House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
We are providing £144 million over five years, of which £32 million will be provided between 2017-18 to enhance our armed policing capability and capacity to be able to respond more quickly and effectively to a firearms attack. This means that the number of armed police will increase by more than 1,000. Additional round-the-clock specialist teams will be created outside London and 41 additional police armed response vehicles will be on the streets.
Michael Fabricant
I am concerned by the fact that a number of armed police officers have said to me, both here in the Palace of Westminster and in Downing Street, that they do not feel they have the freedom to act that they should have because of the rules of engagement. Can the rules be changed to make them fit for purpose?
Amber Rudd
I recognise that this is sometimes a difficult issue. We have been reviewing the support we provide to our firearms officers so that they can carry out their crucial duties without fear, while ensuring there is necessary scrutiny. My hon. Friend has specific concerns about automatic suspension and firing first. I can confirm that only in exceptional circumstances would someone be automatically suspended for using their gun. There is no rule prohibiting officers from shooting first. Their decision is and must be based on an assessment of threat to life, including their own. I would be delighted if he would like to meet me or the Minister to discuss this matter further.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary join me in commending Mark Rowley and the counter-terrorism team on the announcement today that 13 terrorist threats have been thwarted in the past four years? Does she agree that this is not just about arming the police; it is about the public being vigilant and ensuring sufficient resources for the counter-terrorism unit to engage with communities? That is the way we deal with this threat, as well as arming the police.
Amber Rudd
I happily join the right hon. Gentleman in commending the announcement made by Mark Rowley and the work done in general by our counter-terrorism police officers in London and beyond. He is absolutely right that it is essential we do not think we can solve this issue simply by putting more money into it. We need to work closely with local communities, so that everybody plays a part in countering this vile crime.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The armed response capability of the British Transport Police is a relatively new function, yet the prospect of a mass casualty attack at one of our major transport interchanges is probably one of the more likely scenarios. Can the Home Secretary assure me that there is maximum integration and co-operation between the British Transport Police and local territorial police forces?
Amber Rudd
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the local transport police and local police forces will always work closely together. We are very mindful of where the likely places might be for any attack. He is right that that will often involve large transport hub areas, so we are careful to give specific advice to those areas where necessary.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary agree that countering the terrorist threat begins with preventing radicalisation? She will be aware of the case of Tanveer Ahmed, who is in prison for murdering the peaceful Ahmadiyya shopkeeper, Mr Assad Shah. From his prison cell, Mr Ahmed is using the phone and letters to continue to radicalise people against Ahmadiyya Muslims. Given the increase in anti-Ahmadiyya extremism, is the Home Secretary confident that she has enough Urdu speakers in the entry clearance section at the high commission in Islamabad and here in London?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady raises counter-radicalism, which is a very important element of our counter-terrorism and counter-extremism strategy. I can reassure her that a lot of additional work is going on in prisons to ensure that counter-radicalism takes place. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has taken additional steps to work with people who are being radicalised or are the sources of radicalisation. I hope that that will yield positive results.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Will the Home Secretary join me in praising the work of the east midlands operational support service, which places armed officers in the smaller cities and towns of the east midlands, and will she ensure that smaller cities have the resources they need? A terrorist attack is just as likely to happen in a city like Nottingham or Derby as in London.
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will join him in commending the work of the east midlands service. We are mindful of the fact that, although London can be the central target, other cities could also be a target. We are mindful that our counter-terrorism efforts go way beyond London to other cities, but they are always intelligence-led.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary knows that many of our constituents are saying that they see fewer police in their towns, on their streets and indeed on their roads. The Budget is coming up, so surely we should have some commitment to making the level of policing for counter-terrorism in our communities as high as possible.
Amber Rudd
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that there has been a 30% increase in the budget for counter-terrorism and we expect that to continue. When it comes to ordinary policemen, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will, like me, welcome the fact that crime has fallen by 25% since 2010. The key element is that our police forces have the tools to deliver that reduction in crime, and I believe that under this Government they do.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
I very much welcome this question from my hon. Friend, who is chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on retail crime, which recently launched a report on this very subject. I can assure him that we take retail crime very seriously. I am co-chair of the National Retail Crime Steering Group with the British Retail Consortium, which brings together retailers and the police to understand the challenge and take effective action.
Martin Vickers
I thank the Minister for her reply, but she will be aware of growing concern among retailers about levels of both physical and verbal abuse. Will she do something to ensure that police across the country prioritise this issue sufficiently? Retailers are worried that different areas receive a different response from the different forces.
Sarah Newton
Let us be absolutely clear: violence or verbal abuse of any kind is simply not acceptable for any workforce in our country. I shall take this issue forward through the national steering group, and will draw particularly on the very effective work that has been done between the police and forecourt retailers, where we put in place measures that are really improving police response around the country.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
On that very point, the Minister will know that as well as seeing an increase of crime carried out on shop workers, we have also seen under-reporting of that crime. Will she urge businesses to encourage their employees to support the campaign of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers on freedom from fear and indeed to report these crimes?
Sarah Newton
The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point, and we very much work alongside USDAW on the national steering group that I mentioned. I absolutely back up his call that everybody should report crime. There are some excellent initiatives in town centres all over the country through which businesses and the police are working well together to ensure that such an increase in reporting happens.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
Mrs Newton indeed, Mr Speaker.
We introduced the new offence of controlling and coercive behaviour to shift the focus of the criminal justice system from single incidents to identifying and addressing patterns of abuse. The Home Secretary will chair a working group to drive change in how we think about and tackle domestic abuse, and this will include closely monitoring the implementation of this new offence.
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank the Minister for her answer, but existing police powers to remove perpetrators of domestic violence from a property are tremendously under-used, largely because costs and cuts in police funding have made the situation worse. What is the Minister going to do to help protect women affected by domestic violence?
Sarah Newton
This new offence was brought in right at the end of 2015, so the Office for National Statistics will not report on the level of uptake of the new police powers until later this spring. From my conversations with the police up and down the length and breadth of the country, I know that they are making very good use of the new powers.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend is quite right to talk about stalking, which can be a truly devastating crime. This Government are placing an absolute priority on keeping women and girls safe across our country through extra resources, extra training and new forces so that they can go after the perpetrators of these terrible and devastating crimes.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Opposition welcome the introduction of this legislation—it was, after all, Labour party policy—but when are the Government going to put their money where their mouth is on domestic violence? We know that local authority spending cuts have severely impacted on specialist domestic abuse services, which has meant cuts and closures. Women and children are being turned away daily at the point of need. Data from the Women’s Aid annual survey showed that on just one day in 2015, 92 women and 75 children were turned away from a refuge. When are the Government going to address the financial pressures on women’s refuges?
Sarah Newton
This Government have done more than any other to keep women and children in our country safe. It is very disappointing when the right hon. Lady takes a partisan approach to something that should unite the House rather than dividing it. As she knows, we have committed £20 million to refuges, and we have an £80 million transformation fund. Grassroots organisations throughout the country are benefiting from our record level of investment in services to keep women and children safe.
Ms Abbott
It is very disappointing that the Minister is not prepared to accept that, as a result of local government cuts, services are being reduced and refuges are closing. As for the question of resources, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary recently flagged up failings on the part of the police when they were dealing with the most vulnerable victims. In at least two forces, domestic abuse risk assessments were being conducted over the telephone. This is a consequence of trying to deal with increasing levels of demand with few resources, and if the Government are serious about combating domestic violence, they must make those resources available.
Sarah Newton
I very much welcome HMIC’s work in inspecting the police response to domestic abuse and violence. It is making excellent progress, as we saw in the police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy programme—PEEL—reports last week. However, the right hon. Lady is right to point out that some force areas have more work to do. That is why we are helping the College of Policing to ensure that training is available, and why we are investing record amounts in the police transformation fund, which is enabling more organisations to provide the services that women and girls all over the country deserve.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Coercion and controlling behaviour take different forms. Will the Minister undertake to extend the legislation to the postal voting regime? At every election, the votes of thousands of women are stolen through abuse of the postal voting system during so-called community voting, largely in the Bangladeshi and Pakistani communities. That is not acceptable, and the Government need to act now.
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend has raised an incredibly important issue. What could be more important than people’s fundamental right to express their opinions at the ballot box, and to elect representatives to town councils and the House of Commons? We shall be taking a very close look at what more we can do to use those powers, and any others, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to vote.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
As the Prime Minister made clear in her Lancaster House speech in January, our commitment to co-operation with European partners on security and law enforcement will be undiminished by our leaving the European Union. The Home Office is working with operational law enforcement partners to examine all the different ways of delivering that result, and to find a practical, co-operative way of supplying certainty as we leave the EU.
Byron Davies
The sharing of intelligence with our European counterparts is vital to the work of our police forces in keeping our citizens and country safe, and data-sharing underpins that co-operation. How will the Home Office meet the challenge of maintaining those arrangements when Britain has left the European Union?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The use of data is critical in our fight against cross-border crime and terrorism, and will always remain a priority for us. We value the co-operation that we have at present through the European Criminal Records Information System and the Schengen Information System. We want our future relationship with the EU to include practical arrangements so that we can engage with it on that basis, and I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is also what our EU partners want.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary’s predecessor, now the Prime Minister, said that ditching the European arrest warrant would make Britain
“a honeypot for all of Europe’s criminals on the run from justice”.
Can the Home Secretary guarantee that we will continue to participate in European arrest warrant co-operation?
Amber Rudd
I certainly agree with the principle that the European arrest warrant is an effective tool that is essential to the delivery of effective judgment on the murderers, rapists and paedophiles on whom we have managed to seek judgment. It is a priority for us to ensure that we remain part of the arrangement, and I can reassure Members in all parts of the House that our European partners want to achieve that as well.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
The PNC central bureau is operated by the Metropolitan police, and it processes all licence notifications on behalf of police forces in England and Wales. A sample of transactions in the bureau are checked daily for accuracy by supervisors.
Johnny Mercer
I understand from Ministers that this problem was rectified last year, which I am happy to learn. However, is there any more the Department can do to work with families like the one here with me today whose son was murdered by an individual on licence? I pay tribute to Andrea Sharpe on her efforts to close this gap. Will the Department work with families to ensure that they get the support they need so that cases like that of Tanis Bhandari cannot happen again?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Fortunately, very few of us in this House can ever understand or will ever have to go through what the family of Tanis Bhandari had to go through; that was a tragic incident that we all wish would never happen to anybody. My hon. Friend is right that the process around post-sentence supervision has changed following the implementation of the Offender Rehabilitation Act 2014, but I am always willing, as, I know, are colleagues at the Ministry of Justice—I think my hon. Friend has arranged for the family to meet the Secretary of State for Justice later today—to look at what more we can learn from the experiences of today and the past.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
The Prime Minister has made it clear that one of her 12 negotiating priorities is to secure the status of EU nationals already living in the UK as soon as possible, once formal negotiations have begun. She has also made it clear that she seeks a deal based on reciprocity, which also secures the status of UK nationals living elsewhere in the EU.
Martyn Day
The cross-party Exiting the European Union Committee published its second report yesterday. It unanimously agreed that the Government should make a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals living in the UK. Will the Home Secretary now commit to doing so?
Amber Rudd
I will of course read the report with the respect and interest that it deserves. Nevertheless, I feel that reciprocity is an important part of securing the position not only of the EU nationals, who add such value to our economy and are so welcome here, but the UK citizens who live their lives abroad in the EU.
Brendan O’Hara
This weekend, Rita Windham-Wright, a Hungarian national living in Oban told me that she and her family were considering leaving Scotland, Celia Krezdorn from Helensburgh, a Swiss national married to a German, whose children are Scottish, told me they have no idea what the future holds for them, and Jean Michel Voinot from Lochgilphead asked whether his family will be able to hold together. Given that the Exiting the European Union Committee said it would be “unconscionable” if such people were to be denied clarity about their future, how do the Government intend to—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is too long, I am afraid. We have got the gist of the question, and we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but we have a lot to get through and not much time in which to do so.
Amber Rudd
I urge the hon. Gentleman to reassure his constituents, if that is what they are, about how valued they are for the contribution they make to the UK economy. I also point out that the recent immigration statistics show that we remain just as popular a destination as ever for EU nationals.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We cannot even deport convicted criminals. The reality is that even if we wanted to, which we do not, we are not going to deport a single EU national. It seems to me that we might as well acknowledge this fact now, while reserving the right, in the extremely unlikely possibility of our EU partners deporting any UK citizens—which they will not, for the same practical reasons—to change our mind. But let us at least reassure these people now.
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend makes a very fair observation about the reality of the situation. I point out, however, that as he seeks the assurance and certainty that the EU citizens who are here want, I seek it, too, for the UK citizens who are in other parts of the EU. It is a priority; the Prime Minister has said that she will move on to that as soon as negotiations begin.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) could refer his constituents to the acquired rights EU citizens might have under the Vienna convention? Those same rights might not be available to UK citizens abroad, who also need our protection.
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend makes the very good point that EU citizens here have existing rights and that we need to ensure that equivalent rights are extended to UK citizens in the EU.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Home Secretary advises Members to tell their EU constituents that they are safe, and many of us have been doing that, but, frankly, they need to hear it from her and from the Prime Minister. We really need the Government to step up and say to those individuals that their lives here in Britain are secure, at the same time as trying to ensure that the people who went from Britain to Spain will be equally secure.
Amber Rudd
I understand the concerns that the right hon. Lady has raised. We have all experienced this as MPs in our surgeries. My point to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) was that as MPs we can give that reassurance that EU citizens are valued here and that it is the Prime Minister’s intention to do that. We will make it a priority as we begin the EU negotiations.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
If we are to be accused of using EU nationals as bargaining chips, could the same accusation not apply to the attitude of other EU 27 nationals towards British citizens abroad?
Amber Rudd
Which is why I would refer to this as a reciprocal arrangement, which we hope to complete in parallel with the EU.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Home Secretary talks about reciprocal arrangements, but when she gets round to reading the report from the Exiting the European Union Committee, she will see that representatives of UK citizens living abroad, to a man and woman, gave evidence to the Committee that they want the British Government to give a unilateral guarantee to EU citizens living here because they think that it will benefit British citizens abroad. Will she listen to the voices of UK citizens living abroad and give that unilateral guarantee?
Amber Rudd
There are more than 1 million UK citizens living in the European Union, and they are not all represented by the groups that gave evidence to the Brexit Committee. I care about every one of those UK citizens, and I repeat that it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that we protect their position as much as we protect that of EU citizens.
Joanna Cherry
Last week, the chief executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce pointed out that Scotland relies heavily on EU residents for the supply of labour. She said that business in Scotland wants a separate deal for immigration in Scotland. The Exiting the European Union Committee has said that the UK Government should respond fully and speedily to the Scottish Government’s proposals for a differential immigration policy for Scotland. Will the Home Secretary listen to the voice of business in Scotland and give a guarantee that that full and speedy response will be given without further delay?
Amber Rudd
The Scottish Government already play a full role in the negotiations and planning for the EU exit, and I am sure that that will continue over the next few months.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Does the Home Secretary agree that we can reassure EU nationals that their rights to remain in this country are guaranteed in our law and that it would require an Act of Parliament, at the very least, to remove those rights?
Amber Rudd
Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. There will be a moment to have a full debate on that, and that will be in this House when those rights are changed.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that British public opinion increasingly thinks that the Government are being callous in continuing to seek to use EU nationals as bargaining chips? Is she also aware that, given the cloud of uncertainty hanging over EU nationals and their families, employers in sectors that rely on their labour—notably financial services, health and education—want that uncertainty to be removed?
Amber Rudd
It is because we care about employers and the jobs that they provide that we will be consulting during the summer on the right form of immigration process to put in place as we leave the European Union. There is no question but that this Government are going to continue to listen carefully to the employers who have provided so many jobs to people in the UK and quite a few in the European Union as well.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Government undertook a comprehensive consultation with local authorities in order to assess their capacity to accept unaccompanied children. This consultation included 10 regional events in each part of England, and events in Scotland and Wales, which were attended by representatives of more than 400 local authorities.
Alex Cunningham
When the Calais camp was cleared last year, 550 of the 750 children who came to the UK did so under an accelerated process based on the family reunion criteria of the Dublin regulation, which has since been discontinued. How will the Minister ensure that refugees in Greece, France, and Italy, including unaccompanied children with family members in the UK, can be reunited with their families?
Mr Goodwill
The Dublin process works well and is well established. Indeed, a member of the Home Office staff is embedded in Athens, helping the process to work. Although we had a fast-track system during the Calais clearances, it is important that, first, we identify that the children are who they say they are and, secondly, that they can be properly cared for by the family they are placed with.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister did much to lead the campaign against human trafficking, and we are undoubtedly the best country in Europe at countering human traffickers, but I am still concerned about one area in which the traffickers operate: children who are given to local authorities and then re-trafficked. Will the Minister assure us that the Government are following up on children who have been placed in care to ensure that they are still in care?
Mr Goodwill
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s long campaign on this issue. He is right that it is a concern that children placed with local authorities may abscond due to traffickers wanting their pay day—for want of a better phrase. It is absolutely right that local authorities understand their responsibility to care for those children and to ensure that their safety is maintained.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Minister will have seen the Home Affairs Committee report, which is out today, that sets out the evidence we heard from charities and the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner about the increased risk of child trafficking if the Dubs scheme closes, from councils about their extra capacity, and from the Local Government Association that thousands more places could be available if the right funding is in place. New clause 14 to the Children and Social Work Bill, which is before the House tomorrow, has cross-party support, so will the Minister agree to seek further evidence from the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner and from local councils on their capacity, rather than rushing to close the Dubs scheme?
Mr Goodwill
I certainly look forward to appearing before the right hon. Lady’s Committee to give the Government’s side of the story. I do not recognise the figures that I saw, and I suspect that some of the methodology behind them will not bear too much scrutiny. If spaces are available with local authorities, it is important that they are made available for the national transfer scheme. Kent County Council, for example, has 400 surplus children over its normal capacity—Croydon is another—which makes things difficult.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Mr Goodwill
I pay tribute to local authorities such as Cambridgeshire that not only take in children under the national transfer scheme but make families welcome under our scheme for the 20,000 children and their families coming from the camps around Syria and the 3,000 children and their families from the wider middle east and north Africa area.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
On Holocaust Memorial Day, Michael Brown movingly described his experiences as a child refugee fleeing Nazi Germany in 1939 and advocated the need for Britain to be open to children from Europe fleeing atrocities today. Numerous local authorities, such as Ealing, Hammersmith, and even Hastings—the Home Secretary’s backyard—are willing to take more, so why are the Government pulling the plug on the world’s most vulnerable by closing the Dubs scheme?
Mr Goodwill
If any parallels are to be drawn between Nazi Germany and the situation nowadays, they would be in the situation in Syria, not in our European neighbours and partners. I point out for the record that of the 750 children we took from Calais under both Dubs and Dublin fewer than 10 were actually from Syria. We should concentrate on the children and their families most in need, and they are the ones in the refugee camps in the region.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is a case of mistaken identity on the part of the hon. Lady. I had another Member in mind, but patience might be rewarded in due course.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The Supreme Court has now endorsed our approach in setting a minimum income threshold for spouse visas to prevent burdens on the taxpayer and ensure that migrant families can integrate into our communities. That is central to building an immigration system that works in the national interest.
Chris Stephens
The Supreme Court has described the financial threshold that forces UK citizens to choose between their country and their family as being “particularly harsh.” Will the Minister put families and children ahead of the illogical and arbitrary net migration target, ditch the £18,600 threshold or, at the very least, consider the circumstances of those in low-paid employment?
Mr Goodwill
It is important that family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense and that families are able to integrate. That is what our family immigration rules achieve, an approach that the Supreme Court has now endorsed.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister intend to use the same minimum income threshold for EU spouses as he currently uses for non-EU spouses?
Mr Goodwill
We have not even sat around the negotiation table, so that question is probably slightly premature.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Both countries are alive to the risk of new camps forming in northern France and are continuing to work together to combat the criminal groups that facilitate people smuggling. The UK Government are contributing up to £36 million to support the situation in Calais and ensure that the camp remains closed in the long term.
Rob Marris
Many economic migrants dispersed from Calais refuse to apply for asylum in France, so they are not fingerprinted there: thus they can get smuggled to the UK and claim asylum here. Has the Minister urged upon the French authorities the desirability of all such individuals being fingerprinted in France and the records exchanged?
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The principle of first safe country is central to the asylum policy. If people are in France, they should claim asylum in France and have their fingerprints taken. We can then use those biometrics in the Dublin process to ensure that the people are dealt with properly. We certainly urge our French friends to ensure that that can be done, and we encourage asylum seekers in France to go through that process.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I urge the Minister to do all he can to make sure that a new “jungle” does not form at Calais this year. It is not just about the humanitarian squalor to which 10,000 people were shamefully condemned. It is also essential that we stop the terrible pull factors that draw people on these terrible and dangerous journeys across Europe.
Mr Goodwill
The site of the former Calais camp remains clear and there is ongoing work, supported by UK funding, permanently to remove all former camp infrastructure and accommodation and to restore the site to its natural state. That work will help to prevent any re-establishment of squats or camps in the area.
Mr Speaker
I would not want those who use a “v” in the surname Stevens to feel disadvantaged by comparison with those who use the “ph” variant on the theme. I call Jo Stevens.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Thank you for the second opportunity, Mr Speaker. My constituent Bashir Naderi came to Cardiff as an unaccompanied child refugee aged 10. Two months ago, Bashir and I personally delivered to the Home Secretary my letter and a petition against his forced removal to Afghanistan signed by more than 14,000 people. I have had no acknowledgment from the Home Secretary, never mind a response to the letter or the petition. When will she reply to me?
Mr Goodwill
I certainly hear what the hon. Lady says. Of course we care for people who come here as children, but they would then normally make an asylum application when they reach the age of 17 and a half, which is dealt with in the usual way.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
The UK has one of the world’s most effective legal regimes to empower our law enforcement agencies and security services to tackle terrorism. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2000 and, more recently, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 form the foundation of our continued strategy to counter terrorism in the 21st century.
Mr Jayawardena
Given what the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said earlier about the excellent efforts of our security services to protect this country, it is clearly not just about powers but about people, too. To that end, will my hon. Friend the Minister join me in commending Hampshire constabulary for its excellent progress on recruiting firearms officers to work with our security services, and will he confirm that the recent Government funding allocation has made provision to train more firearms officers?
Mr Wallace
I ask my hon. Friend to reflect on the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I put on record our appreciation of the extra efforts of forces across the country in delivering the extra £144 million armed uplift that, as my right hon. Friend has said, will see an extra 1,000 armed officers and additional round-the-clock specialist teams operating across the whole country.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The latest data show that in the two quarters following the referendum 136,479 applications for residence documentation were received from EU nationals and their family members, and the application fee for this documentation is £65.
Chi Onwurah
Three per cent. of Newcastle’s population are EU nationals, and be they in our hospitals, universities, restaurants or high-tech start-ups—or in our championship- topping football team—they are an integral part of our lives. Does the Minister realise how insecure they feel as bargaining chips, and how does he justify charging them for the privilege?
Mr Goodwill
I would certainly pay tribute to the contribution that EU nationals make in all spheres of life, not least football, but particularly in the health service and our public services. While they are here and we are members of the European Union, they can exercise their treaty rights. As the Home Secretary has said, we wish to sort this situation out as soon as possible, and of course we also need to recognise the status of UK nationals elsewhere in the EU, who deserve and want the same protections.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
What procedures are in place to enable the Government to check that EU nationals have been here lawfully and continuously for five years?
Mr Goodwill
Many people will have documentation already available, for example, their national insurance or tax forms; they may appear on the electoral register. All sorts of documentation could be relevant in this case, but I must stress that nobody needs to get any additional documentation at this stage. We are absolutely happy that people continue making a contribution, and they should not be worried about their future here in the UK.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I have been contacted by constituents who are British citizens married to EU nationals. What compassion are the Government showing to those people by using their futures as a bargaining chip in our future European relations?
Mr Goodwill
I urge caution about describing these people as “bargaining chips”. It is absolutely right that we are keen early in the negotiations to secure the status of EU nationals living here, but at the same time we do need to ensure that British nationals living elsewhere in the European Union get that same protection.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Some EU nationals—for example, Roma or those from central Europe—find it particularly difficult to produce documentation, as they may have been in insecure employment, have ended up sleeping rough and so on. Following on from the Minister’s answer to the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), what can be done to ensure that those who have lived, worked and contributed here but who struggle to produce documentation will also receive a fair hearing?
Mr Goodwill
I stress again that there is no need for EU nationals who are living here and exercising their treaty rights to make any change in their status; there is no need for any further documentation. As we quickly get into the negotiations after triggering article 50, I hope that this will be resolved very quickly.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
I will not comment on the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I would say that we can be very clear that the Metropolitan police has the resources it needs to police London. It is the best-funded force in the country in terms of direct resource funding per head of population, and it also has the most officers per head of population.
Wes Streeting
Ilford North residents worried about bread and butter crime and policing on issues such as burglary feel unlucky because the average London taxpayer pays £61 a year to subsidise the national work of the Metropolitan police. Given that, will the Government accept the recommendation of Sir Richard Mottram’s panel and provide an additional £107 million a year to fund the vital national work of the Metropolitan police?
Brandon Lewis
Clearly, the Metropolitan police have a role to play in that national context that is different from other police forces. The review of the NICC—national and international capital city—contribution, which the Metropolitan police has outlined in conversations about the police funding formula review, will be done in line with that funding formula review.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Of equal importance to ensuring adequate funding for the Met police is ensuring proper funding for West Yorkshire police. There are real concerns about the use of firearms in my constituency, where firearms offences have risen by a third during the past four years. Will Ministers ensure that West Yorkshire police have the resources necessary to get these weapons off our streets?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Lady just highlighted the cross-party calls from across this House to see that police funding formula review work done, ensuring that we are properly reflecting things. The current formula is immensely out of date, and it is well known and well accepted that that needs to be reviewed. I therefore look forward to her support in that review work.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Just over a year ago, the Chancellor promised real-terms protection for police funding, but the Met faces real-terms cuts of £47 million, Manchester faces a £12 million one and West Yorkshire faces a £9 million one—England and Wales as a whole faces a massive £200 million cut. That has consequences, with violent crime deprioritised, domestic violence victims ignored and neighbourhood policing eroded. All of that has been evidenced by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, yet we have heard nothing from the Minister except complacency. Who should the public believe: the Minister of broken promises or the independent HMIC?
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the tone in which the hon. Lady has asked the question. If she actually looks at the HMIC report, she will see that it is clear that this is not about levels of funding; the report is very much about how the police use the funding they have. I gently point out to her that, if they are using the precept abilities they have, not only is every single police force in the country, bar one, protected, but indeed, this year overall we are seeing an increase in the resources for police forces. Even in London, the police have seen a £30 million increase in their reserves, which means there has been money that they have not used.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
Detention and removal are essential parts of an effective immigration control system, but it is vital that they are carried out with dignity and respect. When people are detained, it is for the minimum time possible. We take the welfare of detainees very seriously, which is why the Government commissioned Stephen Shaw to carry out an independent review of the welfare of vulnerable people in the detention system.
Caroline Lucas
Numerous reports suggest that the Government are using indefinite detention. I commend to the Minister a report by Women for Refugee Women that sets out practical alternatives to detention as a routine part of asylum policy. I would like to see the reality for myself, yet my application to visit Yarl’s Wood as a party leader appears to have been blocked. Can he tell me the status of my application, which was first made in November and has, I understand, been referred to his office? When can I expect to get clearance?
Mr Goodwill
We are still considering that suggestion. I know that the shadow Home Secretary would like to visit as well.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
indicated assent.
Mr Goodwill
We did wonder whether the Home Affairs Committee would like to take precedence on a visit of that sort, but if it does not want to go, we will certainly look into the matter more urgently.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
When will the current system of detention reviews be replaced by the individual removal assessments and reviews, and when will the plan for the future of the immigration and detention estate, promised by the Minister’s predecessor last year, be published?
Mr Goodwill
We seek to minimise the time for which people are kept in detention, and that is done for the purposes of removal. We have, of course, introduced a new adults at risk policy, which seeks to minimise the use of detention for those considered vulnerable.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The UK provides protection for refugees here, in accordance with our international obligations. The Government have established a £10 million refugee children fund for Europe, provided significant assistance via the European Asylum Support Office, and allocated up to £39 million to the humanitarian response in Greece.
Stuart C. McDonald
Why is it that only a solitary Home Office official in each of Greece and Italy is working on the Dubs and Dublin schemes? According to non-governmental organisations on the ground, the result is that the schemes are barely functioning there at all.
Mr Goodwill
We work very closely with our colleagues in France, Greece and Italy. We committed 115 staff into Greece, 75 of whom are already there, including one embedded member of the Home Office staff who is helping with Dublin applications in Athens. Of course, we also have our Border Force commitment in the Mediterranean, which ensures that we save people’s lives should they make that perilous journey across the Mediterranean.
Margaret Ferrier
Home Office guidelines recognise that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender refugees are at serious risk in Afghanistan, but also suggest that if the individual did not attract or seek to cause public outrage, they would avoid persecution, so could be returned. Will the Minister tell us why the Home Office has decided to depart from the UN guidelines on refugees?
Mr Goodwill
We aim to process all asylum claims sympathetically. Our staff are trained in interviewing asylum seekers who may have LGBT issues or, indeed, who may have converted to Christianity and find it difficult to express some of their feelings during those interviews.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
Bath and North East Somerset Council has one of the best relocation programmes for unaccompanied children and for refugees in the country. However, it is struggling to enable more to come to Bath and North East Somerset due to a range of different safeguarding risks. What more support can the Government give to councils such as Bath and North East Somerset that are really struggling on safeguarding issues? Perhaps I could meet the Minister to discuss those issues.
Mr Goodwill
We recognise the challenge that many local authorities face in dealing with some of these particularly vulnerable children, which is why we have increased the funding up to £40,000 for the under-16s, and to around £30,000 for 16 and 17-year-olds. I hope that will help them find the resourcing that they need to deal with those particular children.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Kent continues to be on the frontline when it comes to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arriving in the UK, with more than 3,000 arriving each year. Given the interest in the matter across the House, will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to ensure that local authorities across the country are helping counties such as Kent and sharing the burden of these children no matter how they have come into the UK?
Mr Goodwill
That is precisely why we have set up the national transfer scheme for local authorities such as Kent, which have 400 more children than the 0.07% allocation would indicate. It is also why we have encouraged local authorities that say that they have spare spaces to participate in that scheme and take the pressure off counties such as Kent and Croydon.
Mr Speaker
I call Graham Jones. Where is the fella? Well, the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Craig Williams) is here and he is waiting patiently, so let us hear from him.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
We are taking robust action to tackle radicalisation online and to counter the poisonous ideology that is promoted by terrorists and extremists. In 2016, our police Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit secured the removal of more than 120,000 pieces of terrorist-related content. We work with communications service providers to tackle proactively terrorist use of their platforms and we support community-based initiatives that challenge terrorist propaganda and provide credible counter narratives.
Craig Williams
I thank the Minister for his answer. I pay tribute to the Home Secretary and her ministerial team for all they do to protect the values that we all hold so dear. With Cardiff in mind, may I ask what the Government are doing in particular to tackle extremism in this country?
Mr Wallace
In October 2015, the Government published a comprehensive new strategy to tackle all forms of extremism, including both Islamist and that from the far right. The strategy sets out an ambitious programme to deal with those who promote hatred and intolerance, which can cause real harm in our communities. When it comes to Cardiff, my hon. Friend will be aware of the extra efforts going into the Prevent programme in his local authority, and I would be delighted to visit the Prevent providers with him should he wish to make such a visit.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
On Wednesday, we celebrate International Women’s Day when we recognise the achievements of women internationally and acknowledge the real challenges still faced by so many. One of my priorities as Home Secretary is to ensure that all women are protected from violence. Since 2010, we have done more than ever before to tackle gender-based violence. Last year, we launched the ending violence against women and girls strategy and pledged increased funding of £80 million in support. We have strengthened the laws and provided agencies with tools to support victims and bring perpetrators to justice. We know that there is more that we can do to bring those crimes out of the shadows, which is why the Justice Secretary and I will be leading a comprehensive programme of work to combat domestic abuse, including considering a new domestic violence Bill. The Government will continue to take steps to achieve our ambition that no woman should live in fear of abuse, and that every girl should grow up feeling safe and protected.
Diana Johnson
Parents will be shocked to know that, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, youth leaders and sports coaches are not included within the definition of a “trusted position”, which means that they can legally have sex with 16 and 17-year-olds for whom they are responsible and whom they supervise. Will the Home Secretary work with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children to close that loophole in the law?
Amber Rudd
I will certainly look at the situation that the hon. Lady raises and, if necessary, talk to the NSPCC. I will invite her to participate in those discussions as well.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)
My hon. Friend gives a really good example of a very forward thinking police force in Essex. Credit must go to the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable for the work that they are doing to use modern techniques and good technology to drive forward and to be efficient and effective. That is a good example of why we are increasing the police transformation fund to some £175 million this year.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Does the Home Secretary really believe that the 45 days of support for suspected victims of trafficking is adequate, given that the organisations working at the coalface of the problem, such as the Human Trafficking Foundation, the Salvation Army, the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, the Snowdrop Project, City Hearts and ECPAT, all say that it is completely unrealistic to expect to deal with the immigration, psychological, economic and housing issues that these vulnerable individuals are experiencing in 45 days? All those organisations also agree that this lethal combination is exposing victims to the real possibility of being re-trafficked.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
I think that it is important to remember that the Prime Minister has led a global challenge to crack down on slavery. We now have some of the best anti-trafficking legislation in the world, and really excellent protection for victims. What the hon. Lady said is not actually correct, because the average time that people receive through the national referral mechanism is 90 days. We are working on reforms to the system to ensure that it is absolutely the best in the world.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; arguably that will be the most watched sporting event in the world this year. It is an opportunity for the United Kingdom, and indeed for Wales, to show clearly what we have to offer. I was delighted to accept his invitation to go and meet the team down in Cardiff. We will keep a close eye on them to ensure that they have all the structural organisation they need to give everyone a fantastic event.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point—and a few wild allegations. It is this Government who set up the National Cyber Security Centre to ensure that we correctly align our response to cyber-attacks, getting it out through Cyber Aware and a range of cyber awareness campaigns to ensure that people are properly protected, working alongside manufacturers, and using the full weight and expertise of GCHQ to counter cybercrime. That is making a difference, and I hope that people are more aware, rather than scared by her allegations.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Brandon Lewis
Yes. My hon. Friend’s question backs up the earlier comment from our hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), because Essex police have done some phenomenally good work, as we can see in HMIC’s report. I congratulate everybody at Essex police on that. I will urge one note of caution, however, because there are still areas that need improvement, and I expect to see the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner focusing on those to deliver for the people of Essex in future. But it is good news, so well done to them.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Brandon Lewis
I can assure the hon. Lady that there is a substantial piece of work going on, with academics, police chief constables and police and crime commissioners across the country working to feed in and ensure that the police funding formula review takes account of everything it needs to take account of. A lot of people in the sector are outlining to us how pleased they are with the process. We are determined to see that through. We will see where it goes for all forces in order to get a fair formula in future.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Mr Wallace
The Government take cyber-security extremely seriously, which is why we have committed to spending £1.9 billion on cyber-security over this Parliament. The newly created National Cyber Security Centre is at the forefront of driving forward the Government’s national cyber-security strategy, which will include working with businesses and the private sector, and developing an ambitious skills programme.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Brandon Lewis
The Government will respond to that consultation in due course—to the House—once we have had a chance to go through all the replies.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Amber Rudd
I reassure my hon. Friend that we remain committed to those numbers, ensuring that we protect and move people over from the region. We have, in fact, brought over 4,369 in the past 12 months. The last Labour Government capped their figure at 750 per year, and we are pleased to be doing five times that every year.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and others, the report of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that was published last week found that a third of police forces required improvement or were inadequate, that there was a national shortage of detectives, that neighbourhood policing is being eroded and that there is no coherent strategy for the threat posed to communities by organised criminals. Will the Home Office respond to that damning report and outline what impact the findings will have on the police funding formula review, which we expect to see in the next few weeks?
Brandon Lewis
The response is for police forces, and I look forward to all police forces responding with the outcomes for their areas. I will write to all those forces that were found to require improvement. Straight after the report came out last week, I met the chief constable of the only one that was found inadequate, and I was impressed with their response to want to deal with the issues. Ultimately, there has also been a big improvement on previous years, which is good news, but the police need to respond and do the work to deliver.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
I thank the Fire Minister for his intervention, which has seen Staffordshire fire authority cancel a £4 million life-skills centre. Does he agree that the fire authority was right to review the scheme as we need to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely, and that there are other ways to deliver all-important fire prevention work?
Brandon Lewis
I thank my hon. Friend for her very kind comment. Importantly, the credit goes to a really good fire authority that has looked at the programme and taken a proper view on using taxpayers’ money effectively. I congratulate the authority on and thank it for that work.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
My constituent, Robert Makutsa, who is a well-known figure on the Scottish music scene, has now been in detention for 38 days, which is taking a brutal toll on his mental and physical health. I wrote to the Minister for Immigration on 16 January, but have yet to receive a response. Will he now meet me to discuss Robert’s ongoing detention?
The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)
We do not, as a rule, comment on individual cases, but I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady as soon as possible.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that looking after adult victims of human trafficking through the Salvation Army is the best system in Europe? Will she also confirm that the 45 days mentioned is the minimum period, not the maximum?
Amber Rudd
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the incredible work he has done in helping us to put the system in place. We use third parties such as the Salvation Army, which does a fantastic job looking after people who have been trafficked. He is right that 45 days is a minimum. Quite often, we look after people for much longer, but we will always keep that under review because we want to help these vulnerable people.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
At the weekend, I heard the heart-breaking story of one of the children, who has only ever known her father as a face on a laptop. When he stood up to walk away during a Skype call, she shouted, “Mummy, look! Daddy’s got legs too.” Does the Home Secretary find that as distressing as I do? If she does, and given that I have no power to do anything about it but she does, what will she do?
Amber Rudd
I am not entirely clear what the situation is, but I will meet the hon. Lady, or she can meet the Immigration Minister, to discuss it.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
Will the Home Secretary give an absolute guarantee that there will be no changes in the rules relating to EU migrant labour this summer, so as to allow fruit pickers in my constituency to implement the contracts they have already entered into?
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to remind everybody that while we are members of the EU that situation is unchanged—that position can be guaranteed.
Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)
My constituent Mr Kreem was empowered by, and worked with, coalition forces in Iraq post the 2003 invasion to set up an academy to train security forces in Mosul. That work put his and his family’s lives in probable danger, particularly post the invasion of Mosul by Daesh. In 2014, the family claimed asylum, and they have still not heard back, despite numerous interventions by their previous MP with the ministerial team. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss this special and urgent case?
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Trafford Council has already received 10 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and is supporting two more. The council and the community are keen to support more such children in need, but they are finding it difficult to establish with the North West Regional Strategic Migration Partnership the exact numbers they can expect over coming months. Given the uncertainty local authorities face in planning to receive such vulnerable children, what assurances can the Home Secretary give?
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The fact is that it is sometimes uncertain when we are able to bring the children over to the UK. When we had the situation with Calais, we were told x number by the French one day, and it moved very quickly the next. We will always do our best to give councils as much notice as possible, but sometimes the numbers change at very short notice.
Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)
My constituent Barrie Smith was born in Dumfries, was raised in Dumfries and is 100% Scottish. Due to a mistake with his mother’s maiden name on her marriage certificate, he has been denied a passport and been told that he will need to reapply for British citizenship at the cost of £2,000. Will somebody from the Home Office meet me behind the Speaker’s Chair so that we can discuss this hideous case?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman does not need to make it sound quite so furtive. It can be behind the Chair, but it could be in quite a large number of other places on the parliamentary estate, or in a ministerial office for that matter. There is nothing odd about it.
Mr Goodwill
Mr Speaker, it sounds like I am going to be quite busy having meetings with colleagues from the SNP, but I am more than happy to have that meeting as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but we must move on. I think I have called everybody who had not previously asked a question.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
On 22 February, the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) raised a point of order about correspondence from the Department for Work and Pensions informing Members of new arrangements for accessing information about constituents’ universal credit claims. The same matter had been raised by the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) at Department for Work and Pensions oral questions on 20 February. I undertook to investigate and to report back to the House.
I can confirm to the House that there is no requirement in law for the Department to obtain explicit consent before releasing information on constituents’ universal credit claims to Members. The Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) (Elected Representatives) Order 2002 provides that a data controller may, in reliance on the order, provide sensitive personal data to a Member about a constituent, if the Member has been asked by the constituent to take up an issue on his or her behalf and the information is necessary for the purposes of that request. The Leader of the House has written to Members to confirm that position, and I am most grateful to him for doing so.
I am assured that the Department for Work and Pensions is continuing to look at how the security requirements of the new universal credit system can be made compatible with the needs of Members to act on behalf of their constituents. I would hope that Ministers will update the House as soon as possible. I hope that that is helpful to the House.
Opel/Vauxhall: Sale to PSA Group
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the sale of Opel/Vauxhall to PSA Group.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
This morning the boards of General Motors and PSA Group announced plans for PSA to acquire GM’s Vauxhall/Opel operations. The proposed deal is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
The Prime Minister and I have been engaged in discussions with both GM and PSA, and with the French and German Governments, to ensure that the terms of the agreement can give confidence to Vauxhall’s UK workforce now and for the future. Vauxhall is an iconic, important and successful British car manufacturer. Vauxhall cars have been made in Britain for 113 years, and we are determined that that should continue to be the case for many years to come.
The car plants at Ellesmere Port and Luton have a proud record of being among the most efficient in Europe, with workforces that are skilled, committed and flexible. Both PSA and GM have confirmed to the Prime Minister and me a number of important commitments, including that the company will honour its agreements with the Vauxhall workforce; that Vauxhall pensioners will be in at least as good a position as they are today; that the treatment of the UK division will be equal to that of other countries in the Vauxhall/Opel group; that the identity of Vauxhall will continue to be distinct and prominent; that the strategy of the new company will be one of building on existing strengths and commitments, not on plant closures, taking opportunities to increase sales around the world; and that the company will work with me and the rest of the automotive sector to ensure that it can participate in a substantial programme of research and investment for innovation in areas such as electric vehicles and battery technology, which is part of our industrial strategy.
This morning I had a further conversation with my French counterpart the industry Minister, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and Industry spoke again to his German counterpart to agree a consistent approach. I speak frequently with Len McCluskey, the general secretary of the largest trade union at Vauxhall, and I have kept, and will keep, colleagues with particular constituency interests up to date at all times.
It is in everyone’s interests that Vauxhall should look forward to a successful future. A generation ago, the British car industry epitomised our economic woes; today that industry is a beacon of success. Companies invest in Britain because our automotive sector has a high-quality workforce and world-class efficiency, and is part of one of the most exciting places on earth for innovation and research in new technology. The future of the motor industry is bright in Britain, and we will be active at all times in doing everything that we can to make it brighter still.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the Secretary of State for that positive response, but I would like further clarification on a number of issues.
First, although I welcome PSA’s promise to honour existing contracts, I am deeply concerned about the 40,000 workers who are currently employed at Luton and Ellesmere Port and in the wider supply chain, who will be worried about the future of their jobs. What assurances has the Secretary of State personally received about the future of Vauxhall’s plants and the wider UK workforce beyond existing contracts? During his discussions with PSA, did it confirm that the production of the new Astra model would take place in the UK?
Secondly, there has been some discussion about the £1 billion deficit in General Motors’ UK pension scheme, with some commentators stating that it could have jeopardised the deal. The scheme has 15,000 members and is one of the largest in the UK. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the pensions of the UK workforce are guaranteed in full?
Thirdly, it is increasingly clear that the Government have little power to ensure that certain corporate takeovers are in the public interest and accord with Britain’s industrial strategy. Existing legislation allows intervention only when matters relate to national security or media concentration. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to broaden the definition of public interest, for example to serve stakeholders and not just shareholders? If so, when will he publish the draft legislation?
Finally, what support has been offered to PSA following Britain’s exit from the European Union? We welcomed Nissan’s decision to remain in the UK as a result of assurances provided by this Government. Has PSA been offered the same deal? If so, would it not make sense for the Government to set out their strategy for this sector as a whole, rather than enlightening businesses one crisis at a time?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. The last two weeks have been worrying times for the workforce. The statements that have been made by both parties today have been welcomed—not just by me, but by the trade unions—as steps in the right direction. It is important that we should hold the company to account on that.
On the points that the hon. Lady mentioned, PSA has said that it will honour GM’s agreements with the unions, which extend to at least 2021. In the motor industry, as she will know, new models come in at various points. We are fortunate that both the principal models in the UK are at quite an early stage in the cycle. I want, as I am sure she does, both plants to be competitive in expanding their production in the years to come.
I have discussed pensions regularly and in detail with GM and PSA. They have given an absolute commitment that no pensioner—current or prospective—will be worse off in any way. Of course, the Pensions Regulator, which is independent of the Government, is required to confirm any changes in pension arrangements.
In terms of the takeover regime generally, the hon. Lady will know that, in this case, one overseas-owned company is being taken over by another; we are not talking about a listed UK company that falls within the UK merger regime. In discussions with my counterparts in France and Germany, I have agreed that we should take a consistent approach on the assurances that are needed. The trade unions are equally in contact with their opposite numbers in other countries.
In terms of the support available to the automotive sector, as I mentioned to colleagues a few moments ago, that sector has been a great success in this country. One of the foundations of that success is the co-operation that we have had—Government to sector, and within the sector through the Automotive Council—to invest in research and development, particularly for electric vehicles and battery storage, and to make sure that we have institutions to train the future workforce. That has been a great success, and I hope that the future owners of Vauxhall will participate in the same way as other successful UK motor industry players have done.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and his engagement with those of us who represent employees in the areas concerned—in my case, Luton. I would be grateful if he indicated what reassurance has been given to PSA in recognition of the fact that part of the strength of the Luton plant arises from the quality of the supply chain and the investment that has been made in it over recent years. I hope that he can give us some reassurance, because an understanding of that position will help to secure jobs not just at Luton, but in the supply chain, which is so important to the home counties area around Bedfordshire.
Greg Clark
I agree with my right hon. Friend. We are talking about both the workforce directly employed by Vauxhall and the substantial employment in the supply chain. Both are very important, so this has been part of our discussions. I think that there is every opportunity—I will be vigorous in pursuing it—to expand the supply chain that supplies not only the Vauxhall plants, but other plants in this country. In the context of our industrial strategy, that is one of the avenues that we intend to expand on during the months ahead.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing this urgent question. I welcome the Secretary of State’s initial comments regarding guarantees on pensions and short-term jobs, which are welcome. Even then, we have to appreciate that workers are clearly experiencing some uncertainty.
I know from manufacturing plants in my constituency that being efficient does not necessarily protect them from wider politics. It is quite clear from media vox pops that some of the workers are concerned about the future impact of Brexit, given the wider European plants that they are combining with. To repeat the earlier question, what guarantees has the Secretary of State got for the wider supply chain for components, given that we are now talking about a much bigger multinational company? Has he had any discussions about the effect that the UK being outwith the customs union would have on costs and component supply for UK plants? What discussions has he had with the Chancellor about the provision of R and D money out of the £23 billion so-called investment fund, which is clearly needed to do what he talked about—to support these plants, and continue the development of electric vehicles and battery storage?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. On the first point, it is evident that these discussions are about the restructuring of GM’s operations and are not tied to Brexit. With regard to the supply chain, there are opportunities. It is very clear that PSA has been talking about expanding its production, and that should create further opportunities for the supply chain, which I intend to pursue in this country. Research and development has been an area of success for us, as is recognised by companies in the sector. With the industrial strategy challenge fund, which was announced in the autumn statement, we made a specific commitment to expand our research into battery technology in particular, and that will be very attractive to suppliers in this sector.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
May I ask the Secretary of State what he has learned about PSA’s plans to build ultra-low emission vehicles in the United Kingdom—whether electric, hybrid, hydrogen or indeed liquefied petroleum gas—all of which there will be increasing demand for in the future, not least as we meet our air quality objectives?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have had many discussions about opportunities for expanding the manufacture and provision of ultra-low emission vehicles. This country has a very good reputation as a hotbed of research in that area, and PSA wants to expand its exposure to that and is doing so. I am determined that we should seize the opportunity that that gives us for our sector to go from strength to strength.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The plants at Luton and Ellesmere Port are productive and efficient. They have a highly skilled workforce that any company would be proud to employ—this is not a basket-case industry—but in the face of strong foreign Government support, we need an active and interventionist Government who are determined to safeguard these competitive skills and manufacturing assets for Britain. If the new enterprise plans to become profitable through the development of products and the supply chain, and by moving the production of Opel cars on to PSA assembly lines, what specific things will the Government pledge to do both to win the new model Astra for Britain and to develop this country’s automotive supply chain?
Greg Clark
The Chairman of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee is absolutely right. I do not think that anyone in PSA and GM, or in the French and German Governments, would think that we have been anything other than completely active in promoting the strengths of the UK. He is absolutely right: the presence of those factories in this country is not a matter of altruism; they are efficient and they make a great contribution to the performance of the company. We will build on that through the industrial strategy. I have mentioned research and development on electric vehicles, and the training and development of the workforce is a very important asset. We have a good workforce there, which we need to keep equipped for the future. He will see in the industrial strategy, as it develops, a renewed commitment to research and training in the auto sector.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
My right hon. Friend outlined how the UK automotive industry has been a huge success in recent years, and he has mentioned the industrial strategy a number of times. Will he provide a little more detail about how the industrial strategy will help us to ensure that the automotive industry continues to develop and grow?
Greg Clark
I will, indeed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I have mentioned two areas in particular. On research and development, bringing together our universities and research institutions with the companies in the sector through the Automotive Council is very important. On the training of people who are going to work in the sector, I have had the pleasure of visiting the campus of Warwick University, where the automotive innovation centre is being built with a school for apprentices that will train 1,000 apprentices a year to work in this sector, and those are important developments. I have mentioned the supply chain, and through the industrial strategy we will make Britain even more attractive, particularly for smaller and medium-sized enterprises to service the major companies.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for keeping colleagues informed as matters have developed. It is clearly good news that we have a guarantee that production will continue until the end of the current Astra run at Ellesmere Port, but there is a deep concern in the community about what will happen after that. The noises that we have heard from PSA so far have been about plants being judged on their efficiency. I am very confident that, with the track record we have at Ellesmere Port of unions and management working together, we can put a very good case forward. However, there are things beyond their control, which is where the Government can step in, whether on business rates, procurement or the supply chain. I would like assurances from the Secretary of State that he will do everything in his power to ensure that we have a competitive environment for the Ellesmere Port and Luton plants.
Greg Clark
I will indeed. I will work with any hon. Member who has an interest in securing the future of this company and others in our economy. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The fact that plants will be judged, as they tend to be in the automotive sector for new models, on the basis of competitive efficiency is a strength for us in this country, because our automotive plants are the strongest in the world. I would rather we competed on efficiency. I will work, through the Automotive Council and our industrial strategy, to ensure that all the competitive elements that have been so successful to date will continue and increase.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend and other Cheshire Members, I want to ensure that the renaissance we have seen in the automotive sector in recent years continues for decades to come. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps he will take to improve technical skills and apprenticeships to ensure that automotive manufacturers in Cheshire and elsewhere in the north-west get the support they need in the years ahead?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute again to the workforce in both plants and in Vauxhall’s other operations in this country. They are efficient and highly committed, and they have been very flexible. As technology changes, we need to keep their skills up to date. The automotive sector is aware of that and is working with the Government on institutions to train not just apprentices, but other people in the industry. That will have my full-hearted commitment.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Luton workforce are brilliant. They produce a superb vehicle. Today’s news is very positive, but Britain is still a net importer of motor vehicle products, in particular high value added components. Will he discuss with PSA the possibility of developing more high value added production in the supply chain over here, particularly in view of the recent depreciation of sterling, which looks likely to be permanent?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his engagement over the past few weeks. He knows the workforce in Luton well and what he says about them is absolutely right. There is a big opportunity across the automotive sector to increase the supply chain. It is one of the areas where we can make further progress in what is already a successful sector. We will do that through the industrial strategy and it will have my personal engagement.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Might that opportunity to increase the UK component of the component supply chain be increased if there is to be a change in our relationship with the internal market?
Greg Clark
We want to make sure that we have the best possible trading relationship with the rest of the single market, but whether we were leaving or staying in the EU the opportunity to get more suppliers in this country is there, and I am determined that we should take it.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I have constituents who work in the Ellesmere Port plant and many others are reliant for their employment on local supply chains, so this is causing huge worry in the area. What can the Secretary of State say to reassure my constituents about the future, particularly given that our employment laws make it easier to sack workers in the UK compared with those who work in France and Germany, which puts them at an immediate disadvantage? What can he say to reassure them about the fact that we are leaving the EU and the single market, which again potentially puts them at a disadvantage in the competition to come?
Greg Clark
What I would say to the hon. Lady is, first, that the reason we have a successful record in this country is that our car plants and their workforces are highly efficient, and we should not forget that. Secondly, the commitments given—they have been shared with the trade unions—are to honour agreements that include the trade unions, which I think she will welcome. In the long term, we want to expand the industry. We want to take every opportunity to work with the automotive sector to increase the number of good jobs available to her constituents and people across the country.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I welcome PSA’s assurances that it will continue to respect the commitments made by General Motors to Vauxhall’s employees and, very importantly, Vauxhall’s pensioners. Can the Secretary of State assure us that he will continue to engage and work with PSA in the weeks and months to come to ensure not only that any assurances are kept, but that PSA will continue to build on the success of both plants for the long term?
Greg Clark
I will indeed. As soon as we heard about these proposals, my colleagues and I engaged immediately with the management and the unions of this country and with our counterparts. My engagement in our activity will not let up in the weeks ahead. These assurances are welcome, as everyone has noted, but we need to make sure that they are implemented in practice.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I echo the thanks to the Secretary of State for his efforts to keep those of us with a constituency interest involved. I am most grateful to him. Does he accept that our car industry is at a competitive disadvantage compared with those in other European countries because of the way that business rates operate, and that when new plant is installed, it increases business rate costs? Will he speak to his colleagues in the Government to see if we can find a way around this disincentive to invest?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but I remind him and colleagues that this country is a competitive place in which to do business, including in the car manufacturing sector. Different countries will have different policies. I am determined to make sure that we are competitive and that we remain competitive so that we can expand our production in the future.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update us on any discussions he has had about this takeover with specific reference to steel supply chains?
Greg Clark
I have talked about the supply chain in general, and I think that there are opportunities right across the supply chain—from individual components to materials—and I want to make full use of that. We are discussing with the steel industry a steel sector deal, part of which is to make sure that there are bigger opportunities, especially by UK customers, to make greater use of steel products.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that the reassurances he has obtained from Peugeot, welcome as they are, are very limited in extent and duration, and that it would probably not take much longer than that if it were decided to close one of the British factories, which is exactly what happened at Ryton in Coventry, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) would confirm? Is it not therefore the case that he cannot rest on the assurances at this point, such as they are, but must push and continue to push for the only reassurance that we really have, which is replacement models for the plants in the UK?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman is right that we need to stay engaged and to make sure that these commitments are delivered. I will make sure that we do that, as will colleagues in the trade unions and others. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is important that these commitments have been given very clearly in writing today, which is far better than the opposite. As for the experience of Peugeot in Ryton, he will know that I have raised the matter with the management of PSA in the past. They describe a very different strategy from that which they pursued at that time. It is a different management, and their strategy now is based on expanding production, not closing plants, which again I welcome.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right to draw attention to the transformation that has happened in the motor industry since the days when PSA was running and operating at Ryton. We now have an industry with world-leading expertise in autonomous vehicles and electric technology, which my right hon. Friend saw from Jaguar Land Rover on his recent visit to Warwick University. Does he agree that this merger provides the PSA Group with an opportunity to access the innovation and creative thinking of our designers, and the flexibility and quality of our workforce?
Greg Clark
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. One of the big advantages of locating in this country is that manufacturers can join a vibrant consortium of people collaborating in a network, as at Warwick, which is recognised as a world-leading place to do automotive research. We want to build on that and attract more businesses to support it.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I support the Secretary of State’s approach. He is demanding of PSA, so he will understand if we are a little demanding of him when it comes to what he is going to do. May I ask him again—as did my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson)—about the business rates regime as it relates to investment in plant and machinery? Has he asked the Chancellor to change it, yes or no?
Greg Clark
As I said to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), the competitiveness of our automotive sector is high. I will ensure that, across the board, we retain a world-competitive—not just European-competitive—sector, and I will look into any aspect of that if it is brought to my attention.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House would like to thank the excellent Secretary of State for his efforts on behalf of Vauxhall. It was reported today that the chief executive of PSA had said that there would be no plant closures, and that jobs would be protected. He pointed out that he had never closed a plant in his life, and that he was actually seeking expansion. Might not the merger be good news for Vauxhall and its future?
Greg Clark
I hope that it is, and we should do everything we can to make sure that it is. A company that is committed to expansion has an opportunity to ensure that that includes the expansion of UK plants. It is an area in which we are strong and in which we have a high reputation, and this should be an opportunity for us to make what is good even better.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I cannot help feeling that the Minister is being a little bit complacent. Some 76% of cars produced at Ellesmere Port are exported, but many of them are left-hand drive cars for Europe. Would it really make sense to Peugeot to continue left-hand drive production outside the EU, and not in Poland or Germany?
Greg Clark
I persuade companies to invest in Britain; I think that the hon. Gentleman is thinking up reasons for them to be put off. I believe that the efficiency and the innovation that we have in this country are what cause people to invest here, and I will do all that I can to make this a positive and expanding industry in the future.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right to acknowledge that today’s announcement underlines the importance of reinforcing the UK’s role as a centre for research, innovation and the development of connected and ultra-low emission vehicles. What more can be done to ensure that PSA and other manufacturers—I hope the Minister will pardon the expression—take a leaf out of Nissan’s and Jaguar Land Rover’s book, and make those vehicles in the UK as well?
Greg Clark
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have enjoyed working with him to promote the automotive sector. I think that this is an opportunity for a company—PSA—that has not had the same footprint in Britain in recent years to join in and benefit from the advantages that accrue to those that participate in our industrial strategy through the Automotive Council, prominent among which is the opportunity to participate in our research programmes, in relation not just to electric vehicles but, as the hon. Gentleman says, to autonomous vehicles as well.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Secretary of State must support the long-term future of these very efficient plants and their highly qualified workforces by backing new models. Does he accept, however, that the long-term prospects of the plants are weaker as a result of Brexit and French ownership, and that he may have to offer an even better deal than the one that he offered to Nissan to secure their futures? Will he make that deal public, so that other industries that are also badly affected by Brexit can know what level of financial support they can expect from the Government?
Greg Clark
I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman began by, again, talking about negatives when there are big opportunities for the sector. In fact, Mr Tavares himself said today that opportunities were arising from Brexit. I have made absolutely clear what is available to any automotive manufacturer and member of the supply chain in this country: working with us through the sector and investing in research and development, the development of skills, and the expansion of the supply chain. That is an invitation to manufacturers throughout the world to come and invest in Britain, and if they do, they will find a ready partner in all of us in the House and the country.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
It was reported recently that the Government had offered the new owners of Vauxhall assurances similar to those given to Nissan. Will the Government commit themselves to full transparency in that regard, with full disclosure of promises made to PSA, and also place copies of any correspondence in the Library of the House?
Greg Clark
We could not have been clearer: we have said that all companies that are part of the UK automotive sector will be able to enjoy all the benefits of that in terms of research and development, trading and the expansion of the supply chain that we will see through the industrial strategy.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Hundreds in the excellent workforce at Vauxhall’s Ellesmere Port and many in its supply chain reside over the border in north-east Wales. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he liaises with the Welsh Government on one of their primary objectives, which is to ensure that we have tariff-free access to mainland European Union markets?
Greg Clark
I will work with our colleagues in Wales through the Secretary of State here and the Welsh Assembly Government. I and my Ministers will shortly meet Ministers in Wales to discuss the industrial strategy, and I imagine that Ken Skates and others will want to have those conversations with them.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I commend the Secretary of State for his dialogue with the trade unions and hope he is able to give us a commitment that he will continue that. Interestingly, he does not seem to be answering the questions on Brexit head-on. Many of my constituents work at Vauxhall’s Ellesmere Port plant, and they are very concerned about this. Given the risk that thousands of high-skilled jobs of the future may go, and given the importance of the plant to the region’s economy, what are the Government doing to ensure future EU market access for this industry and other important exporting industries?
Greg Clark
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s kind words. We have made it very clear that our objectives as we start the negotiations—which obviously have not commenced yet, because we have not triggered article 50 —are about making sure that we can have access to the single market without impediments and without tariffs. But in any case, we are determined that our industry, whether the automotive sector, advanced manufacturing generally or the whole economy, will be competitive. The head of PSA himself said today that Brexit actually offers some opportunities, but the hon. Lady can have my assurance that I will do everything within my power to make sure that the terms of trade that we secure through our negotiations are as advantageous as possible.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his kind offer after last week to meet me later today along with colleagues representing seats along the south Wales M4 corridor to talk about what happened with Ford in Bridgend last week, but today we have another announcement. It looks as though we are going to have drip, drip, drip announcements, causing great anxiety to people in the automotive industry. I asked the Prime Minister if we could have a summit involving MPs, manufacturers and the trade unions; is it not now time to call such a summit, so that rather than companies being taken apart one by one, we can discuss this as a whole House?
Greg Clark
I am looking forward to meeting the hon. Lady with her colleagues later today, but I do not think that is the right way to think about what has been proposed between the two companies today. It is a transfer of the assets of GM in Europe to PSA. What is needed is activism and alacrity on every one of these investments. I make that commitment to the hon. Lady with respect to Ford, and when we meet later today we can talk about what is required in terms of those discussions.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows that the efficiency of the plants is down to the industry and the policy is down to him. Does his activism go so far as he having yet instructed his officials to have conducted an impact assessment of the impact on the automotive sector of leaving the customs union?
Greg Clark
As the hon. Lady well knows—I can tell from her smile—what she asks applies to the debate in general about our negotiating position. Of course, as a member of the Cabinet I am a part of the discussions about our negotiations, but she will know that, in terms of the automotive and other sectors of the economy, I will do what I can to ensure not only that we get the best deal in our negotiations, but that we are a competitive force in the world whatever the result of them.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement, but I would also add a word of caution. We had this situation in Coventry, in Baginton, in 2005. The then Government intervened and tried to do their best, and the workers were promised new models, but they never materialised. Jobs were brutally cut and the factories were totally cut. I do not want to pour cold water on the Secretary of State’s announcement, but he needs to be very careful, given what he is dealing with.
Greg Clark
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s advice, based on his experience. As I said earlier today, I am cautiously optimistic. I think that the commitments go in the right direction. Actually, the language that I have used is the language that Len McCluskey has used, and I dare say that he is a veteran of negotiations such as these. I think we all need to welcome a positive future for Vauxhall, but we also need to do everything we can to ensure that it is delivered.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that he has twice—twice!—praised Len McCluskey in this House, and that he has mentioned the trade unions as though they were part of the CBI five times? Is this the same Minister who walked through the Lobby to attack the trade unions’ authority and introduce that lousy Act of Parliament?
Greg Clark
I am not sure that Len McCluskey would want me to praise him. I think I acknowledged that we had been working together on this, as I hope the hon. Gentleman would expect. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, and every Member of this House, would want us all to put party political differences aside and to do what we can to secure jobs in every constituency in this country represented by colleagues here.
Sky/21st Century Fox: Proposed Merger
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
Before Christmas, I promised to give the House an update about progress on the process for the bid by 21st Century Fox to acquire the 61% share of Sky that it does not already own. I can confirm that formal notification for the proposed merger of Sky and 21st Century Fox was lodged with the European Commission on Friday 3 March and that I wrote to the parties on Friday to inform them that I am minded to issue a European intervention notice on the basis that I believe there are public interest considerations—as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002—that may be relevant to this proposed merger and that warrant further investigation. To be clear, I have not taken a final decision on intervention at this stage, but I have indicated what I am presently minded to do. In line with the guidance that applies to my quasi-judicial role, I will aim to come to a final decision on whether to intervene in the merger within 10 working days of Friday’s notification. Before I make my final decision, and in line with statutory guidance, I have invited further representations in writing from the parties and have given them until Wednesday 8 March to provide them.
In December, I made it clear that I would make this quasi-judicial decision independently, following a process that is scrupulously fair and impartial, and as quickly as possible with all the relevant information in front of me. To enable this, I instructed my officials to commence work to analyse the relevance of the public interest considerations relating to the merger and to consider the available evidence. Since the 9 December announcement, I have received representations from the parties to the merger, as well as representations made in writing to the Department from a range of people and organisations. This includes more than 8,700 responses made in connection with the Department’s consultation on the Leveson inquiry and its implementation, which referred to the merger. Given my quasi-judicial role, I can only consider evidence that is relevant to my decision.
On the basis of this preparatory work, I have issued a “minded to” letter to the parties on two of the public interest grounds specified in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002. The first public interest ground on which I am minded to intervene is media plurality—that is, the specific need for a sufficient plurality of persons with control of the media enterprises serving audiences in the UK. My concern here is that the merger will bring under common or increased control a number of significant news sources, including Sky News and News Corporation’s newspaper titles. As a result, I have told the parties that I am minded to ask for a report from Ofcom on the impact of the merger on media plurality before considering the matter further.
The second public interest ground on which I am minded to intervene is commitment to broadcasting standards. That ground relates to the need for persons carrying on media enterprises, and for those with control of such enterprises, to have a genuine commitment to attaining broadcasting standards objectives. As I have indicated to the parties to the merger, I am concerned about the nature of a number of breaches of broadcasting standards by 21st Century Fox, as well as the behaviour and corporate governance failures of News Corporation in the past. In the light of those matters, I am minded to intervene on this ground and to ask Ofcom to investigate them further.
I want to be clear on what this means for the overall process. My decision on whether or not to intervene is not the end of the matter. Instead, it would recognise that the public interest considerations may be relevant to the merger and will trigger action by Ofcom to assess and report to me on them and for the Competition and Markets Authority to report on jurisdiction. There would then be a further decision-making stage for me to undertake in the light of those reports, but we are not yet at that stage. As I said at the outset, I will aim to take the final decision on whether to issue a European intervention notice within the 10 working days set out in the guidance and will return to this House to notify Parliament of the decision.
I am today, as I said I would, keeping this House appropriately informed of developments on this important matter, and it is right that I continue to do so. However, given that this remains a quasi-judicial process in which I retain a decision-making role for the next 10 days and potentially beyond, it would be inappropriate for me, or any other member of this Government, to comment on the substantive merits of the case. I hope that this update is helpful to right hon. and hon. Members and that this statement gives an opportunity to debate an important issue, but at the same time I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will respect the limits of what I can say given my ongoing decision-making role.
Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of this statement and for writing to me on Friday setting out her intentions. I am also extremely grateful that she has come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity following notification of the bid. I understand that she is in quasi-judicial mode and what that means. I hope, however, that she will listen carefully to the concerns about the merger that are being expressed both inside and outside this Chamber. The company names may have changed since the previous bid for Sky was withdrawn in 2011, but we are still dealing with media plurality, misconduct and the Murdochs.
The Secretary of State said that she is minded to intervene first on media plurality grounds. The bid would put an even greater amount of UK media power in the hands of the Murdoch family. It would make the Murdoch empire even bigger—we might call it empire 2.0—and Ofcom should look at the whole group of Murdoch-owned and controlled companies in assessing whether the Sky takeover would threaten media plurality.
The second ground on which the Secretary of State says she is minded to intervene is commitment to broadcasting standards. We need to be satisfied that the merged company would comply with the broadcasting code, just as we need to be confident that it would not be used by Rupert Murdoch or his family to promote their political views and interests. However, the most troubling issues raised by the proposed merger are not about the content of James Murdoch’s programming; they are about the content of his character.
The Secretary of State rightly referred to failures of corporate governance during the phone hacking scandal, but it is unclear whether those failings strictly fall under the heading of broadcasting standards, even though they are central to whether the merger should be approved. A commitment to a broadcasting standards test is not a fit and proper person test. Will Ofcom’s assessment of 21st Century Fox’s commitment to broadcasting standards include in its scope the following facts? Six senior employees of News International have been convicted of phone hacking and another of perverting the course of justice. Over 30 police and public officials have been convicted of accepting corrupt payments from employees of News International that were approved at a high level. One News International journalist has been convicted of making unlawful payments and another of handling stolen property—namely, a mobile phone belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), from which private information was taken unlawfully by Sun journalists at the request of several Sun executives. The former editor and the former head of legal affairs at News of the World were held in contempt of Parliament for lying to a Select Committee during its investigation into phone hacking. The Standards and Privileges Committee cast further light on the culture of paying hush money to employees guilty of criminal offences to deter them from co-operating with the police and prosecution authorities. It therefore seems likely that a number of News Corporation employees gave false information under oath to the Leveson inquiry. News Corporation has admitted to another conspiracy to hack phones between 2005 and 2006 and a journalist has been convicted. News International has admitted phone hacking in several hundred claims so far and has made payments to victims and lawyers amounting to $600 million. And that is without mentioning the many outstanding civil claims against newspapers owned by News International, or the fact that allegations have been made in open court that James Murdoch was involved in the email deletion programme at News International that has made it more difficult to get to the truth. If those facts cannot be included in Ofcom’s assessment, the Opposition are ready to work with the Secretary of State to make sure that she can find a solution that deals with the gravity of wrongdoing in companies controlled by the Murdoch family.
Will the Secretary of State ask Ofcom to clarify whether it will conduct a full fit and proper person test before the merger is approved? Ofcom has already made an assessment of James Murdoch, in 2012, and found that, in relation to his time at News Group Newspapers during the period in which phone hacking took place, his conduct
“repeatedly fell short of the conduct to be expected of him as a chief executive officer and chairman.”
But Ofcom also said that
“the evidence available to date does not provide a reasonable basis to conclude that James Murdoch deliberately engaged in any wrongdoing.”
Why did Ofcom not have enough evidence to draw conclusions? Because the Leveson inquiry was not in a position to gather evidence.
If the Secretary of State is concerned about the past behaviour and corporate governance failures of News International, any case for not going ahead with part 2 of the Leveson inquiry collapses because the behaviour that she is so concerned about and that she wants to be investigated is precisely the behaviour that part 2 of Leveson is supposed to look into. We are still awaiting the results of the consultation on whether Leveson part 2 should go ahead, but I hope that the Secretary of State’s words indicate that she will show some courage by standing up to vested interests, doing the right thing and allowing the inquiry to proceed. She must not ask Ofcom to do its job with one hand tied behind its back.
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response and assure him that Ofcom will not be doing any work with one hand tied behind its back.
I will address the Leveson inquiry and the consultation first. It is important to put it on the record that the consultation has closed but is subject to judicial review, which makes it difficult for me to make any further comment at this stage. On the evidence that Ofcom will look at, I make it clear that I am not ruling any evidence in or out. If I do decide to intervene, Ofcom will report to me on any matters it considers relevant. On the commitment to broadcasting standards, there is no exhaustive list of evidence—Ofcom can look at whatever it thinks right.
As I have said, Ofcom has sufficient powers and can investigate anything it thinks appropriate. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising his points, which I am sure will be considered by Ofcom. Ofcom has a fit and proper person test for broadcasting licences. That test is different from the one that will be considered for the merger, but the same evidence may be relevant to both.
Finally, my letter sets out a number of matters that I consider relevant and as warranting further investigation, which includes facts that led to the Leveson inquiry, such as on corporate governance at News of the World. It will be open to Ofcom to look at all relevant areas, and I will not rule out any areas if I decide to intervene.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her letter to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Friday setting out the case she made to the House today. Can she confirm that the fit and proper person test is rightly a matter for Ofcom and that Ofcom can initiate a fit and proper person test at any time and consider any evidence it thinks relevant to making that determination?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is right; the fit and proper person test that Ofcom has is different from the grounds on which I can intervene under the terms of the Enterprise Act 2002. However, as I said in response to the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), the evidence may well be the same.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and am encouraged to hear that she is minded to intervene in the proposed merger of Sky and Fox. Asking Ofcom to investigate the deal and file a report on media plurality and on commitment to broadcasting standards would be a welcome step in ensuring that this proposed merger is robustly scrutinised. The merger is likely to increase the influence of Rupert Murdoch and his family in the media in the UK, and Fox already has a controlling stake in Sky, as we all know. Another Murdoch company, News Corp, runs newspapers, through News UK, and radio stations, through the Wireless Group. At a time when smaller titles are struggling with poor circulation numbers and established newspapers are having to rethink their business models to survive, giving yet more power to the already dominant media giant seems counter-intuitive, to say the least.
Yet, it should also be acknowledged that television is adapting to changes in viewing habits and competition around the world. Many will argue that the investment in Sky might allow the UK to thrive in the international arena and to continue to compete with competitors such as Netflix. On this issue, it is important that the Secretary of State clarifies whether she will prioritise domestic or international plurality and competition when she makes a final decision on this merger. Furthermore, she rightly highlights a number of breaches of broadcasting standards by Fox and the behaviour and corporate governance failures of News Corporation in the past. The National Union of Journalists and victims of the phone hacking scandal have expressed concerns on how this deal can take place when part 2 of the Leveson inquiry has yet to be commenced. Does she agree that we should remain acutely aware of the reasons why past attempts to buy Sky were so fiercely resisted last time?
Finally, it was proposed that Sky News could be spun off to preserve its independence. Would the Secretary of State welcome such a move? After all, I presume that she, like the rest of us, is far from convinced that Fox is committed to the required editorial standards, such as on accuracy and impartial news coverage, that we expect in this country?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of detailed questions on the merits of the bid, but I am not able to comment on those at this stage. What I can say is that I am minded, based on the evidence I have seen so far, to refer the matter to Ofcom. The referral would be on the basis of the rules set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, and I look forward to representations from all parties in determining whether or not to take a final decision to intervene. I can assure him that I will return to this House, as and when I make that decision, to tell it first.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I begin by declaring my inherited interest in this subject, but perhaps also jog the mind of the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) on the half a million pounds he received from Mr Mosley, which may have some bearing on these matters? What I want to ask my right hon. Friend is whether she will be certain not to involve herself in this socialist witch hunt against Mr Murdoch and News Corporation/Fox News, which has done so much, both through newspaper publishing efficiency after Wapping and through the launch of Sky News, to increase plurality in the media in this country. This wonderfully successful company should not be persecuted because the left does not like it.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds, may I just say to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that I am sure he is not suggesting—and I hope he will take the opportunity to make this clear—that pecuniary gain has influenced a Member in his thinking or statements in the Chamber?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Most certainly not. I was merely declaring my own interest and it occurred to me that it was only fair to remind the hon. Member for West Bromwich East that he had not referred to his interest in the half a million pounds he received—I am absolutely certain it was an inadvertent oversight.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said, but I would just say—I do so on advice—that he has, uncharacteristically, over-interpreted his responsibility. It is his responsibility to declare his own interest, but he does not have to declare and should not declare, whether out of a spirit of altruism or otherwise, another Member’s interest. It is that Member’s responsibility so to declare as he or she thinks fit. We will leave it there.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic good grace.
Karen Bradley
Perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). I am, in a quasi-judicial capacity, looking at the rules as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. I am very much aware of those rules and I am sticking to the letter of those rules. I want to make sure that the process is scrupulously fair and that all parties have the opportunity to make representations before I make a decision.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s coming to the House and her apparently robust intentions. Nevertheless, like my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), I am worried about the issue of the fit and proper test, and I wish briefly to explain why. The key thing about the test is that it is wider than the test on broadcasting standards. Many of us believe that the Murdochs are in no way fit and proper to have full control of Sky, given their corporate record. Can the Secretary of State clarify something I have not been able to establish on the basis of my correspondence with Ofcom? First, will the fit and proper test that Ofcom is going to conduct take place before the bid can be completed? Secondly, if there is no clarity on that, why does the Secretary of State not do what she can do under the Enterprise Act, which is to specify fit and proper as a third ground for referral to Ofcom, to make sure that such an assessment takes place?
Karen Bradley
The Enterprise Act is clear about the grounds on which the quasi-judicial decision can be taken. I can intervene on the grounds of media plurality, range and quality, and genuine commitment to broadcasting standards. The right hon. Gentleman will know that fit and proper is an ongoing test for Ofcom to apply to the holders of broadcasting licences. Although many of the issues that Ofcom would consider in reaching a judgment are also relevant to me in considering genuine commitment to broadcasting standards, the tests are different and apply at different points in time.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House with the statement. On the basis that the merger would put the ownership of a large proportion of the UK media into one organisation, my constituents would want to know what she is able to do make sure that such an organisation is run by people who are appropriate and suitable.
Karen Bradley
I note my hon. Friend’s comments and will bear them in mind when making my decisions.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The thing is, we already know that under James and Rupert Murdoch’s leadership, the companies they controlled bribed and bullied their way around British politics. They poisoned the well of British political engagement, used anti-competitive practices at every possible turn to try to destroy competitors, and made it impossible for media diversity to flourish in this country. Why on earth would anybody think that they were fit and proper people to take over now? Their only excuse, when they lied their way through their evidence to Parliament, was that their company was far too big for them possibly to know what was going on in some small outpost in the United Kingdom. That does not suggest that they would be any good at running things now, does it?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman has put his views on these matters on the record on several occasions. I am sure his points will have been heard.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Even if the notorious phone hacking had never taken place—if we were totally unaware of such events—is the Secretary of State aware that such a concentration of media ownership as is being proposed would be simply unacceptable? Also, is it not interesting that although reference has been made to some kind of witch hunt by Labour Members, there do not seem to be many Tories, except one, willing to defend Murdoch?
Karen Bradley
I have come to the House to be as open and transparent as possible about my position in this decision. I have set out the terms and look forward to receiving representation so that I can make a final decision on the matter.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State not agree that the fit and proper person test referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) a moment ago is, as she put it, an “ongoing” process? Surely that must mean that past behaviour is also taken into account. Without compromising her quasi-judicial position, will she say whether the previous behaviour of the Murdoch family in running their companies is also taken into account?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman is right. The fit and proper person test is an ongoing Ofcom test, but I am here today to consider under what grounds in the Enterprise Act 2002 I can intervene on a media merger. I have set out my current thinking to the House, and I now await representations.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the principles of competition and media plurality are vital in a modern democracy? Will she confirm that, when Britain leaves the European Union, we will continue to apply those principles and regulations to avoid the unfair concentration of media ownership in the UK?
Karen Bradley
The Enterprise Act is a piece of UK legislation and I am not aware of any intention to change it as a result of leaving the European Union. UK legislation will remain in place as will those grounds in the Enterprise Act.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State said that she was “minded to report” in her oral statement, but does she not agree that part of the process should be waiting for Leveson 2 to complete so that we can look at the issues of corporate governance to which she referred in her statement, as they are very worrying and concerning to the public at large?
Karen Bradley
I must look at the evidence that is presented to me on the basis of today’s information using the rules set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. I will repeat the comments that I made to the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) that the consultation on the Leveson inquiry is subject to judicial review and that therefore I can make no further comments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. This merger appears to operate against the public interest. She has outlined the steps that she has taken in her departmental intervention. I have had lots of correspondence from constituents on this very issue. Does she agree that, as there has been no dramatic changes to the issue that led this House to reject the bid five years ago, there are no grounds whatever to indicate that a merger should now be acceptable?
Karen Bradley
I am not in a position to make that judgment. I have come to the House to let Members know that I am minded to intervene, but that I await further representations before I make a final decision.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is handling this matter in a very careful and considered manner. On Leveson 2, is she saying that she is now legally constrained there as well and that she cannot simply decide to go ahead, which is what many people think she should be doing?
Karen Bradley
Let me repeat that the public consultation, which was closed in January, is now subject to judicial review and therefore I cannot comment further on that matter.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
As I mentioned during the urgent question on 20 January, a “substantial number” of my constituents have contacted me to voice their concerns over this proposed merger, particularly with regard to media plurality. Does the Secretary of State agree with them, and indeed with the previous Prime Minister, that we should not let any one media group get too powerful?
Karen Bradley
Based on the evidence that I have seen so far, I am minded to refer this matter to Ofcom on the basis of media plurality, but I await further representations before making a final decision.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
More than 8,000 people work at Sky’s head office and broadcast facilities in my constituency. When the original bid was abandoned in 2011, David Cameron said that it was the “right decision” for the country. Will the Minister ensure that this deal receives the fullest possible scrutiny?
Karen Bradley
I have come to the House today to say that I am minded to refer the matter to Ofcom. I await further recommendations, which I will look at carefully, and I will return to this House when I have made a final decision on whether to intervene.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Many constituents have contacted me, too. I understand that the Secretary of State cannot talk about the substantive issues, but can she give an estimate for when a final decision will be made? Also, if the merger is refused, will it be open to the Murdochs to keep coming back again and again on the issue?
Karen Bradley
I do not wish to detain the House, so perhaps it would be helpful if I wrote to the hon. Lady to set out the precise details of the law, as set out in the Enterprise Act, and the various stages that apply to media mergers.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. With regard to media plurality, she might be aware that 18 academics from across the UK have written to The Guardian today to express their concern about what the merger would mean. We know that Fox News has given rise to fake news and feeds the ramblings of a madman across the Atlantic, so we certainly do not want to go down that road. I welcome her comments about News International’s governance and James Murdoch’s past behaviour. I look forward to her coming back in 10 days’ time to say that she will intervene and refer the merger to Ofcom. Hopefully she will remain robust when it comes to any representations she might receive.
Karen Bradley
I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I, too, look forward to coming back to the House with the final decision.
Points of Order
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Well, it would not be a Monday afternoon without a profusion of points of order.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. A constituent contacted me last week to tell me that a friend of his had been prevented from entering the House because he was wearing a “Free Palestine” badge. After discussion with the security staff, he removed the badge and was allowed access to Parliament, only to come across a large exhibition that featured one poster that was about Zionist diplomacy. We all respect the important work that the security staff do in keeping us safe, and we are hugely grateful to them, but I wonder whether you could give some guidance on the wearing of small badges, because my constituent is a bit confused by the situation his friend encountered.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. I think that it is fair to say—I say this en passant—that the presence of the poster, to which he elliptically eluded a moment ago, is irrelevant for the purpose of his point of order, because I think that it formed part of an historical exhibition. I am sure that an historical exhibition would be of great interest, possibly to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, but almost certainly to the hon. Gentleman.
So far as the point of order is concerned, what I would say is as follows. Under what are now long-standing instructions, members of the public wishing to visit the House are not supposed to display clothing with slogans or badges that might cause controversy. Of necessity, that has to be interpreted case by case by individual members of staff, and they might get the balance wrong. For my own part—I have not been encouraged to say this, but I am entitled to say it and I intend to say it—it seems to me that we should err on the side of caution and, where possible, of non-intervention in these matters, rather than on the side of being too prescriptive or officious. I sense that that is probably the wish of the House.
I will of course convey the hon. Gentleman’s concern, which has been expressed with his usual restraint and courtesy, to the Serjeant at Arms. I hope that, in turn, the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I gently suggest to him, as I have been encouraged to do, that he could have sought such a meeting himself, rather than bringing the matter to the Chamber, but he has done so, and he has done so with fairness, and I hope that I have responded accordingly.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on the timely response of the Home Office to MPs’ offices. I made representations to the Home Office on 18 January on behalf of my constituent Iryna O’Reilly, who had been informed by the Home Office at the end of October 2016 that she would be notified by the end of the year of whether her spousal visa had been successful. At the beginning of last week, despite numerous phone calls from my office, neither she nor I had heard from the Home Office. As a consequence of those delays, she lost the job that had been held open for her since the beginning of this year. As you know, Mr Speaker, Government Departments are meant to respond to MPs in a timely manner. Please will you advise me on how we can ensure that the Home Office is held to account on this matter and that this situation never happens again?
Mr Speaker
It is a point of order. I have no direct responsibility in relation to such a matter, but I do understand the serious concern that the hon. Lady feels. I have often made the point that responses to parliamentary questions should be both timely and substantive. However, I think it is fair to say that the same principle applies to ministerial responses to colleagues who write letters to Ministers; responses should be timely and, preferably, substantive. When, for some reason, which Members can probably fathom for themselves, it is not possible for a Minister to give a substantive response at that point, my human sense—leaving aside my role as Speaker—is that a void is always undesirable. There is nothing more infuriating than hearing absolutely nothing and finding that one’s follow-up letters, emails or telephone calls are simply ignored. It is deeply dissatisfying and, frankly, somewhat discourteous. I hope that this situation does not arise again. I would only gently say, in the direction of Ministers, that I have come to know the hon. Lady over the past few years, and she is a very persistent parliamentarian and campaigner, so if people think that she will go away, that is an extraordinarily misguided view. There is not the slightest prospect of that happening. The hon. Lady will keep burrowing away on behalf of her constituents until she receives a response, and rightly so.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My constituent, Michael Gibson, was alarmed last week when he looked on the website of the Boundary Commission for England, and could not find evidence of the petition that he had supported, calling for one Member of Parliament for the Heysham, Morecambe and Lancaster area. It further transpires that the data had, in error, been added to a petition in opposition to such a seat. I am grateful for the fact that the Boundary Commission has today informed me that it is now correcting that error. Would you advise me, Mr Speaker, how I could make other Members of the House aware of the situation, because they might like to check their local areas to see whether any data have been entered incorrectly in other parts of the country?
Mr Speaker
Although I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, my advice is that, if she feels strongly that other Members may have been similarly misrepresented, or that their constituents may have been misrepresented or disadvantaged, she could usefully—colleagues may not appreciate my suggesting this—email her colleagues in order to advise them of the risk. That would certainly be a public service discharge of duty on her part for which they may, or may not, be grateful.
So far as the hon. Lady is concerned, may I sympathise? Clearly the error was an innocent one, but it was peculiarly unfortunate, as it had the effect of very fundamentally misleading quite significant numbers of the hon. Lady’s constituents, who were doubtless very irritated. She has now had to help to put the record straight, but she has the benefit both of the Boundary Commission’s intended correction and of my recognition to her, in the form of this exchange, that she is an innocent party in these matters who has been inadvertently disadvantaged but, none the less, disadvantaged. I hope the matter can be clarified for the benefit of all her constituents sooner, rather than later.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill
Monday 6th March 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 2016-17 View all Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Government recognise the value of investment. The Prime Minister has made clear her intention that this country should be the best place in the world to develop, test and deploy cutting-edge transport technology. We have already established ourselves as one of the world’s best places in which to research and develop next generation technology, but we also need to act to ensure that the UK benefits from the economic opportunities that those technologies provide. The Bill will help to ensure that the United Kingdom is ahead of our European and global competitors by creating the right balance of an open and permissive regulatory framework that keeps safety and consumer needs paramount.
There are enormous possibilities ahead with these technologies. In a few years, we will all increasingly have the opportunity to use semi-automated and automated vehicles. While amusing and novel for many of us, that will revolutionise the way many people live their lives; in particular, it will make a huge difference to the disabled and the elderly. However, to make these technologies a reality, we need to act now. We need to create the regimes that will help developers to bring their products to market in a safe way that protects consumers.
The Bill that I introduce to the House today is forward-looking, urgent and ambitious: urgent because we need to maintain and lead the modern transport revolution by attracting inward investment and becoming a hub for researching and developing the next generation of transport technologies; ambitious because we are establishing the right regulatory framework in advance to spur innovation in a safe manner.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way so soon in his speech. Is he aware of a company called Dearman, which produces clean engines for use on refrigeration units? I am a bit disappointed there is nothing in the Bill that relates to that. The engines on these units normally use red diesel, and they are incredibly dirty. Although that technology is not in the Bill, I hope he will consider it, as a technology of the future. May I also just remind him that I invited him to come for a cycle ride around London with me, and I am still waiting for his response?
Chris Grayling
I am not aware of the technology the right hon. Gentleman refers to, but we are very interested in seeing this country be a real success in developing new technologies. The issues of clean-engine technology affect not just this country but many countries around the world, and any country that has a breakthrough in that area has a real opportunity worldwide. Of course, the Department for International Trade is focused on trying to help not just our biggest businesses but smaller businesses to exploit the opportunities that are out there.
Advances in data science, connectivity and automation are converging to bring about the biggest changes to mobility since the internal combustion engine. Automated vehicle technologies will have a profound effect on how we get around.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State tell us what progress has been made on batteries for electric cars and on any infrastructure those batteries might need?
Chris Grayling
I will talk in a moment about electric vehicle technology. We are certainly seeing a transformation in battery technology. I expect the new generation of battery vehicles—we expect a new model of the Nissan LEAF to be selling in this country over the coming months —to take a real step forward. Of course, the longer the range of a battery and a vehicle, the more that vehicle becomes a realistic alternative for those driving around not just cities, but the country more broadly.
We need to ensure that the benefits of a shift towards intelligent mobility are felt far and wide, with journeys that are easier and more fuel-efficient; transport networks that are more accessible and responsive to the needs of those who use them; and, of course, new, high-value jobs in the technology and automotive sector, where we already have a number of businesses that are pathfinders in the field of developing autonomous vehicles.
We are embracing these developments. We are acting to position the United Kingdom as a global leader in automated vehicle technology, building on our heritage as a nation of entrepreneurs.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend is saying, and I fully support the Bill he has brought before the House. In Norway, around a quarter of all vehicles are electric or hybrid electric. On maintaining our leadership position, by what date does he think the United Kingdom might be on a parallel with the proportion in Norway?
Chris Grayling
Well, I would not put a forecast on it. Suffice it to say to my hon. Friend—he has been a diligent follower of this issue and is keen to pursue it, and he has been engaged in discussions with my Department about it—that our ambitions remain strong. We have good incentives in this country. We have measures in the Bill to make an electronic vehicle charging network much more transparent and visible. These things will accelerate the production and sale of these vehicles in the United Kingdom. Of course, with the Nissan LEAF in Sunderland, we have the world’s first mass-production car of that kind.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Car sales are projected to rise from somewhere in the region of 74 million today to 100 million in 2030, helped not least by the launch of the fourth-generation Range Rover, the Velar, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Transport, saw with me last week. The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) made a good point about the infrastructure being in the right place for the battery technology and the plants to be developed. We need that infrastructure in place near Jaguar Land Rover, so will the Secretary of State please tell me what his plans are for that?
Chris Grayling
Indeed, we do need that infrastructure. As I have said, I am excited about what JLR is doing in the field of electric vehicles. The Government car service is already a customer of the company, but I look forward to it also becoming an early customer of those electric vehicles as they are manufactured and sold. The company has specifically said that it needs infrastructure improvements to help it with those developments and its ambitions for electric vehicle manufacturing in the United Kingdom. I assure the House that it will receive that support. The autumn statement provided extra funding for electric charging points. This Bill provides for much greater transparency of data, making it much easier for those who own and drive electric vehicles to identify the locations of the best charging points. That is part of a strategy that will, in my view, drive forward substantially the sales of those vehicles in this country.
We should not, however, be entirely technologically biased. We will also take further steps to encourage the development of hydrogen vehicles in the United Kingdom and, of course, we provide tax incentives for hybrid vehicles. We must drive for a higher quality of vehicle in this country when it comes to the propensity to pollute, and we must provide the right support for that market to emerge. However, we must allow the technologies to win those battles themselves, rather than have the Government winning them for them.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
This is not only about electric vehicles and almost zero emissions. There is an interim stage: in some places, we could convert lorries and diesel vans to liquid petroleum gas to get those NOx levels down in the hot spots quicker than if we tried to convert everything to electricity straight away.
Chris Grayling
Indeed. I know that my hon. Friend has been determined to push that argument, and rightly so, because that technology could make a difference to emissions. I absolutely support those who seek to transition vehicles to LPG, but the Government should not focus on one particular technology. We need to create the right environment for all technologies to compete to deliver the cleanest possible vehicles for the future, which is in all our interests.
I will talk about electric vehicles before turning to autonomous vehicles. The Bill creates the right environment for those markets to develop. We have a clear goal that by 2050 nearly all cars and vans should be emission-free, but we want to accelerate that transition. That will happen partly through giving financial help, through grants and the tax system, to motorists choosing a cleaner vehicle, and we are also supporting local authorities that provide incentives through free and cheap parking to those who move down the road towards acquiring a cleaner vehicle.
We have also helped develop a network of more than 11,000 public charge points in the UK; as I have said, significant funding is in place to allow more of them to be developed. We want the uptake in electric cars to continue, whether they be hydrogen fuel cell or battery powered, and for them to break into the mass market. The Bill introduces a number of new powers that will help make that possible. In particular, it enables common technical standards and better interoperability, and it will ensure that consumers have reliable information on the location and availability of charge points. We will also be able to accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle infrastructure at key locations, such as motorway service areas and large fuel retailers, and make charge points ready for the needs of the marketplace.
Of course, we will then see further technological developments with hydrogen and, I suspect, and as my hon. Friend says, more developments on the LPG front. The Bill will create more of the necessary powers to drive forward the ambition of getting a much cleaner fleet of vehicles on our roads.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I welcome the Bill and the news that the registration rate of ultra-low-emission vehicles is rising rapidly. Two-tier local authorities can work better on issues relating to air quality and the Bill will enable them to reduce air pollution. Will the Secretary of State make a commitment that, where wider infrastructure investment is needed for roads such as the Botley bypass and the Chickenhall link road in my constituency—they are well known to the Department—it will come hand in hand with the Bill’s provisions?
Chris Grayling
Today is probably not a day for going into the detail of schemes, but I give my hon. Friend an assurance that we see easing congestion as part of the solution. Emissions are generated not just by dirty vehicles, but when cars are stuck in traffic jams or crawl along slowly for long periods. The Government’s investment in the road infrastructure will therefore ease emission problems in areas in which congestion is the principal cause.
I will talk briefly about automated vehicles. The Bill sets in motion the first steps towards the use of such vehicles on UK roads. They are a way to improve the situation regarding both congestion and air quality, because they will drive in a more efficient and effective way without creating the congestion to which human driving habits sometimes contribute. We will not wake up tomorrow to find a fleet of automated vehicles, but we will see rapid change. Technology will proceed step by step as our cars become more and more automated, and not too many years ahead the use of automated vehicles on our roads will start to become widespread. We will act to remove safely any obvious barriers to that happening.
We want journeys to be easier and more fuel efficient, and we want transport networks to be more accessible and responsive to the needs of those who use them. One part of achieving that is to deliver for the first time an insurance framework that makes it possible for automated vehicles to operate on our roads, and that is what the Bill does. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that your insurance policy on your car is for you, the driver. It is not for the vehicle. The Bill will allow the creation of two-dimensional insurance policies that cover you when you are driving the vehicle and that cover the vehicle if it is being driven autonomously. That will make it possible to move towards a framework in which insurance companies can provide cover for the vehicles of the future.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Surely, on occasion, the technology in a car that is being “driven autonomously”, to use the Secretary of State’s words, might be at fault. In such circumstances, surely the insured person would not be covered.
Chris Grayling
I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point. The two-dimensional insurance policy will cover both the vehicle and the driver. If the driver is at the wheel, the insurance policy will cover the liability of the driver, but if a car is driving itself, the insurance policy will be extended to cover the vehicle. In that way, we cover all eventualities and make it possible for those cars to operate on our roads when the technology is ready for them to do so. That important step has been welcomed by the insurance industry. It opens the door to a new generation of vehicles on our roads, and it sends a message to the automotive industry and the world that we in this country are going to make sure that we have the right regulatory framework to enable those vehicles to operate.
I now change modes and move on to aviation.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend changes modes, I know that he would be very disappointed if I did not mention motorcycling. I notice that the word “motorcycle” does not appear in the document “Pathway to Driverless Cars”. That initially pleased me because, as he will realise, an autonomous motorcycle would be entirely pointless, but I am slightly concerned about whether we have adequately considered the ability of driverless cars to coexist safely on our roads with motorcycles. Since I am on my feet, may I also say that many of his objectives could be achieved with a small modal shift to motorcycling?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is a great champion of the motorcycle, and I cannot for a moment imagine him wanting to have anything to do with an autonomous motorcycle. Given the pleasure that he derives from motorcycling, I cannot imagine him sitting on the back of his bike and reading the paper while the vehicle drives itself along.
One important part of the insurance changes for which the Bill paves the way is ensuring that the insurance framework gives comfort to all on the roads, and that proper insurance is in place if there is, God forbid, an unfortunate “non-interaction”—in other words, not the sort of interaction that we would wish—between any vehicle and an autonomous vehicle, and certainly between a motorbike and an autonomous vehicle. It is really important to get that right. Of course, the technology is some way from being sufficiently clearcut and dependable to enable such vehicles to operate freely and openly on our roads as a matter of daily routine, but that day will come.
Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)
Before the Secretary of State moves on to aviation, and while we are still talking about vehicles, insurance and safety on the road—I very much welcome his comments about that—may I ask about pedicabs? They are not of course licensed, regulated or insured, and they cause tremendous grief in central London in that they are not seen as safe. Transport for London does not have any method of regulating them, and we have no way of making sure that they are insured, so will my right hon. Friend consider them when thinking about other aspects of insurance in the future?
Chris Grayling
I am aware of that issue. I am happy to give my hon. Friend such an assurance and to discuss the issue with her.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I want to probe the Secretary of State on this business about autonomous vehicles and the responsibility of the passenger—or the driver, who is I suppose a passenger in this respect—while the vehicle is in autonomous mode. When the driver is not in control of the vehicle and the vehicle is in autonomous mode, is the driver exonerated of all legal responsibility? Is that the principle of the Bill, because surely it cannot be as simple as that?
Chris Grayling
The measures focus on insurance. If the vehicle is under its own control, the insurance principle is still applicable. If the insurance policy applies to the driver and the driver is not driving the vehicle, by definition the driver cannot be at fault. Under the provisions in the Bill, it will be possible to have an insurance policy that covers both eventualities of something going wrong: when the driver is driving; and when the vehicle is in autonomous mode. That is one of the key changes necessary to create an environment in which such vehicles can operate freely on the roads.
Andrew Selous
The Secretary of State will be aware of the prohibitive cost of insurance for young drivers. Does he foresee a time when autonomous vehicles might help young people to have the freedom of a car at a much more affordable cost?
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. I think that this might help not just younger drivers, but elderly and disabled drivers. Once vehicles start to operate autonomously in a controlled environment, it will become much easier for people who struggle to get out on to the roads today to do so. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is one of the possible future benefits.
Chris Grayling
I will give way for the very last time before I move on to planes.
Chris Bryant
The Secretary of State does have plenty of time, but I am grateful to him for giving way. One of the outcomes over the next 20 to 25 years might be that the number of taxicab drivers this country needs falls very dramatically, because people will be able to get an automated car to pick them up and take them somewhere. What planning has the Department done on the challenge that that will pose to employment in this country?
Chris Grayling
The Government certainly think all the time about the impact of future technologies, of which there are many. We are a considerable number of years away from the situation the hon. Gentleman envisages, as most of the cars bought today will still be on the roads for a decade or more. It will probably not be an issue for this Parliament or the following one, but it will certainly be a genuine issue by the 2030s, and he is right to identify it as one.
We have of course seen throughout modern history how changes in technology alter ways of working—we will see more of that in the future. It is up to us as a society, and us in this Parliament and our successors, to make sure, none the less, that this country is a dynamic, entrepreneurial one that takes advantage of new technologies and creates job opportunities off the back of such changes. We are certainly doing that, and we will continue to do so. One of the ways in which the Bill will help is that if we set ourselves at the forefront of the development of such technology in this country, that will create a new generation of job opportunities that simply did not exist before.
I will move on to talk briefly about other aspects of the Bill. There are two key innovations in the aviation sector, which is crucial and a key part of our economy. Our air traffic control is provided under a licence held by NATS. It oversees 6,000 flights every day and develops innovative solutions that are used around the globe. It is essential that its licence is fit for purpose and that consumers are at the heart of the regulatory regime. The Bill will modernise the licensing framework for the UK’s en route air traffic control, which is currently undertaken by a subsidiary of NATS and overseen by the Civil Aviation Authority.
We propose to update the licensing framework in three ways. First, we will change the way in which licence conditions can be modified by the regulator. Currently, the CAA needs to get the agreement of NATS before it modifies the conditions. The Bill will give it more flexibility to make changes when they are necessary without going through a long negotiating process. The provisions will make sure that the CAA always acts solely in accordance with its duties while ensuring that the licence holder is also able to appeal modifications to the Competition and Markets Authority.
Secondly, the Bill clarifies the power to amend the length of the licence term. Currently, the licence termination period is 10 years, which sits uncomfortably alongside the average 15-year asset life of NATS investments. We think that exercising the power to extend the licence termination notice period will increase NATS’s finance ability, which in turn will lead to more efficient services being provided to users.
Thirdly, we are enhancing the enforcement regime, which is currently bureaucratic and inflexible. We will ensure that the CAA is accountable for enforcement decisions through appeal rights, but there will be a staggered approach to enforcement. Instead of having a situation in which there is no middle ground between serious action and a slap on the wrist, this will allow for a staged penalty regime that should give the CAA a clearer power to drive better performance in the management of our air traffic control systems.
The second aviation measure concerns consumer protection for holidaymakers. By its very nature, there are a number of risks in the holiday market. It is common for consumers to pay upfront on the promise of a holiday that might be many months away. As we have seen all too often, the financial stability of individual holiday providers can be shaky and sometimes the system lets down holidaymakers. In the rare event of a company failure, consumers may experience financial loss from a cancelled holiday or difficulties due to being stranded abroad. That is why the air travel organisers’ licence scheme was introduced back in the 1970s. It is the primary method by which the travel sector provides insolvency protection within our packaged travel regimes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that the way we book holidays is changing, so we need to adapt the schemes and regulations that protect people. The Bill will enable the ATOL scheme to respond to innovation in the travel sector, as well as enhancements to the UK and European consumer protection rules. It extends ATOL protection to a broader range of holidays and makes it easier for UK businesses to trade across borders, ensuring that the scheme remains fit for today’s world.
There are two or three final measures to explain to the House, first on vehicle testing. We already work in partnership with the private sector to deliver bus and lorry MOT tests at private sector sites. Such tests used to be delivered from Government sites. Of course, the testing of cars is done by private operators around the country. Through the Bill, we want to extend the partnership with the private sector to deliver specialist vehicle tests from those established or additional private sector sites, thus providing services that are convenient and local. The Government will benefit because we will not have to pay for the upkeep of Government sites. That will help to keep down the cost of vehicle tests, which will still be delivered by Government examiners who will travel to those private sites.
We will not compromise on vehicle safety and nor will we remove any Government sites from operations until a suitable private sector site has been established. Such private sector sites are inspected and appropriately approved. This partnership approach has worked well and has been popular with industry. We will introduce a statutory charge for the site owner to make for the use of their premises and equipment. It will be known as the pit fee, and it will be capped to avoid any unreasonable charges.
One of the highest profile issues that has faced the aviation transport sector, in particular over the past few months, is the misuse of laser pointers. The penultimate measure in the Bill should bolster safety across all transport modes and deal with the problem properly. Each year there are approximately 1,500 laser attacks on aircraft. Those incidents pose a threat to the safe operation of aircraft, risk causing eye damage to pilots, and put the lives of passengers and crew in danger. This is an issue for not just aircraft, but other modes of transport.
We will create an offence of dazzling or distracting the person in control of a vehicle. It will be triable either way, and will allow police to enter a private property for the purposes of arrest and to search for a laser pointer. It will be a clear deterrent to would-be offenders, with unlimited fines and a potential five-year jail sentence, sending a clear signal that using laser pointers in this manner will not be tolerated.
Mims Davies
The act of shining or directing a laser at the eyes of a person in control of a vehicle that is covered by part 4 is a cause of great concern at Southampton airport, and its impact has been raised through consultative committees. The problem is particularly bad at regional airports. Many of my constituents work for NATS and report how dangerous these incidents are. They are also very concerned about drones. Is there scope to include the misuse of drones in this part of the Bill?
Chris Grayling
We are consulting on a new regime for drones, but the measures do not all have to go into primary legislation. I assure my hon. Friend that we are looking carefully at how to provide proper protection for airports and others from the use of drones in our society.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I am sorry that I was not in my place at the start of my right hon. Friend’s speech on this important Bill. I am delighted that the Government are taking such action on lasers. Although, according to the eminent eye surgeon, Professor John Marshall, who is my constituent, irreversible damage is unlikely to be caused because of the distances at which these lasers are operated, the risk to pilots is nevertheless very serious indeed. As my right hon. Friend knows, I am a pilot, and the thought that passengers could be put at risk makes it imperative that we take a decision on this. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the laser manufacturers? May I also encourage him to take action on drones quickly?
Chris Grayling
I know that my hon. Friend is a committed aviator and that he understands these issues. My Department has had a broad range of discussions about the impact of lasers. We think that the risk of a five-year jail sentence is a pretty strong deterrent that will, I hope, focus the minds of those who might be tempted to use, in such a dangerous way, something that should be a simple and innocuous tool for making presentations in a conference room. People who act in such a reckless manner should expect a very serious penalty indeed, and I hope that they will think twice before doing so again.
Lastly, I come on to the issue of courses. When drivers and motorcyclists transgress, but not excessively, the police have the discretion to offer them an educational course as an alternative to a fixed penalty. Such courses are valuable. They help to remind participants about the consequences of inattentive driving. Drivers pay to attend the course, but they avoid paying the fixed penalty fine or having points added to their licence.
The Bill clarifies the basis on which police have the authority to charge for such courses. For the avoidance of doubt, we are providing a simple statement that the power to charge exists, together with technical arrangements for specifying its scope. This technical measure will not affect road users; it simply clarifies the legislative position, and provides greater transparency and police accountability regarding the way in which these charges are set.
The Bill contains a number of measures that are designed to improve the way in which our transport system works. Above all else, it paves the way for what is going to be a revolution on our roads. As we see the emergence of connected and autonomous vehicles, our lives will change—I think that this will be a change for the better for many in our society. This is one of the most exciting technological developments that mankind has produced for a very long time, and we want this country to be at the front of the development and trialling of the technology, and then at the front of experiencing it. The Bill paves the way to achieve that. It brings into play a number of improvements across our transport system. More than anything else, I hope that it will start this country down the road towards an automotive revolution that will transform everyone’s lives.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
We were here last week debating the Bus Services Bill, when I said that another transport Bill would be along in a minute—and here it is. I thank the Secretary of State for his summary and account, and I wholeheartedly agree that the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill—VTAB from now on—presents an opportunity to put the UK ahead of the curve on transport, will encourage research and innovation that will shape how we travel in the future and will create the high-skill jobs that our economy needs, as well as tackling our environmental and climate change challenges.
Let me take this opportunity to place on record the Opposition’s thanks to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), for his collegiate attitude and co-operation. We share his objective of making this the best possible piece of legislation as it passes through the House. The Opposition are not opposed to the Bill; we are broadly very supportive of it. There are, however, some concerns about the impact of some parts of the Bill, so we shall press the Government on some issues and table amendments in Committee. Of course, the Bill alone is no substitute for the wider policy framework required for the UK to take advantage of the opportunities presented to us, but it is an important Bill that we wish to support.
Part 1 deals with automated vehicles and insurance. We expect ultra-low emission and connected and autonomous vehicles to play an important role in our country’s transport in the years to come, so it is right that the Government are seeking to address some of the issues relating to autonomous vehicles. Last year the UK automotive industry added some £18.9 billion in value to the UK economy. It supported 169,000 people directly in manufacturing, and some 814,000 across the industry and throughout supply chains. Forecasters have estimated that the overall benefits of ULEVs and autonomous vehicles are in the region of £51 billion a year, creating an additional 320,000 jobs.
If we are to build on that—which is increasingly important following the UK’s decision to leave the EU—it will be necessary for the UK to take advantage of the economic and social benefits that those vehicles present. Their uptake will play an important role in the tackling of the air quality crisis which leads to 40,000 premature deaths each year as well as hundreds of thousands of cases of respiratory illnesses, which is choking many of our towns and cities, and which the Government have hitherto failed to address. Such vehicles will also be vital to the UK’s meeting of its climate change objectives, for which the Government currently lack a clear plan.
In recent years, the Government have failed to reduce the number of casualties on our roads, against a backdrop of cuts in road policing and the scrapping of road casualty targets introduced under Labour. Those are pressing issues which the Government need to address here and now, but the potential 25,000 casualties a year that could be avoided by 2030 represent a significant opportunity to make our roads safer.
It is vital for us to introduce the legislation that is needed to facilitate and encourage investment, innovation and the uptake of vehicles of this kind, but if that is to be possible, a definition of autonomous vehicles will be necessary. At present, there is no clear distinction between advanced driver assistance systems and fully automated driving technology in UK policy, standards and legislation. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to prepare, keep up to date and publish a list of all motor vehicles to be used on roads in Great Britain that are deemed to be
“capable…of safely driving themselves without having to be monitored by an individual”
for some or part of a journey, and the definition of an automated vehicle will be a vehicle that is included in the list drawn up by the Secretary of State.
There is a need for collaboration between the Government, manufacturers, insurers and consumers to develop a viable and practical system of classification to identify when a vehicle is deemed to be “automated” or “autonomous”. The dividing lines between automated and autonomous vehicles are not always completely clear. The Government must give more details of their plans to classify vehicles as “automated”, and consult widely on the definition and criteria for adding to the list of AVs in the Bill. In Committee, we will be pressing the Government for that to be subject to secondary legislation.
Resolving the issue of how automated vehicles can be insured is essential if they are to become a feature on British roads. We therefore support the Government’s action to ensure that vehicle insurance policies facilitate that in the future. We are, however, concerned about the potential costs to policyholders, and contention over liability between manufacturers and insurers. It is imperative that, in the event of technological failure in an AV, it is easy for consumers to establish quickly where liability rests, and are able to make a claim as appropriate. At present, insurance law in the UK is driver-centric. Drivers must have insurance in order to provide compensation for third parties for personal injury or property damage.
The Government’s intention is to emphasise that if there is an insurance event, the compensation route for the individual remains within the motor insurance framework rather than through a product liability framework against a manufacturer. However, the Bill does provide insurers with the capability to claim against manufacturers of vehicles if the automated vehicle was driving itself and was deemed to be at fault for the incident. But this is not clear-cut, and the Association of British Insurers has expressed concerns that existing insurance practices would need to be significantly altered to deal routinely with road traffic accidents involving automated vehicles. The Government themselves acknowledge this in their impact assessment for the Bill and say this might result in increased administrative and procedural costs for insurers.
Although the Bill does enable insurers to claim from the manufacturers where the vehicle is in automated mode and deemed at fault for an incident, the Government acknowledge that there could be significant teething problems with this system, particularly with early disagreements between the parties about liability. As such, it is difficult to estimate how different insurance premiums will be when automated vehicles are fully functional and on the road.
The roll-out and proliferation of autonomous vehicles should produce significant safety benefits, with driver error being either significantly reduced or eliminated. While that should consequently lead to reduced premiums, a great deal of work will be necessary as we prepare for this new environment, to better assess whether that will in fact be the case. If there are increased procedural and administrative costs for insurers, there could be higher premiums. If that is the case, there would be a severe impact on the uptake of AVs in the UK, making the Government’s actions self-defeating. We believe that the Government must review at regular intervals how the insurance for AVs is working, so Labour will be pressing for a review date on the face of the Bill.
Let me now move to the second part of the Bill relating to electric vehicles, charging and infrastructure. Electric vehicles and alternatively fuelled vehicles are key to reducing air pollution and meeting the UK’s climate change objectives, as well as presenting economic opportunities. The uptake of electric, hybrid and alternatively fuelled vehicles is already under way and increasing, yet we note that the Government are still 1.5 million vehicles short of their 1.6 million ULEV target for 2020, so it is imperative that action is taken to encourage their uptake.
The section of the Bill on EV-charging infrastructure is largely about enabling secondary legislation and will not have significant impacts in the short term, but if the UK intends to be a global leader, we agree that we need to take broader action sooner rather than later. Given the importance of future-proofing the legislative framework in this area, Labour recognises the need to use secondary legislation, but we will be seeking commitments from the Government to consult properly and widely throughout the process.
We will also be seeking assurances and a review from the Government of how the provisions of the Bill fit within a broader strategy for reducing harmful vehicle emissions and promoting a switch to ULEVs and EVs. For uptake to be encouraged, electric vehicles need to be practical, affordable and convenient for users, which means putting in place the necessary infrastructure. There are currently nearly 12,000 charging points for electric vehicles in the UK, but at present there are multiple charging point operators, each with their own plugs, software, customer charges, billing systems and payment methods. They are also unevenly distributed: as reported in The Times last September, there are more charging points available on the Orkney islands than in Blackpool, Grimsby and Hull combined. It is therefore welcome that this Bill seeks to increase the number of charging point facilities and to address their harmonisation and standardisation. The Bill will allow the Government to require co-operation and the sharing of facilities, and information from operators allowing the Government to ensure interoperability for charging regardless of what specific EV a person might have, if necessary.
Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce regulations that require operators to provide information about public charging points, such as location, operating hours, cost and interoperability, and these too are welcome. Of course it is right that this legislation should be put in place, but it alone will not be enough successfully to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. It was counterproductive of the Government to slash the grants available for ultra-low emission vehicles and electric vehicles and to cut the plug-in grants for EVs and for home charging. In May last year, the grant for purchasing an electric vehicle was cut from £5,000 to £4,500, and the grant for hybrids was cut from £5,000 to £2,500. The electric vehicle home charge scheme grant was cut from £700 to £500 per installation.
There are further issues that are not addressed by the Bill, which the Government must get right. They must ensure that the grid is capable of meeting the additional demands that electric vehicles will bring. That must be planned for and closely monitored as electric vehicle use becomes more common. The Government must also develop a strategy to tackle the skills gap, because without training the necessary personnel, we as a nation will not be able to support the growth of this new generation of vehicles and will miss out on the benefits that they present. On infrastructure more broadly, the Government must ensure that regulatory divergence does not develop between the UK and the EU as a result of Brexit, and that regulation and standards are maintained. This is essential if the UK is to be the vehicle manufacturers’ location of choice for the development, testing and deployment of automated and electric vehicles.
The third section of the Bill relates to aviation, and Labour broadly welcomes the proposals to strengthen the role of the Civil Aviation Authority in respect of seeking licence modification changes. We recognise the need to implement the ATOL reforms in order to comply with the EU package travel directive. We also note that stakeholders are supportive of the proposals in the Bill. The proposed changes will allow the Civil Aviation Authority to modify licences more quickly. This is in line with recommendations from a report on NATS and will give NATS greater financial certainty. However, we are keen that the Government restate their commitment that the licensee will not find it unduly difficult to finance its activities and that these proposals will not be a subtext for the sell-off of NATS.
Clause 18 will bring ATOL up to date and ensure that it is harmonised with the latest EU package travel directive, extending to a wider range of holidays and protecting more consumers as well as allowing UK travel companies to sell more seamlessly across Europe. Labour welcomes the extensions, which will ultimately help to protect more holidaymakers, but we want clarity on how UK consumers will be protected by EU-based companies, as they will no longer be subject to ATOL but to member state equivalents. The implications for ATOL after Brexit are also a cause for concern. Hidden in the Bill are proposals that the Secretary of State will require only an affirmative resolution to significantly reform ATOL and the Air Travel Trust fund. Labour recognises the merits of some reforms, but we believe that an impact assessment, full consultation and full scrutiny will be required before any fundamental changes are made to this well respected consumer protection.
These issues bring to the forefront uncertainties over the future of UK aviation following the decision to leave the European Union, and Labour has been clear that whichever framework is chosen, the Government should prioritise retaining an essentially unchanged operating environment. They should prioritise air services agreements as part of the exit negotiations, and, as is customary, such agreements should be negotiated separately from and prior to the UK’s negotiations on trade with the EU.
On the three miscellaneous clauses in part 4 of the Bill, I shall deal first with clause 21, which relates to powers to designate premises for vehicle testing and to cap testing station fees. In principle, we do not oppose the changes that would allow Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency testing to take place on private premises, but we believe that the Government should provide further details as well as reassurances that the changes will not adversely impact existing testing facilities and staff. While an increase in the number of testing facilities across the country is to be welcomed, and while the Government have intimated that existing public sector facilities will not disappear before alternative facilities are available in the vicinity, we want more detailed assurances.
Secondly, in part 4 of the Bill, we are pleased to see in clause 22 that the Government are now beginning to tackle the dangers of lasers that present hazards and the offence of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle, which could result in terrible consequences if left unaddressed. It has proved too difficult to enforce the existing offence of endangerment by shining a light, so we support the creation of a new offence for the act of shining a laser beam, which could carry a maximum penalty of a fine and five years’ imprisonment. While that is to be welcomed, we encourage the Government to look at the ready availability of such devices and how that might be curtailed. When we heard from the Secretary of State, there was some confusion about the change of offence from endangerment to the act of shining a light, so it would be appreciated if the Minister clarified that.
On aviation safety, the lack of action on drones in this Bill is a concern, as hon. Members have already indicated. There were 70 reported near misses with aircraft in 2016. The Government are not addressing the problem at the required pace, and Labour will seek to amend the Bill in Committee to regulate drones in order to address aviation safety concerns.
Turning to clause 23 and the courses offered as alternatives to prosecution, Labour broadly agrees with the Government’s proposed measures on diversionary courses, which clarify the basis on which diversionary courses can be used as alternatives to fixed penalty notices and be charged for. However, the Government should bring forward an assessment and review the effectiveness of such courses. It is imperative that there is some basis on which to establish that the programme is worth pursuing, but there appears to be little evidence at the moment. It is important to remind the Government that legislation alone is not enough to keep our roads safe at a time when police traffic officer numbers have been cut by a third and when progress on reducing deaths and casualties on our roads has ground to a halt.
In conclusion, Labour broadly supports the Bill, which marks the beginning of an exciting new era in transport technology. We are committed to securing the best possible framework to ensure that the sector flourishes.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on introducing it. I also congratulate the Department for Transport team. From time to time, we have had something of a mixed bag of Ministers at the Department, but we now have one of the best teams ever. Long may they stay in office. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary historic vehicles group and the owner of a number of historic vehicles. It may seem a little odd to some that I, with an interest in historic vehicles and dedicated to preserving old vehicles and to ensuring that all are free to continue to use them on public highways, should welcome a Bill that seeks to take a step forward. However, I see nothing unusual in that because motoring has always been about pushing forward the frontiers. We can preserve the past, while embracing the future.
Only a decade or so ago, referring to driverless cars would have felt like something from a sci-fi comic to many people, but the very invention of a moving vehicle powered by a machine was revolutionary in its day, and the motor car has always had its detractors since those early days. In 1899, a Member of this House, John Douglas-Scott-Montagu bought his very first motor car—a 12 hp Daimler vehicle. He acquired the car in May, and in the summer of that year he drove it to the House of Commons for the first time, being the first parliamentarian to do so. When he got to the House of Commons, he was prevented from entering the precincts by a policeman on duty, who warned him that he thought there was a very real risk of the contraption blowing up the Palace of Westminster. So Mr Douglas-Scott-Montagu did what any good MP would and should do and appealed to the Speaker, one William Gully, who looked at the evidence, read up about this new-fangled thing—a car powered by a machine rather than a horse—and decided that the Member could bring the car into the precincts, so the very first spat between the police and a motorist was decided in the motorist’s favour.
As the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) have said, the Bill primarily but not exclusively addresses the advent of automated vehicles. Public transport is not an option for everyone, but neither is driving. Having automated vehicles on our roads will provide an opportunity to liberate people, particularly in rural areas, who are not able to use public transport and who cannot drive but who will grasp the opportunity to use an automated car. However, I will probably be one of the last people to switch to using an automated vehicle, because I enjoy driving. The most recent car I purchased has an intelligent cruise control system, and the car applies the brakes on its own if someone pulls out in front of me. I find that most infuriating because, time after time, the car applies the brakes when I can see that the motorist who pulled out in front of me is accelerating and I would not have applied the brakes. At the moment, I am not a fan of driverless cars. I cannot ever see myself owning a driverless car, but I can see that they will fill a niche in the market and that they will become invaluable to some people.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough raised concerns about insurance costs, and the Department’s figures indicate that about 97% of all road accidents are caused by driver error, not by vehicle condition. If the software is anything like competent, it should lead to a reduction in the number of accidents and, one would hope, a reduction in insurance premiums.
Mr Baker
My right hon. Friend says that he will never buy a driverless car, and we are of one mind. I cannot imagine buying a driverless car, and my first question would always be, “How do I turn these things off?” Does he share my concern that, as more driverless cars become available, there will be an increasing pressure on us all to drive up safety by getting a driverless car and that the great hobby of motoring, which he and I enjoy, might come under increasing pressure as the years go by?
Sir Greg Knight
Coming under increasing pressure, particularly from the Whips, has never bothered my hon. Friend, so I cannot see that it will be a problem in this instance.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. I think it is self-evident, but I presume that clause 1, which gives the Government power to list automated vehicles for the purpose of approved road use, also includes the right to delist any model that is shown to be unreliable or more susceptible to accidents than other models that are allowed to operate.
Clause 2 contains details on the liability of insurers where an accident is caused by an automated vehicle, but those provisions raise a number of questions. Clearly, the Government think that, if an automated vehicle in automated mode is involved in an accident due to a problem with its manufacture, the insurance policy taken out by the owner will cover the costs of any damage caused in the accident but that, at a later stage, the insurance company will be able to pursue the manufacturer. That is my understanding.
I want to know what happens when no accident is caused but the law is nevertheless broken. Let me give the House an example. I assume that if a driverless car is travelling on the M1, the software would know that the vehicle is on a road where the speed limit is 70 mph. However, some stretches of the M1 are what the Government call “smart motorways”, where a Highways England official has the authority to turn on flashing lights and lower the speed limit to a speed the official thinks appropriate for the road conditions. Let us suppose that a driver in full automated mode on the M1 comes to a stretch of smart motorway and finds that Highways England has suddenly switched the speed limit down to 50 mph. If a police car is travelling behind and the automated car is slow in responding to the reduced limit, the police may stop the automated car and issue a speeding ticket. Who would then be responsible for the speeding ticket and who, if anyone, would take the three points that normally go with a speeding offence? If the owner, who would otherwise be the driver if the vehicle was in manual mode, was relying entirely on the car, he should not be guilty of the offence of speeding and should certainly not have his licence endorsed. The Bill says nothing about this, and I hope the Minister will give us some clue about what the police would be expected to do in that scenario.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is raising some important points. I would hope that if a speed limit was changed on a stretch of motorway, signals would be sent out and would be received by the automated vehicle, automatically causing it to change speed.
Sir Greg Knight
I accept that completely, but the scenario I am painting is one where the software is slow to respond, although it responds eventually. The police will follow a driver who is speeding for only three-tenths of a mile, which is not very far if someone is doing 70 mph. Who would then be responsible for that offence of speeding?
In opening the debate, the Secretary of State did not mention the Motor Insurers Bureau, which plays an invaluable role in guaranteeing funds that protect victims of uninsured drivers. What will be the status of the MIB when the Bill becomes law? Will it be able to recover costs from manufacturers where it is deemed that the software was defective? Will the Minister say something about the Vnuk case, which took place in eastern Europe? It involved a farmworker being knocked off a ladder by a farmer driving a tractor and then suing the insurance company for damages. The court held in the first instance that, as the tractor was on a farm, it did not need to have insurance, but the European Court of Justice overturned that and found in favour of Mr Vnuk, with the implication now that vehicles not on the road and not being used on the road may have to carry insurance. I know that there is concern in the motor racing fraternity about whether motor vehicles taking part in a race have to have insurance. This is not mentioned in the Bill. It may well be that Ministers are planning their response to this Court judgment and will announce it at a later stage, but I would welcome hearing anything that the Minister can say about this case.
The Bill envisages data sharing—the sharing of the driving log and data of automated vehicles. Will that apply only when an automated vehicle is involved in an accident or can data be obtained even where there is no accident? For example, would an employer be able to analyse the data from a self-driving company car to see where the employee went when he was sent out on a mission? Would a divorce lawyer be able to demand to see the data log for the driverless car of a husband if it was thought he was having an affair in another part of town? Who could access the data? I can understand that the data for a driverless car would be recorded to establish who was at fault in any accident, but who would have the right to seek to access that information?
Part 2 deals with electric vehicles and charging. The Secretary of State said in his opening remarks that the Government take the view that nearly all cars and vans should be zero-emission vehicles by 2050. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that by 2050 nearly all cars and vans that are then being manufactured will be zero-emission vehicles? Will he confirm that there is to be no attempt by the Government to force vehicles with some exhaust emissions off our roads at a future point in time?
I accept that it makes sense to increase significantly the provision of the infrastructure required to support the charging of electric vehicles. The Bill will impose on the large fuel retailers a duty to provide public charging points, which is good and to be welcomed. Why are we not also going to require large fuel retailers to do other things for the benefit of all motorists? For example, why are we not going to require fuel retailers to continue to provide fuel with an ethanol content of less than 5% for those who have not updated or cannot update their vehicles?
I understand that, under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation Order 2007, at some point in time E10 fuel —that is, fuel with 10% ethanol—will be on sale on forecourts in this country. Experiences in France and Germany have shown that E10 fuel is incompatible with vehicles manufactured before 2000. It has the potential to dissolve petrol tanks, in some cases, and certainly to dissolve gaskets; to cause vapour lock in warm weather; and to cause starting difficulties. While we encourage people to move to the new technology, it is important that we do not leave behind a class of people who for the moment cannot afford to update their vehicles and need to go about their daily lives and to go to work. There should be a guarantee that they can still buy fuel with a lower ethanol percentage.
I have no comments to make about part 3, which deals with civil aviation. As has been mentioned, part 4 deals with vehicle testing, the shining of a laser at a vehicle and speed-awareness courses. I note that an offence is committed only if
“the laser beam dazzles or distracts a person with control of the vehicle.”
Could that ever apply for someone who is being driven in an automated vehicle? Clause 22(7) anticipates that the offence would apply in the case of a pilot in a plane, even if that plane is on autopilot, because it refers to someone
“monitoring the flying of…the aircraft”.
Why is there no similar provision for the driver of an automated car who will often be monitoring the progress of his vehicle? Is there any specific reason why the Bill covers only laser beams and not other high-intensity beams?
Speed-awareness courses have been running for several years. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough asked what evidence we had that they are effective. Having spoken to constituents and friends, I have considerable anecdotal evidence that they have been effective and that it was a good day when they were introduced. There is an incentive for an erring motorist to take part in such courses, because by doing so they avoid getting points on their licence. As these courses have been running for several years, why are we only now seeking to regulate them? Are Ministers aware of some legal challenge or some bad practice that we now wish to eliminate? There seems to be an air of mystery around this matter. Why, if these courses have been working well for so long, we are now about to say that we need the law to intervene in this area?
In addition to the new technology, I hope that the Government will look at a number of other common-sense measures. I am talking about following what happens in some American states where, at non-rush-hour periods, traffic lights are switched off or are switched to shine amber in all directions, thereby preventing vehicles from having to stop when there is absolutely no traffic coming in the opposite direction or across the junction.
Reference has been made to air quality. Do Ministers know when they are likely to publish the air quality plan? Is there not a case—I say this with respect—for making local authorities take into account the congestion effects of their crusade to remove road space in favour of wider pavements and more cycle lanes? Someone said to me the other day that there are fewer cars entering central London but that pollution is going up. Well, obviously it is going up because pavements have got wider and road space is being turned over to cycle lanes. The Mayor of London cannot have it both ways. If he wishes to reduce air pollution, he and others need to take care when they are seeking to remove highway lanes.
I started by saying that I welcome the Bill, which I do, and I applaud the Government for introducing it. Clearly, it is intended to address a number of market failures thus far, and I hope that it will enable the UK safely to take advantage of and benefit from new technologies and their use. I hope that it will help consumers in the UK to be among the first in the world to reap the rewards that improved transport technology will surely bring.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Bill that we debate today is important, but our discourse on it focuses on existing, not future, technology. The Scottish National party welcomes the fact that we can support the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill in its general direction of travel, but we will suggest some helpful adjustments to its navigation if we feel that a wrong turn is being taken. We will also be ready to give the Minister a push if he looks like he is discharging badly.
If we are to change public perception and fully enjoy the benefits of new technology, we need to talk about how we move people not just physically, but emotionally. The reality is that planning for transport should be about planning for the future of people. Accepting only what we are presented with here and now misses the mark. If we are to make a success of the Bill, it is vital that we seek not only to address the known practicalities of the technology as they are presented today, but to have a vision for the way in which the future of transport can make life better for people. I am talking not just about those in the urban areas and those who are well off, but about those who constantly find themselves as an afterthought, be it through geography, different levels of deprivation, disability or lack of opportunity. The Bill must develop a more rounded and inclusive vision as it progresses through this House.
We welcome the sensible measures in the Bill. We will offer our views on those that need more work or more thought with regard to the future, and we will work constructively to progress the legislation. In return, we hope that our points will receive positive consideration.
Common ground can immediately be established on a number of current issues. I am talking about measures that encourage development of economic opportunities for growth and technology in autonomous and electric vehicle sectors; that simplify insurance processes and measures to keep people safe; that match the Scottish Government’s proposals to phase out all petroleum and diesel-fuelled vehicles by 2050; and that curb the malignant use of laser pens on all vehicles, including aircraft.
As has been intonated, there are many questions to be answered and much to add to the Bill to make progress successful. Let me start with autonomous vehicles. This is a global market that presents significant opportunities. KPMG estimates the value to be around £900 billion by 2025, so maximising advantage means acting with pace, but decisions should include ensuring that there are positive outcomes for people beyond the short-term economic reach. We advocate that there is an imperative to ensure that as many people as possible benefit.
There is the potential for a step change in transport for those with disabilities and those suffering from social exclusion as a result of mobility issues. We would also seek to ensure that, even if they do not live in a city, people are not left out and that those in rural areas are enabled to take part meaningfully. Thoughtful consideration must therefore be given to rural areas for the use of autonomous vehicles, and discussions should take place with organisations that represent disabled people to seek their views on the matter.
The Government must also take action to ensure that they grasp the opportunity to promote training and skills and create well-paid jobs. The employment opportunities within the technology and autonomous vehicles sector are new territory. We must therefore ensure that more people can access those opportunities, especially the still disgracefully untapped resource that is women. If the promised bounty is to be properly realised, work must be done to encourage girls and young women to be central to it.
Back in 2015, the Government provided £19 million to launch four driverless car schemes, based in Milton Keynes, Bristol and London. If further testing is to be undertaken, Scotland must be included in the next round. Similarly, although we welcome the industrial strategy in relation to an autonomous vehicle hub, we would look for co-operation between the UK and Scottish Governments to find suitable sites in Scotland.
Road safety is of paramount concern, as is clarity over responsibilities for insurance claims, and there is much work to be done to provide reassurance and put in place the safeguards required to create public confidence in driverless technology. It would be helpful to consider the needs as they will develop and provide guidance on aspects that may not yet be at the forefront of consideration, such as the possible certification of vehicles without steering wheels or control pedals. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) made an interesting point about responsibility. What will autonomous vehicles mean for drink-driving regulations, for example? In all circumstances, will a sole passenger be considered just that—a passenger—with those responsibilities, or will they be considered to be jointly responsible?
Consideration will need to be given to future support networks. Autonomous vehicles will need specialist test centres, which should be equitably located around the nations of the UK, and people deserve to know how that will work in future. There will of course need to be strong mobile 4G and 5G signals for the technology to operate properly, so yet again we call on the Government to ensure that the next spectrum licensing auction is conducted with a rural-proofing measure, or an “inside out” policy that has been shown to work in other European countries.
Of course, with the guidance systems also will come a huge amount of data. Vehicles will, by virtue of their use, be tracked and records of journeys will be collated. The data can be enormously useful for improving performance, but there is the potential for it to be misused, so what measures will be put in place to protect the rights of our citizens? A right, except in circumstances of investigating an accident or offence, should be given to the public to own the data and actively authorise any non-performance-related use.
On electric vehicles, we welcome the plan to make every car and van zero-emission by 2050, as that now complements the Scottish Government’s plan to phase out all petrol and diesel vehicles by that year. Encouragement for the public to use electric vehicles must now be stepped up. Incentives such as the grants to purchase vehicles, free installation of home charging points, no road tax and no company car tax for pure electric vehicles should be continued while new incentives are developed. At the start of 2015, Scotland had already seen the uptake of more than 200 electric vehicles across our local authorities. The Scottish Government invested more than £11 million to develop the ChargePlace Scotland network of more than 900 publicly available charging bays, and a £2.5 million grant has been offered to each of the 32 community planning partnerships to help them to buy or lease electric vehicles. That is in addition to the £13 million provided over the past five years to support bus operators to bring in new low-emission buses. Those are great incentives and, as I have said, more can and should be done to encourage further uptake.
Of course there are other zero-emission technologies. Hydrogen is of growing interest in the field, so I was glad to hear the Secretary of State say earlier that there would be encouragement to support alternative fuels such as hydrogen. Scotland already has the Aberdeen Hydrogen Bus Project—the Scottish Government are a key funder—and now Aberdeen has Europe’s largest fleet of hydrogen-powered buses on two routes within the city.
On civil aviation and ATOL, although we welcome the extension of the ATOL agreement, there is a pressing need for the Government to start addressing the questions posed over the UK’s leaving the EU. Will the Secretary of State now give an assurance that the EU package travel directive will be continued? There are similar concerns over passenger rights and compensation, and no word as yet from the Government about whether they will be maintained. I am happy to allow the Secretary of State to intervene if he wants to make comment. No?
UK travellers currently benefit from a huge range of protections. The collapse of Lowcostholidays last summer made the value of the EU package travel directive crystal clear. Given that 76% of UK holidays abroad are outbound to the EU, what will the Government do to guarantee that they will not cave in to the lobbying demands of companies such as Thomas Cook, which said that rights had “gone too far” in favouring passengers?
On vehicle testing, we will be seeking assurances over safety in future operations of DVSA functions. We have concerns over the relentless way in which the UK Government have sought to divest publicly owned and managed facilities. It is clearly an ideological approach, but public safety must be paramount and guarantees are needed that examiners will be regulated and must adhere to procedures at least as strict as those already in use. Will the Secretary of State commit to that?
We welcome clause 22, which makes it an offence to shine a laser beam at any vehicle to dazzle or distract the driver or operator. Laser pen incidents are on the increase. In Scotland, there have been more than 150 incidents in the past 18 months, and 24 at Glasgow airport in February alone. The Scottish National party and the Scottish Government take very seriously any actions that could endanger aircraft, crew and passengers. We strongly support the Civil Aviation Authority’s efforts to publicise the dangers, and Police Scotland’s efforts to prosecute those who maliciously threaten lives in this way. Shining lasers at pilots or drivers could prove fatal, and these moves give clarity over the offence and should greatly improve safety.
While talking about road safety, I urge the UK Government to follow the example of the Scottish Government by taking the opportunity to lower the drink-drive limits. In December 2014, Scotland introduced a blood alcohol limit of 50 mg per 100 ml—lower than the 80 mg per 100 ml in the rest of the UK—resulting in a 7.6% reduction in drink-driving in 2015 compared with the previous year.
In conclusion, we welcome the aims of the Bill, and will work constructively to ensure that it is strengthened and improved. We seek assurances that communities at the periphery in both geography and opportunity are included, that the benefits of the technological advances in vehicles and fuels are shared fairly among all our citizens, and that positive outcomes for all communities are the Government’s first consideration. We want to see clarity and vision in the regulation and public safety issues arising from new vehicles, to give the public the confidence to embrace this step change in transport.
We must now, finally, also have answers to the questions on what happens to the rights of our citizens travelling in Europe following the triggering of article 50. We need a commitment to continuing all of the raft of benefits currently enjoyed by our people.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this important Bill. I shall restrict my comments to parts 1 and 2—I have no concerns about parts 3 and 4. I wish to speak about the first two parts partly because of my role on the Transport Committee—we have considered these matters before—and partly because of a constituency interest. As has been referenced, Milton Keynes is at the forefront of developing and testing autonomous vehicles and a comprehensive charging network for electric vehicles.
The Bill is timely. The technology for autonomous and electric vehicles is quickly being developed and will be on our roads soon. I am talking not just about the experimental autonomous pods that Milton Keynes is innovating—the Secretary of State has just left the Chamber, and I was going to reference the maiden voyage that he and I took in the latest RDM UK Autodrive pod, somewhat bemusing shoppers in Milton Keynes shopping centre a few weeks ago, when I am happy to report that no injuries were sustained and that the technology worked splendidly—because established vehicle manufacturers and new entrants, such as Tesla and Google, are also developing cars that will be wholly or partly automated.
As the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), mentioned, we already have cars that are partly autonomous, given the technology they have on board, whether that is a self-parking mechanism or intuitive cruise control, and I will return a little later to a concern I have about those. The Government are therefore absolutely right to be addressing now how this changing technology has moved ahead of existing regulations on insurance and other matters.
The intelligent mobility market will be huge. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said that it could be worth £900 billion by 2025. If he has not already read it, I urge him to read the “Intelligent Mobility Skills Strategy” produced last autumn by the Transport Systems Catapult, which is based in Milton Keynes. It identifies a possible skills gap of 750,000 people by that same year. The skills debate is for another time, but I mention this issue just to indicate the potential scale of what we are debating. It is absolutely essential that we get the basic parameters correct.
The Government are right to address the gap in insurance legislation that autonomous vehicles will produce. It was with some amusement that I read the Bill’s impact assessment—perhaps that is not the most appropriate name, given that we are dealing with possible vehicle collisions, so the Department might wish to rephrase its title—but it did contain some important points. As has been said, insurance is traditionally driver-centric, and we need to set a framework for what happens when an accident is caused by the machine or the software that governs it.
I agree entirely with the clauses, as far as they go, but I wish to highlight a few concerns, which I hope the Minister will be able to address in his response or in writing, if he does not have the answers immediately to hand. My first concern relates to clause 4, which deals with accidents that result from unauthorised alterations to the software or failures to update it. It is absolutely right, as far as it goes, but is there sufficient clarification of where liability would lie should there be an accident resulting from a failure caused by external tampering with the software, be it deliberate or accidental? Tests of autonomous vehicles and their technology, and even of other vehicles, have shown that their intelligent connections can be hacked. There are examples of that having happened in the United States, and it could lead to clashes. Lots of clever criminals have scammed the traditional insurance market by faking accidents or somehow causing them to happen, and then claiming the insurance premiums. If someone were maliciously to hack the smart technology, where would the liability lie?
I have another example of a more accidental nature. If a car with autonomous technology goes in for a service and the garage makes an error when that car is under its supervision and the driver has no knowledge of it, where would the liability lie? When my previous car was serviced, the garage messed up the software that governs the engine, and when I took it away the engine misfired and the car would not accelerate properly. That did not cause an accident, but it was an external intervention. I would be grateful for clarification on whether such instances are covered by the Bill or other legislation. If not, what further measures might be needed in the future?
My second concern relates to where the onus of liability lies when a car is partly autonomous. As I said, we already have such technology, which includes adaptive cruise control and self-parking. Existing legislation is clear that the onus of liability lies solely with the driver, but I can foresee a time when technology will develop to the point when the driver will be able to switch off his or her control of the car, leaving the car in control. Although the Bill covers liability when a car is in its autonomous mode, is there an onus on the driver to switch off the autonomous controls when he or she perceives a danger? If a driver is part of a motorway car train in which all vehicles are autonomously controlled and they spot an external incident that would make the continuation of that train dangerous, will there be an onus on the driver to switch off the autonomous controls? I would be grateful for clarification of whether that is already covered by law, or if it will need to be addressed at a later point.
I appreciate that it is difficult to give specifics at present, because the technology is not in operation, but we will have to think about this. In particular, as other hon. Members have said, we need the insurance market to work speedily in the interests of consumers. We cannot have a situation in which the consumer is the innocent party yet different insurance companies are fighting out where the liability lies. It would be helpful to have some clarification.
My third concern about insurance relates to practicalities and costs for the insurance policy holder in a changing mobility market. At present, most insurance is perfectly simple: the individual is insured either for a specific car, or comprehensively to drive any car. However, we will increasingly be moving towards MAAS—mobility as a service—products, whereby the direct ownership of vehicles will probably decline and people will buy a comprehensive package that covers train fares, buses, hiring a car and summoning an electric pod. The insurance market will become much more complex, and new products will have to be innovated to reflect the fact that one person may, over a relatively short period of time, drive all sorts of vehicles—from a simple city runabout right up to a high-performance sports vehicle, which they may wish to hire for a weekend. My question is: are existing regulatory frameworks for insurance companies sufficiently flexible to allow for the innovation of these products, or do we require further clarification? It is important that we make the regulations as watertight as possible because the market will be huge, and these developments will come sooner than I suspect many of us believe.
Although part 2 of the Bill deals with electric vehicle charging, it is not unrelated to autonomous vehicles, because such vehicles will be electric. The more automated features cars have, the more power they will need to derive from the electric power supply, so it is important that we look at these things in tandem. The Government are right to take a broad-brush approach. Various manufacturers are innovating different types of technology, from wholly electric cars to hydrogen vehicles, and I think that the hybrid market will be particularly important. Over the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to travel in the BMW i3 and the Volkswagen Passat hybrid, which can be run fully on electric power but contain petrol engines to extend their range, for recharging, and to provide an alternative to the electric drive when the charge runs out.
I would not like the Government to have to make a call about which technology will become most prevalent, in the manner—if I may show my age here—of VHS and Betamax. We have not yet reached the tipping point of consumer behaviour that will indicate which technology will do so. People still have what is called “range anxiety”— they are fearful of switching to a wholly electric car because they might get caught out mid-way through their journey. Although they feel that such a car is appropriate for urban driving, they do not want to take it on a longer journey in case no charging point is available. I think that the tipping point will come when improvements in battery technology bring the range of electric cars up to a level comparable with that of petrol or diesel cars, and/or when charging an electric car becomes as easy and convenient as going to a filling station for petrol or diesel.
I do not have any concerns about the provisions in this part of the Bill. The one concern I have—it has been referenced by other Members—is outwith the scope of the Department for Transport, namely the demand that electric charging will place on the grid, especially if we do not find a way of smoothing out that demand. If everyone comes home at 6 o’clock and plugs their car in, causing a huge spike in demand, will we have the capacity in the grid and the generating capacity to meet that? That is relevant not just in this country but right across the developed world. I wish to see a cross-departmental approach. The Government are finally taking some initiatives in developing nuclear power, which I think will provide the necessary resilience in the grid. I urge them to look at nuclear fusion to provide a plentiful supply of electricity in the years ahead. That is a matter for another Department, but it is important that the Government operate in a joined-up way on these matters.
Let me conclude by congratulating the Government again on their foresight in bringing forward the Bill. It is important that the United Kingdom is a world leader in the technology and the regulatory framework for these new products. As I have mentioned, the market is huge. We want Britain to have a good share of that market, and the Bill will certainly help us along the way towards doing so.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who is a fellow member of the Transport Committee. He was educated at a good school in my constituency—for those who may be wondering, it was Hutchesons’ Grammar School—and his remarks show that that obviously paid off.
I want to recommend a book by a man called Alec Ross, who was the innovation and technology adviser to President Obama during this election campaign. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) has obviously read it. Alec Ross was also the innovation and technology adviser to Hillary Clinton when she was at the State Department. The book is called “The Industries of the Future”, a large chunk of which is dedicated to the issue of driverless cars. It also looks at other issues, and it provides some context for what we are discussing today.
The book looks at how the rise in the use of robotics helps not just in the vehicle industry, but in the provision of services. For example, a remarkable part of the book talks about how robotics are used to deliver some social care services in Japan. Hon. Members, if they take the time to read it, will find that absolutely remarkable. It looks at the use of robotics in the classroom, and at how young children who cannot get to a classroom can take a full part in the education system.
The book looks at the rise in the use of genetic code, the codification of money and markets, and the weaponisation of code—I am sure that that is very much on the Minister’s mind as a former Minister with responsibility for cyber-security—but it also looks at the use of big data, which was briefly touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). Just as land was the material of the agricultural age and iron was the material of the industrial age, so data must surely be the material of the new information age that we find ourselves in.
As has been mentioned, this country is driving the innovation in driverless cars, but let us be entirely honest with ourselves: we are slightly behind. I accept that the Bill goes some way to bringing us up to speed and, indeed, getting us into a position from which we can lead, but self-driving taxis have already been used in Singapore, Pennsylvania and Pittsburgh. It has been said that the technology has become mature over time, and that we can get to the position in which driverless cars are a thing of the mass market. I hope we do get there, because the last thing anybody wants is for such cars to become a plaything of the rich. The technology must be something that really drives big changes in all areas of our society.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very fine speech on the nature of innovation. Is he going to touch on the very radical change that the driverless technology that he is talking about could make to our entire economy? For example, if one thinks that the average car is in use only about 10% of the time—often even less—driverless technology could allow that figure to rise to 90%. However, that would of course mean fewer cars, fewer auto workers and less need for road space, which would be a huge transformation for our economy.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I will come on to mention some of those things.
I am keen to hear more from the Minister about testing, and not just about where it will take place. As we have heard, there has not been any testing in Scotland yet. May I make a punt for my own fair city of Glasgow? Given that it was designed on the grid system, it would actually be ideal for testing driverless cars. I also want to hear more about the conditions in which the cars will be tested, because very few driverless cars have been tested in snow. In that respect, anyone coming to pretty much anywhere in Scotland at any time of the year will find some snow somewhere.
These are important issues, and although companies are developing driverless cars that can recognise the difference between a pedestrian and a cyclist or between a lamp post and another vehicle in front of them, it is quite clear that there is still some way to go. In that endeavour, the Government have my support.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman touches on such an important area that I know he will be aching to speak about: the ethics of the decision-making process. If a driverless car in his fair city of Glasgow has to make the awful decision of whether to hit a lady with a pram or to hit two nuns, which should it hit? That is a terrible and very difficult ethical choice to make, but I am sure he will guide us.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I am not going to suggest it hits either, but the hon. Gentleman hits on an important point. Alec Ross travelled to 41 countries during his time at the State Department. He found that the suspicion of robotic technology is actually greater in developed western economies than it is in the east. In reality, I suspect that driverless cars will be the first major robotic that people learn to trust. If we are going to trust them, they will have to be tested so they do not hit the lady with the pram or the two nuns.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is making an extremely thoughtful speech. The socialisation of the inanimate depends on understanding the interface between the robotic technology he describes and human beings, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said. Understanding the impact it will have and the benefit it might bring allows the acceptance of the inanimate and socialises it accordingly.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The Minister is absolutely right.
In his first intervention, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling asked about the change this will bring to our economy. The big technological change that stands before us will perhaps bring us some unintended consequences. For example, if driverless cars become a thing of the mass market, what of the future of car parks? Local authority car parks are worth over £1 billion to the economy according to the British Parking Association, and that does not take into account private sector car parks. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you can get your car to take you to the airport and programme it to pick you up after your two weeks in Salou—though I am sure you would not be away for that long—or wherever you have chosen to spend your time, why on earth would you pay the fees, which are in some cases exorbitant, for your car to sit in the car park for a fortnight? It also raises questions about what it will mean for the workforce who drive taxis, buses or HGVs, who, it has to be said, in most cases do not have the education or qualifications to go into other skilled parts of the economy.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman is making such a fine speech that I feel I am only adding the smallest of cherries on the top of his extremely fine cake. In any moment of transition there is always a danger that some people will be left out of the moment of transformation. However, I am sure he shares my confidence that should a moment of transition happen—I look forward to it happening—there will be an opportunity for people in one form of employment to be employed in other areas, for example the caring sector. He mentions a car sitting idly in a car park for 14 days; it could instead ferry people to and from medical appointments or liberate the infirm. This is an amazing opportunity.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I welcome all the cherries the hon. Gentleman has been throwing at me from the other side of the House. He is absolutely right. In considering the workforce and the change we will be presented with—this is perhaps less for the Minister’s Department and more for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or the Department for Education—how will our education system deal with it? How do we need to restructure vocational education? As some people will win, some people will inevitably lose. I hope that Ministers, including the Minister here tonight, are heavily engaged in these discussions; otherwise, we risk protests like those we saw in Seattle in 1999 with regard to the free trade agreement. If this big technological change—I cannot wait to see it happen on the scale that will inevitably occur—is to mean anything, it must mean that it does not leave out those who hang around the bottom end of society, constantly looking to this Government and indeed to all Members of Parliament to make sure that the future belongs to them as well.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak on the Second Reading of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill and to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald). As the Minister said, the hon. Gentleman gave a very thoughtful speech about the way forward, which saw a great number of interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat).
Before dealing with clauses 8 to 15 on the electric vehicle charging points, I want to raise some more general issues. It is good to see the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), in his place, and I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) who commented on what a wonderful team of Ministers we have. When this particular Minister came before the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he dealt with issues of air quality. Although the Bill will not in itself solve all the problems relating to air quality, many parts of it could help. What we need to do is to target these electric vehicles very much in our inner cities and our hotspots where there are high levels of NOx emissions.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
On the particular point about air quality, I understand the need for it to be improved in cities, but does my hon. Friend believe that with electric vehicles, which will need the electricity to be produced somewhere, we might end up moving the problem of the pollution of energy production to the rural parts of our country?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point, to which I have given much thought. I think that in the real world we have to accept that the highest levels of pollution that prove to be most detrimental to people’s health are mainly in inner-city areas. The electricity will have to be produced somewhere, and unless it is going to be done entirely through green technology—we will move towards that in the longer term—it will cause some pollution. We have to accept that to reduce inner-city NOx levels, there might need to be a little bit of pollution across the country. We cannot allow individuals to suffer from the high levels of nitrogen oxide that are currently in the inner cities. I have to accept that there will be some pollution somewhere else; otherwise, we will not be able to reduce the levels of pollution in our inner cities.
This is why charging points for electric vehicles are so important. It is not just this Bill that is relevant, because there may be something in the Chancellor’s speech later this week. If we are to have any sort of scrappage scheme through which people could convert to electric vehicles, we need to try to target it towards our inner cities in particular, because the need to reduce pollution is at its greatest there. We can use hybrid vehicles and other types to bring us to the cities; when we are in the inner city, we will need not only electric cars but electric taxis, and we shall need to convert many of our lorries perhaps to liquid petroleum gas or something that will reduce the current levels of NOx.
Unless we do something really serious to deal with pollution in the inner city, the Government are going to be in the dock and DEFRA will sit in the dock. It is possible to reduce a little of the nitric oxide that comes from farming, but it is not so easy to cure the problem in the inner city. That has to be done mainly through transport measures and perhaps by local government.
I had better move on to the Bill’s clauses, Mr Deputy Speaker; otherwise, you will get agitated with me for going beyond what the Bill contains. I shall speak mainly to clauses 8 to 15, which deal with electric vehicle charging. I shall outline the benefits of electric vehicles in the specific clauses in order to incentivise their use. Electric vehicles are on the verge of a massive expansion in the UK, and the potential benefits are enormous, as many Members have said this evening. However, the figure for new registrations in this country is less than 2%. The figure in Norway is some 25%, so we have a little way to go, although I am sure that, in the safe hands of the Minister, it will happen overnight.
Electric vehicles mean better air quality. Toxic gases from combustion engines are linked to more than 40,000 deaths in the UK, and road transport is responsible for about 80% of nitric oxide in our inner-city hotspots. A move away from combustion engines and towards electric vehicles would cut levels of nitric oxide in the air, and would reduce the number of early deaths. British motorists currently face some of the highest fuel prices in Europe, but an electric vehicle that achieves 3 miles per kWh can cost about 4p per mile. Ultimately, that really will encourage people to buy electric cars. The AA has estimated that they are about five times cheaper to run than the average petrol car. The Chancellor may miss a little bit of fuel tax, but I think that, in terms of air quality, this is a step in the right direction. Transport produces higher carbon emissions than any other UK sector, including power generation. Moving vehicles from carbon to electric will help the UK to slash its carbon emissions further, especially as renewable energy is rapidly rising in the UK.
How can we boost electric vehicles? Although the market has grown rapidly in recent years, ultra-low emission vehicles still account for only 1.2% of new car registrations in Britain. The Government’s own research shows that one in five Britons has considered buying an electric vehicle, but the biggest barrier to uptake is the lack of availability of charging points and the lack of knowledge of where to find them. I am glad that the Bill seeks to deal with those problems.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend about the lack of availability of charging points, but may I also ask him to join me in urging the Minister to start this project at home, on the parliamentary estate? We have only two charging points, which means that those of us who have plug-in electric cars often have to compete for a space, or cannot find one.
Neil Parish
That is a very good point. We should lead by example in the House, and if more of us have electric cars, we shall need more electric charging points. I look forward to hearing the Minister respond to my hon. Friend’s point—
Mr Hayes
I think that is an excellent point, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I know you will think so too. We will get on to it straight away. I will ask my officials—indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am asking them now, through you—to bring me some reports, as a matter of urgency, on how we can do something about the matter.
Neil Parish
I am sure that it will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have every faith in the Minister. Speaking as his former Parliamentary Private Secretary, I am absolutely certain that he can achieve this—probably through his PPS. No, I must not say that; I was only being facetious.
Charging points are necessary, but we must also ensure that fast charging points are available. We do not want to leave our cars charging for a long time; they need to be charged reasonably quickly.
Clause 9 gives the Government power to require operators to provide an appropriate uniform method of accessing public charging points. People need to know that their vehicles fit the chargers. I hope that the Government will take that opportunity. There are currently myriad charging structures, memberships and prices. Clear and uniform charging structures, so that the public can plan their bills and do not feel ripped off, will boost electric vehicle take-up. Clause 10 makes it a requirement for large fuel retailers to install electric charging points. That is a common-sense change, which we have been calling for since last year. We will never boost electric car numbers to diesel or petrol levels until we have parity in refuelling infrastructure. Are there enough incentives for large garages to provide charging points when they like to sell us petrol or diesel?
Clause 11 is particularly important. It requires public information on the availability of public charging points. We need a public awareness campaign on exactly where the electric charging points are. The public need to have confidence that if they buy an electric car, they will have charging points in the vicinity. This is absolutely fundamental.
Clause 12 sets the minimum standards for charging points, including the ability to transmit data to the user, energy efficiency requirements, and the ability for data to be accessed remotely. It is a good start, but I would like the clause to go further: I would like to see minimum charging speeds as a requirement for new charging points. We need more rapid DC charging points that can charge a car to 80% capacity in 30 minutes. I am sure that the Minister is more than capable of that. This will help EVs to properly compete with petrol and diesel vehicles. I hope the Minister will consider this change, because until we can charge our EVs quickly, we will not be able to cover the distances, and that is partly what stops people getting electric vehicles. I also say to the Minister that ULEVs currently make up only 6.3% of the Government car service fleet, so the Government must get their own house in order.
The Government have the laudable aim that every new car in the UK should be an ULEV in the next 25 years. The Business Secretary says that he wants Britain to be the world leader in EVs; this is a big step in the right direction. We should be bold with our electric charging infrastructure and give the public the confidence to buy an electric car. The tangible benefits are within our grasp, and I look forward to backing this Bill in the Aye Lobby this evening.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Just last week, I was complimenting the Government on introducing an amendment for talking buses in the Bus Services Bill, and now this week I find myself in agreement with another Bill, so I am greatly looking forward to Wednesday’s Budget, when normal service will be resumed.
In this Bill, the measures on autonomous vehicle insurance are certainly a welcome look ahead; they are just a small step on the way to the future outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), but they are a welcome step nevertheless. However, we also need to start planning the necessary mobile infrastructure to allow these vehicles to be fully rolled out in the future.
Scotland must not be left behind on AVs, and, as we have heard from my hon. Friends, we must ensure that Scotland is involved in future trials of these vehicles. I am thinking here in particular of our country and rural roads. Scotland is still unique in that in many areas there are single-track roads with passing places, and it is not unusual for people to become involved in a Mexican stand-off where two vehicles come head to head and the question is which will reverse first. I would like to see how AVs tackle that dilemma; that is not quite the dilemma of the nuns or the mother and the baby in the pram, but it still needs to be overcome.
Alan Brown
The hon. Gentleman does not want to know how they settle that in Glasgow.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) about our wish for a hub for the development of AVs in Scotland. That covers AVs from our perspective, but I particularly want to focus on ULEVs. Part 2 is okay as far as it goes. Greater clarity and consistency is undoubtedly required in information on charging points, and it is welcome that the Government are going to clear that up. That will lead to improved customer and consumer confidence, because many people are clearly still reticent about buying EVs, as they are concerned about how far they can actually travel journey-wise. Clearer information on charging points and the type of charging points will clear that up.
The key questions for the Minister, however, are whether the Bill goes far enough with respect to charging points and the roll-out of infrastructure and whether there is enough strategic thinking on this matter across Departments. The reason I pose those questions is that the Scottish Government and the UK Government share the target of all vehicles being ultra-low emission vehicles by 2050. That target exists because of air quality issues and greenhouse gas emissions. At present, transport contributes 23% of carbon dioxide emissions—it is the joint largest contributor along with power generation —so the decarbonisation of transport is absolutely vital. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) pointed out that there are 44,000 deaths a year as a result of poor air quality. That underlines the need for action in this area.
Recently, the United Nations special rapporteur on hazardous substances and waste stated:
“Air pollution plagues the UK”,
and particularly affects children. He also said that there was an
“urgent need for political will by the UK government to make timely, measurable and meaningful interventions”.
I should point out that, in November 2016, the Government lost a court case relating to their proposals to tackle air pollution for the second time in 18 months. There is no doubt that more needs to be done to improve the roll-out of ultra-low emission vehicles. In January last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), suggested that the sale of ULEVs had reached a tipping point, and a Department for Transport press release last September trumpeted the fact that there had been a 49% increase in registrations of such vehicles compared with the previous year. The reality is that the registration of ULEVs represents only 1.2% of vehicles, and a 50% increase on 0.8% of sales is not really a tipping point. We have a long way to go.
This Government have to do more. They should copy some of the initiatives that the Scottish Government have undertaken, including the low carbon transport fund, which offers interest-free loans of up to £35,000 for new hybrid and electric vehicles, with a repayment period of up to six years. Businesses can access loans of up to £100,000. However, even that is not enough. At the moment, we have the paradox of low oil prices keeping fuel costs down, making a switch to electric vehicles even less attractive in the short term.
I have touched on air quality. The bottom line is that need to get diesel vehicles off the road. The UK Government must be bold in that regard. I also suggest that those who have already bought diesel vehicles in good faith should not be penalised. I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned that they will be penalised for having bought such vehicles, even though they did so in good faith. Do the Government have any plans to help those people and to truly disincentivise the purchase of diesel cars, rather than simply leaving that to local initiatives? A wee, independent, oil-rich country called Norway has managed to achieve a market share of 18% for electric vehicles. What lessons are the Government learning from Norway?
As I have said, the switch to ULEVs is moving at a snail’s pace. However, while we can get fixated on the roll-out of electric cars, the biggest polluters are large diesel vehicles. We have started to see real progress with buses, and the Scottish Government are leading the way with the hydrogen fleet in Aberdeen. We are also seeing buses switching to biofuels, which is welcome. But the elephant in the room is heavy goods vehicles, particularly transport refrigeration units. Approximately 50% of TRUs, which keep goods cold in transit, are powered by a secondary diesel engine. These small engines emit 29 times more particulates and oxides of nitrogen than the vehicle’s main diesel engine. The main engines are governed by European standards, but those separate refrigeration units are not regulated at all. There is a huge disparity there.
Also, those secondary units can use red diesel, so the Government are providing a subsidy that is enabling the units to pollute the atmosphere and cause the kind of air quality issues on which the Government have already lost court cases. The Government need to rethink how they handle the regulation of secondary units. To be fair, they have invested in research and development to fund the development of zero-emission refrigeration units, so it makes sense for them to provide more funding to allow haulage company owners to upgrade their units, which would improve air quality and, in the long run, provide health benefits and reduce costs for the health service. Providing funding would lead to a virtuous circle.
I touched on research and development and, going back to strategic thinking, the Government need to provide better joined-up thinking on R and D for low-emission transport and renewable energy. We should bear in mind that this Government have wrecked the renewables sector with a 95% reduction in investment by 2020, with one in six jobs in the sector being under threat. The Government have also withdrawn funding for carbon capture and storage. If we truly are to meet our green energy targets by 2050, the Government need to rethink their policies as a whole. I welcome the Bill, but the Government need to consider things across the board rather than in isolation.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I rise to support the Bill with a mixture of joy and apprehension. I feel joy because I see foresee the great things that it will bring to people’s lives. If those who would otherwise not be able to drive find themselves with the liberty of independent travel, that will be a very good thing indeed. I think particularly of people who may be disabled or blind. Also, given the commute I had this morning—I happened to drive in—I think how much it would have been improved if I had not had to drive along the A40. I do view the development of automated vehicles with a degree of joy, but my apprehension, as I indicated earlier, is that I do not want conventional driving to be banned. Some of us enjoy driving or riding a motorcycle as a thing of pleasure and take some joy from the skill of driving for ourselves.
Although a ban may seem a preposterous, ludicrous suggestion, I raise it because an enthusiast for the policy and for driverless vehicle technology took some pleasure in telling me that motorcycling would have to be banned one day because motorcycles cannot, or ought not, to be made autonomous because they would be dangerous alongside self-driving cars. I therefore view such developments with a degree of apprehension.
Tom Tugendhat
Coming all the way from Wycombe, my hon. Friend will know that not only is there the possibility of having driverless vehicles, and therefore autonomous vehicles, but horses could have been abandoned and yet have not been. Despite the fact that technology has moved on, horses have never been more popular than they are today. I hope that my hon. Friend is not assuming that we have to abandon all legacy technologies just because technology moves on.
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend is right. We still enjoy our bicycles and all the rest of it. Should the dread day come that driving is banned, I do not doubt that things would continue on the racetrack, but my point is that an enthusiast for these new technologies—a member of a Conservative party policy group—put it to me with some joy that motorcycles would have to be banned because he considers them dangerous and incompatible with self-driving cars.
Karl MᶜCartney
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow enthusiast for giving way. As someone who has never ridden a horse, a donkey, or even a pony, I can say that some of us already view horses as autonomous vehicles.
Mr Baker
Not only are they autonomous, but I would argue that they are even more dangerous for that very reason. However, that is by the bye and perhaps a diversion from the Bill.
As I said, I am a self-declared petrol head, but we have nothing to fear from electric vehicles. If anyone wants to check my YouTube channel, they will find a review of the Agility Saietta R electric motorcycle—a vehicle with excellent torque—and that brings me on to the idea of charging. It is not a market failure that there is diversity in the marketplace. Competition is not a failure but the way by which we make progress, so I encourage the Government not to stamp out competition and experimentation as we make progress with this new technology and in this new market.
Kit Malthouse
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should also encourage competing technologies? One issue with electric vehicles is the method of power storage and, historically, the Government and this House have put a huge amount of effort, resources and subsidy into the battery, and little comparative resource into hydrogen, as a store of power. The fuel cell is the technology of the future, and the battery is possibly a temporary technology like the fax machine. The Government should be allowing such competition, too.
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes a good point. As an idea, the fuel cell’s time is still to come. He makes a wise intervention.
On the substance of the Bill, I exercise my pedantry as an Oxford-educated software engineer—not something I have been able to do recently—by saying that in clause 4, on accidents resulting from unauthorised alterations or failure to update software, subsection (1)(a) addresses
“alterations to the vehicle’s operating system”.
If there is one group of people more pedantic than software engineers, it is lawyers and courts. Should an accident arise because of a failure to update software, that definition would be tested in court.
Underneath the operating system is firmware in non-volatile memory within hardware. The operating system is loaded on to volatile memory, and on top of that is application software. A self-driven or autonomous car will probably run on that application software. If it were to be tested in court, I fear we might find problems if the Bill, as enacted, talks about a vehicle’s operating system.
I encourage the Government to consult specialists in the industry, rather than only taking the advice of an out-of-date software engineer, but it is important that the Bill uses the right terminology to ensure that the right software is updated and that, therefore, the law meets its intended purpose of ensuring that people are insured and that liability falls where it should when there has been a failure to update software.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is perhaps trying to get at the lack of detail in the Bill about the regulation of that software. Given what he has just said, such regulation would surely be enormously important.
Mr Baker
That is interesting, and I love the way the hon. Gentleman has framed that for me. The point I was trying to get to is the one I made, which is that the language of clause 4 must be tight enough to ensure that, should it be tested in court, we do not find that the law fails as a result of describing software as the “operating system”, which is the wrong term. I dread the day that this House starts regulating how software is written. Much as I respect my colleagues in this House, the last thing I would want to see in legislation, having been a professional software engineer, is detail of how to write software, particularly safety-critical software. I will be grateful for having done my MSc in computer science when the House is able to have a detailed discussion of Object-Z, but that day is far off. We should not be legislating for how safety-critical systems should be engineered.
I have two other points on the Bill. I am glad we are now legislating for offences relating to the use of lasers. I was an engineer, rather than a pilot, but I can see the issue. The Government are wise. If anything, I would ask whether the penalty is harsh enough given that we could be talking about airliners with large numbers of passengers.
My final point is about drones. Having looked at the legislation on remotely piloted vehicles, I think there is a danger of constraining things not just too tightly but quite wrongly. If we were to regulate drones such as the DJI Phantom, which are hobbyists’ toys for taking video footage, as if they were aircraft, we could end up ruling out perfectly legitimate uses—for example, the man who uses a drone to inspect tiles on rooftops so that he can reduce householders’ bills because, by doing so, he can avoid the expense of putting up the scaffolding that he is now legally required to use before going up on a roof. By investing in a drone and flying it near someone’s home, this person saves the householder a fortune, without endangering them. Were we to regulate these things as aircraft, he would not be able to do that.
Mr Baker
I am grateful for the addition to my workload.
I wish to make a final point about diesel, which has been mentioned. I drive a diesel vehicle, and I am conscious that there is a good argument to say that so many of us are in diesel cars because Governments encouraged us to drive them, in the interests of reducing CO2. Let us not compound one bad incentive with other poor incentives. Let us just be a little more humble about what we encourage people to do in large numbers and leave room for experimentation and for markets to work, provided always that people carry the costs of their own decisions.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
This modest Bill is clearly uncontentious. It seeks to adjust legislation to new technology, but from the red flag Acts onwards the House of Commons has not been great on anticipating either the potential or pitfalls of technological advance. Victorian Members used to fulminate against the railways, on the grounds that they led to revolution and moral torpor. In truth, it would have been hard for those Members to have anticipated the astounding success of the internal combustion engine, and the huge behavioural, commercial and social change that flowed from it.
Cars are potential killing machines driven by millions of people, of a variety of dispositions and intelligences. The fact that the car does not simply create havoc is due to intelligent legislation which has evolved over time. As I am sure the Minister would agree, it is always better to have legislation in place before we get to the problems, rather than after. I apologise if at this point I sound like a petrol head—the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has confessed to being one and I must, too—but I am sure that we have not quite sized up all the problems relating to these new cars and new technologies. Indeed, we probably cannot do so. I recognise that autonomous cars and electric cars exist as developed technologies and will only improve, and that we already have satisfactory transport in the sky and on the rails which is almost autonomous. We also know, and we all agree, that human error is the principal cause of accidents. However, successfully trialling a few vehicles on an open road in California or in dedicated areas in the UK does not enable us to figure out, in any easy way, the consequences of their mass adoption, especially within a heavily congested network with a mixed ecology of driven and autonomous vehicles. Sure, we need to get insurance for those that exist and charging capacity for electrics, but what will mass roll-out look like? What desirable and undesirable behavioural changes will result?
I am sceptical about the mass adoption of electric vehicles, which may be a strange thing for a Liberal Democrat to say, as the party has always been massively enthusiastic on this score. However, there are big implications for the grid; for greenhouse emissions, as this depends on how we actually generate the electricity and how clean that is; for the streetscape and for planning authorities; for the world’s resources, given all these batteries which, to some extent, use rare elements; and for the second-hand market, which is not doing so well in electric vehicles, and on which I heavily depend.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Gentleman is making a fine speech, from a luddite perspective. I appreciate that he was instrumental in passing the red flag Acts through this House in the early 1900s, but surely he can see the liberation of resources and of planning-scape, the reduction of the impact of the vehicle and the liberation of the citizen that all that can bring.
John Pugh
Not necessarily, but I did listen to the hon. Gentleman talking about the Deputy Speaker’s voyage to the airport and saying that he would not need to leave his car in the car park. The hon. Gentleman was looking on the positive side, but we can also look at the negative side: the Deputy Speaker’s car has had to travel back to parts of Lancashire and then come out to get him again, so he has filled up the road more. We can spin these things either way.
Tom Tugendhat
I am terribly grateful that the hon. Gentleman is giving me the opportunity to reply, but he is assuming a level of ownership of today’s vehicle that is simply not relevant. If one looks at a vehicle as a means of transportation and sees it more in the form of a train, one sees that Mr Deputy Speaker uses a vehicle to get him to the airport and then gets out and gets on his plane, and somebody else gets in the vehicle and goes all the way back to Lancashire. Lucky Lancashire, to have spared the use of two cars.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
The good thing is that I do not have a plane, either.
John Pugh
We invented the train some time ago; there are trains available, even in Lancashire. My fundamental point is that electric vehicles are probably a less flexible technology than either the internal combustion engine or the hydrogen fuel cell, and the technology is wholly inapplicable in the case of heavy goods vehicles, in which they surely do not have much of a place. Even if I am wrong about that, there are some legislative problems if we anticipate a silent city of electric vehicles moving about at pace and the hazards that that may present for pedestrian safety.
What would prevent drivers of ordinary cars from bullying autonomous vehicles in the knowledge that they must give way? They might cut out at junctions, as I believe they already intend to do. What responsibility does a driver or owner have when he initiates a journey? He may be tempted to plan a journey much longer or more hazardous—for example, at night—than he previously might have done, or more frequently than if he had to drive himself. Would he have to nominate a co-pilot, and what would be the safety protocols there? Can the roads cope with possible additional vehicle use? People have anticipated elderly people who had given up using their cars returning to them, and the use of cars by disabled people becoming far more common.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I fear the hon. Gentleman sounds as though he would have argued, when the lightbulb was invented, that candle makers would be put out of business. I hear a lot of negatives, some of which I accept are entirely valid concerns, but can he enlighten us as to the Liberal Democrats’ vision for this new, innovative technology, on which we cannot be left behind?
Alan Brown
Did the hon. Gentleman not make the case for autonomous vehicles when he talked about people potentially making long-distance journeys when they are tired? The whole problem with drivers at the moment is that they fall asleep at the wheel and lose concentration. Autonomous vehicles must be an improvement on that.
John Pugh
We are just looking at different sides of the same problems. It is quite obvious that people will not get tired in autonomous vehicles in the same way, but they will then perhaps make longer journeys than they otherwise might have. Both points remain valid.
If people are going to go along the motorways in convoy and at the right speed all the time, have we not considered the thought that everybody could get into the same vehicle? Have we not, through a back door, invented the bus all over again?
There are imponderables from a manufacturers’ side. It is easy enough to insist on technology that does not let people drive if it is unsafe, but once they are on the road, vehicle failure midstream is always a possibility, even if the software is up to date. There might be unexpected damage to sensors or equipment because of conditions such as bad weather or through accidental damage. In responding to a change of circumstance mid-journey, at what point is it the driver’s responsibility? If road signals fail, road markings are obscured or traffic is unexpectedly redirected in a haphazard fashion, at what point does the manufacturer, the council or the passenger take the blame should an accident occur?
We can leave out all the hypothetical moral dilemmas involving nuns or how a vehicle would distinguish between a black bin bag waving and a child frozen in terror when collision is inevitable. Machines would make different calculations, and I am sure there would be solutions. I suspect that with the development of artificial intelligence, machines will better reflect our moral preferences and become smarter. The other day, I was torturing myself by thinking about what would happen if two autonomous vehicles met on a single road, on which one could not pass the other, and one had to give way but both systems predicted that the other would. One would have a sort of parallel to the Balaam’s ass dilemma.
The Bill is a modest attempt to tackle the issues I have outlined. The pious hope behind it is that the tricky issues will eventually be ironed out in court. But courts can operate only within the law they have, and my expectation is that technology will move faster than the law and we will be back here soon.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I am generally supportive of the aims of this Bill, not least as the mother of an 18-year-old son who has just passed his driving test, as insuring him is almost impossible. The cheapest quote we have had so far is £1,700. Autonomous vehicles will offer young people and those who have given up driving—the elderly and the disabled—an opportunity to get into vehicles.
I am excited by the technology surrounding autonomous vehicles because much of it is powered by the photonics industry. It is really quite fortuitous that, only a few months ago, we set up the all-party group on photonics. I am delighted to be standing here as the chair of that group. It is almost as if the timing of this Bill has been set especially for us. Driverless cars are operated by light detection and ranging—LIDAR—technology, which allows for smooth traffic flow and reduced fuel consumption. Ultimately, the technology leads to safer transport.
The UK is perfectly placed to develop this technology. We have a world-leading photonics industry. In particular, I wish to highlight the photonics companies across the central belt of Scotland. I also want to mention a group at Oxford University that is developing a low-cost autonomous navigation system. A robot car will navigate using lasers and cameras linked to a computer. A horizontal laser on the number plate detects obstacles and halts the car to avoid a collision, while a vertical laser casts a curtain of light on the surroundings to make a 3D model of the environment. When the car takes the same route the second time, it recognises where it is and can drive accordingly.
A road train, which is a convoy of closely packed vehicles, might be one of the first applications of driverless cars. It is likely that it will appear first on motorways. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) raised concerns about his ability to continue to use his motorcycle, but I am sure there will be plenty of roads available that can be used by vehicles operating in a less autonomous fashion. There is certainly a real potential to get traffic moving on our motorways.
We have talked about the possibility of trials and pilots, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) mentioned the grid system in Glasgow. I will add to that by saying that Glasgow is a perfect urban setting in which to hold a trial.
In Scotland, we have some difficult issues to overcome. We have heard about single-track roads, and while I will not talk about nuns and prams, there are often obstacles such as cattle grids and sheep that these cars will have to take into account. The bigger problem for rural Scotland, and for rural areas across the UK, is how these cars will communicate. Driverless cars have to communicate with their surroundings. If, as is the case in some areas, there is not a 3G network available, how will these cars be able to proceed?
Drew Hendry
I raised the subject of mobile connectivity earlier. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that the UK Government take an outside-in approach with new licensing for the mobile spectrum auctions?
Carol Monaghan
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is real concern that a lot of the spectrum that has been licensed before has been licensed for the benefit of companies, not consumers, and this is an ongoing problem for many people not just across Scotland, but in rural UK generally.
One of the challenges that we will face as this technology develops is dealing with our massive skills shortage in engineering and photonics. We currently have a huge number of EU nationals working in those fields, but we are yet to see any guarantees for those workers from the Government. We are talking about unilateral guarantees because those highly skilled workers have job prospects worldwide. We should be rolling out the red carpet for them, rather than for a certain President.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) that women are a massive group who are ignored in STEM careers. Someone once asked me why I keep going on about getting more women into STEM careers and whether it is just about gender equality. Yes, gender equality is important, but we also have massive skills shortages and a huge group of people whom we are not tapping into. We need to start taking advantage of that raw potential.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is being generous in giving way. Is it not an absolute scandal that 50% of the potential workforce we need in that industry are not being encouraged in—girls and young women?
Carol Monaghan
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. One of the big challenges we face as a society is the need to look at the signals we give not just to girls who are considering their career options, but to parents. What are we saying to wider society? An engineer is not just somebody who wears an oily overall; an engineer can also be somebody working in the field of photonics and developing driverless technology. We really need to plug that. We need to see female engineers on programmes such as “EastEnders”, and then we might start to see some progress.
The industrial strategy Green Paper that was published a few weeks ago referred to key enabling technologies. If autonomous vehicles are to progress at a pace that keeps us up to date with the rest of the world, we must ensure that we properly support the photonics and engineering industries and ensure that enabling technologies are given proper priority.
Let me move on to low-emission vehicles. We have heard a few comments today about charging points. What will happen to the national grid when we all arrive home in the evening and plug in our electric vehicles? We already know that the national grid has certain peaks, for example during advert breaks in particular programmes. We can look at smart charging technology that will have different cars charging at different points, but we are still talking about a much higher current being drawn from the national grid, and the source of that energy will be power stations. Are we simply switching from dirty fuel in our cars to dirty fuel in our power stations?
Drew Hendry
Again, I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. Is not it true that the use of renewable energy is the way ahead to ensure that we can cope with those loads? UK Government policy, by stifling renewable energy, is hampering a technology that could solve that very problem.
Carol Monaghan
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has just taken my next point—thanks very much. Once again I will use the phrase “untapped potential”. Renewable energy really is the way ahead. I do not want to get pollution out of our cities only to put it into industrial areas with power stations, whether they are coal, oil, gas or nuclear.
Karl MᶜCartney
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech and touches on a point that I raised during an intervention. She took an intervention about renewable energy from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), but renewables might not be the way forward. It is not just industrial areas that may experience an increase in pollution. Rural areas such as Lincolnshire, or the east midlands as a whole, where lots of power is currently generated, will have to generate even more power to create that electricity. In cities such as Lincoln, companies already have to pay extortionate amounts for electricity between the hours of 4 o’clock in the afternoon and 8 o’clock in the evening because of the peaks, and there is no way that we will ever be able to charge a multitude of electric cars with renewable energy.
Carol Monaghan
I disagree. Has the hon. Gentleman visited Scotland at any point? I struggle to go out in Scotland on a day when it is not windy, so we could be tapping into that potential. There is a huge possibility there. Nuclear is often billed as the clean energy source, but tell that to the workers in India who are mining the uranium ore—it is certainly not clean for them. The Bill needs to cover different forms of low-emission vehicles, such as hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. That technology has been pushed aside to a certain extent, but we need to ensure that there is a possibility to develop it.
In conclusion, I generally support the aims of the Bill and I am excited by the technology. However, we need to ensure that we are enabling that technology to progress, that we look after EU nationals working in science and research, and that we consider how various types of fuel can be dirty.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in this Chamber, whatever the occasion, and we have heard some valuable contributions today. There has been a consensus in support of the Government. While we often support the Government, we also criticise them when things are not done right, but today we have not had the opportunity to be as critical as we might normally be. As the Democratic Unionist party’s spokesperson for transport here, it is always a privilege to speak on any Bill of this sort and to highlight its issues, some of which are pertinent to Northern Ireland. Hon. Members have spoken about Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom.
This wide-ranging Bill covers many issues, with some of its measures simply providing clarity. The Government have done well to bring those forward and we thank them for that. Clause 22, which will ensure that the use of a laser pen that dazzles a pilot becomes a criminal offence, is common sense. It is good to see that that measure and the cap for vehicle testing are in the Bill.
I have a particular interest in insurance for self-driving cars. Hon. Members have given us examples about that— plenty of them. Indeed, one way of shortening the winter was to listen to all those stories—I could almost feel my beard growing—but they were a useful way for hon. Members to raise important points about insurance.
In my youth—I suspect like others in the Chamber—this concept was something for sci-fi stories or Batman films, but we are living in times when technology is taking us forward with great leaps and bounds into the future. This technology is so advanced that it might be possible—and, indeed, probably a lot safer—to put a destination into the system and let the car take us there. If this technology is available, it is clear that we must legislate to ensure that protection is still available for those involved in accidents, which might well still occur. The staff in my office often say to me that technology is great. Well, it is, when it works, but when it comes to controlling a vehicle, protection for other drivers must be in place. I certainly agree with the Government’s approach on that.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who has just left the Chamber, always espouses the enjoyment he gets from riding motorbikes. I get the same pleasure from driving a four-wheeled vehicle. There is an enjoyment in driving. Having a driverless car is not everybody’s cup of tea, but we have to accept that technology moves forward for a reason.
The Bill will enable a driver involved in an accident to claim compensation if the incident took place when the car was driving autonomously. Under the rules, insurers would be able to try to recover their costs from the vehicle manufacturers. I have noted that there are a few exclusions—namely, that drivers involved in an accident while the vehicle’s self-driving system was in control would not be covered if they had made unauthorised changes to its software or failed to install an update.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) referred to the insurance premiums needed for her son to drive a car, and I remember when my boys were growing up. I am a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, which gives exceptionally good premiums for insurance. They were much below the cost on the market, and my three boys were able to take advantage of that. However, the question I want to ask about the legislation the Government have brought forward is, what is the Minister doing to ensure that premiums for driverless cars are monitored and that competition rules ensure that prices are kept down? It is important that we do that.
There are multiple levels of vehicle automation. The proposals state that the Department for Transport will be tasked with determining what is classified as a self-driving car. There is still work to be done on ensuring that those responsible for these cars know exactly where they stand, but the Bill provides a structure, and it is welcome to those who use these vehicles and to other drivers on the road.
Many Members have spoken about electric car-charging points, and I have asked many questions about them in the years I have been in the House. The Government have made money available centrally for the devolved Administrations, including the Northern Ireland Assembly. That money enabled the Assembly to introduce charging points across the whole of Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister could inform us in his response what discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Assembly that those grants will continue.
With those grants, we have been able to ensure that electric charging points could be introduced, incentivising people to drive electric cars. The competition seems to be moving in the right direction, but take-up is low. Again, what are we doing to ensure that it increases?
The other point on electric charging points is where they are located They have to be on the high street and at the shopping centres—they have to be where the cars are. That is important. Again, the Government are going in the right direction, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The other clauses that are of interest to me concern ATOL protection. Clauses 18,19 and 20 in part 3 enhance protections. Again, I welcome those protections, which the Secretary of State referred to in his introduction, so they are clearly a core issue for the Government. It is good to see that and the Secretary of State’s ability to provide regulation through clauses 18, 19 and 20.
There are very many travel websites available, and the difficulty lies in ensuring that holidays are protected should difficulties arise. With the ash cloud in Iceland a few years ago, we saw the importance of protecting a holiday. Indeed, I had staff members at the time who travelled to Belfast City airport in the mornings to speak with the team there to try to get constituents home from Iceland at a time of extreme difficulty. Their money was running out, and they did not have the insurance to cover them.
The ability to repatriate holidaymakers in the event of unforeseen circumstances is vital. The enhancements the Government have brought forward seek to provide for that where people use websites to book their holidays. My office staff always encourage people to ensure that their holidays are ATOL-protected, and the Government do as well.
In conclusion, these enhancements are necessary. The wisdom to bring us in line with the EU, but also to have the freedom to alter things to suit our needs outside the EU, is what is needed. We must provide in Bills in this House for what future technologies will change. I welcome the protection that has been offered, and I hope to see the Bill progress in a timely manner. Well done to all those who have been involved in it and who have made valuable contributions today.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I, too, thank all those hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate: the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), who leads for the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), and the hon. Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—a self-confessed petrol-head—and the hon. Members for Southport (John Pugh), for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). All of them, in different ways, made highly perceptive speeches and posed questions it will be important for the Minister to pick up in winding up the debate. Indeed, many of them also raised issues that we will need to pursue further in Committee.
We have been waiting patiently, for some months, for the Bill to make its way to its Second Reading, although when we talked about it in the past, it was known as the modern transport Bill. Apparently its name had to be changed because the word “modern” is not considered a parliamentary term. Make of that what you will, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I can understand if the original title created difficulties for the Minister of State, given his love of classics and his disagreements with what he described last year as modernist determinism. Whatever the Bill is called, I can confirm that Labour will not oppose its Second Reading. Indeed, we broadly support its aims. May I add my thanks to the Minister of State for the collegiate way in which he has approached it so far? I am sure that that spirit will continue throughout its Committee stage.
I am sure that the parts of the Bill that will attract most attention, in Committee and during its other stages, and as has happened today, are those concerned with automotive issues. Before I come to those, though, I will say a few words about some of the other things that the Bill covers.
The Bill clarifies the basis on which diversionary courses that are used as an alternative to fixed penalty notices can be charged, and in another section and other clauses it proposes greater use of the private sector to carry out a number of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency’s vehicle testing duties. Both of those changes may make sense, but we will want to be assured in Committee that neither of them will have adverse effects. It is timely to remind the Government of what the Transport Committee and so many others have told them, namely that however valuable diversionary courses are, they are in no way a substitute for the proper enforcement of the laws that we have passed in this place to keep our roads safe, and that cuts of up to a third in traffic police numbers are incompatible with that effective enforcement.
The changes that the Bill makes to the licensing relationship between the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS appear to have widespread support from stakeholders. I hope that Ministers will confirm, in response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State at the start of the debate, that they have no plans to pursue any further privatisation of NATS. There will, of course, be questions to address in Committee about the impact that Brexit may have on the safe and efficient management of our skies.
Likewise, the Bill’s provisions relating to the air travel organiser’s licence arise from a European directive and offer the prospect of better protection for holidaymakers. Again, however, in Committee we will want to press Ministers for more detail, both on that directive and on the implications of Brexit.
I am pleased that the Government are taking action to address the problem of lasers being shone at aircraft and other vehicles. We do not, however, understand why Ministers are not using the opportunity presented by the Bill to introduce proposals to ensure safety and better regulation with regard to the use of drones. I know that they are consulting on that issue, but the timetable for that consultation and for the Bill is entirely in their hands. The Bill could be an important opportunity to sort out that matter, but it has not been included, so we put Ministers on notice that we want them to act. We will pursue that in Committee.
I now turn to those parts of the Bill that deal with automotive technology. We are living through a fourth industrial revolution, which is transforming our horizons in automotive technology and automotive travel. Connected information systems are already starting to enable us to make smart choices about how and where journeys are most appropriately taken by car and when other forms of mobility are more appropriate. There is no more powerful example of why we need to be better at making those smart choices than the 40,000 people who die prematurely every year because of the air quality crisis that is choking our towns and cities, and to which emissions from road transport are a major contributor—a theme that has come up several times during this debate. But the choices we make will not simply be about the journeys for which we use cars or the kind of engine that powers the car. We will also be talking about how and when the driver wishes to be in control of the vehicle, and when to switch control to the technology in the vehicle. It is an exciting prospect, which potentially has huge benefits for road safety. It is also a very challenging prospect, not least in relation to liability when something goes wrong. That is why the Bill is right to mandate insurance for a vehicle when it is controlled by its technology rather than by its driver. As we have heard in many contributions today, however, that equation is far from simple and that aspect of the Bill requires scrutiny.
The problem with the Bill is that Ministers seek to future-proof the legislation by giving themselves very wide-ranging powers not only to determine the rules but to define even the vehicles to which the rules will apply. Of course, none of the technology stands still and it will be impossible to cover everything in the Bill, so we accept that many issues will have to be covered by secondary legislation. But that cannot mean that Ministers should be given a blank cheque. We want to know the criteria by which Ministers will make decisions; we want to know whom they will consult and how; and we want to make sure there are regular reviews of progress on the effectiveness of the measures in the Bill and the rate of technological advance in the areas that it seeks to regulate. If the Bill ends up being behind the curve, and if it leads to spiralling insurance costs for automated vehicles, it will be self-defeating.
The Bill is also right to mandate improvements in the charging infrastructure for electric vehicles across the UK. For that infrastructure to be fit for purpose, moreover, it has to be of sufficient scale, the charge points have to work with a range of different vehicle makes and the pricing has to be clear and transparent. I welcome the fact that the Bill tries to address all those things. Once again, however, it concentrates on giving Ministers powers to develop regulations covering the charging infrastructure through secondary legislation. I can see why an element of that is required to future-proof the legislation, but this cannot simply be blank-cheque land. Ministers need to be clear now that they will carry out meaningful consultation as they devise their plans, and that the plans, once introduced, will be open to the scrutiny they deserve.
Motorway infrastructure is not the only issue, but several comments have been made on Second Reading that deserve attention, not least those about the impact on the national grid of the extension of charging point infrastructure envisaged in the Bill. Expanding infrastructure for charging electric vehicles on motorways is a key part of creating the conditions for many more people and companies to switch to ultra-low emission vehicles in future, but it is only part of the picture. Electric vehicles will be an important part of that future but so, too, as we have heard, will hydrogen fuel cell and other technologies. In the journey towards an ultra-low emission future, intermediate technologies such as LPG are also important. Our infrastructure strategy must reflect all those things.
The capital cost of buying an ultra-low emission vehicle and uncertainty about residual values and battery ranges are significant barriers to more rapid expansion of the market in electric and ultra-low emission vehicles. It will be for the industry to deliver solutions to the technological aspects of those issues, and rapid progress is being made, but Government can help to accelerate the pace of change by encouraging more active procurement of ultra-low emission vehicles by public authorities and putting in place the right consumer incentives. It is difficult to know how the cuts that the Government have made to grant support for plug-in vehicles are compatible with the consumer incentives that are needed.
At a broader level, an active industrial policy is vital to make sure that the UK is in pole position in developing and making the connected, automated and ultra-low emission vehicles of the future, and in creating the highly skilled jobs that a modern economy needs, as well as in boosting the market for the vehicles themselves. If ever there was a day when it was appropriate to emphasise that, it is today, when PSA has announced its purchase of Vauxhall/Opel from General Motors. We cannot afford to relax and let someone else do the driving on that.
We also need a laser-like focus on building our skills base, as people in the automotive industry have urged us time and again. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) was right to emphasise the gender dimension to building such a skills base. Let us remember that we are not only talking about the skills in automotive research development and manufacturing, important though those are. If people need a CORGI—Council for Registered Gas Installers—certificate to repair a gas boiler, is it not time we had proper accreditation of qualifications for maintaining and servicing the new generation of sophisticated, connected and automated vehicles?
This is a worthwhile Bill, but the transition to a low-carbon, low-emission and sustainable future is a journey in itself. The Bill is a contribution to that, but the Government need to do much more to make it happen.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
I have just over two hours in which to sum up this debate, and it will not be easy. It is with great pleasure that I close the Second Reading debate on this Bill. It has been an excellent afternoon’s and evening’s debate, without a glimpse of animus, a hint of acrimony or a moment of contumely. In that spirit, I thank very much all who have contributed to the important consideration of this important subject.
The Bill is not politically charged or partisan. We act in the national interest and for the common good. I am grateful to Labour Front Benchers for their kind comments about the spirit in which we have embarked on this process. They can be assured that that will continue during its scrutiny. By the way, as they have said, it is right for the Opposition to hold us to account and that they should critique the Bill. I look forward to such discussions and debates in Committee and beyond, because I know that the Bill will be improved with that kind of considered and measured scrutiny.
As many of those who spoke have said, the Bill is certainly prescient, pertinent and, I might even say, pellucid—pearl-like—in its quality. However, that does not mean that we should not listen and learn from its further consideration. As well as the Government, other parties will help to frame the shape and form of the legislation; it is right that they should because we are preparing, together, for the future. As I have said, this has to be driven by the wellbeing of all our people. We share a commitment—do we not?—to ensuring that the UK remains one of the best places in the world for the research and development of the next generation of transport technology that is fit for those to come.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, these things must be shaped by the influence they have on people’s lives and life chances. It is true, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) described so eloquently, that technological change is rapid, dramatic and—as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said—perhaps even revolutionary. However, it has to be measured against the difference it makes to those who enjoy it, and those who do so must not be limited to the privileged few; it must be for the many. It is also true that the Bill must ensure that the UK benefits from the economic and social opportunities that the next generation of technology will provide. This is not a Bill that tries too hard to do too much, but instead a Bill to pave the way, carefully, to the future.
Winston Churchill once said that the future is unknowable but the past should give us hope. The lesson of the past is that good government must always attend to the future, a future with all its potential and pitfalls, as the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) described it. It is the Government’s ascription of value to the future, as well as to the present, that motivates us in putting this proposed legislation before the House. Putative technology is rapidly changing, but we cannot predict exactly how it will develop.
Let me say what the Bill is not. It is not prescriptive. It directs us to the future, but it does not try to dictate it because we simply cannot. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield said in his summing up, that presents a dilemma for the Government. Should we delay to be certain and risk falling behind, or legislate now with the risk of error? It is true, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) said, that these matters are changing rapidly. By the way, I would be delighted to attend her recently formed all-party group. That sounds as though I have invited myself, but I am sure she will accept my suggestion in the spirit with which it is offered to talk through some of the drama of the rapid changes she described.
In truth, we must do what we can now and leave what we could do for the future. This measured approach characterises the Bill. I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield said, no one in this House, particularly the Opposition, would want to give the Government what he described as a blank cheque. It is right that we consult properly and fully and that we set out as much as we can about how further developments will happen. It is true that the Bill paves the way to the future through a series of powers taken by the Government, but it is right, too, that those powers should be framed in a form that the House will respect, as a means of further scrutiny and shared consideration. I understand that call and will respond to it.
The Bill, as the Secretary of State set out, will do a number of important things. It will make it compulsory for drivers of automated vehicles to have insurance that covers innocent “drivers” who are legitimately disengaged from the driving task, as well as any innocent third parties involved in a collision. The Bill will give the Secretary of State powers to improve the charge point infrastructure for electric vehicles, powers to create technical standards, enable interoperability and ensure consumers have consistent information on pricing, location and availability.
The need to ensure that the charging infrastructure is reasonably and fairly spread lies at the heart of our ambitions. As was said by many contributors to the debate, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), it is right that rural areas across the country should have access to charging points. We do not want them to be focused entirely on urban areas, a point raised by other hon. Members, too. My hon. Friend also made a point about the rapidity of charging vehicles. It is important that we not only accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle infrastructure at key locations, such as motorway service areas, but make charge points modern and flexible and take advantage of technological change, so that people can charge their vehicles more quickly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) said, it is important that we take account of the regulatory environment, both in respect of electric vehicles and automated vehicles, and we will do so. He is right to suggest that that will change as the technology changes, and I understand his call perfectly.
Our management of those providing our air traffic services will be improved through more appropriate control of the licences under which they operate, including enforcement tools and unlocking access to more efficient forms of finance. Holidaymakers will see their protection against the insolvency of travel companies extended to cover a broader range of holidays. Protection will also be aligned with that offered across Europe to allow UK-established companies to sell more easily throughout Europe and across borders.
Commercial vehicle owners will be given access to a greater range of sites to undergo their mandatory tests, and controls will be put in place to ensure fair prices for using those sites.
The shadow Secretary of State raised the issue of employment. We will address that. I appreciate and understand his concern about jobs, so I will come back to that issue when I have concluded these brief introductory remarks and move on to the main part of my summation.
The legislation will make it an offence to shine a laser at an aircraft or any mode of transport, so improving the police’s ability to maintain the safety of our transport network and safeguard wellbeing. This has been widely welcomed across the House, as I think we all recognise the risk posed by these devices getting into the wrong hands and the need to act now to deal with that risk.
The Bill will provide greater transparency and police accountability in the way in which fees are set for courses offered as an alternative prosecution for driving offences.
We have heard so many interesting and thoughtful contributions to this debate. I shall try to respond to some of them now, but I give this, perhaps unusual, commitment, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I hope will be welcome: I shall respond in writing to every point that has been raised. There have numerous points and I would tire Members if I were to go through them religiously and in detail now, but I will commit to respond to each and every one of them, following today’s debate.
Let me therefore in this short peroration—[Interruption.] I hear someone behind me saying “all too short”. [Interruption.] Welcome to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was just saying that in this perhaps all too short summation I shall have time to deal with only some of the contributions, but will deal with them all subsequently in writing.
On the points made about insurance, I appreciate that, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and others, people are keen to make sure that the insurance industry responds in a way that is appropriate and protects the interests of drivers and those who might suffer as a result of accidents. As it is important that we do not over-regulate, we are consulting; we have been in discussion with the industry; but the critical point is that no one must be worse off than they are now in respect of liability and that people’s interests are protected. Frankly, I accept that different insurance models will develop—different products are bound to result from these changes—but I am more than happy to discuss this during the passage of the Bill and outside it. We will have to deliver those objectives through the Government working with the insurance industry to guarantee absolutely the commitment that no one will be worse off and that people will be properly protected.
I think that Members have been right to suggest that it is possible for changes in technology ultimately to drive premiums down. The safety that results from automation might well reduce risk, and if risk is reduced, it is likely that the vehicles will become easier and less expensive to insure. I do not want to give any guarantee, but I think that change is most likely in that direction. Let us take the steps we need to take now, so that we do not constrain or inhibit these developments. Let us do so without dictating the future but simply by pointing towards it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) was understandably concerned about older vehicles. I understand that, as an owner of many of them, he speaks for many others who share his concern. I want to be absolutely clear, although I think that he knows this already, that vintage and classic car drivers have nothing to fear while the Secretary of State and I are in post, because we appreciate their perfectly proper concerns. They have a particular interest, which should be neither ignored nor disregarded. My right hon. Friend can be sure of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South made a good point about the protection in place to prevent hacking cyber-security on automated vehicles. It is clearly vital that security is designed for these systems from the outset. We are actively shaping the agenda to deliver outcomes on those important issues at the relevant international forums, including the European Union and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. We shall be chairing a technical working group with the aim of developing internationally harmonised guidance, standards and regulations.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) raised the issue of consistency and pricing in the context of electric vehicles. I shall be taking action in that regard. It is only fair for drivers to be charged the market rate for the electricity that they use. Electric vehicles will still offer significant savings in running costs, especially given that most charging takes place at private charge points—for instance, at home or at work—but we want to ensure that the market is competitive, the costs are fair, and the consumer’s interests are protected. We plan to introduce new regulations this year, under existing powers, consulting further when necessary, to improve the consistency and comparability of pricing information. Everyone is familiar with the price of petrol being given in pence per litre, and with the clear, simple signage at petrol stations. It should be just as easy to shop around and get the best deal for electric vehicle charging, and we will make sure that it is.
The hon. Member for Southport and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, and other places—[Laughter]—not that those other places are any less important than Inverness or Nairn, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be quick to point out—raised the issue of hydrogen, and how that technology fits into the Bill. I know that I have talked a great deal about charge points and automated vehicles, but the Government must have a technology-neutral perspective. In achieving our goal of zero road transport emissions, we must rule out no emerging technology. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are at an earlier stage of technological development and market roll-out than battery electric vehicles, but, as has already been said, they can offer a useful alternative, particularly in certain settings. We are supporting the early market for those vehicles and the development of an initial refuelling network, and we are excited to see how the market is developing. We also recognise the wider economic and decarbonisation benefits that hydrogen, as a flexible energy source, could provide.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield spoke briefly about NATS. The Bill does not include privatisation measures, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the measures that it does include have been widely welcomed by those who felt that the regime needed to be updated and to become more practicable.
In the context of the air travel organisers’ licence, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey made a good point about how the Bill would help UK businesses to trade in the European economic area. UK-established businesses licensed under ATOL will no longer need to comply with the different insolvency rules in other EEA states, which will make cross-border trade easier. It will give such businesses more opportunities to sell to a wider consumer base, and to grow.
The hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted to ensure that British consumers were safe post-Brexit. Far be it from me to anticipate the negotiations—that would be well above my pay grade, and outside my orbit—but it is important for us to continue to co-operate in these matters, and of course it is right for us to continue to take into account holidaymakers and other consumers throughout Europe. I have no doubt that there will be many opportunities to debate such issues as the Bill progresses, and I do not want to anticipate those exciting opportunities this evening.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough asked whether staff would lose their jobs when we closed Government-owned sites for vehicle testing. The answer is plain: no. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency will still employ the examiners who deliver the vehicle tests at private sector sites. Staff who maintain the facilities do so under a contract with a total facilities management provider, and are responsible for a number of different facility contracts as well as the DVSA contract, so they will be redeployed on those contracts. That will include the maintenance of local driving tests centre under the same contract with the DVSA.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) raised the issue of lasers, so let me be clear again about that. Under the new offence, the police will have the power to search after arrest on suspicion. Creating a laser-specific offence will bring consistency across all modes of transport, give police the powers they need to investigate the offence fully, and carry penalties that reflect the seriousness of that offence.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield raised this point, I emphasise that diversionary courses are not an alternative to proper enforcement. He is right to emphasise that, and I do so too from the Dispatch Box in accordance with his request.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked for a reassurance that we will work with colleagues in Northern Ireland. I can confirm that we will and that we have been in close contact with devolved Assemblies in respect of this Bill. I have both spoken to Northern Irish Ministers and received their communications, which have allowed the further development of the Bill. Indeed, I have spoken to Scottish Ministers too, to ensure that they, the Welsh and the Irish understand what so many contributors to this debate tonight have grasped: this Bill is important, non-partisan, vital for our future, and measured. The Government understand that as the Bill develops it will evolve and change as the technology changes. That is the approach that we are adopting, and I am very grateful for the welcome that that approach has been given.
Jim Shannon
I am very pleased to have the Minister’s reassurance in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and in relation to the Scottish and Welsh as well. The Government have given a certain amount of financial assistance, certainly for electric cars and ensuring there are charging points. Is it possible to confirm for Hansard today in this Chamber what that financial commitment will be to the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Mr Hayes
As many more issues to which I wish to respond have been raised in this debate, I suggest that I add the hon. Gentleman’s request to the list and make sure I satisfy him, as far as I can, in respect of the matter he has raised.
It is a consequence of our knowledge of the past and our assiduous stewardship of the present that we can now prepare for a presently unknowable future. I was challenged by one of my hon. Friends to introduce some poetry to my peroration, and I did not want to let her down. As T. S. Eliot wrote in the “Four Quartets”:
“Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.”
I thank all who have spoken for their contributions, and anticipate further consideration of the Bill without fear of contumely or animus, but rather with confidence and enthusiasm. In particular, I am grateful to the Opposition for their sedulous and thoughtful approach. Change and challenge face us all; Government must meet both with foresight tempered by care, and ambition softened by humility. We cannot be certain of all that will come, but we can certainly ensure that all we do is driven in the national interest and by the common good. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill:
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 23 March 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 those proceedings 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 Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the charging of fees for courses offered as an alternative to prosecution for road traffic offences;
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Carry-over)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Young-onset Parkinson’s Disease
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
During the 2015 general election campaign, I attended a concert in my constituency in aid of Parkinson’s. It was organised by a constituent of mine, Len Burbidge, and I want to pay tribute to the tremendous work that Len does on this issue locally. That night, I signed a pledge to raise awareness of Parkinson’s in this House, should I be elected, and I have sought to do that in parliamentary debates and as a member of the all-party group on Parkinson’s. I pay tribute to the group’s chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for the work that she does, and to the work that is done for the group in the other place by Baroness Gale of Blaenrhondda.
I am delighted to have secured the debate this evening, particularly because it is now 200 years since Dr James Parkinson published his famous 1817 essay “An Essay on the Shaking Palsy”. Some 60 years later, a French doctor, Jean-Martin Charcot, spoke about “la maladie de Parkinson”, from which we have coined the term “Parkinson’s disease” to describe the condition. According to figures from Parkinson’s UK, some 120,000 people are affected by the condition in the UK today. We know about the three principal symptoms—the tremor, the muscle stiffness and the slowness of movement—but unfortunately there is still no cure 200 years later.
When I talk about the number of people affected by the condition, I must point out that the data available on those with Parkinson’s are perhaps not as accurate as we would like. We know that several thousand people of working age have the condition. I want to pay tribute to Gaynor Edwards from the charity Spotlight YOPD for the work that she has done to raise the profile of this issue. She has guesstimated that there are 6,500 people affected who are under the age of 50, but it would be a significant step forward if we could accurately estimate not only the prevalence of Parkinson’s in the population as a whole, but the number of people of working age who have the condition. I would be grateful to the Minister for some assurance that we can look at how the data are collected.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this matter to the House. We have 4,000 sufferers in Northern Ireland, one in 20 of whom was diagnosed with Parkinson’s when they were under the age of 60—in other words, still of working age. He spoke about the importance of finding a cure, but in order to do so, we need a research programme. Does he agree that the Government should be placing more emphasis on early diagnosis and finding a cure?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
I have been provided with a number of emails by the charity Spotlight YOPD, and I have permission to use them in this debate. Interestingly, one of those contributions is from someone with Parkinson’s who is based in Edinburgh. They say:
“My main concern is the lack of clinical trials to participate in, compared to many other conditions, there’s hardly anything at all going on for PD.”
I will talk in a moment about the care that people receive, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that research into a cure is absolutely central to this debate.
I want to talk about a constituent of mine, Hayley Huxley, to whom I have been speaking in recent weeks. She was diagnosed with Parkinson’s at the age of 25. She is now 30 and has two young children. I want to reflect on what she set out in an email to me, because it is indicative of what people go through. She says:
“It all started when I was 24. I went back to work after maternity leave on my first child and noticed I couldn’t use my right hand properly to write. I went to the doctors 3 times and they just put it down to carrying a car seat, pulled muscle, etc. The 4th time I went I got referred to a specialist and went for tests”,
and she was diagnosed at 25.
Hayley speaks movingly of the challenges that she has faced, such as working part time due to fatigue and having to
“fight my way through the PIP assessments”.
In the end, she was able to get the appropriate number of points. She also speaks about access to a neurologist, saying that she has not seen one since she was diagnosed five years ago. Indeed, she has not seen her Parkinson’s nurse since July 2015. She speaks about managing her medication, going through childbirth without taking medication for eight months, the rigidity in her right arm and leg, and the restless leg that she gets.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the Parkinson’s KinetiGraph watch? It is new on the market and was developed by Global Kinetics Corporation. It monitors the medication taken by a Parkinson’s patient and will send a message over the internet to a consultant with information about whether the medication is at the right level and has been taken at the right time, thereby enabling people to stay in work longer and to control their tremors much better.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. The device sounds remarkable and could assist people with the condition.
Hayley spoke about the restless leg she experiences if her medication is not taken at the right time or if she is under stress. The way in which Hayley has dealt with the condition is inspirational. When I saw her yesterday in advance of this debate, she said that while those who fit into what is called the young-onset group have particular needs, there is a collective sense of need for everyone with the condition. The photographer who was with us yesterday, Ron McCann, also has Parkinson’s and is aged 69. Over the course of the weekend, I was contacted on social media by a member of the male voice choir in my hometown of Blaenavon, who spoke about a chorister in his 80s who is battling the condition and has found that singing has assisted him.
While there are issues that unite all with the condition, including access to the drug Duodopa, which was the subject of a recent debate in Parliament, those who are diagnosed at a younger age have specific needs. The first issue is with being diagnosed in the first place, because the condition can go undiagnosed. Those who have contacted Spotlight YOPD talk movingly about what happens at that moment of diagnosis. Keith from Newark says:
“Parkinson’s for younger people (under 50) is a different kettle of fish...It completely changes your life but you don’t know at the time and no one actually tells you.”
Gaynor from Rye says:
“I’ve never felt quite so lonely as when I was diagnosed. Mourning for the future I thought I had—suddenly old before my time with a fear of dependency—and no one there to gather me up; no one to depend on.”
Jordan, 21, an MSc student in Liverpool, says that
“the GP kept saying, ‘He’s too young, he’s too young,’ and said it was a psychological problem.”
Even when the diagnosis is established, there then comes a whole set of new challenges. On top of dealing with the condition, there are all the pressures of family and working life.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am a huge admirer of the hon. Gentleman’s speech and I commend him on bringing this matter before the House. Does he agree that cases such as those that he has outlined can often be helped if there is a local support group? Such groups provide a lot of information and can effectively lobby local health services on matters such as Parkinson’s nurses? Would he recommend the setting up of such groups around the country?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that local support groups are hugely important, which leads me on to the mental health issues that often come with Parkinson’s. Although access to a neurologist is highly important, we must not neglect access to mental health support.
Prescription charges remain a bone of contention in England. Pre-payment certificates are available to reduce costs, but there is still a cost. England could do with following the lead set by the Welsh Government in 2007 by abolishing prescription charges altogether.
There are also issues of engagement with medical services. Again, I can refer to specific cases. Jon, a father of three who was diagnosed at the age of 49, says:
“People with Parkinson’s can often have problems in hospital.”
Why? People with Parkinson’s are often deprived of their medication because, obviously, they hand in their medication when they go into hospital, yet maintaining a regular medication regime is very important and the person themselves is often best placed to do that.
I spoke a moment or two ago about access to neurological services. Alison, a mother of three based in Cheltenham, says:
“I feel let down by an NHS system that offers me one 10 minute appointment with a neurologist each year and I have to chase this to get it.”
Neurological services clearly need to be more accessible than that.
I do not make my next point in an ideological way, and I am pleased that the former Minister with responsibility for disabled people, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), is in the Chamber. Irrespective of political views, I want to address the efficiency of the social security system as it actually works. I pay tribute to the work of Parkinson’s UK, and particularly to that of Natasha Burgess. On employment and support allowance, for example, which will involve a work capability assessment, the problem with something like Parkinson’s is that it is a variable condition.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Precisely. A work capability assessment might not be the best way to assess people with a fluctuating condition. Additionally, on the personal independence payment, there are far too many people at my surgeries who end up having to go all the way to a tribunal to be awarded what they should have been given in the first place.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work recently said during a debate that she would be talking to the Treasury and Motability about letting PIP claimants keep their vehicle while they appeal decisions that have gone against them. The removal of Motability vehicles has affected people with young-onset Parkinson’s. Does my hon. Friend agree that we deserve to hear what progress has been made on that issue?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That point is particularly pertinent because of the number of people who are succeeding on appeal.
I have an email from Phil from Kent, who was diagnosed with Parkinson’s at the age of 45. He says:
“In…2015 I was awarded 17 points (the Higher Rate) for the Daily Living Component and 10 points…for the Mobility Component of Personal Independence Payment.”
He felt that that was accurate, but the assessment was downgraded when he was seen a year later. He has an appeal ongoing, but he simply says this:
“I want the DWP to understand that Parkinson’s disease is a degenerative condition…It does not get better!”
That is precisely right.
The Government have the laudable aim of halving the disability employment gap.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Before the hon. Gentleman comes off the subject of PIP, I wish to pay tribute. He is making a really important speech, and it is a real credit to Parkinson’s UK, which was one of the most engaged groups during my time as Minister for disabled people—I thank the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for arranging the initial introduction. I urge the Minister to take the opportunity to meet Opposition Members as soon as possible to explore all these constructive options, which are so typical of the hon. Gentleman. I also wish to thank my local Parkinson’s UK members, who are now holding regular coffee mornings in my office as a way to engage, to share best practice and to continue to highlight the improvements that we all, collectively, need to make.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful for that intervention from the former Minister. He takes a constructive approach, for which I am very grateful.
The aim of halving the disability employment gap is laudable, but I have a slight concern, in that we also have to recognise that people with Parkinson’s will need support when they leave work, at which point returning will, sadly, not always be a realistic option.
As I sum up, I want to speak about the people who battle this condition. Pete from Brighton says:
“At heart…we YOP suffer a triple indignity: the disease itself, with all that it entails; our not being considered disabled enough by the system; and the lack of awareness ensuring that we are considered to be practically useless by society at large.”
Karen from Birmingham says:
“my medication is not helping me through the night and sleeping is impossible. I am literally paralysed during the night.”
We should not forget the daily battle that people with Parkinson’s face, but nor should we forget where we started this debate—with Dr James Parkinson and that essay of 200 years ago. In addition to having medical expertise, he was also something of a political activist, writing leaflets under the pseudonym “Old Hubert” and speaking about those who lived in poverty. He argued for political reform, and I am convinced that if he was still here today, he would be speaking up for all those who have Parkinson’s, who suffer and who battle with this condition every day. I hope that this debate has at least gone some way to raising awareness of the particular problems that people face.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
Let me start by congratulating the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) on his speech, which the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), called an important one. It is just that, as this is an important subject. It is salutary to think that it is 200 years since this terrible disease was first discovered and we are still some way off finding a cure for it. I know that over the past year or so the hon. Gentleman has asked many questions in Parliament, both written and oral, on this subject. I congratulate him on doing that, because it is only by people doing that that we will continue to keep awareness high.
I also thank the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) for the work she does on the all-party group and for demonstrating the kinetic watch. I had not seen one before this evening, but I look forward to seeing it perhaps after this sitting.
Mrs Moon
I met people from Global Kinetic on Friday, when they gave me the watch. In September or October, this watch will also have a docking station, which will mean that on a daily basis the consultant neurologist will be able to get a pattern of sleep, movement and medication consumption from a patient. We hope that will cut the need for neurologist appointments, as is happening in some areas, and I hope that the Minister will want to meet Global Kinetics.
David Mowat
Well, as I was saying a few moments ago, there is no cure for this disease but it is possible to manage the symptoms and alleviate them. However, to do that we have to have a diagnosis, and that is the issue we are talking about today, particularly in the case of early-onset Parkinson’s disease.
On the prevalence of the disease, something like 130,000 people suffer from it—that is likely to be 160,000 by 2020—and 95% of them are over 60 years old. Because of that fact, there is a tendency in the medical profession and, indeed, in society at large, to think that it is a disease of older people. To an extent that is true according to the statistics, but we also know that something like 5,000 or 6,000 people under 50 have the disease. I will talk about the statistics a little more later, because the hon. Member for Torfaen did challenge them, and it is true that the numbers are all estimates. Nevertheless, the number I have is that something like 400 people under 40 have the disease. Incredibly, it is thought that a few dozen people get the disease under the age of 20, which is a terrible thing as it means that it is with them for their entire working lives.
Parkinson’s is a progressive disease caused by the death of cells containing dopamine. As we have heard, it causes tremors, slowness, speech impediment and gait disorder. Its severity varies, as recognised in some of the points made about the Department for Work and Pensions. There is no cure; the best we can do is to manage the symptoms by trying to address the lack of dopamine through techniques such as brain stimulation, and apomorphine is the most commonly used drug. The hon. Member for Torfaen mentioned the recent debate on Duodopa; I do not intend to go over that in detail, other than to say that it is very much a minority treatment, with something like 75 people receiving the medication. It is typically used when other treatments are not successful.
We all—the Government and the country more generally—need to build awareness of the prevalence of early-onset disease. The NHS Choices website has information on the local and national support groups we heard about a few moments ago. Parkinson’s UK does a huge amount of work in this area, and I would of course be happy to meet it and the hon. Member for Torfaen.
Justin Tomlinson
I am delighted that the Minister has agreed to meet Opposition Members—that will be a really worthwhile meeting—but in that vein, as I host our local Parkinson’s group, would he be willing to come to Swindon to meet its members?
David Mowat
In principle, I would be delighted to come to Swindon, or my hon. Friend could join the meeting with Parkinson’s UK. I am sure there is a way forward.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It would also be extremely useful for the Minister to facilitate a meeting with another charity called Spotlight YOPD, which has done tremendous work in this area.
David Mowat
I heard that charity mentioned and yes, that would of course be a sensible thing to do; the focus of this debate is on YOPD, so that would be appropriate.
There is an issue with GP awareness and diagnosis, partly because there is sometimes an assumption that if someone is young and has dizziness, aching muscles and some of the other early symptoms, those can be symptomatic of more benign conditions, and it is genuinely quite hard to diagnose young-onset Parkinson’s disease. It is important to note that the Royal College of General Practitioners’ neurology training emphasises that all GPs must have a knowledge of the epidemiology of Parkinson’s. The applied knowledge test, which all GPs, wherever they come from, have to pass before they can be a GP, has modules on Parkinson’s and the fact that it can potentially come to people before they are 50 years old, even though it does not usually do so. It is important that we continue to focus on that.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has guidelines on Parkinson’s. Most relevant is the guideline on the best practice on the diagnosis and management of the disease. The draft is currently out for public consultation and will be updated and reissued in April. That guideline also emphasises the fact that early onset is possible and that if patients present with stiffness and slowness of movement, Parkinson’s needs to be considered, because quite often it still is not.
A second NICE guideline, which is also being worked on, is on the more general theme of suspected neurological conditions, with a particular focus on people outside the normal age ranges presenting with symptoms. That applies to children, young people and adults. Such a focus is potentially useful in the identification of early-onset Parkinson’s.
Once the condition is diagnosed, it is obviously important to start treatment. That tends to imply, in England at least, referring a person to one of the 25 neurological centres around the country. A management plan should be put in place by a multi-disciplinary team, consisting of neurologists, neuro-surgeons, nurses and psychologists. Once that plan is in place, treatment can take place through normal primary and secondary care pathways.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Minister mentioned psychologists in that list. Does he agree that mental health is a vital part of that package?
David Mowat
I heard the hon. Gentleman say that in his speech, and I agree with him. We know that we have some work to do in our health system generally in getting mental health to catch up with the rest of the ways that we treat health. I use the phrase “parity of esteem”, and that is something that must happen. Younger people with Parkinson’s are unlikely to be in a major support group of others who have the disease at their sort of age. They can feel lonely, isolated and all that goes with that. In particular, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Hayley and her young family. Yes, he is absolutely right to emphasise that issue, as we do need to have much more mental health provision in our GP practices. We are determined to achieve that by 2020, with 3,000 mental health therapists in GP practices in England.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the workforce and 10-minute appointments. We have increased the number of neurologists working in NHS England by something like 30% since 2010. The figure has increased to 1,300, so something like 300 more neurologists are needed in NHS England. As the incidence of neurological conditions continues to increase—Parkinson’s will continue to increase as the population ages—we will need to continue with that expansion. That is clearly a priority.
I wish briefly to talk about the new neurology advisory group, which was set up in September 2016 and is led by Professor Adrian Williams, a neurologist. A member of that group is Steve Ford from Parkinson’s UK. The group’s role is to better align services across the country. Currently, there is a disparity in treatment between different clinical commissioning groups and different GP practices. To an extent, that disparity is inevitable, but we need to do what we can to minimise it, and that group will be looking to do that. It will also be responsible for working as part of a neurology intelligence network, which is all about getting data. The very first challenge from the hon. Gentleman was that the figures that I had quoted and that he had quoted were all estimates. We do not gather data in the format that can be used. The estimates came from a report of Parkinson’s UK, and they were based on 2009 data. We need to do much better than that. It is only by having more reliable data that we can track the way in which the disease is developing and can ensure that we have adequate and effective treatments and networks in place.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned research. Yes, in the end, research will help us to find a cure. We spend something like £1 billion a year through the National Institute of Health Research. Of that, the spend on neurology has increased over five years from £30 million—it is not the biggest area—to something like £55 million this year. That is something that we should continue to press for, and I am sure that both the hon. Gentleman and Parkinson’s UK will do that.
I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said about the DWP. Indeed, the Government’s Green Paper, which was published in October 2016, talked about removing continuous assessment processes for people with progressive diseases, such as Parkinson’s. I understand that the DWP is working towards developing the criteria for switching off assessments, and I think that he and I would both agree that the sooner that is applied in this case, the better.
In conclusion, early-onset Parkinson’s is a very tough condition that around 5,000 or 6,000 people across the country have. It is tough to diagnose and there is no cure, although it can be partially managed. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torfaen again on raising awareness of the condition, both today and over the past year or so through the campaign. I also thank Parkinson’s UK for the work it does. I hope that this discussion has been helpful. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Bridgend, Parkinson’s UK and perhaps even my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon to talk about how we can take this forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2017
Draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2017.
Jane Ellison
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main.
I am in Committee to introduce the changes that we are making in the two areas covered by the two sets of draft regulations. I will speak first to the changes being made to the disability elements of tax credits, as well as the guardian’s allowance, and then to the draft regulations on the rates, limits and thresholds that govern national insurance contributions. Many of the changes are being made to the rates in line with inflation, as measured by the consumer prices index, which put inflation at 1% in the year to September 2016.
The draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2017 provide for an increase in line with inflation to the disability elements of tax credits. That means that we are maintaining the value of support for disabled children in receipt of child tax credits and disabled workers in receipt of working tax credit. I should add that the rise in rates covers the new element for disabled children who were born on or after 6 April this year, regardless of the two-child limit for claims of child tax credit. The regulations also increase the guardian’s allowance in line with inflation. That is to sustain the level of support for children whose parents are absent or deceased.
As hon. Members know, an aim of the Government has been to reform the welfare system over a number of years, not only to bring the country’s public finances under control and to act responsibly to set our public services on a long-term and sustainable path, but to address a point of fundamental fairness for British people by ensuring that work always pays. In that spirit, we set about reforming the welfare system. We looked, for example, at the fact that between 2008 and 2015, the rise in how much people got in child tax credits had far outstripped any rise in what people were earning—an increase of 33% in the rate of the child element of child tax credits, versus only 12% in earnings growth. On a number of occasions, we have spoken about our determination to address the trend of benefits going up faster than salaries. The Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 therefore legislated to freeze the majority of working-age benefits and tax credits for the following four years.
The disability elements of tax credits and the guardian’s allowance are exempt from that freeze so that we may provide support to those who face the additional costs of disability and care. The exemption should be seen as part of a wider commitment that we have demonstrated in government to support the most vulnerable in our welfare system. Spending on disability benefits has risen by more than £3 billion in real terms since 2010. It will remain higher in each year to 2020 than in 2010.
As the Committee knows, ultimately universal credit will replace the system of tax credits as a much more effective way of providing means-tested support for working-age people who are in or out of work. Universal credit is a significant reform that has at its heart the proposition that work should always pay.
The draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2017 will make changes to the rates, limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions and make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid into the national insurance funds if required. I will provide a brief outline of the detail of the changes, which will take effect from 6 April 2017. On class 1 national insurance contributions, the lower earnings limit or the level of earnings at which employees start to gain access to contributory benefits will rise in line with inflation. The primary threshold, which is the level at which employees begin to pay class 1 national insurance at 12%, will also rise with inflation.
The upper earnings limit, which is the level at which employees start to pay class 1 contributions at 2%, is being raised from £827 to £866 a week. That reflects the Government’s commitment to align the limit with the UK’s higher rate income tax threshold, which is being raised from £43,000 to £45,000 for the 2017-18 tax year. I might return to that point about the higher rate income tax threshold in more detail.
As the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement, the levels at which employers and employees start to pay class 1 national insurance contributions are being aligned. To do that, the secondary threshold, where employers start to pay, is being increased from £156 a week to £157 a week. That will be the same as the primary threshold for employees from 6 April 2017. That will make it easier for employers as they will no longer have to operate two similar thresholds at slightly different rates. That was recommended by the Office of Tax Simplification in a report some time ago.
Finally for the employed, the level at which employers of people under 21 and of apprentices under 25 start to pay employer’s contributions will keep pace with the upper earnings limit and rise from £827 to £866 a week. That maintains our commitment to reduce the cost of employing young apprentices and young people. That above-inflation increase, which will maintain alignment with the upper earnings limit, means that employers will pay national insurance only for the highest earning apprentices and under-21-year-olds.
To move on to the self-employed, the level at which they have to pay class 2 contributions will rise with inflation to £6,025 a year. The weekly rate of class 2 contributions will also rise in line with inflation to £2.85. Self-employed people who earn above the lower profits limit also pay class 4 national insurance contributions at 9%. That threshold will rise with inflation.
Above the upper profits limit, the self-employed instead pay 2%. Like the upper earnings limit for the employed, that limit for the self-employed will rise from £43,000 to £45,000 a year. For those making voluntary class 3 contributions, the rate will increase in line with inflation from £14.10 to £14.25 a week.
Let me draw the attention of hon. Members to two reports that have been published alongside the regulations. The report made under section 40 of the Tax Credits Act 2002 contains the numbers of tax credit awards, inquiries, penalties imposed, and prosecutions and convictions for tax credit offences made in tax year 2015-16. The report made under section 41 of the 2002 Act shows the rate of all non-frozen tax credits other than the childcare element in relation to inflation.
Finally, I note that the regulations make provision for a Treasury grant of up to 5% of forecast annual benefit expenditure to be paid into the national insurance fund, if needed, during 2017-18. That is a routine measure that does not impact on the Government’s overall fiscal position. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.
I hope that that is a useful overview of the changes we are making to bring rates of support and contributions to the Exchequer in line with inflation. I commend to the Committee the draft regulations on tax credits and the guardian’s allowance, as well as those on social security contributions.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Main.
As the Minister has outlined, the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2017 enact the annual re-rating of various national insurance contribution rates, limits and thresholds and allow for the payment of a Treasury grant not exceeding 5% of the estimated benefit expenditure for the coming tax year into the national insurance fund. The draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2017 provide for increases in certain tax credit rates and an increase in the weekly rate of guardian’s allowance—a small benefit paid to people looking after a child who is effectively an orphan—from April.
Labour is acutely aware that average real hourly pay remains 10% below its level before the financial crisis and that rising inflation is devaluing people’s wages further. Indeed, analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies that came out last week shows that low-income working families with children are suffering most and that, by the end of the Parliament, average households will be £5,000 a year worse off than they might have otherwise expected. We will therefore not oppose any rise, however small, in vital support for people who are struggling to get by. However, we would not want that to be mistaken for any type of endorsement of the Government’s overall insistence on making the majority of people pay for tax cuts for the more affluent while continuing to pursue cuts to in-work benefits.
Although the Government are uprating some benefits—though not by very much—they are excluding others entirely. As a result of the benefit freeze for benefits and tax credits administered by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, child benefit is frozen for four years; the basic 30-hour, second adult and lone parent elements of working tax credit are frozen for four years; and the individual per child element of child tax credit is frozen for four years. How can that be right? If the economy is growing, it is surely only just that the benefits are shared fairly. Labour is committed to ensuring that the lowest-paid in our society are not further burdened by having to subsidise tax cuts elsewhere that arguably are not needed.
We will not divide the Committee, but I have placed on the record our objections to the Government’s strategy, as of course we will in response to the Budget on Wednesday.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I draw the Committee’s attention to the explanatory notes to the draft tax credits uprating regulations, which point out that previous Acts required
“the rates of Child Benefit to be reviewed each tax year, however this is not being done for this tax year”
because, as the Minister said, section 11 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 froze child benefit for four years. The Scottish National party has called on the UK Government to end that freeze, which, coupled with increased living costs, is putting even more pressure on the finances of low-income families. We are talking about pitiful upratings, but for people on such low incomes every penny really counts. The Minister will therefore not be surprised to hear me say that, although we welcome these upratings, the same should be done for all benefits that are currently frozen.
On the other set of regulations, although the SNP disagrees with aspects of the policy intent, the area the Committee is exploring is consequential on a Government policy that is not in itself controversial. That said, we have several wider concerns for the future of the UK economy and the Scottish economy, and they are not just our concerns.
I will not go into too much detail, but the Fraser of Allander Institute has warned that Brexit could reduce Scotland’s economic performance. The institute’s modelling of the World Trade Organisation scenario suggests that after 10 years, GDP would be more than 5% lower—£8 billion in today’s terms—than it would otherwise have been and real wages would be 7% lower, which is equivalent to an average reduction of £2,000 per year. It also projects that the number of people employed would be 3% lower—that is 80,000 jobs.
The Resolution Foundation estimates that, combined with UK Government policies, lower growth post-Brexit will hit low-income households in particular. For example, a lone parent working part time on the national living wage could be up to £2,640 a year worse off by 2020-21. That is just not sustainable for people on such low incomes. A couple with three children on low wages could be up to £3,650 a year worse off by 2020-21.
The European single market has opened Scotland to a market of more than 500 million people. Scottish exports to the EU were worth £12.3 billion in 2015—the EU accounted for 43% of Scotland’s international exports. There are 1,000 companies in Scotland that are owned in the EU, which employ more than 127,000 people. In 2015, Scotland secured more foreign direct investment projects than any part of the UK outside London, and FDI has created 40,000 jobs in Scotland since 2006. Around 181,000 EU citizens live in Scotland, bringing new skills and expertise.
Those are just a few examples of our concerns about the wider economic impact. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, we will not divide the Committee, but I wanted to take the opportunity to make some comments.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT TAX CREDITS AND GUARDIAN’S ALLOWANCE UP-RATING ETC. REGULATIONS 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tax Credits and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating etc. Regulations 2017.—(Jane Ellison.)
Petitions
Adoption
The Royal Sutton Coldfield Green Belt
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Workplace Dress Codes (High Heels)
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 129823 relating to high heels and workplace dress codes.
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I also wish to discuss the joint report by the Petitions Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee on the same subject.
Hon. Members here will remember how the petition came about. Nicola Thorp, who created the petition, worked for an agency called Portico. In December 2015, she was sent for a job as a temporary receptionist at the headquarters of PricewaterhouseCoopers in London. When she arrived, she was told that the smart black shoes she was wearing were unacceptable because they were flat; at the time, Portico’s dress code specified a heel height of between two and four inches—for women, not men. She was offered the opportunity to go out and buy a pair of high heels. When she refused, she was sent home without pay.
Two things immediately struck me about that story. First, there was never a suggestion that Ms Thorp was not smartly dressed; anyone who knows her knows that she is impeccably turned out at all times. Secondly, it was clear that wearing high heels was a requirement that impacted far more on women than on men. In fact, most of Portico’s dress code at the time—to its credit, it has since changed this—was about how women should look. Not only were women to wear high heels, but they were compelled to wear make-up. It was specified that they should wear a minimum of foundation, powder, light blusher—I am not sure whether “light” referred to its colour or its application—mascara, eye shadow and lipstick or tinted lip gloss: not just any old lip gloss, but tinted lip gloss. Make-up was to be regularly reapplied throughout the day, and women were excused from wearing it only if they had a medical condition.
Women also had to wear what were described as skin-coloured tights, but the sort of skin-coloured tights that I would wear—taupe, natural tan and so on—are not at all suitable for women of colour. In fact, at one time, a black woman who turned up in black tights was told she should change them for a flesh-coloured pair, which were, of course, not the colour of her flesh at all. Portico even specified the acceptable shades of nail varnish; there was a colour chart.
The Petitions Committee decided to investigate these issues, and asked the Women and Equalities Committee to join us; I am very grateful to members of that Committee for their help and support on this. We took evidence from employees and Portico, the TUC and the Institute of Recruiters; the Confederation of British Industry declined to give evidence—an attitude it might want to rethink in future when dealing with my Committee. We also heard from barristers who specialise in employment law, and most importantly from women themselves; we set up a web forum on which they could tell us their experiences.
It is fair to say that what we found shocked us. I was going to say that we found attitudes that belonged more in the 1950s than in the 21st century, but the 1850s is probably more accurate. We found that women—especially young women in vulnerable employment—were exploited at work and threatened with dismissal if they complained. They were forced to bear pain all day, wear totally unsuitable clothing for the tasks they were asked to perform, or dress in a way that they felt sexualised their appearance and was demeaning but which they had to put up with if they needed a job. For that reason, I am very grateful to the women who came forward to give evidence to us in public, because that took a great deal of courage—courage that I would probably not have had at their age.
Let me deal with high heels first. There are people who think that we should not have investigated this at all—in fact, they think it is a bit of a joke. Yes, it is true that women sometimes wear high heels, but there is plenty of evidence about the damage from wearing heels long term; that is well known and has been for some time. We received written evidence from the College of Podiatry and individual podiatrists on our web forum setting out just what that damage is. Wearing high heels long term alters balance, reduces flexion in the ankle and weakens calf muscles. Over time, that can make women much more prone to a number of problems, including stress fractures, Morton’s neuroma, ankle sprains and bunions, and it causes a reduction in balance that lasts into old age, putting people more at risk of falls.
Most importantly, we heard from women who told us that they were forced to wear high heels even during pregnancy; that their feet hurt so much at the end of the day that they could not walk; and that their feet bled while they were working. When they tried to raise those issues, they were dismissed. Nicola Thorp told us that:
“Girls would be in tears because their feet were bleeding…and you’d just get laughed at”.
That is not a joke for any woman—it is particularly not a joke for older women who may not be able to wear heels or for women with disabilities. In fact, many women gave evidence that they were put off applying for certain kinds of jobs because of the dress codes. That evidence was confirmed by the director general of the Institute of Recruiters, who told us that such dress codes “definitely” reduced the pool of women applying for jobs. We also heard how unsuitable being made to wear heels was for the tasks that those women were expected to perform at work, such as moving furniture, walking long distances—we heard from people who had been in cabin crew and had to walk long distances in airports—standing all day and even climbing ladders. It was not funny.
We discovered that few employers carried out a health and safety assessment on this issue. Portico told us that it had not done so, and it is not alone. We heard evidence from both the TUC and the Institute of Recruiters that there is very little information available to employers about this kind of footwear problem; there is plenty of information online and on the ACAS website about when people should wear steel-toe-capped boots and so on, but there is not very much on the health and wellbeing issues surrounding footwear.
Dress codes that impact more on women go much further than making them wear high heels. We heard from women who could not even travel to work without wearing full make-up or else they would be disciplined. We heard from cabin crew who were all forced to wear the same shade of lipstick. We heard from women who were told near Christmas to unbutton their blouses a bit when selling to male customers. We even heard of a women being told to dye her hair blonde.
The problem with these issues is not just that they are discriminatory and impact more on women; it is that they both stem from and feed into an attitude to women in the workplace that is totally reprehensible and concentrates on a stereotypical appearance, rather than on skills that women can bring to the job. Our witnesses told us how demeaning they found that.
One woman who had worked as a cabin crew member told us that she thought her appearance was sexualised for the sake of the business, which was both dehumanising and humiliating, given that male cabin crew were simply expected to look smart; those of us who fly regularly will know exactly what she meant by that. Another woman who worked in retail was told near Christmas to unbutton her blouse a bit and wear shorter skirts to sell to male customers, which she felt devalued her skills as a saleswoman and her knowledge of the products.
It gets worse. Frequently, these issues go hand in hand with a work environment in which women are harassed and younger women in particular have to put up with daily comments about their bodies from managers and are exposed to unwanted attention from customers. We heard, for instance, of women being asked when they were finishing work; of women receiving unwanted attention online, amounting to harassment; of people trying to find out where women lived or, if they were abroad, what hotel they were staying in; and even of women being followed home from work by customers. All that is unacceptable in the 21st century. It degrades women.
The Government think that the law is fairly clear on this. In their answer to the petition, they were clear that the requirement to wear high heels, as experienced by Nicola Thorp, is illegal under the Equality Act 2010. We received some legal evidence that suggested the law is not quite so clear. The legal opinions we heard suggested that a conventional dress code, for want of a better term, might not constitute direct discrimination under the Equality Act, because men and women tend to dress differently. However, if that dress code impacted more on one sex than another, it was likely to be indirect discrimination. The problem is that indirect discrimination can be justified if it is reasonably necessary in pursuit of a legitimate end, but there is not a proper definition of “legitimate end”.
More importantly, not only can tribunals decide cases differently in different parts of the country, but very few cases are getting to tribunal at all. We heard that there is very little case law or advice for employers. When I asked the managing director of Portico, during our evidence session, whether it had occurred to him that his company’s dress code might be discriminatory, he said that it had not at all. That is one reason why we suggest that the Government need to provide much more information to employers about not only the health and safety aspects of their dress code but what may constitute discrimination. That is particularly true for smaller employers that do not have in-house solicitors and HR departments.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. The evidence in our hearings about what is happening on a day-to-day basis was pretty shocking, to be completely honest—particularly as a man. My question relates to the information provided for not only businesses but individuals. It is quite clear that we are not seeing enough cases coming forward. Where can information become available, so that there is greater resilience within the group of women affected by this?
Helen Jones
The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I will come on to that issue later in my speech. It is very important that people have information about their rights, but information by itself is not enough.
We found that there were real issues about enforcement and access to justice. Women told us that when they raised these concerns, they were belittled. One said,
“I was told that I would be fired straight away if I chose to put flats on.”
Another was told that she would have plenty of time to rest her feet when she was unemployed. Women do not take these matters further for several reasons. Many of them are in insecure employment; they may be on fixed-term or zero-hours contracts. They may not have worked for long enough to bring a claim against their employer.
Awards in this area are fairly low. We were given a ballpark figure of £250 to £1,000, which is less than the cost of going to a tribunal nowadays. That is simply not good enough. A right that cannot be enforced is not a right at all. We also found that these cases were not getting as far as a tribunal all the time. That is why we are calling on the Government to look at increasing the penalties on employers for breach of the law. Penalties should be set at a level that does not discourage people from bringing a claim but disincentivises employers from breaking the law. As one of our witnesses said, in the current climate, employers take a punt that no one will bring a claim.
We have a situation where not only is this happening in an insecure workforce, but because the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s budget has been cut, it is no longer bringing as many test cases to test out the law. We are in the same position with the Equality Act as we were many years ago with the Equal Pay Act 1970. The Equality Act sets out general principles, but because English law proceeds by an accumulation of case law it needs to be fleshed out by people bringing cases. We also think that if the Government gave tribunals the power to issue injunctions to stop the use of discriminatory dress codes, these cases could be dealt with more quickly.
Funding and access to justice are key issues. We are very grateful that since our report was issued, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has told the Equality Advisory and Support Service to notify it of any cases involving dress codes, so that it can decide whether litigation and enforcement action are required. We are also grateful that it has started a campaign on social media to inform women of their rights. However, as the hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) said, much more needs to be done. We are calling on the Government to start a campaign targeted at areas where people are most vulnerable, such as the hospitality industry, to inform employees of their rights and employers of their obligations.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
To build on a point the hon. Lady has made, does she agree that it is one thing to inform people of their rights, but it is critical that employment tribunal issue fees are set at an affordable level, so that people can exercise their rights and seek a remedy in the courts?
Helen Jones
I absolutely agree. Since the fees were raised in 2013, these cases have fallen off a cliff; they are not being brought any more. We have to remember that many of these women work in non-unionised workplaces, so a union cannot bring a claim. The Equal Pay Act was extended by unions bringing test cases on behalf of their workforce. That is not happening any more.
Ultimately, women must be able to enforce their rights. If only those who are well paid and in secure jobs can do that, not those who are low paid and in insecure employment, we do not have equality. If older women or women with disabilities are deterred from applying for jobs because of the dress code, we do not have equality. If women are forced to bear pain all day at work or put up with a toxic working environment, we do not have equality. If young women are subject all the time to comments about their bodies at work, we do not have equality. What our Committee thought would be a nice, limited inquiry exposed a number of issues in the workplace that will need further study and action by the Government.
Ben Howlett
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way again; she is most generous. One issue that has come up time and again, not just in relation to this report but from the women and equalities perspective generally, is the fact that the concept of dual discrimination is not enshrined in the Equality Act currently. The hon. Lady makes a powerful point in relation to both age and gender. Does she agree that it would be appropriate for the Government to consider implementing the dual discrimination provisions to help women to bring their cases to trial?
Helen Jones
Yes, I could not agree more; the hon. Gentleman is right about that issue. We also say that if the existing law is not shown to be working, the Government need to take action to clarify the law.
As I said, we thought at the beginning that this would be a short inquiry, but it has exposed a number of issues in the workplace: widespread discrimination against women; stereotypical views of what women should look like, dress like and behave like; outdated attitudes towards women in the workplace; and the constant belittling of women when they try to challenge those attitudes. The conclusion that I have come to is that we have a long way to go to solve these problems but I hope that the Government will take them seriously, because women in the workplace deserve—everyone in the workplace deserves—better than that stereotyping, better than the pain and inappropriate clothing that they are forced to put up with, and better than the attitudes that women encounter every day.
I think, as a Member of Parliament, that we have undergone a long struggle for women to be accepted in this place, but our life is a bed of roses compared with that of women in low-paid and insecure employment and what they have to put up with every day to keep their jobs. I hope that the Minister sees that this is not a trivial issue but a very serious one that affects women every day at work. The Government must now take it seriously.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I am pleased to speak in this debate in support of women across the UK who have been subject to various kinds of discrimination with regard to workplace dress codes. I call on the Government to tighten the rules so that that is no longer prevalent in the workplace.
The debate is happening because of a petition signed by more than 150,000 people in the United Kingdom. That shows the real and serious concern that many people have about the fact that, in 2017, women are still subject to unreasonable footwear requirements at work. In the same week as International Women’s Day, when we are celebrating the success of women across the world, who during the past century have made huge strides in the attempt to secure economic, political and social parity, we must also pay great attention to the fact that there is still some way to go.
As recent studies have shown, women still lag behind men in pay. The median hourly rate of pay is £12.82 for female full-time employees, compared with £14.16 for males. However, as this debate highlights, parity in the workplace does not mean only economic parity. The petition rightly points out that, despite the introduction of equality laws, women continue to face discrimination in the workplace. That manifests itself in various ways, including through requirements to wear high heels in the workplace. I assure the House that in workplaces across the country, women are often instructed to wear a full face of make-up and even told which shade of red to wear on their lips.
In evidence provided to the Petitions Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee for their joint report, women admitted that they found the dress codes that require them to wear high heels “humiliating and degrading”. Some felt “sexualised” by their employer’s insistence on high heels. That effect on the psychological wellbeing of female workers is deeply worrying.
The evidence is clear. There is no real practical function to the wearing of high heels, and I challenge anyone in the House to provide evidence that wearing high heels in the workplace should be mandatory and forced on women employees. Evidence from the College of Podiatry reveals that there is a strong body of clinical evidence against wearing high heels for prolonged periods. However, in some professions, standing in high heels for the duration of an eight-hour shift is the norm. Wearing heels in that way often causes foot pain, bunions, skin lesions, lower limb pathologies and other related discomfort. In fact, my own daughter suffered a metatarsal fracture, which is more commonly associated with sports injuries, when she was forced to wear high heels in a former retail job. As she had not been on the payroll long enough, she was denied any compensation or sick pay— literally adding insult to injury. Needless to say, she did not return to that type of work, but not everyone has that choice.
In my view, all the evidence that we have heard disqualifies any practical argument for forcing women to wear high heels in the workplace. Dress codes in all workplaces should serve a practical purpose and be neutral, targeting men and women in the same way. That is compatible with what the law states. The Equality Act 2010 is clear in principle, in that it aims to harmonise discrimination law and strengthen the law to promote equality in the UK. Sections 39 and 41 prohibit direct discrimination. As the Government put it to the Petitions Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee:
“They…specifically state that employers must not discriminate as to the terms of employment, or indeed by subjecting an employee to any detriment at work.”
We are debating this topic today because the law is not working in practice and is particularly disadvantageous to women in the workforce, who often feel vulnerable in calling out these injustices. To be effective, the law must be understood by both employers and employees, and employers must take complaints of such discrimination seriously. If they do not, appropriate punishment should be set out clearly.
Today’s job market is fragile, with record numbers of people on zero-hours contracts. Often, those contracts are found in the retail and hospitality sectors, and there have been many cases of women in particular being sent home because they have not complied with a certain aspect of a dress code such as wearing high heels or putting on the “right” shade of lipstick.
I support the calls for the Government to take urgent action to improve the effectiveness of the Equality Act 2010, as well as to provide clearer guidelines on these issues so that the laws already in existence are properly functional and effective.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I wanted to speak in the debate for three reasons. The first is that I personally have never quite fathomed the fashion for cripplingly high heels. I have only ever owned one pair of really high heels. Bought for a wedding, they were worn once and then consigned to the charity shop. I have always been a fan of the comfy shoe—nothing gladdens my heart more than a sensible shoe in a broad fitting.
The second reason is that I was a workplace trade union rep for Unite the union before I was elected to this place, and I have spent many happy and not so happy hours discussing dress codes with various HR advisers and managers. That is a truly thankless task, and I would advise against it if it can possibly be avoided.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I was one of the people with whom the hon. Lady would have been having such a discussion, although I suspect that it might not have been a thankless task if the discussion had been between us. Did she ever discuss, as part of any of those negotiations, a requirement to wear high heels?
Liz McInnes
I am happy to say that I did not, because I worked for the NHS and our dress code was very much along health and safety lines and about protecting people at work, rather than forcing them into garments that are unsuitable for the workplace.
The third reason why I wanted to speak in this debate is that I am a feminist and I find the idea of women being forced to wear certain items—any items, but particularly those that are uncomfortable and inhibit our ability to walk properly, stand for long periods of time or even run away—quite abhorrent. I find the idea that an employer might make the wearing of such items a prerequisite for a job even more abhorrent still.
I can remember when the NHS trust that I used to work for produced a 30-page document outlining what staff could and could not wear—from the contents page containing headings such as “acrylic nails”, “make-up”, “hair”, “jewellery”, “tattoos” and “piercings”, to the extremely prescriptive details on each subject that followed. I was interested to hear the flesh-coloured tights dilemma that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) highlighted—I remember the long conversations we had about what exactly was meant by the requirement to wear flesh-coloured tights. Given the diversity of our workforce, what colour of flesh did management have in mind? After much discussion, management finally agreed to drop that requirement.
Piercings and tattoos were another source of much agitation. I worked in a laboratory and recall our laboratory manager, having interviewed for a lab assistant, appointing a young man who turned up for his first day with his face resplendent with various piercings that he had not worn to the interview. I remember the anguished cry of our laboratory manager—“We’ve taken on Metal Mickey!” He appeared to feel that he had been duped in some way. Yet that young man proved to be conscientious and good at his job, and given that his role involved minimal contact with the public, his visible piercings were not really too much of a problem.
Of course, a lot of dress code issues in the NHS are necessary because of health and safety at work and the need to wear personal protective equipment. I certainly do not think there was any emphasis at all on making women conform to some odd standard of stereotypical attractiveness, as the petition concentrates on. However, I mention those details to emphasise that dress codes do not have to be 30-page documents stipulating down to the tiniest detail what can and cannot be worn. I recall the deathless phrase in our code, “Underwear must not be visible”, and wondering whether that also applied to my boss’s string vest, which was always clearly visible through his white shirt, and exactly where people buy such things from.
A good dress code only has to be a few lines long, and my own council, Rochdale Borough Council, has an exemplary policy that is brief but covers all eventualities and health and safety requirements. It simply states:
“First impressions count and there is a general expectation that employees dress appropriate to the nature of their duties and responsibilities. The Council values and welcomes the ethnic diversity of its workforce and therefore expects all employees to recognise and respect this in terms of dress. Where there is a clear business, service or health and safety reason appropriate dress codes may be introduced following consultation to suit the service needs and meet public expectations. Uniforms must be worn where required and provided. Personal Protective Equipment must be worn where it is appropriate to do so or if directed by the manager or Health and Safety Advisor.”
Alex Chalk
I was interested to hear the hon. Lady read that. There was a part where she said that uniforms must be worn where provided. However, the issue is whether the uniforms required are appropriate; ultimately, the key arbiter of that must be a court, which will establish whether an employer has gone too far. Does she therefore agree that, to reiterate what I said earlier, the key is to ensure that people can access the courts to establish where the boundaries lie and to achieve justice and case law that will apply to future circumstances?
Liz McInnes
Yes, I agree that every worker should have access to the courts. Unfortunately, the tribunal fees that have been introduced have restricted such access. I think I am right in saying that no employee of Rochdale Borough Council has had to seek that access; I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the uniforms provided by Rochdale Borough Council tend to be practical and appropriate for the job.
A brief dress code such as that is really all that is needed. Any attempt to be prescriptive and go into further detail about particular items of clothing is a waste of everyone’s time and, given the vagaries of fashion, likely to be quickly superseded by some new fad or trend.
I personally think that high heels hobble and restrict women and hamper our ability to move freely, and even to run away if necessary. However, I recognise that some women choose to wear heels of their own volition, and I will not criticise them for that—we should all be free to wear whatever we like. What I cannot tolerate is employers trying to force women into an ideal of what constitutes professionalism or power dressing by insisting that particular items, such as cripplingly high heels, must be worn.
I am reminded of Ginger Rogers’ famous response when she was asked about dancing with Fred Astaire and said, “It’s easy, I just do everything that Fred does,” and then added, “just backwards and in high heels.” That is all these strict dress code stipulations are—an attempt to hobble and restrict women, meaning that we have to perform as well as men, if not better, while being held back by quaint, stereotypical notions of what constitutes femininity and a professional appearance. So I say to women everywhere, “Let’s have no more going backwards in high heels; let’s go forwards, and in sensible shoes.”
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I am pleased to follow such an interesting and thought-provoking contribution from the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes). I also commend Nicola Thorp, who brought this issue to all of our attention and wrote the petition. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) spoke passionately and clarified some of the depressing realities of working life for many of the young women that she and her Committee spoke to. Like her, I commend the young women who came forward to give evidence in public. It can be daunting for someone to put their head above the parapet, and in this case doing so attracted comment that would have made it more so.
I followed the case that led to the petition and subsequent Committee inquiry with some interest. As I said, before I came to this place it was my job to write the dress code policy for my organisation and to work with staff and trade unions to arrive at a sensible and agreeable policy. I can recall us having lots of discussion but, I have to say, little disagreement about how things might be expressed. We heard sensible words about people being attired appropriately for the task at hand, and that is a reasonable summary of the position that I would expect most organisations to reach.
We had precious little discussion about shoes and none whatever about some of the other, quite astonishing requirements being placed on women that we have heard about today, such as women being required to dye their hair blonde, to wear revealing outfits and to reapply their make-up constantly—as for flesh-coloured tights, I despair! I would be amused by the fact that I personally would fail on every single one of those counts, were not the overall topic and what it says about women in the workplace and wider society so depressingly serious.
I would have remembered had we had any discussion about high heels because, unlike the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton, I am quite partial to a pair of high heels, but not at work—they do not really do in the House of Commons where we have to walk so much. I therefore stand here in the Chamber in a pair of boringly sensible boots. They are smart enough and, thankfully, they add a number of extra inches to my height, but I am sure that they would fall foul of the kind of dress codes that we have heard about, because they are simply too sensible.
Interestingly, the only discussion that I can remember about footwear and dress codes was in relation to safety footwear. That was the only area in which we felt it was at all appropriate for us to be specific. For most staff, “smart” was clarity enough, but for those who were likely to be working in environments in which things could be dropped or cause injury, the unbreakable rule was that appropriate safety footwear must be worn. That seems eminently sensible to me and seems to be in line with the century in which we are having this discussion.
I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which I thought would have a view worth considering on this issue, and it did. It says that dress codes are lawful, provided that they are reasonable and have equivalent requirements for both sexes. It suggests key points that employers should consider when implementing or amending a dress code: they should always avoid any form of discrimination in a dress code policy and remember that imposing certain standards of dress for health and safety reasons is acceptable—I would go further and say that it is vital. They should also apply dress codes equally to men and women. The difficulty, of course, arises there, because men and women do not generally wear similar shoes or clothing, and most men do not wear make-up. However, it is surely possible in this day and age for us to agree, for instance, that both sexes need to look smart without going into areas where women are clearly treated less favourably than men. For instance, the requirement to wear make-up would surely amount to discrimination, as would a requirement for someone to wear revealing clothing or to dye their hair blonde. I can also foresee a strand of age discrimination that would quite likely follow some of those extremely unhelpful gender-related suggestions.
Crucially, the CIPD advised that employers should always make sure that they have a sound business reason for imposing personal appearance criteria on staff and that a clear written policy has been implemented and widely communicated. The CIPD concluded that it is important to avoid the pitfall of believing that clients would automatically take offence at an employee’s personal appearance. I do not know about anyone else in the Chamber today, but the sight of a woman in flat shoes does not usually send me reaching for the smelling salts. I imagine that clients coming to meetings will be spectacularly unbothered by the heel height of anyone in attendance, and rather more focused on the business at hand—unless, of course, their meeting is being held in the 1970s.
Safety is clearly the key point; it is vital that everyone is kept safe at work and that all health and safety requirements are met. Nobody should be expected to work in an environment that damages their health—but that is what happens for someone who works in a company where high heels are required. We have heard only too clearly from the hon. Member for Warrington North about the real health impacts—to say nothing of the pain—that these dress codes can cause and, worryingly, about the fact that women were put off applying for jobs because of those criteria.
I have admitted to owning a number of high-heeled shoes—some of them very high—but that is my choice and there is no compulsion on me to wear them to work. If I did, according to research I would be in trouble, because women over 40—sadly that includes me—are particularly affected, because women’s balance is apparently affected by age. Seriously, there are more potential issues of discrimination on the grounds of age and disability.
The Women and Equalities Committee’s report was helpful in clarifying that the relationship between the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 and workplace dress codes is not as widely understood as it should be, and that the current approach is not working. We welcome the report and its calls for new legislation and new ways of tackling discrimination, and for stopping women being forced to comply with discriminatory dress codes.
I understand that the UK Government have said that the existing law is clear and that the dress code that prompted this petition is unlawful. However, discriminatory dress codes obviously remain widespread, so the existing law is clearly not yet fully effective in protecting employees from discrimination at work. It is wrong for someone to be expected to wear high heels, make-up or revealing outfits if such demands are not placed on both genders. Clearly, that would be undesirable, but such ingrained workplace sexism sadly continues to prevail.
It is clear from the report that many people do not feel able to challenge the dress codes that they are required to follow. I agree with the recommendations that the Government Equalities Office should work with ACAS and the Health and Safety Executive to make sure that detailed guidance can be published to help people to understand both equality and health and safety law and how they apply to workplace dress codes. There is simply insufficient evidence in the public domain about health and safety and the risks and implications, for instance, of wearing high heels. I look forward to those bodies working on that as soon as possible, because this really does matter.
I am pleased that the SNP Scottish Government are taking action to ensure women’s equality in the workplace, because that goes right to the heart of this issue. What we have heard today about women being subjected to ridiculous requirements and—far worse— harassment in the workplace is unacceptable. In 2017, equality for women in the workplace should be at the heart of every Government’s agenda. Closing the gender pay gap, dealing with maternity discrimination and considering how all those issues can feed into economic growth are vital, but those things cannot be dealt with alone. Until we can deal with what we have discussed today, we will not make the progress that we should, because that is key to driving forward gender equality in the workplace. I press the Minister to tell us what she can do, what she will do and when we can expect some action.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for the powerful way in which she introduced the debate on behalf not only of the Petitions Committee, but of the more than 150,000 people who signed the petition. I also pay tribute to the incredible lady—Nicola Thorp—who started it.
Nicola’s actions on that day in December 2015, when she was given the choice—I use the word “choice” with the loosest possible meaning—either to return to work with a pair of high heels or to leave work and forfeit a day’s pay, has the potential to change the experiences of women in the workplace. She acted not just for herself, but, as we can see from the subsequent inquiry by the Petitions Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee, for thousands of women up and down our country.
Given that 150,000 people signed the petition and the more than 700 responses to the inquiry’s web forum, it is clear that Nicola’s experience was not an isolated incident. The inquiry took evidence on the medical effects of the prolonged wearing of high heels, which the College of Podiatry describes as “disabling”. As we heard from a number of hon. Members this afternoon, that includes severe pain, knee, hip and spine problems and stress fractures. It places older women or perhaps those with disabilities—already marginalised groups—at a particular disadvantage and impacts on women’s performance at work.
As reported by many of the respondents to the inquiry, women often find such dress codes humiliating, degrading and demeaning, designed not to guarantee a professional image of the employer but to sexualise women employees. Evidence in the Committee’s report highlights just that, with one respondent saying:
“For me personally, it was a bit dehumanising and humiliating to be made specifically to wear items of uniform that sexualised my appearance or enhanced my sexuality—no aspect of the men’s uniform was designed to enhance their male sexuality.”
Such dress codes are based on the objectification and sexualisation of female employees. They hinge on the requirement for someone else in the workplace to appraise the physical appearance of those staff members. Gender-based dress codes create working environments where women are vulnerable to sexual harassment, not only from their employer, but from customers and clients. Furthermore, any such level of objectification, clearly based on a particular understanding of beauty and gender stereotypes, may have negative implications for women who do not conform to them. As the inquiry heard, there may be homophobic or racist connotations for women employees. In common with the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) but unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), I own a plethora of high-heeled shoes—perhaps more than some would consider necessary—but I choose when I want to wear them, and that is becoming increasingly rare these days, as my age increases.
These stereotypes do not just impact on women currently in employment; they are pernicious, feeding down to the standards that young girls and women believe are expected of them. According to Girlguiding’s “Girls’ Attitudes Survey”, 36% of girls aged seven to 10 say that people make them think that the most important thing about them is how they look, while 47% of girls aged 11 to 21 say that how they look holds them back most of the time. Tellingly, 86% of seven to 10-year-old girls think that girls and boys have the same chance of being successful in their future jobs, but that falls to just 35% when asking 17 to 21-year-olds. Gender-based dress codes are a cause and a consequence of a nasty and corrosive sexism that conveys that women are little more than dolls to be dressed or objects to be presented. The codes feed portrayals of women that make girls believe that their most valuable asset is not what they say or do, or how hard they work or apply themselves, but how they look. I am rarely lost for words, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends here would agree, but having heard about the mandatory make-up requirements in some workplaces, I am at a loss. We cannot overestimate the implications for young girls’ physical and mental health, self-worth and aspirations.
The inquiry made a number of recommendations. In particular, the Select Committee on Women and Equalities and the Petitions Committee focused on women’s ability to challenge such dress codes and made recommendations on the role of tribunals. Unsurprisingly, the sectors recognised as having the most discriminatory dress codes are travel and tourism services and the retail and hospitality industry, which are known for low-paid and insecure working environments in which women are significantly over-represented. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, many women are deterred from applying for certain jobs by such dress codes.
Those deep and corrosive structural barriers are at the core of women’s economic inequality and allow some companies, as evidenced in the Committees’ report, to treat women poorly in the knowledge that they do not have access to recourse. How does the Minister plan to tackle sectors that rely on insecure working practices, and how will she better support employees in those sectors to access recourse?
According to the TUC, since the introduction of employment tribunal fees of up to £1,200, the number of people taking a claim against their employer has dropped by 9,000 a month, which has direct implications for women. Between January and March 2014, just 1,222 sex discrimination claims were made to an employment tribunal, compared with 6,017 in the same quarter in 2013. That represents a huge fall of 80%. On 31 January 2017, the Government published their review of employment tribunal fees, admitting that the fall in claims has been significantly greater than was estimated when fees were first introduced.
As the inquiry shows, sometimes the only way that women can enforce their rights at work is through employment tribunals. How on earth can the Government claim to show any commitment to tackling sexist and discriminatory working practices when they have effectively priced women out of their own employment rights? The situation is compounded by the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s failure to bring test cases in relation to working practices, which comes as no surprise given that the Government have cut its budget to shreds. How will the Government ensure that the EHRC has the necessary budget and resources that it needs to bring test cases to uphold anti-discrimination laws?
Nicola Thorp’s actions and her subsequent petition are a lesson to us all about the importance of hearing directly about women’s experiences. It may never even occur to many in this place that women in the workplace can and regularly do have a markedly different experience from men. Expectations placed on women in the workplace, whether they are written down in a dress code or hinted by a manager, or stare out of an advertisement board or a newspaper, shape the way that women are treated in the workplace. The consequences of those expectations, the humiliation and even, sometimes, the physical pain can and do change how women interact with their work and the world around them.
Ahead of International Women’s Day on Wednesday, every Member of this House should do our utmost to hear directly from women and understand what they experience. When we do hear from women, it is not enough just to recognise their experiences of sexism and discrimination; we must act to tackle it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for securing this important debate and for setting out the issues so clearly, and in some cases shockingly, in her opening speech. I congratulate all the other Members who have taken part.
I am grateful to the Petitions Committee and the Women and Equalities Committee for their report on high heels and workplace dress codes. It is clearly concerning, and highlights both unacceptable behaviour and the persistent challenges faced by some women in the workplace. I am most grateful to Nicola Thorp and other brave whistleblowers like her who have shone a light on this important issue.
Let me be clear: the Government will not tolerate any form of discrimination on any grounds, including gender. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) said, it is International Women’s Day this Wednesday, so this debate could not be more timely. The international theme this year is “Be Bold for Change”, and our own national theme is supporting women in the workplace. When it comes to supporting women in the workplace, we mean to be bold, including by enforcing strong laws to tackle sex discrimination at work, including dress codes.
We should renew our efforts to be bold for change. After all, we have had anti-discrimination laws in this area for over 40 years, yet it is a safe bet that this sort of dress code has still existed under the radar, and that female employees have put up with discrimination because “that’s the way things are”. However, whether shod in heels or flats, we are collectively putting our foot down. Attitudes are changing, and this petition has brought that change clearly into the public domain.
However, this is not just about shoes; it is way bigger than that. It is about how people are treated in the workplace, and this debate is specifically about how women are treated in the workplace. We have a higher number of women in work than ever before, but it is essential that they should feel comfortable and confident in their employers’ due regard for their health and wellbeing. They should feel empowered to do their best and be rewarded for their hard work. They should feel confident of their rights and that they can redress a problem where it persists. Employers must meet their legal obligations towards their employees, and we will support them to do so.
We are carefully considering the Committees’ report and recommendations and will be issuing a response later this month. I do not want to pre-empt that response, but the evidence sessions conducted by the Committees were invaluable in setting out the extent of the problem. They highlighted some shocking workplace dress code requirements, such as the requirement to re-apply make-up throughout the day and to dress in a sexualised fashion, supposedly to attract clients and customers. I do not know who should feel most insulted by that: the person being required to re-apply their make-up or the consumers whose intelligence is being insulted by the suggestion that a fresh coat of lipstick will somehow induce them to purchase something.
The report also shows that the problem is compounded by the further issue of health and safety, which many hon. Members have mentioned. If an employer requires staff to wear particular shoes as part of a dress code, they should consider the implications. It is absolutely right that the Committees are shining a spotlight on discriminatory dress code practices. In 2017, such outdated and sexist employment practices should not be part of the workplace.
I am proud that in this country, women have a voice and a way to bring such issues to Parliament. We now have plenty of female parliamentarians—maybe not quite enough yet, but enough to bring this issue to Parliament. However, we must also ensure that women have a choice. Whether they choose to wear high heels or not—we have heard very good cases for and against; personally, at 5 foot 10 inches, I have never really needed a few extra inches—should be up to them, not up to some outdated, dodgy 1970s workplace diktat. I must reiterate that the Government utterly condemn such dress requirements where their effect is discriminatory. We strongly support the existing equality legislation that provides protection to women and indeed men who are treated less favourably because of gender in the workplace, but clearly the legislation must be more widely understood and better enforced.
The Equality Act 2010 clearly prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee or job applicant because of their sex when deciding whom to offer employment or in relation to the terms on which employment is offered. Dress policies for men and women do not have to be identical, but the standards imposed should be equivalent, meaning that where an employer or an agency supplying staff imposes a dress code, then unless similar or equivalent rules are laid down for both male and female employees, that code may be directly discriminatory. For example, a man may be asked to wear a shirt and tie while a woman is not, but she would be expected to wear equivalent smart work wear. A code that results in a degree of discomfort or expense for a female employee that a male colleague would not be expected to endure is likely to be discriminatory. In the case of a requirement for high heels, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) pointed out, a blanket rule for women might also be indirectly discriminatory on grounds of disability—for example, if a female employee has difficulty in walking because of a medical condition but is required to wear heels along with her colleagues.
Dress codes can be a legitimate part of an employer’s terms and conditions of service—we accept the importance that some firms place on presenting a smart, uniform corporate image, particularly where services are offered to the public—but such codes must apply fairly to men and women. I was thinking about whether there are any workplaces in which both men and women are required to wear high heels, but the only one that I could think of was the musical “Kinky Boots”, in which everyone seems to wear high heels at the end. Personally, I fail to see why a high heel should be a byword for smartness.
I hope that this case acts as a reminder to employers of their responsibilities and makes employees of both genders aware of their rights under the 2010 Act. However, to ensure that the message is driven home, particularly to employers, the Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission are taking action. The Government are clear that the law to deal with such cases of discrimination is adequate, but we recognise that some employers lack awareness of the law or even choose to flout it. We are therefore developing guidance for employers, working closely with the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, the EHRC and the Health and Safety Executive, in response to the recommendations in the Committees’ report. I welcome the work that the EHRC has already done to raise awareness of discriminatory code practices on social media; I am also aware of, and welcome, the fact that it is looking more generally at how to sharpen and improve its enforcement work under the 2010 Act.
I commend Nicola Thorp and I encourage other whistleblowers to call out employers on these outdated and potentially unlawful practices. These kinds of headlines do not show anybody in a good light, and people should be calling out the employers concerned. Taking that action is never easy, but it is invaluable in raising the profile of the issue and in encouraging employers to review and, where necessary, revise their current dress code practices—as the employer in this case went on to do.
I would like to use this debate to challenge all employers with dress codes to review them and consider whether they remain relevant and lawful. I urge employers to consult the existing guidance available from EHRC and ACAS on the issue, and our forthcoming guidance, which will be prepared with the Thorp petition and the Women and Equalities Committee’s report in mind. Consulting with employees on any proposed dress code may ensure that the code is acceptable both to the organisation and to its staff. In particular, I expect the sectors highlighted in the report—hotels and tourism, travel and airlines, temporary agencies, corporate services, retail and hospitality—to review their dress codes, if they have not already done so. With that in mind, I have recently written to all the trade bodies that represent those sectors. I have drawn their attention to the report and asked them to impress on their members the importance of treating their employees, both male and female, fairly and decently when setting dress codes. I am already beginning to get responses from the trade bodies, and so far they have been very positive.
The hon. Member for Warrington North mentioned that women are sometimes afraid to take complaints against employers further. It is important to emphasise that the 2010 Act has victimisation protections that can give women the confidence to complain about dress codes that may be unlawful, safe in the knowledge that their employer cannot dismiss them for making a complaint. However, there is room for improvement, especially in employees’ understanding of their rights, and the Government have a role to play in that. We will look at how we can improve awareness and understanding of the protections available and how better to enforce them.
To further our ability to spot and respond to this type of discriminatory practice, the Equality Advisory and Support Service has agreed to refer any reports of dress code issues to the EHRC to consider further action. That will ensure that the situation is investigated, that whistleblowers are supported and that we can assess whether further action is required on the part of the Government or other bodies.
The lack of test cases is nothing to do with EHRC budgets. The EHRC has not historically taken on cases of this sort; it has been concerned with taking on strategic cases, generally those that might extend or expand the law, and a basic dress code would not normally be part of that category. However, the EHRC is now looking at strategic cases, to see whether they can include more basic areas of public or parliamentary concern such as this.
We want the UK to lead the way in gender equality in the workplace to ensure that we are a true meritocracy that harnesses the talents of everyone. Making women wear sexualised clothing is about as far away as it is possible to get from our vision of gender parity in the workplace.
The EHRC budget is a bit of a red herring. The EHRC has and will continue to have sufficient funds to fulfil its functions. Its total budget allocation in 2016-17 is £20.435 million. To put that in perspective, it has four times as many staff as my entire Department, the entire Government Equalities Office. We are confident that it has sufficient money and resources to continue to fulfil its statutory functions.
We are committed to enhancing the role of women and removing barriers to equality, including outdated practices and attitudes, by tackling the gender pay gap, increasing the number of women on boards, increasing support for childcare costs and ensuring that employers are aware of their obligations to pregnant women.
A number of hon. Members raised tribunal fees. We are currently consulting on proposals to extend the support available under the help with fees scheme. Under these proposals, the gross monthly income threshold for a full fee remission would be increased to £1,250 a month—broadly the level of the national wage. If implemented, the proposals will help people on low incomes.
We have made great progress on tackling gender discrimination, but there is still much more to do, and it is the responsibility of all of us. We will continue to work hard to ensure that women are not excluded from or held back in the workplace because of exactly the type of outdated attitudes, practices and discriminatory dress codes that we have heard about today.
Helen Jones
I thank all colleagues who have spoken in this debate. Among the parliamentarians here, I see women of different ages, shapes and heights. We have all managed to do our job without anyone telling us how to dress—funnily enough, it does not matter. We need to get that message across to employers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), who has had to leave the debate, spoke about the impact that wearing high heels can have. My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) rightly said that the best dress codes are limited in scope and do only what they have to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) pointed out how degrading many women find the requirements imposed on us. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) brought to bear her own experience of working in personnel and set out what needs to be done. As many hon. Members have said, a clear message needs to go out today that employers need to review their practices in this area. I was pleased to hear that the Minister has written to trade bodies to get them to remind employers about their duties under the Equality Act 2010, because too much discrimination still goes on in the workplace.
Anyone who suggests that a woman can only do her job wearing 3 or 4 inch heels does not understand the job and has never spent the day in heels. Anyone who suggests that we choose an airline based on the shade of lipstick worn by the female cabin crew really needs to wake up and smell the coffee. It is outrageous that such things are still going on today. Equality in the workplace should be a given; it should not be something that people constantly have to fight for. It benefits employees, but in the long term it also benefits employers, because it gives them a much more diverse workforce with different skills and attitudes.
I am glad that the Minister has made it clear today that she shares our concern about discriminatory behaviour and that she knows that it is unacceptable. I look forward to the Government’s response to the Committees’ report. In the end, however, women have to be able to enforce their rights; we can get only so far with information and exhortation. At the end of the day, people need to go to a tribunal. It is a long time since I practised law, because I have been here in Parliament for nearly 20 years, but I do not see a difference between what the Minister calls a “strategic” case and a test case. I think they are exactly the same thing and I will be glad to see the Equality and Human Rights Commission taking on some further cases in this area.
I also thank Nicola Thorp, who started this petition. Already, it has achieved a great deal and I hope that we will achieve more in the long term. She put her head above the parapet and endured a lot of abuse on social media for doing so. As I said before, these issues are not trivial; they contribute to a toxic atmosphere in the workplace that demeans women and does not give them equality. I hope that we shall move on from our report to ensure that such equality becomes not just an aspiration but a reality in the workplace for all women, even those who are poorly paid and in insecure jobs.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 129823 relating to high heels and workplace dress codes.
Written Statements
Departmental Contingency Liability: Postal Services Holding Company Ltd
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
The Government intend to put the Postal Services Holding Company Limited into voluntary liquidation on 30 March 2017. This company, previously known as Royal Mail Holdings plc, is wholly owned by Government.
The Government have decided that, following the disposal of all of the Royal Mail shares held by the company, there is no longer a need to retain the company. The voluntary liquidation will save the taxpayer money by removing the company’s running costs of around £120,000 per annum.
Shares held by the company in Post Office Limited (POL) will be transferred to direct ownership by the Secretary of State for BEIS and this transfer will have no impact on POL’s operations.
The directors of the company (all unremunerated, public or civil servants) are required to issue a Declaration of Solvency prior to the company’s liquidation.
The expectation is that all the company’s identified and existing liabilities will be met, apart from minimal expenses incurred during the liquidation process, after placing into to liquidation.
However, there is a small risk that some as yet unidentified liabilities could emerge. To give the directors comfort that such liabilities could be met, and to enable them to sign the Declaration of Insolvency, my Department intends to grant an indemnity to the Postal Services Holding Company Limited. The granting of an indemnity is effectively neutral to BEIS because if the company were not placed into liquidation and a liability emerged, the company would look to work with the Department, as sole shareholder, to address that liability.
The indemnity will be uncapped for a period of six years and will be issued prior to the liquidation.
When a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, it is required practice for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until fourteen parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
As a matter of record I have attached a departmental minute for both Houses explaining the procedure followed and containing a description of the liabilities undertaken.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament. uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-03-06/HCWS519.
[HCWS519]
Anonymous Electoral Registration
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
I am pleased to publish the Government’s plans setting out our aim of ensuring survivors of domestic abuse can participate in our democracy by making it easier for them to register to vote without their names and addresses appearing on the electoral register.
Our proposals are intended to make the anonymous electoral registration scheme more accessible to those escaping domestic abuse. They will broaden the evidentiary requirements for an application for anonymous registration to make them more accessible and relevant for survivors of abuse, while maintaining clarity and certainty around the registration process for electoral administrators. The policy will provide more ready access to anonymous registration for those whom it is intended to help.
The publication of the policy will welcome comment from domestic abuse organisations, professional bodies and those with technical electoral expertise.
This is one of a number of proposals to make sure our democracy works for everyone. The Government are also encouraging registration in under-registered areas, equalising constituencies, and giving all British citizens who have lived in the UK a lifelong right to vote in Parliamentary elections.
I am placing a copy of the policy statement in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS518]
Health Redress
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
On 13 July 2016 the Government announced their response to the January 2016 consultation on reform of the current ex-gratia payment schemes for individuals infected with HIV and/or hepatitis C following treatment with NHS-supplied blood or blood products before September 1991.
The Government recognise the suffering experienced by people as a result of this tragedy and the Prime Minister apologised on behalf of the Government in March 2015. Since 1988, successive Governments have set up five schemes to provide financial and other support to those affected. The Government committed further funding of up to an additional £125 million over the existing baseline budget. This additional money more than doubles the Department of Health’s annual spend on the scheme over the spending review period to April 2021. This is significantly more than any previous Government have provided for those affected by this tragedy.
On account of this increased allocation, July’s consultation response set out a package of support measures for those infected and affected by the infected blood tragedy. For the first time, almost 2,500 beneficiaries with chronic hepatitis C infection were eligible to receive an annual payment of £3,500 per year. Those with advanced hepatitis C and HIV received an uplift in their annual payment to £15,500, and we introduced a new £10,000 payment to bereaved partners and spouses.
Since July, the Government have also worked on the detail of the measures proposed for 2017-18 for scheme beneficiaries infected in England such as the new special appeals mechanism for those with chronic hepatitis C infection and reformed discretionary support scheme. The special appeals mechanism, which is now called special category mechanism (SCM) will be a significant new element of the infected blood reforms. Therefore, today the Government announce the launch of a new consultation on the details of the new SCM and our proposals for ensuring the scheme remains within its budget as a result of the new SCM. We invite beneficiaries and other interested parties to comment on our proposals.
The consultation published today and attached will run until 17 April 2017. This is a six-week consultation to ensure that all those who wish to respond have time to do so. There are four elements of reform on which the Government would welcome views.
The addition of a new condition to qualify for the higher financial support given to those infected with hepatitis C who have developed advanced liver disease.
The new special category mechanism (with appeal) (SCM) to identify hepatitis C stage one beneficiaries whose infection has a substantial and long term adverse impact on their ability to carry out normal daily activities, offering those who are successful the higher annual payment.
Proposals to keep the scheme within budget in light of the increased annual payment for successful SCM applicants while preserving discretionary fund.
The type of support the reformed discretionary scheme would offer that is fair to all groups of beneficiaries.
The Government understand that there has been uncertainty about how the SCM and reformed discretionary support will be implemented during 2017. The outcome of the consultation will be crucial to informing our final decisions about these elements. Informed by the consultation responses, the Government will implement the decisions as soon as possible in 2017-18. The Government do not anticipate that there will be any reduction in current spending as a result of the consultation proposals. No one who currently receives an annual payment will be worse off than they are now as a result of the proposed changes to the annual payments.
This consultation does not affect any of the reform elements introduced in the financial year of 2016-17.
Finally, the Government have heard beneficiaries’ feedback regarding our plans for a new scheme administrator. As a result, we announce today that the NHS Business Services Authority will become the new single scheme administrator during 2017. While this transition takes place, annual and discretionary payments and services will continue to be made by the current schemes to ensure a smooth transition to the new scheme administrator with minimum impact on the important financial and non-financial ex-gratia services infected blood beneficiaries will receive this Parliament.
Consultation Document can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-03-06/HCWS520/.
House of Lords
Solicitors: Professional Qualifications
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Low of Dalston
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent proposals by the Solicitors Regulation Authority to reform the qualifications for admission to the solicitors’ profession.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as chair of the University of Leeds School of Law advisory board.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, as the legal profession in England and Wales and the bodies that regulate it are independent from government, we have not made any assessment of the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s recent proposals. As set out in the Legal Services Act 2007, it will be for the Legal Services Board to determine whether to approve changes to the qualification arrangements for solicitors, should the Solicitors Regulation Authority seek to proceed with its proposals.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. However, is he not aware of the widespread concern that the Solicitors Regulation Authority’s proposals will mean that universities have to teach to the solicitors qualifying examination if they are to remain competitive, potentially constraining the breadth of the curriculum that can be taught as part of an academic law degree and stifling innovation in curriculum development?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we do not believe that if these proposals were taken forward it would have such a stultifying effect upon the university law schools to which the noble Lord refers. I observe that there are currently 110 qualifying law degree providers, 40 providers of the graduate diploma in law and 26 providers of the legal practice course, and no consistency of examination at the point of qualification.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, given the massive cuts in legal aid, the rising costs of tribunal and court proceedings, and the difficulties resulting from the consequential growth in the number of unrepresented litigants, should not any qualification programme include a requirement to provide pro bono advice and representation?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, as I have already indicated, the question of what qualification requirements there should be is a matter for the Solicitors Regulation Authority and for the Legal Services Board. However, of course they are concerned to pursue their statutory obligations, which include a requirement to have regard to the demands upon the profession.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we are seeing something of a turf war between the SRA and the Law Society. One can of course see the case for separation, with the SRA as regulator and the Law Society governing the profession. There may even be a case for a single legal services regulator. But the position at the moment is that the SRA wants to control standards for entry into the profession and the Law Society’s concern is not to lower those standards. Do the Government have a view on how those issues can be resolved, given the public interest in maintaining standards of legal practice?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has no desire to see any diminution in standards. Its concern is to increase access to the profession in order that we have a more effective and diverse profession. As regards the test of what would be appropriate for the regulation of access to the profession, the Legal Services Board will make a determination in light of the SRA’s submission.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Has the Minister noticed the distinct lack of guidance for the Legal Services Board? Barristers are taking this opportunity to upgrade the qualifications while solicitors are going in the other direction. Given that there are very few jobs for new solicitors, this ought to be the moment to upgrade their qualifications as well. Does he agree that it is high time for a review of the Legal Services Board, which seems to have failed to produce over the past 10 years any of the reforms and improvements that were promised at the outset?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we do not consider that there is a need for a further review at this time. As the noble Baroness will be aware, the Legal Education and Training Review was undertaken jointly by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Bar Standards Board and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, which resulted in a report that was published in June 2013. The review did find weaknesses in the current system of legal education, and the SRA is seeking to address them in its submissions to the Legal Services Board.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register. Perhaps I could tempt the Minister to reflect on the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low, about the narrowing of the curriculum. I accept entirely that the SRA and the Legal Services Board are independent, but would it not be of national concern if family law, disability rights and social welfare law were to be squeezed out in the narrowing of that curriculum?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I understand the point made by the noble Lord and I agree that we should not see a narrowing of the curriculum, but, with respect, where people undertake to study at a university, whether it be for a law degree or another subject, they do not do so for the sole purpose of passing a professional examination; they study in order to broaden their understanding in general and to extend their education and their understanding of the law. For example, the study of jurisprudence may not be regarded as absolutely essential to passing examinations set by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, but nevertheless it is appropriate for anyone expecting to pursue a career in law.
Allotments: Council Provision
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sharples
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Statement by Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth on 7 February on the Housing White Paper, what steps they are taking to ensure that councils continue to provide suitable plots for allotments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that allotments are valuable assets that play an important role in bringing communities together to live healthier lifestyles. Before disposing of allotments, councils must satisfy a range of statutory criteria set by the Government. Moreover, there is a range of measures through which communities can help to safeguard their allotments, including the National Planning Policy Framework, neighbourhood planning and the community right to bid, as well as always, it is hoped, keeping allotments free of Japanese knotweed.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
My Lords, does not the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 still apply to councils? If more than six people ask for an allotment, are they not to be given one?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend is right about the importance of the 1908 Act and subsequently the 1925 Act, and the Government subsequently tightened the statutory duties on local authorities in the 2014 guidance which ensures that existing plot holders are protected if a local authority wishes to dispose of the allotments. That protection is in place.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, while allotments make a valuable contribution, public parks play an even larger part in promoting health and well-being. Last October, the Heritage Lottery Fund warned that local council cuts were endangering the condition and health of public parks, and last month the CLG committee warned of cuts of up to 97%, with some parks facing a return to the neglect suffered in the 1980s and 1990s. What are the Government doing to mitigate this threat to amenity and public health?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as always, the noble Lord is absolutely right about the importance of green spaces, which, as he will know, are well protected in the housing White Paper, which is open for consultation until 2 May. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will respond to it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a plot holder in Saltaire. The noble Lord talked about the benefits to the community of communal space and communal gardens, but do the Government encourage developers developing new housing to move back from individual gardens and individual houses towards a greater density of houses with communal space and communal gardens—exactly what allotments are—given the current long waiting lists in so many parts of the country for allotments?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as I indicated, green spaces in general are the subject of consultation in the housing White Paper. The noble Lord is right about the importance of appropriate density provision, with those green spaces. We give special protection to allotments and have done since 1908. If anything, that protection has been ramped up in the 2014 guidelines. Regarding waiting lists, I have spoken to the National Allotment Society. The pressure has eased on allotment waiting lists. There is still a waiting list, but it is not as long as it was, say, 10 years ago.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that private landowners are often very well placed to make land available for allotments? Given that, will he encourage Defra to promote discussions between councillors, the NFU and other representatives of landowners to see whether they can find ways to promote such private provision?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My noble friend makes a very important point. Having spoken with the National Allotment Society, I know that it is discussing and bringing to fruition a plan with British Telecom, making available a lot of land that is now I think 1,200 disused telephone exchanges, which will be used for allotments, and that is heartening. I certainly take on board what my noble friend said and echo it.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, 100 years ago last month, the Germans declared unrestricted U-boat warfare on this nation and almost starved us to death. Of course allotments became very important, as they were in the Second World War. While allotments are wonderful things, does the Minister not feel that protecting our merchant shipping with enough warships might be more important?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is like a round of Mornington Crescent with the noble Lord—he always succeeds in bringing that in. Of course I agree about the importance of allotments, not just for healthier lifestyles, but for ensuring that we have appropriate food supplies in the country.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, massive numbers of houses are now planned for the future. In the literature on them I have seen no reference to the provision of allotments for new housing. That will be appended to many small communities that have plenty of provision, but there is nothing on the map to show what will be added to that provision when the new houses are built.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will take comfort from the fact that thanks to neighbourhood planning, which owes its root to the Localism Act 2012, many areas are bringing forward plans for neighbourhood allotments—Thame, Exeter, Norwich and Haywards Heath, to give just some examples.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, further to the question from his noble friend, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is the Minister aware that the National Trust provides some allotments? A number of charities have communal gardens to help people with mental health problems. Rooting around in the soil, seeing plants grow and then harvesting them is a wonderful rehabilitative practice.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Countess makes a valuable point about all the benefits of allotments. That is why we provide special protection for and give such importance to them in neighbourhood planning, community right to bid and the planning framework I spoke of.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, referring back to the supplementary question of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, does the Minister agree that one of the great benefits of allotments is the diversity of what is grown on them and the effect of that on the population of pollinators, which of course are extremely important to agriculture? Does he not think that that is a good reason to encourage farmers to make land available?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point about pollinators and the great variety of plants and vegetables that grow on allotments. I have had the opportunity to see this with my own brother—and I hope that he is listening to this so that I can benefit again this year.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, in the London area in the past the obligations were fewer for local authorities. Is it still the position that London is treated differently?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend, who understands London like few others, is absolutely right: that was the position in the 1908 Act. However, since the 1925 Act, London has been dealt with on exactly the same basis. If I am wrong on that, I will write to my noble friend and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, once we have left the European Union, we will probably have to grow a lot more of our own food, and therefore that we will need many more allotments—in which case we will certainly have to look at the law again? Does the Department for Exiting the European Union have this on its agenda?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, as I indicated in my earlier response to the noble Lord, Lord West, growing our own food is of importance anyway. I do not know whether we are looking at this in particular through the Department for Exiting the European Union, but it is of extreme importance—as are all the other benefits of allotments, which is why they are so important, as indicated in the exchanges today.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that concern about public parks—to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made reference—is widely shared across this House? Will he say what the Government are doing now to safeguard their future while the consultation exercise grinds along?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I share the view that this is extremely important, as my noble friend indicated. As I said, this is acknowledged in the housing White Paper. We face many challenges, of which building more houses while protecting the green belt and public parks is one. As I said, the consultation will be open to take views until 2 May.
Careers Advice and Guidance
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Cotter
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to continue to ensure the availability of good careers advice and guidance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, we know that careers advice still varies hugely, even though a lot of good work is under way. That is why we will publish a comprehensive careers strategy for all ages later this year. We want to build on the progress so far. The Careers & Enterprise Company has made an excellent start and is boosting the level of employer input into schools and colleges, while the National Careers Service continues to provide free, impartial support across the country and has excellent customer satisfaction rates.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, there is a great need in this country for skills, and many 16 year-olds and others are not aware of the vocational education opportunities available. I recently met members of the aerospace industry, who are combining together. Many other organisations and trades are combining to offer training and vocational opportunities. May I say to the Minister that people are not always aware of the opportunities for training and vocational education and suchlike? Will he ensure that the Government publicise the many opportunities that are available in this country for training and vocational education?
Lord Nash
I share the noble Lord’s concern about the lack of awareness in some cases of these kinds of opportunities. Of course, we are determined to increase the status of technical education. We have been discussing this in the Technical and Further Education Bill and have accepted an amendment from my noble friend Lord Baker to require schools to allow principals of institutions offering technical education to come into the schools to meet the pupils.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, a recent report on apprenticeships from the Young Women’s Trust found that young women received lower average pay and less on the job training and were more likely than their male counterparts to be out of work after their apprenticeship. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Young Women’s Trust. Part of the problem is the occupational segregation that occurs. What are the Government doing to make sure that young women receive appropriate careers advice?
Lord Nash
I share the noble Baroness’s concern. Our reforms to career guidance are based on schools connecting with pupils so that they understand the breadth of opportunities available to them, particularly in relation to girls. We welcome initiatives such as the Inspiring Women campaign, run by Inspiring the Future. We also have a lot of activity under way to stimulate more interest in STEM, including the Stimulating Physics Network and the Further Mathematics Support Programme. These provide support to schools, with a particular focus on engaging girls.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I believe that something like 58% of graduates are employed in what are described as non-graduate jobs. I suggest that part of the reason for that is that there is not an efficient functioning of the guidance of young people at university into career areas that are suitable for them. Indeed, as has been commented on, a lot of people are not even aware that there is advice at university. I hope the Government will think hard about how they can improve that and help our graduates get into the sorts of jobs that they are suitable for.
Lord Nash
My noble friend makes an extremely good point. I know that my ministerial colleague Jo Johnson is very focused on this. I remember Andreas Schleicher telling me that we are the worst country in Europe for aligning courses at universities with the jobs available. We believe that our plans under the Higher Education and Research Bill will make students much more focused on what are worthwhile occupations.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, a few moments ago the Minister referred to the Technical and Further Education Bill, which is in Committee, and that he had accepted a cross-party amendment which means that from September this year all state-funded schools in England must provide access to a range of education and training providers. That was very much welcomed by all those in Committee, but in that debate the Minister said:
“Our careers strategy will not be effective unless schools and colleges are held to account for the quality of their careers provision. Ofsted has an important role to play in this regard”.—[Official Report, 22/2/17; col. GC 70.]
With schools that were previously reluctant to have their pupils advised about routes other than those that lead to university now being obliged to do so, does the Minister accept that when this comes into effect Ofsted should give an overall “good” or “outstanding” rating to a school or college only if it considers that the careers advice provided by them is of a good or outstanding standard?
Lord Nash
When we came into government in 2010 I think there were about 30 different Ofsted categories for ratings and we were very keen to sharpen and simplify the Ofsted arrangements. Ofsted has sharpened its approach specifically to careers provision and continues to remind inspectors of the importance of effective information, advice and guidance. Careers provision features within three of the four graded judgments: effectiveness of leadership and management; personal development; behaviour and welfare; and outcomes.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, what advice is provided for minority women who want to break out of the stereotypical jobs towards which they are normally encouraged to move and into careers that are not normally assumed to be their domain? What support do they get once they make such choices in order to enable them to continue?
Lord Nash
I have already referred to Inspiring Women, the Stimulating Physics Network and the Further Mathematics Support Programme, which are particularly focused on encouraging women into STEM. Of course, schools should be organised to encourage their female pupils, in particular, to see a wide range of career opportunities and to support them further to make sure that they are encouraged to go on visits and trips, which, as we know, are sometimes not easy.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we all wait for this comprehensive strategy with great anticipation. Does the Minister agree that the comprehensive strategy should ensure, first, that there are properly trained people to give face-to-face advice and secondly, that the importance of careers, jobs and enterprise are recognised at primary school level?
Lord Nash
I agree that careers advice should start at an early age. It depends precisely how you pitch it, but certainly all schools should be identifying their children’s passions, interests and aptitudes. What the noble Lord says about face-to-face careers advice is interesting. There is clear evidence that if that is all one relies on it is a very ineffective strategy. Most studies have concluded that the best careers advice comes through activities with employers, and there is evidence that five or more employer engagements during secondary school means that students are seven times less likely to be NEET.
Health: Duties on Food and Drink
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to include, within the recently announced review of VAT, a consideration of the levels of customs and excise duties applied to those drinks and foods which research suggests are most responsible for avoidable deaths and chronic illnesses; and if so, whether they have any plans to hypothecate the yield to the National Health Service.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the OTS’s current VAT simplification review will not consider these issues. The review is focused on identifying opportunities for simplification of the VAT system and establishing whether the system is working to minimise tax compliance burdens. The Government have, however, gone to great lengths to promote healthy eating, drinking and lifestyles. We have announced a new soft drinks industry levy and a sugar reduction programme to help address childhood obesity.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but disappointed. I wonder whether she might be persuaded to reflect on the need for a further examination of the subject. Does she agree that Brexit provides the opportunity for us to look at VAT, customs and excise duty, and a whole range of taxes in a much more flexible way than we have been able to when linked to Europe? Does she agree that we have a major problem with the costs that alcohol is causing to the NHS, and that one way we might change that is by persuading people to move from high-strength to lower-strength drinks, and that now we have this flexibility coming there is a strong case for trying to effect such a change?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the point the noble Lord makes. The Government believe that alcohol duties should be related to the alcoholic strength of drinks but, as he says, EU law currently restricts changes to the rates and structure of alcohol duties. We have already said that we would like any future changes to allow duty on wine to rise in line with alcoholic strength. We are constrained until we leave the EU but we will certainly consider this issue carefully in the light of EU exit.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that the Health Minister gave evidence to the ad hoc scrutiny committee on the Licensing Act 2003 to the effect that customs and excise duty would be reviewed precisely in this regard. Given the hard work that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has been doing over many years on this issue, what plans do the Government have to look at pricing, taxation and, potentially, minimum unit pricing as a steer for controlling alcohol, particularly the harmful effects on all age groups of alcohol and excessive alcohol abuse?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Obviously, the Government look forward to the work that is being done by the committee on the Licensing Act, learning from what has worked well and what has worked less well. It is fair to say that the Government have done a whole range of things to try to tackle the problem of cheap alcohol. The lower-strength drinks have lower rates, and there are higher duties on higher-strength beers and ciders. We took action to ban sales in England and Wales below duty and VAT. We amended the definition of “cider” so that only products with a minimum 35% apple or pear juice can be defined as cider for tax purposes. Working with the Home Office and the police, industry has taken a whole load of measures which I think are very important. Noble Lords will know that I used to be in the retail industry, and this was an issue that exercised me a lot. Indeed, we supported the minimum unit pricing that came in in Scotland, which is now the subject of court action.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I share my noble friend’s disappointment at the Minister’s reply. I understand what the Minister says about the review of VAT—that it is about simplification—but it is also an opportunity. If the Education Minister can devote a levy on soft drinks to school sports in order to tackle the problem of obesity, why on earth can we not look at using VAT to tackle the acute problems associated with alcoholic drinks and heavy drinking, which need resources?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Alcohol is a problem and I think I gave a positive answer about the direction of travel, outlining the issues regarding EU rates and the structure of alcohol duties. The truth is that alcohol and obesity are problems right across the board. That is one of the reasons why local authorities have £16 billion for public health over the spending review period, in addition to the PHE funding and what the NHS itself spends on prevention. Our GPs do a marvellous job and I have been very struck by the way they support the measures we need on alcohol. However, I take the point that the licensing and tax regimes are also important.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, are the Government content with the way in which white cider is currently marketed and taxed? White cider is in fact not cider at all, and many bottles contain the equivalent of 11 units of vodka. In some shops, it is cheaper per litre than milk. I understand that there is the potential to increase tax on this product within the EU guidelines to reduce its destructive effects, particularly on young people.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We have made the changes in the juice rules that I mentioned and have had a number of representations, including perhaps from the noble Baroness, about white cider in the context of the Budget. I would add only that the UK cider industry is an important part of the rural economy and uses almost half the apples produced in this country.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group has suggested that a 50p minimum unit pricing for alcohol, together with the duty escalator, could prevent around 700 deaths a year from alcohol-related causes. Would it not therefore be in the interests of the country, the NHS and the Treasury to introduce such policies?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We have already banned sales in England and Wales below duty and VAT, but the minimum unit pricing introduced in Scotland is subject to an appeal in the Scottish courts. While that is continuing, the introduction of unit pricing in England and Wales has to remain under review.
Investment Bank (Amendment of Definition) and Special Administration (Amendment) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 28 February.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 January be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 28 February.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Monday 6th March 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 97-II Second marshalled list for Report (PDF, 156KB) - (6 Mar 2017)
17:55 - Division on Amendment 19 - Ayes: 263 / Noes: 211 - Amendment 19 agreed.
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I move this amendment with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. The USA Patriot Act—aka the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act—the Revoke Excessive Policies that Encroach on American Liberties (REPEAL) Act and the Reducing Barack Obama’s Unsustainable Deficit Act show that the disease of giving statutory measures titles that are in effect propaganda for their content rather than descriptions of it was endemic in the United States even before Donald Trump. I hope that this House will be unanimous that we do not want it to happen here. It does not yet happen by the front gate, but there is a danger of it being smuggled in by the side gate.
“Office for Students”, the title of the new regulator set up by the Bill, is an example. It describes some of the functions of the office, but not all. Is a register of universities for students? No, it is for other purposes. Is the new organisation of research councils for students? No, it is for other purposes. I could go on. If you consulted students themselves, they would say that it would be better called the “Office against Students”, because student unions up and down the country have come out in rejection of it. So it is very unfortunate that we are planning to use the title “Office for Students”, and I would like to see it changed.
In Committee, I offered a bottle of champagne to the noble Lord who could think of, and get the Minister to accept, a more neutral title. I gave it some thought, hoping to win my own bottle of champagne. I thought I had got it with the studiously neutral “Office for Universities and Conservatoires”, then I realised what the acronym for that spelled out: OFUC. Oops. There will be a ticking off for me from Black Rod later on, I think. It is to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, whose name is on this amendment, that I owe “Office for Higher Education Standards”. It is impeccably neutral, descriptive and comprehensible.
I understand that there is disquiet in some quarters about the word “standards”, which might suggest that the office will impose standards on universities. Universities are rightly acutely conscious of their autonomy and would resist any such thing. That is fine. If the Minister thinks that changing the title is the right thing to do but that this is not the right answer, let him come up with an even better alternative and insert it into the Bill at Third Reading. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to present him with my carefully matured bottle of champagne. I beg to move.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I attached my name to this amendment as I was both puzzled and surprised by the Minister’s response to the earlier amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
I take it that we can agree that the proposed Office for Students is a regulatory body. In replying in Committee, the Minister said that,
“we need a higher education regulator that is focused on protecting students’ interests”.—[Official Report, 9/1/17; col. 1840.]
In the ministerial letter of today we learn that the OfS is to comply fully with the Regulators’ Code. This commitment makes it even more surprising that the name of this regulator does not follow the well-established practice of reflecting the industry or activity that is being regulated. During the course of the past 20 years or so I have been involved in a lot of regulatory activities, as a regulator with the National Lottery Commission and by holding various positions in the financial services, water and communications sectors. In each case, the name of the regulator reflected the industry or activity that was being regulated rather than the consumers whose interests were being protected.
Furthermore, Wikipedia has a handy entry titled “List of regulators in the United Kingdom”. It lists some 60 to 70 regulatory bodies. My reading is that in each case the title reflects the activity that is being regulated. I could not find one that mirrored the proposed treatment of this regulator—although the Minister may be able to correct me. Whether this is the right or wrong treatment is not the issue; this approach has been adopted until now and has the merit that the name gives us a clear idea of the role of the regulator and the activities that it is regulating.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which I also supported in Committee, and agree with what we have already heard from the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Burns. In addition to their arguments, I would say that the Office for Students is a very limiting title for such an all-encompassing and all-powerful body. As I pointed out in Committee, it was particularly ironic because it took quite some effort to get students in any way involved with it or represented on it. The Office for Higher Education seems an eminently sensible title for it, which I personally prefer to the addition of “standards”—although I will certainly not go to the wall on that.
Hopefully, the stonemasons have not already started engraving the nameplates and the headed paper has not yet been ordered, so there should be an opportunity to rethink the title before it gets set in stone. I hope the Minister will be able to come back at Third Reading with a more relevant title for this body.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend, but for a slightly different reason. It seems to me that we have gone an awfully long way towards making universities part of the market, and I believe that we have to get back to the conviction that a good university is a community of scholars. Students are not clients, they are members of a university community, and divisive titles of this kind play into the hands of a very sad trend in our university life. We have to get back to the concept that a student joins a community and participates in that community and does not just use it as a facility to provide them with a future.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, Office for Students is a particularly dreary title. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, that “standards” would be better left out—but none the less, I support this amendment.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, will get up very briefly to support the amendment. I recognise it is a lot of work for parliamentary draftsman because “Office for Students” appears about 100 times or more in the Bill as it is currently drafted, but it would give a clearer indication as to what this body is about. It is not just an office for students, as if it were an ombudsman responding to students’ needs or problems or even dealing with student finance; it is a much broader institution, which will look at the way in which higher education should operate, both as a regulator and as an instigator of new ideas, in discussion with universities, not just with students. For all those reasons it would be very good if the Government could think again about this and come back with a better title.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive a single intervention in this whole long procedure, as I should not wish it to be thought that there were no friends of the amendment on this side of the House. The opening speech by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about the direction in which this leads reminds me immediately of the two departments in the Government of Nineteen Eighty-Four: the Ministry of Truth and the Ministry of Peace. We do not want to start on that path.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, there are at least two Members on this side of the House who support the amendment and hope that the Minister will come back on it. There is a possibility of confusion with the National Union of Students, for instance. Let us get “students” out and “higher education” in.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. We need to have a status of title that puts universities and higher education in an elevated place in our society. We know that “students” comes trailing clouds of all sorts of other implications that may not be appropriate. Education and universities are serious, hard-core activities on which this country depends, and they deserve respect.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount will ask that the amendment be withdrawn, and I can understand why from his point of view—but it does not stand up to scrutiny to maintain that the name of the body should be the Office for Students. In response to my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s amendment in Committee, the noble Viscount said:
“This Bill sets out a series of higher education reforms which will improve quality and choice for students, encourage competition and allow for consistent and fair oversight of the sector”.
Many noble Lords may have doubts about anything other than the second of those objectives, but the noble Viscount was correct to point out that, in introducing the Bill, the Government had those three distinct objectives—so why were they unable to come up with a title that encompassed more than one of them?
The Minister also said in Committee that it was the Government’s intention,
“to put the student interest at the heart of our regulatory approach to higher education”—[Official Report, 9/1/17; cols 1840-41.]—
hence the name. That claim does not withstand close scrutiny. If that had been the case, why did the Bill not contain provision for at least one student on the board of the OfS? Why did it require vigorous argument by the Opposition in Committee in the other place before the Government came up with a rather weak amendment to Schedule 2 providing for the OfS board merely to,
“have regard to the desirability of”,
someone with,
“experience of representing or promoting the interests of individual students”.
It does not provide for such representation; it just says that it is desirable.
In that context, the name “Office for Students” is not without some irony. It is certainly inappropriate because it is a misnomer. If the Minister wants the amendment to be withdrawn, it is incumbent on him and his Government to come up with a name that more accurately reflects the duties that the body is about to assume.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate having a further short debate on this matter, but I find it a little ironic how in Committee many noble Lords sought to omit “standards” from the Bill, but now this amendment would add “standards” to it. I would argue that the name relates to the OfS’s core functions and purpose. In response to concerns that the mission of the Office for Students is not sufficiently focused on the interests of students to merit its name, let me assure noble Lords that the Bill places a clear duty on the OfS to consider the interests of students in every aspect of its operations.
The OfS has duties to have regard to the need to promote greater choice and opportunities for students and to encourage competition between higher education providers where this is in the interests of students and employers. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the body should be called the Office for Students—dreary or not—and that its title should signal the fundamental refocusing of the regulatory system towards the student interest which the reforms are intended to bring about.
Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, this organisation is not just about students’ interests. Of course they should be at the centre of it and important, but it is about the nation’s interests. There are huge externalities in having a good higher education system. It is about employers’ interests, it is about families’ interests, and it is certainly about the interests of our knowledge economy. It goes far wider. I accept that “standards” probably should not be in the title, but why not call it the Office for Higher Education?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the simple answer, which I think I made clear in Committee and just now, is that this is for students: the focus is on the students, and we want to keep it that way. We are very clear about that. That is not to say that we did not listen carefully in Committee to the views on this matter raised initially by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, but we are adamant that the main focus—yes, the focus can be a little broader—is on students. We are sure about that.
The newly appointed chair of the Office for Students, Sir Michael Barber, reflected in his evidence to the Education Committee that the Office for Students title is no accident. He emphasised that the student interest must be at the heart of the new office.
In respect of the alternative name proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I cannot agree that,
“Office for Higher Education Standards”,
would be a suitable name. As we have seen during debates “standards” has a specific meaning within the sector and is only part of what the Office for Students will be responsible for. Noble Lords have frequently expressed strong views during debate that the standards used by the OfS should be those owned by the sector—a point that we have considered carefully, and amendments have been tabled to address this.
With great respect not only to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, but to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, it would be highly misleading to refer to standards in the name of the regulator, and I think other noble Lords in this short debate have acknowledged that. It would imply that they are the main emphasis of its remit. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I am very tempted to seek the opinion of the House because I think the Minister might find himself having to be his own Teller, given the unanimity in the debate so far. However, there is unanimity in the House that this title is wrong but there is not complete unanimity on all sides that the alternative title proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is the right one. I shall therefore take this away and think some more before Third Reading. I hope that the Minister might yet have a conversion in view of the powerful arguments levied against him and the weakness of those he put forward, and that he will propose a new title. If not, of course, we will have the option of dividing the House at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
In moving Amendment 2, in my name, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey. At the start of Report stage, I thank the Government for tabling an extensive raft of amendments. It raises questions: why, during remorseless Committee sittings, did the Government not give some indication of their intentions and avoid fruitless hours of debate? Given all these amendments, why was the Bill so ill thought through in the first place? Where was the pre-legislative scrutiny, the consultation, or even the careful drafting, which would have enabled a more productive use of time and expertise in this Chamber?
However, let me not be churlish: better a sinner that repenteth. Amendment 2 picks up issues raised throughout consideration of this Bill. All sides of the House have argued that it is important not to neglect the considerable part played in higher education by those who are not following full-time, three-year courses. Part-time study, we know, has been in decline since 2008 by a combination of factors: for instance, restrictions placed on equivalent or lower level qualifications—ELQs; and the introduction of higher tuition fees in 2012 for part-time undergraduate courses. Part-time adult and distance learning provides diverse opportunities for many people unable or unwilling to access full-time undergraduate programmes, enabling them to progress their learning and to take opportunities for development that would not otherwise be available to them. Given that this valuable provision is so easily overlooked, it is important that there should be a voice and specific representation on the OfS board. This is a very simple amendment which I hope the Minister will be able to accept.
In the same spirit, I have added my name to government Amendment 8 which also reinforces recognition of part-time study, distance learning or accelerated courses. I am grateful to the Government for that. I have added my name to Amendment 48 in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Storey. We join those who want to see an end to the stigma surrounding mental health, where our colleague Norman Lamb has been a great champion. This 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.
It is not just students; university staff, too, can experience stress and mental health problems. As responsible employers, universities should have support services in place for staff and their duty of care to students should also include mental health support. This amendment would make it clear that such provision should be available. Many universities already offer this and make it clear to students and staff that provision is available, but this amendment would ensure that all universities make students and staff aware of the provision. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
I speak to Amendment 7 in this group, which seeks to put an additional general duty on what we are still calling the Office for Students. This general duty is to ensure that all English higher education providers—a term of art that we have now learned—have the same duties to make reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities. In Committee, we had very great confusion on this point. Some noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches hoped, and perhaps some still do, that the public sector equality duty could apply directly to English higher education providers—but it cannot, because not all of them will be public sector bodies; in fact, it may be that very few of them are public sector bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, said that he thought that the public sector equality provision did not apply because universities were charities. However, it is part of the point of the legislation to secure a diversity of types of providers, and they will not all be charities. In fact, many of them may be for profit.
Baroness Bakewell
I wish to support the amendment for its reference to,
“including those with experience of part-time, adult and distance learning”.
I support it in the light of the changing demographics, which are probably more extreme than people realise in this country. We can now expect anyone born today to have a very high chance of living to be 100, and certainly to 90. The fall-out of this on the economy and on how society is organised will be profound, and we need to be ready for it. Against that background, I suggest that part-time education, with opportunities to restructure your life and have secondary, portfolio careers—possibly several, within the century of a lifetime—is really important, and should be taken on board throughout this Bill, which serves very much the existing demographic.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I talked about this general area in Committee, but I have tabled Amendment 97 because since then I have received a fundraising letter from the development office at Oxford, which included the words: “All the evidence points to the provision of bursaries and scholarships being one of the most effective and sustainable investments we can make”. This is an outright lie. Oxford knows, as will anyone who has investigated the subject, that as far as we know bursaries and scholarships have zero effect on improving the lives of students, and OFFA will confirm this. There are many more effective ways, including a wonderful summer school run by Oxford which has demonstrably very strong effects.
I wrote back, protesting this departure from the truth and Oxford wrote back to me to confess, without admitting that it had been lying. It said that at Oxford there were no differences in retention or attainment for bursary holders, compared with those for higher-income groups. It went on to say that there were possibly some effects but that, “This hypothesis cannot be rigorously tested without creating control groups which, as OFFA recognises, would be unethical”. So Oxford is denying not only truth but also randomised controlled trials as a means of establishing the truth. This is quite astonishing. Is the development office run on entirely different ethical grounds from the rest of the university? I have been corresponding with the professor in charge, but there does not seem to be any recognition that truth or science come into the mission which Oxford should be following.
I have a general concern about all that is happening under the access schemes. I have seen several examples of universities applying for money to support what they are doing where there has not been adequate research or evaluation. At the end of the day, the main flood of money into this scheme comes from students: it is students who are funding this. Universities ought to owe them an absolute duty to be doing the very best they can to make good use of this money. At the moment, they do not collaborate or evaluate in the way that they should, and I would like the Office for Students to have the power to change that.
Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and supported by my noble friend Lady Bakewell, whose salient arguments I endorse but will not repeat.
I turn to Amendment 87 in my name. At Second Reading, I mentioned how important it is to ensure that the Director of Fair Access and Participation has the independence and autonomy required to do the job effectively. Although various interventions have helped to improve the proportion of university entrants from disadvantaged groups, the gap is still far too great between them and their more advantaged peers. Eighteen year-olds from the most advantaged areas are more than two and a half times more likely to enter higher education than those from poor neighbourhoods. Put another way, fewer than one in five young people from lower income backgrounds go to university, compared with three in five from the most advantaged areas. Recent figures show that around 20% of people from low-income groups go to university, compared with 47% of all people aged between 17 and 30.
I appreciate that the Government have pledged to increase the proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and are determined to improve social mobility. I do not just appreciate it; I congratulate the Government on taking this position. I know that the Minister for Higher Education is aware and is concerned about the fact that there is also a very uneven distribution of students from poor families across different universities. The most socially privileged students are nearly seven times more likely to go to universities with high entry requirements. Put another way, only 3% of disadvantaged young people go to the more selective one-third of universities, compared with 21% of those from the richest neighbourhoods. The gap is even higher in the 13 most selective universities. That is enough statistics. They mean that people from lower-income backgrounds are seriously underrepresented in the more selective universities which have the most prestige and provide the easiest routes into high-status and highly paid jobs. As long as this goes on, attempts to increase social mobility will be jeopardised.
The role of the Director of Fair Access, therefore, needs to be given as much strength as possible to achieve the changes needed. The director will be helped by new duties to publish applications, offers and acceptance and progression rates, broken down by ethnicity, disadvantage and gender. Greater transparency, leading to more information about the performance of HEIs, will be a great help, but alone it is not enough.
I can see the business case for incorporating the Office for Fair Access into what is currently called the new Office for Students—although we hope that name might change. It makes sense on efficiency grounds, but it diminishes the independence of the Director of Fair Access. In future, he or she will have to report through the head of the Office for Students, a body that universities will fund and which may therefore be less inclined to challenge HEIs generally, and powerful individual universities in particular, on issues of access. There is a risk then that he or she may be overruled on important issues relating to access. I understand that the Sutton Trust has had some assurances that this is not the intention. To be sure that this does not occur, however, a simple safeguard could be introduced by amending the Bill to require the Director of Fair Access and Participation to report annually to Parliament on the performance of the Office for Students. This would strengthen the role, maintaining both independence and accountability, so I hope the Minister, when he replies, will accept the amendment.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 94 and 98 in this group stand in my name. I have also put my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, which I agree with totally.
Of the two amendments in my name, Amendment 98 is probably the simplest to deal with. It is inspired by the fact that dyslexic students—these are just the example I use to justify this amendment—often have to go through two diagnostic assessments before they are put through to the assessment of support they get under the disabled students’ allowance. People say, “So what?”; I say, “£500 minimum charge, so what”. This is for something when you have already been diagnosed once with a lifelong condition. Apparently if you are dyslexic before the age of 16, you may, with this lifelong condition, be miraculously changed at the age of 18. I do not know why this first came in—probably because the condition was not very well understood X number of years ago—but it is there. It slows everything down, it is expensive and it probably benefits the person charging for the assessment and nobody else. The British Dyslexia Association, of which I am president, does some of this work and is prepared to forgo the charge.
I hope we will hear something that gets rid of it. Just in case there is any doubt, you go through a needs assessment when you go on this, so you have to do this twice if your parents have got round to having you checked in the first place. It is a second charge. The amendment is fairly straightforward. It is worded as it is because I am aware that it is not the case that the only absurdity on the planet is in my particular little corner of this world, so I made the amendment wide enough to get some redress there.
My second amendment is inspired by something with which I have already engaged in Committee on the Bill. We have changed the way the DSA operates and put more emphasis on universities covering some of the lower-intensity needs of those with disabilities. I have to say that the information that was not provided for the start of this year, when the new regime came in—that is, what the new regime was—has since been provided in the snappily titled Inclusive Teaching and Learning in Higher Education as a Route to Excellence. The document states clearly, over and over again, that universities have a duty in this field. The problem starts, however, when you get to what that duty actually means. There is no guidance in the document other than a statement that a few people do this fairly well. It mentions several institutions, Cambridge being one of them, but does not state exactly what they do; it merely states that they do something. I believe that about one and a half pages are devoted to the interactive and support programmes of the University of Cambridge. Therefore, there is a duty but no guidance on how to fulfil it.
I am sure that the Minister will tell us when he replies that many universities have quite good programmes, but not all of them do. The real problem starts when you go to a college which has a different regime for further education support for students with disabilities from its regime for higher education support for those who used to be covered by the DSA. If those bodies do not know what they are supposed to do, how are they supposed to do it?
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, as regards equality of access, I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I declare an interest as a former head of the Oxford college that gave the most bursaries in Oxford, and was once chairman of the Oxford admissions committee. There is no doubt that bursaries make a difference. They range from £3,700 and are not paid for by the students by and large but by former members of the college, alumni of the university and some admirable institutions such as the Sutton Trust. There is no drop-out issue due to poverty, not in Oxford anyway. I have never known a student drop out due to lack of funds. That was simply unheard of. It is very difficult to do a randomised trial because it interferes with privacy. However, it is not just money that guarantees success at university. Things happen to students such as their parents divorcing, which has more effect on their continuing quality of education than almost anything else. Therefore, I speak in support of the access provisions in the Bill and against Amendment 97.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I add my voice in support of Amendment 7 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the two related amendments—Amendments 94 and 98—proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
Disabled young people are about half as likely to hold a degree-level qualification as those without a disability. True opportunity of access needs to make certain that everything possible is done to ensure that every student who wishes to partake in further study is able to do so and to succeed to the fullest of their potential with reasonable adjustments being made for them. Some institutions make excellent provision for disabled students but there are many cases where the ordinary pursuit of their studies entails many obstacles and challenges. The amendments would help to ensure that provision was present and excellent in every institution, including those that may be new, small or highly specialist, and that disabled students had the same wide level of choice in their education as all other students.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I warmly support the amendments dealing with disability, mental health, access and participation. There is far too much mental illness and mental stress in our universities. They should be places of excitement and fulfilment and places for developing the mind, but too many students struggle mentally with the pressures on them—such as the need to prove themselves and to achieve because they might be, for example, the first in their family to have the opportunity of going to university. On disability, after the marvellous speech by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, there is very little to add except to say that he is right.
For a while, I was a member of the committee monitoring access and participation at the LSE, and several issues came home to me very strongly and demonstrated the importance of what we are talking about with these amendments. First, particularly in our older universities and places such as the LSE, there needs to be a will not only to make things happen functionally but to believe in the importance of what is being done and to make it a success.
We had a first-class team of people at the LSE who were highly motivated in working with young people from inner-city schools, particularly in London, with weekend schools, vacation schools and so on. It was very exciting work, but I was interested in knowing how many of those youngsters ended up at the LSE. The answer was that sometimes it was a disappointingly small number, although certainly a lot of them were helped to gain better opportunities in higher education than they would otherwise have had.
To be successful in this regard, the people dealing with admissions have to be prepared to be courageous and look for potential and not only proven ability. Very often, the youngsters whom you want in the institution to make a success of the institution—for the sake not only of the institution itself but of the students—are young people who not only have not had parental support but have not had the same kind of scoop in their school education that other children take for granted. Therefore, the admissions people have to look for that potential. However, once you have brought in more of the people who would not otherwise have had the opportunity, you cannot just leave them to swim. That is very cynical, and it relates to the issue of mental illness. However sensitive the staff and however informally it is done—but formally, if noble Lords understand me—you must have in place systems that make sure that a particular student is getting the kind of support and compensations in attention that other students can take for granted.
These are terribly important amendments and I hope that the Minister has it in his heart and his intellect to take them seriously.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly address Amendments 2 and 8, which talk about part-time, adult and distance learning. When I am presiding over degree ceremonies as chancellor of the University of Birmingham, it gives me such pleasure when we have not just mature students but really mature students—students in their 60s—coming up to graduate. Whatever we do in this Bill, we must encourage lifelong learning and adult education. From 2005 to 2010, I was the youngest university chancellor in the country, as chancellor of Thames Valley University, which is now the University of West London. There, we had a motto: “further and higher”. The Bill must encourage progression, so that once people are exposed to higher education, they have the opportunity to go further. Quite often, it is just a question of experiencing it.
Finally, Amendment 87 is about access and participation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has spoken about. It is crucial that this is reported on and acknowledged fundamentally in the Bill. I have seen this first hand at the University of Cambridge, where the GEEMA programme brings to a summer school ethnic minority students who have no background of university education in their families. When they attend this course, they are exposed to Cambridge—somewhere they probably would never have even considered. The reality is that the majority end up going to university, and quite a few of them end up going to Cambridge. This must be encouraged, and it is crucial that it is part of the Bill.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak briefly to my amendment on mental health and also support the comments that have been made on young people with dyslexia or disabilities. I preface my remarks by reminding us all how much progress has been made on mental health over the past decade or so. In fact, this Government, like the previous one, recognise the issue and have done an incredible amount of work.
We have had various debates on this, and I am sure that all noble Lords who have declared an interest as a chancellor would want to ensure that when young people go to their universities, they are given all the support that they need. For many young people, it is a huge step to go to university. You would therefore expect that while they are away at university, that support would be there for them. In schools, teachers are in loco parentis. Of course, it is young adults who attend university, but many of them still need the support that they would get at home. As parents, therefore, we would be devastated if that support was not available when there was a mental health problem. This simple amendment to say that mental health support should be available and that students should know of it is therefore vital.
Many universities provide incredible support and do stunning work for young people. However, there are many that do not. In Committee, I gave a personal example of a family friend with two girls at two separate universities. Their father very suddenly and tragically died. One university gave no support at all to that young girl, who was going through anguish and mental trauma—she was not even seen by her personal tutor. The other university could not do enough to help. That is the reason for this amendment: we must make sure that that support is there for all students and it is not just left to the university itself.
Of course this is not just about students, it is about the staff as well. We put great pressure on the people working in higher education and, therefore, support for them should be in place. Perhaps personal tutors could be trained to identify when there are mental health problems and are able to advise the student where to go. So I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will make some positive sounds about this important issue.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 7 tabled in this group by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, and I want especially to mention Amendment 2. As I explained at Second Reading, my legal education, such as it was, was part-time, and I think that it is a very useful type of education with its mix of theory and practice in whatever it is you are aiming to do. I hope that this amendment will be considered seriously because it is important that the full range of students should be borne in mind by the authority looking after them, whatever its name happens to be.
As this is a new stage of the Bill I ought to declare my interests. I have been connected in one way or another with universities for a good part of my life, including two honorary fellowships at colleges in Cambridge, but I am not conscious that any of that has particularly affected my views on this Bill.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, this is a large group of important amendments—I think it is fair to say that it has grown in the past 24 hours—to which we have heard many valuable contributions, so I make no apologies for speaking at some length. Before I do, I wish to reiterate a point made by noble Lords on many occasions during the debate. One of the great strengths of our world-class higher education system is its diversity. That diversity, be it in the form of part-time study, providers of a denominational character or new innovative providers entering the market, is essential to promoting greater student choice. We want all students, whatever their background or circumstances, to get the most they possibly can from a higher education experience that can respond to their varied needs. A number of noble Lords have also made that point in this debate.
I turn first to government Amendment 8, on diversity of provision. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who is the president of Birkbeck, has long been a passionate supporter of part-time study and non-traditional students. Speaking in an interview in 2013 to Times Higher Education, the noble Baroness declared—perhaps I may quote her; I am sure that she will remember it:
“Part-time study and flexible learning are going to play a big part in the future of our society”.
The amendment I have tabled along with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, explicitly recognises that. It makes it clear that choice among a diverse range of higher education provision is part of the OfS’s duty to promote greater student choice. That includes but is by no means limited to choice among a diverse range of provider types, course subjects and modes of study such as full-time, part-time, distance learning and accelerated courses. These are only examples rather than a comprehensive list because when looking to the future, the needs of students, employers and our economy will change and the sector will need to continue to innovate and diversify in response. That is why the Bill goes much further than the existing legislative framework in ensuring that the OfS board will include a diverse representation of interests, including individual student representation, and covering different types of institution.
At the same time, we need to avoid limiting the desirability of experience to a restrictive list of requirements that could prevent the Secretary of State appointing a board that is able to address the challenges and priorities of the day. Regarding Amendment 2, I would like to reassure noble Lords that the Bill as drafted enables the Secretary of State to choose, if he or she so wishes, board members with experience, knowledge and expertise in part-time study, adult and distance learning, and any manner of other diverse means of delivering higher education.
I turn now to Amendments 7, 48, 87 and 94 to 98, on equalities, access and participation. I understand and share the intent behind these proposals: where particular groups face additional barriers to accessing and participating in higher education, they should of course be supported appropriately and protected from discrimination. But I fear that the practical application of these amendments risks imposing additional burdens and constraints on the OfS that might not guarantee better outcomes for students. My noble friend Lord Lucas suggests specific ways of evaluating access and participation. I thank him for this and appreciate his engagement, but we do not see it as necessary. Providers already evaluate these activities and we expect this to continue.
We are proud that measures to increase access and participation and equality of opportunity are at the heart of the Bill. It already gives the OfS an explicit duty to have regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity in connection with access to and participation in higher education across all its functions. The OfS collectively, rather than a single member, will be responsible for demonstrating how that duty is being fulfilled.
Paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 confirms that the OfS must report annually on its functions—including access and participation functions—and that this report must be laid before Parliament. There is therefore no need for a separate report on access and participation. Taken together with the Equality Act, our reforms will help to create a framework within which all students should be protected—a framework that enables autonomous providers to respond to the needs of their particular student body by developing appropriate support services and procedures.
Throughout our consideration of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has been tireless in his advocacy on behalf of disabled students. I can assure him that we will continue to work closely with the sector to promote best practice in making reasonable adjustments within the framework of the Equality Act. I have listened to the noble Lord’s concerns in Committee and today. I have met with him to discuss this important issue further. I am pleased to say that the Government have published a report by a senior sector-led group, setting out best practice principles for making reasonable adjustments. We will continue to work with that group to support higher education providers in identifying how those principles can be applied in practice. I will say more on this in a moment.
However, providers need the flexibility to determine precisely how best to meet their students’ needs, consistent with their Equality Act duties. Similarly, the OfS needs the flexibility to determine precisely how best to discharge its duties regarding equality of opportunity. I agree with the noble Lord that identifying barriers faced by particular groups of students and considering how they might be addressed is one way in which the OfS might take into account its duty regarding equality of opportunity. However, I believe that imposing this as a further duty on the OfS as set out in the amendment could be counterproductive, placing additional burdens on the OfS without a commensurate benefit for students.
I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who, I know, is well exercised by this issue, as perhaps are a few other noble Lords. I can confirm that I and the Minister for Universities and Science, Jo Johnson, will write to the chair of the Disabled Students Sector Leadership Group to ask that it invite the noble Lord to meet it and work with him to develop the guidance further, based on his experience and expertise.
I listened carefully to the point made about dyslexia assessments. The noble Lord raised this issue with me in our recent meeting, and I understand his concerns. Students must provide evidence of their disability to prove eligibility for DSA, and they are liable to meet the costs of this. It is not the purpose of DSA to cover the costs of diagnosis of a condition or disability. Rather, it provides help with only the additional costs of study that a student incurs by virtue of having a diagnosed disability.
The question that could be asked is whether a provider could rely on previous diagnostic reports, or whether the disabled student may be able to bring these with him. This may have been the gist of the line the noble Lord was taking. However, all students are asked to provide evidence of their disability. This is fair, because every institution is different. It is important that the provider or institution can assess correctly students’ needs in relation to the particular course they are taking. That has to be based on up-to-date information. I hope that slightly more prolonged answer will help a little with the noble Lord’s issues.
Lord Addington
My Lords, you might have a very good diagnosis given by an educational psychologist at the age of 14—before the age of 16—but your brain does not change its wiring at this age. You are assessed; you are given support; and you then have to pay for another report that tells you exactly the same thing. Does the Minister agree that the practice is an absurdity?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I shall not be drawn on that today, my Lords, but the intention here is that we work ever more closely with the noble Lord. I hope that the pledges Jo Johnson and I have given will at least help to nail down further the issues the noble Lord has raised.
I turn to another important issue, mental health, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. We are working alongside the sector to identify measures which will make a real difference to staff and students. This will inform the Green Paper on mental health later this year, of which the noble Lord will be aware. Noble Lords have rightly raised the issue of mental health in higher education throughout our deliberations on this Bill. I say again that the Government expect higher education providers to provide appropriate support services for all their students and staff, including those with mental health issues. However, there is a balance to be struck here, because it is vital that we retain flexibility to enable autonomous institutions to meet the needs of their own staff and students. With that, I ask that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed and constructive reply, and all noble Lords who have taken part in what has turned out to be a wide-ranging debate. We have covered part-time students, mental health disabilities, randomised control trials and bursaries, the Director of Fair Access, dyslexia in particular and a range of other issues. There has been quite a lot for us to think about, which we will take away. We may wish to bring back some of the issues at Third Reading. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) The report must include a statement regarding how the OfS has cooperated with UKRI during that year.”
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, the fundamental importance of joint working between the OfS and UKRI has been raised many times in this Chamber, in the other place and beyond. We listened carefully to the debates in Committee, including the powerful contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Triesman and Lord Smith, and many others, and with these two amendments we are responding.
The Bill requires both organisations to report annually to Parliament. This amendment will expand these reporting provisions to require that the annual reports of both organisations include a section detailing how they have co-operated over the period of the reporting cycle. This would include issues such as knowledge exchange and HEIF, or RDAPs, which we look forward to discussing later on.
With the amendments we are making it clear that the two organisations should co-operate. Clause 108 empowers them to do so. Now they must cover how they have done so in their annual reports, providing Parliament and commentators with the opportunity for scrutiny.
The amendments strike the right balance between empowering and facilitating joint working by requiring transparency around co-operation, without taking us into a prescriptive and potentially limiting list of activities which would be impossible for the organisations to expand or alter in response to changing circumstances. I beg to move Amendment 3.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. I just hope that in due course the Minister will be able to go a little further—but the amendment is very much in the right direction.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
I, too, support government Amendments 3 and 172, which take a significant step towards ensuring collaboration between UKRI and the OfS. I will briefly declare my interests: Universities UK provides me with some research support; I am an honorary fellow of Murray Edwards College and a Title E fellow at Churchill College, Cambridge; I am a former vice-chancellor at Aston University and an adviser to the vice-chancellor at Cranfield University; and I chair the Sir Henry Royce Institute for Advanced Materials at Manchester University and STEM Learning Ltd, a not-for-profit company owned by a consortium of UK universities.
I thank both Ministers—the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Lord, Lord Prior—as well as the Bill team for listening and responding to our concerns in this area. These amendments are very positive. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, some further clarity is needed on some key issues of collaboration between the Office for Students and UKRI. As an example—the one that the noble Viscount mentioned—in a recent note the University of Cambridge highlighted that, while UKRI would be consulted on the awarding of research degree-awarding powers, it is not, apparently, part of the process of varying or revoking such powers—or, indeed, identified in the appeal process. So I urge the Minister to clarify when we come back to this discussion later on Report that any decisions and processes related to RDAPs should indeed be joint decisions or actions between the OfS and UKRI.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support these amendments. Thankfully—and, I hope, auspiciously—the creation of UK Research and Innovation, UKRI, has proved relatively uncontroversial during the passage of the Bill. It is, though, vital. As noble Lords will know, whatever Article 50 and Brexit finally bring, we can be sure that we will need to be at the top of our game when it comes to commercialising research and creating innovative business ideas for the future. UKRI is a key part of making sure that we do this. It is about building critical mass in our research and innovation delivery. So, from research funding to commercialisation and capital raising through Innovate UK, we have the capability to bring these together, to identify strategic priorities for our future economy and to ensure we have a joined-up approach to develop and realise them.
I spoke at Second Reading about the importance of including the business community in the decision-making of UKRI and I am confident that the voice of business will be heard. These amendments concern the working relationship between UKRI and the other body created by the Bill, the Office for Students. In particular, it mandates co-operation in the form of a report explaining how the two have worked together during that year. I support the amendments because such co-operation is important for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the partnership should ensure a strategic, joined-up approach to the funding of teaching and research in higher education. Neither can exist without the knowledge of the other.
Secondly, much has been said about monitoring the financial stability of higher education. Provided that UKRI and the OfS do co-operate, as these amendments call for, UKRI can use its funding decisions to safeguard the financial viability of research. Thirdly, UKRI can play an appropriate role in the assessment process for research degree-awarding powers.
Lastly, UKRI and the OfS can share data to inform research and evaluation studies and provide mutual reassurance that their respective accountability functions are being taken care of. I say “lastly” but, given the significance of the creation of the two bodies and their new powers and authority, there are myriad more ways in which the two can—and must—work together.
UKRI puts all our innovation eggs into one basket. The Office for Students brings together all the regulation and regulators of higher education providers under one roof. Therefore, at a time of significant change in higher education, it is vital that the new regulator and the research and innovation body are working in lock-step. This is not something we must leave to simple chance or the whims of the leadership teams of these two organisations. That is why I support these amendments.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome these amendments. Amendment 3 has been signed by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. Of course, we will return to this subject when we discuss the research parts of the Bill next week, with a much more substantial amendment which talks about some of the elements of co-operation.
We welcome the amendment but share the view that it does not go far enough. Reporting on how these organisations co-operate is not about whether they should co-operate or even the nature of that relationship—how strong or firm a relationship they would want to forge. The amendments cause some degree of limited expectations and even an expectations mismatch. One of the briefings that I received for this seemed to believe that this would be subject to an annual report in and of itself. That is not the case. This is within the context of the existing annual reports.
Given that the reforms are about both policy design and a high level of operational change, delivery is a very important factor. It is noticeable that the Nurse review, which considered the operational elements of the creation of UKRI and the importance of weaving it into the right tapestry of partners, had a clearer and more prescriptive approach. Notwithstanding these concerns, which we will debate later, we support the amendment and hope to make further improvements later on.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I am pleased that we have found general common ground on this matter, although I picked up from this short debate that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, feel that perhaps we should go a little further.
I thought that my noble friend Lady Rock put it rather eloquently: an emphasis on working together will be expected to run through the leadership and management of both organisations, supported by a legal framework that will be sufficiently flexible to deal effectively with areas of shared interest. Additionally, the government amendments will require the organisations to state in their annual reports how they have co-operated with each other over the reporting period. We consider that this an efficient way of ensuring transparency without the creation of additional reporting bureaucracy.
Lord Kerslake
“(za) the need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers,”
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 I will speak in support of the related amendments in this group. I declare my interest as chair of the board of governors of Sheffield Hallam University.
The purpose of these amendments is to place a duty on the Secretary of State and the OfS to have regard to the need to protect institutional autonomy when carrying out their functions. The definition of “institutional autonomy” for this purpose is set out in Amendment 11. What might have been a very long and contested debate can be reduced considerably by the fact that the amendment also has the Minister’s name on it, thus indicating the Government’s support. Taken with the changes around encouraging collaboration between universities where this is in the interests of the students, and indeed quality and standards being clarified, which will come later, and other amendments tabled or supported by the Government, this is a significant amount of welcome progress.
The importance of upholding institutional autonomy was one of the strongest themes at Second Reading. Those who took part will recall that the responsible Minister of State, Jo Johnson, stayed for virtually all of it. At the time, I commended him for being a listening Minister but wondered whether he would be a responsive one. Both he and the Minister in this House, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, have clearly demonstrated that on these issues they are responsive. Inevitably, other important issues remain that we will need to debate and may divide on, but for the moment, I express my sincere thanks and congratulations to the Ministers on their positive recognition of our concerns on these issues. I beg to move.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, as one who spoke at Second Reading, I associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, has said. He, I and many others had meetings with the Minister and were received courteously—as one would expect—but more importantly, we were received by a listening Minister. I am very grateful to my noble friend, who I am sure has added to the voice of this House when speaking to the department. A number of major improvements have been made to the Bill. As chancellor of Reading University, I have discussed these with the senior management there. Without speaking for the management in any way, I can report that many in the university sector are delighted with the Minister’s response. I am delighted to support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I have Amendment 5 in this group. Your Lordships may remember that in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and my noble friend Lord Ridley tabled an amendment to deal with the matter that my amendment seeks to deal with, but they sought to do so by reference to a new committee that was to be set up to have that power. It is obvious that we are in a changing world and therefore that there may well emerge needs for new providers to do something different to that which is presently provided in the higher education sector.
Since we are to have the Office for Students—that is still its name—it is perfectly appropriate that the duty of looking out for “emerging needs” should fall on that regulator. We would not need further committees; the existing regulator would be able to do this as a natural operation in the course of viewing the sector, as it has to do all the time as part of its regulation. It is also clear that setting up a new provider in this area is not without problems. A certain degree of capital expenditure is probably necessary and there would certainly be other costs as well, running costs in particular. It is therefore right, as was said originally and as I say again, that the regulator should take appropriate steps to encourage the meeting of those needs. The main support for this provision came from the noble Baroness and my noble friend but I thought this would be a neat way of achieving exactly what they wanted, without the elaboration of a further committee. In due course, I shall move this amendment.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in this group from the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Stevenson. I express support from these Benches for the safeguards for institutional autonomy which they represent. I also add my thanks to the Minister for adding his name and the support of the Government to them.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern has just implied, in performing its functions clearly the OfS should not just have regard to current and known needs as they may now be identified. It should also have regard to such needs as may come to light later on. By referring to the latter as “emerging needs” my noble and learned friend has produced a useful amendment, which I hope will be adopted.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Younger on the amendments that he has put his name to. They represent a great step forward and a real example of how a Government can listen and react constructively. I am grateful to him for his Amendment 6, which covers some areas that I referred to.
Perhaps I may question my noble friend on proposed new subsection (7)(c) in Amendment 11. I am puzzled as to why the “freedom” in this subsection is restricted to only these activities. In particular, there are occasions when the received wisdom within universities is rather different to that outside universities. I am not clear which this wording refers to, nor why there should not be a freedom to advocate popular opinions. I know that this has been a matter of controversy within universities from time to time, when people are referred to as popularisers of science in a derogatory way. Again, that should not result in discrimination or losing jobs and privileges. I will also refer to my two amendments in this group, which are linked with the Government’s Amendment 6.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and I thank him for his interest in the amendment that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and I tabled in Committee. I will return to that theme—although, he will be glad to know, not in the context of a new committee—in an amendment that I tabled for later in the proceedings.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is important that this new regulator looks beyond the day-to-day and has some vision of how higher education in this country should be developing. I have recently been rereading Lord Robbins, and it does indeed feel like another world. The point that I want to underline, which is inherent in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, is that unless somebody in government—and who else but the OfS?—is looking at emerging needs and taking appropriate steps, many important things simply will not happen. As my noble friend Lady O’Neill pointed out a little while ago, the reality is that, with just the money that you can get for an individual student, you cannot create a visionary new university or create thriving STEM faculties. They need money, they need planning and they need government support.
One of the things that we now know more about than we did even a couple of weeks ago is the nature of the new providers coming into the market. As one would expect, they are, overwhelmingly, small providers of business education. Some of them are doing very interesting and exciting things, but this underlines that we cannot, in the current context of funding and loans, simply rely on making it easier for new providers to come in and on promoting competition to meet the needs of this country and create the sort of visionary institutions and well-endowed STEM faculties that we need for the future of the country.
Like many other noble Lords, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the amount of listening he has done so far, but it would be very helpful if he could do a little more listening and just make it clear to this new and powerful body that it also has a role and a responsibility for looking towards the future.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long, because a lot has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay about Amendment 5, but will briefly express my support for this position. One of the prime purposes of the Bill is to open up the higher education sector to new entrants and to the fresh breath of air that they could possibly bring. We have heard, since the Bill started, not just of the many small providers, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, but also of Sir James Dyson’s expansion of his university. That is magnificent, but even he has admitted that it is very hard to start up a new university. How much harder would it be for those with fewer resources? There are huge barriers to entry in this field.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and I argued for a new committee to encourage new entrants to come forward. Even at the time, I expressed some reservations about adding to the number of committees in the world, and I am delighted that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has come up with the simpler idea that this function should be added to the functions of the Office for Students. For a Bill designed to encourage new entrants in the university sector, there is surprisingly little in the Bill that actually addressed the encouragement of new entrants, and this is a modest and welcome suggestion.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, put forward, as well as his argument. There is a problem with getting universities together, because they very proudly differentiate themselves from each other. One thing about British universities, where I have worked all my life, is that they do not want to permit student transfer between them. It is almost impossible for a student to do one year in one university and then go to another one, because the courses are not comparable and there is no system of scores or grade points. It will take a special effort to create a group spirit among English higher education providers, especially the old ones, although the new ones will be better. The suggestion made here about creating this collegium of former students or graduates may actually be very helpful now that we have the instruments to do that. Their experience may be able to tell us how to improve the interrelationship between universities, so we can present a united front regarding the quality of English higher education.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
My Lords, I rise in opposition to Amendments 12 and 13, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. In doing so I thank him for raising a very important point, but I suggest that we already have a very effective mechanism for doing what he wishes to see happen, which is the British Council. I urge the Minister to ensure that the British Council is properly funded to undertake talks of this sort in the future.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I have signed this amendment and all the others that make up this package, which is a substantial one; we should not underestimate the impact it will have. It is a most significant move for the Government to recognise the pressure of institutional autonomy right across the sector. It would be hard to overstate the impact of this coming together of the whole House with the Government to create an intervention in this area. We welcome it.
It is important also to recognise that the concession made was not just rearranging the existing wording—we acknowledge that the Bill already had a lot about institutional autonomy. Making not simply the OfS but the Secretary of State responsible for having regard to the need to protect institutional autonomy is a much more powerful approach. We should be cognisant of that as we accept the amendments.
It is important also to recognise that there is a gap. Although it has been pointed out that the UKRI is not a regulator in the same sense as the OfS, we will later move an amendment that proposes that the UKRI also have regard to institutional autonomy because there will be joint responsibilities in relation to research degrees, but also because these bodies will be operating with the same funding group—obviously, a smaller one in the case of the UKRI; nevertheless, it is important that we have equality of arms.
This has been a very successful case of trying to get a better Bill from what the Commons presented us with. It is a better Bill as a result of this intervention—of course, there is more to come. We should acknowledge that the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and the support that he and I received from the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Brown, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, from the Liberal Democrats, has been instrumental in persuading the Government that they should take account of this issue.
In bringing attention to the need for new providers in Amendment 5, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has done us a service by ensuring that we think not only of existing arrangements within the sector but new entrants. It is important that we pick up the theme behind his amendment and ensure that it is properly regarded as we proceed.
In concluding, I hope we can have the Minister’s assurance that all the amendments in this group will be taken as consequential if the lead amendment is passed.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for introducing this group of amendments and the helpful and constructive engagement I have had with him and many other noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Wolf, and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave on the issue of institutional autonomy.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for his amendment in Committee, which was widely supported across the House and which has provided an excellent template for the institutional autonomy protections that we are discussing today. Indeed, on issues across the Bill, I am grateful for the expert scrutiny the Bill had in Committee and the many constructive meetings that my honourable friend in the other place, Jo Johnson, and I have held with noble Lords since.
I said in Committee that we were listening and reflecting on the issues raised, so I hope that noble Lords will recognise that that is exactly what we have done through the government amendments. I am particularly pleased that institutional autonomy is one of the areas where we have found common ground. Institutional autonomy and academic freedom are the keystone of our higher education sector’s strength. Throughout the Bill, we have sought to protect these values, but we recognised and understood the importance of extending these protections to the work of the OfS and of enshrining institutional autonomy itself in legislation for the first time.
I turn to Amendment 5, spoken to by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. We have already seen new providers emerge that do not fit the stereotypical—often negative—description that has been previously offered. The Government welcome plans to introduce new models of provision, such as that proposed by the New Model in Technology & Engineering in Hereford. I reassure noble Lords—my noble and learned friend in particular—that the Bill already allows both the OfS and the Government to consider, encourage and respond to the emerging needs for new providers, so while I support the broad intent of Amendment 5, I feel it is unnecessary.
I should like to make a few further points. We believe that the duty on the OfS to have regard to the need to encourage competition between higher education providers and regulate in a proportionate manner will ensure that it encourages meeting the emerging needs of new providers. The OfS has many duties and there are already a variety of other measures in our reforms that will enable the Government, as well as the OfS, to support the need for new providers.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, if he cannot reply now, will he reply by letter to the question I asked on Amendment 11?
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate for their support. I share the Minister’s view that this now provides a robust protection of institutional autonomy. The relative brevity of this debate should not in any way signal that this is not an important issue—it clearly is—nor, indeed, a lack of our recognition and appreciation of the Government’s response to the concerns. I am delighted at the level of support; this will significantly improve the Bill.
“( ) the need to ensure that all English higher education providers have the same duties to make reasonable adjustments for students with disabilities,”
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for using the words “reasonable adjustments” in this context, and I shall look carefully at what he has said in Hansard. Reasonable adjustment is a well-understood phrase; it is rather different from a duty,
“to promote equality of opportunity in connection with access … and participation”.
Some years ago, I was responsible for a partially sighted student who had access and participation on an equal basis, but she needed to get everything that she had to read to do a degree in French recorded from the French equivalent of RNIB. There was about a three-month lead period, and it was essential that she got additional support to get the materials that she had to study available regularly and in time. That is the sort of thing that constitutes a reasonable adjustment; it is more than equal rights to participation and access. With that said, I shall not move the amendment.
“( ) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to choice in the provision of higher education by English higher education providers includes choice amongst a diverse range of—(a) types of provider,(b) higher education courses, and(c) means by which they are provided (for example, full-time or part- time study, distance learning or accelerated courses).”
Lord Kerslake
“(7) In this Part, “the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers” means—(a) the freedom of English higher education providers within the law to conduct their day to day management in an effective and competent way,(b) the freedom of English higher education providers— (i) to determine the content of particular courses and the manner in which they are taught, supervised and assessed,(ii) to determine the criteria for the selection, appointment and dismissal of academic staff and apply those criteria in particular cases, and(iii) to determine the criteria for the admission of students and apply those criteria in particular cases, and(c) the freedom within the law of academic staff at English higher education providers—(i) to question and test received wisdom, and(ii) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions,without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at the providers.”
“( ) the number of students who attained a particular degree or other academic award, or a particular level of such an award, on completion of their course with the provider.”
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I shall speak first to the amendments on the transparency condition, then turn to those regarding student transfer. I have reflected on the arguments put forward in Committee, and we are clear that the transparency duty must remain focused on equality of opportunity through widening participation. I noted in Committee that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and my noble friend Lord Lucas raised an important point on including attainment in the existing requirements to provide application, offer, acceptance and completion data. The evidence shows that there is more to do to close the attainment gap, which is particularly pronounced for certain groups of BME students.
We agree with noble Lords that attainment is an area that should be addressed and I thank them for their attention on this matter. That is why our Amendment 14 will add degree attainment at the end of the undergraduate’s course to the existing information required under the transparency condition. This will enable us to look across the whole student lifecycle, from application to graduation. I will now ask my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to speak to their amendments, and I will then respond.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 15 and 17. Amendment 15 would give the Secretary of State a general power to add requirements. My principal concern with this bit of the Bill is that we have not really understood how much information UCAS has which it has not let out for the benefit of students and how many ways there are in which that information might be used to improve the quality of student decision-making. We will find this out, as time goes on, and I would like the Government to have the ability to respond to it. I am grateful for the changes which the Government have made in the Bill, particularly those to research using UCAS information, and we will certainly make some progress in this direction. However, I would be delighted if the Government felt able to give themselves the additional freedoms contained in Amendment 15.
Turning to Amendment 17, I want to be sure that all this information, which is being published by universities and made publishable by the Office for Students, actually reaches students who are in the process of making a decision. In the monopoly system in which we live, this effectively means that it must be provided—and easily accessed—through the UCAS system. Without this amendment, I cannot see where the Bill gives the OfS or any other part of Government the ability to direct that this information should reach students when they need it, rather than just being published and stuck away in some obscure place on universities’ websites, as is a lot of interesting information such as, in some cases, what the courses actually teach. There is a long practice of not making vital information easy to find. I would like the Government to have the ability to make sure that it was there when students ought to have it.
The Earl of Dundee
My Lords, as has been indicated, Clause 10 identifies and prescribes certain mandatory transparency conditions. However, in Amendment 15, my noble friend Lord Lucas manages to propose a wider and more useful scope. The new words drafted by his amendment provide greater flexibility and enable the Secretary of State to assist better and more thorough transparency. I hope the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and the Government for Amendment 14 and their positive response to this issue, which I raised in Committee. I welcome the opportunity to have the pertinent information regarding degree classifications attained by students. Amendments 16 and 18 to Clause 10 seek to extend the groups for which we are seeking transparency. At the moment, the information which can be requested relates solely to the gender of individuals, their ethnicity and socioeconomic background. While not going back into the arguments we had in Committee about whether universities were public sector bodies or not, they are nevertheless subject to the public sector equality duty imposed by the Equality Act 2010. Amendment 18 would import into the Bill the protected characteristics of race, sex, disability, age and sexual orientation, in addition to the ones which are already there. Although higher education institutions are obliged to undertake these duties, to omit them may give a wrong signal and mean that we do not get the right kind of information if particular groups are falling behind or their participation rates are not as high.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I support Amendment 17 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. This is an issue that will be referred to in later amendments in the passage of the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I am particularly concerned about the mining of data which are available through all organisations that support students. That refers not only to organisations such as HESA but will obviously refer to the Office for Students in the future and to the universities themselves. It seems quite remarkable that we can ask for information.
I shall give the Minister and the House a clear example. You could ask a university to supply you with the number of students who have left a particular course over a three-year period. You could be told that you can have that information but it has a confidentiality clause linked to it, so you cannot publish or use the material without the express permission of the university or the individuals concerned. Most students are not interested in the individuals concerned; if they apply for a course in a subject or vocational area, they are interested in finding out how many people left during the course, how many qualified at the end of it and how many got jobs. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and subsequent amendments tabled on Report would make that information available not only to students but to people who want to advise students on where to go for their degree courses.
It is essential that we stop this nonsense of universities being able to protect information purely on the basis of confidentiality when there is nothing confidential in it at all. I can understand universities being asked not to release the names of individual students who have failed to complete, but this is a totally different issue of putting information in the public domain. It is high time that universities were held to account for making vital information available to students, and indeed to employers who may be using students from those courses.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I also support the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in this and would go a little further than the noble Lord, Lord Willis, with whom I profoundly agree. Over many years I have found that when you seek information in any of these areas in a general sense, you are told that it is essentially proprietary information owned by the universities rather than information in the public domain. That has several significant consequences. The first is that referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Willis. Many aspirant students or students who are on courses cannot get information to which they should be reasonably entitled.
As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, it is also true that this situation makes things more difficult for employers. However, the third category for whom this situation makes things very difficult are those who are trying to do research on universities’ performance, on what works and does not and on what might be learned between universities. Provided that the identity of individuals is protected, there is no conceivably good reason not to have all that information available in a public sector as important as higher education and, indeed, in many other sectors as well. I suspect that in many other sectors it would be regarded as an extraordinary denial if this information were not made available for all those purposes—for users, those advising users and those doing research. I cannot see why in higher education this is regarded as private information not to be used for those purposes. That is wholly unsatisfactory.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I wish to clarify an issue. When the Minister introduced this group of amendments, he said that he would ask for Amendments 15, 16 and 17 to be spoken to before he replied. Does that mean that we cannot speak to the rest of the amendments? I have other amendments in this group.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
My Lords, I have some sympathy with getting the age statistics right. That is a crucial example because it is objective and not highly sensitive, at least in my view. However, most of the other protected characteristics are not susceptible of statistically robust estimation. People do not always want to declare whether they are pregnant or to declare their ethnicity. I discovered that young people of mixed background did not wish to take sides between their parents, as they put it. People do not always wish to declare their sexual orientation, particularly when they are very young. The result is that one has an enormous number of “no information” entries in these statistics. To use this information in a statistically responsible way is not a simple matter. However, I exempt age. I would, until recently, have exempted gender because I think most people will give a simple answer on that. However, I fear that the information one actually records is not always robust.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this has been a very good and interesting debate. I think that there are some questions to which the Government will want to respond and I will not overegg the pudding at this stage. However, the question of why we are not including protected characteristics, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is interesting. Amendments 16 and 18 are helpful in this regard. I take the points made by the noble Baroness, who is expert in these matters. However, if we as a country do not start to set out these requirements in terms of a whole range of protected characteristics, we will be the loser in the long run. It may be just be a question of how we do that.
This group of amendments also contains important first steps towards a more engaged transfer and credit transfer arrangement for students in relation to the higher education sector, which I welcome. However, I again wonder why the Government have not thought to take into account Amendments 47, 128 and 129. It seems to me that they would help progress in this regard, which is something we all support.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
First, I reassure my noble friend Lord Lucas that Clause 10(2) already requires higher education institutions to publish the information contained within the transparency duty. We expect prospective students to be able to access this easily on providers’ websites. I further reassure my noble friend and the noble Lords, Lord Triesman and Lord Willis, among others, that this information will also be shared with the OfS with the intention of presenting these data in a comparable form to students, commentators and advisers.
To respond to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I say that noble Lords will recall that we have concerns about legislating to add a wide range of additional characteristics to the duty due to the quality and comparability of the data as well as the disclosive nature of some of the information. However, having listened to noble Lords, and in particular to the noble Lords whom I mentioned just now, we have reflected on their suggestions, and I am pleased to make a commitment to the House today. The Government will, through guidance, ask the OfS to consult on what other information should be published by individual institutions with a view to making their record on widening participation even more transparent.
We expect the consultation to consider whether specific additional information should be made available by institutions. We expect this to include consideration of whether the protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 should be captured, including categories such as disability and age. However, the consultation will not limit itself to the protected characteristics and should also look at categories such as care leavers. This will enable a considered view of what additional information should be published by providers, balancing the desire for greater transparency around access and participation with considerations around the robustness and comparability of data, student privacy and the regulatory burden on providers. Universities will be expected to respond to the outcome of the consultation as part of their future access and participation plans following further guidance, once we have established best practice.
I hope that it is clear that we have listened and reflected on the amendments tabled in Committee. The inclusion of attainment will make the transparency condition more effective, and the additional commitment to consult on what other information should be made available will help drive equality of opportunity for all students.
I now turn to the amendments relating to student transfer—
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Before the Minister leaves that point, perhaps I might press him on something. I expressed a wish to include the characteristic of age, which is objective. I take some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, but, rather than putting this out to consultation, a very simple amendment at Third Reading would cover that because it is very pertinent to trying to do things about part-time education and engaging people throughout their lifetime.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will certainly reflect on what the noble and learned Lord has said. He has been in touch with me outside the Chamber, and I will read Hansard carefully and reflect on this matter before the next stage.
I now turn to student transfer. It is an issue that noble Lords raised in Committee and we have reflected on this as well. There is a vast array of reasons why a student might need or want to transfer between courses or institutions, be they personal, financial or academic. We received over 4,500 responses to our call for evidence on this issue last year. These told us that transfers do indeed already occur but the opportunities to do so are not well known and could be developed further. We believe that students should understand the transfer options available and know how to readily take advantage of them. That is why we are proposing Amendments 100, 139 and 141.
The new clause proposed in Amendment 100 would place a duty on the OfS to monitor arrangements put in place by registered higher education providers to enable students to transfer within or between providers, as well as the take-up of those arrangements, and the OfS would have a duty to report annually on its findings. The proposed new clause would also enable the OfS to facilitate, encourage or promote awareness of the arrangements for student transfer so that the OfS could help ensure that students understood the options for changing course or institution and that best practice was promoted among higher education providers.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for their amendments on this important issue. However, given the Government’s assessment of the evidence of barriers to student transfer, I do not think it is desirable to adopt these amendments. Such an approach would reduce the flexibility available to the OfS as it develops its understanding, as well as being overly prescriptive and potentially burdensome on institutions. I believe that the government amendment will achieve our shared aims without interfering with or overly mandating how the OfS manages its information-collection processes.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
I want to clarify with the Minister whether I can make an intervention to ask him something or whether I can speak to these amendments.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My understanding of the rules in the Companion is that the noble Lord is able to ask a short question for clarification.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
In that case, I shall do so. It must be clear to any Member of this House who has followed credit transfer and accumulation and linked it with transfer between institutions that, when transferring to another institution and using prior learning to shorten a course or indeed continue with a course, it is essential to have in place an effective credit accumulation system. Unless there is some movement in that direction then, quite frankly, just being able to publicise whether you can transfer between institutions is rather meaningless.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I hope I have made it clear that it is very much a priority to enable students to do so, in that we want to make sure that, practically, this can work. I hope I have given enough reassurance that this will work—it will need to work, otherwise it will not work.
Lord Kerslake
“Regulated course fees etc: use in relation to section 26
(1) The scheme established under section 26 must not be used to rank English higher education providers as to the regulated course fees they charge to a qualifying person; or the unregulated course fees they charge to an international student; or the number of fee paying students they recruit, whether they are qualifying persons or international students.(2) In this section “regulated course fees”, “qualifying person” and “international student” have the same meaning as in section 11.”
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 19 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden. I have already declared my interest as chair of Sheffield Hallam University board of governors. On this amendment, I should also declare that Chris Husbands, the excellent vice-chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, is the chair of the teaching excellence framework panel established by the Government to oversee the development of the TEF.
The effect of this amendment would be to prohibit the use of the TEF ranking in either the setting of the student fee cap or the number of students that a university can recruit. This would apply to both national and international students, so preventing the possibility that the TEF ranking might be linked to the issuing of student visas. Others will speak on this latter issue in a moment. I would like to focus on the issue of linking fees to the TEF.
It is important to be clear at the start of this particular debate that there is a lot of agreement on the issues of teaching quality and fees when taken separately. Across the House, there is widespread support for the Government’s efforts to raise the profile and improve the quality of teaching in our universities. Students paying £9,000 a year are entitled to expect a consistently high quality of teaching, wherever they undertake their degree. This has been true for many universities and many courses, but not enough. There remain differences of view about whether the approach currently being taken to the TEF by the Government is the right one. This will be the subject of a separately debated amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. However, there is absolutely no argument about the need for an assessment of teaching quality and for data on such things as student satisfaction and job outcomes to be freely available. The Government’s announcement of a genuine lessons-learned exercise for the TEF after this trial year, and the extension of the pilot phase of the subject-level TEF by an additional year, are both welcome.
Equally, there is an understanding that student fees need to be able to rise to reflect inflation. The Treasury should not have been surprised when most universities increased fees to the maximum cap of £9,000 in 2012. This largely reflected the loss of other government funding. Our universities have been spared the gruelling austerity of other parts of the public sector, albeit at a cost that has been passed on to students and, for many, to future taxpayers. However, I have no doubt that a properly argued case for further inflation-level increases will, and indeed should, get the support of Parliament. The issue here comes from the Government’s plans to circumvent the debate on fees and allow inflation increases only for those universities that have achieved silver or gold rankings. There are four main reasons why this approach is simply wrong.
First, the TEF is not ready. There is not yet a settled methodology. Indeed, the very fact that the Government have agreed to a fundamental review this summer, including how the metrics are flagged, the balance between the metrics and the provider submissions, and the number and names of the ratings, tells us that we are some way off where we need to be on this. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, put it so well in Committee, the TEF is being asked to bear too heavy a load. As things currently stand, universities ranked gold and silver will be able to increase their fees, but bronze-ranked universities, perhaps 20% of the total, will not. Yet in our debate on the TEF the Minister stated clearly that bronze should be seen as a worthy rating. Whichever way we look at the issue, this is an approach to fee setting that has not been properly thought through.
My second reason for not making the link is that the TEF rating will relate to the university, not the subject or course. We will not see subject-level ratings until 2020 and yet we know that it is perfectly possible to have a mediocre course in an otherwise excellent university, and indeed vice versa. It can be argued that the TEF ranking gives an indication of the overall student experience at a particular institution, but the variation which so obviously exists within institutions makes that argument quite unconvincing.
My third reason why this is a bad move is that, if the case for the link is being made on behalf of students, we know that the body which represents them, the NUS, is vehemently against the proposal. Its argument is a simple one: there is no evidence of a relationship between increasing fees and increasing quality of teaching. It seems very hard to argue the case for a shift towards a student voice as a consequence of student loans and then to completely ignore the clear view of student representatives up and down the country.
My fourth and final argument is that there is absolutely no need to provide this particular incentive to improve teaching quality. The impact of the TEF, coupled with the demographic and other changes we are experiencing, will provide more than enough incentive. University-age pupils leaving school have fallen for four years and are set to fall for another six. The total reduction will be 20%. At the same time, maintaining and growing the number of overseas students is likely to be a real challenge. Put simply, we do not need to put further pressure on what is already going to be a challenged system.
To conclude, there is a strong case for promoting teaching excellence and for allowing student fees to rise in order to reflect increasing costs. However, putting the two together in the way the Government are currently proposing is both ill judged and unfair. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake. He has set out the arguments on this important issue convincingly and comprehensively, both in Committee and again today, so I shall not repeat them. It is simply wrong that either the amount a student should pay in fees, or indeed if a person can come to study in the UK, should be determined by whether a university achieves a gold, silver or bronze standard rating, or whatever grading system is put in place. Our Amendment 73 in a later group is linked to this and also seeks to disconnect the ability of international students to attend a course from the quality rating of the provider.
On the matter of international students, the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, referred to an already challenged system, but we can read today in an analysis by Universities UK that they generate some £26 billion for the economy each year and support 206,000 jobs across the UK. It is folly to take actions that deter international students on financial grounds and, possibly even more important, it is folly to do so given their contribution to international relations, academic standards and generally to our quality of life. I add my strong support from these Benches to this amendment.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, I will be somewhat maverick. I have spent a lot of time in British higher education. I started when the whole idea of charging students fees was thought to be outrageous. At the LSE we initiated research into income-contingent loans, which students would take for higher education. While it was said at the time that it would be terribly harmful, not much harm has been done.
However, there is a great liking for uniformity in this country, because uniformity is mistaken for equality. I was involved in the first research assessment exercise back in 1988. In research rankings, we have information on universities by different departments. They have been ranked from five star to one so that students know which universities are good and which are not. They consult this information before they apply. It is no good pretending that somehow students will not look at the quality of universities and so on.
However, I agree that universities should be allowed to charge different fees for different courses. The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, who was vice-chancellor of the University of London many years ago, proposed during debates in your Lordships’ House some years ago that there should be not a single fee for all courses in a university but different fees for different courses. But that is a separate issue.
I am reluctant to force the system into uniformity so that people have to pick up signals of quality differences somewhere else. If a university wants to charge £15,000, let it. If it is no good, people will not go there. I do not see what the problem is. This is how the American system has survived for many years and thrived. It has very good outcomes in higher education. We have somehow tied ourselves into knots that things must be uniform, that things must be like this and that there must be overregulation. We are then surprised that universities create silos for themselves—they do not co-operate with each other and so on. I am sceptical that this is a desirable amendment.
Baroness Deech
My Lords, I remind the Minister that, if the amendment is not passed, the Government’s efforts to increase social mobility and diversity will be very badly damaged. By and large, the established—we might say “better”—universities will be able to charge more and will attract those students who can afford to pay it and who can afford to choose. By and large—of course not always—less-established universities will come out lower and will not be able to raise their fees. Not so well-off students will go to them.
Add to that the fact that the Government’s policy has been to get rid of the grants that enabled students to travel to other parts of the country and pay for accommodation in universities that were not in their home town. There are loans there, but those grants have gone. In other words, it is more expensive for a student to leave home and go to another university. That will increase ghettoisation. We already know that students tend to cluster in one type of high school. They may be forced to attend their local university because they cannot afford anything else. It may not be a very good one. The inequalities will simply reinforce themselves. If we detach fees from gold, silver and bronze, we stand a chance of increasing social mobility under the amendment. If we do not, social mobility will be frozen and ghettoisation will increase. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Kerslake that to use the TEF in its current state as a mechanism for deciding what fees an institution can charge is premature and quite wrong. I agree with him also that, given that the Government wish to put students at the centre of things, it is extraordinary how little we are listening to them. At the moment, not a single representative body led by students has backed the proposal to link the TEF judgments to the level of fees. Twenty-six students unions, including a number in the best-known universities—in fact, largely in the better-known universities—are boycotting the national student satisfaction survey this year because they are so concerned that the metrics that the Government propose to use are inappropriate.
It is worth remembering that the Conservative manifesto undertook to recognise universities offering the highest teaching quality. I do not think that a single person in this Chamber does not believe that teaching quality and giving information to students about it are extraordinarily important. I want to quote my own institution. A joint statement from the college and its students union said:
“The university and the Students’ Union … agree that the Teaching Excellence Framework … metrics currently under discussion are not, in their current form, appropriate measures for improving educational quality”.
The president of our students union feels strongly that, while students have never disagreed with this principle, they dispute the employment of the teaching excellence framework in its current form to achieve the goal of improving teaching quality in higher education. These are serious young people and they have thought about what they are doing. They feel that linking fees to the TEF is not appropriate.
Many people will know that Universities UK feels that the Government have great concessions and that this is basically fine. It is worth remembering that this was an action on the part of its executive. It is also important to remember that in the current environment vice-chancellors are above all interested in behaving in such a way that they maximise their fee intake. I remind people who have not already heard it of Goodhart’s law, which basically says that any instrument, measure or metric used for making decisions or allocating funds which are of high importance automatically becomes unreliable. It is a law for which nobody has yet found a counter example; it is my daily teaching bread and it is true not just in education but in hospitals, social care and everywhere else. If we want to give people really good information on the teaching quality in their institutions, tying it to whether that institution can raise its fee is not a good way to improve the quality of the measurements.
I want to cite three groups of academics who are quite separately trying hard to get through to us, the Council for the Defence of British Universities, the Campaign for the Public University and the Convention for Higher Education, all of which feel, as do students, that in their current state the TEF metrics are not up to the job of determining fee levels and that, until we are sure that we have valid and reliable measures, we should not do this.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, hearing the words “TEF metrics” made me come to my feet, because a consistent theme to run through our debates on the Bill has been the developing understanding that the metrics are wholly inadequate and, in particular, that the national student survey is not the basis for any judgments on teaching quality.
I am glad that the Government have moved as far as they have on the NSS and the metrics—now we are getting a thorough review; the metrics related to the NSS are being officially described as the least important of the metrics before us; for smaller institutions more scope is being given; and so on. That is all good news, but what seems knocking on bizarre is to plough on with bringing in this link between fees and the TEF before we have got the TEF right. It would be logical to get the TEF right first, see whether the metrics can be made to work and get them all in some sort of order, and then, when you have done that, you can seriously consider whether to have a link with fees. But when the TEF is such a self-evident mess, why put all your money on having the fees link, which will make people even angrier at the effects of the TEF? Why not show a little patience? The Government believe in linking the TEF and fees; others in this House do not. The Government would give themselves the best chance of proving themselves right and the sceptics wrong if they gave time for the TEF to settle down before they brought in the fees link.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that when the Browne report came out at the beginning of the coalition Government, the change was introduced to increase fees from £3,000 to £9,000 in one go and to convert to a loan system. I remember tabling a regret Motion at the time. The argument then was that a market would be created so that students would go for universities and courses that were better value for them, but what I highlighted in my Motion was that the Government were withdrawing funding on the one hand and tripling the fees on the other. In the five years since the change was implemented, there has been no market; universities across the board have had to increase their fees virtually to the maximum £9,000, because funding was withdrawn at the other end. For students, it was a double whammy. Their fees were tripled in one go—I suggested that it should have been phased in—and they are now saddled with loans of tens of thousands of pounds that they have to pay off. On the other hand, for the universities, there is a £9,000 figure which for some subjects—science and engineering, let alone medicine—is nowhere near enough to provide that type of teaching.
This is a Hobson’s choice. You can understand the students’ point of view—they are already paying £9,000; they were paying £3,000 and they got the loans; they do not want the fees to go up—and you can understand the universities’ point of view: they want to provide the best possible research, teaching and facilities for their students, but they have had no increase in their fees for five years. In real terms, the £9,000 is already down to just over £8,000. Now we have this further linkage with teaching.
I want your Lordships to understand that this is not easy. Universities operate in a challenging environment. We are competing with the whole world. We have the best universities in the world along with the United States of America. Our research is fantastic. I am proud of our universities, but in many ways we have our hands tied behind our backs. I applaud our students and our universities.
Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, I can see why the Government want to link the quality of teaching to fees. I assume that behind it is that they need a kind of sanction to do something about those universities which are not providing adequate teaching. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that the best teaching is not necessarily provided by those universities which do the best research; in other words, the high-status universities. Some of the new universities have excellent teaching quality, where some of the best research universities do not give it enough attention.
I support what my noble friend Lord Lipsey said. It is not the right time to attach the decision about the fees that can be charged to the TEF, because we do not have a TEF that is yet suitable and up to scratch in how it will operate. It is putting the cart before the horse. There may be some date in the future when it might be appropriate for the ability to increase fees to be related to the quality of teaching, but we have not reached that point. We really need to get our metrics right and provide a TEF that is fit for the job that it is being asked to do.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this has been a very good debate and it anticipates another debate which, at this rate of progress, we will be able to schedule and advertise for those noble Lords who wish to come back and listen to it for Wednesday just after Oral Questions, when we will be returning to many of the themes. This is quite a narrow amendment. The amendment before noble Lords is not about what metrics could be used or other issues relating to the TEF, as it is called. It specifically tries to avoid that, to leave space for that debate to take place on Wednesday. It specifically tries, though, to break the link that might be established between any scheme established under Clause 26 and the ranking of higher education providers as to the fees or the number of students they may or may not recruit.
On a number of occasions the Minister has been at pains to point out that, throughout the very long period we kept the House sitting in Committee on the Bill, he was, in complete contradiction to the impression he gave, listening and, indeed, in some cases, reflecting. It was sometimes difficult to get the nuance between listening and reflecting but those were the words he used. We were doing the same. We have been listening to and reflecting on some of the responses we have heard to the very good cases that have been made around this aspect of the Bill, and I have to say that, having listened and reflected, I do not think he has made the case well, but the case that has been made around the Chamber this afternoon is exactly on spot.
If you want to raise the fees in higher education to accommodate the cost increases referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, it has been possible since 2004, and Labour’s Higher Education Act, to raise fees by inflation. It was done routinely between 2007 and 2012 by two successive Governments. There is no reason at all why the Government should not bring forward a statutory instrument under the terms of the Act that makes provision for the power to do so. There is no need, in fact, to anticipate what may be a good system for measuring higher education by linking it to the teaching quality that has been discovered by a half-baked scheme that is not yet half way through its pilot system. The case was made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal. The case for linking the quality of education and fees, or the quality of education and the number of students, is completely hollow. I very much hope that if the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the House, he will do so. We will support him.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, before I discuss fees, I would like first to be clear that the Government welcome genuine international students, and to reiterate the confirmation that I offered in Committee that we have no plans to cap the number of genuine students who can come to the UK to study, nor to limit an institution’s ability to recruit genuine international students, based on its TEF rating or on any other basis.
As well as the link to student numbers, this amendment would remove an important principle at the heart of the TEF: the link to fees. The TEF is intended to rebalance the priority given to teaching and learning compared to research. Funding for teaching is currently based on quantity, whereas research is funded on quality. It was a Conservative Government who first introduced early versions of the research excellence framework. Over the past 30 years, the principle of linking funding to quality has incentivised the UK’s research base to develop into the world-leading sector that we have today. We want to apply the same principle that has driven such continuous improvement in research to teaching. Linking fees to the TEF will provide strong reputational and financial incentives to prioritise the student learning experience.
It is important that high-quality institutions can maintain fees in line with inflation if we are to ensure that the sector remains sustainable. As I pointed out in Committee, the £9,000 fees introduced in 2012 are worth only £8,500 today and will be worth less than £8,000 by the end of the Parliament. If we want to provide the best-quality education in our universities, and to compete with our global rivals, universities need the resource to invest in their teaching facilities. This is why the Universities UK board unanimously supported the link between an effective TEF and fee rises. Some 299 institutions have voluntarily applied to take part in the TEF this year out of about 400: that represents a big majority. This includes the majority of the established higher education sector, including all the English Russell group universities. I think that noble Lords will agree that this represents a very encouraging and excellent endorsement of the current scheme.
Furthermore, as GuildHE said:
“The link between the TEF and inflation increases in fee and loan caps makes sense ... When the £9000 fee cap was introduced in 2012/13, the BIS spending review assumption was that it would rise by inflation each year. Instead, the price has been held flat for four years. Without an increase to take account of rising teaching costs, the ability of institutions to invest in the quality of the learning experience on offer will, inevitably, decline”.
However, there will be no something for nothing. Make no mistake: if this amendment is enacted the sector will lose £16 billion over the course of the next 10 years. This is the value of the funding we intend to make available for institutions through the TEF. We will not allow universities to raise their fees unless they can demonstrate, through the TEF, that their teaching is of the highest quality.
Lord Kerslake
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this very good debate. We heard very clearly about the concerns that the TEF is not ready and about the potential impact of this proposal on social mobility. Indeed, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, that not one student body has found it necessary to support the proposal. This is something that is purportedly being done in the interests of students but none of the student bodies actually supports it. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made the very important point that the reason why we have the uniformity that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred to is precisely because government grants were taken out at the time at which the fee cap was raised. The two things went hand in hand.
It is really important to say that there is no need for universities to be deprived of the opportunity for inflation increases. If that were to happen as a consequence of this amendment, it would be entirely an action that the Government have chosen to take. It is clear that there is already a quality assurance system and that the TEF system, when it is finalised, will bring an ability to drive up quality. There is plenty of incentive in the system through the introduction of the TEF, and there will be plenty of incentive through other competitive changes in the sector. Crudely linking a TEF system that is not yet ready to the increase of fees is simply wrong and unfair on those universities which come out at the wrong end of it. I am afraid I have not been persuaded by the Minister’s arguments. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Sky and 21st Century Fox: Proposed Merger
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, with your Lordships’ leave, I will repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
“I promised to give the House an update about progress on the process for the bid by 21st Century Fox to acquire the 61% share of Sky which it does not already own. I can confirm that formal notification for the proposed merger of Sky and 21st Century Fox was lodged with the European Commission on Friday 3 March and that I, on Friday, wrote to the parties to inform them that I am minded to issue a European intervention notice on the basis that I believe there are public interest considerations, as set out in the Enterprise Act 2002, that may be relevant to this proposed merger that warrant further investigation. To be clear, I have not taken a final decision on intervention at this stage but have indicated what I am presently minded to do. In line with the guidance that applies to my quasi-judicial role, I will aim to come to a final decision on whether to intervene in the merger within 10 working days of Friday’s notification. Before I make my final decision, and in line with statutory guidance, I have invited further representations in writing from the parties and have given them until Wednesday 8 March to provide them.
In December, I made clear that I would make this quasi-judicial decision independently, following a process that is scrupulously fair and impartial, and as quickly as possible with all relevant information in front of me. To enable this, I instructed my officials to commence work to analyse the relevance of the public interest considerations to the merger and to consider the available evidence. Since the 9 December announcement, I have received representations from the parties to the merger, as well as representations made in writing to the department from a range of people and organisations. They include more than 8,700 responses made in connection with the department’s consultation on the Leveson inquiry and its implementation which referred to the merger. Given my quasi-judicial role, I can consider only evidence which is relevant to my decision.
On the basis of this preparatory work, I have issued a ‘minded to’ letter to the parties on two of the public interest grounds specified in Section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002. The first public interest ground on which I am minded to intervene is media plurality. That is, specifically, the need for there to be a sufficient plurality of persons with control of the media enterprises serving audiences in the UK. My concern here is that the merger will bring under common or increased control a number of significant news sources, including Sky News and News Corporation’s newspaper titles. As a result, I have told the parties that I am minded to ask for a report from Ofcom on the impact of the merger on media plurality before considering the matter further.
The second public interest ground on which I am minded to intervene is commitment to broadcasting standards. This ground relates to the need for persons carrying on media enterprises, and for those with control of such enterprises, to have a genuine commitment to attaining broadcasting standards objectives. As I have indicated to the parties to the merger, I am concerned about the nature of a number of breaches of broadcasting standards by 21st Century Fox as well as the behaviour and corporate governance failures of News Corporation in the past. In light of those matters, I am minded to intervene on this ground and to ask Ofcom to investigate them further.
I also want to be clear on what this means in terms of the overall process. My decision on whether to intervene is not the end of the matter. Instead, it would recognise that these public interest considerations may be relevant to the merger and will trigger action by Ofcom to assess and report to me on them and the Competition and Markets Authority to report on jurisdiction. There would then be a further decision-making stage for me to undertake in light of those reports, but we are not at that stage yet. As I said at the outset, I will aim to take the final decision on whether to issue a European intervention notice within the 10 working days set out in the guidance and will return to this House to notify Parliament of this decision.
I am today, as I said I would, keeping this House appropriately informed of developments on this important matter, and it is right that I continue to do so. However, given this remains a quasi-judicial process in which I retain a decision-making role for the next 10 days, and potentially beyond, it would be inappropriate for me, or any other member of this Government, to comment on the substantive merits of the case. I hope this update is helpful to honourable Members and that this Statement gives an opportunity to debate this important issue, but at the same time I hope that honourable Members will respect the limits of what I can say given my ongoing decision-making role”.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement in another place. I am also very grateful to the Secretary of State for coming at what I think must be the earliest possible moment, because she said that she received notification of this only on Friday 3 March. It is very good that she was able to come so quickly. I also put on record our thanks to her for attending a meeting convened by the noble and learned Lord last week where a number of Peers from all sides of the House were able to ask her questions and examine a bit more closely some of the issues that relate primarily to the Digital Economy Bill but also to this subject.
My first question is about who is caught by the quasi-judicial mode, which was mentioned several times by the noble and learned Lord. The Statement refers to the Secretary of State and the Government. Will the noble and learned Lord confirm or deny whether that is departmental Ministers in DCMS or whether there are any other Ministers involved? I will be interested to know to what extent we are able to ask questions and gain answers over this period, which may last a number of weeks.
An important point is that the Statement does not cover the corporate structure which we are now facing with this proposed merger. We know that 21st Century Fox indicated on 9 December that it was making a takeover approach for Sky. It already owns just over 39% of Sky shares, so it is the balance of the shareholding. We know that, after a period of pre-discussion and debate, the European Commission was formally notified of the bid on Friday 3 March. It is important to get it right because there have been changes since we were in this process six years ago. 21st Century Fox is one of two successor companies of News Corporation, which was split up in 2013. It is important that we recognise that Fox is the legal successor of News Corporation and deals primarily with the film and television industries and another company, new News Corp, is a new company focused on newspapers and publishing that was spun out of News Corporation. In the UK, new News Corp owns the Sun, the Times and the Sunday Times. The point is that, although the corporate vehicle under which the acquisition is being made is 21st Century Fox, it is common understanding that the same principles are involved on both sides of that split and therefore the inquiry needs to take account of that. From what the Secretary of State has said, I think there is a willingness to go a little bit further than the straightforward 21st Century Fox approaching Sky. I will be grateful if the noble and learned Lord can respond to that at this stage.
The Secretary of State made the point that there are two dimensions to the inquiry that she is minded to look at. One is plurality. The point was made that, if this bid is successful, it will put an even greater amount of media power in the hands of the Murdoch family in particular and the people involved. Ofcom therefore needs to look at the whole of the group of Murdoch companies in assessing whether the Sky takeover would threaten media plurality. That is a very important aspect in relation to what I have just said about the ownership and control of the family companies that are involved.
The world has changed since 2010-11 when we last looked at this, and Ofcom will need to range much more widely across the media and look at not just newspapers and traditional news delivery through broadcasting but at social media, news aggregators and others from which news is taken. This is quite a substantial change in operation, and I will be grateful if the noble and learned Lord has any observations on whether the resources that are available to Ofcom will be sufficient to cope with that new approach and challenge.
The second ground on which the Secretary of State says she is minded to intervene is on commitment to broadcasting standards. I notice that this section of the Statement is quite carefully phrased. The convention is to refer to the fit and proper test required under the Broadcasting Acts for those who hold a broadcasting licence. Sky holds a broadcasting licence and therefore the controllers of Sky have to be fit and proper persons. The narrow point here is the extent to which that is focused as a process on individuals who may or may not be the named licence holders or on the corporate structure within which they operate. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord can confirm that the intention, even though it is not explicit in the Statement, is to look at not only at the individuals but at the corporate structure within which they operate because clearly there are issues on both sides of that.
This is a very important issue, which we will return to in a few days when we understand more about the European intervention notice and whether or not that has been called, and also the extent to which Ofcom will report and whether or not that Ofcom report will lead to further work by the CMA. It is important we get some of the facts on the table now, and I look forward to hearing further from the noble and learned Lord.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I welcome both the speed and tone of the Statement from the Secretary of State. She has been careful to keep to the legal niceties, although any reading of this would welcome what she considers the merits of the case, particularly, as has been said, her emphasis on media plurality and the commitment to broadcasting standards. These were at the heart of the debate we had over a decade ago—putting into legislation the right to intervene on public interest grounds—led by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
It is important to remember that, if anything, the arguments we had then which finally persuaded the then Government to accept the public interest test have got stronger over the last decade, in no small measure because of the behaviour of companies and organisations in which Rupert Murdoch has had an influence. We now face that problem again. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this is still a major issue with the Murdoch empire in particular, and given the need to take on board how these companies change their structures without really ever changing the spider at the heart of the web?
The other, equally important point, as has been said, is the changes in broadcasting and media over the last decade. Mr Murdoch may play a big part in many ways, but he will soon be a small player compared to some of the giants wandering the media jungle. Does the Minister agree that the danger is that, if we get this wrong, we will set precedents which, when those big boys come along, will leave us in a very weak position in defending the very principles the Secretary of State so eloquently expressed in the Statement?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord McNally, for their observations, and will seek to respond to some of the points they have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked “whose court”, as he put it, deals with this quasi-judicial decision-making process. It will be for the Secretary of State to carry out that process, with the appropriate officials advising her. It will not involve other government departments or Ministers; it will be her decision and her decision alone that instructs this matter. I hope that reassures the noble Lord as to how the process will be carried on.
As for the corporate structures and the past involvement of News Corporation, as the Secretary of State indicated in the Statement, when we address the question of commitment to broadcasting standards, account will be taken of past breaches of those and of behaviour and corporate governance failures, including those relating to News Corporation.
Ofcom, of course, has a fit and proper person test, but that applies in respect of broadcasting licences rather than this issue. It is a different test to the one that will be considered with regard to the merger, but it is important to bear in mind that the same evidence may of course be relevant to both tests. As the Secretary of State set out in her letter, she considered that a number of relevant matters warranted further investigation, including facts that led to the Leveson inquiry, for example, and the question of corporate governance at the News of the World. It will be open to Ofcom to look at all relevant areas—none are being ruled out in this context. The ultimate question will be whether the bidder shows a genuine commitment to broadcasting standards, which will raise very real and relevant questions with regard to past behaviour.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked whether we might be in danger of setting an unhealthy precedent, given the other tests that may be put before us in due course by other media outlets. With respect, I do not consider that this decision-making process involves the setting of precedents. Each of these proposals will be considered on its individual, stand-alone merits. I hope that provides some reassurance to noble Lords.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can I just quote back to him what he said only a few moments ago at the Dispatch Box?
“However, given this remains a quasi-judicial process in which I retain a decision-making role for the next 10 days, and potentially beyond, it would be inappropriate for me, or any other member of this government, to comment on the substantive merits of the case”.
Is there a slight variance with what he said there?
Lord Keen of Elie
There is no variance. It would not be appropriate for any member of the Government to comment on it, but the decision-making process will be by the Secretary of State.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the clarity and emphasis in the Secretary of State’s Statement. I fear some may argue, “Never mind the quality, feel the width”: that there are, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned, many new centres of news on social media and in other places, but it is important to remember that news in the UK, whether print news or broadcast, is facing financial adversity. We see cuts on all sides and a diminution in the quality of our journalism. Does the Minister accept that these criteria need to be applied when considering this matter?
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement, which is for the most part very welcome. Not frivolously at all, the two criteria the Secretary of State has chosen are precisely those for which all-party amendments have been put down for the Digital Economy Bill. I have a question relating to each of them.
The first is on media plurality. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has just said, it has been 14 years since we first raised this important issue. Everyone wants plurality and agrees that it is a very good idea, but at that time, we needed a framework. I apologise if the frustration is showing in my voice, but I and many others have sought agreement on that framework on repeated occasions. Ofcom was eventually asked to create a report on that, which was published as the Measurement Framework for Media Plurality on 5 November 2015, but there has been no response from the Government. Interestingly enough, the Secretary of State, in her long letter on Friday, said that one of her issues was that, before a decision could be made, there was a,
“need for qualitative assessment and perhaps further factual inquiries”.
The whole purpose of our current amendments is to help this Secretary of State and any future Secretary of State in making these judgments, based on evidence and on an agreed framework. Therefore, surely it is incumbent on the Government to make it clear that they will seek such a framework and, if necessary, wait until after these amendments have hopefully been approved by this House, and then accept them. That is what we are seeking.
The other issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, is the fit and proper person test. I have looked carefully at this, because I believe we are making this unnecessarily difficult. Media companies are not football clubs, and in fact there is a very good definition set out by the Financial Conduct Authority, which covers,
“honesty (including openness with self-disclosures, integrity and reputation) … competence and capability … financial soundness”.
Can the noble Lord tell me whether there is any reason whatever why we should not adopt the Financial Conduct Authority’s definition in the Bill?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords, and perhaps I may first respond to the noble Lord, Lord Birt, which I did not do before the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoke.
At the end of the day, clearly, issues of demand and financial adversity will play a part in consideration of what is required, but that will ultimately be a matter for Ofcom in its report rather than for any decision of the Secretary of State.
With respect to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, again, media plurality changes not only over 14 years but year by year—indeed, more swiftly than that in the present environment. It will be for Ofcom to address matters in the present context, rather than trying to establish a framework which might limit the way in which it responds to these issues.
Lord Puttnam
That is exactly the answer that has been given for 14 years. Is it possible that for another 14 years we will use the changing environment of the media not to have a framework which can be applied by a Secretary of State when making these judgments?
Lord Keen of Elie
It respectfully appears to me that the reason that we may have had the same issue for the past 14 years is that it reflects the appropriate approach to take to these matters, rather than the straitjacket of some framework, as the noble Lord proposes. It may be that we differ on that point.
I come to the second matter of a fit and proper person. Of course, the fit and proper person test is applied by Ofcom in the context of a broadcasting licence, but we recognise that in looking to behaviour, which is relevant to this question, it would be appropriate to take into account fitness and past behaviour. Whether it is appropriate to adopt a test developed for the Financial Conduct Authority is another matter entirely, but it is clearly open to Ofcom, when approaching this matter, to have regard to how other regulatory bodies consider the questions of fitness and behaviour.
In a sense, the Financial Conduct Authority test is not peculiar to financial services: it reflects what most reasonable people would regard as the relevant litmus test to determine whether somebody is fit and proper for any post, let alone to control a broadcasting medium.
Lord Deben (Con)
I thank my noble and learned friend for the Statement. I raise again a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. He pointed to the concern that one has when people say, “There are lots of other ways in which news is disseminated”, and therefore the comparison between one television channel and another is perhaps no longer as important as it once was. His point about it being an exemplar—although each case is judged on its own merits and never are other cases not referred to, at least in the mind of those making the decisions—was important.
It is also true that anyone who travels the world to those places where the media have become less and less plural realises the damage that that does to the free society. I hope that my noble and learned friend will pass on to his right honourable friend the concern of many of us that free speech and the free communication of ideas depend on multiplicity and plurality. If ever there were a case in which that has to be defended, it is this case.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Deben. Of course, a vibrant free press and a plurality of press sources is a fundamental part of any democratic society. That is why the Enterprise Act provisions exist: to ensure that public interest considerations can be taken into account when looking at media mergers.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord can help me with the question of potential implications of legislation going through the House. Clearly, every case has to be considered on its merits, but the Secretary of State has to undertake that consideration in the context of the legislative background. Can the fact that legislation is being passed influence the timing by which a decision is taken?
Lord Keen of Elie
It does not appear to me on the face of it that proposed legislation can properly impact in terms on the decision-making process which, in the first instance, will involve a decision in the next 10 days and, thereafter, a report from Ofcom, which I believe is normally, under ministerial guidance, to be produced within 40 days if a decision is made. It is very difficult to see how any proposed legislation can impact on that decision-making process.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the second of the specified considerations to which my noble and learned friend referred under the Enterprise Act is for those carrying on media enterprises or controlling such enterprises,
“to have a genuine commitment to the attainment in relation to broadcasting of the standards objectives set out in section 319 of the Communications Act”.
That relates to the standards code, which itself is related to television and radio services. In her review of this consideration, is the Secretary of State obliged to look only at issues related to television and radio services?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. I do not understand that the commitment to broadcasting standards is limited simply to television and radio in that sense, but I will take further advice on that point and, if I am wrong, I will write to him and place a letter in the Library.
Lord Razzall (LD)
I wonder whether, when the Secretary of State considers this, the noble and learned Lord will ensure that she takes into account the remark that Mr Murdoch made to your Lordships’ Communications Committee some years ago when it visited New York and he gave evidence to it, when he said that he was very puzzled why Sky News could not be like Fox News.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not aware of the remark, but no doubt it can properly be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, the fact that the Secretary of State has seen fit to issue this statutory notice will give great satisfaction to most—if not all—Members of the other House. We well understand that these two grounds are not luxuries, not dainty sympathies, at all. They are principles that are central to the concept of liberty and the conduct of a well-ordered society. It is on that basis that we heartily welcome the Secretary of State’s decision.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. I should make it clear that what the Secretary of State issued is a letter that states that she is minded to intervene: no decision has yet been made and none will be made until she has had the opportunity to consider responses to it over the next 10 days.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that monopoly is always inimical to freedom?
Lord Keen of Elie
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will have that point in mind in more than one context.
Opel-Vauxhall: Sale to PSA Group
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to repeat as a Statement an Answer to an Urgent Question given by my right honourable friend in another place:
“This morning the boards of General Motors and PSA Group announced plans for PSA to acquire GM’s Vauxhall-Opel operations. The proposed deal is expected to be completed by the end of this year.
The Prime Minister and I have been engaged in discussions with both GM and PSA, and with the French and German Governments, to ensure that the terms of the agreement can give confidence to Vauxhall’s UK workforce now and for the future. Vauxhall is an iconic, important and successful British car manufacturer. Vauxhall cars have been made in Britain for 113 years, and we are determined that that should continue to be the case for many years to come.
The car plants at Ellesmere Port and Luton have a proud record of being among the most efficient in Europe, with workforces that are skilled, committed and flexible. Both PSA and GM have confirmed to the Prime Minister and me a number of important commitments, including that the company will honour its agreements with the Vauxhall workforce; that Vauxhall pensioners will be in at least as good a position as they are today; that the treatment of the UK division will be equal to that of other countries in the Vauxhall-Opel group; that the identity of Vauxhall will continue to be distinct and prominent; that the strategy of the new company will be one of building on existing strengths and commitments, not on plant closures, taking opportunities to increase sales around the world; and that the company will work with me and the rest of the automotive sector to ensure that it can participate in a substantial programme of research and investment for innovation in areas such as electric vehicles and battery technology, which is part of our industrial strategy.
This morning I had a further conversation with my French counterpart, the industry Minister, and the Minister of State spoke again to his German counterpart to agree a consistent approach. I speak frequently with Len McCluskey, the general secretary of the largest trade union in Vauxhall and I have kept, and will keep, colleagues with particular constituency interests up to date at all times.
It is in everyone’s interests that Vauxhall can look forward to a successful future. A generation ago, the car industry was one that epitomised our economic woes. Today that industry is a beacon of success. Companies invest in Britain because our automotive sector has a high-quality workforce and world-class efficiency, and is part of one of the most exciting places for innovation and research in new technology anywhere in the world. The future of the motor industry is bright in Britain, and we will be active at all times in doing everything we can to make it brighter still”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
I am obliged to the Minister for repeating the Statement from the Business Secretary. GM has shown great resilience over the years with the Opel and Vauxhall brands, and reported a loss of $257 million from its European operations in 2016. That is the 16th consecutive loss-making year for GM in Europe, bringing losses on the continent since 2000 to more than $15 billion.
GM chairman and chief executive Mary Barra said that the business would have broken even in 2016 had it not been for the UK’s vote to leave the European Union, which caused a sharp drop in the value of sterling. We should congratulate the excellent workers in the UK who have done a great job to turn around GM’s performance, but unfortunately they will gain little credit for it. The factories at Ellesmere Port and Luton employ about 4,500 people, and a supply chain of at least another 7,000. We hope that this transaction provides them with a secure future, restores growth to these brands and creates a long-term and growing future for Ellesmere Port and Luton.
I would be grateful if the Minister told us a little more about the nature of the assurances the Government received from the PSA group during their discussions. What specifically have they learned about safeguarding the plants? What have they learned about the PSA group’s plans to invest to upgrade capability to meet the specifications and scale of the facilities they have been committed to over recent times? What assurances have they received about the development of the Vauxhall brand and its sales in overseas markets beyond the EU? What assurances have they received about investment to retool the plants in the UK to develop other brands? Does the PSA group remain committed to the current Astra model in Ellesmere Port up to 2020-21 and the production of a new model there, and will Luton be able to fulfil its plans deep into the 2020s?
Secondly, I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the problem of the scale of the UK supply chain. Speaking after the announcement, the chairman of the PSA’s management board, Carlos Tavares said that tough terms for leaving the EU could be an opportunity for Vauxhall and PSA to develop a supplier base in the UK to give the whole operation a “pound cost structure”. Not only do they harbour concerns about the general state of the UK parts ecosystem; it is clear—and Vauxhall sales are 80% EU—that their consideration of how we handle not just the negotiation of withdrawal, the single market and the customs union but the industrial strategy will play a very important part.
This is a wider concern. In evidence to a Select Committee in the other place, Colin Lawther, Nissan’s senior vice-president of manufacturing supply chain, denied that the Government had agreed to any deal or received any particular assurances. He said that Nissan and the automotive industry had made a “strong request” for government support for £100 million to £140 million of investment for a supply development fund to “repower the supply base” and build an indigenous, high-tech car components sector in the UK. Nissan, too, is looking to increase content from British suppliers and says that this opportunity alone is worth £2 billion.
The future of PSA’s investment in Vauxhall and other parts of the car industry is about the importance of developing the supply chain, in addition to the measures the Government are already implementing. It is clear that the Government’s current approach is inadequate, so I would be grateful if the Minister assured us that a meaningful new strategy to develop the UK supply chain is under way.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I thank the noble Lord for those questions. To pick them up in turn, Carlos Tavares, the chief executive of PSA, has given assurances that he is keen to see this business develop and grow. He made the point that since becoming chief executive of PSA, he has not closed a single plant.
Regarding future models, post the Astra at Ellesmere Port, clearly, we will have to compete with other factories within the PSA group, as would have been the case had it remained part of General Motors. We are all very confident that we have the competitiveness and effective abilities, and the quality and brand at Ellesmere Port and Luton, to compete on a fair basis with any plant in Europe. PSA is absolutely committed to the Astra brand. There will be no need for a new model post 2020-21 for Ellesmere Port, and the Navara will continue to be produced at the Luton factory for longer still.
The noble Lord is absolutely right about the supply chain: it was an issue with Nissan as well as PSA. Carlos Tavares made the point that there are opportunities and risks on leaving the European Union. One of the opportunities will be to make the new models in the UK more of a sterling player, as the noble Lord put it. That means having a higher proportion of sterling-sourced components going into the Astra or indeed into any new model. We are committed to working with the automotive sector to try to boost the supply chain in the UK to ensure that more sterling-based components go into these cars.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, Vauxhall is our longest surviving car maker and has some of the most efficient plants in Europe. Like others, we commend the workforce for having achieved that.
I want to pursue one issue with the Minister. He will be aware that some 75% of the Astra’s components come from continental Europe, and that the supply chain stretches right across the free market and the customs union. Components travel across borders without any difficulty whatever. However, surely the imposition of a hard Brexit, which the Government are pursuing, could lead to tariffs, quotas and the end of the free movement of components across borders. That would place our plants at a real disadvantage.
In a climate in which we know that Nissan is now unsure about its long-term commitment to the UK, BMW is thinking of making the quintessentially British Mini in Germany, and we can get no long-term guarantees from the new owners of Vauxhall, should not the Government acknowledge that the unnecessary pursuit of a hard Brexit is putting the revival of our British car industry in jeopardy?
Lord Prior of Brampton
It is worth making the point that this transaction between General Motors and PSA is as a result not of Brexit but of a longer-term strategy on the part of GM, and, of course, GM is becoming a shareholder in PSA. This is not a Brexit-related issue. The noble Lord is laughing but this transaction has not come about because of Brexit.
The noble Lord says that the Government are pursuing a hard Brexit. We must get the terminology right. The Government are not pursuing a hard Brexit. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we are trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with the European Union that is as friction free as possible. That is the Government’s objective. Carlos Tavares, the chief executive of PSA, has said that there are opportunities whether it is a soft Brexit or a hard Brexit.
The noble Lord’s point about the supply chain is important. Given that it is so integrated across Europe, if there are tariffs or non-tariff barriers and more inspections, conformities and the like, that will disrupt the supply chain. That is why we are keen to negotiate a relationship that is as friction free as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, the Ellesmere Port plant is in my diocese and its closure at any time would be a disaster for that area on the banks of the Mersey. I recognise that that is not in immediate prospect, but can the Minister say more about the strategy to make the long-term loss-making Vauxhall-Opel group more profitable? If GM could not do it, how does Peugeot Citroën plan to do it?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The right reverend Prelate makes an interesting point, which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, made earlier—that Opel-Vauxhall has made a loss every year for the past 15 years. But that rate of loss has come down, and the new chief executive of GM embarked on a turnaround plan for both Opel and Vauxhall, which was beginning to work. The projection given by Carlos Tavares—I may get the years wrong—is that he is expecting an operating profit of 2% next year, with a target operating profit of 5% within five years from the combined business of Vauxhall and Opel in Europe. So that is his plan. He went out of his way to say that, since he became chief executive of PSA, not a single plant within PSA has closed. There are grounds for cautious optimism.
Higher Education and Research Bill
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:34 - Division on Amendment 52 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 189 - Amendment 52 agreed.
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I come to the campus of this Bill as a fresher, in the footsteps of my noble friend who, by contrast, is competing a postgraduate course. But I have had some taster sessions, listening to the Bill from the Front Bench, and I have read the exchanges in Hansard and in Committee.
It has always been our intention that the Bill will lead to greater diversity, choice and flexibility for students. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, proposed an amendment in Committee requiring the OfS to waive the fee limit condition in respect of accelerated courses. I have read his speech, which was highly persuasive. The Government, therefore, are introducing these amendments to support the growth of accelerated courses by enabling Parliament to remove a key barrier to them.
Amendments 46 and 202 create a clear definition of an “accelerated course” and allow Parliament to introduce a higher cap for these courses. Separately, the remaining amendments clarify that, when setting fee limits for any type of course under Schedule 2, whether accelerated or not, the Secretary of State may establish different higher, basic and sub-levels for different types of teaching provision—for example, sandwich and part-time courses. That reflects the approach taken under current legislation whereby, for example, the higher amount set for part-time courses is fixed at a lower level than for full-time courses.
Accelerated courses offer students the opportunity to study their course over a condensed period—for example, completing a three-year degree course over two years. We know that accelerated courses appeal to students who may not otherwise choose to pursue a degree. That includes mature students who want to retrain and enter the workplace faster than a traditional full-time three-year degree would permit, and those from non-traditional backgrounds.
An accelerated course must meet the same quality expectations and achieve the same outcomes as a comparable, traditional course. However, accelerated courses typically involve tuition through the summer period, requiring the same resources as a traditional course over a shorter period. Evidence from independent research and our call for evidence tells us that a number of English providers are interested in providing more accelerated courses. However, many providers are unable to grow or introduce accelerated courses because of the existing annual tuition fee cap; they simply cannot afford to offer accelerated courses. Therefore, these amendments will enable Parliament to set a higher annual fee cap for accelerated courses—and accelerated courses only—compared to the annual fee cap for standard degree courses. They also serve to provide flexibility with regard to other types of provision.
Let me be very clear: our clear intention is that accelerated degrees that are subject to fee limits under the Bill will cost students less than an equivalent degree, not least because students will claim less overall in maintenance loans. Students undertaking an accelerated course borrow less money over a shorter period and forgo less earnings, as they are able to enter the workplace sooner.
We are creating a new definition for accelerated courses, and we intend to consult with the HE sector on where to set the fee cap and how to grow further accelerated course provision. Any higher fee cap for accelerated courses will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative resolution procedure. We will seek to stimulate the market for accelerated courses by agreeing a fee cap that provides adequate funding for providers while ensuring the student and the taxpayer get a good deal. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the fact that, as in respect of other parts of the Bill, the Government have listened to what has been said during the progress through both Houses. My noble friend Lord Stevenson moved an amendment in Committee that sought to allow funding flexibility and aimed to incentivise the provision of accelerated degrees. He made it clear at that time that it was a probing amendment and, in withdrawing it, invited the noble Viscount the Minister to come forward with one of his own to achieve something similar. So it is natural that we welcome this group of amendments, which should insist on ending the present rigid structure of the type of undergraduate courses on offer.
It is fair to say that we have had some concerns about the kind of new so-called challenger institutions that will appear as a result of the Bill. Our main concern is what might drive them—that is, the profit motive, rather than the education motive. It will not be the case with all but it could be the case with some. However, it is only fair to confess that I was particularly concerned until I met people from the Greenwich School of Management and spoke at length with them about what they offer. I now see that body as engaged in widening participation; it attracts students from backgrounds that have not traditionally engaged in numbers with higher education, which, whatever the situation, has to be welcomed. The university itself cannot validate its own degrees—that is done by Plymouth University—but that is an issue for a separate day.
I have to say that the Greenwich School of Management surprised me. My only knowledge of it prior to my meeting was that the hedge fund or venture capital company with which the noble Lord, Lord Nash, was involved had established it. That might explain to noble Lords opposite why I was somewhat doubtful as to the motives—but none the less I have to say that it is an example of a new university serving its community.
We accept that there is a need for courses that offer students the opportunity to complete full degree programmes in two years of intensive study, enabling them to enter or return to work as quickly as possible. That is key, particularly for those students from less well-off families, who simply cannot afford the time to be out of full-time work for longer than two years. That is a message that the Government appear to have accepted. We hope that the financial penalties that have prevented students from enrolling in two-year courses up to now will be brought to an end, paving the way for their increased and increasingly diverse participation.
“(6) “The sub-level amount” means such amount as may be determined by the Secretary of State for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b)—(a) as the sub-level amount in respect of the higher amount, or(b) where different amounts are prescribed as the higher amount for different cases or purposes by virtue of section 115 (5)(a), as the sub-level amount in respect of each higher amount. (6A) Different amounts may be determined under sub-paragraph (6) for different descriptions of provider.”
(a) as the floor amount in respect of the higher amount, or(b) where different amounts are prescribed as the higher amount for different cases or purposes by virtue of section 115 (5)(a), as the floor amount in respect of each higher amount.( ) Where different amounts are prescribed as the higher amount for different cases or purposes by virtue of section 115 (5)(a)—(a) the reference in sub-paragraph (8)(a) to the higher amount is to the higher amount in respect of which the sub-level amount is determined, and(b) the reference in sub-paragraph (8)(b) to the floor amount is to the floor amount prescribed under sub-paragraph (9) in respect of that higher amount.”
“(5) “The sub-level amount” means such amount as may be determined by the Secretary of State for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)(b)—(a) as the sub-level amount in respect of the basic amount, or(b) where different amounts are prescribed as the basic amount for different cases or purposes by virtue of section 115 (5)(a), as the sub-level amount in respect of each basic amount.(5A) Different amounts may be determined under sub-paragraph (5) for different descriptions of provider.”
(a) as the floor amount in respect of the basic amount, or(b) where different amounts are prescribed as the basic amount for different cases or purposes by virtue of section 115 (5)(a), as the floor amount in respect of each basic amount.( ) Where different amounts are prescribed as the basic amount for different cases or purposes by virtue of section 115 (5)(a)—(a) the reference in sub-paragraph (7)(a) to the basic amount is to the basic amount in respect of which the sub-level amount is determined, and(b) the reference in sub-paragraph (7)(b) to the floor amount is to the floor amount prescribed under sub-paragraph (8) in respect of that basic amount.”
Lord Young of Cookham
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not make any of the following—(a) the first regulations under paragraph 2 prescribing the higher amount;(b) the first regulations under that paragraph prescribing the floor amount;(c) the first regulations under paragraph 3 prescribing the basic amount;(d) the first regulations under that paragraph prescribing the floor amount,unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, it is important that regulations that are made pursuant to powers are subject to the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. We have thought very carefully about such powers in this Bill, particularly in the light of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The government amendments in this group implement three of the recommendations that the DPRRC has made.
Specifically, Amendment 197 makes regulations under Clause 10, prescribing descriptions of provider to whom the transparency condition applies, subject to the affirmative procedure. Our policy intent, as set out in the White Paper Success as a Knowledge Economy, published in May 2016, is that a transparency condition will apply to approved and approved fee-cap providers on the register of higher education providers.
Amendment 198 makes regulations under Clause 38, prescribing descriptions of provider who will be eligible to receive OfS funding in the form of grants, loans or other payments, subject to the affirmative procedure. Subjecting these regulations to the affirmative procedure adds to the oversight Parliament has, compared with the current legislative arrangements.
Amendments 45, 200 and 201 ensure that the first set of regulations prescribing the higher, basic and floor amounts for the purposes of determining providers’ fee limits, will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the members of the DPRRC for their thorough consideration of the Bill’s powers. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, it seems wrong to intrude on a private conversation between the two noble Lords. We are grateful to the Government for bringing forward these amendments, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
“(6) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) do not apply to regulations where—(a) the higher amount, basic amount or floor amount in question is in the case of an accelerated course, and(b) paragraph 5 applies to the regulations.(7) “Accelerated course” in sub-paragraph (6)(a) has the same meaning as in paragraph 5.5 (1) No regulations may be made under paragraph 2 prescribing—(a) the higher amount in the case of an accelerated course at a level which is higher than what would be the higher amount in the case of that course if it were not an accelerated course, or(b) the floor amount in the case of an accelerated course at a level which is higher than what would be the floor amount in the case of that course if it were not an accelerated course,unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(2) No regulations may be made under paragraph 3 prescribing—(a) the basic amount in the case of an accelerated course at a level which is higher than what would be the basic amount in the case of that course if it were not an accelerated course, or(b) the floor amount in the case of an accelerated course at a level which is higher than what would be the floor amount in the case of that course if it were not an accelerated course,unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3) An “accelerated course” means a higher education course where the number of academic years applicable to the course is at least one fewer than would normally be the case for that course or a course of equivalent content leading to the grant of the same or an equivalent academic award.”
“(aa) a condition relating to the systems and processes the provider has in place to ensure appropriate standards are applied to the higher education it provides;”
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 49, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and give my wholehearted support to all the government amendments in this group.
Amendment 49 is a reinforcement of the registration conditions for higher education providers. It requires that it is not only the quality of provision and use of sector standards that can be subject to registration conditions but also the systems and processes that a provider has in place to ensure quality and standards are upheld. This provides an additional level of assurance of the ongoing maintenance of quality by a provider to the benefit of students.
I thank the Minister and the Bill team for their thoughtful work in bringing forward the government amendments on quality and standards. They effectively address the concerns of the sector, and of many noble Lords, that the definition of academic standards must be owned by the sector and not be in the remit of the Office for Students. The government amendments are, indeed, quite innovative in that they provide an implicit challenge to institutions in the sector to work together to define standards in other key areas—plagiarism might be a good example. These would be standards which the OfS could then use in its registration conditions. The Minister and the Bill team are to be commended for this forward-thinking approach, and I repeat my strong support for the government amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, has introduced this important group of amendments with great skill. Like the questions we had earlier on institutional autonomy, this issue was raised by a substantial number of individual institutions as being a barrier to them engaging more widely with the purposes of the Bill. It became a bit of a block to progress. We had a good go at it in Committee and we have had several meetings with the Minister, the Minister from the other place and the Bill team.
As the noble Baroness said, the Government have not only stood up to the plate and agreed to move on this but they have actually gone a little further. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, I commend the idea that, within this apportionment between individual institutions and the sector, individual institutions have academic standards reserved to them. There is an implication that that work will not be deemed satisfactory unless it is done through collaboration, the development of an appropriate process and bringing forward something which we do not currently see—a better understanding of how every individual institution is not only independent and autonomous but part of a wider whole.
In that sense, this plays back to our debates on new Clause 1, which has been inserted in the Bill and which deals with the much wider context in which higher education institutions—universities particularly, in this case—must operate. We are very pleased with these amendments. We support them and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their engagement with the issue of standards in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, this is an important matter, and in Committee I undertook to consider what more we could do to address the concerns raised. I am pleased that this is another area where we seem to have been able to find common ground.
Throughout the passage of the Bill we have been clear that the standards that the OfS will use are those that are owned by the sector and contained within the framework for higher education qualifications. We are now amending the Bill to put this beyond doubt.
These amendments remove the previous definition of standards, which I recognise was the cause of some concern. Instead, we are making it clear that the standards against which providers are assessed, and to which registration conditions can refer, are the standards that are determined by, and command the confidence of, the higher education sector, where such standards exist. I reassure noble Lords that where sector-recognised standards exist but do not cover a particular matter, the OfS cannot apply its own standard in respect of it. This approach is in the spirit of co-regulation and allows the sector to develop its standards as it sees fit, to meet the challenges of the day.
We are also legislating to clarify that, where a quality body is designated, it will have sole responsibility for the assessment of standards. This keeps standards assessment at arm’s length from government in a truly co-regulatory way. I assure noble Lords that the quality body—or the OfS where there is no quality body—must have regard to the advice given to it in this area by the independent quality assessment committee that we are setting up under Clause 25 of the Bill.
When my colleague, Jo Johnson, announced these amendments on 24 February, they were widely welcomed by the sector. Universities UK said that they are a,
“very positive step and show the government has listened to the concerns of the higher education sector around academic standards and the independence of universities”.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, have also indicated their support for our approach by putting their names to the amendments we have tabled. Given this support, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, has withdrawn other related amendments to Clause 14, Amendment 49 will not have the effect of limiting the registration conditions of the OfS. I therefore ask that Amendment 49 be withdrawn.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his comments and the Minister for his. This and a number of others, including the work with the Government on autonomy, are hugely important examples of the effective work of the House of Lords at a time when we have come in for some bashing in the press in other areas. This is something to celebrate and I reinforce my positive comments about the hard work of the Bill team and the Minister, which is very much appreciated. In that light, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2A) Where there are one or more sector-recognised standards, the condition mentioned in subsection (1)(a), so far as relating to standards—(a) may relate only to the standards applied in respect of matters for which there are sector-recognised standards, and(b) may require the application of sector-recognised standards only in respect of those matters.(2B) In this Part, “sector-recognised standards” means standards that apply to higher education and accord with guidance which—(a) is determined by persons representing a broad range of registered higher education providers, and(b) commands the confidence of registered higher education providers.”
“(2A) The list of principles 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.(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A)—(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 (2A)(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.(2C) Subsection (2A) does not apply to the Open University and other distance learning institutions.”
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 52, I must apologise to your Lordships for not having been present to move it in Committee. Naturally, I read Hansard carefully and have to say that I was disappointed by the Minister’s reply.
This is a simple amendment that would make it mandatory for all higher education institutions to offer their students the option of being placed on the electoral roll at the point of enrolment or re-registration. I know that a few universities are already doing this and I am particularly proud that this includes the University of Bath, of which I am pro-chancellor, and the University of Oxford, where I have been elected the next principal of Somerville. I understand that the Minister, Mr Chris Skidmore MP, has recently been at the University of Bath to discuss the issue.
The amendment would provide the best means of achieving the objective I share with the Government: to improve the level of voter registration among students, which fell dramatically as a consequence of individual electoral registration, when thousands and thousands of students dropped off the register. We have a duty to do this for three reasons. First, we should enable students to have a vote and a voice. As my noble friend Lord Smith of Finsbury said in the previous debate, many of his students who, by 23 June last year, were convinced of the need to vote in the EU referendum were unable to do so because they had not registered. By exercising their democratic right to vote, young people are able to influence policy and shape their future. Secondly, it would help to instil the voting habit in young people. While I realise that there is still a big step to be taken between registering to vote and voting, there is evidence that when someone has voted once they are more likely to vote again. I still get a tingle down my spine when I put a cross on a ballot paper, and I am always grateful to those who fought for our right to vote. Thirdly, it would ensure that when constituency boundaries are redrawn in future, they will better reflect the size of the population.
It is also in the public interest of universities to do their utmost to ensure that students participate in the electoral process. I pay tribute to the work of my honourable friend Paul Blomfield MP, who, working with the vice-chancellor of the University of Sheffield and the city council, and with the support of the Cabinet Office, devised a very successful pilot at the University of Sheffield. The results were simply staggering. Seventy-six per cent of its eligible students were registered to vote. In Bath, the university initiated a project on the direction of the pro-vice-chancellor for learning and teaching, who was working with Bath and North East Somerset Council. This resulted in 40% of eligible students registering to vote in 2015-16. In Cardiff, with a similar system, 65% of students registered in 2016-17. By contrast, institutions that simply pointed students to the national electoral registration portal as part of the enrolment process saw an increase of only 13%. This is clear evidence that my amendment would make a real difference to student participation in the democratic life of our country.
In January, the Minister spoke of bureaucratic burdens and I am very conscious of the bureaucratic burdens on higher education institutions, but the amendment is not overly onerous. It simply requires universities to make a minor change to their student enrolment systems to provide new students with the opportunity to have their names added to the electoral register in a seamless process. Universities already collect most of the data needed to register students. National insurance numbers were until recently an impediment but the Cabinet Office has offered new and very welcome guidance on this, so it is no longer necessary.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and congratulate the noble Baroness on her appointment to Somerville—that is great. As she explained, the amendment would ensure that all eligible students are provided with an opportunity to opt in to the electoral register for the location in which they are studying.
The introduction of individual electoral registration—IER—is a huge change in how elections operate in the UK. It helps the accuracy of the register and helps to counter fraud. So we support IER but want to ensure that it is implemented in the right way. Often when someone is moving house, registering to vote can be a low priority. Many people realise that they did not get around to registering only at election time, when it is already too late. Analysis from the Electoral Commission has shown that areas with a high concentration of certain demographics—students, private renters and especially young adults, who move regularly—are in particular danger of having low registration numbers. It is therefore important that special care is taken to prevent at-risk groups failing to register and failing to have their say at an election. It is particularly important that young people at university should have every encouragement to engage with democracy and the political process as early as possible. We need the engagement of young people to ensure the survival of democracy.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, many universities already do this. The amendment would mean that all would be involved. It would go a long way to helping students to be aware of the need to register and help them to do so quickly and easily. I fully support the amendment.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the aim of this amendment, having spoken in favour of its predecessor in Committee. Across the House there is a firm view that all possible means should be employed to get more young people on to the electoral register. Those of us who visit schools, as part of the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme—my noble friend the Minister is one of that number—often urge action in concert with local electoral registration offices. I did so myself last Friday. As the noble Baronesses have emphasised, higher education institutions can make a significant contribution to the increased registration of young people, on which the whole future success of our democracy depends. The means lie readily to hand, the procedure is simple and the will is clearly present in many universities. All of them now need to be encompassed in a strong and determined higher education initiative on behalf of our young people and their democratic future. As I have said before, the campaign for increased registration needs sustained cross-party support. All parties must be in this together, to coin a phrase.
In replying to a debate in Committee, my noble friend Lady Goldie suggested that in some higher education institutions a lack of resources might impede or delay progress. I hope that in replying to this debate my noble friend Lord Young will give a clear assurance that the Government will play their full part in helping to remove any obstacles to progress and to achieving the sustained campaign of action that is so urgent.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I join those who warmly congratulate universities that have made arrangements, and express considerable disappointment about those that have not so done. It surely is simply unacceptable in an electoral system to have some universities where this has been done and some where it has not. That is not a fair and open approach to electoral matters. I believe it is impossible to do other than support the amendment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend Lady Royall proposes to make it mandatory for all higher education institutions to offer students who are enrolling or re-registering the opportunity to be put on the electoral roll. The question surely is: why not? As we have heard, some universities already encourage their students to do that and it would be logical for all of them to do so. The reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden—was, I think, that such a measure would be a bureaucratic burden on institutions, whether that was cost-based or not. How any activity that increases the number of people who participate in our democracy can be dismissed as a burden I fail to see, and I do not think that is in any sense the appropriate way to look at it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, also listed a number of universities in addition to the University of Sheffield, whose pilot the Government part funded, and a number of other institutions which are already implementing the system voluntarily. That is all well and good but there seemed to be a complete lack of urgency on her part on behalf of the Government, given that she said that the Government had committed to write to other HE and FE providers later this year, as if that were something they might or might not get round to. It is absolutely inappropriate for there to be any delay. Democracy does not take sabbaticals. We will have elections very soon and they have a habit of keeping on happening—by-elections or whatever. It is inappropriate that people who have the right to vote for whatever reason—I do not in any way discount personal responsibility—should be prevented from doing so.
Another figure from our earlier debate that stuck in my mind was that given in response to my noble friend Lord Stevenson, I think. The noble Baroness said that 60% of students register at home rather than where they attend university. That is fine but it leaves 40% who do not. As we have heard, that amounts to almost a quarter of a million students at any one time who will not be able to vote. That is far too many. Action needs to be taken urgently. That is why my noble friend’s amendment is necessary, and is necessary now.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and have set out the reasons why we should increase the franchisement of students. The Government entirely share that aim of increasing the number of students and young people registered to vote. As part of our drive to create a democracy that works for everyone we are taking a number of steps which I will touch on in a moment, such as funding the National Union of Students to the tune of £380,000 in 2015 to increase student electoral registration.
We listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords when the amendment was debated during Committee. While we agree with the objective of this amendment and understand the intention behind it, we firmly believe that this Bill is the wrong vehicle to achieve greater student electoral registration, and that the scheme as proposed in the amendment has serious drawbacks. The Government have an alternative plan to address student registration which we believe will be more appropriate and effective; again, I will come on to that in a moment, the Government having considered it in the light of the debate in Committee a few weeks ago.
Both Universities UK and the Association of Electoral Administrators have told us that a one-size-fits-all approach to electoral registration, which this amendment would be, is not necessarily the best solution. The AEA does not want further unnecessary prescription introduced into the electoral registration process. Some universities have also signalled that they do not support the system that this amendment seeks to mandate. Seeking to achieve this objective in this way is unnecessary and risks complicating the Government’s relationship with electoral registration officers, as it contradicts our stated objective to give them greater autonomy in how they choose to conduct their statutory duty of maintaining the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers. Choice is the key point here. It is for HE providers and the electoral service teams, who are the acknowledged experts in registration, rather than Parliament—whether through the Bill or other means—or the OfS to determine what the right approach is for their local area.
Furthermore, this system simply will not work for electoral registration officers in London and other large cities since many students have a term-time address in a different registration area from their university or HE provider. For that reason alone, the amendment simply will not work. This is a significant issue given the numbers of students in London, where approximately 376,000 students could be living across all 33 London boroughs. Only the borough in which both the university and the student are located would have the necessary data required to complete an application. Students can participate in the democratic process by actively choosing to register to vote at either their university or home address. As the noble Lord has just said, research has suggested that 60% of students may do so.
We have a commitment to increase student electoral registration. To date we have undertaken a range of steps to encourage it, most recently ahead of the EU referendum. In addition to those steps, I can commit today that the Government will, in their first guidance letter, ask the OfS to encourage institutions to offer their students an opportunity to register to vote by providing a link to the online registration page so that students can apply to register quickly and easily. I think that this is a user-friendly solution that avoids some of the problems in the amendment which I have touched on. I understand that in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, stated that this was successfully applied at Aston University, and other providers have done so too.
However, we have also heard the calls for urgency, repeated by the noble Lord from the Opposition Bench, and we do not want to wait until the OfS is in place. That is why I can confirm that the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, Jo Johnson, will write to HEFCE before Third Reading to ask it to work with the sector to encourage best practice and to actively promote student electoral registration.
To inform our activity, the Minister for the Constitution hosted a student round table in January at which he heard about the barriers to registration that students face. Since then, we have embarked on a plan to further our aim of maximising student electoral registration and we will continue to do so ahead of the local elections this May and beyond. I can now confirm to noble Lords that in the forthcoming weeks we intend to meet university vice-chancellors to that end. We will also write to the higher and further education sector to promote the outcomes due to be published from the different models available, to encourage take-up and to continue to facilitate greater co-operation between providers and local electoral service teams.
For the reasons already given, I believe that this voluntary and collaborative approach is the right one. However, if the evidence is that it is not working, it will be open to the Government and the OfS to consider other options in future, including, perhaps, the use of appropriate and proportionate registration conditions, requiring providers to comply with any such condition or explain why they cannot comply. The Government will also work with sector partners, such as Universities UK, to promote different options and encourage take-up.
The Government have already committed to publishing and promoting the outcomes of the University of Sheffield pilot, which we part funded, as well as other models, all of which are currently being evaluated, and we will publish the results at the earliest opportunity. As I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, an indicative assessment shows that this project had successful outcomes. However, ICT software costs are a prohibitor, and some universities have already told us that they will not implement this model for that reason.
In addition, the amendment rests on the provider informing “eligible students” of their registration rights and local authorities providing various details regarding those students. An “eligible student” is defined as someone entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election, but it is not clear who determines eligibility. Given that the amendments suggest that it is the provider who has to take specified actions, it looks as though it has to be that same provider who determines eligibility—something it surely is not, and indeed should not be, resourced to do. For all those reasons, we are confident that a voluntary approach is the best option and we are confident that more of these agreements can be reached in this way.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, previously stated, many other institutions are already taking steps to encourage young people to ensure that they are on the register. In fact, numerous HE providers have, of their own volition, already implemented a model similar to that used by the University of Sheffield, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, the University of Bath. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that students can choose where they are registered, and some students might not wish to have their data shared.
We are also committed to increasing registration among all underregistered groups, of which students form only a part. This will be part of our democratic engagement strategy, which will be published in spring 2017.
Therefore, I say to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment that the Government have genuinely thought about the arguments put forward in Committee. We have come forward with a new set of proposals, which we think meet the objectives that we all share. Against that background, I ask her to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining all the initiatives that the Government are taking, and of course we all share the same aim. However, he outlined a piecemeal list of initiatives rather than a comprehensive plan. We have been talking about these things for a long time and the pilot undertaken in Sheffield was completed many months ago. The Government said that they would evaluate it and, indeed, they are in the process of doing so, but I simply do not understand the delay. In the meantime, many students have not been able to vote simply because they have not registered to vote.
The Minister also says that universities and electoral registration officers should have a choice about what they do and about whether they improve registration efforts for students. I think we have a duty to ensure that the maximum number of students is registered to vote. I understand the problems in London, for example, where students do not necessarily live near their university. I have talked to many people about this and I am advised by those at the most senior level that these issues are not insurmountable. I would prefer a system which all universities have to adhere to in order to maximise the number of students on the electoral register. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Assisted Dying
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jay of Paddington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent legislation on assisted dying in North America; and whether those laws provide an appropriate basis for legislation in England and Wales.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I remind all Back-Bench speakers that they are time limited to one minute—and we have to be strict about that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this Question for Short Debate today. This House has a very distinguished record of authoritative, informed and wise debate about the very complicated and difficult issue of assisted dying. However, since 2015, when my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s Bill made considerable progress in this House but was then dropped at the time of the general election, and following a Bill in the House of Commons that failed, there has been very little opportunity to reopen the question of changing our law. I must say that the number of speakers this evening suggests that interest has not declined, and I apologise for the very short time that has been given to the debate.
While the UK Parliament may have been inactive in the recent past, the international picture has changed significantly. This is particularly true in North America, where Canada and several important jurisdictions in the United States have passed, and indeed implemented, laws to enable assisted dying. Overall, these new laws bear a striking similarity in their provisions and safeguards to those proposed in the Falconer Bill.
I have just spent a few weeks in the United States, including in Washington DC, where, as noble Lords are well aware, the political atmosphere is febrile and deeply divided. Nevertheless, on 18 February, the capital city of the United States became the latest place to bring an assisted dying law quietly into effect, without, as far as I know, even a single presidential tweet. It is too early to judge how that will work in practice, but what surprised me was the calm acceptance which greeted its introduction. The same has been true in California, the most populous and diverse state in the union, where legislation was passed in 2015. Colorado followed suit in 2016, after a referendum in which 65% of the population supported the law change.
Canada’s Parliament also acted last year, with Canada becoming the first Commonwealth country to legalise assisted dying. The Canadian decision came after a constitutional ruling from its Supreme Court. There are some lessons in that experience for the British situation, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will address those.
It is very important to note that all the lawmakers in the USA have closely followed the state of Oregon’s original Death with Dignity Act, which was introduced as long ago as 1997. The citizens of Oregon now have two decades of experience of the Act, and the most recent report shows, once again, the stability that has always characterised its practice of assisted dying. In total, 1,127 Oregonians have made this choice in the past 20 years, amounting to less than 0.19% of all deaths over the same period. Interestingly, in 2016, the number of assisted deaths fell slightly, from 135 in the previous year to 133. The original tightly drawn eligibility criteria have not been challenged or extended beyond the terminally ill, and there have not been proven cases of abuse. The argument that changing the law leads always to a slippery slope of rising numbers and looser guidelines has been shown to be wrong.
Interestingly, Oregon’s hospice movement, which in the 1990s was opposed to a change in the law, now acts to support end-of-life options. Palliative care there is very highly rated, as indeed it is in this country, but unlike in Britain there is no suggestion that palliative care may always be an alternative to an assisted death. More than 90% of the state of Oregon’s citizens who choose to end their lives are already enrolled in the hospice system and the vast majority of them die at home in comfort. That same kind of experience is reflected in the newer statistics from other states where monitoring is now in place.
This is a gentle and compassionate approach to dying which is working effectively and safely for the minority who make the choice. I emphasise again that all the American laws are very similar to those proposed in the Falconer Bill, although my noble and learned friend’s proposals contain even more stringent safeguards, partly of course as a result of amendment in this House. Surely the expanding transatlantic experience should act as a positive guide to future legislation in this country.
Of course it would be wrong to suggest that although death with dignity is now an accepted choice for many North Americans, there was not fierce controversy when it was first mooted. However, what I find surprising is that some of the types of opposition which have so far seemed insurmountable in this country have not prevented change there. Let us take, for instance, the question of religious faith and belief. Americans are known to be more religious and certainly more observant than the British. Surveys suggest that almost three times as many citizens in that country attend a religious service about once a week, and yet within religious practice and faith there does not seem to have been the intransigent opposition to the concept of assisted dying either by faith leaders or their flocks that we have often heard here.
I was impressed by the statements of Governor Jerry Brown of California when he signed that state’s End of Life Option Act. Noble Lords may remember that Jerry Brown, who was indeed a Jesuit seminarian in his youth, said that he did not know what he would do personally if faced with a terminal illness but:
“I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others”.
I am delighted that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, is speaking in the debate, and I hope that others of our faith leaders will be able to follow what I would regard as the more open approach shown both by the noble and right reverend Lord and people such as Governor Jerry Brown.
Another source of rather adamant opposition to change in this country has been some of the professional organisations representing doctors. Obviously doctors must play a vital role in the safe practice of any assisted dying legislation. Again, the North American experience is instructive. In California and Canada the medical associations, which were initially concerned, have now adopted appropriate positions of neutrality to the new laws. This pragmatism has therefore usefully meant that they, doctors and other health professionals can be actively involved in both shaping good practice and guiding the development of safeguards for everyone involved.
While all this has been happening on the other side of the Atlantic, the situation here remains frozen, and today’s Parliament really does seem to be out of step with the overwhelming majority of the British public who, when they are surveyed, always support change. The evidence suggests that more and more people here are now assuming control over the end of their lives by taking the law into their own hands. In 2016, a record number of 47 Britons—those who could afford both financially and physically to do so—travelled to the Swiss organisation Dignitas for assisted deaths. A recent freedom of information request to local authorities revealed that each year more than 300 terminally ill people die by suicide, sadly often taking their lives alone so that they do not involve or incriminate anyone else.
It is now more than 20 years since I first became involved in this issue as a member of a Select Committee of this House. I said earlier that noble Lords have taken a leading role in the assisted dying debate, and perhaps unusually we have been widely commended for our thorough and proper approach. Now, in 2017, the North American experience shows that laws which closely resemble Bills that have been introduced in this House before can operate safely and successfully. I hope that the Government will make a positive assessment of these developments and reflect seriously on how they might be relevant to this country. I also hope that the business managers of the House will make it possible to have a more lengthy consideration of the current issues.
I am grateful to all those who are taking part in this debate, although as I say, I regret the shortness of time to speak. I am sure that noble Lords will continue to play a central part in developing legislation to reform our own laws.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I raise the legitimate concerns of many people. The current US legislation and the concerns around it certainly impacted on the decisive vote in another place in 2015. After the last debate in the Chamber I was told by a member of the public, as they looked me up and down, that I must have thought about killing myself many times. The answer is a resounding no, but I was shocked. I am resilient, but imagine if you are constantly told that you have no quality of life or you are persuaded that you are worthless.
The disability rights campaigner Liz Carr has said that, “euthanasia denies the value of people who have illness or disability”. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, stated in his commission report that assisted suicide is not meant for disabled people, “at this point in time”. If legislation in this area is passed, I and others like me are merely in the waiting room.
Lord Carey of Clifton (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for introducing this debate, but what can one say in one minute? For me the fundamental issue that underlies this debate is that of autonomy or, to put it differently, human rights which enable us as individuals to determine the manner of our own death. It was central to the argument of Kay Carter in Canada and Brittany Maynard in the state of California. It will, I dare say, be a central argument for the case launched in this country by Noel Conway.
As a Christian leader, although I acknowledge that I am out of step with my Church and mainstream Christian Churches, it is love and compassion together with personal autonomy that have led me to identify with this struggle. For all its claims, medical science cannot deal with many cases of intractable pain and suffering, and least of all the indignity that often accompanies them. The example of Canada and other countries shows that laws can be made that protect the most vulnerable and therefore halt the unnecessary prolongation of life which, for some, is not worth the candle.
The Earl of Arran (Con)
My Lords, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, I first visited Oregon some 12 years ago as part of this House’s consideration of assisted dying. Back then it was the sole state in the US to have legalised assisted dying for the terminally ill. Since then, as has already been said, Oregon has been joined by Washington, Montana, Vermont, Colorado and even the District of Columbia. Most importantly, it was joined last year by the state of California, the largest and most diverse state in the nation. These states represent some 18% of the total US population. Canada too has become the first Commonwealth country to legalise assisted dying nationwide. Law change is also imminent in parts of Australia, where the Government of Victoria have committed to introducing an assisted dying Bill by the end of the year and private members’ initiatives are likely in both Tasmania and New South Wales.
As the evidence from overseas continues to grow, our own reasons not to legislate become less and less convincing. The tide is coming in. Rather than fight in vain to prevent it, we should work together to give those in terrible pain and suffering the same rights as are given to our closest cousins in North America.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, English law shows such an arrogant lack of compassion on this issue. In the Carter case in Canada, the Canadian Supreme Court set aside an identical law on three grounds: it forced people to go to an earlier death when they went to a jurisdiction that allowed assisted suicide; it manifestly infringed individuals’ right to dignity and autonomy at the time of their death; and the protection it gave to the vulnerable, which is vital, was overwide because it provided protection to too many when it did not need to be done in that way.
In the Nicholson case in our country, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, said that the protection currently provided is less than the protection that would have been provided under a Bill that I proposed—less, because an investigation after death is a lot less protection than making sure a court said that it was okay beforehand. The time has come for this country to follow Canada, not with a great fuss or a great to-do, but to change the law to reflect what everybody wants: proper protection, but autonomy for people who want to die in the way they choose.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, opening the door to assisted dying legislation will put many frail, elderly and disabled people at risk of pressure from their families, who fear losing the house if it goes on payment for expensive care homes. There is immense pressure on the NHS and social services. The insecurities of Brexit have already lessened nursing and care help coming from Europe. It will be a disaster if it dries up. Severely paralysed people cannot cope without help. In desperation, they might turn to assisted dying.
Patients need to trust their doctors. Do not forget Dr Shipman: a GP from Yorkshire who killed many of his trusting patients. What we need is the availability of good palliative and end-of-life care across the country.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, I oppose assisted dying not on religious, but on human grounds. Surely the only place in North America where legislation has been in place long enough to draw any reasonable conclusions is Oregon. The claim of those pressing for assisted suicide here, that there have been no documented cases of abuse or coercion in the two decades since it was passed, is highly contentious. The US Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund—a leading national civil rights law and policy centre—has documented cases of complication and abuse arising from the law in Oregon and neighbouring Washington state. Writing in the Wall St Journal, William Toffler, a doctor in Oregon, described how the law there has had adverse consequences for the doctor-patient relationship, and how a developing climate of “secrecy” and “fear” has worsened the situation of the most vulnerable.
Little wonder that here in the UK, alongside medical professionals, those who have been most vocal in their opposition to assisted dying are grass-roots groups of disabled people. Disabled activists see it as a step towards a society that develops social and cost-related judgments about a person’s quality and value of life, which then become inevitable factors in the conversation around eligibility for assisted suicide. That is why investing in palliative care, not offering legal assistance with suicide, is the only truly progressive way forward.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, North America’s evidence is worrying. Oregon’s reports show that some people given lethal drugs, based on a prognosis of under six months, lived for up to three years before killing themselves. Who knows how long they might otherwise have lived? Two-thirds of Oregon’s doctors want no involvement. “Doctor shopping” is widespread as campaign groups steer patients to ready repeat prescribers. In the two-week delay required, they cannot possibly know a person’s domestic pressures, masked depression and subtle coercions, nor adequately assess capacity. Almost half cite not wanting to be a burden as their reason. Lethal prescription numbers far exceed such deaths. What happens to uningested drugs? No one knows whether ingestion is ever coerced.
Canada’s recent law, like the Netherlands’ and Belgium’s, includes euthanasia beyond terminal illnesses, with predictions of around one in 20 of all deaths through medically provided lethal drugs. That would equate to around 25,000 such deaths annually here. Violent suicide rates do not fall where assisted suicide is the norm.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, last year Canada followed Holland and legalised assisted suicide and euthanasia. Reports emerging from Canada suggest that the outcome is likely to be similar. There are also reports that, after only six months, campaign groups were pressing for relaxation of the rules.
We are told there has been no extension of Oregon’s assisted suicide law. The pressures to do so are certainly there. Last week, as it happens, an amendment was tabled in Oregon’s state legislature seeking to extend the law there so that lethal drugs could be administered to someone who loses decision-making capacity. I am concerned too about the effect of multiple prescribing in Oregon. In 2015, one doctor issued 27 prescriptions for lethal drugs; in 2016 a doctor—perhaps the same one; we are not told—wrote 25. On present figures alone, Oregon’s law would give us 2,000 assisted suicides here every year. That is not a prospect that I believe any of us should view with equanimity. I am far from convinced that our law should be changed. I look across the Atlantic with increasing concern at what is happening where it has been changed.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I went to Oregon nearly three years ago. I asked people what they thought of their law on assisted dying. No one could understand why we did not all have one.
Some disability rights groups oppose assisted dying legislation, yet polling consistently finds that more than 80% of disabled people support such legislation. I cannot emphasise too strongly that no one is obliged to avail themselves of assisted dying legislation unless they wish to.
Research in Oregon demonstrates that groups that might be considered vulnerable, such as disabled people, are not negatively impacted by assisted dying legislation. In fact, they are underrepresented in the numbers of those who make use of it. As far as I am aware, no cases of malpractice or abuse have been reported. Nor is impairment of the doctor-patient relationship general.
We should learn from our friends in North America how best to give dying people the choices they want at the end of life, while ensuring that robust protections are in place for potentially vulnerable people.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, the frequency with which this topic comes before us suggests to me a degree of attrition on the part of those who believe in assisted suicide. Much but not all of my thinking on the subject derives from my experience as a founder of St Mary’s Hospice in south Cumbria 25 years ago. I remain its patron, as appears in the register of interests.
My reason for opposing the introduction of new legislation may be summarised as follows. The evidence from North America is patchy and largely anecdotal. What we do hear is hardly reassuring. I remain unpersuaded that the existing law here needs changing—a view quite recently upheld convincingly in another place. Assisted suicide would dangerously alter the doctor-patient relationship. In countries where it is legal, doctors are discontinuing the practice because it impacts so heavily on their workload, with a consequence of doctor shopping, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said. It also compromises the nursing profession: some have been quoted as saying that they would be forced to collude in taking life whether they like it or not. It would encourage elder abuse and suicide contagion, and it is unsafe. Greater access to our ever-improving brilliant system of palliative care is the safe, humane and moral alternative.
The Earl of Glasgow (LD)
My Lords, I have long associated myself with the campaign to legalise assisted dying in Britain—as long, of course, as the necessary safeguards are in place. Judging by a number of polls taken over the last 20 years, more than 75% of the public also want to see assisted dying legalised. They believe, like me, that in the right circumstances it is a compassionate and humane way of alleviating suffering for those who are terminally ill. It also helps to alleviate the suffering of the patient’s family, who, for many months sometimes, must witness the indignity, pain and distress of someone they love.
Yet still in Britain, helping someone to end such misery is a criminal offence. Some feel compelled to travel to a strange clinic in Switzerland where assisted dying is legal, but in British law the relatives are committing a criminal offence by assisting the patients to get there. In practice, the public prosecutor rarely prosecutes and rightly so, but it shows the law to be an ass. It is surely time the Government took assisted dying more seriously.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s Question asks whether legislation in North America on what is called “assisted dying” forms an appropriate basis for such legislation here. I will answer that question in just one word: no.
Quite apart from any issues of principle, just look at what is now happening in Oregon. When Oregon’s assisted suicide law was enacted, it was to allow people with decision-making capacity to administer lethal drugs to themselves. Now a Bill has been presented to Oregon’s state legislature to enable someone to collect lethal drugs for a person who has lost capacity since they were prescribed and to administer those drugs to that person, as the Bill puts it,
“for the purpose of ending the patient’s life”.
So there we have it: assisted suicide plus, in some cases, euthanasia—not necessarily voluntary.
What price now all those repeated reassurances we have received from the “assisted dying” lobby that there would be no pressure to extend Oregon’s law? That and the evidence from Washington, where 62% of those in favour of physician-assisted suicide believe themselves to be a burden to friends and care givers, should give us pause. It is why the House of Commons voted against such proposals. Care and kill should never be used as synonyms.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in my view, even official Oregon health division data show how dangerous this law is.
First, non-terminally ill disabled individuals are receiving lethal prescriptions contrary to the law. That is the evidence.
Secondly, in any given case, the certifiers of non-coercion and capability need not even know the person being killed. Furthermore, one witness may even be an heir with a financial interest in the death.
Thirdly, there is no reliable way of checking whether the death is a suicide, and therefore lawful, or administered by a third party and therefore unlawful.
Full euthanasia is being introduced by the back door in some cases in Oregon. In all, it is a dangerously unreliable law which contains unsatisfactory safeguards. My answer to the noble Baroness’s second question is a resounding no.
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, even with the best palliative care, some will survive beyond the stage where they feel life is worth living. That is why 300 people a year with terminal illnesses commit suicide and why the lives of loved ones are sometimes ended in ways that are, strictly, illegal. Those acts may not result in prosecution, but a shadow of criminality hangs over them and adds to the grief of those whose motive is compassion. A well-drafted Bill would allow assisted suicide, with safeguards. Few would choose this route, but many of us would be comforted by knowing that that option was available.
Support for such a measure is just as strong among the disabled. Among this majority is Stephen Hawking, my friend and colleague for 40 years. His achievement against all odds has been astonishing. He still craves new experiences and does not want to die. He thinks that suicide would be wrong unless one were in great pain, which, thankfully, he is not. None the less—this is the key point—he says that the disabled should have the option, as others do, to end their lives. Like him, I firmly support an assisted dying Bill and hope that the “nudge” from the Supreme Court will give it a fairer wind.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con)
My Lords, I am in favour of this change in the law proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and others, because, as we have heard from noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, it is the civilised and right thing to do.
Allowing people to make their own end-of-life decisions is supported by more than 80% of the population polled here and is seemingly the preferred route of the Supreme Court. The safeguards proposed provide the necessary protection. I remind those who have spoken to the contrary that such protection constitutes two GPs and a High Court judge.
Why should people not be allowed to choose the time and place of their death, especially if they are in great pain? I therefore hope that the Government will follow the North American example and support this much-needed change in our law.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, there are two questions before your Lordships’ House this evening. The first is whether this House, this Parliament, wants to revisit the issue of the creation of law enabling assisted suicide in this country and the second is that posed by the noble Baroness in her Question. This House and the other place have answered the first question repeatedly in the negative.
Five of the 50 American states permit assisted suicide. Your Lordships have heard tonight of the terrible consequences of the situation in Oregon, and the other four have adopted laws only relatively recently, so there is no information on how they are working.
Analysis of the Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying Act shows that the legislation is perceived by many as fundamentally flawed because of its lack of definition and because of the uncertainty which it has created. It talks about,
“grievous and irremediable medical conditions”,
and about “serious illness”, but these basic terms give rise to widespread uncertainty and fear. There is no definition of what constitutes a relevant condition. “Grievous” and “irremediable” are not medical terms. What is an “irreversible decline in capability”? How is it to be defined? What of those suffering from mental illness? Can they make a decision? Are they capable? Are they suffering from such a decline? When is natural death “reasonably foreseeable”? There are no time limits and no proper definitions. Medical professionals are invoking their right to freedom of conscience under the law.
To legislate for assisted dying is to cross a line in the sand, making medical practitioners trained at the most fundamental levels to do no harm into dispensers of medicine which does not cure but kills. North America has little to teach us.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, in North America legislatures have grasped the fact that failure to legalise assisted dying is a denial of human rights and autonomy. The North American reform role is impressive. More Americans already have access to this legislation than the total UK population. Even more will do so even during the Trump presidency. US state legislators are simply less timid than UK parliamentarians. Let me cite the recent suicide of a friend in his early seventies when told of his inevitable dementia from an awful neurological condition. He faced a future in which he would rapidly change into a person unknown to his family and with no escape route at a time of his choosing. Had he lived in Canada, he would have been assured of a better end at a time of his choosing. Our legislative cowardice on this issues guarantees continuing human misery of this kind for many UK families.
Viscount Craigavon (CB)
My Lords, the message I derive from this debate is that, on this issue, the tide of history is continuing to flow one way. We have heard how things are changing. In this country, as we have heard today, we have used for a long time the uncontested figure of 80% plus for support for changing our law on assisted dying. We all know the many European countries, in particular the Dutch, which have faced up to this issue and the demand from those who choose it, while we are continuing to allow unnecessary suffering which palliative care cannot alleviate.
The Californian development is a significant example, building on the now firm foundation of Oregon, which itself has been adopted in other American states. There are similar developments in Australia: later this year the government of Victoria will introduce a Bill to legalise choice in assisted dying for terminally ill people. Other states are likely to follow. The Government of New Zealand have been taking extensive consultation on assisted dying.
Finally, as in the most recent such Bill in this House—which we did not have time to complete—I believe that there is a majority in favour of change here, but I hope that the other House will not want to continue much longer on the wrong side of history.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, forgive me for speaking in the gap. Following the Canadian and other North American decisions, Dignity in Dying, an organisation of which I am chair, is proud to support Noel Conway, one of our members, who has launched a judicial review. Noel is seeking a declaration from the courts that the blanket ban on assisted dying under the Suicide Act 1961 is contrary to his human rights. Noel has said:
“Having the option of an assisted death would bring me great comfort in my final months. Without this option I could effectively become entombed in my own body”.
What a prospect.
In addition to the human rights argument referred to by many noble Lords, the right to assisted dying for terminally ill patients who are suffering unbearably and are mentally competent is a matter of compassion and also a matter of recognising the right of patients to decide for themselves how and when they die. Noel Conway needs our support.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the current legislative framework governing medically assisted dying is failing to protect patients, vulnerable people and medical professionals. Therefore, we on these Benches have a policy that in cases of terminal illness or severe, incurable and progressive physical illness where patients are without hope of recovery, medical doctors should legally be able to provide competent adults with assistance to die if they have expressed the wish to do so, within narrowly defined circumstances. That assistance should be strictly limited to qualifying people who are able to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of a doctor with detailed knowledge of their illness, as well as an independent specialist, that their request to die is voluntary, well considered, persistent and motivated by existing or inevitable unbearable suffering.
Requests for medical assistance to die must be made in writing, after a full discussion with each of the doctors about the situation, prospects and options for palliative care. They must also be countersigned by a practising solicitor who has been satisfied that the patient qualifies and that all procedures have been followed. The law should protect the right of medical and legal practitioners not to participate in the process of assisting a patient to die, but they must make a referral. For those reasons we support the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, in her call to take the growing evidence base from America.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the position of the Labour Front Bench on this issue is one of neutrality. Given the level of support recently in the Commons—330 against and 118 for—it is unlikely that we would press for parliamentary time to take this issue further. If a Bill did come before Parliament I would expect there to be a free vote on the substance of the Bill, but nevertheless I expect that we would participate in the debate on the detail to ensure that safeguards were adequate.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for bringing before your Lordships’ House a matter which continues to be of great public interest and concern. As the noble Baroness herself observed in opening, the issue is complicated and difficult. Today is not the first occasion on which this House has debated this difficult and sensitive area of the law. Indeed, as today’s debate has illustrated, there are passionately and deeply held yet divided views on the issue. I certainly take issue with the suggestion by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that this is “what everyone wants”. It clearly is not what everyone wants; indeed, I notice that the contributors to this debate are almost equally divided on this very complex and difficult issue. There is no arrogance to be attributed to those who take one side or other of this demanding debate.
It remains the Government’s view that any relaxation of the law in this area is an issue of individual conscience and a matter for Parliament to decide, rather than one for government policy. Of course, we are aware that assisted dying legislation has been introduced recently in some states of America and in Canada—very recently in four states of the United States—but since the Government have taken no policy position on the issue, we have made no assessment of such legislation in North America or elsewhere. I simply note that while five states in the United States have adopted such legislation, 45, of course, have not. Indeed, the only example that has been in place for some years is that of Oregon. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe and Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Carlile of Berriew, observed, there are issues surrounding the attempted development of the law in Oregon. As the Supreme Court said in the case of Nicklinson and Lamb, information from the few jurisdictions where assisted suicide is lawful is,
“sensitive to underlying conditions such as standards of education, the existence of long-term relationships between GPs and patients and other social and cultural factors, which are not necessarily replicated in the United Kingdom”.
So it does not necessarily follow that a law which operates effectively—allegedly—in another jurisdiction would provide an appropriate basis for such legislation in England and Wales.
We should remember that “assisted dying” is not a term that exists in law. It is shorthand for two distinct things; namely, assisting suicide and euthanasia. However one interprets the term, assisted dying is a highly emotive issue. It polarises opinion among the public, in the media and across the political spectrum, even within groups which are generally supportive of or opposed to a change in the law, and it raises the most profound ethical, moral, religious and social issues. Of course, the Government are aware of opinion polls suggesting that there is strong public support for a change in the law. But even if one accepts that the law should change, there is no consensus—in Parliament or elsewhere—on where a line should be drawn and what safeguards should be in place and for whom.
As the law stands, there is no offence—or defence—of “mercy killing”; nor is there any statutory exception to the offence of encouraging or assisting suicide under Section 2 of the Suicide Act. That Act was amended in 2009. By amending the law, Parliament confirmed that an offence should remain in respect of assisted suicide. Whether the present general prohibition in Section 2 of that Act is incompatible with the right to a private life under Article 8 of the European convention was the central issue in the case of Nicklinson and Lamb, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred to, in which the Supreme Court handed down judgment in 2014.
Like this House, the Supreme Court was divided on some of the issues before it. But the appeal in that case was dismissed by a majority of seven to two on the basis that it was not appropriate for the court to determine the issue of compatibility at that time. While not unanimous in its view, the court explicitly encouraged Parliament to consider the issue further, and Parliament has done so. Both Houses have subsequently had extensive debates on this issue. The Assisted Dying Bill, introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, passed Second Reading without a vote on 18 July 2014, after almost 10 hours of debate, and was further debated on two full days in Committee, thereby indicating the level of interest and the division between Members over the fundamentally difficult issue that lay behind the Bill.
More recently, the other House debated the Assisted Dying (No.2) Bill in September 2015. That Bill was essentially the same as the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, as amended in Committee. It sought to legalise in England and Wales assisted suicide for terminally ill, mentally competent adults who are reasonably expected to die within six months. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, noted, following a lengthy debate, that Bill was voted down by a majority of 330 votes to 118. As things stand, therefore, the will of Parliament as a whole is that there should be no change in the law. Of course, that does not mean that the issue cannot be re-examined either in Parliament or in the courts. Indeed, today’s debate has again illustrated that the law in this sensitive area remains a matter of great concern to your Lordships. Reference was also made to further litigation that is ongoing in the courts. We are aware of that but it would not be appropriate at this stage to make any comment on such a case when it is still before the courts.
The debate on this issue is often characterised as being a choice between legalising assisted dying on the one hand and the provision of high-quality end-of-life care on the other, but the two are not mutually exclusive. Compassion for the dying person drives both sides of the debate. Wherever one stands on the desirability of legislative change, it is of the utmost importance that all dying people receive high-quality, compassionate care at the end of their lives. Equally, we are all as one, I am sure, in our desire to protect the rights of those who are vulnerable from direct or indirect pressure to take such a step. The central issue is then whether a blanket ban on assisting suicide is a necessary and proportionate way of achieving this.
Those opposed to change argue that any relaxation of the law would constitute too great a risk to sick and disabled people, and that safeguards would not necessarily give enough protection to vulnerable people who may feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to end their own lives. Those in favour of change argue that safeguards would protect vulnerable people from such pressure, while affording dying adults the choice of an assisted death if their suffering becomes too great. As the Supreme Court recognised in Nicklinson, there is a diversity of opinion about the degree of risk involved in relaxing the law in this area but not about the existence of the risk. It is unlikely that the risk of vulnerable people feeling pressure to end their lives can ever be wholly eliminated or that every person who thinks he or she has a legitimate right to assisted suicide can be assisted.
Whatever provisions may be proposed, therefore, the real question is: how much risk to the vulnerable is acceptable in order not to deny those who would genuinely wish to be assisted to commit suicide the opportunity of an assisted death? That is a very difficult balance to strike and there are no simple answers, especially when those who are vulnerable are not necessarily easy to identify. Whatever the arguments for and against change, it is important that the ongoing debate should not lead those whose lives are affected by illness or disability to feel less valued. If ever the law is changed, appropriate safeguards will need to be considered very carefully indeed.
The legal, administrative, practical and resource implications of any change to the law in this highly controversial area are considerable. We cannot in the very limited time available this evening do justice to them, although I would observe in response to the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, that we of course take these issues seriously. I have no doubt that the debate will continue in one form or another, in Parliament and elsewhere. In the meantime, I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to this debate.
Higher Education and Research Bill
Monday 6th March 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 97-II Second marshalled list for Report (PDF, 156KB) - (6 Mar 2017)
20:58 - Division on Amendment 54 - Ayes: 45 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 54 disagreed.
21:36 - Division on Amendment 57 - Ayes: 36 / Noes: 128 - Amendment 57 disagreed.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
“(3A) The principles must include principles applicable to an unincorporated designated institution.(3B) In subsection (3A)—(a) “unincorporated designated institution” means a designated institution which is not a corporate body;(b) “designated institution” has the same meaning as in section 129A(10) of the Education Reform Act 1988.”
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, this is a probing amendment to clarify a situation which concerns, pretty specifically and possibly uniquely, the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. The Guildhall school is a very unusual institution, partly because of its history, and partly because of its ownership. It is an unincorporated body. It does not have the legal structure common among higher education colleges. It was set up 137 years ago, in 1880, by the City of London Corporation as a conservatoire, and has never changed its corporate structure since. It is owned by the City of London Corporation, its court of governors is appointed by the City of London Corporation and close to a third of its funding comes from the corporation. It is, indeed, an integral part of the whole structure of the City of London, in the same way that Hampstead Heath, Epping Forest, and various other schools are run.
This gives the problem under the Bill that the Guildhall is a body that does not really fit into the definitions of what the White Paper was trying to create. The White Paper, which informs the Bill, indicates that the governance principles of the Office for Students, under the powers conferred on it under Clause 15, will be,
“comparable to those currently required of HEFCE-funded providers in line with the HE Code of Governance”.
This code has been developed by the Committee of University Chairs, and has been deployed successfully by the Guildhall. There is every reason to assume that the governance principles envisaged by Clause 15, which the Office for Students will be developing, can be applied to the Guildhall with equal success. The clause, however, introduces statutory backing for the principles, and the concern is that in moving to this more formalised position, some of the current flexibility will be lost and the ability to take account of the possibly unique governance structure of the Guildhall will no longer be applicable.
The amendment is to try to flush out whether it is possible to have sufficient flexibility under the new structure to enable the Guildhall to continue in the way that it has in the past—in other words, to be an integral part of the Corporation of London. I am trying to work out whether things can go on as they are or whether they have to change for the Guildhall, possibly with unfortunate consequences. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who, not for the first time, has raised in your Lordships’ House interests of concern to the City of London Corporation.
Clause 15 enables the OfS to take over the responsibility of scrutinising providers’ governing documents against the list of public interest principles. I can reassure my noble friend that we do not anticipate any impact on current higher education institutions being recognised by the OfS as higher education providers in the future. The intended practical application of the current and future list is to ensure best practice within already existing and recognised higher education providers’ governing documents, and it is not the intention of these principles to prescribe the corporate form of providers. I hope that gives my noble friend the comfort he is seeking.
The OfS must consult on the new list of principles. With the exception of the requirement that there should be a principle protecting academic freedom for staff, which I am sure the Guildhall has no difficulty with, the Bill does not prescribe what should be included in that list. There is nothing in Clause 15 that should concern the Guildhall School of Music, and it should be able to continue doing the valuable work it has been doing for so long. Against that background of assurance, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reassurance, because that is precisely what the Guildhall School of Music is looking for in terms of some sort of guidance as to how things will develop as the implications of the Bill become apparent. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Power to restrict enrolments
(1) If the OfS has reasonable grounds for believing that a registered higher education provider is in breach of an ongoing registration condition with respect to the quality of the higher education provided by the provider, or to its ability to implement a student protection plan which forms a condition of its registration, the OfS may place quantitative restrictions on the number of new students that the provider may enrol.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedures for imposing such restrictions and about rights of appeal.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment is returning to a topic that was raised in Committee and discussed in some detail, but not extensively, in relation to what might happen in the hypothetical situation where a higher education provider is in breach of an ongoing registration condition relating to the quality of the education it is providing or its ability to implement a student protection plan. The Bill is good on these issues and it is important that we should have measures of this type in statute.
The question that arose during the earlier debate, and which arises still because the answer was not entirely satisfactory, is about the only penalty specified in the Bill being a financial penalty. In other words, in breach of the registration conditions in the terms I have just outlined, an institution would face a fine that is not specified but which could be quite substantial in relation to activities.
The point was made in Committee that there may be other sanctions available and the question is: why are these not specified in the Bill? It would be helpful for the OfS to have a range of possible opportunities to get redress from institutions and, in particular, not necessarily go down a financial route, which might have the ultimate result—one not entirely satisfactory in terms of the Bill’s requirements—of reducing the amount of money available to spend on teaching students. The question specified in the amendment is whether it would be better to have a numbers cap as well as a financial penalty in that area. I beg to move.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, within this part of the Bill concerning registration conditions and their enforcement, so far it appears that there is nothing much about restricting enrolment. Clause 16 enables monetary penalties where necessary and, in various other respects, Clauses 17 to 22 inclusive provide powers to correct and adjust, if and when desirable. Yet the latter will constitute relevant actions in the second place, and thus subsequent to the central matter, which is enrolment in the first place. In this context, by contrast, thus it appears anomalous that enrolments, and in certain circumstances a useful scope for their restriction, should so far not have been addressed at all. However, the proposed new subsections of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, redress that omission. His amendment is timely and very much worthy of support.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
I support the proposition. When we discussed the matter in Committee, the Minister said that he saw no reason why there should not be a wider range of penalties at the disposal of the Office for Students. It would be very helpful to have that confirmed in the Bill, otherwise there is the possibility of challenge of the OfS exceeding its powers if it moved to restrict the number of students in a way that would seem on many occasions entirely appropriate.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, expressed these concerns in Committee, and I listened carefully to her very short speech just now. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, also spoke in Committee on the subject. This is the concern that the OfS would not have appropriate powers to restrict student enrolment at a registered higher education provider in the event of a breach of registration conditions, and would instead be compelled to either impose a monetary penalty or deregister the provider, both of which would have a negative impact on a provider’s enrolled students. It is our intention that such sanctions would be imposed only in exceptional circumstances. The OfS will operate a risk-based regulatory system, whereby any regulatory action is to be proportionate to the nature of the breach of a registration condition. The OfS will have an escalating suite of actions open to it, ranging from compliance measures, such as agreeing a support strategy with a provider or directing that certain actions should be taken, through to imposing specific ongoing registration conditions, and finally to sanctions.
The imposition of a student number control is precisely the sort of regulatory action that the OfS can use under the powers already contained in Clause 7, which allows the OfS to impose “specific ongoing conditions”. Imposing a student number control would not be to the detriment of students already studying with a provider and would help to ensure that new students who were subsequently enrolled would enjoy high-quality, suitably resourced teaching and learning. It is clearly not our intention that the OfS de-register institutions or impose monetary penalties, apart from in exceptional circumstances that merit such an intervention. We anticipate that such action would rarely be in the best interests of the student, the provider or the taxpayer. We have considered whether it would be appropriate to provide a specific power in the Bill for the OfS to impose student number controls. On balance, however, we believe it is unnecessary, as the Bill already provides the OfS with the powers necessary to limit student numbers where appropriate. With that explanation, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for contributing to this debate. The noble Earl picked up a point that I had not quite spotted myself, and I am very grateful to him for doing so. There is a bit of a lacuna here in terms of how institutions are going to be treated. The Minister has not gone as far as would be obviously the right thing to do. He made all the arguments—rather better than I did, in fact—but then held back at the last minute. At this time, I would like to encourage him to go a little further and would like to test the opinion of the House.
“( ) specify what happens to existing students during the suspension period as documented in a provider’s student protection plan.”
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, we come to Amendments 55, 56 and 57, all of which concern protection for students. We are to some extent returning to an issue touched on in Committee although the specifics vary somewhat.
We have heard often enough that it would be a very rare occurrence for any institution to go bust and drive itself into the sand. Of course, we are ready to believe that. We desperately hope that that is the case. However, it could happen and at some stage it is pretty much certain that it will. When it does, the people who must be everyone’s main concern are the students, those men and women who have taken out student loans to study at the relevant institution, identified that as the place they want to be, commenced their studies and, in some cases, nearly completed them. These three amendments deal with various scenarios that students might face if their institution gets into grave difficulty or perhaps folds completely.
Amendment 55 proposes that when the Office for Students suspends a registered higher education provider’s registration, various provisions have to be specified in relation to what the notice of suspension must promote. Various provisions are specified in subsection (6) of Clause 18. However, none of them mentions what happens to existing students during a suspension period. The purpose of Amendment 55 is to put that right. The Minister has mentioned on several occasions, and specifically in relation to amendments earlier today, the proposal to change the name of the Office for Students. He said that that was not possible because students are right at the centre of this legislation and the Government want that to be very clear. If that is to be clear, students must surely be accommodated within the clause to which I referred.
Amendment 56 seeks to ensure that students at an institution that becomes deregistered are fully notified about when that will happen. This issue was covered in Committee. It seems to me self-evident that that should take place. I cannot conceive of any reason why that would not be the case. They should also be told the expiry date of any access and participation plan.
In many ways I think that the most important of these three amendments is Amendment 57, which is about ensuring that where a higher education provider ceases to be able to provide courses for its students, the Office for Students must seek to place those students on similar courses at another provider. As I said, if the Government are committed—as I believe they are—to having students at the centre of the legislation, why should they be left to suffer through no fault of their own when a higher education provider is no longer able to deliver the service for which they signed up? If another course cannot be found for them, they will probably be left out of pocket over fees because loans have to be repaid. We believe that the Office for Students has a duty to assist them in every way possible and ensure that they can complete their studies. That is what Amendment 57 is about. However, overall, these three amendments are about protecting students, which I think is a cause to which everyone in your Lordships’ Chamber would be happy to subscribe. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 57. At earlier stages of the Bill I have welcomed the provisions of Clause 13, which provide that the Office for Students can generate student protection plans. That is to be welcomed but, as the noble Lord indicated, the problem is that we do not know what form that protection will take and more needs to be set out on the face of the Bill. I moved an amendment in Committee to try to address this issue but, at that stage, the Government were not receptive. Therefore, we really need to come back to it.
As the noble Lord said, it is the Office for Students—students are meant to be at the heart of this measure, yet they will have no idea of what protection they have when they undertake a course of study. When it comes to protection, Clause 13 gives the example of a course failing to be provided. So precisely what protection is being accorded to students? They need that reassurance if they are to sign up for and pursue courses in the first place. Amendment 57 gets at this problem and I welcome the fact that we are again considering it. As I said, students deserve to have some idea of what protection they will have when they undertake a course of study.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich
My Lords, I support the amendments to which I have put my name and agree with everything that both noble Lords have said so far.
When the Higher Education and Research Bill was first introduced, both Ministers pointed out that the environment in which higher education takes place has changed dramatically in recent years, and indeed it has. Very large numbers of students now take out large loans in the belief, and with the confidence, that the institutions they attend have in some sense been guaranteed by government—that what they are doing is safe in that they will be able to complete their studies. Fortunately, in most cases that is true, but of course it is not always or necessarily true. Anybody who looks at the experience in other countries will realise that institutions do fail, and indeed some of our non-degree-awarding institutions have failed in the past. The Competition and Markets Authority says cheerfully on its website that the sign of a healthy sector is that some exit occurs. Exit sounds quite cool—unless you happen to be one of the students in an exiting institution.
At the same time as this Bill is going through, the Technical and Further Education Bill is being debated, mostly in the Moses Room. As I attend the sittings of both Bills, part of the time I whinge but mostly it is a very informative exercise because we now have a tertiary sector as much as anything else. However, the protections being introduced for students in further education colleges go well beyond anything that has been specified for students in higher education, and that is highly regrettable. It is really important that in this new and changed environment, we realise that students need new and changed protection.
To give an example, for a long time the training sector has had many quite small, and sometimes quite large, rapidly changing institutions. Just before these Bills were introduced in the House, we heard the first story of a training provider that went into liquidation, leaving many people with outstanding loans and no obvious recourse. In the few weeks that both Bills have started to work their way through the House, there have been two other such failures. I shall be happy to give their names to anyone who is curious to know them, but, once again, we are left with, in this case, adult learners who have loans but no ongoing course.
When I raised this issue with the Minister and officials, I was told that the risks were lower for university students because they were more mobile and less local. However, that really is not true. It is not true of my own, but it is true of many of our university institutions that they have home students who are almost all highly local—often because they come from less advantaged families and are very unhappy about taking out major maintenance loans. So they are very local, and if their institution fails, they do not have anywhere else to go.
I hope very much that Ministers feel able, ideally, to accept Amendment 57, which seems to me the least that we can do in an environment where we are, in effect, making a promise to students. If it turns out that, for good reasons, that promise cannot be kept, they ought to be looked after.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I have spoken before in this context as chancellor of the University of Birmingham, chair of the advisory board of the Cambridge Judge Business School and an alumnus of Harvard Business School. However, years ago, when I was qualifying as a chartered accountant with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, I spent a year at what is now the London Metropolitan University, where I would later spend time as a visiting professor. I want to draw an analogy. In 2012, the London Metropolitan University lost its right to recruit international students. At that time there were 2,700 international students with valid visas, who had come here in good faith. They were given 60 days to find a place at another institution. That not only jeopardised their lives and futures but jeopardised and placed in crisis an institution with 30,000 students and 2,000 staff. That has implications for not only the institution but international students—as I know as the president of UKCISA, the UK Council for International Student Affairs.
Today, Universities UK has released a report showing that there are almost 450,000 students in the UK, of which almost 130,000 are from the European Union. The contribution they make to the British economy in gross terms—what they spend directly and indirectly— is £25 billion. With Brexit coming up, the uncertainty for international students, let alone EU students, is already there. It is not right that they have the added uncertainty that if, for whatever reason, the institution they join fails, they will be left high and dry. It will affect our economy and our ability to recruit international students. As it is, we have immigration rules that are against international students, which we will talk about later on Report.
I urge the Government to take this measure very seriously. It will give security to our domestic students and it is important for our international students and our reputation around the world.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this issue but I want briefly to say something very important. If any of us had children who we sent off to higher education, we would expect that institution to give them the support and development they needed. There are private colleges that have their courses validated by individual universities. Of course, those private colleges could, under certain circumstances, get into difficulties and cease trading. What happens then to the students and to their student loans? As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, rightly said, we are seeing this already in further education, where training providers are going into liquidation. They are all right—they have gone into liquidation—but the poor student is left high and dry. I hope that when the Minister replies he might give assurances on this matter.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, which has raised the important issue of student protection in the case of suspension of registration or indeed deregistration. I think that there is no disagreement that student protection is important, and that is why in this Bill we have gone further than ever before by including an express provision that will enable the OfS to ensure appropriate protections for students through a key condition of provider registration. The noble Lord and others have made some helpful suggestions regarding the likely content of student protection plans, which we agree need to be robust and comprehensive in their coverage. These plans are likely to include a diverse range of measures to protect students, as well as a diverse range of possible triggers for a student protection plan, including suspension of registration.
In response to the concerns that have been expressed in the debate, I can say that draft guidance will be prepared for consultation with the sector and with students as part of the regulatory framework consultation later this year. We would expect it to include information on how and when a provider should refer students to its student protection plan, for example during suspension of registration. It would be wrong to pre-empt the consultation by including these measures in the Bill itself, but I would seek to reassure noble Lords that the measures I have just referred to could include, for example, provision to teach out a course for existing students; offering students an alternative course at the same institution; making arrangements for affected students to switch to a different provider without having to start their course from scratch; and—in response to an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watson—measures to compensate students who are affected financially. I hope that these examples provide some reassurance to noble Lords that we do have in mind the contingency arrangements they have outlined in the debate.
Clause 17 places a clear duty on the OfS to notify, through its maintenance of the register, when a provider has been suspended, and a similar duty is imposed on the OfS by Clauses 19 and 23 whenever providers are deregistered. The OfS already has the power, given in Clause 7, to require a provider’s governing body to make sure that students are promptly informed about its actions.
However, widespread publicity of preliminary compliance measures may not always be appropriate in every case. Before the OfS can impose a sanction of suspension and deregistration it must notify a provider of its intent to do so, unless an urgent suspension is being imposed, and then allow the provider the opportunity either to argue its case or to put matters right. As I am sure noble Lords will agree, the desired outcome for the benefit of students and the provider alike is that the provider takes the actions necessary to ensure that it complies with the conditions of registration that have been placed upon it, which would mean that no further action would be required.
There are also important matters of confidentiality at play here, which is a key concern that has previously been raised by Universities UK and a number of noble Lords in the debates in Committee. Higher education providers would not wish the OfS to announce that it was carrying out an investigation into a provider as this could lead to unnecessary reputational damage if the OfS subsequently decided not to take action. We must also be careful not to unsettle or panic students unnecessarily. Disclosing details of possible sanctions when the OfS has yet to decide to take action would not in our view generally be appropriate or helpful to students. It is the inclusion of the words “intention to” that I find real difficulty with in Amendment 56.
On Amendment 57, I have listened to the thoughtful debates we have had today, and indeed I read the debates in the other place, on the issue of student transfer. We tabled Amendment 100 on this important issue which we have already discussed. Our amendment will require the OfS to monitor and report on the provision of student transfer arrangements by registered higher education providers. It will empower the OfS to facilitate, encourage or promote awareness of these arrangements. In doing so, the Government are creating the conditions to allow the necessary flexibility for students to make the right choices for themselves and to have control over those decisions, whatever the reason for their transfer. The amendment that has been proposed and to which noble Lords have spoken would result in the OfS trying to make arrangements for students to be placed on other courses if their current course closed. However, the decision about what courses to offer falls within the institutional autonomy of each provider.
While I recognise the importance of students being able to transfer, particularly where their institution ceases to offer their planned learning, it is not and nor should it be in the OfS’s gift to determine whether institutions accept students from elsewhere. This has never been a role undertaken by the OfS’s predecessor, HEFCE, and there is no intention for it to be taken on by the OfS. It must surely be preferable for the sector to be in control of transfer processes, including where appropriate as part of the student protection plans, and for the OfS to play a greater role in facilitating and encouraging the availability and take-up of such arrangements.
In response to my noble friend Lord Norton, who was concerned that students would not know what protections they have, we have listened to concerns on this issue. That is why we brought forward an amendment in the other place to require plans to be published and therefore brought to students’ attention. This balanced approach is what our amendment sought to achieve. Against that background, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 55.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I thank the Minister for that, but he rather gave the impression of a man thrashing around in a deep pool, desperately trying to find something to cling on to. I did not find his arguments convincing. When I moved the amendment I said that it has been stated time and again that the Government want students at the centre of the Bill. I did not quote Clause 18, but I will now. It says:
“Where the decision is to suspend the provider’s registration, the notice must …specify the date on which the suspension takes effect … specify the excepted purposes … specify the remedial conditions (if any), and … contain information as to the grounds for the suspension”.
It does not specify what happens to existing students during the suspension period, as documented in a provider’s student protection plan. Why not? How will that hinder any institution if that were to be placed in the Bill? Surely it is the sort of thing that students are entitled to know when their institution is getting into severe difficulty. I do not see why that should provide any difficulty at all.
I enjoyed the analogy drawn by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, between this Bill and the Technical and Further Education Bill, which, as she said, is substantially about the insolvencies of further education colleges. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Minister in charge of that Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, assured noble Lords that that will never happen either. We are to believe that insolvency has no greater a chance of happening in the further education sector, yet three-quarters of the Bill is about insolvency.
It would have been helpful if the vehicle used for dealing with insolvencies in the further education Bill—the special education administrator—had had some equivalent in this Bill, because situations will arise where that kind of role will be necessary. It cannot be carried out just by the Office for Students. That section of the further education Bill concerns further education students getting into difficulty having a special education adviser. With no such equivalent person for higher education provided for in this Bill we are left with a section that is rather like “Hamlet” without the prince. No one will be appointed by the courts in this section. That is the difference between this Bill and the further education Bill.
The Minister talked about draft guidance for consultation with staff and students on when a student protection plan becomes effective, but the amendments here are not about pre-empting. We are saying something different. We are talking about a situation after the college has got into difficulties. It is about reacting to that, not anticipating it. It is important that that difference is understood.
I say to the Minister, particularly in relation to Amendment 57, on which we welcome support from the Cross Benches and the Government Benches, that we would make it easier for the Office for Students. The amendment says that,
“the OfS must, as promptly as possible, seek to make arrangements for the students of that provider to be offered places on similar courses with another higher education provider”.
We could have omitted the words “seek to”. We have been helpful to the Government by suggesting only that the OfS should seek to do that. I take the Minister’s point that some students would not like to be told by the Office for Students, “Very sorry, your university is closed. Here is where you will go as of next week”. That is not the way I would envisage it happening. It would be about choices. The Minister talked about student choices. Student choices should, as far as possible and practicable, be provided by the Office for Students, because it will have overall responsibility as the regulator. It should be able to say to students, “You are without a class at the moment. Here’s what we suggest”.
I acknowledge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, that there will be some cases where colleges are very local and students are unwilling to travel to the next town or, if it were London, to another part of the city to complete their studies. On that basis, they may decide that completing their studies is not possible, but they should be offered choices. That is what we are suggesting. Students are at the centre of the Bill yet the OfS is not to be allowed to provide options for them to continue studies. Again, I find that very surprising. That is a real failing of the Government’s commitment. We should ask what their real commitment is to the interests of students. That should be the test, and the test to which we should put it is that of the opinion of the House.
“Duty of OfS to seek to place students whose provider ceases to offer courses
If a higher education provider ceases to be able, or eligible, to provide higher education courses for its students, the OfS must, as promptly as possible, seek to make arrangements for the students of that provider to be offered places on similar courses with another higher education provider.”
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I apologise for the previous confusion. On this amendment, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“( ) Where there are one or more sector-recognised standards, an assessment under this section of the standards applied—(a) must relate only to the standards applied in respect of matters for which there are sector-recognised standards, and(b) must assess those standards against sector-recognised standards only.”