 they are entitled to a statement of particulars of employment. There is often a real problem in identifying the correct name of the employer. Many employers use an organisation whose name appears on the payslip but it is not the employer and getting hold of documents can be very difficult. Individuals have often had but lost their copy of the terms of employment.

Whereas in the past many of these things could be done on a do-it-yourself basis, now it seems that people find that they have no choice but to use legally qualified people, which involves extra costs that they can ill afford. Some lawyers help people on an ex gratia basis. There are many good specialists who do pro bono work, either because they dislike a system which fails to protect vulnerable groups in society or because they need the practice; for example, junior barristers cutting their teeth. Large firms encourage junior solicitors to do pro bono work, perhaps because it impresses corporate clients. Organisations such as the Employment Lawyers Association have a pro bono arm, where people can volunteer to take on a case. This is not and should not be a substitute for the right to a fair trial, which should be available without relying on the kindness of strangers. It is essential that individuals should have the tools made available to enforce their rights, otherwise these rights are meaningless. Those who have savings and therefore do not qualify for remission of fees have to find the money before they can start a claim. This means that “bad” employers can benefit from the fact that people who save are hit with having to pay a fee to claim their employment rights.

My other direct experience was with leasehold valuation tribunals. These were abolished in 2013 and many people are disadvantaged by this. I took a full part in what became the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which introduced these tribunals. It was fully debated in your Lordships’ Chamber and after hearing that the Government proposed covering full costs,

“down to the milk for the office cat”,—[Official Report, 10/7/1996; col. 348.]

the House’s decision was that those who brought their cases, even if they lost, would not be required to pay more than £500. Now these cases go straight to the First-tier Land Tribunal and I understand that it is at least £500 to enter your case.

An important role of the leasehold valuation tribunal was determining the value for a lease extension and the terms thereof. Most flats and some houses are held on leasehold tenure and, if the lease drops to too few years, its value becomes very small and the amount that has to be paid to extend the lease increases exponentially. The hearing of my own application for a lease extension took the form of four days in front of the tribunal and a visit to the flat by the chairman of the hearing panel. Everything seemed to be done very thoroughly. As other cases were heard by different members of the tribunal and there were periods when you had to just sit and wait, I sat in on a lot of cases and the standards were very high.

The 2002 Act made it clear that normally, if costs were charged, they would not exceed £500 per application. Now these cases have to go to the First-tier Land Tribunal. One of the worst things is that unscrupulous head lessees or freeholders often employ a QC and, win or lose, they charge those high legal fees back to the leaseholders as part of the service charge. This is not fair and I consider it an abuse of the system. The leasehold valuation tribunal was abolished by statutory instrument in 2013 and I was the only Member to speak in opposition, perhaps because with those instruments you have to say yes or no; you cannot consider any review.

The Prime Minister has spoken and made it clear that those who work hard and whose family budgets are already under heavy pressure should not continue to be disadvantaged. Surely it is time to look again at helping with access to tribunals and their replacements. Unless ordinary people can access a system available to help them enforce their rights, those rights are meaningless, as I said. These fees are preventing genuine cases being heard.

19:49

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for asking this Question for Short Debate and proud to be the sole representative of the Cross Benches among the select band from across the House which has assembled to discuss it. The available evidence indicates that the proportion of litigants appearing before the civil and family courts without legal representation—litigants in person, also sometimes called self-represented litigants—has increased since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act took many civil and private law children and family cases out of the scope of legal aid in England and Wales from 1 April 2013. I have become involved in these issues through the work of the commission that I chaired on the future of advice and legal support on social welfare law, and I declare that as an interest.

One of the policy responses that the commission has been concerned with has been the Ministry of Justice’s decision, two years ago, to fund and support a Litigant in Person Support Strategy, encouraged by the Civil Justice Council’s work and drawing on many of the resources from the pro bono, legal information, personal support and other support sectors, such as Law for Life’s Advicenow website, with a personal support unit providing additional capacity and better co-ordination of pro bono. More than 1 million people used the Advicenow website last year, with 50,000 accessing pro bono legal advice through clinics supported by the strategy and more than 50,000 being provided with practical and emotional support via the personal support unit. The litigant in person strategy is an excellent initiative but one has to remember that it has been developed in a context in which more than 700,000 people have lost their entitlement to legal aid in family and civil matters. Moreover, they now have to pay much steeper fees if they want to bring cases as litigants in person. In terms of access to justice, this amounts to a double whammy.

Over the past few years, fees for litigants bringing cases have increased and mushroomed across our civil courts, family courts and tribunals. There have been a number of proposals for further increases. These issues have to be considered together with the impact of legal aid cuts on the outcomes delivered by the justice system. Take employment tribunals, for example, where legal aid was cut to zero and steep tribunal fees were introduced, as we heard at length from the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. Since August 2013 the issue fee in employment tribunals, having been nothing at all, may now be £250 and the hearing fee as much as £950 in more complex cases. These may include discrimination, equal pay and unfair dismissal claims. For claims to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the issue fee is £400 and the hearing fee is £1,200. Fees can be waived if the party cannot afford to pay but however that may be, since introducing fees the volume of employment tribunal claims has plummeted.

Between October 2013 and September 2014, single claims brought by individuals were 64% down on the previous 12 months and multiple claims—those brought by more than one person—were down by 67%. In 2015, the number of employment tribunal cases brought by single individuals declined by 67% and the number of multiple claims by 72%. Even if one accepts that the imposition of fees was flushing out some unmeritorious cases, they are clearly having a very negative impact on access to justice.

Last July’s report from the Justice Select Committee in the other place criticised many aspects of the fees and charges regime: not just employment tribunal fees but civil fees, which have risen by up to 600%. Last autumn, there were proposals for an increase of up to 500% in immigration tribunal fees—again, a jurisdiction that was mostly taken out of scope of legal aid by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act. Only a matter of weeks into their implementation, the Government had to abandon them when they realised that the projected levels of fee income from this increase would not materialise, as the volume of claims would be so depressed. This seems to follow a familiar pattern from the time when Michael Gove had to scrap the criminal courts charge, which was clearly not working but just serving to penalise poor people for the right of citizens to use the courts. There is clearly also a strong case for reviewing these massive increases in employment tribunal fees. I should be grateful if the Minister told us whether the Government would be willing to consider this.

The respected commentator Roger Smith has spoken about,

“the economic cleansing of the … courts”,

by deliberately denying poor people access to justice through new economic barriers and much reduced public assistance to support litigants through the system. I could go on at length about the false logic and false economy of the MoJ seeking full-cost recovery, and more besides, from court users and trying to use court fees as an income-generating vehicle to offset the Treasury’s meanness to the MoJ. However, I am interested more broadly in the question of how we reclaim the courts and tribunals for citizens, especially poorer and disadvantaged citizens. Part of the answer must be to make the whole process cheaper, with less reliance on expensive paper-based bureaucracy, the removal of costly delays in proceedings through more streamlined processes and better case management systems to minimise the wastage of court and judicial time.

The whole process also needs to be redesigned with the needs of litigants in person in mind. I am encouraged by the Briggs proposals for court reform and digitisation, and the Government’s take-up of those proposals. However, until one actually sees them in operation one must have reservations about whether the Government’s commitment to funding better assisted digital legal services to help the least legally or IT-literate communities will actually materialise in practice.

19:58

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, on securing this debate and, I would add, on the eloquent and sympathetic way in which she opened it. The central problem highlighted by this debate, through the rather different approaches of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Low, whom I and the whole House commend for the impressive work that he and his commission have carried out in this area, is that less legal aid has meant more litigants in person, while dramatic increases in court fees have restricted access to justice by another route.

Cuts in legal aid, particularly cuts in scope, were bound to lead to more litigants in person but their impact in so doing has been dramatic. This has been particularly severe in family cases, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Low, because most are out of scope. The National Audit Office reports an increase since the LASPO Act in cases with neither party represented of 30% in child contact cases and 22% in family cases overall. Approximately 80% of all family cases have at least one litigant in person, and of course in such cases this is serious, because most litigants come to court when their lives are turbulent and feelings between the parties are highly emotional and often deeply hostile. This does not achieve calm and cool dispute resolution and is certainly not in the best interests of any children involved.

However, in other civil litigation too, judges are daily frustrated at trying to get through their lists efficiently and justly while battling to explain to angry litigants how and where they have gone wrong in the process, as well as trying to understand how parties are trying to put their cases in a way that makes sense in law. So the speed and efficiency of the judicial process have suffered, and inevitably and sadly, so has the quality of justice. At the same time, the cost of cases to the public purse has significantly increased, as the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have pointed out, diminishing the savings made by cutting legal aid.

To add to the problem, the Government have thrown into the mix increased court fees, increasing the burden on litigants struggling without representation. These are not just fees to cover administering litigants’ own cases, but so-called enhanced fees to pay for running the whole system, allowing the MoJ to make profits in some areas to pay costs incurred in others. Many of us believe that the state has a fundamental responsibility to provide courts to resolve citizens’ disputes in accordance with the law, and to do so free of charge. Even many who do not take that purist view in difficult times believe there is something deeply offensive about enhanced court fees, charged at levels that exceed the cost of administering the cases concerned so as to make the whole court system self-financing.

Furthermore, it was always obvious that introducing very high court fees would reduce the number of cases brought. In 2015, a number of professional bodies assembled evidence which showed that,

“the total value of cases brought by individuals would likely fall by around one-third … under higher court fees. For small- and medium-sized companies it would halve”.

This evidence was in sharp contrast to the complacent and misguided assumptions underlying the Government’s impact assessment of enhanced court fees, which said first that the,

“changes will not affect case volumes”,

that there would be,

“no … detrimental impact on outcomes for … court cases or access to justice”,

and thirdly that,

“there would be no impact on legal services used to pursue and to defend a claim”.

I accept that we were in coalition at the time, but I spoke out against those fees then and make no apology for doing so again now. The Lord Chief Justice and senior judiciary described the assumptions as,

“very sweeping and, in our view, unduly complacent”.

Last year, Lord Dyson, the then Master of the Rolls, gave evidence to the Justice Select Committee, that they were based on a “very limited evidential base” and that he was “extremely sceptical” about them. He described enhanced fees as wrong in principle, and the Government’s preparatory research as “lamentable”.

In practice, the dire predictions of a reduction in case numbers are proving justified. We need more evidence on civil cases generally, but as the noble Lord, Lord Low, pointed out, the immediate 70% reduction overall in employment tribunal claims was severe. Furthermore, there was no increase in the success rate of claims, so one can deduce that fees have not discouraged spurious claims but have only prevented claims, meritorious or not, from being brought.

When Michael Gove was Justice Secretary—before his career took a different direction—he said in the House of Commons that,

“one of the biggest barriers to justice … is costs. Action needs to be taken to reduce costs in civil justice. It is not enough simply to say that the taxpayer must shoulder the burden. We need reform of our legal system to make access to justice easier for all”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/1/16; col. 145.]

On that issue I agree with Michael Gove. I also agree with the Conservative chair of the Justice Committee, Bob Neill MP, who said in June:

“Where there is conflict between the objectives of achieving full cost recovery and preserving access to justice, the latter must prevail”.


Access to justice has been subjected to a pincer movement of restricted legal aid and increased court fees, which has had the dual effect of deterring litigants and reducing the effectiveness of the court system.

On legal aid, we need an urgent review of the areas in scope to see where the hardship is biting deepest and to relieve it. Social welfare and family cases are two of the prime areas for alleviation. We must make it easier to apply for and to secure exceptional case funding, and we must review the system for applying for legal aid in domestic violence cases to make it more humane and easier to navigate.

On court fees, I suggest there are three things to be done. First, we should be reducing court fees to a reasonable level—never more than the cost of administering claims—to ensure that litigants are not deterred by fees from bringing genuine claims. Secondly, we should be introducing a far fairer fee remission scheme. The present capital and disposable income thresholds are far too low and stop poor litigants bringing genuine claims. Thirdly, we should be looking at spreading fees in civil litigation more evenly over the life of cases—which is done in part already in employment cases—rather than front-loading them, as is done now in civil cases, with huge issue fees and only modest fees later on. The present arrangements deter claims to collect difficult-to-recover undisputed debts and encourage unscrupulous debtors to avoid payment in the hope that the fees will put off their creditors.

These are practical steps, intended to go some way to reverse a steady decline in access to justice under successive Governments in recent decades. The measures I have suggested have cost implications, but they are targeted to address the most urgent crisis points. In the longer term, only a more wide-ranging review will enable us to restore and sustain access to civil justice to the standard we would all wish to see, and to which we all claim to aspire, but which I fear we have painfully failed to attain in recent years.

20:08

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest as an unpaid consultant in my former solicitor’s practice, and I suppose I should mention that my daughter practises in the fields of housing and employment law, and sits as a part-time deputy district judge. I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness on securing this debate. Her initiative is the more welcome coming, as it does, from a respected occupant of the Government Benches.

Access to justice has been an all too regular subject of debate in my six and a half years’ membership of this House, with the coalition and Conservative Governments laying down road blocks in the form of huge increases in fees where they already existed, new impositions where—as in the case of employment tribunals—they did not exist and savage reductions in legal aid, to which noble Lords have already referred. Senior members of the judiciary have repeatedly complained, rightly, that these measures have led to a significant increase in the number of cases in which parties are not represented, with the consequent legal equivalent of bed-blocking wasting the time of the courts and proving the validity of the old maxim that justice delayed is justice denied.

A year ago, the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, giving evidence to the Justice Select Committee, described the evidence on which the Government based their increase in court fees as “hopeless” and pointed out that they had consulted all of 31 people on the proposal. Sir Ernest Ryder, in charge of employment and immigration tribunals, pointed to the 70% reduction in tribunal applications, which he described as,

“an extraordinary position that demands an explanation”.

Needless to say, no such explanation has been vouchsafed. In one sense, of course, the explanation is simple: the fee can be as much as £1,200.

The Civil Justice Council had warned that the,

“reductions and changes in legal aid will have the most serious consequences. This is not simply because of their scale, it is also by reason of their design and incidence. Among other things they will have a disproportionately adverse effect on the most vulnerable”.

It forecast correctly that,

“the number of self-represented litigants will increase, and on a considerable scale”,

leading to cases being longer than they need to be, and with,

“increasingly wide and serious of consequences for the individual, for families, and the state”.

Indeed, there have been large reductions in important areas of the law, including housing, where there has been a reduction of 18% in cases at a time when there have been record numbers of repossessions of private rented property. Some 43,000 households were evicted in 2015—an all-time high and 53% more than in 2010. Legal aid is available in housing eviction cases, but the problem here is the collapse of the supply side in the shape of legal aid lawyers specialising in housing law, such that there are areas of the country with very few legal aid housing lawyers and in a couple of cases, Suffolk and Shropshire, none at all. One-third of legal aid areas have just one solicitor providing legal aid in housing cases. As Legal Action Group director Steve Hynes observed:

“Civil legal aid services are in freefall, with solicitor firms and advice agencies closing”.


Given that even where legal aid is available fees are only £57 per hour, or £63 per hour for a court appearance, it is hardly surprising that not too many people are practising. My charging rate when I was last in practice 13 or 14 years ago was higher than that, and I venture to surmise that the Minister’s charging rate at the Scottish Bar might have been somewhat higher still. Interestingly, McKenzie Friends, unqualified people assisting litigants, are now charging as much as £125 an hour for their services. Shelter has 17 offices offering legal assistance, some of them being the only source in their area.

So how much have the Government been saving from the impact of the changes in housing law? How much have council housing and other budgets such as those for benefits and social care been affected as a consequence of evictions and disrepair, which might otherwise have been dealt with via the justice system? In the area of family law there has been a significant drop in cases where domestic violence, which could trigger legal aid, is not an issue, so that in those cases legal aid is not available. However, the much-vaunted alternative to court proceedings, mediation, has fallen by two thirds. The people most likely to be affected by that are, of course, women and children. Mental health cases have also declined—due largely, it again appears, to a shrinking of the supply side of legal advice, as in housing. Debt and welfare cases have seen large reductions of 61% and 56% respectively. Nor are these difficulties confined to individuals. Small businesses also face difficulties from higher court fees.

The Justice Select Committee’s report was damning about the Government’s policy. It is unlikely to have been impressed by what passes for the Government’s reply, published five months later and consisting of four full pages and five other pages containing a total of all of 15 paragraphs. One of those pages deals with the controversial proposal for immigration tribunal fees, and I am thankful that the Government have at least abandoned that proposal. The Government declared that they would publish their review of employment tribunal fees “in due course”. How long will this pretty simple issue take to resolve? How long does the Minister expect the review of pregnancy and discrimination claims to take?

The Government dismissed the committee’s concerns about the significant increase in the fees for issuing divorce petitions, saying that help is available for those unable to pay. But how widely is that known? In so far as the Government are right to claim that women are less likely to have to pay the full fee than men, is it not the case that by the same token they are less likely to be able to pay for legal advice and representation, thereby being placed at a disadvantage and increasing the problem of litigants in person, especially acute in cases of this nature?

In responding to the committee’s suggestion that there should a pilot of graduated fees, the Government declared that a balance had to be struck between the certainty of fixed fees and charging more for those who,

“make greater use of the courts and tribunals”.

Can the Minister explain this wording? Does “greater use” refer to frequency and, if so, in what sense, or content? Would an income-related or means-related system not be sufficient?

The committee suggested that in employment tribunal cases the respondent should pay, but the suggestion was rejected because respondents have,

“little influence over the decision to litigate”.

That is an interesting argument. A recalcitrant employer must not be troubled by paying a fee, but in many cases a dismissed employee must fork out with a fee that is disproportionate to the claim.

I mentioned immigration cases. Again, I welcome the fact that the Government do not propose to increase the fees, but already immigration judges report very high levels of unrepresented applicants, contrary to the impression given by the official statistics. The latter were questioned in a letter to Michael Gove by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association in 2015. Litigants in immigration tribunals will often suffer the additional difficulty of being unable to speak English.

The Government have been pressed time and again to review the working of LASPO but so far have resolutely resisted, and insist that they will do so only after five years of the Act’s operation. Given the scale of concerns and the time that such a review will take, why will the Government not now set a review in train, at least in respect of the most contentious areas?

I conclude with three further short points. The first is to remind the House that the Government’s proposals on the increase of the small claims limit is likely to engender still more problems for would-be litigants and a further depletion of qualified lawyers willing to undertake cases.

The second is that the closure of courts imposes additional costs on parties who now have to travel to have their cases heard.

Thirdly, I commend the work of the Public Support Unit, which has been mentioned today, whose staff and volunteers do valiant work in non-legal support of litigants in person as they encounter an unfamiliar and daunting experience in the 13 court centres that it supports. Will the Government at the very least help this organisation as it attempts to help those whose access to justice has been made ever more difficult by this Government and their coalition predecessor?

20:16

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, for securing today’s debate on this important subject and to noble Lords for the valuable contributions they have made to the debate.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the justice system continues to be accessible to all, that it deals with disputes fairly and justly, and that it continues to work for all its users. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to the matter of employment tribunals and employment tribunal fees. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, noted in his observations, that has been the subject of a review at the instance of the Government. That review, which was essentially to address the issue of applications in light of the fee matters, the impact of the reduction of fees on the employment tribunals, and indeed on the employment appeal tribunal, has made very good progress. We expect to publish the results of that review in the very near future. I regret that I cannot be more specific at this stage, but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will accept that it is our intention to publish as soon as we reasonably can. That is anticipated to be in the near future.

It is appreciated that the number of employment tribunals has reduced since the introduction of fees, but I note that the introduction of fees was coincidental with the development of the mediation services in the context of employment applications. Therefore, one cannot simply attribute any reduction to fees being introduced in that respect. It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate the outcome of the review that has been carried out and which is to be published in the near future.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

Has any work been done to assess how far there is a match between the increase in mediation services and the drop in claims?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

As I said, I would not want to anticipate the outcome of the review, and we will look at the matter in light of that review once it is published.

I turn for a moment away from employment tribunals to the matter of the property law issues raised by the noble Baroness in her opening speech. It is necessary to remember that when we look at the matter of cost, it is not just fees or legal costs that may be incurred in the litigation. There is also the matter of recovery of costs in that context. In that area considerable progress has been made, particularly with regard to applications to the property chamber.

As noble Lords will be aware, provision had already been made with regard to preventing landlords, in some instances at least, from recovering costs from the tribunal by way of service charges against leaseholders. That will be extended by virtue of Section 131 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which will also endeavour to prevent landlords recovering such costs by way of administrative charges, so steps are being taken to try to limit the cost liability of those who have regard to these tribunals and courts. The noble Baroness also expressed some concern regarding the operation of cost awards in the property chamber. Of course, in general, parties meet their own costs of litigating in the tribunal system even when they are successful in a claim, although there are some exceptions to that in the procedural rules.

As the noble Baroness noted, there was a cap of £500 in respect of the cost rules of the property chamber, although I understand that that was rarely used. The Tribunal Procedure Committee has noted that there is concern about the removal of that cap, and it intends to run a consultation to seek views on whether to reintroduce a cap for costs for unreasonable conduct in the residential property and leasehold cases and, if such a cap is to be reintroduced, to address the question of the level at which it should be set. Again, in that regard some progress has been made, and I hope to report further in due course.

The noble Baroness referred to those appellants who do not have legal representation when they come to the tribunals and courts. Appellants using the tribunal system are not required to be legally represented and tribunals are characterised by an approach that is deliberately less formal than is generally found in the courts. The tribunal panel members themselves, as the noble Baroness noted, are trained to assist unrepresented parties by helping them to frame the way in which they present their case to the tribunal.

Of course, this issue is dealt with differently in the courts, but in November 2014 the support strategy for litigants in person was launched. This involves work by a range of partners across the sector to improve the experience of vulnerable litigants in person in three fundamental ways. The first is providing online and self-help resources, and making sure that those who need them know where they are and how to access them, a point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. The second is providing practical and emotional support. The third is providing access to free or affordable legal advice and representation wherever possible. Any legal proceedings are likely to be stressful, which is particularly the case in matters concerning families and children—one could not doubt that—but there is support for those who become involved in these proceedings.

I shall move on to the more general issue of costs. We have to address the fact that the cost of our courts and tribunals has to be met in some form or other. The Ministry of Justice is not a protected department and it has a very challenging financial settlement. We must reduce annual spending by 15% in real terms—about £1 billion—by 2019-20.

Achieving that scale of financial saving inevitably requires difficult and tough decisions. We need to look at every area of the department’s spending and there can be no exceptions for tribunals. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that, to ensure that they are properly funded and that access to justice is protected, increases to some court fees are required. The cost of our court and tribunal system to the taxpayer is unsustainably high and it must be right that those who use the system pay more to relieve that burden. However, Parliament has granted, through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, a power that allows the Government to set court and tribunal fees at a level above the cost of the service. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, made reference to that and I acknowledge it.

The income from those fees must be used to fund an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals. When setting fees, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to a number of factors including the need to preserve access to justice. In respect of tribunal fees, the Government firmly believe it is right to ask users of the service to make a contribution to the cost of providing it. Reference has been made to the property tribunal: I note that the fees there are set at a level below the actual cost incurred, not above it nor even equal to it. The help with fees scheme exists to help those who cannot afford to pay, and the Lord Chancellor has the power to remit fees in exceptional circumstances. Specifically, for example, in the property chamber of the First-tier Tribunal, a new fee structure was introduced on 25 July 2016 to simplify matters: a single-issue fee of £100—hardly an insurmountable burden for a leaseholder—with a further fee of £200 for a review of an application.

We have to see all that against the background of proposals to modernise our whole court and tribunal system. The noble Lord, Lord Low, referred to the Briggs report and to the Government having decided to address that and review how they can take forward digitisation of the whole court process. The removal of paper and the streamlining of case management, wherever they can be achieved, are immediate goals of the present Government. Proposals are coming forward quite imminently to address the digitisation process. It will take time—years—to fully implement that sort of proposal, but we have begun that task, which will immeasurably improve the whole matter of access to justice. It will demystify the court process and, we hope, allow those who do not have legal representation to understand how to apply to and proceed through the courts in order to vindicate rights and to seek and secure justice. That extends to all those who may be vulnerable or in difficulty and who feel they have a just claim.

Ultimately, these changes will deliver swifter justice. Our wider reforms underline a guiding principle that our justice system must be proportionate and accessible to everyone. That means members of the public, legal professionals, witnesses, litigants, the vulnerable, victims of crime, and the judiciary itself.

20:27

Sitting suspended.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Committee (3rd Day) (Continued)

20:38

Amendment 118

Moved by

[Lord Lucas]

118: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Freedom of information
The Secretary of State must use his or her best endeavours to ensure that all registered higher education providers are subject to the same freedom of information obligations.”

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, although I am a thoroughgoing advocate of freedom of information, I am very conscious of what my noble friend Lord Willetts said shortly before supper: we must be careful of the degree and direction of obligations that we put on universities. This amendment is therefore very much phrased as not prescribing any particular outcome but saying that it must be equal. That is born of my experience, when, under the last Government, UCAS was deemed to have public functions and made subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I immediately requested some information from it and was refused, and went through the appeal procedure. The case having been ruled partially in my favour, UCAS went through two sets of tribunals, with QCs. It must have cost it about half a million quid to resist the commissioner’s attempts to pin it to the Freedom of Information Act obligations. That is perhaps why I reacted so fiercely to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, when she quoted “commercial interests”. It was quite clear then that UCAS’s order of priorities was: first, making money; secondly, looking after the universities; and thirdly, the students. I did not think that was right and nor do I think it is right that universities put money first and other things second.

We are dealing—or ought to be dealing—with different kinds of institutions. On the bits that I did not get through the commissioner, some of which is information now being made available through this Bill, I failed because of the inequality of treatment of universities, which were subject to freedom of information, and other higher education institutions, for instance BPP, which were not. That inequality created a commercial tension between those who might have been asked to reveal information and those who were not subject to FoI, which prevented information being released under it. My recommendation to the Government is, whatever you do, do the same for everybody and then everybody has to comply. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 238 in this group. It was proposed by Universities UK and follows on from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has just been saying about equality of treatment. The Higher Education and Research Bill creates three types of registered providers—basic, approved and approved with a fee cap. Universities, as public authorities, are currently subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, to ensure a level playing field for access to information it is important for all registered providers designated for the purpose of student support under Section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 to be subject to the same level of public scrutiny. Schedule 11 to the Bill as currently drafted leaves open what categories of provider should be caught by freedom of information by leaving it to the Secretary of State to specify categories and regulations. If there is the appetite to be more prescriptive, the schedule could adopt the revised new Clause 4A wording as proposed.

Universities are currently subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We propose further consideration be given to whether adherence to the FoI Act should be a condition for initial registration for higher education providers designated for the purpose of student support under Section 22 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. This new clause would amend the Freedom of Information Act to apply its provisions to all higher education providers designated for the purpose of student support registered with the OfS. This means registered providers eligible for public grant funding and/or access to student loans. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, I have not thought about this topic before, so I welcome the amendment. On the face of it, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, have said. It seems to me that there is a case for a level playing field in principle. It would be very interesting to know what the Minister regards as the argument against a level playing field on this question. I am relaxed about new entrants to the higher education market. I want to see more diversity and innovation in higher education but, if that is to happen, there will clearly be risks of the Trump University type, as we know from the United States. I do not believe that universities are public sector institutions—they are public institutions—but requiring everybody to be open in their dealings and comply with freedom of information obligations seems highly desirable.

20:45

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I am not certain whether the two amendments in this group will place a statutory duty on higher education providers or whether they are intended to enforce some kind of contractual obligation—that is, in order to be registered, they have to agree to do this and that, which would not be quite the same thing. There are important distinctions between universities and other providers of higher education. Whether the level playing field that has just been referred to applies across that divide is an interesting question, on which I would be glad to know the Government’s view.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

It is incredibly important for students and for society as a whole that all providers of higher education are subject to freedom of information requests. I shall give your Lordships an example. A number of private colleges provide higher education, but if you wish to find out their progression rates, you are not allowed to do that—the books are closed. However, if you wanted to know the progression rates for students from year to year at a university, that could be obtained in a freedom of information request. There should be a level playing field. In higher education, the same should apply to universities and to any private provider.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)]

My Lords, I think that those in receipt of public money, with students with fees from government loans, should indeed operate on a level playing field. However, we should reflect on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in which he asked whether we want to add more requirements or take some of them away. Having recently been a vice-chancellor, I know that universities get numerous FoI requests, many of them relatively vexatious and from local newspapers in the area wanting bits of information about vice-chancellors, staff and other things. Is it really reasonable that we should spend students’ fees on responding to this sort of trivial request?

I think that the Bill will make sure that the kind of key data that you need to know about universities—things such as progression rates—are available from registered providers, and that is very important. It is not about universities trying to hide things; the Bill requires universities to provide the sort of data that students need to know. In levelling the playing field we should follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and think about taking off some of the requirements rather than adding more on.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, having blasted off at the noble Lord, Lords Willetts, on the previous amendment but one, I cannot possibly go back on that, so I shall not follow the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, on this amendment, although I have followed her on many others. Rather like the noble and learned Lord, I think that universities either come within the Freedom of Information Act or they do not. If they do not, we will in any case get the information in other ways, so that probably does not matter. However, it is interesting to look at the question the other way round. If a university sector of the size and prestigiousness of our institutions was not covered by the Freedom of Information Act, you would find that very strange.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have given careful consideration to the range of views expressed in response to our 2015 Green Paper in relation to the application of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to higher education providers. Over 100 consultation responses were received on this issue and, perhaps surprisingly, opinion was divided. The underlying principle behind freedom of information legislation is that people have a right to know about the activities of public authorities. Although not traditionally regarded as public authorities in the wider sense, the Act does currently apply to HEFCE-funded institutions in recognition of the fact that they are in receipt of direct public funding.

In seeking to apply the Freedom of Information Act equally to all registered providers, the effect of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas—and I thank him for that—would either be to remove all higher education providers from the remit of the Act, or impose an additional freedom of information obligation on providers which are not already covered, irrespective of whether they receive direct public funding. This amendment would extend the scope of freedom of information obligations in this case to all registered higher education providers with courses designated for student support.

In the 2015 Green Paper, we considered the application of the Act and the regulatory costs it could impose on higher education providers, some of which may be relatively small organisations. Having considered the views expressed by a range of stakeholders, our decision was, so far as possible, to maintain the status quo by applying freedom of information obligations to those providers who, in future, are eligible to receive direct grant funding from the Office for Students—namely, approved fee-cap providers. As part of our overall principle of risk-based regulation and seeking to reduce regulatory costs and barriers to entry where appropriate, we did not consider that there was a strong case for expanding the scope of the Freedom of Information Act more broadly. We already believe that more higher education providers will be regulated through our reforms.

In this short debate, I wanted to address an interesting question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. The gist of his question was why the Bill does not seek to provide a level playing field of regulatory obligations. I would like to expand a bit on my answer. The Bill continues a rather different approach, whereby those that receive the most significant funding directly from the public purse are subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. This is a targeted approach to regulation, imposing requirements on those—

[Lord Liddle]

I am not trying to be difficult with the noble Lord, but when he talks about direct public funding, does he mean any institution where a student can receive a loan in order to carry out their studies? In my view, when anyone is eligible for a student loan, there is an element of public funding because, as we know, there are going to be write-offs of these loans in the future by the Government. I think this phrase about “direct public funding”, with the greatest respect for the Minister, is a bit of a cop-out.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

It is slightly more complicated than that, and it may be that I should write a letter to clarify this, but there is the funding on the student side that the noble Lord is talking about, the tuition fee, where a private individual is receiving private funding, and on the other side, what we are talking about, funding that comes in the form of a grant to help with the top-up—for example, for a high-cost STEM course. I think it would be good if I wrote a letter of clarification on that. There has been some discussion outside the Chamber on this aspect and it gives me the opportunity to write further on this. Having said all that, there is a bit more I wanted to say about that.

[Baroness Brown of Cambridge]

Before the Minister finishes his speech, can he tell us whether “direct public funding” includes QR funding, HEIF and research funding from UKRI?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I would be delighted to add that to the letter for clarification. These are complicated aspects that require proper clarification.

To complete my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, providers, as he would probably guess, will come in the future in many shapes and sizes. A one-size-fits-all approach to regulation risks would impose an unwarranted cost on smaller providers and new entrants that could stifle the positive effects of competition in the sector. The Independent Commission on Freedom of Information, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, concluded that the current application of the FoI Act is appropriate. It considered evidence that it may place traditional universities at a competitive disadvantage compared with alternative providers and found it unpersuasive.

In addition to comments made by my noble friend Lord Willetts, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, put it rather succinctly. That backs up the equivocal aspect of this debate. I believe that there is a balance, and it has been helpful to have this discussion.

Given the importance of information to the effective regulation and scrutiny of higher education providers, we have introduced provisions elsewhere in the Bill to provide a high degree of regulatory oversight and transparency. For example, Clauses 8 and 9 would require the Office for Students to impose ongoing registration conditions on higher education institutions to provide it with the information it requires in order to carry out its functions and to publish specified information.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised a point about information availability and I will attempt to deal with that. Through the Bill, we are making more information available to students than ever before, as I hope he will know. For example, both approved and approved fee cap providers will be subject to the transparency duty in Clause 9, which we discussed earlier in Committee, and the TEF will make much more information available for students. With that, I hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that answer, if a little disappointed. As I learned in making my application for information and in going through the tribunal and afterwards, if you allow this difference of treatment, you are effectively saying to all the institutions covered by the Freedom of Information Act that all they need to do is claim “commercial confidentiality” and they will not have to publish anything. Anything that is commercially confidential is information that might affect a student in making a decision about which institution to patronise. Therefore, anything really important and interesting becomes unpublishable, and so the freedom of information registration has no function—except to find out what the vice-chancellor had for breakfast, which is clearly not commercially confidential and therefore we can continue to plague them on that. There is no point in registering institutions for the Freedom of Information Act if you then disapply it on such a large scale by failing to register their competitors. I understand that the Government have reached a decision and I will not trouble them again at Report, but I think that they have gone down the wrong road on this. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 118 withdrawn.

Clause 10: Mandatory fee limit condition for certain providers

Amendment 119

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

119: Clause 10, page 6, line 26, at end insert—
“(1A) The OfS may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, waive the fee limit condition in respect of courses which in its view would enable a student to achieve an honours degree within two years of full time study.(1B) For courses to which subsection (1A) applies, the governing body of the provider concerned shall be required to obtain prior approval of the OfS of any fee to be charged.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, for the convenience of the Committee, I will attend to Amendments 119 and 120 together. If it is then possible for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to follow me on that, that will be helpful.

These are probing amendments, the background to which is that the Bill contains aspirations—and may be amended to contain even more aspirations—to see the current rather rigid structure for undergraduate curriculum and courses in this country changed so that there are, for example, more two-year degrees and more flexibility towards taking part courses, or “credits” as they are sometimes called, to build up an entitlement to the award of a degree. This is common in many other higher education systems and has been much talked about on all sides of the political spectrum in recent years, though progress has been quite slow. The amendments seek to probe the idea that part of the delay on this is due to of the way in which the financial regulations for higher education are structured. The finance works in sessions—there is an academic year, as defined in Clause 11, to which we are coming—but the funding for courses is done in relation to the whole course rather than any part of a course. That is the way we have done it historically and there is no particular reason why that is wrong or right. However, it will not be flexible and if a student attempts to do half a course, with a view perhaps to stopping after a bit and then coming back and doing the rest at some later date, or if a new institution was attempting to provide a different type of course, they would have to do it in years; they could not do it in part years.

21:00

That seems to me to speak to a discourse of inflexibility and difficulty. It is no surprise that those who currently occupy the position of challenger institutions, or are from smaller independent institutions, have been vigorous in arguing that the current arrangements for the provision of funding for courses do not allow them to do the sort of work that they would like to do. They would be interested in seeing a way of getting a more flexible approach, whereby perhaps, as set out in Amendment 119, a student could get an honours degree in two years, because that was the way it was taught and examined, and that was appropriate for the subject and agreed with by all the regulators and everybody else involved—all the people the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, does not like. Yet it would still not be possible to do it, because the fee limit would be for a four-year course and not for a two-year course, or a three-year course and not a two-year course. The student would get money for only two years, not for the third year.

Alternatively, might it be possible to do it more flexibly with credits? An element of a course could account for perhaps four credits in a year, and the student would have to pay for a full year’s course, within which they might take only two or three credits. These things do not stack up to a more flexible system. There is no particular model in mind, but I hope the amendments give the Minister the opportunity to respond in a way that might open this up in future. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas]

Ditto.

[Lord Liddle]

May I add my tuppenceworth in support of the amendments? This seems crucial to the socially progressive innovation in higher education many of us on these Benches would like to see. The truth is that there has not been much attempt to enable people to do courses faster than the standard three or four years. Creating the financial possibility for this to happen would be a very good thing.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I wish to respond to Amendments 119, 120 and 121. The Government are committed to encouraging more accelerated degrees and other flexible provision. Indeed, we stated this in our last manifesto and I hope there will be an element of agreement between us on this.

The Bill will level the playing field for high-quality new entrants, making it easier for new specialist and innovative providers to enter the sector. Accelerated degrees are a particular strength of new and alternative providers, and this will help to ensure that students can access learning in the form that suits them. For example, Buckingham, BPP, Condé Nast College of Fashion and Design and the Greenwich School of Management all offer students the opportunity to complete an honours degree over two years. This means that the student incurs less debt and can enter or re-enter the workforce more quickly.

We are interested in understanding what more we can do to support flexible provision. We carried out a call for evidence in the summer seeking views from providers, students and others. This call for evidence resulted in more than 4,500 responses. A clear majority of these came from individual students and we were delighted to see this level of engagement. Many of the responding students expressed an interest in accelerated degrees, so this is clearly an important issue and the demand seems to be there.

On 20 December 2016, the Government published a summary of the call for evidence. This is a complicated policy area and we are now fully considering the evidence. Let me reassure noble Lords, however, that we are looking carefully at the options to remove barriers to accelerated degrees. While we certainly sympathise with the underlying intention of this amendment, as we continue carefully to consider the key issues, I ask that this amendment be withdrawn.

I move on to the amendments spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lucas. In a very similar approach, they both seek to link funding to academic credits as well as academic years. Again there is considerable sympathy with the issues that are raised here. The Government are committed to improving diversity of provision and to increasing student choice. Supporting students who wish to switch a higher education institution or a course is an important part of our reforms.

We also recognise the importance of part-time study, and this gives me another opportunity to trumpet this aspect of our reforms. There should be no doubt about our intention to promote this side. Studying part-time and later in life can bring enormous benefits for individuals, the economy and employers.

This area is also being considered as part of the call for evidence and is all part of us looking closely at the 4,500 responses. Again, it is complicated and I hope the Committee will indulge me and remember that it requires quite a bit of time to gather all the information. We will do that and return with the response in due course. Overall, the Government are already taking action to address some of the key areas of student choice as well as working to support students and their diverse needs.

I assure the Committee that we are actively considering all options in this area. I hope these warm words will be helpful. As we continue to consider the key issues as highlighted in our call for evidence, I ask that the amendment is withdrawn.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. If I get the support of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, who is quite mean with his support for some of the things that come from this side of the Committee, I am obviously on a winner. We will jump over that.

I make two points. If I gave the impression that this was about only new entrants, that was a mistake. I did not want to say that. I think the Minister accepts that the interest is there from all institutions that might follow what the student demand is. If the demand is for that, courses will follow.

I am puzzled why it takes so long to process 4,500 submissions. I understand that due attention must be given to them but the Minister has about 4,500 sheets in his file and has probably read it for today’s debate. I cannot believe it will take him much longer to get through the submissions. In the course of the debate on this amendment, we have now discovered a fifth way of the Government saying that they are not quite sure whether or not they will bring this back on Report. The Minister simply says he is spending more time reviewing the evidence before him before considering how he might bring it forward. He will only have to tell us and we will happily put it down on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 119 withdrawn.

Amendments 120 and 121 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 9.08 pm.