Grand Committee
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
The Grand Committee is now in session.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, opens this debate, I would like to highlight the one-minute speaking time limit for contributions, other than for the noble Baroness or the Minister. I appreciate that this is tight and that many noble Lords will have more to say. It is indeed a reflection of the popularity of the topic. I respectfully ask that all contributions are limited to one minute maximum to protect the time for the Minister’s response.
Public Libraries
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sanderson of Welton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to publish a new strategy for public libraries.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to open today’s debate, first proposed by my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. It really is a pleasure to see so many noble Lords, which shows how valued libraries are by so many of us and it does mean contributions will be frustratingly short. As a first question, I wonder: given the clear interest, might the usual channels discuss making time available during this Session for a longer debate on libraries?
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
On to the main business and, even with today’s time limitations, I am sure that we will hear about the many different ways in which libraries can alter the course of people’s lives so, rather than mention that here, I shall just mention the thing that I find so magical about libraries. And that is the fact that, no matter who you are or where you are from, you can walk into any library in the country and ask for help. In return, you will be asked for precisely nothing. There will be no charge and you will never be asked to justify yourself; you will simply be welcomed in. There is no other institution today, be it public or private, which can say the same.
That is something worth preserving so I was delighted, at the request of my noble friend Lord Parkinson, to carry out an independent review of public libraries which would inform a new strategy. The review made eight recommendations, designed to address four clear challenges. I am afraid that I cannot claim any great discoveries here, for they are the exact same challenges that libraries have faced for decades.
I will list them briefly. First, there is a lack of recognition across government—national and local—of the extent of the work that libraries do. Secondly, there is a lack of awareness among the wider public of what the library offers, which partly explains the inconsistency whereby libraries are viewed with great affection—as we can see—and there is a fierce desire to protect them, but this does not always translate into people making proper use of them. Thirdly, there is a lack of comprehensive data on our libraries which has worsened over time. Finally, we need a better sense of what the Government want to see from our libraries. On that final point, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether they are still planning to go ahead with the strategy and, if so, in what timeframe. In the hope that she says yes, I shall highlight some of the recommendations from the review.
The first was the creation of a Libraries Minister, which was enacted by the previous Government. This sent an important signal not just to the sector but to other government departments, where the work of libraries is not always recognised despite it contributing so much to so many different departmental priorities.
Secondly, and crucially, is the creation of a national data hub, similar to that created for the leisure industry, which would capture all the data held by library services. Currently, some data is provided manually, but by only some local authorities. This means that we are lacking even the most basic national overview on library provision—and I do mean basic: opening hours, books borrowed, services used et cetera. This is not helpful to libraries nor, frankly, to government. As I said, we are talking about the most basic data. With a data hub, the dataset would be richer and, if built in the right way, could be used alongside the local government and British Library platforms to provide a more targeted, modern and agile service. In time, it could also help evaluate how libraries contribute to national agendas, which is essential if we want our libraries to thrive.
This will depend on local authorities sharing their data. Crucially, the Local Government Association supports the initiative, and Arts Council England has begun work, with input from DCMS, Libraries Connected, the British Library and CILIP. However, it can be realised only with the support of national government, so can the Minister confirm, either today or in writing, that her department is looking seriously at this? If it is considering other ways of addressing the data black hole, I ask that it plan to consult the sector on the different options, and that these options include a data hub, as this could be as transformative as the national rollout of library wifi a decade ago.
Thirdly, I wish to highlight the ambition to make every child a library member. This has been looked at before but has always run into problems with data protection. I declare my interest as a trustee of the Reading Agency, but that is not why I mention the results of their three-year, cross-authority summer reading challenge pilot, which included the trialling of universal membership to schoolchildren.
Working with libraries and other local authority services, including schools and HAF programmes, the pilot delivered automatic membership in many areas of the country, which was GDPR compliant and reached many disadvantaged children. It created tens of thousands of new library members; the children with automatic membership read more books than in comparator groups; and book issues remained consistently higher across the year for children provided with a library card. Because of the nature of the challenge, it also introduced many new parents and caregivers to the library. This is a significant step forward, with the potential to provide huge benefits to the children and families in most need, so I ask the Minister to look at this, too.
Finally, I wish to mention the creation of a “front door” for those wishing to engage with public libraries. The governance of libraries is like spaghetti junction. DCMS is the policy lead; MHCLG has responsibility for funding; ACE is the development agency; and Libraries Connected, CILIP and ASCEL all support the sector and, alongside the LGA, provide co-ordination and partnership working. It is ferociously complicated.
Although those involved do a fantastic job, it can be difficult for outside organisations to know where to go in the first instance. Many people agree that libraries need more national, big-scale programmes delivered locally, but this will rely on building new, ambitious partnerships across the public and private sectors. The British Library could play a really important convening role in this, as happens in some European countries, since it has stature and reach across the whole of the UK and internationally; indeed, it has already successfully delivered such a programme with its Business & IP Centre network, which provides start-up support and has helped to create more than 18,000 businesses.
When talking about the British Library, we should bear in mind the recent cyberattack—this rightly remains its foremost priority—but the Government could still provide some small, proportionate, extra resource for the British Library to take on the work of building a consensus about what a future front door could look like. Will the Minister look at this and, perhaps, the other recommendations in the review, which reflect the views of the sector after many months of consultation? I take just a moment to thank the officials behind the Minister, who were incredibly helpful in that work.
Finally, I was delighted to see that, in 2011, the current Secretary of State initiated a Westminster Hall debate on the future of libraries. She spoke passionately about the value of libraries in her own constituency and, more generally, she raised the financial pressures that libraries were then under. It is true to say that the pressure is severe—it would be wrong to open this debate without acknowledging that—but I would also say that, during the course of the review and despite the difficult circumstances, it was notable that, where councils valued their libraries and placed them firmly on the assets side, rather than the liability side, of the balance sheet, library services had been protected and improved.
The recommendations in the review purposely did not place further burdens on local authorities. Instead, they focused on improving the infrastructure in ways that could help our libraries to flourish now and into the future. So I hope that the Government are planning to continue with the new strategy and, if so, that the Minister will find at least some of these suggestions useful.
That gives us back a minute and a half.
Baroness Rebuck (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, for her comprehensive review and recommendations, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for commissioning it. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register.
The BBC reported recently that public libraries are in crisis: 800 have closed in nine years; funding has halved, leaving many with reduced opening times; books have been cut by a quarter; and there are fewer computer terminals. However, there are still brilliant libraries busy with rhyme time for babies, homework clubs, employment support, access to local services and cultural activities. This could be the norm. There is no shortage of ideas in this sector, but now is the opportunity for delivery.
The review recommends an awareness campaign, but who would make it work, given that there is no single lead in government to bring policy and funding together? It also recommends a Libraries Minister, while a forthcoming Fabian arts paper suggests adding community digital responsibility, as research shows that 45% of families with children are digitally excluded. The Fabians also ask the BBC to consider local radio, news and community broadcast hubs from libraries to reach a new generation.
Most libraries are run on modest sums, but libraries urgently need a multi-year commitment of funding to plan ahead in the face of local authority funding crises. According to the Reading Agency, low literacy costs us £80 billion a year; as we have heard, its successful universal library membership trial should be rolled out. With a mission-led Government, we can be bold and transformative. My key ask of the Minister is that libraries, prime for action as they are, become central to the mission on breaking down barriers to opportunities; this should join up decision-making, funding and delivery to ensure that libraries guarantee inspiration and opportunities for all.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, let me just say that I will be less indulgent with future contributions.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, standing as the second person in this “Just a Minute” challenge, I am very much a product of the equivalent of the Reading Agency’s summer reading challenge, but from many years ago—I was doing it at a Carnegie library when I was at primary school. We did not do many things when I was a child. We did not go on holiday, so what did I do over the summer? I went to the library. I was so empowered and enriched by those library facilities that I have always remembered how important it was.
That library has now closed; it is going to become a café. While café society is important, one thing you will find in continental Europe, particularly in France, is that if you go to a small town there will be a library; if you go to a larger town, it will be a médiathèque. Libraries are so important for encouraging children to read and for digital inclusion. For equalities purposes, please support libraries. Let us have that national strategy.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I feel as though I am in the BBC; I shall need a red light for this one-minute cue.
Public libraries are gardens of earthly delights, especially in less advantaged areas, where they are the seedbed for young writers of the future, where children can travel abroad and beyond without moving and where the elderly can source comfort and friendship. They are, in short, indispensable. Cicero maintained that all you need in life is a garden and a library.
Libraries, like the arts, are just too easy a target when the going gets tough. I urge the Government to encourage the self-help groups of volunteers who have had such success in places such as Camden—the Keats library, for example—by supporting them and making their contribution to society easier to achieve. It is not “instead of”; it is “as well as”.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, if we are to stop the decline in the number of rural libraries, we urgently need something that many of us have been calling for for a long time, which is an integrated rural strategy with a commitment to rural sustainability. There is huge, mainly untapped potential in the countryside to use existing community buildings as hubs and provide many services such as access to computers and the internet—vitally important—banking services, basic dispensing, post offices and, of course, libraries. They could be sited in our rural schools or sometimes in underused village halls or even church buildings. We have managed to do that in some places; we can do it more. We need to find ways to make this vital service work economically. Will the Minister commit to supporting this radical rethink about rural services?
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
The proposed multiyear funding settlements for local authorities from the Government are most welcome. They should enable councils to make more strategic plans for services.
The Senedd’s Local Government and Housing Committee considered how libraries and leisure facilities could continue to be funded, and it published a report in July 2023. It was of no surprise to me, as a former leader of a city council, that the report concluded that,
“councils have found it challenging to maintain their existing local … services”,
after such a sustained period of austerity and diminishing budgets. It discovered that many councils sought to deliver those services differently, such as by contracting the management to not-for-profit social enterprises, as I did when I established our leisure company, Newport Live.
I urge my noble friend to ask her department to review that report from the Welsh Government and see what areas of congruence can be brought to bear on ensuring stability of future library provision by the UK Government.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
At Historic England, we use the benefit of our wonderful libraries as the cornerstone of many of our regeneration efforts around the country, in incredible places such as Tyldesley in Wigan, Redruth and North Shields. The library is the place that, once regenerated and restored, brings back life, footfall, vitality and economic growth to places. Yes, DCMS superintends the library system, but it has to use the rather woolly requirement of
“a comprehensive and efficient library service”
specified in the Act. At the same time, the paymasters are the MHCLG and local authorities. It is too dispersed and means that there is no political will or leadership to make sure that the library sector does not decline further.
We have a great moment: the Secretary of State for Culture and the Minister for Arts are both accomplished authors. Perhaps that would help get some enthusiasm back towards our sector, so I say no more reviews—they are done—and let us move ahead with the strategy.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, libraries are a physical manifestation of an intellectual community. They are places that gather knowledge and manifestations of the human condition. They should be at the heart of any community.
They can give cohesion, open windows into new worlds and ideas and bring together young and old from all backgrounds. As an MP, I used to hold my advice surgeries in three local libraries. The fourth ward did not have a library; it was also the most socially divided ward. People could come and see their MP, but no one knew that this is what they were doing in the library.
In developing their strategy, I urge the Government never to forget the social, community-enhancing function of a library.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, we sadly cannot do justice today to the many important recommendations in the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, because Back-Bench contributions are restricted to just 60 seconds.
Were there time, I would have spoken about the more than 180 public libraries that have been closed or handed to volunteers since 2016, and the fact that the most deprived communities—the very areas that need them the most—are four times more likely to lose their library than those in more affluent areas. I would have spoken about the lack of recognition across both local and central government of the value and impact of public libraries, and I would have spoken about the major impact of the summer reading challenge, where libraries work with public health teams and education or children’s services in areas of disadvantage or low literacy.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to add her influential voice to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, in demanding that we have a proper debate—which today’s debate cannot be—on public libraries in the very near future.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on a thorough, comprehensive and enjoyable review. Time is short, but the number of colleagues keen to speak is heartening, as the subject of libraries has not previously had the attention it deserved. A recent search of Hansard revealed the word “sausages” appeared more frequently than “libraries”.
The benefits of reading for children cannot be underestimated, particularly so for disadvantaged children. It is why I would like to highlight the Libraries for Primaries campaign by the National Literacy Trust, whose aim is to ensure that every primary school has a library with properly equipped shelves and fully trained staff. This ambitious project has been sponsored by private philanthropy. I ask the Minister to consider if the Government would commit to providing the outstanding investment as part of a matched funding scheme—it would yield such a great return. As the inimitable Dr Seuss said,
“The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go”.
What better way to level the playing field while raising school standards.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, libraries are not only welcoming havens and refuges for people of all ages, but much more, as other noble Lords have said. Nearly 800 have closed since 2010 and many more are likely to do so, as local councils’ budgets shrink. But at what cost? The cost will be the loss of free books to poor families, children and the elderly, loss of IT access to the elderly and poor, loss of a warm, accessible facility to local communities and loss of local advice.
An investment strategy is very much needed, and the University of East Anglia has provided a means of valuing library services, which I hope could be looked at as part of assessing a strategy. It ascribes £3.4 billion of value to national library services. I hope this report may be helpful. Libraries change lives and must stay at the heart of our communities, where they belong.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I was a Cumbria county councillor for 10 years, until last year. We never closed the library, but we greatly reduced opening times and greatly limited the supply of new books and materials as a way of balancing the books. The general solution to this is of course local government finance reform, but there is no point in arguing about that today.
If I was the Minister, I would do two things. First, I would set up a non-departmental public body to bring together best practice of the people in the field who understand how we can modernise libraries and integrate them, and use that as a consultancy for the whole sector, run from the Government. Secondly, I would establish a fund to which people could make bids for imaginative modernisation proposals.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
I have sat on the board of the British Library. Partnership with the wider ecology of UK librarianship is in its founding legislation and in its future strategy, Knowledge Matters. As my noble friend Lady Sanderson said, the library already plays a convening role with the Business & IP Centre, the living knowledge network of local public libraries and the national libraries of Scotland and Wales, and with LibraryOn, which could act as a digital front door but falls between DCMS and Arts Council remits.
As the British Library continues to recover from a devastating cyberattack, this remains its priority, and any expansion of a strategic sectoral role has to be scoped and resourced in this context. None the less, the British Library stands ready to work alongside the department and public library authorities to support the ongoing strategic development of the sector. I, too, look forward to a longer libraries debate, not least when a strategy is published.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, perhaps it is understandable in the face of library closures to plead defensively their case as community assets, but as we listen to the long list of services libraries are said to provide for the elderly, the lonely, victims of domestic abuse and bullying, et cetera, I worry that this moves their focus away from their core and vital role as the repository of books made accessible to the public. Once libraries are rebranded as glorified community hubs, there is a danger that books are sidelined. This can create a confusion of purpose and allows all sorts of faddish political activism to move in on libraries.
There is a lesson from Wales, where I am from. There, libraries have become embroiled in an unsavoury culture wars dispute. Only recently, Welsh libraries hit the headlines as staff were being sent on training courses in critical whiteness studies and told to eradicate racism from the libraries by 2030. Once books are deprioritised, we can even have forms of censorship, with libraries advised to decolonise their collections from the libraries sector and its own professional association targeting “lawful but awful” problematic books. My plea: put books centre stage in any libraries strategy.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the most pressing problem facing libraries is the paucity of council funding. The Guardian reports that 180 UK libraries have been closed or handed over to volunteers since 2016, and having a new Government does not necessarily mean things are now getting better; they are continuing to deteriorate. This needs to be addressed quickly, not least because once premises are reduced or buildings lost, it becomes difficult to reverse. Isobel Hunter of Libraries Connected says:
“libraries are hit hardest in the very areas that need them”.
Secondly, there is the huge but underrated importance of librarians, yet the loss of 2,000 library jobs since 2016. Louis Coiffait-Gunn of CILIP says:
“There is a worrying trend of de-professionalising the public library workforce … a volunteer’s role should only ever be to augment professional and trained staff, they can’t replace them without a negative impact on service”.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I was delighted to read my noble friend Lady Sanderson’s report and of her commitment to books remaining, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, at the centre of our library network across the United Kingdom. We all know how important it is to low-income families, who would not otherwise have access to books, that books are available. I think about one in 10 low-income households in this country have no books in the house at all. That is something that only libraries, not Amazon, can deal with properly. That is why I was delighted with the work of BookTrust, which is working with 90% of the libraries across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, ensuring that those low-income families have access to books, storytelling and a habit that will change children’s lives.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, many of us will be aware of the work of Zadie Smith, who attributes much of her success to the time she spent in Willesden public library in her somewhat less privileged younger days. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty: wonderful though volunteers are, every library should have the service of a fully qualified librarian.
In this country, it is required that every prison has a library; it is not required that every school has a library, and it should be. I thoroughly endorse the recommendation of a library laureate—I would suggest Zadie Smith or Michael Rosen, but I am sure there are other good candidates—to advocate for school libraries as well as public libraries to ensure reading for pleasure among all our young people.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, cost is a major factor, so let me fast-forward to the need to adapt and share more data. Merging back-office functions is critical, so spare capacity can be used to expand front-line activities, creating a strong focus on co-ownership within communities. Local authorities have a major part to play in creating a more joined-up working environment, sharing vital resources with, say, health providers and other outlets—post offices and Jobcentre Plus are two organisations that may be interested in coming on-site. An ambitious new root-and-branch strategy is urgently required, incorporating a full consultation with all stakeholders, to focus on the possibilities of collocation. Libraries must connect in some way, shape or form and must flourish. I thank my noble friend Lady Sanderson and my noble friend Lord Parkinson for commissioning it.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I have time only to ask the Minister what she can recommend we do for the Catterick, Richmond and Colburn Community Libraries—the acronym is CRACL—which are a charitable trust, of which I am patron. They are mainly run by amazing volunteers, who put in more than 634 hours last year, although that is a wild underestimation of the actual hours worked. How do we strengthen that volunteer network? Also, North Yorkshire Council is responsible only for the books, roofs and walls of the building; CRACL is responsible for all the maintenance, heating, boilers et cetera. This year, heating alone will cost £18,000 and much-needed new windows will cost £30,000. This is unsustainable for a charity. A far better understanding of the importance of libraries to our communities is desperately needed.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Sanderson has done a cracking job with a fantastic report. I offer five thoughts on libraries.
First, libraries have always been funded by local government; they have never been funded by central government. There was a massive row in the 19th century, when Parliament brought in a law to allow local government to raise money on the rates to pay for libraries. Knowledge was then considered a dangerous thing for what was then the working man.
Secondly, libraries are no longer just about books; they are community hubs. They are about access to local government services, access to computers, safe spaces and homework clubs. As such, there is no one-size-fits-all model; it could be a public/private partnership or it could be a charitable trust. Local government—this is one area where it has a degree of autonomy—should set up library services as it thinks fit.
Thirdly, statistics about libraries closing are completely misleading. Sometimes it is good to close a library that is hugely expensive to maintain, particularly if it means you can extend opening hours in other libraries.
Fourthly, libraries come under the Arts Council—it was something I did when I was the Libraries Minister—but they should actually be part of the department of local government. They are a local government service; they are not actually a cultural service, which is ironic considering that the DCMS used to be called the Office of Arts and Libraries.
Finally, I offer one free policy for the Government, which is to double the public lending right. That would cost very little money, but it would allow the authors mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Rebuck, to live the lifestyle to which they are now accustomed. It would earn massive plaudits from the authorial community.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, mobile libraries serve as a lifeline for some of society’s most vulnerable and isolated individuals—those living in rural areas, with disabilities or facing other significant challenges—yet these critical services are increasingly at risk. In 2010, England had 94 “open” mobile libraries; by 2023, that number had dropped to just 66 operated by local authorities, 19 run by community volunteers and 12 had closed entirely. This decline represents a troubling trend that demands urgent attention.
Mobile libraries are far more than providers of books; they act as two-way gateways to essential services such as the NHS and digital health literacy. However, there is insufficient co-ordination between government departments, missing an opportunity to fully leverage libraries’ potential. A more “mission-based” approach, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, has said, could break down these silos, enabling mobile and static libraries to support outcomes such as employment, social cohesion and digital literacy.
As the UK Government develop their new library strategy, it is essential to prioritise investment in these vital services to better connect individuals with resources and to strengthen the fabric of our communities.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, this has proved an extremely helpful debate. Public libraries are central to levelling up. Levelling up is not just about places; it is about people and their opportunities in life, which are enhanced by access to learning, to discovery and to opportunity.
As we have heard, you do not need money to enter a public library. You can stay as long as you like. You can read, learn, attend events, use computers, get help, get advice and do research. Libraries are safe spaces. They are also warm. Libraries encourage the volunteering, both of time and of expertise, by individuals to help others. Libraries lie at the heart of strong neighbourhoods. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government understand that libraries can and should be a bedrock of strong communities.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very glad that we are having this debate. When I was a Minister, I was asked about all things DCMS but never about libraries. I am glad that we are able to put that right today with this, the first Question for Short Debate of this Parliament; the show of strength that we have had today is an illustration of how timely and needed it is.
Of course, this debate follows the “Today” programme, which talked about libraries every day of last week; this included the author Lee Child speaking powerfully about the importance of libraries in his native city of Birmingham, which are, sadly, under threat. This year, we mark the 60th anniversary of the 1964 Act—a legislative legacy of the short-lived Alec Douglas-Home Government—which provides the statutory responsibility in government.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sanderson both for opening our debate today and for her review, with its excellent recommendations. I commissioned her to do it because I wanted us to be ambitious about libraries, particularly in the changed circumstances in which we find ourselves in terms of people’s patterns of living and working after the pandemic. My noble friend made eight excellent recommendations, some of which have already been taken forward, but the election intervened before the rest could be accomplished. So I echo her call on the Minister to make sure that they are taken forward and that a library strategy is published; I also underline the non-partisan nature of my noble friend’s work, which was informed by the views of the sector and cross-party people in local government through the LGA.
As my noble friend said, data is hugely important. Will the Minister commit to a data hub, as my noble friend asked? Data is especially important for widening access. In its excellent summer reading challenge, the Reading Agency has pointed the way forward for local authorities such as the London Borough of Newham, which has not been thwarted by GDPR from providing automatic enrolment and a library card for every schoolchild—it is the gateway to so many other things in life. Will the Minister speak to the Department for Education and local government to make sure that GDPR does not get in the way of making sure that other children have this opportunity?
Finally, I was proud to be the first official Libraries Minister—a recommendation from my noble friend Lady Sanderson. I hope not to be the last. It is not just a bauble; it is an important hook so that you can have meetings with Ministers across government, as well as with organisations such as the Social Mobility Commission, to make sure that all of government is delivering for libraries. I was pleased to see Sir Chris Bryant, the new Minister, say in the foreword to the annual report from the department how proud he is to be the Minister responsible for this. He is a published author, as others have said. However, as Richard Ovenden, the Bodley’s Librarian, said on the “Today” programme last week, the Minister has many other ministerial responsibilities—more than we can list in this limited debate. So will the Government reinstate the post of Libraries Minister in a ministerial title? Will they also take forward and build on the work of the libraries improvement fund, which provided more than £20 million to more than 95 projects in the previous Parliament, helping libraries across the land to adapt, to be innovative and to deliver for local people?
I am very glad that we are having this debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson of Welton, on leading the debate. Noble Lords will agree, I am sure, that she really demonstrated her commitment to public libraries through her independent review and her considered conclusions and recommendations, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading over the Recess.
I recognise the commitment to public libraries from the previous Lords Minister—the first Minister for Libraries—the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. He managed to sum up quite a lot of issues in his short speech. It is almost impossible to deal with this issue in a minute, and I commend noble Lords on managing to do so. It is also quite difficult to write and scribble down notes on things that you want to reply to; I hope to get through everybody in terms of responding to at least one issue raised by each noble Lord, but I may have to come back to noble Lords afterwards.
Like many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, going to the library was a regular and much-loved event during my childhood. I later relied on large-print books from the library when I was recovering from encephalitis as a teenager and was unable to focus on standard font size. My childhood love of books no doubt influenced my decision to undertake a PhD in Scandinavian literature, which remains one of the most enjoyable but probably least useful things I have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, noted the role of local government in library provision. The Government recognise the financial pressures facing local authorities after 14 years of Conservative cuts to local authorities. We are committed to giving stability back to council funding, but you cannot have cuts of this scale to local government finances without having a seismic impact on services, including public library service provision; we should take it as a whole. However, despite this, local authorities continue to invest in this vital cultural asset. Some £673 million was spent by upper-tier local authorities in England on their library services in 2022-23.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, referred to library closures over the last decade or so. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, cited the figure 800. I will comment on the need for accurate data in due course, but I understand from officials that they believe it to be more accurate that around 276 static libraries have permanently closed in England since 2010 and have not been relocated or replaced. I am not underestimating the impact that closure has; as a new Minister being briefed on this subject, I found even the figure 276 quite shocking.
My noble friend Lord Watson cited the BBC report that libraries are most likely to have closed in deprived areas. We have not seen the BBC analysis behind that story, and I would welcome the opportunity to review the data. I welcome the specific example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, of the threat to the library in her area.
The Question posed by this debate relates to a new library strategy, and I heard the strength of feeling in the debate around this. I understand it was a commitment of the previous Government, which was informed by the noble Baroness’s review. I will feed back the strength of feeling around that.
It was noted that the Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism, Sir Chris Bryant, covers libraries as part of his brief. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, noted that he has quite a lot of responsibility, but I take this opportunity to reassure noble Lords that he is also a passionate advocate of libraries, which he recently described as “cultural diamonds”. He said:
“They enable readers’ imaginations to sparkle, they support thousands of local groups, they provide advice to businesses and charities, enabling them to flourish, they give individuals who might otherwise be lonely or cold a space to open up. We lose them at our peril”.
I agree that we lose them at our peril. The Minister will engage with library sector organisations and leaders in the coming months to discuss the challenges in the sector and reflect on priority policy areas and how best to support the sector going forward.
I will feed back the proposal from my noble friend Lady Rebuck that libraries should be central to the opportunities mission, as well as the point made by my noble friend Lady Wilcox about the Welsh report to the Minister, and my noble friend Lord Liddle’s point about potential innovation.
Public libraries are a vital public resource, helping to inspire, educate and entertain people of all ages and backgrounds. The range of outcomes they help to achieve is substantial and varied. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said, there is also a lack of awareness of what libraries provide, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, said, MPs’ surgeries. However, I note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who argued that libraries should stick to their core purpose—which highlights that there is no unanimous view on this point.
Libraries are open to everyone at no cost; they are one of the last non-transactional spaces in our communities. The celebration of books and promotion of literacy will always be at the heart of public library services, but public libraries also need to be responsive to the needs of their local communities and deliver the right mix of services to meet local needs and priorities.
In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, when we are celebrating libraries, we should also thank and celebrate the many volunteers and community groups. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, highlighted, volunteer-led services cannot and should not replace professional provision and cannot replicate it to the same extent.
There has been a decline in library visitor numbers and the figures are quite stark. I was quite shocked by the fall in the numbers, but it is important to reflect that some people access library services in different ways and through different means than by walking through the door. We need more robust, meaningful and consistent data in order for councils to make sound decisions on their library provision and to respond quickly to the needs of users. Having been briefed on the issue, I think it is quite clear that there is an issue around the data, as highlighted by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson. DCMS has been working with Arts Council England and public library stakeholders with the aim of strengthening the data collected on library use and engagement. This should support both local and national government to identify trends in user needs and advocate more effectively for the power of public libraries.
Libraries are an inclusive venue and a trusted resource in communities. Recent Ipsos veracity index research shows that librarians were considered the third most trusted profession, behind nurses and aeroplane pilots. I was not sure why they were behind aeroplane pilots, but that is probably because we have to have that faith.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked whether the Government would commit to an integrated rural strategy. The previous Government highlighted the vital role public libraries play in sustaining community networks in rural areas, to offer a range of activities and support services to meet local needs and bring people together. DCMS will continue to work with the Local Government Association, Arts Council England and Libraries Connected to ensure best practice on rural libraries.
Libraries help give people the skills and knowledge they need to succeed through books and by tackling the digital divide, enabling digitally inclusive communities and supporting people by providing free wifi access, hosting and organising local cultural activities and working on collocating with other local authority services and agencies such as citizens advice and the post office. Libraries are crucial partners in providing vital support to families and developing children’s language development, reading skills and confidence from early years onwards. DfE research shows that reading for pleasure grows self-confidence, strengthens community participation and improves knowledge and understanding of other cultures.
The noble Lord, Lord McInnes, highlighted the lack of books in many low-income households, and the issue of school libraries was raised by my noble friend Lady Blower. I will ensure that my noble friend the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, gets a copy of the debate to pick up the points raised around education that pertain to her brief. I am also happy to raise the point of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, around school libraries.
There are excellent examples of libraries working in partnership with others to deliver reading and literacy initiatives specifically aimed at children and young people, including the Reading Agency’s summer reading challenge and the BookTrust’s—
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
With her excellent points, will the noble Baroness very briefly allow me to invite her to visit the Wiener Holocaust Library, a much better place for the Holocaust memorial learning centre than Victoria Tower Gardens?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I hear what the noble Baroness said and will refer it to my private office in relation to her request.
I have a few more points, and I will try to keep within my time to respect the fact that everyone else managed to keep within a minute. I will talk about the Government’s role in supporting public libraries. As the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, highlighted, the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to superintend and promote the improvement of public library provision in England.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said, the Secretary of State is also passionate about libraries. She has a statutory power to intervene, by way of a local inquiry, if she considers that a local authority is not providing a comprehensive and efficient library service. If a complaint is received, Ministers will carefully consider whether further action is needed. I have not covered a number of points—are noble Lords happy for me to continue?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I have another minute and a half or so. I have heard noble Lords’ request for more time to discuss libraries going forward. It was helpful that the Chief Whip was here in the chair at the beginning and heard that.
I have covered the fact that the Secretary of State has a statutory power to intervene. DCMS monitors proposals by library authorities to make changes to their library service provision. Conversation with councils enables discussion of proposed changes to service provision and insights into local delivery. So far this year, the department has engaged, either in person or virtually, with 31 local authorities.
I will cover a couple more points that were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, asked whether DCMS will address the data black holes in libraries. I believe I have covered that, but we are keen to make sure that there is more robust, meaningful and consistent data so that councils can make sound decisions.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the British Library attack. DCMS remains in close discussion with it about the ongoing impact of the cyberattack. DCMS hugely values the British Library’s contribution to the library landscape, not just in this country but internationally, where it is a huge asset.
A library is not a stand-alone service, as highlighted by the range of points raised. It supports other public services to achieve outcomes vital for individuals, communities and the nation to flourish. The Government fully recognise the importance of libraries. They recognise the pressures facing public libraries and the important services they provide to local communities. The Government are committed to giving stability back to local councils so that services such as public libraries that they are responsible for can best meet the needs of those communities.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
As we have so much time left in the debate, I will make a quick point following on from the excellent intervention by my noble friend Lady Bottomley—I do not know why noble Lords opposite were so grumpy about that. I remind the Minister that the one policy that central government has complete control of is the public lending right. I would be interested to hear whether she will communicate with the Libraries Minister about the opportunity to review it, because the budget has been frozen for many years.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I will make the noble Lord’s point to the Libraries Minister.
Africa: Commercial Opportunities and Exports
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Popat
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to (1) raise awareness among United Kingdom businesses of commercial opportunities in African markets, and (2) support United Kingdom exports to Africa.
Lord Popat (Con)
My Lords, I declare my recent interest, having served as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Uganda, Rwanda and the DRC until the election. I am glad to have secured this debate.
Despite some progress, there is still a long way to go to change the narrative on Africa. Our exports to Africa were more than 30% not long ago; today, they are less than 3%. We need to see Africa not as a charity but as a place of opportunity. Politicians and diplomats believe in soft power and diplomacy; coming from a business background, I believe in hard cash.
Despite what some may say, the UK has much to offer the world in many countries, particularly in Africa, as a key trading partner. We still face a significant challenge with our balance of trade. In 2023, our trade deficit was £33 billion—a trend that has persisted for the past four decades. This means we do not have enough exports to pay for imports. The Prime Minister’s long-term goal must be to fix the UK’s current account deficit.
We need access to foreign markets, particularly in Africa. Several car manufacturers have already left the UK due to significant challenges in sourcing batteries, which are critical to electric vehicle production. The uncertainty in supply chains has made the UK less competitive. The shortage of essential materials such as cobalt, much of which come from the DRC, has further strained the UK’s car manufacturers. If we do not secure reliable supply chains for these materials, we will see a further exodus in the car industry. The UK missed the boat in the first wave of electric battery revolution, so we now need to catch up. India, the US, China and Russia all have regular African summits to work on how they can embrace the opportunities that exist. It is a great shame that the last African summit had to be cancelled; I hope that the new Government will put it back on the agenda.
When I first joined the House of Lords, I set up a committee to see what we could do to help our SMEs to export more. Given the vital role that SMEs play in our economy, it is crucial that we support their growth and global expansion efforts. SMEs accounted for 61% of UK employment in 2022, yet only 10% of them export, compared to 30% for the Germans. History teaches us that, if we neglect our own industries, we are at the mercy of global rivals. I welcome the export champions scheme and the King’s award for exports—I declare my interest as somebody who was on the judging panel—and, most importantly, I welcome the UK Export Finance business plan for the next five years, which gives priority to supporting SMEs. Access to finance equals access to growth.
As someone who was born in Africa, I must admit a bias, but I firmly believe that, post Brexit, building stronger trade and diplomatic ties with Africa should be Britain’s top priority in terms of securing our nation’s prosperity. By establishing a programme of trade envoys in 2016—I am glad that many ex-envoys are speaking here today—we recognised the need to restore our old trading relationship and forge new ones. The UK must build on its historic ties, particularly with Commonwealth countries in Africa. We need action on the ground. “Global Britain” is a powerful concept, but it must be more than a slogan; it requires meaningful engagement with emerging markets. The trade envoy programme was a valuable initiative that opened doors for UK companies to export and invest more: we were the marketeers and sales-people for UK plc.
As a former trade envoy to Uganda, Rwanda and the DRC, I want to share some personal experiences to illustrate the impact of the trade envoy programme. I took the Arsenal football team to Rwanda—despite being a Tottenham supporter—and that was worth £30 million a year. The Rwandan Government have doubled their tourism. We supported the sale of two Airbus aircraft to RwandAir with finance from UK Export Finance, and flights now operate seven days a week between our two great countries—London to Kigali. We used to fly to most African cities. British Airways has stopped flying to places such as Entebbe, Dar es Salaam, Lusaka, Blantyre and Freetown. We need to engage with them and build bridges with those African cities.
In January this year, I spearheaded the first ever UK-Rwanda business forum in Kigali, which brought together over 900 delegates from more than 40 countries. We are in discussions about a major development project in Rwanda to build accommodation for 11,000 students and a 600-bed hospital, financed by UK Export Finance.
In Uganda, we are nearing the completion of an international airport worth £280 million—a contract given to a British company. We have facilitated the sale of two Airbus aircraft to the Ugandan Government, and we will soon see direct flights between London and Entebbe. The Gridworks project—which I saw yesterday—in partnership with BII is worth more than £1 billion over the next five years.
The DRC is a country that not many of us talk about in government, but it has enormous potential and can become the beating heart of Africa. It is one of the wealthiest countries globally in terms of natural resources, with $30 trillion-worth of minerals, including 70% of the world’s cobalt. Other nations such as China, India and the US, and the EU, have already signed deals with the DRC, while we are still working on a memorandum of understanding. We must expedite this process; I urge the Minister to look into this as a matter of urgency.
In April, I led a large trade delegation of 26 companies to the DRC, resulting in significant agreements. The DRC Government signed three agreements with UK companies, including a £142 million deal with Westminster Group for airport security and a $215 million agricultural public/private partnership. Global Gases Group also signed a $100 million MoU to invest in medical oxygen and LPG.
I have been working with UK Export Finance to encourage it to review its approach to the DRC, noting the clear demand for its services. In the meantime, I have supported a private investor, Gemcorp, in making up to £500 million available for projects in the DRC. I am glad that its Finance Minister was here in this very building to sign that deal. The Congolese have a clear will and are anxious to work with the UK. The President has been here three times in the past six years, which shows how anxious they are to work and trade with us.
Africa is changing, and I hope we can wake up to what Africa is today. We need to move away from thinking we know best and feeling we need to step in to help. We do not want Africa to be on the menu; we would rather see it at the table with us. When Africa prospers, we prosper.
To conclude, I want to share a story. Three young men started a business delivering parcels door to door in an old Plymouth Duster with unmatched doors. They were Adrian Dalsey, Larry Hillblom and Robert Lynn. Those surnames made a company called DHL. Fast forward 55 years, DHL now has 250 proprietary planes, 32,000 vehicles, 550,000 employees and a presence in almost every country on the earth. Its revenue for 2019 was a whopping €65 billion. The moral of the story is: never give up; we can make it happen. I urge the Minister to make it happen and to show the political will to trade and invest in Africa.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Popat, for initiating this timely debate. He indicated the opportunities but also the shortcomings that have preceded it. UK trade with Africa, like aid, has fallen sharply in recent years. It was 4% of UK trade in 2012-13 and fell to under 3% in 2022. In the last full year, trade was £10.3 billion, which was actually a reduction of 7.1% on the previous year, so things have been moving in the wrong direction.
I will make a link with the fact that aid has been drastically cut. I appreciate that we are focusing on trade, but the two are linked, because the relationships grow together. The cut in aid has had a very disruptive effect on our relationships with Africa. I am glad the previous Government started to restore the balance and I hope the new Government will follow that through and help us to cement new relationships. The cancellation of the UK investment summit was disappointing, particularly at a time when the World Bank was making a very big engagement with Africa.
The House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee, of which I am currently a member, produced a report on Africa in 2020, which said:
“Successive governments have said that Africa should be given a higher priority across Whitehall, but have failed to make this a reality in the face of competing demands”.
The incoming Government have made a similar pledge, but how will it be different this time? It would be good to hear from the Minister.
There is a growing call from indebted countries for debt relief, which is related, because that would release funds that could be invested in the infrastructure that makes the business climate more conducive and more favourable. Can the Minister say anything about the Government’s intentions to negotiate debt relief, given that the UK underpins a substantial proportion of private investment to developing countries?
BII is investing in Africa, and I have noted recent announcements relating to the deep-water ports in Banana in the DRC, small business finance in Nigeria and sustainable energy generally. These are all worth while and are designed to open the way for more trade, but they are pretty small compared with the scale that will be required.
An interesting report from Malaria No More made the point that tackling malaria will have an economic benefit. One of the problems with Africa is that not only do countries there sometimes not have the skills but too many people are sick too often to be able to be productive workers, so tackling illness and disease and promoting good health is good economic policy as well.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Popat, has highlighted, not enough UK businesses seem to be interested enough in investing in Africa. Nobody denies that it is a challenging place to invest, but that is not a reason for moving out. For example, Africa has a huge need for pharmaceuticals. The UK is a major producer of pharmaceuticals. Why are we not investing more to help Africa, in partnership, produce pharmaceuticals and create a skills base for its own environment?
While our relationships were being disrupted, Russia and China moved in in a big way. They offer substantial sums of money with no questions asked, subvert democracy, sustain dictatorships and deal with minerals for their own benefit, while we stand back, relatively speaking, and do not engage.
This is a moment where we have to reset and not just talk the talk but walk the walk. I go right back to Tony Blair’s Africa commission, which produced a wonderful and inspiring report, but we still have not delivered on its vision. I hope the new Government recognise that trade, investment and diplomacy can go together, and when they do everybody will be better off.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Popat on securing this timely debate. He spoke in a way that reflected his experience and passion.
Even though there is much more to be done, I greatly welcome the real focus in the past few years on driving forward our trade activity abroad. The importance of Africa commercially in this has indeed been recognised, particularly by other countries, I would add, even by one of our European neighbours, Germany. We also learned during Covid the importance of critical minerals and the need to expand supply sources. Africa can play a huge part in this.
However, I will refer to the developing countries trading scheme, which was announced in 2023 and is, regrettably, so unknown. It is worth noting its breadth of ambition. DCTS cuts tariffs, removing and simplifying trade conditions for 65 developing countries. As I have heard many times from our African friends, access to markets abroad can be cumbersome. Would the Minister look into how well DCTS is working in practice and consider whether it warrants modification?
What has been very helpful is the way that access to information about British goods and services has hugely improved. Information generally, or in specific commercial areas, is all online, with quick responses and advice. Additionally, access to UK export finance is now comprehensively available for purchasing British goods and services, either in this country or abroad. I hope this will continue and indeed expand.
I pay tribute to our embassies and high commissions in Africa for facilitating all of this so well. However, the number of individuals devoted to trade promotion in our embassies and the budget allocated is frankly anaemic compared to that of our competitors. I applaud the links established relatively recently between the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Business and Trade. Over the years, our sale of military equipment has not been seen sufficiently through a commercial prism. In practice, military sales can underpin bilateral relationships to the overall benefit of our industry and commerce. I am so pleased about the reappointment of my noble friend Lord Lancaster, who has done so much in this sphere and who should be strongly supported.
It has been my immense pleasure to be the Prime Minister’s trade envoy in Algeria, the largest country in Africa and one with which we have an excellent relationship. One of the challenges all over Africa is the rapidly growing population. Algeria, like many other countries, has suffered a youth brain drain in the past. But a dramatic change is under way: with our encouragement, President Tebboune has led a radical reform process to attract investment, promote foreign trade and move away from dependency on hydrocarbons. Now growing rapidly, a new generation of Algerians is staying and opening up the deployment of technology, starting new projects and drawing foreign investment. That of course includes many British household name companies.
I was the governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy for nine years. It was a privilege each summer to get to know Africa and its vast potential. To conclude, I hope that the voluntary role of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys will continue. At minimum, it offers a high level of continuity and commitment as we open up new business and investment relationships in the astonishing African continent.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Popat, on initiating this timely debate. It is early days for this Government, but we have been told that they are coming up with a plan for Africa, and that is something we will look out for closely. It was disappointing that we had to cancel the trade and investment summit before the general election was announced. I hope this new Government will reinstate that as soon as is practicable.
I will divide my limited remarks between two things: the politics and the economics of Africa, addressing the issue of how British SMEs and others can take advantage of the African market. We have inevitably had much discussion already about China and Russia. The noble Lord, Lord Popat, is right: Africa is changing, and so are the Chinese in the way they are handling it. They have seen the results of the indebtedness they have created. The tax rises in Kenya, which resulted in riots over the summer, were in large part a response to the £8 billion-worth of Chinese loans that the country is obliged to repay.
President Xi, at his recent summit in Beijing last week, has now pledged £50 billion in new funding for African nations. That is on top of China’s existing £182 billion of loans to the continent. The Chinese are beginning to do Africa differently: they are talking much more about soft power and educational and military exchanges. We should be aware of that.
There is also the Wagner Group. Since Yevgeny Prigozhin died, it has become an arm of the Russian state, and it continues to be a destabilising factor in Libya, where it is propping up Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, and in other countries such as the Central African Republic, Mali, Sudan, Mozambique, Chad and Burkina Faso. Those are the two large powers we are dealing with.
So how should the UK address its relationship with Africa, and how can we push our companies to do trade there? I declare my interest in the register as the deputy chairman of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council. It would be good if the Government could announce who the Commonwealth Minister will be; perhaps they have already, but I have not noticed if so.
We have ramped up our efforts in Africa big time. We now have offices in Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya and Cameroon. There are 21 Commonwealth countries in Africa, with a combined GDP of more than $1 trillion and a combined population of around 650 million people—that is about 40% of Africa’s entire population —so Commonwealth Africa presents a real opportunity and an open market for British businesses. The Commonwealth’s next Secretary-General—some of us are going out to Samoa next month—will be African. There are three African candidates, meaning that the SG will take an increased interest in the continent. What a wonderful opportunity for the UK to get on the front foot.
I highlight one opportunity for British companies in Africa. One of our key supporters in Kenya, under the inspired leadership of James Mwangi, is the Equity Bank. It has come up with an astonishing Africa recovery and resilience plan, which would industrialise the whole of east Africa and other parts. It addresses everything from climate change to education and infrastructure, with plenty of opportunities for British companies to take advantage of it. I would be happy to pledge to make it available to the Government because it is, I think, something that could do amazing things for our British companies.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Popat, on his determination over some time to get this debate, as well as on his support for Africa and his obvious love of it. I personally thank him for his support when I became a trade envoy to Ghana nearly three years ago. His understanding of that role was crucial and his words about how it might be continued by the next Government—that is, the current Government—were important.
Ghana’s position makes it the gateway to west Africa. Having the African Continental Free Trade Area in Accra has made it a hugely important country. Of course, we have a large Ghanaian diaspora in this country. We need to remember that the diasporas of all the Commonwealth countries in this country are an important source of information, which we want in order to ensure that our trade continues.
I just want to highlight one thing. I was in Ghana when it was announced that the Africa investment conference was not going to happen. It was an extreme disappointment; indeed, there was anger among many businesses that had worked hard and were really looking forward to it because it had been so successful. I hope that the Labour Government will continue with it.
I have a question for the Minister. Are there any reasons why, in terms of future trading, we are not considering increasing our interaction and focus on trade with Somaliland? Although it regrettably remains internationally an unrecognised state by African standards, it has a stable political system and an impressive economic performance. It is part of the volatile region surrounding it, clearly, but it has had a functioning democracy since its self-declared independence in 1991, and it has held multiple peace elections. If we are serious about rewarding and supporting democratic governance and the rule of law in Africa through trade partnerships, Somaliland should be able to attract British business and investors—with support from His Majesty’s Government, of course. The UK has historical ties to Somaliland, too, as it was once a British protectorate.
I am concerned—a noble Lord said that many businesses are perhaps slightly concerned about investing in Africa. I make the point that absolutely crucial to everything happening in Africa is the whole question of justice and the rule of law. We cannot ignore that when we are talking about trade and development. As we have seen in so many countries—obviously, I refer to my interest in Zimbabwe—once the rule of law breaks down, it makes such a difference if businesses and individuals cannot rely on the courts and the law to support them as they grow. That really does make a difference in terms of whether they want to invest, and we have seen that in Zimbabwe.
As a country, we have to be more careful when we look at aid. Sometimes there has been too comfortable and cosy a relationship between UK development professionals and the tyrants—perhaps sometimes unknown to them as tyrants—who use British aid and trade as a means for entrenching their kleptocracy. For example, I do not understand why Crossrail International and Transport for London have announced that they are going to work and invest to improve railway connectivity in Zimbabwe and southern Africa.
We have to stop treating Africa in patronising way which sometimes implies that it warrants different rules and standards from the rest of the world. We have to get rid of the colonial guilt which so often leads to continued support for neocorrupt regions and to aid not getting to the needy but being siphoned off by the already rich. We should get away from the idea that Africa depends on our generosity to put our hands ever deeper into our pockets and to continue to do the same old things. Africa is a strong, vibrant region and, with our support, we can see not just our trade and investment to Africa increase but Africa investing in the United Kingdom.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the president of the Institute for Free Trade. I will begin where the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, finished. We need to see Africa as an opportunity rather than an obligation. There is often a perception lag in international affairs. If someone is my sort of age, they will have grown up with images of Africa on the news—always either a civil war or an appeal. On some deep level, we think of children with swollen bellies and flies crawling across them.
Africa’s growth rate this century has outstripped almost every other continent, and the figures that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and my noble friend Lord Popat are all the more extraordinary when we think of the two-way links between this country and that vast and beautiful continent. I cannot be the only person who has experience of wandering around Lagos, bumping into someone and starting to chat, and their saying, “I’m from Peckham”, or, in Accra, “I’m from Stratford”. A lot of people are moving both ways, and that should create exactly the channels for commerce that a wise country exploits.
When I was Accra, I visited the headquarters of the African Continental Free Trade Area, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, referred. It is a small, young organisation and there is an awful lot for it to do, but there was an unequivocal belief in the power of commerce and the dismantling of barriers as an instrument of poverty alleviation and social justice which you do not hear in Washington or Brussels, and certainly not in Beijing. The question is: do we still believe in those things here, in the country of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Cobden and Bright? Do we still believe in these opportunities?
I put this in the form of one specific question, which I have raised before in the Chamber and will put to the Minister. It is the question of Moroccan tomatoes. It may seem trivial, but for precisely that reason it stands for a great deal of our attitudes. To give a bit of context, this country imports 80% of its tomatoes and our single biggest supplier is the Kingdom of Morocco. When we left the European Union, we inherited a tariff and quota regime that had been designed to protect largely Spanish but also, to a degree, Italian, Portuguese and French tomato growers from international competition.
Even from a protectionist point of view, whom do we think we are protecting in this country? Yes, we have a short tomato season; the Isle of Wight used to be in my constituency when I was a Euro MP. It runs roughly from June to September and even then, we still have to import. The Moroccan growing season runs from October to April, so even from the most dunderheaded Trumpy or Corbynite protectionist point of view, whom do we imagine we are protecting from those crimson globes coming from north Africa?
I had this argument many times as a former member of the Board of Trade, and on more than one occasion with my noble friend Lord Benyon when he was the Minister. I admit that we would sometimes prearrange it: I would say, “Do you mind if I ask you about Morocco?” He would say, “Yes, please do, because I want to get it in Hansard. My officials keep telling me that they’re on the point of removing this ridiculous measure. Why are we imposing tariffs and quotas when we had a shortage of tomatoes in this country last year?” So the little play would be acted out: I would say, “Will my noble friend confirm that we are doing this?”, and he would say, “Yes, and I reassure my noble friend that I’ve got the assurance of officials that it will happen”. As of this morning, when I checked, those quotas and tariffs are still in place.
I have a very high regard for the new Business and Trade Minister. I am sure I will say disobliging things about some of his Cabinet colleagues over the next few years but, so far, Jonathan Reynolds has not put a foot wrong in what he has done on the Swiss trade agreement and on the CPTPP, or in what he has said about trade more widely. As a test case, will the Minister please see whether we can repeal this utterly self-defeating measure, not as a favour to our friends in Morocco but as a favour to ourselves that will incidentally also help the great continent of Africa?
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, following that great tour de force, your Lordships can safely go back to sleep again. I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend Lord Popat on and thanking him for securing this important debate and introducing it so comprehensively. No one is more qualified to lead our discussion than him. I record my admiration for his outstanding work in his role as a trade envoy.
I declare my interest as director of a company that works in Africa, particularly in Uganda. I have therefore seen at first hand the respect with which my noble friend is held in the Government in Entebbe. From the President down, it is almost impossible to meet any Minister or anyone of influence in the business community who does not know my noble friend. More than that, he is ferocious at promoting UK businesses to gain access to whomever they need in Uganda, with charm and determination. He is now doing the same thing in Rwanda, where there is a great appetite to do business with UK companies, and he is doing his best to help open up the DRC to UK businesses. I recognise, having worked in the DRC some years ago, both the vast potential, as my noble friend said, and the difficulties of working in that country. Let us all hope that situation continues to improve.
I hope the Minister will be able to clarify the Government’s position on trade envoys, which all noble Lords have mentioned. I believe I am right in saying that the post was invented by the previous Government, and they have been a great success. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the new Government will continue them and that they will not make the mistake of reappointing trade envoys on a party-political basis. Trade envoys are not political, and we want the best man or woman for the job, regardless of political affiliation.
Some 70% of the population of Africa is below 25 years of age, so it is a growing market. In just 40 years, it will become home to more people than India and China combined. Some 24 countries in Africa are anglophone, and around 16 have common law legal systems. Having run a business in China for 10 years, I cannot emphasise enough to your Lordships how important this is. In China, where the courts do not really work—and, if they do, no European company can access them—legal agreements are simply not enforceable and are, frankly, not worth the paper they are written on. In African countries, where the law is loosely based on English law, it is a different matter. A lawyer in Kampala can speak on the telephone to a lawyer here in the UK to discuss the detail of a legal agreement, speaking not only in English but in the same legal language. For UK businesses, the advantages of language and legal systems are significant, and we should do all we can to advertise them because this is not widely recognised.
Although we are always told that we should hang our heads in shame as a former colonial power, my experience is that British business is welcome and encouraged throughout Africa. It is almost impossible to know which opportunities are best. Infrastructure is one, of course: across Africa, they need roads, hospitals, schools and houses. Financial services have huge potential and there is much need for UK banks and insurance. There is a growing market for virtually every sort of retail product noble Lords could imagine—and, of course, sport. The UK Premier League has more fans in Africa than in the UK.
I am delighted to say that the various embassies and high commissions throughout Africa have, as my noble friend Lord Risby said, become much more commercially focused and give first class advice to people trying to enter those markets. That is not well known in the UK, and the Government would do well to make more of this, both marketing it—telling people about it—and encouraging it. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will repeat the Africa investment summit, which virtually every noble Lord mentioned? It was such a success, and everybody regrets so much the one that was cancelled.
In closing, I make a final, slightly more controversial, point. The previous Government supported the trophy hunting Bill, which was in both parties’ manifestos at the election. I realise that our elected colleagues lose all sense of reason when animal issues come up, but Governments need to be a bit more adult. The ban on trophy hunting is, apart from anything else, a measure restricting trade from six of the most important southern African countries. It makes no economic difference to us but it implies criticism of friends and allies in Africa of the sort that the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned: people who have taken deep offence at the high-handed way in which colleagues here in the UK have addressed this matter in both Houses. Poor behaviour like this has caused and is causing a serious rift between people and Governments who are friends and with whom we should be developing stronger commercial links, not insulting them in a way that borders on racist. I hope that the Minister will take that back to colleagues.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Popat, for securing this debate. I was the trade envoy to Angola and Zambia from 2016 to 2020 and worked alongside him; he was extremely helpful to me. Like others, I emphasise that the trade envoy system is very worth while. Can the Minister confirm—he is nodding—that it will continue, as the noble Lord, Lord Popat, the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, and others asked?
I note that it was the colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, who came up with the idea of trade envoys, using his business acumen to see where the gaps were; it has certainly paid off. Many important trading partners rarely get ministerial visits, so trade envoys help to give consistency and continuity. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Popat, about the work that he did. As a former trade envoy to Angola, I can say that we brought the first UK Export Finance support to the third-largest economy in Africa, in hydro, agriculture and health.
We have heard how we in the United Kingdom have gone backwards in relation to Africa. African GDP has grown by more than 20% in the past decade but UK exports to Africa have halved during this period. We were seen as a route into the EU, of course, but that has now gone. China is way ahead of us. The noble Lord, Lord Swire, is absolutely right about the changes in attitude and relationship from China—as was the case in Latin America, where the Chinese found that they did not have social buy-in if they continued with some of the practices that we then saw in Africa.
The Middle Eastern countries—Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar in particular—are engaging with their sovereign wealth funds. The US and the EU, the world’s largest economy and the world’s largest economic bloc, are there. In 2020, the UK held an Africa trade summit; it was not as well attended as similar ones in the EU, although it was successful. There was due to be a summit this year but that has been postponed indefinitely. We were told that this is because there were too many elections this year, although that was known when the date was chosen, and because it clashed with other events; that was also known.
We have a new Government so, potentially, a reset. Again, the Minister appears to be nodding in relation to another summit. As we have heard, the opportunities in Africa, with its growing middle class, are vast. By 2050, this is where one-quarter of the world’s population is likely to be—young people. We should have certain advantages: the English language; our legal system, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned; the City of London; UK Export Finance; and our universities. It is vital that we attract students here and build future relationships.
There is huge potential in Africa for renewables and for countries to leapfrog the West, as happened with mobile money. As others have mentioned, the critical minerals that we need for new industries are there in abundance. We must become more resilient and less reliant on China for those. We need a far-strengthened trade team to look after this matter in Africa; I declare my interest here as a board member of Pensana, which is developing a rare earth mine.
I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, as the new Africa Minister, chose to make his first visit in his official capacity to Angola. The US and the EU are involved in the development of the Lobito corridor, a rail link between the DRC, Zambia and Angola and out to the west of Africa and the coast of Angola. We need to be there too.
There is much potential in Africa in the digital economy, as mobile banking has made clear. Health monitoring and treatment and insurance, as well as other financial products, are developing fast. Can I therefore urge the Government, as they develop their overall industrial strategy, to see the opportunities in Africa? This needs to be more than warm words or relying on long-distant past relationships. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Like everybody else, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Popat, on instigating this debate. We have had a pantheon of speakers of phenomenal quality. Many of them seem to be trade envoys hoping to keep their jobs under the new Government but the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was absolutely right: this is an essential programme that I, as Investment Minister, found incredibly useful and powerful. I recommend it and would like to hear from the Minister his comments on the continuation of that essential process, which allows senior parliamentarians from all parties to connect with key countries that otherwise do not get the attention they deserve.
In my view, coming from the last two years in what is now the Department for Business and Trade, Africa—both sub-Saharan Africa and the northern part of that great continent—is playing such a major role in the future of this nation as a trading and economic partner. The potential is phenomenal. If we combine that with the historic and cultural ties, which are so significant, we are one of the largest investors in Africa. I think that, on a corporate basis, we remain the largest—although, as we have heard from all noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Hannan and Lord Popat, there is a continuing decline of our fundamental export and import trade. This is not just a “nice to have” and a new market; frankly, it is vital if we are to expand our economy. What is so frustrating is that the opportunities are so ripe; they are there for us to take advantage of them.
The first thing I draw attention to is the decline in actual activity. In my view, that can be attributed to the lack of government presence in Africa; the noble Lord, Lord Risby, mentioned the extraordinary paucity of our activity. We have fewer consulates across Africa compared to most of our competitors: China has 65 diplomatic missions while France has 68, but we have only 38 diplomatic missions. I do not know whether any noble Lords have recently read Rory Stewart’s memoir, where he laments exactly this—the sheer lack of people on the ground in terms of hard power and, most importantly, soft power.
I mean my questions for the Minister in the nicest possible way and not to be confrontational. I can see some of my former officials and colleagues sitting behind him; I am sure that they would agree with me. What plans do this Government have to increase our on-the-ground presence, especially in relation to Department for Business and Trade staff in Africa? These are complex and fragmented markets. The opportunities are there and other countries are stealing a mark on us.
The other point I turn to concerns our inherited advantages. We have talked about our history. For me, the history is very positive when it comes to doing trade—not just in terms of trade but in sport, as we have heard from many of my noble friends today. Some 130 million Africans speak English, with 21 countries having English as their official language and 19 being members of the Commonwealth. I pay tribute here to the noble Lord, Lord Swire, and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Marland—sadly, he is not in his usual place—regarding the importance of promoting the Commonwealth in principle in Africa.
Given this, what are we doing to encourage the promulgation of the Commonwealth? What are we doing to encourage countries such as Morocco, which, apart from being able to provide us with delicious tomatoes at tariff-free rates, will also at some point in the near future—if we can get this to work—possibly provide 4.5% to 5% of our electricity through the extraordinary projects that we are working on, with solar power being delivered to the UK? These countries want to join the Commonwealth. They want to leave other spheres of influence and join ours, so what are the Government doing to encourage that? Can the Minister continue to commit to funding for our Commonwealth organisations, which are so important?
My next point, which is to do with strategic issues relating to other countries’ activities in a more forward-footed way, follows on from that. I say this with no great prejudice but, as I understand it, China has built more than 100 ports, 100,000 kilometres of roads and 10,000 kilometres of railways. Frankly, how many ports, miles of railway and miles of road has Britain built or instigated in that great continent? Why are we standing by idle when others are moving so fast? Again, this is not just a “nice to have” or simply about helping our exporters; there are geostrategic imperatives here that I would impress upon the Government.
I come to my conclusion. We had a very successful UK-Africa summit, with 27 deals worth billions of pounds. It was extremely frustrating for me and, I know, for many of my colleagues in the department when the Africa summit was cancelled this year. I am certainly sorry about that, but that does not mean that this idea should not be taken up by this new Government. I would like to hear from the Minister what plans they have for a renewed push in Africa, renewed funding when it comes to the Department for Business and Trade, an extra additional effort and funding when it comes to promulgating our Commonwealth country brethren, and ensuring that we put in place, as rapidly as possible, plans for an African investment summit.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question for short debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Popat, on securing it. I take this opportunity to thank each and every noble Lord who spoke in the debate.
I express my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Popat, for introducing this debate. As everyone has mentioned, he was such an enthusiastic and engaged Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Uganda, Rwanda, and the DRC. I also thank all the other former trade envoys, including the noble Lord, Lord Risby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hoey and Lady Northover, for all the work they have done.
I will address the whole issue of trade envoys. We are considering how a reshaped trade envoy programme could align with the department’s priorities. Decisions will be taken. We need to look at what worked, what did not work so well and what can be improved on. We will take our time and I hope that an announcement will be made in due course.
I will also address the issue of China and Russia before I carry on. I have 12 minutes, so I will try to cover as many questions as possible. If I cannot, I promise I will write to every noble Lord who has asked questions. Yes, we all know that China, Russia and Iran—perhaps also India and the UAE—are advancing and investing in Africa. Africa is a competitive region. All nations want a piece of the cake that is Africa, and we know that China is probably one of the largest investors, but I believe that UK companies have a distinct competitive advantage. Many noble Lords have spoken about a common language and the rule of law. We have things that China does not have. We need to build on that and promote it. UK mining firms are doing very well in Africa in critical minerals and the department is supporting them. So yes, we acknowledge that China, Russia, India and the UAE are there, but we also have to promote British firms in Africa.
The formation of this new Government presents a real opportunity for us to reset and repair our relationship with the global South. In that context, it is my pleasure to speak about our work in Africa. As noble Lords will know, within five weeks of taking up his post my noble friend Lord Collins, the Minister for Africa, visited Rwanda, Angola and the DRC. He has seen what is working there. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s single mission is economic growth, so we are aware of the challenges ahead of us and will consider Africa as an important market as part of our strategy.
Many noble Lords mentioned the fact that Africa’s natural resources are unparalleled, with 30% of the world’s minerals, including vital transition minerals, 60% of the world’s unused arable land and 13 million square kilometres of maritime economic zones. These are potential opportunities for British companies and we will not forget that. But more important than that are the people. There are 1.5 million people from the African diaspora in the United Kingdom and 2 million to 2.5 million UK citizens in Africa. We should use the people-to-people exchanges and develop this strength.
Many noble Lords have mentioned our links with the Commonwealth. Yes, we have to build on that link. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Swire, for his work with the Commonwealth Business Council. There are many areas where we can work with that organisation in this respect.
Many noble Lords mentioned that, by 2050, Africa’s population will have reached 2.5 billion people—that is a quarter of the entire planet; it is more than China and India—with a very young average population age of 24. So, against the backdrop of an ageing worldwide population, the youth of Africa will become increasingly important for global prosperity. We should not forget that.
British companies are already making significant investments in Africa. The UK is the third-largest investor by investment stock in Africa, ahead of China, with investment worth £45 billion on the continent. Our exports to Africa have declined in previous years, as noble Lords have mentioned, but, in the past year or so, they have grown by 1.7%, with the current price at something like £22 billion. Let us build on that. The past is the past.
We recognise the potential of FDI businesses’ investment into the UK from African companies. We are keen to partner with these firms and seek growth opportunities in the UK and Africa.
We have talked about various preferential terms. I think that the UK has one of the most generous preferential trade policies with Africa of any country. We provide preferential trade access to more than 50 countries in Africa through our world-leading developing countries trading scheme, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Risby. We will monitor how that scheme is working.
I turn to our development focus on the economic partnership agreements that we have in sub-Saharan Africa and our various association agreements in north Africa. Through our bilateral trade agreements, we are removing barriers for UK and African business. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, we want to import not only tomatoes but okra and eggplants—and let us not forget watermelon. I am a fan of hot peppers; I want more hot peppers. Our agriculture review with Morocco was started under the last Government and we want to look at it and see how we can take it forward; it is a continuing work in progress. Yes, we would like to see more of this coming into the country.
Every speaker mentioned the African summit. Sadly, we had to postpone it, because of the election and some clashes in the international calendar, but the UK is committed to deepening connections with African countries, listening to all of our African partners and putting trade and growth at the heart of our partnerships. We will work closely with South Africa next year under its G20 presidency; we will make further announcements on that in due course.
The UK strongly supports the African Continental Free Trade Area agreement. We were proud to be the first non-African country to sign an MoU with the AfCFTA secretariat in September 2021. There is an intention to work more in that region. Our ambition now is to build on the momentum.
The department has a network of sector and country experts in 18 countries, supported by trade policy and market access specialists. They work together with our FCDO missions. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, mentioned developing our diplomatic missions and so on. Yes, these will form part of our strategy. The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, mentioned Somaliland. We are going to continue to keep it under review and look, across all of Africa, to develop trade projects where there are major buyers.
I know that I am running out of time, so I shall quickly conclude and perhaps answer some of noble Lords’ questions.
We are seeking to further growth here at home by facilitating trade contacts between African buyers and UK firms spanning our financial and professional services, agriculture, and renewable energy and mining, and at the same time to support UK business investment in critical mineral projects.
We are throwing our full support behind projects that translate into better infrastructure, education and healthcare. An example in healthcare is our work with the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority, where we have funded technical assistance to clear a backlog in registering new medicines and medical devices. The result is more medicines reaching providers in South Africa and, one hopes, the continent and a £62 million export win for a UK company. That is a really good story to tell.
Since 2020, UK Export Finance has provided more than £5.5 billion of support for UK exporters, comprising guarantees, loans and insurance. Just last year, UKEF closed its largest sovereign transaction with sub-Saharan Africa, arranging finance through a guarantee on a loan of €415 million to deliver critical infrastructure in Benguela province in Angola to protect the region against future flooding.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned international development and foreign debt. I have a note somewhere on debt relief, so I shall write to him.
What I mentioned earlier is not exhaustive, but it shows the breadth and depth of work being undertaken to drive up trade between the UK and Africa—work that has been accelerated as part of this Government’s mission to go for growth at every opportunity. We look forward to working further with every single noble Lord as we make this vision a reality.
The Clock has started flashing. If I have not answered any questions from noble Lords, I shall endeavour to write to each and every one of them.
To return to debt relief, this will form part of the Government’s thinking as we develop our plan for Africa.
Wild Atlantic Salmon
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect wild Atlantic salmon populations.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to talk about the future of this wonderful fish, the Atlantic salmon. I declare some interests: my family have a week timeshare on the Tay and, as Secretary of State, I set up a task force to look at the future of the salmon, under Lord Nickson, who produced an excellent report, most of the recommendations of which have yet to be implemented more than 25 years later.
I have fished for salmon in both the United Kingdom and Iceland for some 27 years and, during that period, there has been what can only be described as a catastrophic decline in the numbers of salmon. Indeed, the United Nations has now decided that the Atlantic salmon is an endangered species, putting it in the same category as mountain gorillas, rhinos and lots of other animals. I suggest that, if people realised how threatened it is, this would be a much bigger issue of public debate. It is just unanswerable that urgent intervention is now required to save this fish.
What does that mean? Personally, I think it means that no wild fish should ever be killed. It means that we have to tackle the predators of salmon: the fish-eating birds and the seals. When I was Secretary of State, the Canadians had an interesting programme where they fired contraceptive darts to reduce the population, which also helps the seal population if it becomes excessive, which it is.
The most important thing is that we need cold, clean water. I very much welcome the Minister’s efforts to ensure that the water companies and their directors could find themselves in jail for continuing to pollute our rivers in the way they do. It is essential that the habitat is as clean as possible: although this is a strong fish, it is very sensitive.
We also need to think carefully about the sensitive use of hatcheries. We need to work out what we are doing here. Are we interested in creating ranching for people to catch fish, or are we interested in having conservation of this important animal? I believe the emphasis should be on the latter, not the former.
We need to understand more carefully what is going on at sea. Why do the return rates continue to fall? We need to have action on identifying those rates and what can be done about this.
The most important thing is tackling salmon farming, getting it out of open cages in the sea and on to the land—some people are already beginning to experiment with that. I remember my great friend, the late Orri Vigfússon, who did so much to save the salmon, talking to me about these possibilities more than a decade ago. We need to get on with that. I do not normally promote books, but I recommend The New Fish—noble Lords can find it on Amazon. I promise that, if they read that book, which details what is going on with salmon farming, they will never eat farmed salmon again.
This is a story of chemicals being poured on fish in order to deal with their lice, of the excessive use of antibiotics, of stock losses of as much as a quarter, and of fish being eaten alive. They market this product as Scottish salmon, but it is no more Scottish than anything else. It is actually a Norwegian salmon that has been created by genetic engineering to grow quickly in order to meet the needs of production. As such, if it escapes into the wild, it does huge damage to salmon populations. Recently in Iceland there was an escape from a salmon farm, and 1% of the population turned up to protest at the Icelandic parliament because of the damaging effects. Frogmen were employed in the rivers more than 100 kilometres away from the escape point in order to spearhead the salmon before they bred with the domestic salmon—the unique river salmon —with huge and damaging consequences.
The fact is that the previous Government, whom I blame for this, did so little to engage with the devolved Administrations to make sure that we regulate this industry, which is a filthy, polluting activity that is doing enormous damage, and not just to salmon. We find lobsters and crabs with their shells half eaten away because of the consequences of the chemicals used to cope with the lice on the salmon.
There is not much time, and I want to leave time for others, but my message is this: the salmon is in danger of disappearing altogether. I do not want my grandchildren to be unable to fish for salmon or see a leaping salmon in Scotland. It is iconic—an important creature that has been in Scotland since the ice age and in southern rivers such as the Test and the Itchen since before the age ice, for millions of years. These fish are important, and it is high time that people looked at what is going on under the water and took some action to rescue this great and wonderful creature.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, for introducing this popular debate. I declare my interest as owning a property with my sister in Dumfries and Galloway in south-west Scotland. My sister is a keen fisher, and my interest is in seeing a healthy population of wild salmon in the upper Cree tributary, which, along with the Annan, Nith, Bladnoch and Luce, flows ultimately into the Solway Firth.
My contribution today is informed by many years of support from and conversations with Mr Jamie Ribbens, senior fisheries biologist at the Galloway Fisheries Trust, a charity set up to monitor environmental conditions and encourage good practice to restore river health. I also have regular conversations with Forestry and Land Scotland’s environment office at Newton Stewart.
These five river systems still support Atlantic salmon and brown trout, unlike most areas of south-west Scotland. Of the 11 upland lochs studied, six are now fishless. Most of the tributaries are designated as special areas of conservation—SAC—and come under the jurisdiction of SEPA, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency.
Peatlands are common within many of the acidified areas in Galloway, and their importance cannot be overemphasised for carbon storage, given the urgency of combating climate change. They also carry out several other ecological services, including water purification, improved climate resilience, flood control and acting as unique habitats for flora and fauna. The degradation of many peat bogs has occurred from large-scale commercial planting of Sitka spruce, with resultant drainage. It is important that new planting schemes are not allowed in deep peat—they still are—with commensurate drainage. Impacted areas need to have a faster rollout of riparian trees, using hardwoods to produce sufficient shade, and to have peatlands restored to help water quality. The Riverwoods initiative needs greater uptake.
Climate change impacts are the major threat to salmon. High water temperatures are already a problem and will only get worse. Oh dear, I had not realised the time—I had better skip straight to a conclusion.
While this specific area and context are subject to the Scottish Government, I imagine that the problems will be more widespread. I ask my noble friend the Minister to challenge and encourage SEPA, Forestry and Land Scotland, and the Scottish Government to do more to restore peatlands, especially where they are so important for water quality, natural flood management and water flows. Healthy peatlands are vital for healthy salmon.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, in the debate instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, some 21 years ago, I drew attention to the hatchery at Dinnet on the Scottish Dee. Its fry and parr were planted out in the middle and upper tributaries. Three years after that debate, the hatchery closed down because there had been no discernible improvement in adult fish returning to the Dee after their cycle at sea. In 2022, the River Dee stocking review concluded that, when released into the natural environment, hatchery-reared salmon survived and reproduced so poorly that it was better for the captured broodstock to breed naturally. It is a question of genetics.
Recently on the Dee, a 20-year programme, Save the Spring, was launched with a budget of £20 million to restore the upper river catchment—the heartland of its spring salmon. It is a two-pronged strategy for both habitat and fish repopulation. The ambition is for 1 million native trees, half of which have now been planted. If you travel down Glen Clunie, near Braemar, you will see the bogs and woodland being restored to reduce water temperatures; to control the flow; to provide salmon with shelter and protection from predation; and to diversify the in-stream habitat and invertebrate food. Work will soon begin on other feeder burns.
The second prong brings fish to the restored river. Wild smolts are to be captured and grown to adulthood and reproductive maturity in a marine environment at Stirling University. Kelts will be captured and reconditioned, and both will be returned to spawn on their genetic redds. In the 45 years that I have fished the Dee, salmon stocks have reduced by 80%. Save the Spring gives great hope for posterity. Will the Minister support that project and extend its principle to other salmon rivers in the United Kingdom?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
My Lords, I start by putting on record my congratulations to the Minister on her appointment. I wish her all the best in navigating her way through an interesting, diverse and sometimes thorny portfolio. I declare my interests, as set out in the register, as the owner of two salmon rivers in Scotland and as a past chairman of the Atlantic Salmon Trust.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for raising this important issue. It is regrettable that we have so little time, both individually and collectively, to explore it. To add a little context to this debate, I will offer a few statistics to help noble Lords visualise the extent of the demise of wild Atlantic salmon. In 1800, the population of wild Atlantic salmon was estimated at 100 million. By 1950, this number had dropped to approximately 10 million—a reduction of 90%. Today, the population sits at around 2.5 million, so, in statistical terms, we have lost 97.5% of the population in a little over 200 years. For a species that has been swimming in our rivers and oceans for more than 6 million years, that is a truly terrible result. They are now classified as endangered, and it would not be an exaggeration to say that they are on the brink of extinction.
Depressingly, the cause of this disaster is almost entirely man-made. There are, however, many ways in which the fortunes of this incredible pioneer, traveller and survivor could be reversed. Today, we will hear from many noble Lords about some of the key ways to improve salmon numbers. Essentially, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned, there are only two things that salmon need: cold water and clean water. I totally endorse my noble friend’s comments on salmon farming. I encourage all Members of this House to refrain from eating the smoked salmon on the menus here and instead to look at smoked trout, which is a much healthier and kinder alternative to smoked salmon.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made the case. I have six questions. Can I have a detailed response to each, following departmental consideration?
First, on global warming and its effect on fish stocks, will the UK meet the legal target of slashing CO2 emissions by 2035 and support the work of the Missing Salmon Alliance?
On young salmon survival following drought, flooding and deprivation, will new agricultural schemes include options for targeting river protection and streams to help fish and biodiversity?
On habitat, fish need cover and stable gravel for eggs, and the protection of habitat with cover helps water management. The Environment Agency, Natural England and the Rivers Trust are doing their best but need better support. Can they be funded for greater habitat protection?
On predation, over the years we have witnessed a massive decline in the salmon population, much of it due to predation. Artificial barriers and weirs all obstruct migration, with salmon facing extinction. How about a review of the law that overly protects piscine predators?
River pollution is gravely damaging salmon populations through sewage and run-off. Nutrient enrichment, watercourses and ecosystems in general need incentivised investment strategies. Can the Government help in that area?
Finally, I caught my first salmon some 68 years ago on the Derwent, which was once England’s best salmon river. There is a problem at the Yearl weir, at Workington. It is causing massive losses of juvenile salmon that are migrating and of returning adults. Can it be removed urgently? It is killing the river.
I need to apologise to those outside who hoped for a longer contribution from me. The debate has proved immensely popular. That is the reason for the time constraints.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth on securing this debate. I declare an interest: I caught my first salmon on the River Lochy, in 1971, and have been fortunate enough to fish rivers across the British Isles since then.
There is overwhelming evidence of the damage that has been done by fish farms. If one looks at the contrast between east and west Scottish rivers, one finds that the west ones have suffered much more. Norway is a compelling case as well. The clincher for me is the River Lochy. About 15 years ago, the farms in Loch Linnhe were fallowed for a year. The following season, the grilse catch went up by four times. I find that evidence pretty compelling. Action is needed, and I support the noble Lord 100% on that.
On seals, is it not interesting that, when there were substantial commercial netting stations on most of the big rivers and along the east and north coasts of Scotland, the commercial fishermen were allowed to cull seals on a selective basis? They did it very effectively. I suggest that, when seals come up-river—there is evidence that they come up-river and do a lot of damage to stocks in rivers, way upstream from the tidal reaches—the river managers and bailiffs should be able to get a licence to kill them.
Those two areas are within our control. I urge the Minister to take further action; I know she is committed to this incredibly important conservation subject. Something that is not so much in our control is netting on the high seas. I suggest to the Minister that there is a huge amount of informal, anecdotal evidence that a great deal of interceptory netting is taking place by international vessels on the high seas. We need more evidence to drill down and find out what is happening. There should then be an international task force, made up of the north Atlantic salmon countries, to try to grip this issue. I hope the Minister will take note and take action.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the River Wye is dying. High levels of phosphates led to an algal bloom over 140 miles of the river in 2020. Chicken farms along the River Wye—the poultry capital of the UK, which houses 20 million chickens at any time—contribute to eutrophication, algal blooms and the suffocation of Atlantic salmon. The total salmon caught in the Wye numbered some 1,200 in 2017. This year’s salmon fishing season is shaping up to be an absolute disaster, with numbers predicted to be closer to 100 in the whole river.
Intensive farming and sewage pollution have caused these algal blooms, which deprive aquatic wildlife of oxygen. I call on the Government to take immediate action by banning construction of new intensive livestock production units in the Wye catchment; introducing and funding manure management plans, so that chicken litter produced by these intensive poultry units can be processed and removed from the Wye catchment, where a significant phosphate surplus exists within the region’s soils; providing additional funding, either by grant aid, increased licence fees or other “polluter pays” sources of revenue; conducting inspections of all intensive poultry units to ensure that they adhere to the provisions set out in their plans; and protecting all watercourses within the Wye catchment by appropriate river buffers, to provide a nature-based separation zone between all agricultural activities and running water.
This April, the Government’s response was a start but it did not go far enough to restore the river to its full health or sufficiently amend the damage done to the Atlantic salmon population and aquatic life in general—no wonder the Green Party won Sir Bill Wiggin’s North Herefordshire seat in this year’s general election. The public are increasingly voting for action and change in the Wye valley. The Government need to take note and act sustainably, in the interests of the well-being of the people and the aquatic ecosystems in that stunning countryside. I say to the Government: please provide the River Wye with a life-support system now.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I start by reminding the Committee of my interests as chairman of the Fleet District Salmon Fishery Board and director and trustee of the Galloway Fisheries Trust. On that note, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his kind reference to the excellent work carried out by our rather brilliant team in Dumfries and Galloway. I also own a stretch of the Water of Fleet, and am a keen fisherman.
We have heard many reasons for the decline in salmon numbers. I will add to that its close cousin, the rather undervalued sea trout. In just two minutes, I am going to touch on just one of those reasons, which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has already alluded to. It has been a particular issue in the rivers of south-west Scotland but could become a problem for other rivers if the lessons are not learned. I am talking about the impact of large-scale conifer plantation.
The catchments of many of the rivers of Galloway were planted with extensive areas of Sitka spruce in the 1960s and 1970s, which has caused the acidification of the rivers and lochs, and especially the burns in which the fish spawn. The impact has been dramatic. In the 1960s, the annual sea trout catch on the Water of Fleet was almost 1,200 fish; now, in a good year, it might be 35. Salmon numbers were over 80 a year; I am now lucky if I catch one or two.
The good news is that the damage seems to be reversible. If the trees are removed, together, importantly, with work to restore the underlying peat, acidity does reduce. After a lot of work by various agencies, we are beginning at last to see trout return to some burns and breeding, and finding salmon fry in places where they were previously not able to survive.
My plea to the Government is to consider very carefully before promoting large-scale conifer plantations, especially on peatland, and to ensure that when trees previously planted in the wrong places are felled, they are not replanted and that regeneration is then controlled. Trees are good, but only when they are the right trees in the right places.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, the statistics given by my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller are horrifying. We are now at the point where every fish needs protection. There are a number of issues here and I want to focus on just one, which is by-catch.
Regrettably, this iconic fish is currently not listed on the ICES working group on by-catch of protected species road map. We know that some salmon are caught in commercial fisheries and that there is risk of potential significant damage, but because of the lack of by-catch monitoring for salmon, it is difficult to quantify the actual damage being done and how significant it is. However, it is known that most by-catch comes from pelagic and gill-net fisheries. Sadly, to date there been no attempt to quantify the by-catch of wild salmon by these fisheries.
This Government, working with the devolved Administrations, must push as a matter of urgency the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization, ICES and the regional fisheries management organisations, first, to access fishing effort data from pelagic fisheries and gill nets provided at fine temporal and spatial scales; secondly, to increase monitoring at sea and onshore, with specific requirements for minimum data collection; and, thirdly, to recognise the importance of different species. These can be difficult to identify, especially when a specimen may be a small, immature salmon crushed in among hundreds of tonnes of a target species. To address this, environmental DNA data collection should be mandatory to improve the detection of salmon in by-catch and expand our understanding of their migratory pathways.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that one of my children owns a stretch of a small salmon river in south-west Scotland, where I have fished all my life.
In the very short time available, I want simply to suggest to the Minister that, in informing herself about this dangerous situation with the Atlantic salmon, she might care to visit, or at least find out about, an organic salmon farm in Ireland which I visited this summer. It is extraordinary. Anybody who watched the “Panorama” programme on salmon farming a few years ago will never again eat any farmed Scottish salmon. However, that organic farm in Ireland is truly admirable. It does not have a lice problem. The salmon are not so packed in the cages as in Scotland, where they are like battery chickens. There is virtually no use of antibiotics or other chemicals. The seabed under the cages is regularly inspected and never resembles the state of the seabed under the salmon farms on the west coast of Scotland.
So there is an alternative to the sort of salmon farming which takes place on the west coast. I do not know whether the Minister can apply any influence over the Scottish Government, but the industry should be more regulated. At the very least, the use of antibiotics in it should be strictly controlled.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Salmon and Trout Association and the GWCT, and I am in my 50th year of fishing on the River Deveron.
In around 1580, salmon was so prolific on English rivers that apprentices’ indentures on my family’s estate specified that they should be fed salmon on only five days a week. Where on earth have we got to from there?
I shall make just a couple of points. First, the demise of the sand-eel population is nothing short of drastic and affects both salmon and sea trout and a wide range of seabirds, in particular the puffin. What is being done and what is the Government’s policy to protect sand-eel populations? Will they do everything they can to enhance sand-eel stocks and not use them as a bargaining chip in their undoubted efforts to curry favour with the EU?
Secondly, the issue of gill nets in estuaries is of major importance. The buying out of commercial netting has had a considerable beneficial effect on a number of rivers. Salmon and sea trout often swim at a lower depth than the three metres mentioned with regard to gill nets. This should be taken into account when dealing with gill nets.
What is the Government’s policy towards the control of seals, which predate heavily on salmon and sea trout in both coastal waters and estuaries?
Finally—this is the quickest speech I have ever made in my life—is the Minister aware of the excellent research carried out over the past 50 years on the River Frome by the GWCT?
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean on bringing this much-needed debate. I declare my interests as a member of the Endsleigh Fishing Club, which is the largest riparian owner of the River Tamar, and that my brothers-in-law are owners of stretches of the Rivers Laggan and Sorn in Islay.
Governments of all colours have not done enough to protect this wonderful species, which has in the past graced our rivers in abundance. Others have spoken of the damage caused by the open cage fish farming industry, which clearly needs much stricter regulation and must be required to adhere to much higher standards. This has particularly affected salmon runs in Scotland, but salmon runs in English rivers have completely collapsed too. There are, as far as I know, no salmon farms in England, so there are other causes of the steep decline in the salmon population. For example, seven salmon have been caught to date on the Tamar this year. That compares with 146 in 2010.
There has also been an explosion in the populations of seals, beavers and predatory seabirds, especially cormorants. It is ridiculous that river-keepers are given licences to shoot only two or three birds, when they should be allowed to shoot as many as they can.
A major cause of the decline of salmon in many rivers is the very large by-catch of salmon and sea trout taken by the burgeoning inshore fisheries. This is a huge problem on the River Tamar and other south-western rivers.
In 2007, my fellow directors of the Endsleigh Fishing Club on the Tamar, aware of the successful reintroduction of salmon to the north Tyne, hired Peter Gray, the legendary former manager of the Kielder hatchery, to reopen the Endsleigh hatchery. Unfortunately, the Environment Agency was determined to ensure that the experiment would fail by adopting a very unco-operative approach, preventing Mr Gray using the same methods that it had permitted at Kielder. The money we had invested in reopening the hatchery was wasted. Can the Minister tell us whether the EA still maintains the ambivalent attitude to hatcheries that it did in those days?
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, for 40 years I represented in the Commons a constituency which had almost every kind of salmon fishing: the net and coble fishery in the Tweed, a regulated drift-net fishery at sea, T-net fisheries off the Coquet, a fixed-engine fishery and, of course, the highly prized rod fishery in the Tweed and the Till, which brings much income to the hospitality and retail trades. Everybody participating in each of these fisheries thought that if all the others were abolished, there would not be a problem any more with runs of salmon, so a great deal of effort and quite a bit of private sector money have been invested in buyouts to end the rod-catch fishery, which itself is largely catch and return these days.
However, that has not solved the problems, which means that Ministers must address many of the issues which have been raised in the course of this debate. These include the malign effects of the salmon farming industry; the effect of predators, especially seals; the loss of spawning habitats, or the quality of habitats; river water quality more generally; and changing sea conditions, including sea temperature, which brings us to the big issue of global warming.
I do not believe, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated, that we should put an end to killing of any wild salmon. Wild salmon is a delicacy. The way to conserve salmon does not require the complete abolition of all forms of regulated harvesting, but unless we attend to the issues that I and other noble Lords have referred to there will not be enough salmon to justify continuing that activity.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interest as set out in the register of owning fishing rights on six salmon rivers in the UK. We should all be embarrassed that the IUCN has classified the wild Atlantic salmon as endangered in the UK, and the causes are manmade. This is an indicator flashing red about the health of our ecosystem, on land and sea.
I urge the Minister to address the points raised today. In particular, what pressure and action will the Government bring to bear on salmon farms, given these are on Scottish Crown Estate property? What research is being done to understand pelagic fishery by-catch impact and drive protective action? Could salmon be reclassified from fresh water to marine to require proper by-catch recording at sea?
What work is being done to return water to river systems from historic extraction rights, as well as removing manmade obstacles from the beds of rivers, as we have seen SEPA do successfully in Scotland? What would this Government consider appropriate to limit predation on salmon throughout its life cycle?
Can the Minister reassure us that she will investigate ways to accelerate riparian planting? The Atlantic salmon evolved with extensive tree protection on every river, and much of this has been removed. Can we put it back please?
What role can the Atlantic salmon play in defining nature recovery, given its totemic status and ease of measurement? Could the water industry be incentivised to invest more in habitat as part of its catchment management? Finally, will the Government continue to support investment in farms to limit effluent?
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for securing this debate and to all noble Lords who have spoken. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Douglas-Miller for his exceptional leadership of the Atlantic Salmon Trust and for the important work he did as Defra Minister in this House. This debate emphasises that the Government must lead in repairing the damage done to the Atlantic salmon. The breeding cycle and the number of eggs it spawns mean that it is not too late. If this Government are serious about nature recovery, the Atlantic salmon would be only too happy to oblige within a short timeframe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this Question on wild Atlantic salmon. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for raising this important matter, and all noble Lords for their speedy contributions—it is a shame that we did not have longer. As the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, the noble Lord, Lord Douglas-Miller, did a lot to draw attention to this while he was the Minister, and I thank him for his work because not enough attention has been paid to it in the past.
I acknowledge the importance of wild north Atlantic salmon, a protected and iconic species. Young salmon undergo a complex transformation so that they can leave our rivers and migrate thousands of kilometres to feed in cold north Atlantic waters. These salmon spend at least a year in the Atlantic before returning to our rivers to spawn. But, as we have heard, over the last 30 to 40 years there has been a significant and ongoing decline in salmon stocks, not only in UK rivers but across much of the north Atlantic. We have heard some very frightening figures for the rapidity of that decline.
Historically, there has been a strong tradition of commercial and recreational salmon fishing right across the United Kingdom, bringing in tens of millions of pounds annually. Now, there is only limited commercial salmon fishing in Scotland, and recreational salmon fishers operate largely on a catch-and-release basis to protect the remaining stocks, as we have heard.
The pressures facing Atlantic salmon are serious. They are wide ranging and often difficult to manage. As we have heard, they include fishing, climate change, habitat degradation, invasive species, disease and genetic introgression, to name just a few of the challenges facing the industry. Without increased conservation efforts, there is a real risk that we will see our remaining wild salmon stocks drop further—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was clear on this in his introduction. As other noble Lords have said, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red-list criteria, Atlantic salmon are now endangered in Great Britain and near threatened globally.
Due to the Atlantic salmon’s huge geographic range, it is vital that we work with international partners to protect this species. The 1984 convention for the conservation of salmon in the north Atlantic put an end to almost all fishing for Atlantic salmon over 12 nautical miles from shore and established the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization—NASCO —of which the UK is a member. Measures agreed by NASCO have resulted in significant further reductions in fishing effort and have driven improvements in salmon management more broadly.
Having said this, stocks are still not recovering, so the Government welcome NASCO’s recently published strategy and action plan, which aims to prioritise and drive actions necessary to slow the decline of wild Atlantic salmon populations and demonstrate that restoration is possible. The target for this is within the next 10 years. NASCO will now focus on increasing our understanding of the pressures on salmon; on developing best practice around the management of salmon habitat, aquaculture, stocking and fisheries management; and on increasing collaboration and accountability for the delivery of salmon protection work.
Our domestic situation and approach echo the international picture. But, before delving into this, I should clarify that, although Defra leads on our international salmon work, domestic salmon policy is a devolved matter where it happens in Scotland, as we have heard. Between 2014 and 2020, commercial salmon netting was banned in Northern Ireland, Wales and England, and, in 2016, a prohibition on retaining any salmon caught in coastal waters was introduced in Scotland.
Recreational catch and release rates are between 89% and 96% across the UK. This has been achieved through a combination of voluntary and mandatory measures. Despite this, most recent stock assessments continue to show a downward trend, with the majority of the UK’s salmon rivers having unsustainably low salmon populations.
I am fortunate to live alongside a river myself. The River Marron is a salmonid river, so I have personally seen what is happening and am aware of the stark reality of the situation. However, there are ways we can improve things and there is some hope. For example, a few years ago on our land, a weir was removed from our river to aid the passage of salmon. There are other examples where removing barriers to free up the passage of Atlantic salmon has assisted an increase in salmon numbers, such as on the Derbyshire Derwent, Yorkshire Don, River Calder, River Dee and River Tweed, but clearly, we need to do more. We need to build on this to restore stocks on more salmon rivers. It is too early to confirm specific actions in England, but we have committed to clean up Britain’s rivers and to speed up nature’s recovery. I want to ensure that salmon and other migratory fish see the greatest possible benefit from these commitments.
I will now address some of the specific points raised by noble Lords today. Farmed fish and their welfare was clearly central to the debate, and we want to see the highest standards of animal welfare. Of course, the welfare of farmed animals in Scotland is a devolved matter for the Scottish Government to address, but I consider this to be a matter that we also need to take seriously as a Government. I will be writing to Mairi Gougeon to ask her to set out clearly what protections are in place, the levels of mortality, sea lice and antibiotic use, as well as the number of escapees—how many salmon are getting out of these farms—so that we have a clearer picture of the situation in Scotland. I am also looking to arrange meetings with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations and will discuss this, among other matters.
My noble friend Lord Grantchester talked about the importance of healthy peatlands. This of course is also devolved in Scotland, but we think that healthy peatlands are incredibly important for restoring nature and improving salmon stocks. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, talked about the Sitka spruce. Again, in Dumfries and Galloway that is a devolved matter, but I think we need to see an end to forestry monoculture. I have discussed this with Forestry England, and I know that is the approach that it is taking.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, talked about moving to more sustainable salmon farming and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, talked about the organic farm that he had seen in Ireland. I am aware that AquaCultured Seafood Limited is seeking to build the UK’s first commercial land-based salmon farm in Grimsby. Land-based salmon farming does not put additional pressure on wild salmon populations in the way that open-net salmon farming does, because the fish are then isolated from that environment. As a Government, we are encouraging sustainable innovation in the salmon farming sector to increase our environmental standards. I would be very happy to look at a visit to an organic salmon farm and I thank him for suggesting that.
Predation was raised by a number of noble Lords: the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth, Lord Thomas and Lord Bellingham. Given the poor status of salmon stocks predation may, under certain conditions, have significant impacts—we are aware of that. It is slightly nuanced, in the sense that the predators are often protected themselves, so we need to be careful about how and when such predators can be managed, but it is something we are very aware of.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned the Save the Spring project. To be honest, I did not know much about it, so if the noble Lord would like to send me some more information about it I would be really interested to take a look. Likewise, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, mentioned the project on the River Frome. My daughter has just moved to Frome, so this is something I should take an interest in.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lords, Lord Bellingham and Lord Roborough, talked about by-catch and netting of salmon. This could well be a contributing factor to declining wild salmon populations, so we are actively working with NASCO to understand this risk better. Following this year’s annual meeting, at the UK’s request and with agreement from other parties, NASCO has submitted a request to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to include salmon on its by-catch monitoring list in order to help us better understand the scale of the issue and inform any mitigations.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. It is not just by-catch that is of concern but international vessels that are fishing using sonar deliberately and specifically for salmon. They may be wiping out whole shoals of fish at one time.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. I thank him for reminding me of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, also talked about the impact of barriers. Between 2019 and 2023, the Environment Agency and its partner organisations mitigated 58 barriers on England’s salmon rivers. Following that, the Environment Agency is conducting a review of further barriers to fish passage and intends to make recommendations on what government support is required to further move this on. We will consider that in due course.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, talked about hatcheries and stocking. NASCO has this year reviewed and updated its stocking guidance to further clarify the risks associated with stocking practices and appropriate mitigations. This is something else that the Environment Agency is reviewing.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised the issue of the River Wye, which is an issue that we fully recognise. Natural Resources Wales and the Environment Agency are working with a number of different agencies and organisations. I am sure he is very aware of this, but I would be very happy to work with him to move forward with this issue, if he has input that he can bring.
The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, mentioned sand-eels. I am afraid I will have to write to him on that matter.
Finally, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours asked some detailed and specific questions. With the limited time I have—I have only a few seconds left—I will have to respond to him in detail in writing.
To conclude, I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for securing this important debate. I assure all noble Lords that I am committed to taking action in this area.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I think we still have some time, so can I just pick the noble Baroness up on the point she made about predators and how some of them are protected? That is indeed the case, but it is because they are protected that the populations have grown so strongly. It makes them a great threat to this fish, which is an endangered species.
I will also pick up the point that she made about devolved matters. Now that this has been designated as an endangered species, and with the Government’s international treaty obligations to deal with that issue, surely it is incumbent on her and her department to bring the devolved nations together, as she indicated she was prepared to do, to work out a plan so that the United Kingdom’s international responsibilities in respect of protecting and maintaining biodiversity are met.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord just made some really important points. I am extremely keen to do joined-up work with the devolved Administrations because that is the way we move forward, particularly on issues such as this. As I said, I will write to the relevant Minister in the Scottish Parliament to look for a meeting. If we are to make progress on these kinds of issues, we have to work together. It is the only way we will move forward.
Arrangement of Business
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, opens the next debate, I wish to highlight the three-minute speaking time limit for contributions other than those from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and the Minister. I appreciate this is tight and many noble Lords will have more to say, which is a reflection of the importance of the topic, but I respectfully ask that all contributions are limited to that maximum time to protect the time for the Minister’s response. I thank noble Lords.
Children: Impact of International Conflict
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the impact of international conflict on children, and (2) the recommendations proposed by Save the Children in its report Stop the War on Children: Let Children Live in Peace, published in December 2023.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, today one in every five children lives in or is fleeing from conflict zones. They face greater risks than at any time in the last two decades. From Gaza to Sudan, Yemen to the Democratic Republic of Congo, children find themselves caught up in violence that is not of their making. They risk being killed, maimed, raped and recruited into armed forces. They are often denied the most basic humanitarian aid and medical care. We have witnessed the bombing of schools and hospitals on a scale unseen in decades—a clear violation of international humanitarian law.
Every year, the United Nations publishes its annual report on children and armed conflict, meticulously documenting the grave violations committed against children. Drawing on the UN’s research, Save the Children compiles its own report, Stop the War on Children, which analyses the most dangerous conflicts for children. Its latest publication was at the end of last year and is perhaps now a little out of date, but the most recent UN report, published in June this year, provides an updated and stark picture of where in the world children are suffering the most today. The UN reports a 21% increase in grave violations against children, with the highest numbers recorded in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the DRC, Myanmar, Somalia, Nigeria and Sudan. Today, I shall refer briefly to Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine.
The suffering of those caught up in the Gaza-Israel conflict has dominated media reports since the appalling killing and kidnapping of Israeli citizens by Hamas last October. Virginia Gamba, the special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for children and armed conflict, stated in June this year:
“The parties to the conflict in Gaza are doing irreparable harm to children”.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the IDF are all named in this year’s UN report as perpetrators of heinous acts. The UK’s deputy ambassador to the UN in New York, James Kariuki, said in the Security Council just last month:
“Gaza has become the deadliest place in the world to be a child”.
For those children who survive these horrors, the impact on their mental health is beyond comprehension. In March, Save the Children International quoted the remark of Dalia, a mother in Gaza, who said:
“Our children have already lived through different wars. They already lacked resilience and now it’s very difficult to cope. The children are scared, angry and can’t stop crying … This is too much for adults to cope with, let alone children”.
I turn now to the conflict in Sudan, which has persisted for over a year and escalated into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. It is reported that nearly 16,000 people have been killed—some say the number is vastly higher—and 14 million children are in desperate need of support to overcome the impacts of this conflict. Abduction, killing, maiming, sexual violence, recruitment and abuse: these are the daily risks faced by children in Sudan. They have witnessed their homes, hospitals, playgrounds and schools bombed, looted and occupied. They have lost loved ones. They have been subjected to unspeakable violence. Denied access to basic necessities such as food, shelter and healthcare, they are at risk of harm from hunger, disease and a severe lack of medical care.
The blocking of humanitarian access and the sheer danger involved in any attempt to deliver aid have already led to a famine being declared in parts of the country, with over 25 million people now facing severe acute food insecurity—in common parlance, that really means near famine. Can the Minister update us today on the progress made on the agreement reached by the ALPS group last month that the Adre border would be opened to humanitarian aid convoys?
Turning to Ukraine, we find a similarly harrowing situation. More than 14.6 million people require humanitarian assistance; of those, 2.9 million are children whose physical safety, mental health and education are threatened every day. The recent escalation in fighting led to a nearly 40% increase in child casualties in the first half of this year alone, bringing the total number killed to over 600 and those injured to over 1,500. It is estimated that up to 20,000 unaccompanied and separated children from Ukraine are currently held within the Russian Federation. Can the Minister say whether the UK Government will exert diplomatic pressure to establish an independent mechanism for the return of those children, ensuring their safe and timely reunification with their legal guardians?
Today, I have had time to touch on only three of the 25 countries highlighted in this year’s UN report. Each conflict is of course unique, yet somehow the suffering of children is a common thread that binds those tragedies together. Save the Children’s Stop the War on Children report offers several recommendations that the UK Government should heed if they wish to protect children who are living in conflict zones. Will the Minister give a commitment today that the Government will act on those recommendations; for example, to uphold the standards of conduct in conflict; to hold perpetrators to account; to support children’s resilience and recovery; to protect both humanitarian access and work; and crucially, to listen to the children themselves?
The Government have the opportunity to embrace these principles as they design and publish the UK’s first-ever child and armed conflict strategy. The FCDO began the initial stages of this strategy under the Conservative Government. Will the Minister commit today to this vital work continuing? I look forward to hearing the views of colleagues today and hearing from the Minister what steps the Government will take to address these important issues. We have little time for debates on such matters; children may have even less time in their lives.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this debate, for her excellent and informed opening remarks and for her service as a parliamentarian and a Minister. If I may, in anticipation of the next speaker, I want also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, for his service. He is admired, respected and trusted by all and, for more than a decade, has been our best diplomat.
I start with the obvious: this Question is not one that should excite partisan disagreement. The situation for children in conflict is, by almost any objective metric, worsening. Since 2021, one in five children are living in a conflict zone, as we have heard—a 2.8% increase. Save the Children reports a 13% increase in grave violations against children since 2021, with 76 now each day. Most concerningly, we have seen an increase of 20% in the number of children recruited by armed forces and militias.
These figures are indicative at best. There are obvious inherent challenges in reporting and verification, which makes it likely that the figures, while the best available, do not adequately reflect reality. Indeed, the United Nations has conceded that, in far too many instances, age disaggregation does not form part of the statistical methodology. In November, the UN published a discussion paper that sought to disentangle the three-cornered relationship between climate change, conflict and the erosion of children’s rights. It quotes the Secretary-General’s special representative on violence against children:
“The cumulative shocks of the climate crisis are exacerbating pre-existing crises … and … aggravating the risk factors … such as poverty, economic and social inequalities, food insecurity and forced displacement”.
Of course, Russian aggression against Ukraine and the ongoing horrors in Gaza monopolise public attention, but many of the conflicts where children are most acutely affected are happening away from the gaze of the public—at least, that of the western public. Conflicts in Somalia, Ethiopia, Myanmar and Mozambique have seen observable interaction between climate change, the fracturing of food security, conflict and the recruitment of children to militia groups.
However, although climate change and the consequent climate-related stressors exacerbate the effects of conflict, many of the patterns of behaviour that lead to violations of children’s rights are dismally familiar. It was as long ago as 1996 when the UN mandate on children and armed conflict was created. It was 1999 when Resolution 1261 was passed, prioritising the protection, welfare and rights of children and efforts to promote peace and security. Since then, a further 12 resolutions designed to strengthen child protection in this area have been passed. Supranational efforts are limited in what they can achieve; it is at the national level that responsibility for the prevention of violence against children must begin.
In the cross-party spirit of today’s proceedings, I commend both the previous Government, for committing to developing a new strategy specifically aimed at helping children in conflict, and the new Government, for pledging in the King’s Speech to continue that work. I look forward to joining colleagues across your Lordships’ House to ensure that that work is concluded as soon as possible and brought forward for our consideration.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this important debate. I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay and align myself with the remarks made about her service in this area, both in this House and in the previous Government. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for his kind remarks.
Children matter; our debate is testimony to that. In 2023, 450 million children—one-sixth of the population of children across the globe—were impacted by conflict around the world. Some 50% of all displaced people around the globe are children. These are not mere numbers but real lives and real people; they are the children who will build the world of tomorrow. Conflicts are raging. Children are dying, suffering and being maimed. The psychological impacts are immeasurable. Gaza, Syria, Ukraine, Iraq, the DRC—the list continues. Children are being killed, schools are being targeted, young children are being recruited as child soldiers and given guns to kill, not books to learn; they are indoctrinated and brainwashed to commit the most abhorrent of crimes.
In the brief time I have today, I will focus on sexual violence in conflict. I have been truly honoured to lead the UK’s efforts in tackling this scourge on humanity over the past seven years. It involves evil and inhumane acts of rape, torture and human trafficking. I have witnessed such actions, from Iraq and the DRC to Bosnia and Myanmar, and seen the deep, irreparable scars that go way beyond the abhorrent acts of violence and stay with the victims.
The UNFPA reports that one-fifth of refugees, including IDPs, fall victim to sexual violence. Yet the courage and testimonies of the survivors and the children born of rape have inspired us. They not only survive but show us all the depths of their human resilience—I have experienced this directly, as have others—to fight back, as the report says. I join in my noble friend’s calls: I hope that the Government will take forward the recommendations of this excellent report.
The previous Government launched the Murad code, inspired by and in partnership with the incredible survivor, Nadia Murad, to protect survivor testimony. They committed to tackling stigma through the declaration of humanity; mobile courts for accountability; the establishment of the International Alliance on Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict; and mechanisms to ensure, as the Save the Children report says, that perpetrators are held to account. I was honoured to lead those discussions; my noble friend also played a part in the set-up of the office of the under-secretary-general focused on children in armed conflict. Yet here we are, in 2024, with the children raped, tortured and trafficked in conflicts past still awaiting justice, their pains and anxieties compounded by what we all see on a daily basis: children being killed and tortured. We witness the 20,000 children abducted from Ukraine and live cases such as that of the four year-old girl I met in the DRC; she had been raped seven times but was being helped by the incredible Nobel laureate, Dr Mukwege.
I have a final word on children. The conflicts that the world sees not only have an impact on the children in those zones but leave deep impressions on the children of our own nation. As a father of three, I know that. It is my youngest, Faris, who has reminded me of this. Through his words of innocence—inspired by that most precious of commodities, hope—his hand-painted Ukrainian flag in 2022 and his more recent plea on seeing the daily devastation in Gaza, he has given me the same consistent, poignant message: “Daddy, please do all you can to save the children. Don’t let them die”.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, we cannot talk of children and war without referring to Gaza and Sudan, although we should add Afghanistan, Myanmar, Ukraine and other crises. What is happening is obscene and we cannot ignore the slaughter and depravation before our eyes. No matter the diplomatic obstacles or the longer-term geopolitical outcomes, we will continue to have blood on our hands until we successfully push, with our combined strength, for lasting ceasefires. But, in the meantime, we would do well to consider how best we can focus on both immediate and crucial longer-term priorities.
Education is the magic bullet for development. Conflict deprives millions of children of an education and heralds a bleak future. Some of the more egregious effects include: an increase in terrorist groupings; the recruitment of ever-younger children as soldiers; increased local and regional violence; early and forced marriage of girls; increased sale of children for economic and sexual exploitation; enforced slavery; and the loss of hope.
The coming together of groups motivated to learn does not have to be formal or necessarily taught in purpose-built schools. In Afghanistan newly set-up cluster classes, or secret education, in five provinces involve qualified teachers moving quietly from area to area and providing high-level tuition in private houses. Many thousands of girls have already enrolled, including the children of some Taliban commanders. It would not be impossible to set up similar schemes in other countries torn apart by conflict. Mobile education would rapidly reach many more children than any grand plans to rebuild infrastructure.
Afghanistan’s crisis is relatively muted compared to Gaza, Sudan or Myanmar. Although there are undoubtedly severe food shortages, most Afghans are not starving. However, this is not the case in either Gaza or Sudan. What sort of a world are we living in where children die in their thousands for want of basic food? What pressures are we bringing to bear on our Governments?
The Save the Children UN report suggests actions and, of these, humanitarian relief is surely the most urgent. Is it too much to hope that a large consortium of UN and other relief agencies, together with a phalanx of democratic nations and government representatives, can insist on limited but safe routes for regular and adequate deliveries of food and medicaments? Can the international community muster its strength and political willingness to end the carnage in Gaza and the immense human catastrophe emerging in Sudan? I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for initiating this debate.
Baroness Goudie (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for arranging this important debate at a time when it is absolutely vital that this is discussed, not only here but in other parts of the world. I declare my interest as an adviser and ambassador for the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security, and other organisations around the institute.
Allow me to take the House back 28 years to when the UN commissioned Graça Machel, Mozambique’s first post-independence Minister for Education and a staunch advocate for children’s rights, to conduct a landmark investigation into the impact of war on children. The findings, presented in what we now call the Machel report of 1996, vividly depicted the brutal reality of children in conflict zones. It reminds us of the truth that we must never forget: children are the primary victims of war, and their protection should be central to the international human rights and peacebuilding agendas. The report has a clarion call for urgent action.
In the years that followed, many of Machel’s recommendations were adopted with determination, including the appointment of a special representative for children in armed conflict. But despite these efforts, as Save the Children’s work has highlighted, the situation for children has deteriorated significantly. Today, an alarming 468 million children are living in conflict areas and zones, double the number in 1990. The number of grave violations against children has almost tripled since 2010.
I wish to focus on one of the most horrendous of these violations: conflict-related sexual violence against children. Save the Children’s 2021 report, Weapon of War: Sexual Violence Against Children in Conflict, revealed that in 2019 31% of children lived in conflict-affected countries where at least one armed group committed sexual violence. This number is likely to increase with the rise in global violence. In 1990, 8.5 million children lived within 50 kilometres of sexual violence cases, but by 2019, this figure had skyrocketed to 72 million. Armed groups are deliberately targeting children with sexual violence to terrorise, intimidate and achieve political or military objectives, including ethnic displacement and humiliation. This is a catastrophic violation of children’s rights and a threat to entire communities and the world.
The implications of sexual violence against children extend far beyond the immediate trauma. Those children face lifelong consequences including health challenges, disruption to education and social fragmentation. As they grow into adults, they will carry the scars of their experiences. We must not underestimate the impact this will have on their capacity to rebuild. Given this, and that we are a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and UN Security Council Resolution 1612, what steps are being taken by the Government to ensure accountability for crimes against children in armed conflict, both on the international stage and within national frameworks?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Anelay for tabling this debate and Save the Children, both for its work in highlighting the cost of war on children and for its programming work, which deals with many of the issues that we are speaking about. As we have heard, children are, sadly, the most vulnerable victims in conflict. The latest report brings that into sharp focus. Not only do they suffer from the immediate effects of violence, displacement and trauma but we know that these experiences leave lasting scars, both physical and psychological.
I want to highlight three issues in the time we have today, which I hope the Minister can address in his response. The first is the importance of continued access to education. Of course, that is a very difficult challenge in conflict zones, but we know that it is imperative to give children hope for their future. However, as we see in the report, for many, even a simple act of going to school is fraught with danger. The report highlights that attacks on schools increased by 74% last year. In Sudan, we hear of schools turning into military outposts. In Gaza, children are tragically killed when airstrikes hit their schools. Of course, in Afghanistan, we see the tragedy of girls denied access to any education at all.
The UK’s support for the Safe Schools Declaration is critical, but we must also push for its full implementation. That means more investment in education in crisis settings and more support for child protection systems. Educating children in conflict can sometimes feel like an impossible task but the FCDO supports excellent organisations, such as Education Cannot Wait, which make a difference. I hope that support will continue.
The second issue is child marriage, which the report highlights as a growing crisis. We hear that in conflict settings girls are 20% more likely to be married as children. For many families, sadly, child marriage can be seen as a form of protection or economic survival in the face of conflict, but it only perpetuates the cycle of poverty and violence. Again, the UK has done some excellent work in this area with organisations such as Girls Not Brides, UNICEF and many others. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this will continue to be a focus for the FCDO.
The final issue is one which I know is close to the Minister’s heart, nutrition. Children living in conflict zones are twice as likely to be malnourished as those in stable areas. As we are tragically seeing in Sudan and elsewhere, war, exacerbated by climate change, is worsening malnutrition in children. Adaptable and resilient nutrition programmes are needed to mitigate further harm to health, through mechanisms such as the Child Nutrition Fund and others.
There is much more to cover in this report, including the important issues that other noble Lords have mentioned of holding perpetrators to account and the terrible sexual violence against children. The report makes a number of sensible, reasonable and achievable recommendations that my noble friend set out. I hope that the Minister will address all those which are relevant to the UK, as well as giving the reassurance we need on a continued commitment to the new strategy on children in conflict that other noble Lords have mentioned.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, all of us are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for initiating such an important and timely debate. The House will discuss Sudan tomorrow, but, with some 11 million people displaced, 19 million children out of school and the catastrophic spread of famine throughout Sudan, the noble Baroness was of course right to raise it, as others have.
Globally, there is a growing trend of targeting children during conflict and atrocity crimes, whether to kill, injure, abduct or abuse them, or to turn them into child soldiers, imposing unimaginable suffering on the lives of countless children. International law is clear that such targeting of children is a crime—however, too often, a low-level response and impunity send a different message.
Although I will focus my brief remarks on children abducted during Putin’s war in Ukraine, can the Minister update us on both the plight of the over 2,600 missing Yazidi women and children—some of whose families I met during a visit to northern Iraq and who were alluded to in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon—and the plight of Leah Sharibu, the 14 year-old Nigerian girl abducted by Boko Haram, raped, forcibly converted and still held by jihadists? I have raised her case since she was abducted six years ago.
Russia’s crimes in Ukraine are from the same stable and they are having a devastating impact on children. Some have died and others are injured, as Putin’s regime has targeted schools, children’s hospitals and family homes—war crimes leading to the displacement of millions of children. In addition, thousands have been abducted, forcibly exiled to Russia and subject to expedited adoptions. This had its origins in 2014 in Crimea, when Russia perversely called their trains used to transport children “trains of hope”. We know from the testimonies of rescued children that they have been subjected to indoctrination, told to become Russian and seen their Ukrainian identity destroyed.
In response, in March 2023, the ICC’s pre-trial chamber issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Mrs Maria Lvova-Belova, the Commissioner for Children’s Rights, citing their responsibility for the war crimes of unlawful deportation of population and of unlawful transfer of population—both refer to children—from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation, in prejudice of Ukrainian children.
On 20 August, Save Ukraine and Bring Kids Back UA helped 12 more Ukrainian children and their families to leave temporary accommodation. The number of Ukrainian children who returned from Russia and the temporarily occupied territories has reached 466, but many more remain in Russia, and it must be our priority to get them out and reunite them with their families. I hope that the Minister can tell us what we have been doing to assist the ICC in those efforts.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, our modern weapons of war do not discriminate between the young and the old when they are used, such is their destructive power. Children in conflict zones are always the first victims of war, and those who survive are left traumatised. Witnessing extreme violence, losing a family member or being separated from loved ones can cause anxiety and other mental disorders. The psychological impact on them can be enormous and can last a lifetime.
Childhood is the happiest time of our lives, and we often wish we could return to it. Those who live in a refugee camp or a conflict zone never experience their childhood. They cannot regularly attend school and do not have a proper social structure or grow up with the necessary skills and knowledge to contribute to their society.
They often live in poverty and sometimes suffer from malnutrition, chronic stresses and diseases. In some cases, they are forced to fight in regular armies and killed. Some children become victims of sexual exploitation and are faced with stigmatisation and exclusion from their communities.
It is no good just talking about these problems—there are lots more than I have highlighted here—we must also find solutions. We must implement some sort of joint international programme to improve the lot of these children. For instance, there must be counselling for traumatised children to cope with the psychological effects of war. We must set up a programme to trace children and reunite them with their families and, in cases of child soldiers, a programme to reinstate them into society by incorporating peace into their curriculum to promote conflict resolution, tolerance and social cohesion.
To do all these things we need international co-operation on a large scale. The international community must adopt a comprehensive, co-ordinated approach to mitigate the damage done to children. We need some form of long-term humanitarian initiative, with legal protection for the well-being of children in conflict, along with a diplomatic effort to prevent conflicts and resolve existing ones, with an early warning system to detect potential conflict and take preventive action to reduce the risk to children. We should involve youths in such peacebuilding activities, empowering them to be the agents for change. We must create platforms for children to share their stories and participate in the decision-making process. We must advocate for a global movement of children’s rights and for the specific needs of children in conflict in international agreements.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate. I thank my noble friend for introducing it and for speaking with so much clarity and empathy. I also thank Save the Children for all the work that it does to shine a light on the issues children face around the world. I will not repeat what has been said but try to build on it. If I may say so, I expect that the next Save the Children report might find that 2023 was the year with the highest record of human rights violations against children, because children have somehow come to be regarded as legitimate targets and mere collateral damage.
Earlier this year, I met Victoria Rose, the lead consultant for plastic surgery trauma reconstruction at Guy’s and St Thomas’, who has done several placements in Gaza. Last week, having just returned from her latest placement, she said that 80% of the patients she had treated were children suffering life-altering wounds. She described doctors reusing medical supplies and operating without anaesthetics—on adults but also on children.
In November last year, Project Pure Hope was established by a number of NHS organisations and partners as a humanitarian, multifaith initiative to bring severely injured and sick children from Gaza and Israel for specialist medical care. A team of highly impressive doctors came together, fundraised and created partnerships, hoping to help severely injured children. I asked the previous Government to support this initiative by approving emergency medical visas for critically injured children who have been affected by life-altering explosive injuries and have been assessed by experts in the United Kingdom who recommend that they are transferred to the UK for specialist medical input that cannot be delivered in the medical hospital in the region. Unfortunately, support for these children—a limited number of children, for a limited period—was not forthcoming. I raised this again in July with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in the debate on foreign affairs and defence, and got no answer.
We have extended help and support to the sick children of Ukraine, and rightly so; we ought to be proud of that. However, we seem to have decided not to provide specialist support for the children of Gaza. Other countries, such as the UAE, Italy and the USA, have taken a different approach. I acknowledge and welcome UK humanitarian support for the people of Gaza and support for hospitals in the region, but we know that certain needs cannot be met and certain wounds cannot be healed in the best regional hospitals; they need specialist care here. I therefore have just one question for the Minister: will UK policy change?
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for securing this important debate. I note that we have a number of recent former Ministers speaking today, including the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who are still very much committed to the defence of children; they are not walking away.
It is vital that the UN and Save the Children publish these terrible reports. The UN has defined ways in which children come to harm in war, terming these the six grave violations. They include killing and maiming; recruitment as child soldiers; and sexual violence, which is clearly increasingly being used as a weapon of war, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, noted. Save the Children reported that almost 500 million children—or one in six—were living in a conflict zone in 2022. Africa was the continent with the highest number of conflict-affected children, whereas the Middle East had the highest proportion of children living in conflict zones.
Last year, the previous Government committed in their White Paper to a new strategy on children in conflict. The new Government have pledged to continue this, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, noted. The latest Save the Children report predates much of what has been happening in Gaza and Sudan recently but it also reports that, since the latest military escalation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel, the scale of crimes and grave violations against children has been appalling; the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others noted this. In 2023, there were 136 grave violations against Israeli children and almost 8,000 against Palestinian children. As we know, many children have been killed and maimed. There have been hundreds of attacks on hospitals and schools—not least yesterday’s, condemned by the UN Secretary-General—as well as the denial of humanitarian access to protection, health, food and shelter. Thousands of children are missing, presumed dead under the rubble or at heightened risk of disease.
There will be a debate on Sudan tomorrow in the Lords. Save the Children notes that Sudan has the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world. Those who attended the briefing with the Minister yesterday were deeply shocked.
Then there is Ukraine. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, noted, children have been killed and maimed, abducted into Russia and subjected to the social disruption of their families; men have been left in Ukraine while other relatives are displaced, destroying the society. These are bleak and terrible stories, and we have heard others this afternoon. We all wish the Government well as they seek to address these issues through their aid programmes, through their engagement internationally and by making sure that the UK respects international law without fear or favour.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to his new role. We faced each other across the Chamber on a lot of important pieces of legislation in previous Parliaments; I was personally delightedly to see his hard work in the opposition trenches rewarded with such a vital role. Hopefully, in these jobs, we will agree with each other a lot more than we did on some of the more contentious pieces of legislation.
I pay tribute both to my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns, for securing this vital debate, and, of course, to my noble friend Lord Ahmad, who did such a fantastic job of championing these issues while a Minister at the FCDO. It is appropriate that I am following them in this debate because I also followed them in ministerial jobs. When I first joined the Government, I followed my noble friend Lord Ahmad into transport, while my time in the Brexit trenches at DExEU were entirely the fault of my noble friend Lady Anelay, who had stepped down from the role; I followed her as a Minister of State in that department. Continuing that theme, my noble friend Lady Sugg followed me into transport as well. It underlines the importance of the issues that have been highlighted that so many ex-Ministers have chosen to come along to today’s debate and contribute.
There is not really a great deal that I can add to some of the excellent contribution we have heard today. I, too, read this Save the Children report with great interest—and not a small amount of despair as well. Many great contributions have been made today. I could have quoted everybody who spoke, I think; let me just say that I agreed with them. I highlight a few points. My noble friend Lady Anelay made an important point about the importance of holding perpetrators to account. My noble friend Lord Ahmad and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, spoke movingly about the devastating effects of conflict, in particular sexual violence against women and girls. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, highlighted some important points, as he so often does. He mentioned in particular the appalling abuses taking place in Ukraine at the moment; we all, I think, pray for the day when President Putin is hauled before the International Criminal Court to account for his appalling treatment of children in Ukraine.
As the report says, the numbers are massive: 468 million children were living in conflict zones in 2022 and that number, sadly, is growing steadily. I suspect that, two years later, those numbers are even higher. It comes as no surprise that Africa is the continent with the highest number of children affected by conflict—in DRC, Mali, Burkina Faso, Nigeria and Somalia—but they are also affected, of course, in other parts of the world, such as Syria, Ukraine and Yemen. We can now add Gaza and Sudan, which is the subject of a debate we will have tomorrow.
I was pleased to hear a number of noble Lords highlight in the debate on the King’s Speech that the new Government are taking forward some of the excellent work done in the FCDO previously by my noble friend Lord Ahmad and his ministerial colleagues. In the November 2023 White Paper, the previous Government committed to developing a new strategy on children in conflict. Andrew Mitchell, the then FCDO Minister of State, highlighted its importance and how this marked a step change in our commitment to the protection of children affected by conflict. In January this year, he said that officials had indeed begun work on that strategy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how that work is progressing. I am sure he will be looking forward to progressing it, particularly the commitment to deliver annual ministerial-level round tables with children who have been affected by armed conflicts.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I remind the noble Lord that the time limit is three minutes.
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are of course no easy solutions to this enduring tragic issue, but we, as an Opposition, certainly want to do all we can to assist the Minister and the Government to take forward this important work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for securing this important debate. I commend her consistent engagement with the children and armed conflict mandate since her tenure as a Foreign Office Minister of State, and her tireless work as the former Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict. I also thank all noble Lords for engaging, and I will attempt to answer their questions.
We have of course been reminded that, last year, grave violations against children in conflict rose by 21% compared to the year before. These numbers, while horrifying in themselves, cannot possibly convey the depths of pain and misery that so many children experience. It is unacceptable, and this Government are determined to stand up for the rights of children.
A number of noble Lords asked about the children in conflict strategy. We are currently reviewing the 2023 international development White Paper’s commitment to deliver a children in conflict strategy. I certainly undertake to update the House as soon as possible, as noble Lords have asked.
I particularly reference and acknowledge the efforts of the noble Baroness and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. They spearheaded vital work on tackling conflict-related sexual violence during their tenures as the Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict—PSVI—and I welcome their determination to engage with all sides of this House on that vital work. We will continue with that work, committed to PSVI and to ending the scourge of conflict-related sexual violence. There is currently a review of the Government’s envoys, and I hope that the position of the PSVI envoy will be finalised pretty soon.
In her opening contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, focused on the appalling suffering of children in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine. The impact and consequences of conflict on children go far beyond injury and damage, as we have heard. In Gaza, even the most basic needs of children, whether it is food, clean water, shelter or healthcare, are largely unmet, and thousands of children are suffering acute malnutrition —the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, highlighted this.
We have been clear with Israel that it must allow consistent access for aid workers to reach children and their families. Alongside our allies, we have repeatedly raised with the Israeli Government our concerns regarding the situation in Gaza. I will continue to engage on that during my visit to the UN General Assembly later this month.
I refer noble Lords to the Statement made in the Commons by the Foreign Secretary on 2 September about the resulting implications for the UK’s arms export licences to Israel. The UK trebled its aid commitment to the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the last financial year. This Government will maintain significant funding for this financial year. Last month, Minister Dodds announced a further £6 million in funding for UNICEF to support vulnerable families with life-saving water, healthcare and treatment for malnourished children. Fundamentally, as we know, the best and only way to ensure the protection of children in Gaza is an immediate and permanent ceasefire. We support fully the ongoing mediation efforts of the US, Egypt and Qatar to reach agreement. We call on all parties urgently to agree a deal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, we will have a full debate tomorrow on the humanitarian situation in Sudan, so I shall not attempt to cover everything, but the situation is dire, and we need to move the issue up the global agenda. I am certainly determined to do that. The impact on Sudan’s children is horrific, with an estimated 23 million children exposed to violence, abuse and exploitation. We have provided £97 million of ODA to Sudan this financial year, which is vital. We have also supported UNICEF, which has provided treatment for 42,000 malnourished children—again, an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about opening the Adre crossing, things are getting through. I am not in a position to say just how much, for obvious reasons, but we are making progress and I hope to give a fuller report tomorrow. However, it is not enough. We need to get more through.
I want also to address the horrors taking place in Ukraine at the hands of Russia. UNICEF estimates that 2,000 Ukrainian children have been killed since the conflict began—an average of two per day. As Ukrainian children returned to school this month, Russia continued to launch major air strikes across civilian areas in Ukraine.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, raised the Yazidis. We are certainly continuing to provide support. We have given £300,000 to the directorate of survivors and we will continue to support its work in terms of the survivors law. We have also made representations to the Nigerian Government about the person whom he mentioned.
I turn to Save the Children’s report and the five main recommendations that noble Lords have raised. The first recommendation is to uphold standards of conduct in conflict. We are clear that the rights of children affected by conflict require special protection and should be respected without distinction. We have endorsed and implemented two declarations which can help uphold universal standards. These are designed to protect schools—I shall come back to the point on education raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg—universities and civilians by limiting the use of explosive weapons in populated areas. We will continue to encourage other states to do the same.
On the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, we are giving funding to the ICRC to ensure proper access to education. We will certainly monitor that to ensure that we can continue with that work. These are on top of the international instruments that we have endorsed and implemented to protect children from being recruited and used in armed conflict, something with which I was involved with the APPG a couple of years ago.
In the second recommendation, the UK is urged to hold perpetrators of harm to children to account. A number of noble Lords have raised this point. We have been a staunch supporter of the UN Children and Armed Conflict mandate since its inception in 1996. Over the last decade, we have provided nearly £2 million to the Office of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children in Armed Conflict. At the UN Security Council, the UK plays a key role in ensuring accountability for perpetrators of grave violations.
Thirdly, the report underscores the importance of supporting the resilience and recovery of children impacted by conflict. The Government are taking multiple steps to fulfil this recommendation. In the Middle East, the contribution to UNICEF’s work in Gaza now totals over £18 million. It includes essential mental health and psycho-social support for children and their caregivers. In Africa, we are ensuring that survivors of sexual violence in the DRC can access healthcare, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, access to education and proper nutrition. I visited the DRC and I know the impact there; it is horrific. In Europe, we supported Ukraine’s ambitious commitment to Better Care, increasing access to family-based care for children. This includes a comprehensive plan, as noble Lords have raised, to bring back and reintegrate Ukrainian children who were illegally deported to Russia. We have continued to support its task force to bring children back, and we are of course a member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children and will continue to support that vital work.
The fourth recommendation relates to the protection of humanitarian access. As Minister Dodds also said, the Government will work in genuine partnership across the world to protect aid workers so they can support those in need. Given that children under five living in protracted conflict zones are more likely to die from unsafe drinking water than violence, this is again absolutely an important issue, including support for nutrition.
The final recommendation highlights the importance of meaningful and safe engagement with children. Children have a right to have a say in the decisions that impact their lives. Earlier this year, with NGO partners from the Foreign Office, we invited four courageous girls from South Sudan, Ukraine, the West Bank and the DRC to share their experience. We also convened a meeting at the UN Security Council, enabling Myanmar’s children to articulate the sort of future they want and deserve. They certainly require that strong of a voice.
In conclusion, the Government are grateful for Save the Children’s work in protecting the most vulnerable children; we certainly thank it for its insightful report. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, raised a question with me to which I am not in a position to give her an answer. I certainly will do, but unfortunately, I cannot do that this afternoon, so she may be disappointed once again.
However, this has been a really important debate. It is a one-hour debate, but the important thing is that we continue to raise this issue on a consistent basis, and I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
House of Lords
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Lord Booth-Smith
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Introduction: Baroness May of Maidenhead
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Electronic Media: False Information
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, the Online Safety Act will be our key tool in combating online misinformation and disinformation. It sets out a regulatory framework to tackle misinformation and disinformation where they constitute illegal content or harmful content to children. In addition, we are educating and empowering users through our work on media literacy, to increase society’s resilience to misinformation and disinformation. Officials are also regularly engaged with major platforms about disinformation activity, emerging risks and platform responses.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, the threat posed by electronic media manifests itself in at least two ways. As we saw during the recent riots, electronic media was used to spread lies and misinformation about refugees and asylum seekers, and urged people to use violence. It is also being used to try to undermine our democracy, again through lies and misinformation. Does the Minister agree that our electronic media poses a threat to both our democracy and our social cohesion? Is she satisfied that the Government have enough powers to deal with these threats, bearing in mind that we probably will need effective international co-operation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we must protect the UK’s democratic integrity. Our Defending Democracy Taskforce safeguards our democratic institutions and processes from threats, including misinformation and disinformation. Sharing best practice and strategic insights with international partners helps industry and Government to protect our democracy from media threats. Under the Online Safety Act, companies must act against illegal content, including the incitement of violence, hate speech and state-backed disinformation, and remove it. Where hateful content or misinformation and disinformation are prohibited in the largest platforms’ terms of service, they must remove it.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, false information is as likely to be spread through online platforms with smaller numbers of users as those with many users. We have heard about the role of Telegram in spreading disinformation about this summer’s disorder, as well as the terrible suicide forums. I was very pleased to see the Secretary of State’s letter to Ofcom this week on “small but risky” online services. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the issue of platform categorisation, given the amendment I proposed to the then Online Safety Bill, which this House passed in July 2023?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, of course I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness to discuss this further, and I pay tribute to the work she has done on this issue in the past. On “small but risky” services, as she knows, the Secretary of State has written to Melanie Dawes, the CEO of Ofcom, and a very detailed reply was received today from Ofcom. We are still absorbing everything that it is proposing, but it is clear that it is taking this issue very seriously. That will give us the focus for our discussion when we meet.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, we have seen the first charge under the Online Safety Act’s false communications offence. To facilitate further prosecutions for false communications, can the Minister support statutory guidance to further define the term “non-trivial psychological harm” on a likely audience caused by disinformation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, all this information will be detailed in the Ofcom guidance to be published in due course. This includes not only illegal harms but all the other issues under the category that the noble Viscount mentioned, all of which will be covered by the Ofcom codes to be published in due course.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, part of the challenge of addressing the proliferation of misinformation is the large volume of accounts created solely to spread information that is not verifiable and is fake. Often, these accounts are bots, as we call them. Have the Government considered introducing mandatory verification of identity on social media, so that platforms know the identity of all their users without removing their anonymity?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. This will depend very much on the terms of service of those individual platforms, the whole basis of which, as she knows, is to provide that anonymity. We would need a much more detailed discussion about them and about whether individuals should be identified. However, she is right that the proliferation of bots is a dangerous issue, and we need to be aware of it, not only in the UK but in state-sponsored attacks on our democracy.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that tech billionaires are richer, more powerful and sometimes more arrogant than whole countries? With hindsight, fawning before them at Bletchley Park was not a good idea for any British Government. Will the Foreign Office explore treaty-making to examine the kind of future co-operation that my noble friend Lady Kennedy suggested?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have engagement with the large platforms at every level, including of course on the aspects of business and trade to which they contribute. I reassure my noble friend that, however big those companies are, they must comply with UK laws. We will ensure, throughout the rollout of the Online Safety Act, that everybody, however big and rich the individual, must comply with the Act.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is not the reality that there has been a huge shift of global power in favour of the giant electronic platforms? I see that, for instance, the French have gone so far as to arrest the chairman of one of the biggest platforms in the world. Is that the kind of remedy that we will consider here?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I reiterate to the noble Lord that we have very high expectations of companies that have access to the British economy and society. If they do not adhere to the law or act in any way that contributes positively to our society, we will be increasingly assertive in our response, including by making full use of the powers brought in by the Online Safety Act. They are not above the law, and we will monitor their activities carefully.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Minister acknowledge that there is some concern that the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” are being weaponised to justify partisan censorship, although free speech is vital for democracy. Can she comment on the seeming immunity for some misinformation? An example is when high-profile anti-hate NGOs terrified local communities by announcing that 100 far-right protests were planned. When they did not materialise, the NGOs admitted that it was probably a hoax, but they were congratulated because it led to positive “stand up to racism” headlines. It seems like double standards.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Where people are instigating violence, hatred, misogyny and so on, we will take action against them, however we define it. This is a very difficult area, because we have to balance free speech with the regulations we will introduce, but people have to comply with the law.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I will follow on from the questions on international co-operation raised by my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lady Chakrabarti. By chance it was only on Monday that I chaired a meeting in Edinburgh of the Council of Europe Sub-Committee on Media and Information Society. We discussed fake news and all the aspects raised today. Can the Minister make sure that her department is in close touch with the Council of Europe in Strasburg and that there is co-operation between its 46 member countries?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend makes the important point that international co-operation is absolutely vital. We continue to talk to all our friends across the globe, exchanging information and making sure that best practice arises from those discussions.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, research by Vodafone found that algorithms are pushing content to boys related to misogyny and violence following innocent and unrelated searches. Can the Minister say whether the Government are looking into how these algorithms have been used not only to push misinformation and disinformation but to push people towards and reinforce more extreme views?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, deepfakes and other forms of manipulated media are captured by the Online Safety Act where they constitute illegal content or harmful content to children in scope of the regulatory framework. Under the Act, all companies will be forced to take action against illegal content online, including illegal misinformation and disinformation, and they will be required to remove in-scope content. These duties will also apply to in-scope AI-generated content and AI-powered features.
Rural Crime: NFU Mutual Report
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of NFU Mutual’s Rural Crime Report 2024, published on 1 August.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I begin by thanking the National Farmers’ Union Mutual for its report. Rural crime can have a devastating effect on, and consequences for, countryside communities and the agricultural sector. That is why the Government are committed to reducing crime in rural areas. Under our proposed reforms, rural communities will be safeguarded, with tougher measures to clamp down on anti-social behaviour and strengthen neighbourhood policing, as well as stronger measures to prevent farm theft and fly-tipping.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. I was pleased, back in April, to see that Sir Keir Starmer, before he became Prime Minister, announced a rural crime strategy. What we now need is implementation. Would the Minister commit, at local area level, to talk to police and crime commissioners and chief constables to set up dedicated rural crime teams, which forces such as Thames Valley have done very successfully and which are making a real impact? At a national level, will the Government commit to having a cross-departmental approach involving the National Crime Agency, Defra and the Home Office to address the scourge of rural crime?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. I hope he will be aware that there is a National Rural Crime Unit in place, which has been funded for a three-year period, looking at support and co-ordination of police and crime commissioners and rural forces. We want to look at that to see how I can work with that as a Minister. He is right that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister has examined the issue of a rural crime strategy. We need to work with partners such as Defra on issues such as sheep worrying, and ensure that we co-ordinate the Government’s approach. I will certainly do that and will be happy to take advice and support from the right reverend Prelate in due course to help develop and inform that strategy.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, when studying the NFU report, would my noble friend also have a look at the report of the all-party group on metal theft? It has not yet been reconstituted, but in the last Parliament it produced a report that showed that metal theft costs the UK economy around £1.5 billion each year and is conducted, in the main, by organised crime groups. Many of these crimes take place in rural areas and, of course, lead from churches is a particularly popular target. Would my noble friend agree that this a report that needs to be studied, and would he meet the members of the all-party group?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. He may not know that I served on the Metal Theft (Prevention) Bill Committee in Opposition in 2013. We pressed that very strongly. In co-operation with the then Government, we reduced metal theft by 50% over that period. More legislation and security allowed thefts to be tracked down through scrapyards and known routes of criminal activity. It was a really effective piece of cross-party legislation: we amended it in Opposition, the Government accepted it and improvements were made. Of course I will happily meet with him. There is downward pressure and there will continue to be downward pressure, but if he and his all-party group have suggestions, we will happily look at them and consider them.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will understand that it is not just crimes of acquisition and anti-social behaviour that affect rural areas. They are also affected by fraud offences. Does the Minister have any idea when Section 199 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which provides for an offence of failure to prevent fraud offences, will be implemented? It cannot be implemented under the Act until six months after the publication of Home Office guidance. We have been waiting for the Home Office guidance. Does the Minister have any idea at what stage the consideration of that guidance is within the Home Office?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned gentleman. I have been tasked by both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to be the Minister responsible for fraud. This week, I met with officials and I will be meeting with stakeholders. We have a potential examination of a future fraud strategy based on the work of the previous Government. The points that the noble and learned Lord makes are a part of our reflection on that strategy. I will certainly go away and inform myself of what happened under the previous Government in relation to that delay, and how I can expedite this as a matter of some urgency.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I served with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, on the APPG on metal theft. From the evidence we gathered, it was clear that metal theft is widespread in rural areas. Whatever the picture was when the Minister was last involved in 2013, I think when he returns to the subject he will see that it remains pernicious, widespread and extensive. We are all clear what some of the targets are: church roofs, which have a deadly impact on the villages affected; and, relatively recently, the theft of literally kilometres of copper cable from both the telecoms and rail networks. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, these crimes are committed by organised criminal gangs and, from the evidence we took, frankly there is no cause to think that the police are operating effectively to counter these organised criminal groups.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The metal theft issue is extremely serious. It is something that the previous Government, with Opposition support, tried to address and reduced by some 50%— but 50% is still there and we need to look at how we can take action on that. He is absolutely right that organised criminal gangs are very often behind this. There has been action from the National Rural Crime Unit and police forces to try to make arrests from those organised criminal gangs. Again, we need to have intelligence-led policing, co-ordination of PCCs feeding in intelligence and a national crime strategy that looks at how we can tackle that still further. That will be on the agenda of the Home Office and I hope that, when I am held to account by the noble Lord in due course, I will have made progress on reducing the 50% still further.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister commit to working with the police to deliver the specialist training that officers in rural areas need, which has much broader implications for organised crime? For example, there have been two welcome prosecutions for hare coursing—which the right reverend Prelate did so much work on—as a result of the last Government’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Apparently, the criminals have refined their defences and are carrying on with this deplorable activity, which also facilitates considerable illegal, illicit gambling and, no doubt, many other activities necessary for organised crime, such as money laundering.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Organised crime gangs are muscling in on this in a serious way. It is absolutely vital that the police—through the National Rural Crime Unit, the Home Office generally, the Serious Fraud Office and the National Crime Agency—look at how organised crime gangs are operating. Last year, the cost of rural crime increased by 4.3% to £52.8 million, and that quad bike and terrain vehicle crime increased by 9%. These crimes are often led by organised crime groups, who use organised crime to disperse material. They need to face long jail sentences. They need to be caught and put before the courts and action needs to be taken. That needs co-ordination and I assure the noble Lord that we will do that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I was on the Met Police authority for 12 long years of its existence. In that time, I asked many times for a category of rural crime to be on crime reports. I was told this week that that still does not exist and if you cannot count it, it is very difficult to know what resources to throw at it.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are a number of aspects to rural crime. What we do count, and what the National Farmers’ Union counted in its report, are things such as the cost of GPS theft, vehicle theft, equipment theft, the number of farm animals killed each year and the number of respondents who thought rural crime was increasing. We have statistics on that. We also have statistics on a range of matters such as the number of instances of badger baiting, hare coursing and other types of wildlife crime, such as dog fighting, that occurs in rural areas. There are obviously continual problems with shoplifting, burglary and theft in rural area, just as there is in towns and cities, but there are specific areas that we can measure and examine. Through the National Rural Crime Unit, we can begin to co-ordinate activity to reduce the instances of that and ensure that people are arrested, put before the courts, sentenced and ultimately jailed.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, given—as we have already heard from the Minister—the very special challenges and additional costs faced by councils and police forces in rural areas, does the Minister believe that it is fair that, currently, they get less funding per head than urban areas? What plans do the Government have to introduce a funding formula that is fair to rural communities.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There are issues on funding, for local authorities and police. We are only just getting back to the stage when I was last Police Minister in 2009-10, with the investment and figures we had then. That is something we need to look at and I will take that back and talk to colleagues in the department of local government as well. I would like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, if possible.
Erasmus+
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to negotiate the United Kingdom rejoining the Erasmus+ Programme.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have not proposed any plans for rejoining the Erasmus+ programme. However, we will work to reset the relationship with our European friends, strengthen ties, secure a broad-based security pact and tackle barriers to trade. We will look forwards, not backwards, by improving our trade and investment relationship with the EU while recognising that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree, nevertheless, that if the Prime Minister wishes to reset our relationship with Europe, there would be nothing more germane to this project than rejoining Erasmus+ and enabling the cultural exchange which, through its reciprocity, is at the heart of that programme—an essential element that the Turing scheme lacks? The EU Commission says that it is open to discussion. We have done this for research by rejoining Horizon; we now need to do the same for education but, most of all, for widening the opportunities in Europe for our young people.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The Prime Minister and the Government are working hard to reset our relationship with our European friends. The Prime Minister hosted the EPC at Blenheim Palace, where he was able to engage with all our European friends, and he has recently visited Germany, France and Ireland to progress that positive bilateral work. I think the noble Earl slightly underestimates the impact of the Turing scheme, which has enabled considerable numbers of young people to go overseas to work and study. The Government support it and will want to think about how we can develop it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I understand that one of the objections to rejoining Erasmus+ is the imbalance between the flow of students coming into Britain and those going out. Would it not be sensible, given the crisis in modern language learning and teaching in English schools, to link the negotiations to rejoin Erasmus with a deliberate scheme to improve the learning and teaching of French, Spanish, German and Italian in British schools, and to encourage British students to go across to those countries and develop fluency in those languages? That would help the British economy and our relationship with other countries and would have a whole host of other benefits.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about the significance of languages. I am not sure that we are presently in a position to advise or inform in detail on the UK’s negotiating strategy. But, notwithstanding that, he is of course right about the significance of languages. That is why in the department we have, for example, a very good scheme for language assistants, which enables people from the UK to travel overseas to work as language assistants and those from overseas to come to the UK. It has been successful in helping to promote language learning. We are also very committed to ensuring that the great benefits that come for younger people from being able to take part in school trips, for example, are also facilitated despite the additional barriers that have been put in place by our decision to leave the EU.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, following on from the last question, will the Minister acknowledge that it has been shown that the reciprocal element of Erasmus made a positive contribution to the supply chain of modern language teachers in our schools? Given the critical shortage of qualified language teachers—second only to maths, according to the DfE’s own figures—does she agree that rejoining Erasmus would be a sensible move and that it would help the Government achieve their stated aim of recruiting more teachers for shortage subjects?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As the noble Baroness identified, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, there was a considerable asymmetry in the Erasmus+ scheme. Of course, I accept that there is considerable benefit from welcoming students, teachers and others from overseas into the UK. That is why the Government have given a much warmer welcome to international students into our higher education institutions than was the case with the previous Government. Erasmus is not the only way in which we can help support language learning. That is why, as I outlined to the noble Lord, the English language assistants programme, which is delivered by the DfE and the British Council, makes an important contribution to enabling paid teaching placements overseas for UK residents to improve their language skills, as well as placements in the UK for non-UK residents to assist with teaching, for example, French, Spanish, Mandarin, German and Italian. All of those—I accept the noble Baroness’s point—are important in our schools and further education institutions.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, next year, the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement is due for review. It is essential that we consult and acknowledge the views of young people about their aspirations for our international relationships. Will the Government explore the needs and aspirations of young people and future generations ahead of the trade and co-operation review?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an important point about the aspirations of young people for our relationships internationally, and particularly with our former EU colleagues. The Paymaster-General, who is also the Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, is leading the reset of the UK-EU relationship in the negotiations that the noble Baroness outlines. I will pass on to him her concern that young people are involved in the preparations and the process of that negotiation so that their aspirations can be met by the negotiations that the Government will undertake and the review of the trade and co-operation agreement.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the last Government introduced the Turing scheme with three very clear principles in mind: first, to make sure that disadvantaged pupils and students had greater opportunities to access it; secondly, to give the scheme a truly global focus; and, thirdly, to ensure value for money for taxpayers. I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure the House that she agrees with those principles and set out how she plans to build on the success of the scheme so far, and indeed give us a clear assurance that the Government plan to continue with the scheme.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the objectives of the Turing scheme but she will also be reassured by the results that we have seen this year. For example, we have seen an increase in the proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds taking part in the scheme—60% compared with 51% last year. We have also seen a broadening of the possibilities for those who take part in the scheme. Whereas five out of 10 of the most popular destinations under the Turing scheme are within the EU, the other five are outwith the EU, so it is widening the opportunities for young people and those looking to both work and study. The Government have committed £110 million of funding for this academic year, and we will certainly review the success of this scheme and, in the context of the spending review, think carefully about its future.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, while the Minister is reviewing the Turing scheme, I wonder whether it would be worth reviewing at the same time the success of the Taith scheme in Wales. It sits alongside the Turing scheme and is given to Welsh schoolchildren, and is a better approximation of the Erasmus+ programme.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Earl will be pleased to hear that in preparation for answering this question I have been able to learn about the success of the Taith scheme. I will certainly want to build on the relationships that we have across the devolved Administrations in thinking about the most effective way to secure what the Foreign Secretary has been very clear about: we need to do more to champion ties between our people and culture across the European Union. We will learn from all the good experiences and schemes that exist across the whole of the UK.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the initial Question was very much about Erasmus and the importance of rejoining. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes—a trio of Smiths is speaking—talked about taking on board the views of young people. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to look at ways of strengthening the opportunities for young people to live and work in Europe? Erasmus provided fantastic opportunities for British students but also helped British soft power, because we had students from other European countries coming here. The long-term benefits of that are profound. Do the Government have a vision that we should be rebuilding relations in that sort of way?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I can reassure the noble Baroness that the resetting of our relationship with our European friends has been very clearly identified by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary as being about trade and security but also about building on our ties of friendship and ensuring that opportunities will exist through school trips and our welcoming of international students into the UK. This Government have very much improved the welcome to international students after the very unwelcoming approach that the last Government took, as well as developing the Turing scheme in the way that I have outlined.
Ukraine: Military Support
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to accelerate and intensify military support for Ukraine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, UK support for Ukraine is ironclad, and that is why we are stepping up military aid to Ukraine. We are ramping up and speeding up delivery of military support for Ukraine. On Friday, the Defence Secretary announced that the UK would provide Ukraine with 650 lightweight multi-role missiles. Operation Interflex, which has trained 45,000 Ukrainian troops, will extend through 2025. Additionally, yesterday he confirmed that military support announced in April is on track for delivery.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
I thank the Minister for that Answer. The commitment to accelerate and intensify aid is very clear, but so is the growing fear of unintended consequences, particularly escalation, mission creep and the language of nuclear conflict. This has been mirrored in the last few days by the delivery of long-range ballistic missiles from Iran to Russia. What are the Government doing in considering further sanctions against Iran? In doing so, are we in partnership with our major partners such as Germany and France?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate mentions escalation and mission creep. I point out that this war could end very quickly—today—with a decision by the Russians to withdraw their troops. On Iran, we and international partners have been clear that we would take new and significant measures against Iran if the transfers took place. We and our E3 partners, France and Germany, are therefore cancelling bilateral arrangements with Iran, which will restrict Iran’s air services into the UK and Europe. Together with the US, we are co-ordinating sanctions against Iranian and Russian individuals and organisations.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
Can my noble friend confirm that the extra funding being provided is not going to come from our already depleted defence budget?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I invite my noble friend to read the National Audit Office report, which was very complimentary about the work that has been done and the support that has been provided for Ukraine. I am sure that he will agree that the defence of Ukraine against Russian aggression is the defence of Europe, yes, but of the UK also.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, it is right that we should be supporting Ukraine, and the Minister’s answer was right—the National Audit Office has complimented the UK on the support we have given. However, replenishing our stockpiles will cost significantly more. Therefore, to reiterate the noble Lord’s question, will His Majesty’s Government commit to replenishing those stockpiles and ensuring that the support for Ukraine is not at the expense of training British soldiers, sailors and aviators? The defence of Ukraine matters—and so does the defence of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the defence of Ukraine is the defence of the United Kingdom. For two and a half years, Ukrainians have bravely and fiercely defended themselves against Russia’s full-scale invasion. Putin’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity began with the illegal annexation of Crimea 10 years ago. He did not stop there, and he will not stop until he leaves Ukraine. On the issue of funding, which the noble Baroness is right to raise, she will know that a strategic defence review is under way. Her comments are noted as part of that, but it would be wrong of me to pre-empt it. My noble friend Lord Robertson will be providing information at the appropriate time that will help answer her question.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, several months ago, President Macron said that Europe must do whatever is necessary to ensure that Russia does not succeed in Ukraine, irrespective of political decisions in America. What evidence is there of that aspiration being given any substance—or is the security of Europe to rest upon the whim of the American electorate?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think that it is helpful to speculate on the US election at this time, but I commit to the noble and gallant Lord and to the House that our support for Ukraine, regardless of what may or may not happen in the American election, is ironclad and unwavering.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as director of the Army Reserve. It is about finding balance. The Minister mentioned Op Interflex, which is undoubtedly a great success, having trained 45,000 Ukrainian troops. However, she will also have seen the National Audit Office report published on Tuesday, which said that as a result of Op Interflex, we are now struggling to train our own troops. While it would be unreasonable to ask her to prioritise, may I seek her reassurance, given the funding issues in defence, that she will make sure that suitable funding is available to train our own troops?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, our troops will receive all the training they need. We are generally very satisfied with the NAO report—it is very good and worth reading in full, as I know the noble Lord will. I assure him that our troops will get everything they need to ensure that they are trained for whatever they may need to do.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate referred to the delivery of long-range weapons from Iran. Surely, this is the moment to remove the restrictions on the Storm Shadow missile and allow the Ukrainians to use it on Russian soil. It was rumoured in the papers yesterday that this has been agreed. Can the Minister confirm that we will go ahead and allow the Ukrainians to do that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As I said last week, the situation has not changed. The noble Lord will understand that we are having close conversations with the Ukrainians about their needs and objectives and how we might support them in achieving those. He will also note that Prime Minister Starmer is meeting President Biden on Friday, and I am sure the issues around Ukraine will be raised at that meeting.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said. She will know that yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said in Kyiv that the delivery of Iranian missiles changes the terms of the debate. Pressing further on what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has said, can she expand on that? Also, given that North Korea has sent 16,500 containers of Soviet weapons for use in Ukraine, what are we doing about raising this issue with the Security Council, since both are in breach of the Security Council’s resolutions on arms embargoes?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am not going to say anything more about Storm Shadow today—noble Lords will understand that it would be a gift to President Putin were I to do so. However, I note what the noble Lord has said, and he is right to draw attention to the conversations in Kyiv yesterday. It is our intention to support Ukraine in achieving its objectives. We are closely engaged with Ukraine on what those objectives are and how we may be best continue to support them.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome and support every word of the Minister in answering this Question. Iran is not just fuelling Russia in this conflict; it is behind all the conflicts in the Middle East and it organises attacks in Europe and the UK. Can the Minister update the House on when the Government will proscribe the IRGC, which was a commitment made in their recent election manifesto?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I do not have an update on timing, but I will ask questions about that and get back to the noble Lord. I do not know when that will happen, but I note his concern and he is right to raise it.
The Earl of Minto (Con)
My Lords, Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine must be stopped and Russian troops must withdraw or be driven completely from Ukrainian territory. We must all agree on that. Will the Minister confirm to the House what engagement the Government have had with the Government of Ukraine and other international partners, following the recent drone strikes in Russia? Will she clarify that the Government’s strategic defence review is in no way clogging up the essential supply chain of munitions to support the defence of the Ukrainian nation?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
In no way at all is the strategic defence review clogging up our support for Ukraine. I have outlined some of the ways in which we are ensuring that that support is forthcoming, including our commitment
“for as long as it takes”.
These are the words of the Prime Minister.
On our engagement with Ukraine, the noble Lord should know that one of the first phone calls that Prime Minister Starmer made upon his election was to President Zelensky. One of the first visits that Defence Secretary John Healey made was to Odesa. Our engagement is regular, deep and proving fruitful. The Foreign Secretary was in Kyiv yesterday and the Prime Minister will be talking to President Biden about Ukraine on Friday.
Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL]
Thursday 12th September 2024
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL]
Thursday 12th September 2024
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Patrick Finucane Murder
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on the murder of Patrick Finucane, made in another place yesterday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
“Patrick Finucane was a human rights lawyer. On 12 February 1989, he was brutally murdered in his home in north Belfast by the loyalist paramilitary group the Ulster Defence Association, in front of his wife, Geraldine, who was wounded, and his three children, one of whom is now the honourable Member for Belfast North. From that day onwards, Mrs Finucane and her family have campaigned tirelessly in search of answers about the killing of their loved one.
In 1990 an inquest was opened and closed on the same day with an open verdict. Subsequently, a number of investigations and reviews were conducted. In 2001, following the collapse of power-sharing, the UK and Irish Governments agreed at Weston Park to establish public inquiries into a number of Troubles-related cases, if recommended by an international judge. Judge Peter Cory was appointed to conduct a review of each case, and in 2004 he recommended that the UK Government hold public inquiries into four deaths: those of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill, Billy Wright and Patrick Finucane. Judge Cory also recommended that the Irish Government establish a tribunal of inquiry into the deaths of former Royal Ulster Constabulary officers Bob Buchanan and Harry Breen. Inquiries were promptly established in all those cases, with one exception: the death of Mr Finucane.
Meanwhile, in 2003, the third investigation by Sir John Stevens into alleged collusion between the security forces and loyalist paramilitaries had concluded that there had been state collusion in Mr Finucane’s killing. That investigation was followed by the conviction in 2004 of one of those responsible, Ken Barrett. With criminal proceedings concluded, the then Northern Ireland Secretary, Paul Murphy, made a Statement to Parliament setting out the Government’s commitment to establish an inquiry, but despite a number of attempts, the Government were unable to reach agreement with the Finucane family on arrangements for one.
In 2011, the coalition Government decided against an inquiry. Instead, a review of what had happened, led by Sir Desmond de Silva QC, was established. Sir Desmond concluded that he was left
‘in no doubt that agents of the state were involved in carrying out serious violations of human rights up to and including murder’.
The publication of his findings in 2012 led the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, to make an unprecedented apology from this Dispatch Box to the Finucane family on behalf of the British Government, citing the
‘shocking levels of state collusion’—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/12; col. 296.]
in this case.
In 2019, the Supreme Court found that all the previous investigations had been insufficient to enable the state to discharge its obligations under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court identified a number of deficiencies in the state’s compliance with Article 2. In particular, Sir Desmond’s review did not have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses; those who met Sir Desmond were not subject to testing as to the accuracy of their evidence; and a potentially critical witness was excused from attendance. In November 2020, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced that he would not establish a public inquiry at that time, pending the outcome of continuing investigations, but that decision was quashed by the Northern Ireland High Court in December 2022.
This Government take our human rights obligations, and our responsibilities towards victims and survivors of the Troubles, extremely seriously. The plain fact is that, two decades on, the commitment made by the Government—first in the agreement with the Irish Government, and then to this House—to establish an inquiry into the death of Mr Finucane remains unfulfilled. It is for that exceptional reason that I have decided to establish an independent inquiry into the death of Patrick Finucane, under the Inquiries Act 2005.
I have, of course, met Mrs Finucane and her family—first on 25 July to hear their views, and again yesterday to inform them of my decision. Mrs Finucane asked the Government to set up a public inquiry under the 2005 Act, and, as I have just told the House, the Government have now agreed to do that, in line with the 2019 Supreme Court ruling and the Court of Appeal judgment of July this year.
In making this decision, I have, as is required, considered the likely costs and impact on the public finances. It is the Government’s expectation that the inquiry will, while doing everything that is required to discharge the state’s human rights obligations, avoid unnecessary costs, given all the previous reviews and investigations and the large amount of information and material that is already in the public domain. Indeed, in the most recent High Court proceedings, the judge suggested that an inquiry could
‘build on the significant investigative foundations which are already in place’.
As part of my decision-making process, I also considered whether to refer the case to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. The commission has powers comparable to those provided by the Inquiries Act to compel witnesses and to secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies—powers identified by the Supreme Court as being crucial for the Government to discharge their human rights obligations.
The commission was found, in separate proceedings in February this year, by the High Court to be sufficiently independent and capable of conducting Article 2-compliant investigations, and while I am committed to considering measures to further strengthen the commission, I have every confidence in its ability, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, to find answers for survivors and families. However, given the unique circumstances of the case, and the solemn commitment made by the Government in 2001 and again in 2004, the only appropriate way forward is to establish a public inquiry.
Many of us in this House remember the savage brutality of the Troubles—a truly terrible time in our history—and we must never forget that most of the deaths and injuries were the responsibility of paramilitaries, including the Ulster Defence Association, the Provisional IRA and others. We should also always pay tribute to the work during that time of the Armed Forces, police and security services, the vast majority of whom served with distinction and honour, and so many of whom sacrificed their lives in protecting others.
It is very hard for any of us to understand fully the trauma of those who lost loved ones—sons and daughters, spouses and partners, fathers and mothers—and what they have been through. There is of course nothing that any of us can do to bring them back or erase the deep pain that was caused, but what we can do is seek transparency to help provide answers to families and work together for a better future for Northern Ireland, which has made so much progress since these terrible events. I hope that the inquiry will finally provide the information that the Finucane family has sought for so long.
The Government will seek to appoint a chair of the inquiry and establish its terms of reference as soon as possible, and I will update the House further. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her position and wish her well, but I must say—this is no reflection on her—that Northern Ireland would be better served in this House with a full-time departmental Minister.
The shooting dead of Patrick Finucane at home in front of his family in February 1989 by members of the loyalist terror group the Ulster Defence Association was a heinous act. Like all terrorist atrocities committed during the Troubles, whether loyalist or republican, there could never be any justification for it.
As the Statement makes clear, since 1989 there have been a number of investigations and reviews into the killing of Patrick Finucane—most recently the review by the late Sir Desmond de Silva QC, established by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2011, which reported in December 2012. Sir Desmond, who had full access to the Finucane archive and all relevant state papers, concluded in 2012 that while there was no “over-arching State conspiracy”, there were shocking levels of state collusion.
The Statement acknowledges the unprecedented apology from my noble friend, which I helped to draft, and the Opposition stand by every word of that apology. Any state collusion was, and is, always wrong and should always be condemned, and those responsible should, wherever possible, always face the full force of the law.
The de Silva review sought to establish the facts of what happened in a far shorter timescale than could ever have been achieved by a lengthy and costly public inquiry. I maintain that the review, delivered on time and on budget, was a thorough, substantial piece of work that put far more information into the public domain about the Finucane killing than had ever been made available before. Despite that, as the noble Baroness made clear, after a series of legal challenges the Supreme Court ruled in February 2019 that the de Silva review, along with all previous investigations, was not fully Article 2 compliant, for the reasons the noble Baroness set out in the Statement.
It is worth pointing out that the 2019 judgment did not conclude that a public inquiry was required to remedy the Article 2 deficiency, let alone order such an inquiry. Rather, it said at paragraph 153 that:
“It is for the state to decide … what form of investigation, if indeed any is now feasible, is required in order to meet that requirement”.
Following further court challenges by the Finucane family, and deadlines set by the Court of Appeal in Belfast, the new Government announced yesterday that they will now establish a public inquiry under the terms of the Inquiries Act—something that, as the Statement points out, had previously been rejected by the Finucane family.
Although we respect the Government’s decision in this case, we believe it to be a mistaken decision and one that, I fear, is likely to be a case of “Grant in haste and repent at leisure”. In our view, a better and more appropriate way forward would have been to refer the case to the newly established Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, ICRIR. This body is now staffed and operational, since 1 May, under the distinguished leadership of the former Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Declan Morgan KC, who revealed on Monday that the commission has already considered 85 applications, with eight of them now at the information recovery stage.
For all the controversy surrounding the passage of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, and despite the new Government’s pledge to “repeal and replace” the Act, they have now committed to keeping the ICRIR, the establishment of which forms the vast bulk of the Act. Indeed, in the Statement the Secretary of State expressed his confidence in Sir Declan Morgan and the ability of the ICRIR
“to find answers for survivors and families”.
In February this year the High Court found the ICRIR to be capable of conducting effective Article 2-compliant investigations and to be sufficiently independent of government. The Statement acknowledges that the commission has similar powers to compel and secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies to those available to any public inquiry. The commission is able to hold hearings in public under an enhanced inquisitorial process and has the powers to compel witnesses—the main deficiency identified by the court in the de Silva review.
In light of all this, can the noble Baroness set out precisely what a public inquiry can achieve that the ICRIR cannot? Why set up an entirely new process, with all the time and cost involved in that, when we have a body in place that could begin straightaway and deliver the same outcomes?
On timings, can the noble Baroness give any indication of when the Government expect to appoint a judge to chair the inquiry, when we are likely to see the agreed terms of reference, and when the inquiry will begin formal proceedings?
The Secretary of State expressed the expectation that, given previous reviews and investigations, costs can be contained. Does the noble Baroness not agree that, given the thoroughness with which we expect public inquiries to be conducted, and mindful of the history of such inquiries in Northern Ireland, this might turn out to be something of a triumph of hope over expectation? What is the Government’s estimate of the time and the cost?
The Government’s main argument in favour of a public inquiry in this case appears to be its “unique circumstances”, the promises that were made at Weston Park in 2001 and those of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, in the other place in 2004. Can the noble Baroness set out what precisely are the unique circumstances of this case that set it apart from other atrocities carried out during the Troubles and that merit different treatment? Have the Government considered the impact of this decision on other victims and survivors of the Troubles? Can she confirm that the challenge to the previous Government’s decision not to proceed with a public inquiry, on the basis that this had been promised by another Government years before, was dismissed by the Supreme Court in February 2019? Can she also say how many other demands for public inquiries the Government are currently considering?
Finally, I welcome the acknowledgement in the Statement of the role of the security forces, the vast majority of whom, as the noble Baroness pointed out, carried out their duties with courage, professionalism and dedication to the rule of law, and whom we all owe a tremendous debt of gratitude.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to her place and look forward to working constructively with her, not least on legacy issues, over the months ahead.
From these Benches we strongly welcome yesterday’s Statement by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for both its measured tone and its content. We welcome that there is finally to be a public inquiry. The brutal murder of Patrick Finucane was one of the most shocking and controversial incidents that took place in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The Finucane family has had to wait more than 35 years for justice, and we can but hope that this inquiry can begin to result in some closure for them after all these years.
It is extremely important that the public inquiry being established will have the confidence of the public and all the powers necessary to carry out its job in full. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that the inquiry will be able to compel witnesses and secure all relevant documents? Can she say a little more about the likely process, conditions and timetable for appointing the chair of the inquiry?
On wider legacy issues, the Minister will recognise that there are so many other families in Northern Ireland who are still waiting for truth and justice. With the ICRIR in place, and the commitment of the Government to repeal the immunity section of the legacy Act, it is important that we have clarity on these matters as soon as possible, including how the inquiry will relate to the ICRIR. Can she say how and when we are likely to be informed about the process and timing of repealing the immunity section of the legacy Act? In his Statement, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he was committed to considering measures to “further strengthen” the ICRIR. Can the Minister say how and when she expects this to take place?
Finally, I welcome the response of the Northern Ireland Secretary to my honourable friend James MacCleary MP yesterday that there will be close co-operation with opposition MPs on wider legacy issues. Can the Minister provide reassurances that Members of this House will also be kept fully informed at every stage of this process?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, for his extensive service—the decades of work for peace in Northern Ireland—and I look forward to working with him to ensure that his legacy, and the legacy work that we will do, goes forward. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her welcome. I look forward to working with them both, and with all Members of this House, on all the issues raised today.
As this is my first outing at the Dispatch Box, before I move on I want to thank the many noble Lords who have worked to deliver peace in Northern Ireland. I was born in 1979. At the time of the atrocity we are discussing, I was nine years old. This is my history, and all of our history, but I lived through the benefit of peace because of the work done by so many noble Lords. I, and many others, are grateful for it.
The murder of Patrick Finucane was one of four cases for which the Government committed to establishing a public inquiry following the findings of Judge Cory. It is important to remember what was agreed at Weston Park. Inquiries were established in three cases—the murders of Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright—but not in the case of Patrick Finucane. This is how we can complete the promises and pledges made in this House and to those families as we move forward with the next stage of legacy.
I wish to put on record my deepest sympathies to the Finucane family and to all those touched by the Troubles. It is the considered view of the Secretary of State, and a commitment that the Government have made this week—having held this view consistently since 2001—that there will be a public inquiry into the case of Patrick Finucane. Although the court found that the previous investigations did not meet our Article 2 obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, they did help provide crucial information, and, as was the case following the third of the Stevens investigations, a successful prosecution of one of those involved in the murder.
As was set out in the Statement, the Government have full confidence in the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, under the leadership of Sir Declan Morgan, to deliver for victims and families. As has been published by the commission this week, and referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Caine, 85 families have already approached the commission with their case—a positive endorsement of the new body. Eight of those requests for information are now at the information recovery stage.
As has been set out, the commission has powers comparable to those of a public inquiry—namely the powers to compel witnesses and to secure the disclosure of relevant documents by state bodies. Crucially, the courts have ruled that the commission can deliver investigations compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For these reasons, as was set out to Parliament by the Secretary of State, the Government have chosen to retain the commission. However, we have listened to the concerns of victims and families, and acknowledge that many wish to have a choice as to which avenue they pursue to get the answers and justice that they deserve.
That is why, in his Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament just before the Summer Recess, the Secretary of State set out his plans to propose measures to allow inquests that were brought to an end by the legacy Act to recommence, and to reverse the Act’s current prohibition on bringing new civil claims. The Government are also exploring how we can further strengthen the independence and powers of the commission, in addition to repealing the conditional immunity provisions in order to build public confidence in the commission across all communities.
I now need to answer the questions that were asked. I was asked about repealing, and how and when we will do it. We are currently consulting with all parties and all communities on what will work for them, and what they need to give them confidence in the commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said, the commission is now established—it exists. We need to ensure that it has the trust of all communities, some of which is lacking, and to establish what additional powers we need to give to Sir Declan Morgan to ensure that there is confidence across the communities.
Timings regarding the public inquiry that we have announced will follow in due course, but let us be clear: the Finucane family have waited 35 years for answers, and we will do everything we can to ensure that the process is as speedy as it can be. We wanted to update the House before 27 September, which was the legal deadline agreed, to make sure that your Lordships’ House was aware of the next steps. I will return to the House once we have appointed a chair, and with that chair negotiated and agreed the terms of reference.
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, asked about the costs associated with the commission. He knows better than I that a huge amount of work has already been done on the Finucane case, some of which is publicly available and some of which is not. On that basis, we believe that the terms of reference can be negotiated and delivered in such a way that costs can be managed, and that we can work with the family and all partners to ensure that this can be delivered on time, quickly, and, I hope, to budget.
The Government are mindful of the many years that Mrs Finucane and her family have been waiting for this inquiry, and of the decades that have passed since the commitment at Weston Park, which was signed by my noble friend Lord Reid. As such, we are keen to deliver the inquiry as quickly as is practicable, as it is the only outstanding case. However, as noble Lords will appreciate, due process must be followed, and it will inevitably take some time to work through all the necessary stages and preparatory work in setting up the inquiry.
We all remember the savage brutality of the Troubles and their legacy—a truly terrible time in our history. Peace can never be taken for granted. We must work every day to ensure that the Troubles remain part of our history, not of our future. By ensuring that families have access to all available information, and working together on delivering the promises of Weston Park and the Stormont agreement, we can ensure that the building blocks of legacy help us to deliver peace and reconciliation in the future.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Baroness to her place and wish her well. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said about this case, and that the Article 2 obligations can be fulfilled by a reference to the ICRIR. Given the numerous processes and events that have happened in relation to the case, that would have been entirely appropriate.
It has to be said that the murder of Pat Finucane was a shocking, disgraceful, horrible event, which should never have happened; it needs to be condemned by all right-thinking people. Today, we think of all the victims in Northern Ireland and elsewhere who have had no inquiry, no truth and no justice. When thinking of human rights lawyers, judges and others in the legal profession, I want to put on record that the IRA and Sinn Féin, which has been mentioned, and its MPs—every single one of them—refuse to condemn the murder of judges, politicians and people in civil society. That needs to be borne in mind.
The hypocrisy of the Irish Government too has been uncovered, in that they refuse to have public inquiries into, for instance, the murder of Ian Sproule in Castlederg. We think of Lord Justice Gibson and Lady Gibson, who were killed by an IRA bomb in 1987—blown to bits and identified only by their dental records. There was no public inquiry into that, despite demands in 2013 for one about collusion with Irish state forces. We think of the Hanna family, murdered in 1988—a mother and father, and a six year-old boy, blown to bits in an attempt to murder a justice of the High Court.
I have every sympathy with the Minister’s position and with what she is trying to do in Northern Ireland. But I have to say that there will be a deep feeling in Northern Ireland today—in the light of the cost, which has been mentioned, of having this unnecessary inquiry, and given what has happened and the alternatives—of great injustice among the innocent victims, thousands of them across Northern Ireland, who will say today, “Where is our inquiry? Where is the spotlight on our grief? We have been crying for years, and nothing has been done”. It is time that the Government addressed that fundamental question.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I want to put on record my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. His comments demonstrate the level of hurt that we are still touching on every time we discuss the Troubles, and the pain that so many people are still experiencing. There is very little I can say to give reassurance in terms of the specifics of his pain and that of those he touched on, but I reassure him that there is no hierarchy here. This is a unique case that was discussed and agreed in 2001 at Weston Park. We are ensuring that we deliver, as we did on the inquiries for Billy White, Robert Hamill and Rosemary Nelson. The case of Patrick Finucane is the only case in which this long-standing commitment to establish an inquiry had yet to be met, until yesterday. However, I appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns and look forward to working with him to ensure that the rest of the legacy programme is fit for purpose and that every person who was touched by the Troubles feels that they have the appropriate access to justice and truth.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there is enough time for everyone who wishes to speak to do so. I call my noble friend Lady Ritchie first and then we will go back to the Cross Benches.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench and the decision of the Secretary of State to grant a public inquiry into the murder of Patrick Finucane, an incident I recall well. I also point out that all murders in Northern Ireland, carried out by paramilitaries or state forces, were totally wrong, inappropriate and unacceptable. I have two questions to ask the Minister. When will there be a repeal of the legacy legislation and a definite move towards inquests, investigations and inquiries to solve the problems and challenges faced by victims and survivors of the Troubles? Will the Government withdraw the application by the previous Secretary of State for a judicial review of the decision of the coroner in March this year into the case of Sean Brown, which was also mired in collusion?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for her questions. The Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government will repeal and replace the legacy Act, including by reversing the prohibition on bringing new civil proceedings and proposing measures to allow inquests that were previously halted. As the Secretary of State said in the other place yesterday, the Government are now in the process of consulting all interested parties about how to give effect to the repeal and replace the commitment in the gracious Speech. We will bring that forward as quickly as possible. The Government are also in the process of addressing the incompatibility findings of the High Court and, when parliamentary time allows, we will lay a draft remedial order under Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to remove the offending provisions from the statute book.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment here on the specific case mentioned by my noble friend, but I reaffirm the commitment made by the Secretary of State yesterday that the Government will carefully consider each individual case in order to reach a sensible way forward.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the Minister to her place. In an article published in today’s Belfast Telegraph, John Finucane, the son of Pat Finucane, writes:
“Everyone on our island who has been affected by horrific past events are entitled to full truth and justice”.
I wholeheartedly agree. The Finucane family, having previously turned down an inquiry in 2005, have now secured one on their terms. However, countless other families who lost loved ones to terrorism in Northern Ireland will never receive such preferential treatment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked, can the Minister explain to those families why their lives and those of their fathers, mothers, sons or daughters mean less to the Government than the late wife of Pat Finucane? Further, noble Lords will note that in his article, John Finucane calls for everyone on “our” island to be given full truth and justice. As such, will the Minister update the House on what discussions her colleagues are having with their counterparts in Dublin, with a view to the Irish Government co-operating fully with a public inquiry into the Omagh bomb that claimed the lives of so many, on both sides of the border?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, for his questions and note his pain and disappointment. I am grateful for his comments about the Finucane family and for recognising the steps we need to take. On the specifics of his question, I can only say to all families of the Troubles that my heart goes out to them, and that this Government will do everything in our power to ensure that they have access to justice and to the information they need to ensure a level of personal peace and closure. We will review every case as and when it comes in front of the Secretary of State. If the noble Lord would like to discuss anything specific with me, I look forward to meeting with him. On the issues about all of Ireland, members of the NIO meet the Government of Ireland regularly to discuss this and all matters, and we will continue to do so to further the cause of peace.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
In welcoming the Minister to her job, I tell her that she is going to be very busy, particularly now that we have lost the Windsor Framework Sub-Committee, which I hope can be brought back. The Minister must understand that this will be seen by many people as a kind of hierarchy of victims. Many victims, particularly in rural areas, saw their families destroyed by IRA terrorism, and there has been nothing—no inquiries, no money, nothing spent—to get to the truth of that. We must make sure that everyone feels that they are being treated equally. We must make sure that the money spent on this is spent in a way that ensures that we get to the truth. I think we have already got to the truth. I see no unique circumstances, and I wonder whether, as was asked earlier by another noble Lord, she can say what the unique circumstances are, after all the other inquiries and all the money that has been spent. Of course, I think we all know what the unique circumstances are that the Government are referring to, but that will not satisfy people in Northern Ireland. Given that we all have confidence in Sir Declan Morgan, and that the Secretary of State made that clear in his Statement, I do not understand why this could not have been sent, as it should have been, to the ICRIR. This is sending out a message that the Government do not believe that Sir Declan Morgan could handle the case, and that is very sad indeed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make it clear and put on the record that there is no hierarchy of pain or justice. Everybody touched by the Troubles deserves answers; it is why and how we engage in legacy that is so important. Yesterday’s decision by the Secretary of State is the fulfilment of our commitment made at Weston Park 23 years ago—many years before the establishment of the commission and the appointment of Sir Declan Morgan. However, I am delighted that Sir Declan Morgan has the confidence of the noble Baroness, and I look forward to working with her in the months and perhaps years ahead, depending on how long my appointment lasts, as we discuss these issues in great depth.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there is time for both noble Lords to speak. I suggest that we hear first from the former Secretary of State.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench. I am sure she will do a wonderful job as the spokesperson on Northern Ireland. When I was Secretary of State, I received the Cory report, which recommended four public inquiries. We agreed on three, but then deferred the Finucane inquiry for a bit longer because of prosecutions. Then, 20 years ago, as stated in the Statement, I made a commitment in the House of Commons to hold a public inquiry. For various reasons, that did not happen. So it is timely that that is happening now. I very much welcome this Statement and hope it will be the end of a very painful matter. I ask my noble friend, first, about the timescale for this—although she has touched on that—and, secondly, about the consultation that has been held with Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive. It is extremely important that there is a great deal of their involvement in this, and also—it has been test-run by the noble Lord, Lord Rogan—with the Irish Government and the Government of the United States of America.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
There are so many noble Lords in this House who participated and delivered peace in Northern Ireland—none more so than my noble friend Lord Murphy. I am very grateful, both for his mentorship and for the work that he did throughout his time as Secretary of State and that he continues to do to ensure that these matters are raised on a regular basis.
On the specific questions that my noble friend raised, he will know much better than I, given his former roles, that on the timescale, as fast as we may wish to go, we have responsibilities under the Inquiries Act 2005, which we will follow, and we will report to the House in due course. We hope to establish the public inquiry as quickly as possible, and I look forward to returning to your Lordships’ House with more detail as quickly as I can.
With regard to the consultation on future legacy arrangements that I believe my noble friend was touching on, we will of course be working with the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to make sure that they are fully engaged in our future arrangements, and that any future changes to the legacy Act have their confidence to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. On that note, I want to put on record how delighted the Government are that both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive are up and running and that their programme for government was published this week. In terms of engagement with the Republic of Ireland, before we announced the inquiry, the Secretary of State engaged with the Tánaiste, Micheál Martin, and spoke to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland to make sure that everybody was up to date and informed before a decision was made.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Baroness to her place. She said that the Finucane family had been waiting for many years—30 years—for answers. Well, my family has been waiting 48 years for answers. Nobody has been brought to court. No one has been charged. Yet we are left with the same heartache and heartbreak that they say the Finucane family has. The Finucane family has already had millions of pounds spent on investigations. Is the message from this Government that there is a hierarchy of victimhood in Northern Ireland and that, as far as the Government are concerned, the ICRIR will be good enough for the rest but not for the Finucanes? Is it “he who shouts the loudest” who seem to be the only ones that hurt?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am so sorry to hear of the heartbreak and heartache that the noble Lord has had for the last 48 years. Every victim of the Troubles deserves information, peace and closure. We will do everything that we can to support every victim in making sure that they know the reality of what happened and how it happened. As I have said, there is no hierarchy in this area—no hierarchy of pain, no hierarchy of justice. We made a commitment in 2001 to four public inquiries. We are delivering on the one that is outstanding, following on from the court decisions and the processes that have been followed. With regards to the commission, I am aware of the noble Lord’s previous concerns about the legacy Act. I look forward to working with him and Members across the House as we move forward with amendments to the legacy Act and we seek to ensure that it and the commission have the confidence of every member of the community.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and pay tribute to the work he has done over so many years in this area. Of all the appointments made by the Government since the election, none has pleased me more than to see my noble friend on the Front Bench, although I do not envy her the work she will have to do on this. I am sure she can look forward, for example, to families in Birmingham renewing their demands for a public inquiry into the pub bombings in 1974. It sems to me that the only beneficiaries now are the lawyers. These inquiries always take longer and cost more than the Government think they will. So at what point will we draw a line under all of this and use this money instead for economic development in Northern Ireland, for investment in schools, jobs, reconciliation and peacebuilding, and bringing young people from both communities together, so that the people of Northern Ireland can look forward to an even brighter future?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his incredibly generous comments. We will see whether I live up to them—or not—in due course. Given the noble Lord’s role in the last Labour Government, he will be aware that every penny we can spend on economic development and regeneration itself acts as a bridge to peace and to moving on from the Troubles. However, people still need answers. One of the things we have heard in your Lordships’ House today is that people’s hurt is still tangible. We need to do everything we can to provide closure and to move forward on behalf of all the families and all those touched by the Troubles throughout my lifetime.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as there are a few seconds left, I thank the Minister for her answers this afternoon. When she looks at Hansard, she may notice that she missed one or two of my specific questions. I would be very grateful if she could go away with her officials—some of whom I spy out of the corner of my eye—and possibly write to me with some detailed answers to the questions I put.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Of course, I apologise if I did not get to all of your Lordships’ questions, and specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Caine. I will check Hansard for the full debate and respond appropriately.
Pedal Cycles
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hogan-Howe
That this House takes note of the safety and regulation issues involved in the use of pedal cycles on the road network.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate. I thank the people who supported me in the ballot, the people who are speaking today, and of course the people who are here to attend. I suspect not everybody will agree with me, but that is the nature of the debate. The reason for it is to encourage people to explore the facts and see what may improve in the future.
My reasons for becoming involved in these issues are three- or fourfold. The first was a near-death experience on Victoria Street, which I suspect many people may be replicating and telling us about today. The second, just intuitively, is the number of cyclists who appear to ignore the law, particularly but not only in our urban areas. That is not sufficient, it has to be factually based, but I hope to explore that. The third is the cases I have heard of where the whole system does not seem to respond well to the fact that someone has been seriously injured—sometimes lost their life—and then there is not a proper investigation and the criminal justice system does not cover itself in glory.
I was told about one case about 18 months ago that led to my involvement here today. A young barrister aged around 35, a fit kickboxer, crossing Fulham Road with the lights in his favour on a pelican crossing, through stationary traffic on a wet night, was hit by a cycle. It must have been at high speed because his injury was a spiral fracture of his leg. I am not a medical specialist, but a spiral fracture means there has been a very severe blow, and it gives you a higher risk that your bones will not knit and you may lose your leg. Fortunately he recovered, probably due to his youth and fitness, but his experience of the criminal justice system thereafter has been pretty appalling. That is partly because the law is not very supportive, and I hope to touch on that; partly because the police were not very good; partly because the Crown Prosecution Service was slow; and lastly because the court system did not deliver a fair outcome. That case is just one reason. Many others will have their own reasons to get involved in this debate.
My second general point is that my belief is, and research shows, that there is generally only one form of deterrence that works on criminal behaviour: the risk of getting caught. All other things do not really work. You can get very severe sentences—public disorder is the exception; as we have just seen in the recent riots, if you give significant sentences shortly after rioting starts, that can deter others from getting involved—but generally it is about the risk of getting caught. One of the main issues that I want to push on is that, generally, when cyclists disobey the law they have a high chance of not being caught or of no one intervening at all. I will try to explain why they are not unique in that; it is a human behaviour thing. We could say similar things about other groups but in fact their behaviour has been modified in ways that I hope to cover.
I want to make it clear at the beginning that I am not anti-cyclist, because some may allege otherwise. I cycle myself. I have an electric cycle; it is not traditional. These things are big, heavy and fast. I enjoy it and, done properly, it is great to cycle. It is a green, safe, enjoyable and healthy thing to do that we should all encourage and make sure there is even more of. In policy terms, the last 20 years have seen Governments quite properly trying to protect cyclists against motorists. That has been necessary; we have seen many awful cases, particularly here in London, where cyclists have been badly injured or, worse, lost their life, particularly when colliding with large vehicles. We have now seen changes to the road structure to make sure that there is separation of cyclists from motorists, and that is to be supported. However, my argument today is about affording the same consideration and safety to pedestrians from cyclists.
I am not going to say that cyclists are the only threat because that would be quite wrong, but there is a case for making sure that pedestrians are protected from the behaviour of bad cyclists and cyclists who behave badly. It is only fair to notice that many good cyclists—cyclists who behave well—are harassed and intimidated by those behaving badly. There have been many cases where cyclists have been doing the proper thing only to be abused and threatened by cyclists who intend to get past them. They are not alone in this, but it is worth remembering that this is not only about pedestrians. If a motor vehicle becomes involved in a collision with a cyclist, whoever’s fault it is, that is a terrible event. Everyone involved will be shocked and there will be an outcome that no one intended. We ought to consider the motorist who ends up colliding with a cyclist too.
I should highlight that I do not believe that cyclists are more likely than any other group to become involved in criminal behaviour. Whether a lorry driver, a car driver or a bus driver, we are all humans and we all have failings. This is not just about cyclists; it is about human behaviour and the fact that we see far more people seriously injured and killed by cars each year. It is not just about the fact that cyclists can hurt people.
My principal point is that road traffic law has not maintained the accountability of cyclists in the way that motor vehicles are regulated. I hope to go through areas where that could be changed. Cyclists can be prosecuted for dangerous, careless or inconsiderate cycling, or cycling when under the influence of drink or drugs, so there is legislation that can regulate some of the behaviour. However, Sir Iain Duncan Smith MP has been trying to fill a lacuna in the law by proposing that cyclists be covered by a new offence of causing death or serious injury by dangerous, reckless or inconsiderate cycling. That was accepted by the last Government, but the general election intervened and it was not possible to deliver that legislation. The Minister may want to comment on the new Government’s position on Sir Iain’s proposal, which I believe he is going to bring back. In the debate prior to the general election, the Opposition at the time indicated that they would be supportive of this law change. It would be helpful to hear from the Government how they intend to respond to that, if the Minister is able to say so.
There is a further offence, a very old one from the Offences against the Person Act 1861, called furious driving of a carriage. Obviously that law was for other times, but cycling can be pulled within it if there is a serious injury. It is quite hard to prosecute or even land a charge, as the prosecutors in the case that I mentioned earlier which caught my interest discovered when they got to court. You have to prove that the driving was fast, which leads to the question of what is fast in relation to a cycle, and furious, which implies some intent or recklessness. To prove that gets harder and harder, although not impossible—there have been cases that have generated those sorts of convictions—but it is not designed for that purpose. The problem with laws not designed for a purpose is that you have to try to squeeze these things in, which is difficult for the police, the prosecutor and the courts, as well as for juries, who play a part when this is an indictable offence.
Cyclists are not even bound by speed limits. When I first raised this issue in the House, I mistakenly believed that they were; I had just forgotten that they are not. Cycles can go any speed in an urban environment, or any environment. Cycles can of course get to high speeds. For fit people, through muscle power, 30 miles an hour is easily attainable on the flat, and certainly downhill. With electric assistance, that is even easier. The last Government—I am not sure what the response of the new Government is—intended to increase the power of electric cycles to allow couriers to deliver more weight, but of course if couriers are not carrying that weight then all they can do is go faster. That needs to be considered when talking about this issue.
What is the argument for change? What is the data that shows a problem, apart from someone like me saying that we see lots of cyclists ignoring the law? I found it particularly difficult to get the data because it is stored in different places: partly by the Home Office, partly by the Department for Transport, and partly by the Department of Health and Social Care. The main piece of data that I found which I think is reliable was issued by the Department for Transport in a consultation process, referred to by the Evening Standard in July. It revealed that 2,491 pedestrians were injured by cyclists over a six-year period across the country. Of those, 20 were killed and 546 were seriously injured. Each one of those deaths is a tragedy and we would hope that they could have been avoided. We have a general need to reduce the number of fatalities. It is not a very large number but it is a significant one, and of course people with serious injuries are always at risk of death depending on the health conditions caused.
It is clear that the data that I have just cited is a bare minimum. The Department for Transport gets that data from police officers who attend the scenes of collisions. They do not attend every collision. They generally will attend if it is a fatal or serious injury, but that does not account for the more minor injuries where that is not the case. It is even harder to get data out of the department of health, because that relies on the GP or accident and emergency department first of all recording the incident and then recording the cause, since someone who is injured may not fully explain exactly what happened. If nothing else, one of the things I will ask for at the end of my submission today is that we have more comprehensive and accurate data supplied, to determine whether the trend is getting worse or better and whether there is anything in particular that we should be able to improve in relation to cyclists.
My major piece of evidence, which we may hear more about, is that cyclists seem to ignore a lot, including red traffic lights and pedestrian crossings when people are on them, even outside this building. I have tried to take particular note of it this week. People are crossing the crossing and cyclists are still going through. That is not acceptable on any level. It does not happen once or occasionally; it seems to be fairly routine. It is that which we need to affect. How can we change the routine behaviour?
In addition there is the fact that, at night, a large number of people do not have lights and wear dark clothing. The chance of seeing these cyclists—which was my experience on Victoria Street recently—is fairly low. On the occasion I was nearly hit, I would admit that I was partly responsible. Part of what happened was my fault and I would take that criticism—but I never saw this person. They disappeared, cycling at least at 30 miles per hour, and we could not even have a conversation to discuss who might have been right and who might have been wrong.
Some people say the police should enforce the law more vigorously, and I agree. However, enforcing the law against 7 million cyclists across the country is difficult. Enforcement is not the thing that, on the whole, has led to an improvement in motor vehicle behaviour. I will quickly list what those things are. First, when it comes to getting officers involved, in London at the moment about 4,000 cyclists are prosecuted for failing to abide by red traffic lights—which is not an awful lot in a city of 9 million.
Secondly, the other major improvements have come from technology, but technology relies on a registration plate, which cyclists do not have. Interestingly, in Finland e-scooters now have them: on the back they have a very small plate.
Thirdly, one of the bigger contributors has been insurance. This has played a part in making sure that risk has been properly calculated for each motor vehicle. It also allows for victims to be compensated. At the moment, cyclists generally have no insurance by which victims may seek compensation; they have only a civil remedy. That is often not available, and the person who has caused injury often does not have enough resources to deliver any compensation should any award be made against them. So I would say that insurance would be a vital development if the Government were minded to provide it.
Fourthly, there is the provision of licences. You could argue that this would be quite a complex, bureaucratic thing, but you could just add another category on to a driving licence. You could give what were termed “grandfather rights” at the end of the Second World War for those who are cyclists already. You could test later. I would ask therefore for the licence to be withdrawn in the event of bad behaviour by a cyclist and for that person to be disqualified from cycling.
I have concentrated particularly on cycling on the road, but there have also been many cases where cycling on the pavement has caused similar problems. I am not talking about children cycling on the pavement; this is about adults cycling on the pavement at the speeds I have already referred to. They need to be deterred and we need to make sure it does not happen. I would accept that an argument against insurance is: what about children? Does that mean that children have to have insurance? That would need to be discussed, but I do not think it should stop the thrust of the argument I have already made.
In conclusion, I remind the House of the things that I have argued for. First, as a bare minimum, the Government should be collecting accurate data from across government about the nature of the problem, so that any future discussion can be informed by more data than I have been able to discover. Secondly, if the Government are minded to increase regulation to make people more accountable, they should consider registration marks for cycles, e-scooters and e-bikes. They should consider insurance for them, for compensation of victims, as well the mediation of risk, and riding licences that may allow courts to award points as opposed to fines, which on the whole do not work with the same effectiveness. We should also make sure that we generally train our young people to make sure they take their responsibilities seriously.
Finally, I close by saying that I am not against cyclists. I am not a zealot for producing more regulation. More regulation on the whole is not always a healthy thing, but in this case, I am not sure what happens if we do not do something—because then it will get worse and that I do not think is healthy for anyone.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Lord in his description of all the things that are wrong with cycling and cyclists. He made some good points. But one has to look at it from a view that the number of people killed in accidents, for example, by cyclists is very small compared with the some 2,000 people killed in road accidents. The noble Lord did not mention road accidents between vehicles—be they cars, lorries or whatever—and people. There are not many pedestrians that seem to suffer that.
Most of the issues that need to be looked at come under the category of either safety or enforcement. Many noble Lords have been speaking in this House for a long time about the lack of regulation and enforcement of electric scooters. I hope my noble friend will give us some answers about what has happened to that because, actually, you can have fun on a scooter. You should be on a road, in my view, and not on a pavement. You should also not be cycling on a pavement. There has to be much better education of cyclists and pedestrians, as well as car drivers, before we can get to a situation where everybody can live with other road users without getting completely fed up with people who disobey whatever the law is.
The noble Lord mentioned a load of statistics and I can quote a load more from a report by Sustrans, which is very useful. It gives the view that a lot of younger people are very keen to cycle and would be very keen probably to use scooters, if they were allowed to. It helps with your quality of life. One statistic really hit me:
“Every day, walking, wheeling”—
whatever that is—
“and cycling in … cities take up to 2,300,000 cars off the road”.
There is a health and accident issue there and I think it is something we need to look at in the round.
The proportion of residents who think cycling safely in their local area is good is actually not very high—somewhere between 31% and 44 %. It should be better, and the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is quite right that proper police enforcement is one thing that really should come in. One final statistic is that cycling actually keeps the cities moving, as 290,000 return cycling trips are made per day:
“If these cars were all in a traffic jam it would tail back 867 miles”.
I am sure noble Lords will like that.
We need to have a debate about this and we need common sense applied to all the issues that the noble Lord has mentioned. But let us not forget quality of life, safety needs and health. We should encourage other people to obey the lights and the rules. There are pedestrians who jaywalk, as well as cyclists. I am not in favour of licensing either walking or cycling. Do we want to have a licence to walk? That would be fun. But we should do more and there is good work done already on cycle training around the country. We need to do more of that and much more education, with some enforcement.
Every debate we have in your Lordships’ House tends to say that there are not enough police to enforce things, but we need this so that people can do what I love doing in Germany when I go there. There are cycle lanes for cycles and scooters. There are footpaths and road lanes and everybody obeys the lights and waits their turn. That should be our objective here.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for sponsoring this debate, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me for a moment of nostalgia. On 11 July 1975, the newly elected Member of Parliament for Acton initiated a debate in the other place on cycling. Nearly 50 years later, here he is again, though happily not, as then, at 4.30 pm on a Friday. That was a time when there were no cycle racks at all in Parliament, or at Paddington station. The few MPs who cycled to work were regarded as mildly eccentric, as was the most well-known pedalling Peer, Lord Hailsham. London then had 80,000 cyclists; it now has 600,000.
My speech included some novel arguments for promoting cycling, working out that cyclists converted energy into miles at the equivalent of 1,600 miles to the gallon, and set out a charter for cyclists, as well as a unit for cycling within government, cycle lanes, including a cycle lane in Hyde Park, a head start for cyclists at traffic lights, and cycle networks sponsored by local authorities. My speech was described as “interesting” by the Minister. This was before the programme “Yes Minister” revealed that “interesting” was mandarin for “crazy”. He proceeded to reject my suggestions, saying that it would be
“difficult to provide separate traffic lanes in the middle of … London”
and that adjusting traffic lights would be “costly”. On cycle networks promoted by local authorities, he said that
“with our present economic difficulties and with a cut-back in many local authority services imminent—this is hardly the time for Parliament to be urging local authorities to fresh expenditure”.
Well, plus ça change. The idea of a cycle lane in Hyde Park was “interesting”, and on a unit in his department there was again a thumbs down:
“We are being asked to cut down on the numbers of civil servants”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/7/1975; cols. 1025-26.]
But 50 years on we have made enormous progress, thanks in part to the APPG that was started in that Parliament. It anticipated “Boris bikes” by having a bicycle pool in New Palace Yard, enabling Peers and MPs to access a bicycle for £5 a year. Many used them to go out to lunch but, having been well entertained, they returned by taxi, leaving the organisers to collect our fleet from the choicest eating houses in the West End.
But enough of nostalgia. I join others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, in condemning the dangerous and anti-social behaviour of those cyclists who break the law. Why are illegal e-bikes not confiscated on the spot? A few well-publicised instances would have a real impact. But justified criticism of a minority should not morph into an attitude that is hostile to cyclists as a whole. The focus of today’s debate should be on encouraging more people to cycle safely and responsibly, in line with the policy of Governments of all colours.
I have a specific request to the Minister. At the all-party reception on Tuesday, the deputy leader of Lambeth Council spoke about the hazard of rental bikes being abandoned on pavements. These are an obstruction to pedestrians and a hazard to the visually impaired. Lambeth does not want to ban them, as the chap from Brent wanted to do on the radio this morning, but Lambeth does not have the powers to manage the problem. Will the Minister’s officials discuss this with Lambeth to see how this might be put right?
I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, but I take issue with his proposal to register and license bicycles—I oppose that. He set out the case more fully in today’s House magazine. The Government have also looked at that and opposed it—and a Written Answer of a few months ago said:
“The Department considered the potential advantages and disadvantages of a mandatory registration and licensing system for cycle ownership as part of a comprehensive cycling and walking safety review in 2018. This found that the cost and complexity of such a system would outweigh the benefits, and that restricting people’s ability to cycle in this way would mean that many would be likely to choose other modes of transport instead, with negative impacts for congestion, pollution, and health”.
Is that still the Government’s view? Licensing has been tried and abandoned in Toronto and in Switzerland. The Prime Minister has said he wants to tread more lightly on our lives, and my noble friend Lord Moylan, a champion of deregulation, would of course want to leave an even smaller footprint on us.
In 50 years there may be another debate on cycling and I may not be on the speakers’ list, but I hope that we continue to make the sort of progress we have made over the last 50 years.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow three committed cyclists. I do not bike now but I once did, so I well understand the passion with which cyclists embrace it, and the independence, the flexibility and the sense of well-being that it brings. But as cycling as an activity grows, and as our roads become ever more congested with vehicles of every size and type, it is time to step back and to consider how biking can be made safer for pedestrians and for bikers themselves.
The biggest problem arises in the centre of our cities, where large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians increasingly come together in crowded spaces and where substantial numbers of bikers routinely ignore both the law and the Highway Code. It is commonplace—we all know this to be true—on any urban arterial road, major junction or pedestrianised precinct to see bikers in their legions cycle in the wrong direction up one-way streets; bike on busy pavements; ride through red lights; and zoom across pedestrian green-light crossways and zebra crossings while pedestrians are still using them.
I have myriad examples, but just in the last few days I saw a bike rider weaving around pedestrians on a walkway, neither hand on his handlebars, sitting bolt upright, holding up and studying his mobile phone. Last week, anticipating this debate, I stood by a main arterial route around dusk and observed the enormous numbers of bikers in transit, all travelling at speed, some at a very high speed, almost all in dark clothes, almost none wearing fluorescent jackets, only a very few wearing helmets and a significant minority with no lights, front or rear. Thus they were a hazard to themselves as well as to wary pedestrians, for whom walking on city streets or crossing the road is becoming an increasingly unrelaxing and nerve-wracking experience.
E-bikes are an even greater hazard, many souped up and evidently—ask any London taxi driver about this—substantially exceeding their 15.5 miles per hour limit, and undoubtedly unregistered, untaxed and uninsured.
Lord Birt (CB)
I am sorry, but it is a time-limited debate.
The City of London police take cycling breaches seriously, but MoJ data for the country more widely demonstrates that enforcement actions are vanishingly low—just three prosecutions for the whole of last year for ignoring traffic directions, for instance. Bikers themselves pay a very high price for using the road. It is very difficult to get figures; I have asked the Library for figures, and I think we will hear figures in this debate that are inconsistent. I do not know what the true figures are but, in the figures I have seen, each week two die and around 80 are seriously injured. I had a colleague seriously handicapped for life when a lorry knocked her off her bike at a roundabout and rode over her legs with his rear wheels.
Pedestrians suffer too in collisions with bikers. Fatalities are rare, though one is too many, but around 500 pedestrian injuries, some serious, are recorded each year—again, I do not know whether that is the right figure—as a result of pedestrian/biker collisions.
What should be done? First, the Highway Code, which I read recently for the first time in many years, is a confusing blend of advice and legal requirements, and it plainly needs revision. We should consider, for instance, legally requiring cyclists to wear helmets and high-vis jackets. Wearing a helmet, it is estimated, reduces the risk of head or brain injury in an accident by 60%. Secondly, we need better education for novice bikers, and more intense public information campaigns for all bikers. Thirdly, the Home Office needs to press the police to take proportionate action to encourage a culture of compliance, especially in city centres.
Biking is a wonderful activity, but let us make it safer for bikers and for the rest of us.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on securing this debate. It is indeed telling that a former Met Police commissioner has chosen to raise this important issue. I speak as someone who is a pedestrian and a car driver who has dogs and rides horses, but others in my family are very keen cyclists. I know that there are many noble Lords who cycle and, I am sure, who do so safely. While we can all acknowledge the health and climate benefits of cycling, the present situation with bicycles has become a serious hazard for pedestrians and other road users.
I should perhaps start by declaring an interest: I was knocked over by a cyclist while on the pedestrian crossing outside Parliament in 2019, when I had the right of way. It was by an eminent lawyer who did not apologise and did not even ask whether I was okay. The police would do nothing about it. Also, an elderly friend of mine was knocked over by a Deliveroo cyclist at a crossing and ended up injured in hospital for several weeks. The bicyclist gave a false telephone number and could not be traced. I am afraid that I do not subscribe to the argument put forward by Cycling UK that, because more people are injured by cars, we should not be concerned about holding cyclists to account. We need to address causes of injury however they occur.
Despite the words of Queen’s bicycle song,
“I want to ride it where I like”,
it is important that whoever uses the roads does so with care and consideration towards other road users. If anyone is in doubt about whether many cyclists flout the law, just go and stand by the crossing outside the Lords: cyclists not wanting to slow down or unclip their feet, jumping the lights with impunity. Last December, at a junction of High Street Kensington and Earls Court Road, over 50 cyclists were caught in just a three-hour window. The problem is not just ignoring red lights; it is not giving way to pedestrian crossings, going up on the pavement, squeezing through gaps, and undertaking, to name a few. It shows the darker side of Mario Cipollini’s oft-misused cycling quotation:
“If you brake, you don’t win”.
Such is the aggressive approach that has crept in with some that I know cycle users who will not go in the cycle lanes because they suffer such abuse if they do not go fast enough.
Respect needs to be observed for other road users. No car driver wants to hit a bicyclist; the mental health repercussions for them would be absolutely terrible. So often, however, bicyclists just stick their arms out and ride across cars without ever looking or observing the Highway Code. Those who regularly flout the law are more likely to cause accidents. Surely cyclists should have to obey the rules of the road like everyone else and, where they do not, they should be held to account. Yet in 2023 only 39 people were convicted for careless or inconsiderate cycling.
There is, of course, no mandatory training and testing for bicyclists, but ignorance of the law of the road is not a defence. I welcome initiatives such as the Bikeability Trust, the DfT’s national schoolchildren cycling programme, which has helped about 4 million children get on bikes since its inception. Safe cycling has enormous benefits for everyone.
It is not just in towns and cities where there is a problem from cyclists. On A roads and country lanes there can be cyclists, sometimes in clumps holding up all the traffic—are they not meant to pull over? While I know that we are primarily addressing cycles on the roads today, there is also a huge issue with off-road cyclists who are dangerous to walkers, dogs and horses. Last weekend, I went to walk in Surrey on common land where I have been walking all my life; I used to ride down there too. I must have seen over 40 off-road bikes, but I saw hardly any other dog walkers and no horses. I have since been told that no horse rider can now go out there at the weekend, except terribly early in the morning, and hardly anyone walks their dogs, because it is simply too dangerous. The cyclists go at a rate of knots, do not give way to anybody and many are very inconsiderate. It just is not right that these off-road bicyclists should be able to drive away other people who want to enjoy the countryside. Perhaps the Minister could address this aspect too.
I very much support the idea of registration for bikes. It would enable the regulations to be more easily implemented and cyclists who offend to be identified. It would probably be a deterrent to bike theft as well. I do not accept the argument that there are too many to do so—we manage to get everyone to pay tax and we get cars licensed, so why not bikes?
There is no doubt that there is a real problem. I hope that the Government will commit to taking action after today’s debate.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Road Danger Reduction Forum, as per my registered interests. Of course we have lawless roads, which has been a concern of mine for two and a half decades or so. Some of that is cyclists, and I would not for a moment defend cyclists who break the law; in fact, I shout at cyclists whom I see breaking the law, and I hope that every noble Lord here does the same. Some of the crime is from cyclists, but the majority of the problem is car drivers.
When I was on the Metropolitan Police Authority from 2000 to 2012—before Boris Johnson scrapped it—I kept asking how our roads had got so lawless and why it had not been a priority for the senior officers running the organisation. As the Mayor of London’s road safety ambassador, I spent a lot of my time resisting proposed cuts to the traffic police and pressing for them to get more resources.
It is painfully obvious that many drivers ignore the rules, and the people who pay the price for that are often children, older people, pedestrians and cyclists. As has been said already, in 2017 there were 28,010 recorded hit and runs. That is around 77 hit and runs a day and, of those, more than two people a day were killed or left with a life-changing injury. This is not acceptable. It is a national scandal, and the way that the last Government dealt with it was to stop publishing the figures. I really hope that the new Government will end the cover-up and recognise the scale of the problem.
We have a national registration scheme for cars, but large numbers of car drivers just ignore their responsibility and the rules. Many go further and actively destroy cameras that enforce speed or air pollution rules. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said that the risk of being caught is the best way to stop this sort of lawlessness. When I was an assembly member, I used to cycle a lot and I was very careful not to get caught, because I could not have borne the publicity; I was very law-abiding. I see time and again that the best way of dealing with lawless drivers and lawless cyclists is to stop our overreliance on electronic enforcement and registration plates. We need more police out on the roads stopping people breaking the rules of the road. Let us remember that traffic police have always had a much higher arrest rate—seven times higher—than those on the beat.
For those suggesting a registration scheme for cyclists, I say that experience has shown that it would soon become impossible to enforce and the main impact would be to put another big barrier in the way of people who want a cheap, convenient, environmentally friendly and healthy way of getting around.
I very much enjoyed the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Young. It is always a pleasure to agree with a Conservative Member of your Lordships’ House—and so rare. If we want a culture of safe and law-abiding cyclists, making cycling easy, safe and segregated from cars is the way to do it. We need to get more women and children on bikes in cities. That might start to embarrass any Lycra-clad men into slowing down and perhaps obeying the rules of the road.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am one of those very keen cyclists and have cycled thousands of miles in the last 15 years or so, both in London and in mid-Wales, so I bring a cyclist’s view of many of the issues today, as well as my own interest in working on transport issues for the Welsh Government. I have no difficulty with some of the suggestions that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, proposes regarding cyclists. I do not see why cyclists should not be subject to speed limits and, if they cause serious accidents by behaving recklessly or carelessly, they should face appropriate charges. However, I am strongly opposed to suggestions that are likely to discourage everyday cycling by law-abiding people. This is a time when we should be encouraging cycling rather than making it more complicated.
Much of the focus of today’s debate has been on the harm done by cyclists, particularly to pedestrians. My starting point is that this focus is disproportionate and does not identify the real source of safety issues. My interpretation of the statistics I have been looking at from the Department for Transport tells me that, on average, there are about 400 pedestrian fatalities a year resulting from road traffic accidents. Of these fatalities, on average, two involve cyclists. That is 0.5%. The rest involve motorised vehicles of one kind or another. For pedestrian injuries, the percentage is a bit higher, at 2%, but it is still a small part of the danger to pedestrians. The same figures tell me that there are 100 cycling fatalities a year on the roads. More than 80% of them involve motor vehicles. We should also note that a substantial proportion of them take place within 20 yards of a junction—that is where many of the critical incidents happen.
Despite a lot of improvements to road safety, there is still a serious issue of how motorists, cyclists and pedestrians can live together safely in what my noble friend Lord Birt described as the crowded cities and towns of this country. The roads can be heavily congested, particularly at peak times. Fortunately, many people have responded to this congestion by taking up more walking and cycling, so cycling has been on a sharp increase and I also notice that there is much more walking than I can remember in years gone by. Walking and cycling are suitable both for shorter journeys and, in particular, for connecting a lot of people to the public transport system, which has become such an important part of our lives. As noble Lords have mentioned, they bring important health benefits and I cannot believe that anyone would seriously wish to take measures now that would turn back the clock on this.
Rather than focusing on regulations that would reduce cycling, the emphasis should be on providing better-designed paths for both pedestrians and cyclists. These paths should be safe, clearly signed, continuous—which very rarely happens—well-maintained and separate from motor vehicles. Cycle lanes need to be clearly identified and separate from pedestrian parts of the road. The safety record at junctions might be improved too if the timing of traffic lights were more focused on helping both pedestrians and cyclists to make continuous journeys rather than face long hold-ups. Making the roads and pavements safer for both walking and cycling is surely a better long-term solution than simply pushing for additional constraints on cyclists.
At times, drivers, pedestrians and cyclists can all make mistakes and fail to see what is happening around them. Accidents happen. Five years ago, on the Embankment cycle path, I had a serious accident when a runner, out for some lunchtime exercise, crossed the road and ran into me, knocking me unconscious and breaking my jaw—but I recognise that accidents do happen. We should also recognise that the conduct of many pedestrians can be very poor. If you walk along the Embankment cycle path, you will see pedestrians walking in and out of the cycle path, crossing at red lights, too many of them listening to headphones—but I assume that nobody is going to seriously suggest that pedestrians should carry insurance and be registered.
Before we consider putting additional requirements on cyclists or pedestrians, it seems to me that we should pay much more attention to the failure of the police to enforce the laws we have. The issue of scooters has already been mentioned, and whether they are legal within the existing law. There are now many electric bikes on the road, which are illegal, as I understand it, relative to the law that is there, because they can move without pedalling; you simply have a throttle to make them go. People also hack them to make them go above 15.5 mph.
In summary, it seems to me that, rather than spending time introducing more rules that will do very little other than discourage people from pedal cycling, without changing the behaviour of those who are really badly behaved, we need to focus much more on safety and the enforcement of those things that are going wrong.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating this important debate. I am a cyclist in London, my children cycle to school and my wife cycles to work. We all agree on the benefits, and obviously more people should be encouraged to take up cycling.
Life has got better for us cyclists. Low-traffic zones; new cycle paths and superhighways; we can buy our bikes tax-free on the bike to work scheme. E-bike hire has given us another option for one-way trips. But there is a problem. There is anarchy in London—and other cities, I suspect—as my noble friend Lord Birt so graphically described. We have got to a stage where, on a cycle journey, it is more unusual to see someone stopping at a light than jumping it. Red lights have become optional. People go the wrong way, as we have heard, down one-way systems, regularly riding on the pavement. Untidily parked rental e-bikes and scooters are causing problems for those with visual impairments and mobility problems.
The author Douglas Adams described one of his characters as stepping off the pavement and being shouted at
“from a moral high ground that cyclists alone seem able to inhabit”,
and this attitude seems to pervade all cyclists, whether on Lime or in Lycra. There seems to be an attitude that cyclists are above the law, and there seems to be no way of enforcing it, as my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe so powerfully showed.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, pointed out, Cycling UK says that if you introduce measures, cycling rates could drop by 36%. How do we balance the rule of law with encouraging people to use a bike?
Over the past 10 years in London, about two cyclists were killed or seriously injured in bus crashes every month. In London, in 2022, TfL buses accounted for less than 1% of road traffic, but 40% of cyclists’ deaths were caused by them. We still do not know enough about the causes. I join my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe in his plea for better data. Can the Minister comment on that? Cycle deaths in rural areas are also a real problem—I wonder whether this is more to do with the heady cocktail of V8 engines and an ageing population. The good news is that, in the UK, there was a 23% drop in cyclist fatalities between 2013 and 2023, but I wonder whether this trend will be reversed.
It is hard to argue for better education for motorists if cyclists are not going to behave better. What is the solution? As ever, it is education—but I would say that because I am a teacher. Bike helmets are a really good idea, and we need to campaign for them to be worn regularly. We need to persuade cyclists to ride defensively to minimise risk. We need more cycle lanes, more cycle zones at lights and more cycle traffic lights, which give cyclists a head start—sometimes it is safer to jump the lights than do a Formula 1 start at junctions. We need to separate motor traffic from cycles as much as possible, especially in rural areas, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Burns said. Can the Minister update us on the progress of cycle lanes?
As we talked about this week at Questions, road surfaces need to be much better. My wife was cycling home recently and her front wheel went into a pothole. She went over the handlebars and did quite a lot of damage to her face—it was very lucky that there was not a car behind her. I thought that electronic chips on bikes might be a solution—it works for my cat. I had a conversation with a friend who was involved in the setting up of the congestion zone, and she convinced me that that was expensive and unworkable—although it works for cats.
As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, we need to use common sense and to encourage more people to cycle, but in a way that promotes safe and legal cycling, so that those of us who enjoy it so much can welcome a new breed with a clear conscience.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, this is one of those issues that we all feel intensely and strongly about. We are all obviously being afflicted by cyclists, bicycles or our own bad driving. The whole of my family cycles, including my grandchildren. I used to cycle before I had a major accident with a Segway—a different kind of awful road machine, banned here in the UK but present across Europe. It was in Poland that I had the crash, and I have lived with the consequences.
I feel particularly strongly about one dimension of bad cycling behaviour which is an increasing urban problem. I have observed it myself and heard many people describe it: cyclists, in a crush of traffic, grabbing mobile phones or personal items from women’s bags, or attempting to get hold of jewellery as they get close to the pavements and then go back on to the roads, cycling fast through traffic and red lights. That is an area of criminality which afflicts many parts of south London and other urban areas and cities, and it requires attention.
As someone who drives into London, I have observed a further dimension. When you get to, for example, Parliament Square, which has ample cycle lanes, you notice that many bicycles are not in the cycle lane but in the traffic lane. They leave the cycle lane to get a faster advantage in crossing the bridge. This creates a cluster of traffic on short traffic lights, with drivers loudly expressing their frustration.
The only way we can tackle both the criminality—this is where I agree with my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe—and the behaviour is to require either the “cat chipping” of bicycles, which was an interesting and novel idea, or to have appropriate number plates on bicycles. It is perfectly feasible and it would make sure that cyclists are registered, regulated and accountable for their behaviour.
Going through any major urban centre causes tension and stress for those who walk, are disabled or drive. On my journey home last night, after myriad votes, I observed five clusters of dumped bikes—red is Santander and the green bikes I am not so sure about—on the routeway from here to the M1. As someone who recently had a major operation to replace a knee, and is therefore more conscious of peoples’ disabilities, I watched people, including those with disabilities, navigate their way around the bicycles dumped on the pavement. Without registration or number plates, nobody is accountable if caught on camera at the point of their irresponsible dumping.
As someone who longs to be a cyclist again, and is delighted that all my family are cycling—probably right at this moment, because it is sunny—I hope we will have better cycle lanes and cycling provision. I hope my grandchildren will enjoy cycling all their lives. However, I believe we need regulation for current cyclists because their behaviour is, at times, becoming a bit like plague of mosquitoes. You simply cannot get them away from you when you get to traffic lights. I once had a cyclist bang on my window—not because he observed me doing anything wrong but because he wanted to get my attention—in an area of London that was a mobile theft hotspot. In other words, you put down the window and then someone grabs something from within your car while you are paying attention to them. We need regulation for cyclists and I hope we get it.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating the debate. He made a very balanced speech, much of which I agree with, although I profoundly disagree with his recommendations. I too will give him a word of advice: he should ditch the electric bike and get a proper bicycle, because it is much better for his cardiac health.
I have followed the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, closely. Some 18 years after he made his speech on cycling, I proposed the cycling safety Bill in 1993, which I am sure everybody is familiar with—perhaps not. I have been bicycling since I bicycled to school, but the Bill came after a cousin of mine was squashed by a lorry on Clapham Common. Cycling safety is what I am more interested in than much of what has been mentioned today. I cycled in today, so I am quite current in what I have to say. Like the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I was chairman of the All-Party Group for Cycling and Walking in the House of Commons, so I have pursued this for a number of years.
Cyclists used to be termed “vulnerable” road users, like pedestrians and horse riders. I see now that some cyclists, far from being vulnerable, are rather terrifying. As an old man on a bicycle, I too get scared by some of these people whizzing past. But they are still vulnerable. If you ride a bicycle—everybody here so far has said that they do—what you are terrified of is falling over or being knocked off because you will fall. If you are walking along the road you are less likely to fall a long distance, whereas a cyclist is bound to fall because he cannot regain his balance if he is knocked off.
We have heard a lot about the responsibility of cyclists, and I agree with what has been said. People need to show more care and to have more consideration. Certainly, they should not steal mobile telephones. But what about the responsibility of pedestrians? We have all talked about cars knocking people down, but the responsibility of pedestrians also needs to be considered. The number of pedestrians who step out in front of you without looking is legion.
Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I had a small altercation a few months ago, when, in my opinion—she will dispute this—she stepped straight out in front of me just as I was turning into a road. This happens all the time—I do not wish to criticise her in particular. Only this week, some girl with ear pods in stepped out straight in front of me. I was going quite slowly so it did not matter, but she is the person who would have caused the accident and who, if hit by a car, would have been damaged. So we must consider the responsibility of pedestrians.
I have a few questions for the Minister. How many motorists have been prosecuted for drawing into what I think are called cycle stop lanes? I do not think that any have been—I have asked these questions in the past. A cycle stop lane has traffic lights so that cyclists can go in front and not be endangered by cars knocking them off as they pull away. The danger to cyclists is enormous, so this debate should not be about prosecuting cyclists; it should be about considering whether pedestrians—as well as motorists, but pedestrians in particular—have responsibilities.
If you want to deter healthy cycling, you will overregulate it. We have heard how cycling has increased, so surely we all want to increase the number of people cycling, because it is good for their health and for traffic congestion. If we have insurance, extra regulations, the registration of vehicles and licensing, all that will deter people from bicycling—it makes it more difficult. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said about an easy registration system—that might be a way forward—but if you overregulate, you will yet again deter people. So let us enforce the rules that are being broken by motorists and let us ensure that, if necessary, pedestrians are prosecuted as well as cyclists—I agree on the speed limits and making it easier to prosecute a cyclist for killing somebody, of course—but let us not deter cycling.
How nice it is to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for once.
Lord Robathan (Con)
It is always good to do so. All vulnerable road users should take more care and show greater consideration, but we do not need lots more laws to enforce that.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I salute my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe for his perseverance in securing this timely debate and his opening remarks, much of which I found myself agreeing with. I admit to being somewhat conflicted on the issues around cycle safety, when set against our need to promote healthy lifestyles and reduce our carbon emissions. I declare that I am a recreational cyclist—meaning that I do not wear Lycra and rarely exceed 15 mph—a regular dog walker in the Minister’s precinct of Richmond Hill and Richmond Park, and a London motorist.
As we know, cyclists, pedestrians and drivers do not form a harmonious community, with many insults and much finger pointing in all directions. To this we add the exploding growth in e-bikes and scooters, whose riders mostly shun the use of helmets, which only adds to the friction and antagonism.
I witness this almost every day. Indeed, exiting the House of Lords by car has become an increasingly hairy experience. Even though the police are operating the barriers, turning south into Abingdon Street is like driving the dodgems amid hordes of cyclists undertaking and overtaking, as I crawl along in my car observing the 20 mph speed limit that does not apply to them. Further down, the cycling lanes along Millbank and Grosvenor Road cannot cope with the sheer volume of cyclists. The result is that some spill out on to the road in front of cars, while others, particularly Lime bikers, lurch on to the uneven pavements, weaving through pedestrians.
It is important to note when we talk about cyclists’ behaviour that the road safety charity Brake points out the two principal reasons for fatalities for cyclists are the state of our roads and negligent driving by motorists.
Like my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe, I have struggled with the fragmented data, but I do see four particular trends. First, the surge in e-bike and scooter usage brings with it increasing numbers of accidents, especially major head injury trauma for those not wearing helmets—not just in the UK but all over the world. Secondly, the number of off-road incidents, including on pavements, walkways and in parks, has surged, although most never get reported. Thirdly, e-bikes and e-scooters are increasingly becoming tools for criminals and gangs, particularly in urban areas, including for theft and drug trafficking. Despite these three points, the number of convictions for dangerous cycling has fallen steeply over the last 10 years, reflecting an increasingly lawless state of affairs.
I am not a fan of the nanny state or overregulation, but the sheer scale of the numbers persuades me that it is time to act, especially if we are serious about hitting that net-zero step target that no one has mentioned. I will remind noble Lords: by 2030, 50% of urban journeys are to be undertaken by cycle or on foot. That would probably take the current 7 million cyclists to close to 10 million. Are we going to leave that area totally unregulated?
My first suggestion is that we should make it a legal requirement to wear helmets—for cyclists, e-bikers and scooter riders. Data from the NHS and the BMJ back up this call, as does the experiences of countries such as Australia, where helmet laws are credited with reducing head injury fatalities by 65%. I speak from experience, as my wife suffered a serious accident three years ago on an e-bike in Spain, breaking her shoulder, collarbone and arm. Wearing a helmet not only saved her life but enabled a full recovery.
Secondly, and controversially, I think we need to grasp the nettle of ownership registration, not just for e-bikes and scooters but for all adult pedal cycles for road use. I have seen the arguments against, in terms of cost, complexity and privacy, but, in my view, these are mainly outdated—they go back to 2018—and outweighed by the benefits. The development of bike technology, along with the issues of health, safety, crime and dangerous and inconsiderate behaviour, should persuade us to act now, rather than kick the can further down our increasingly dangerous and potholed roads.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, because if he thinks it is easy to ride a bike at 30 mph on the flat, he should have been in the British Olympic team and not a Member of the House of Lords. I am a lifelong cyclist. I ride my bike every day for recreation or commuting. I should think I spend at least as much time on the roads of London and elsewhere in the UK as anyone else in this debate. Of course, everyone on the roads should obey the rules, whether in a car or on a bike, and they should be prosecuted when they do not.
By the way, I am also a former chair of the All-Party Cycling Group, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young, who has worked throughout his lifetime to make cycling in our country safer.
We should all behave with courtesy and consideration on the roads, and I agree with the points made by Policy Exchange about the proliferation of e-bikes dumped on the pavements. The companies should be required to pay for e-bike bays and forced to remove dangerously or irresponsibly parked bikes immediately, and users should be fined—obviously, they can be identified because they are hiring them—if they park the bikes in an irresponsible manner.
Of course, some cyclists break the law, as we have heard, and we see this on the streets. I know people will not agree with this, but, as I say, I cycle every day and spend a lot of time on the roads, and the truth is that the majority of cyclists in London and elsewhere do not speed or cycle on the pavements, and they do stop for red lights. I get angry if I am waiting at a red light and someone goes through; I too think it is outrageous. The majority of cyclists who break the law are on electric hire bikes, which are already numbered and registered, so the people riding them could be arrested and prosecuted; but of course, the police do not enforce that. Electric bikes going at more than 15 miles an hour is illegal now, but that is never enforced either. People are never arrested for it, but they could be. Laws are already available to the police to deal with these things.
Every day I see motorists in London and elsewhere on their phones, jumping red lights or speeding, presenting a much greater risk to pedestrians than cyclists. Of course, the police are unable to enforce the law and arrest and prosecute all these people. The overwhelming majority of pedestrian injuries in the UK are caused by drivers of motor vehicles. Cyclists account for a very small percentage of pedestrian injuries. I am not saying it does not matter—of course it matters—but it is a very small percentage, and cyclists are much more likely to be killed or injured themselves.
We have heard debates about the statistics, but the figures are pretty clear. Some 85% of cycling is on minor roads, where there are more pedestrians, yet cyclists are involved in just 2% of pedestrian casualties, while 98% are caused by drivers of motor vehicles. The main threat to pedestrian safety comes from drivers of cars and HGVs. Those drivers are responsible for 99% of fatal collisions with pedestrians on pavements. There were only two such fatalities involving cyclists between 2012 and 2020. Of course, that is two too many, and it is a tragedy for the people involved and their families. In the five years between 2018 and 2022, cyclists were involved in, but not necessarily responsible for, nine pedestrian fatalities. In the same period, thousands of fatalities were caused by people driving motor vehicles. Five people die and 82 are seriously injured on the roads in the UK every single day. I gently point out that we are supposed to bring perspective, balance, wisdom and knowledge to the discussion of public policy, yet here we are with a debate which suggests that cyclists are causing all the problems.
What are noble Lords suggesting? Should police be diverted from other crimes, some no doubt very serious, to enforce a registration or insurance scheme? Should public spending be taken from other areas to employ more police to do so? Shoplifting has been virtually decriminalised. Let us not pretend that the police have got the time or the resources to enforce a cycling registration scheme. How many times have I heard noble Lords complain about red tape and regulation? Yet people want a hugely complex and enormously expensive scheme to register millions of bikes.
What about children? Should children, who are more likely to own and ride bikes, often on the pavements, have to be registered and insured? Is that what people are suggesting? The best way to make our streets safer, reduce congestion, improve the environment, tackle obesity and improve public health is to get more people on bikes, but a registration or insurance scheme would do completely the opposite.
I conclude by supporting Cycling UK’s call for a comprehensive review of road traffic laws to reduce road dangers, protect all road users and ensure that justice is served by dealing with dangerous behaviour, whether by drivers, cyclists or other road users. Will the Minister’s department implement such a review?
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Austin, a former Treasury colleague, who has always been a great advocate for cycling.
I am in favour of cycling. It takes cars off the roads, frees up capacity on public transport, is good for the environment and good for public health. I welcome the reforms by central and local government over the last two decades to encourage cycling through cycle lanes, rentals and cycle routes. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, on his approaching half-century of parliamentary campaigning for cyclists.
I am not anti-cyclist. However, just as cyclists have rights, they have responsibilities: to fellow road users, to pedestrians, to old people and to the blind and partially sighted. Therefore, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe on securing this timely debate. I am quite certain that the vast majority of cyclists fully observe the Highway Code and the law. However, I am struck by a growing though still small minority who pay scant regard to the law. Let me give some examples, drawn from my daily four-minute walk to the Earl’s Court Road Tube station.
First, there are the e-bikes, often parked on the pavement, obstructing pedestrians and making life difficult for the disabled. Then, there are the cyclists who insist on using the pavement as a way of avoiding the one-way system. Some do this out of ignorance; others, judging by the abuse I receive when I take issue with them, do it knowing that they are acting illegally. Then, there are the cyclists who think that traffic lights do not apply to them. All too often, I set off across the road when the green man appears, only to find a cyclist whiz past my nose. Then, there are cyclists, albeit the fitter ones, who may not cycle at 30 mph but certainly cycle at more than the 20 mph limit which now generally applies in built-up areas. The self-employment contracts of delivery cyclists do not help—they positively incentivise speeding.
Of course, such people are not breaking the law, since, as my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe pointed out, speed limits do not apply to cycles. When I asked the previous Government whether they would change the law to bring bicycles under section 124 of the Highway Code, they said that they had no plans to do so.
Recently, a relative was run over by a speeding cyclist. He was tossed into the air and landed on his hip, which was smashed very badly. It took him several months to walk again. It was the day of an ambulance strike. To give the perpetrator credit, he did stop, but only to check that the victim was still alive. He did not help to take him to hospital or share his contact or insurance details to help pay for the inevitable physiotherapy. He simply rode on.
If we do not do more to improve the law relating to cyclists and then to enforce it, we will see a growing number of accidents. The more that cyclists see other cyclists flouting traffic lights or riding on the pavement, the more likely they are to take the view that anything goes. When I asked the previous Government about enforcement, they said that it was a matter for the police. Is that the new Government’s attitude, or do they agree that central government can do more to support the police in pursuit of their duties?
I am not arguing for a zero-tolerance approach; I recognise that police forces are stretched. I recall a police sergeant telling me, when I was briefly a police cadet in the 1970s, that if they enforced every traffic regulation, they would never get further than 250 yards from the police station. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, mentioned, there were 39 convictions for the offence of careless or inconsiderate cycling in 2023. I reckon I have witnessed more examples than that in the last month. There is surely a happy medium whereby enough offenders suffer a consequence of dangerous cycling for it to have a deterrent effect.
I have seen police in other countries—Germany comes to mind, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—who are often on bicycles and issue on-the-spot fines to those who transgress. It seems to work and, as a former Treasury official, I argue could be self-financing: police officers do not have to issue too many fines before they have paid for themselves.
Like my noble friend Lord Birt, I propose a public information campaign to encourage people to be more considerate of fellow road users and pedestrians. If we want London and other major cities to remain the peaceful places that they generally are, we need to do something to enforce the law, otherwise anti-social cycling will simply grow and grow.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on securing it. I also thank my noble friend Lord Robathan, in his absence, for highlighting the importance of observing the Highway Code. If I, as a pedestrian, am crossing at a pedestrian crossing, it is the duty of a cyclist to stop to allow me to pass. The ABI has highlighted the need for greater awareness and education in this regard, and that point was very well made by my noble friend.
I have taken a great interest in this subject and was delighted when my right honourable friend next door Iain Duncan Smith adopted the contents of my Bill from both the last Parliament, which I hope to reintroduce in this one. It aims to close a number of loopholes, which were tragically illustrated by the weak sentence imposed when a cyclist, who was driving without any brakes whatever and in a completely inappropriate fashion, caused the tragic death of Kim Briggs.
My Bill and the contents of the amendments proposed by Iain Duncan Smith next door, which I hope to bring back to this place, set out to introduce new offences, such as causing death by dangerous cycling, causing serious injury by dangerous cycling, and causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. It introduces a number of penalties and reviews the misuse of electric scooters. The revised version, which I hope to bring before the House, also covers insurance.
I congratulate the outgoing Government and am delighted that my noble friend Lady Vere has joined us, because she wrote to me on 23 March 2022 to say:
“As the Secretary of State has already announced, we are considering bringing forward legislation to introduce new offences around dangerous cycling; we will do this as part of a suite of measures to improve the safety of all road and pavement users”.
The challenge I put to the Minister in replying today—I welcome him to his position—is whether the incoming Government will take over where the outgoing Government left off and plug the gap by putting into force these infringements, which recognise the severity of certain offences that may lead to death and serious injury by inappropriate cycling.
I differentiate between cycles, e-bikes and e-scooters and, as others have done, between rural and urban areas. Notwithstanding how the majority of cyclists are law-abiding and considerate to other road users, a certain number flout the law and give good cyclists a bad name. As I mentioned, the ABI is very keen that we educate cyclists on the contents of the revised Highway Code. In rural areas particularly, they can cause great aggravation by cycling as a block, occupying the whole of what can be a narrow lane, obstructing traffic and causing potential injury and death. As we have heard, they also cycle at speed through red lights and across pedestrian crossings, and mount pavements. As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham indicated, we have spent a fortune—a vast expense—to introduce cycle lanes. I cannot fathom why it is beyond the wit of cyclists to use them. Why are they mounting pavements where cycle lanes exist? It beggars belief and makes a complete mockery of the investment made.
Until the ABI informed me in preparation for this debate, I did not realise that pedal cycles are technically not vehicles and therefore cannot be insured. According to the ABI, third-party liability policies exist, but serious injury or death caused by cyclists would be a matter for the law. In other cases, such as e-scooters and what are known as electrically propelled pedal cycles, no liability is placed on the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, and if there is no insurance, as is frequently the case, it begs the question of why we do not make insurance compulsory. Why are so many European cities banning e-scooters and why is there so little enforcement of them in this country?
Will the Minister take the opportunity in summing up to advise when the trials will end, and what the Government’s position is on inappropriately speeding e-cycles and inappropriately used e-scooters?
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe for kicking this off. If he was to have another debate on this I might advise him to rename it “Safety and regulation issues involved in the use of pedal cycles, pedelec and twist and go e-cycles, and e-scooters on the road network and on pavements”.
I make my contribution with journalist Andrew Marr’s words ringing in my ears. In a recent article in the New Statesman he said that there
“should be a clear understanding that you don’t introduce new laws unless you can enforce them … It’s a matter of effectiveness, not policy principle. Laws that will in practice be flagrantly disobeyed bring the state into disrepute. Unenforceable, performative legislation makes both police and the ministers who instructed them ridiculous”.
I direct the last sentence at the Minister.
How on earth did we get into this state? My noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe put his finger on the context at the start of his speech when he said that, frankly, the majority of cyclists and e-scooter drivers know that there is an almost infinitesimal chance of any of them ever getting caught. Cumulatively, when you see everybody else flagrantly ignoring laws they are probably aware of, there is a sort of herd instinct and mentality where it becomes the norm over time. I stop at red lights because, frankly—like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who is not in her place—as an officer of the All-Party Group on Cycling and Walking I do not want to appear in the press, to my embarrassment and the embarrassment of the group, having been seen to infringe the law.
I live in what I regard as the wild West End. One of the indicators of the problem we have got ourselves into over the last 10 years is that, in my early youth and adulthood, the idea of a black cab running a red light would have been unthinkable. You would have lost your licence; you would not have even thought of doing it. Now, while cycling, I see each week on average two or three black cabs quite openly running red lights. I also see buses running red lights all the time.
The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, referred to the so-called bike box—the advanced stop lines in front of traffic lights. If one is so bold as to indicate to one of the many delivery drivers on e-scooters or mopeds beside you, or those with L-plates, that they are infringing on a bicyclist’s space, as the noble Lord said, you will receive a lot of finger pointing—usually, in my experience, in an upwards direction. One must be quite brave to point out that they should not do that.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services published a report in July 2020 called Roads Policing: Not Optional. It indicated, in a fairly sorry picture—the backdrop to much of what we have been debating—declining financial resources, declining human resources, and huge variation of approach across the country. The joy of having police and crime commissioners is that every area decides to reinterpret priorities in its own image, so there is no consistency in how the law is applied.
As for His Majesty’s Government—I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, is here—over the last few years, as e-scooters were introduced, with the rental schemes and all the rest of it, I heard from them that the Government were going to keep an eye on this. But in terms of enforcing the law to ensure that it is being applied, we have been somewhat negligent. I would point out that last week the city of Madrid decided that it had had enough and is kicking out Lime bikes and several others, because they have become a public nuisance.
So what do we do? We need to go back to what Andrew Marr said. I do not think we need new laws; we need to create a situation in which I, as a bicyclist, and anybody else in your Lordships’ House who is a bicyclist, know that if we transgress there is a chance that we will get caught—and that it will embarrassing, painful and, I hope, quite expensive. The police force in the City of London, in a recent initiative, made a concentrated attempt to crack down on lights being jumped, illegal e-bikes and other such things, and it was remarkably effective. They confiscated a very considerable number. It can be done and I am absolutely sure that the Minister, in replying, will do everything he can to make himself and his department not appear ridiculous.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for securing this debate. It relates to an issue of immense importance to disabled people. I should make it clear at the outset that, like other noble Lords, I believe cycling is a good thing.
Last week I had a surreal exchange with someone as he merrily cycled towards me through a red light as I was crossing the road in my wheelchair. It went like this. “The light’s on red,” I shouted. “Yes, I know,” he said politely and cheerfully as he continued his approach, while his companion looked on panic-stricken as she suddenly realised she did not know how to apply the brakes of her e-bike. Equally politely, but less cheerfully, I replied, “Well, stop! It’s illegal.” Needless to say, they sailed past.
That one incident encapsulated for me the problem we face, which we have discussed in detail this afternoon. The Home Secretary put her finger on it when she wrote in the Sun earlier this week that respect for the rule of law must be restored. She is right, and it needs to be restored precisely because, as the gentleman on the bike demonstrated, breaking the law on cycling has been normalised. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, rightly said, routine behaviour for too many.
The effect of such law-breaking for many disabled people—especially, as we have already heard, for those with visual impairments, who are disproportionately at risk of being hit by a dangerously ridden bicycle—is that they might as well have been airbrushed out of society. Their understandable fear of being hit while out, and thus their decision not to go out, and their increasing isolation as a result, are seemingly outweighed by the decision of some cyclists to ignore the law and cycle dangerously and illegally, whether by going through a red light or by cycling on the pavement. And it is not just on pavements that people cycle illegally. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who cannot be here today, told me yesterday, it is in parks, too—including, as I know from personal experience, the Royal Parks, not far from your Lordships’ House.
Several noble Lords have mentioned data but, sadly, the data that we have on the number of reported collisions is only the tip of the iceberg. Many pedestrians, such as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who also cannot be here today but who spoke to me only a few days ago about this, are so relieved to be intact after being knocked over by a cyclist who then sped off that they do not actually report it. After all, what would happen if they did? The law cannot be enforced, can it?
My Lords, I believe it can. I believe the rule of law can and must be restored, including as it relates to dangerous cycling, for enforcement and thus deterrence. Of course, the police cannot catch everyone but, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham implied, the beauty of social media is that they would need to enforce the law in only a few well-publicised cases, for example by replicating the exercise carried out by Daily Telegraph recently on Westminster Bridge, just outside St Thomas’s Hospital, intervening at rush hour in the morning and evening and prosecuting those cyclists who went through red lights. That would need to happen only a few times for the behaviour of the gentleman I mentioned to stop.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to read Policy Exchange’s report A Culture of Impunity, which has cross-party support, to which Members of your Lordships’ House contributed, and write to me detailing the Government’s response to its recommendations. I would be very grateful if he would put a copy of his response in the Library.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I want to direct my words to the lack of a national strategy for dealing with e-scooters and e-bikes, both of which have become increasingly popular as a form of public transport tailored for the individual. Rental e-scooters are legally limited to 15 trial schemes in cities as diverse as Salford and Bournemouth, with many London boroughs participating. They are regulated and riders are supposed to be over 16 and to undertake a degree of safety training before they are allowed on the roads. However, there are 750,000 private e-scooters in this country, all of which are illegal to ride on public roads or pavements, yet illegally ridden e-scooters were responsible for one death in 2019, when they were first introduced into this country, and for 31 deaths since then and more than 900 injuries. Many of these victims were riders. The youngest was 12 years old and the oldest 75 years old. In fact, safety campaigners believe that lax reporting and recording of e-scooter deaths by the police means that the figures represent only 10% of actual casualties.
Anyone who lives in one of our big cities sees the illegal use of e-scooters daily, either when they are privately owned or even when they are legally rented. I have seen parents riding with their children on the back and two people riding together. It is extraordinary, when we know how carefully monitored cars are on our streets, that e-scooters do not receive the same treatment from our law enforcement agencies. Some agencies, such as the Safer Essex Roads Partnership, have two-week or three-week blitzes in which community volunteers and the police combine to stop illegal riders. They even welcome video evidence submitted by members of the public. This enforcement is piecemeal and only partially effective. Meanwhile, across the country the police seem to be confiscating fewer and fewer illegally ridden e-scooters.
The problems will continue until illegal riders feel that there is an effective enforcement campaign to act as a deterrent and suitable punishment for illegal riders. The exact number of illegal riders on our roads is not known. Some definite evidence has to be gathered, but I suspect that, when the evidence is gathered, it will show thousands of violations. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe that e-scooters should be registered for easy identification, which will help to combat the problem. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government intend to introduce this simple measure and make our roads safer?
The other electronically powered vehicle that noble Lords have talked about is the e-bike. For hundreds of thousands of people, renting an e-bike is a transformative, efficient and cheap way to get to work or navigate our great cities. But, as many other noble Lords have mentioned, the problem is when riders reach their destination. I am pleased that many people are enjoying the freedom and relative health benefits of riding an e-bike, but with nearly 38,000 rental bikes in London alone, the problem of parking them safely has to be addressed.
E-bikes provide such convenience for many thousands, but inconvenience for many thousands more when badly parked. I have spoken to the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which tells me that so many blind and partially sighted people have fallen over the badly parked bikes on pavements that many are deterred from going into the centres towns and cities or have to take taxis to reach their destination.
The problem is that there is not enough uniformity across local authorities in regulating their parking. These rental e-bikes all need to be carefully controlled, either with digital or physical docking schemes. At the moment, in London alone, e-bike rental companies have different memorandums of understanding with different boroughs about parking regulations. However, riders renting e-bikes from many providers are not given online safety training or even tips about where they should park the bikes. Some, like Lime and Forest, do not have a maximum capacity on the digital parking bays. Certainly, from my own anecdotal experience of e-bikes scattered across the pavements of this city, Lime bikes have a particularly laissez-faire policy on parking.
I understand that one of the problems is that local authorities are reluctant to provide enough docking on parking spaces on the road, because they will take away from the revenue-generating car parking spaces. On the radio this morning, I heard the leader of Brent Council calling for Lime and other rental providers to contribute to the cost of setting up parking bays, which is also sensible. Other local authorities are taking more immediate action. Wandsworth is setting up a range of bike bays in its local town centres, and when that has happened the council will ban any kind of laissez-faire e-bike parking from these busy areas. Other councils are planning to follow suit.
It seems to me that as these rental schemes spread out across the country, the lessons from London should be learned and applied. I ask the Minister whether his department is considering national guidelines on parking rental e-bikes and to increase powers against random parking on pavements.
These electrically powered bikes and scooters are a boon to so many. I want them to be success and to create flexible, cheap transport for thousands of people across this country. However, in order to do so, Ministers need to intervene to ensure that they are a complement to other forms of transport and not a curse.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing this debate to us today. I found myself in agreement with very much of what he said. It has certainly been a very interesting debate. We heard from the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Young, who are keen cyclists, and we heard from many noble Lords who cycle, but who accept that there are problems that need dealing with.
I welcome this debate, particularly because, although we often discuss cycling in this House, the previous Government showed little interest in grappling with any of the major issues posed by cycling today. I hope the fact that the Minister is no longer in his place is not a sign of his lack of interest. I am sure he will reply fully to us, and I hope we will get a detailed approach from the new Government.
Many noble Lords have spoken of their concern as pedestrians. It is a particularly strong problem for those who have disabilities. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, was able to participate today. Several noble Lords have talked of cyclists as vulnerable road users, and indeed they are, because cars are heavier than bikes. I would point out, however, that the most vulnerable road users of all are, of course, pedestrians. We must recognise the vulnerability of cyclists, and that means we need a culture to encourage the cyclists that we have been talking about this morning to protect themselves better. In order to do that, they need to take a number of measures, one of which would be obeying the rules of the road.
Some parts of the UK have developed quite an aggressive cycling culture, and London is one of them. It is undoubtedly a result of the traffic intensity in London. I cross the road outside this building several times a day in order to get to my office in Old Palace Yard, and it is not the cars or buses that I worry about at all, because they always stop—or I hope they do. I worry about the cyclists, because in general they do not stop. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, mentioned the coverage recently of a survey taken outside St Thomas’ Hospital, of all places, which illustrated the point that a very high percentage of cyclists cycle through red lights.
The issue about the crossings outside this House are intensified by the fact that all the cyclists are surrounded by police. That underlines the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that the police are not in a position to enforce the law.
It is possible for cycling to thrive without disobeying the rules of the road. I frequently visit Belgium and I have visited the Netherlands, and the rules of the road are much more frequently obeyed in those countries, where cycling is very popular.
The reason for the urgent need for legislation to deal with cycling safety is the rapidly increasing number of e-bikes, which the noble Viscount referred to. There are several categories of e-bikes, some of which assist you with pedalling and others that have a throttle and are akin to motorbikes. Legally, they are in different categories, but the public are blissfully unaware of that to a large extent, and so, I think, are the cyclists using them. The speeds can be up to 40 miles an hour, and they all look the same to you as they come towards you on the pavement. Often the riders of the more powerful bikes use them as delivery vehicles but nevertheless treat them as bikes, riding them on the pavements and in the fastest possible manner in order to achieve their task.
There is an urgent need for action to deal with this new technology. Many of these bikes are ridden by very young people with no formal training, no licence, no helmets, no registration number, and apparently no interest on the part of the police in dealing with the infringements of the rules that follow as a result. The results can be horrendous for the young people concerned. I come from Cardiff, where two young people died a year or so ago.
We need to think about future policy on cycling in two parts. The first is traditional pedal cycling, sometimes electrically assisted, which requires fitness, and the second is the technological challenge of electric bikes. The larger ones are not creating a fitter society per se, although of course they take cars off the road and reduce congestion and so are welcome for that reason.
Just before the election the previous Government were consulting on allowing even more powerful e-bikes, presumably in response to lobbying from the delivery industry. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the current Government are not going to pursue that.
We also need greater regulation to deal with illegal adaptations, not just because of the issue of greater speed, but also because of the fire risk from batteries. That fire risk comes from cheap imports of battery adaptations, largely. My noble friend Lord Redesdale has a Private Member’s Bill on that issue.
On the issue of speed, I would like to raise an issue that a recent Sustrans report revealed, which is the gender gap. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raised the gender gap. Far more men cycle than women, but proportionately more women are injured as cyclists than men. There are theories about this being connected with positioning at traffic lights and so on, and behaviour. However, that is contrary to women as drivers of cars, who are somewhat safer than men. But they are in a more vulnerable position as women cyclists. There are issues we need to tackle.
The cycling and walking index shows that a firm majority of the public support improving our roads for walking, cycling and public transport. I hope that the Government seize upon that. They will get strong support from these Benches if they take forward a programme of investment in cycling and walking.
My final point relates to the childhood years. We need an ongoing cycle training campaign in schools, firmly linked to teaching the rules of safety; that is so important. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that that will continue. Cyclists, as the noble Lord, Lord Birt, said, need to be made much more intensely aware of the dangers they pose—not just to pedestrians but to themselves—if they do not obey the rules of the road and do not wear helmets. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating this debate.
If noble Lords will indulge me, this is my first opportunity truly to welcome the Minister to his new role. Since he has brought it up, I thought it worth mentioning that I calculated that we first worked together 25 years ago, when I was a vice-chairman of the London Councils’ transport and environment committee, which I later chaired. At that time, he was managing director of surface transport at Transport for London. Later, he was the commissioner and I sat on the board. We overlapped for about seven years, and for much of that time I was deputy chairman. We worked together and we both had firm views that one of us was working for the other. I am not entirely sure they would be absolutely concurrent if names were slotted into those particular sentences, but we had a very effective partnership. Perhaps his greatest achievement during that time was the stunning contribution Transport for London made to the success of the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. He went on from that, and spent the last nine years as chairman of Network Rail.
The Minister’s latest achievement, of course, is managing an almost balletically deft transition from the Cross Benches to the Labour Front Bench. Who noticed that happening at the time? I thought it was worth mentioning these things. He is knowledgeable and effective and, when I took on this role, I was rather hoping for somebody who would not be, but there we are—and there was a wide choice.
I turn to the substance of the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering pointed out, Conservative Ministers commissioned the cycle safety review in 2017 and last year supported proposals to change the law, in the Criminal Justice Bill, to create a new offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. The Bill fell at Dissolution earlier this year. So many questions have arisen in the course of this debate that few of mine are going to be original, but one question that I think the whole House is interested in is whether the Government intend to bring back that measure and so fill what is generally regarded as a lacuna in the range of sentences available in the admittedly rare event of death or serious injury caused by a cyclist.
When I first became a local government councillor, I had some advice from a very wise council officer that I should never allow myself to get in the middle of an argument between the pro-dog and anti-dog people. Similar sort of advice might apply, I discovered later in life, regarding the pro-cycling and anti-cycling people. There has been a slight flavour of that in this debate, although at a most distinguished and elevated level, of course. I shall try to avoid it as far as possible. However, I simply want to say—and it is incumbent on the Government to provide this—that we need a roads policy that delivers for all road users, keeps people safe and ensures that they go about their daily lives as freely and efficiently as possible. It is that test that the official Opposition will apply when we hold the Government to account on matters related to cycling, and so forth.
I add one point that is of importance to all of us, and which was illustrated by the amusing but terrifying speech made by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin, on the special responsibility we have to those who are disabled. I include in that those with less obvious disability: simply the disabilities of age, and those of us who are less able to dodge out of the way than we were some years ago—and maybe than we think we still are—who take more time to cross the road, and so forth. That has not been fully addressed, and the Government should make recognition of the vulnerability of the disabled a central feature of the management of their roads policy. How they do that is very much up to them.
There are two issues that I want to mention in relation to disability, in addition to the sort of moving traffic incident mentioned by my noble friend. The first is the litter of dockless bikes, which is very difficult to negotiate for pedestrians in general and in particular for those who are in wheelchairs or suffer from vision disabilities. The other is the increasing use of cycle lanes that go behind bus stops—between the pavement and the bus stop. These are frequently found in London and maybe elsewhere. Do the Government have a view on those, and are they going to develop them?
The previous Government concluded—and this remains our view on the Opposition Front Bench—that the cost and complexity of introducing a mandatory bicycle licensing system would outweigh the benefits of such a scheme. But it is now very much in the lap of the party opposite to decide whether that is still the view, and I think we would like to know about it. There was much discussion of the question of licensing, and we have to bear in mind that there are two separate schemes for licensing. One is licensing a vehicle and giving it a registration plate and the other is licensing a person to use that vehicle.
When it comes to licensing, we are suffering to some extent from the advance of technology and our difficulties in grappling with it. Back in the day, it was all very straightforward: you had a thing that in my father’s generation was known as a pushbike or a pedal cycle; then you had something called a motorbike, and it was perfectly clear what the difference between them was. Now we have electric cycles that comply with the electrically assisted pedal cycle rules, are limited to 15.5 mph hour and generally require some sort of pedalling to make them move. The last Government had a consultation on legitimising bicycles that would have double the wattage available but would also be twist and go: you turn a throttle and the bike starts, and you do not need to pedal the thing at all because it powers itself as it goes.
There comes a point, of course, where you are overlapping with mopeds. Mopeds do require licensing, both of the person and of the vehicle, but the distinction between the two is breaking down, in my view. I will just complete the picture beyond mopeds. They can be driven permanently on a provisional licence that is simply renewable; you can do anything on a moped with a provisional licence, except go on the motorway. The reason a lot of the people have L-plates, as was referred to, is that they never get a proper licence. That is true of large numbers of delivery drivers and so forth, but also others. Of course, for a full motor cycle, you need a proper licence.
The system has become incoherent and does not command respect any more. The outgoing Government—I accuse them—did not address this issue, but I think it will fall very firmly into the lap of the new Government. They will have to take a proper schematic view of what the licensing scheme should be for the whole range of two-wheelers, because that old distinction between the pushbike and the powered two-wheeler no longer exists in the way that it did.
I come, briefly, to illegal e-bikes. I do not understand why there are illegal e-bikes; are they imported or are they the result of illicit adaptation? Who is doing this adaptation? Is it being done on a commercial basis? If it is, why is that not being stopped? These are questions that I do not understand—there may or may not be answers to them. In March this year, police data showed that the number of illegal e-bikes confiscated by police doubled in 2023 compared with 2022. In the whole country, 260 were seized; there were 130 in 2022 and only 61 in 2021. Part of that increase in numbers from 2021 to 2023 is of course explicable by lockdown, but it is good to see the numbers going up. I suspect, however, that it is merely a drop in the ocean and I wonder what intentions the Government have when it comes to enforcing the existing rules.
Finally, we come to e-scooters. Here, I think the previous Conservative Government were totally wimpish. As noble Lords explained, they are illegal, but they are legal if you are riding them as part of a licence scheme. That scheme is a trial, and the trial has been extended perpetually, I fear because Ministers did not want to grapple with the decision of whether and in what circumstances to legalise them. As I say, I accuse my own colleagues, my own side, of not bringing that to a conclusion—but it cannot be escaped. This trial cannot be continued for ever. There will have to be a decision, and it would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us today what he thinks that decision might be.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for initiating the debate, and I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister. There has been a great deal said today; I hope that he will listen to it all and present us with a properly synthesised policy in due course.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for the opportunity to debate these important issues—indeed, it is my first debate since I became a Minister. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, opposite, for his welcome, and I welcome him to his position too. He and I, on a couple of occasions a long time ago, cycled around London. We at least stopped at red traffic lights, unlike the former Mayor of London. I also hope that he is similarly as knowledgeable and effective; we can check with each other from time to time what we think of each other’s performance.
I hope to respond to everybody who has spoken but, if I do not, I will write following this debate. I note the many strong and, frankly, conflicting views that we have heard on the subject of cycling. This Government are being bold and ambitious on active travel, whether walking, wheeling or cycling. We want to set out ambitious plans to promote greener journeys, no matter how people choose to travel.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has made clear, the department is committed to delivering greener transport and maintaining and renewing our road network to ensure that it serves everyone. Investment in active travel supports the Government’s economic growth, health and net-zero missions by helping to revitalise high streets, improving air quality and supporting people to live longer, healthier lives.
No one at all is simply a motorist, cyclist or pedestrian. We are all people who may choose to walk, cycle and drive at different times. However, with power comes responsibility and, whether cycling or driving, the Highway Code outlines a clear hierarchy of road users. This starts from the premise that those road users who can do the greatest harm have the greatest responsibility to reduce the danger or threat they may pose to others. Therefore, people cycling have a duty to behave in a safe and responsible manner, particularly around pedestrians, and to follow the rules set out in the Highway Code.
As we have heard today, many of us have seen instances of poor cycling behaviour, whether jumping red lights when people are crossing, riding on crowded pavements or wearing earphones. Dangerous cycling can put lives at risk, including that of the cyclist, and it is completely unacceptable. It also has the effect of intimidating other people cycling and therefore deterring people currently cycling and those considering cycling for the first time. In that might be a clue to the gender gap to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, refers.
Like all road users, people cycling are required to comply with road traffic law in the interests of their own safety and that of other road users, and this is reflected in the Highway Code. If they cycle irresponsibly, if they do not use lights or are not visible, or if their use of the highway creates an unsafe environment or causes a nuisance, they may be committing a number of offences that can make them liable for prosecution.
The enforcement of road traffic offences has been referred to by virtually everyone who has spoken in this debate. Enforcement, including of cycling offences, is an operational matter for the police. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, will know from his time as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police of the success of the dedicated Metropolitan Police Service cycle safety team, funded by Transport for London. I hope that he and the House would commend this approach to other chief police officers elsewhere in the UK. Such a dedicated force can deal with not only cycling offences and cyclists’ behaviour but the issue of theft by cyclists, referred to earlier.
I turn to the specific points raised by several noble Lords concerning registration and insurance. With more than 20 million cycles in Britain, a national licensing system for all cycles similar to the one for cars and motor cycles would be complex and expensive to design and administer. Cycles would need to be fitted with registration plates that were sufficiently visible and robust and that could not easily be transferred from one cycle to another. The costs of administering such a scheme would be likely to outweigh any benefits, and it would also be likely to lead to a reduction in the number of people cycling. This would have adverse impacts on health and congestion, particularly if those cycling chose instead to use their cars for short journeys.
I was interested to hear some suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about licensing and adding cycling to driving licences, and particularly about maybe making cycling offences endorsable on driving licences for motor vehicles. We will certainly look at that.
Mandatory insurance is similar to licensing. People cycling are already encouraged, but not required, to take out some form of insurance, and many people have insurance cover through their membership of cycling organisations. For example, membership of Cycling UK provides £10 million of third-party liability insurance. This will cover members if they damage another person or their property—for example, if a cyclist accidentally causes injury to a fellow rider or hits a car. But it is not currently mandatory, and we believe that mandatory insurance would be as difficult as mandatory licensing. These and other matters would therefore need to be very carefully considered before any change to the law could be contemplated.
On the question of data concerning cycling and collisions, data is available from the department, several noble Lords have quoted from it, and I would be happy to consider any request that noble Lords wish to make for further data beyond that quoted today.
A number of noble Lords referred to the previous Administration’s plans to introduce new offences concerning dangerous and careless cycling through the Criminal Justice Bill, which fell due to the general election. We are currently considering a range of different interventions, including those, to improve road safety for all users.
I turn to some further specific points. There has been a lot of debate here about electric cycles and their speed and power. The current legal situation is that e-cycles are legal only where their electric motor cuts out at 15.5 mph and where the electric motor does not exceed a power of 250 watts. If they can reach greater speeds or greater power, they are classed as a moped or a motorbike and must be registered, taxed and insured. The previous Government consulted on potential changes to the existing regulations which would allow more powerful e-cycles and would enable them to be powered by the throttle all the way up to 15.5 mph. Ministers are carefully considering next steps in this policy area, including whether to proceed with these changes. We will respond on this in due course.
On the speed limit and the speed of cycles, it is the case that speed limits set under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 apply only to motor vehicles, but cyclists can still be charged with careless or dangerous cycling, depending on the circumstances. The introduction of a speed limit would bring many challenges. Many cyclists are, in practice, seldom able to exceed the speed limits that apply to motorised vehicles, other than perhaps in 20 mph zones, when going down a steep hill or in the case of those with Olympian levels of fitness. More prosaically, very few cycles are fitted with a speedometer. Again, enforcement would have to be a matter for the police, but they are already able to stop cyclists for offences such as cycling without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.
The design of cycling facilities was mentioned. Active Travel England has initiated and produced design standards which have been shown to dramatically reduce collisions and conflict, giving users greater confidence. Local authority officers need the right skills to help deliver that agenda and Active Travel England trained more than 3,500 local government officers across England last year, which has already led to real improvements. Similarly, funding for active travel has been significant. This Government will make an announcement on plans beyond 2025, including the development of a third cycling and walking investment strategy, in due course. Since it was established in 2022, Active Travel England has invested just under £250 million to deliver 260 miles of walking and cycling routes and hundreds of safer crossings and junctions. This includes funding for the national cycle network.
I turn to the question of bus stop bypasses, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, The Government are committed to championing the rights of active and disabled people, putting their views at the heart of our actions. We are fully aware of the concerns raised by some groups, particularly visually impaired people, over the use of floating bus stops. It is a complex issue and we are carefully considering next steps, following the Living Streets research the department co-funded with Transport Scotland and which was published in April this year. We will respond to that in due course.
I was much encouraged by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Young, about progress in the last 50 years. I was around 50 years ago and I too remember that there were no cycle lanes, no dedicated traffic lights and a reluctance to make any provision. I was interested by his and other noble Lords’ contributions about rental bikes abandoned on pavements. They are clearly a considerable impediment to pedestrians in general and to those with visual disabilities in particular. I will write on this subject because it is so important. The department is also consulting on micro-mobility and e-scooters.
The question of helmets was raised. The Highway Code very strongly advises cyclists to use helmets, but any change to mandatory use would pose the same issues about enforcement that are related to other matters raised today.
I was sorry to hear about noble Lords who have personal experience of accidents, either cycling or caused by cyclists, and I hope they are all fully recovered.
I do not currently have information about off-road bikes, but I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, raised the matter of potholes, which was raised in an Oral Question yesterday. The Government are committed to a programme of filling many more potholes and making road surfaces smoother.
A noble Lord raised the question of prosecutions in advanced stop areas. I do not currently have information about that, but I will write if it is available.
The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, raised the question of road safety campaigns. The THINK! campaign, which I hope noble Lords will recognise as a long-standing and successful road safety campaign, deals particularly with the proper behaviour of all road users.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others asked about the e-scooter trials which have been extended to 3 May 2026, whereupon the Government will consider what legislation is appropriate, including registration, because it is clearly an important and growing subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, raised the Policy Exchange report, which he asked me to read and reply to, and I shall do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised training and education. Active Travel England has a £50 million programme for young people’s education on cycling. This is, of course, extremely welcome because understanding the Highway Code and the correct way to behave on the road is really important, so I am sure that all noble Lords fully support that programme.
In conclusion, the Government are being bold and ambitious on active travel, but the safety of our roads is an absolute priority, whether people are walking, wheeling, cycling or driving. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, says, that should be delivered for all road users, including the vulnerable and the disabled. We want to see more people cycling but doing so safely and with consideration for their fellow road users.
The Government are committed to delivering a new road safety strategy, the first in over a decade. Many of the points made today will be considered as part of that, and we will set out our next steps in due course.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and everyone who has taken part, whether they agreed or disagreed with me. I really enjoyed the debate; I learned things and some really good ideas came up. I had not realised I would get some medical advice. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, I appreciate the advice about my heart rate. Its resting rate is 52—I suspect it could improve. As a previous distinguished member of the Special Forces, I suspect his is even lower.
I did not think I would hear a Permanent Secretary previously at the Treasury suggest hypothecation. I did not think it had ever been Treasury policy, but if it is going go for it, I think it is a fantastic idea—the police will appreciate it immediately.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. When I referred to the amendment suggested by Sir Iain, I did not realise that she was the original author. I spoke to him, but I did not realise where the suggestion had come from. I am sorry for not acknowledging that.
I thought that everybody gave a very good account of what happened. I was sorry to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Austin, can no longer achieve 30 miles per hour on the flat—that was very disappointing. One major thing that I thought noble Lords could agree on was speed limits. If they are available for motor vehicles, perhaps they should also be employed and enforced for cyclists. I agree entirely with the broad thrust that the police ought to enforce the law. Whether it is shoplifting or something else, there is more scope for that. At times, I am one of the biggest critics when that is not happening—so you will never find any resistance from me on that.
The Minister brought out a good example of TfL and the Met dedicating efforts to this area during his time. My final point is that he mentioned further data. My principal thought is to combine the data from the health service with that available from the Department for Transport and the police, so that they are fused together to give a comprehensive account.
Just finally, on insurance, I thought it was weak response. I can see the arguments and logistics against licensing and registration. It is a massive task; I do get that. But, in essence, this would fall to the insurance industry. There may be an argument about whether the premiums would deter cycling, but I suspect that it would not actually cost an awful lot if incidents were as infrequent as noble Lords suggested. If there are fewer collisions, presumably the premiums will be very low.
I thank everybody for their time, particularly the Minister and the Opposition Front Benches, who I know have many demands on their time. I thank the Government for their responses.
Bus Franchising
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. The Official Opposition share the Government’s desire for high-quality public transport and we will hold the Government to account on this.
In government, the Conservatives prioritised buses, protecting our network during the pandemic and introducing the “Get Around for £2” scheme, saving millions of people money on their commute and, most importantly, incentivising them to travel by bus again quickly after the impact that the pandemic had on travel. We know that our public transport sector desperately needs increasing passenger numbers to make routes viable and this is an especially acute problem in rural areas. The previous Government’s policy, driven by the “Get Around for £2” scheme, was successful in driving up the number of passenger journeys in the year to March 2023 by almost 20%. While this is not yet at pre-pandemic levels, our scheme is supporting the return of passengers and boosting the bus sector. So, before addressing the specific issue of bus franchising, can the Minister say what the Government’s intention is for the “Get Around for £2” scheme and whether it is also at risk of means testing? Will the Minister rule that out?
I turn now to the subject of the Statement: the statutory instrument. It seeks to give to all local authorities the powers on bus franchising that are currently exercised in major conurbations such as London and Manchester. Broadly and generally, the Official Opposition welcome the granting and devolution of more powers to local authorities, but this statutory instrument, like a number of announcements from the Government to date, is fundamentally bogus, for two reasons. First, it is often argued that cities and towns outside London should have the sorts of public transport services that London has and the sort of system that provides those transport services. As noble Lords will no doubt be aware, the bus service in London is provided by private companies that operate under concessions that have been granted to them, competitively, by Transport for London in a way that ensures a degree of coherence and system in the operation of the bus service across the conurbation.
The fares risk, which is the crucial question in all this, is borne by Transport for London. The bus companies themselves simply supply the service for a fee. The truth is that this is not something that just happened overnight. TfL did not suddenly find a way to do something that nobody else had ever done. Transport for London, in various guises, has been operating transport services in London for over 150 years, and bus services going back at least to the foundation of the General Omnibus Company—a French company, actually—in the 1850s in London. It is the historical core of what we now call London Buses. The capacity of most local authorities to deliver these services is extremely limited. They do not have those roots or those abilities. Where, out of nowhere, are they to conjure the ability to set up a bus concession management system?
The second reason that this is a fundamentally bogus statutory instrument is the cost of doing it. Running bus services, on the sort of basis that local authorities wish to provide them, is very expensive and requires large subsidies. My figures might be slightly out of date, but when the last Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, left office, the subsidy to London Buses was of the order of £450 million a year. The last I heard, and it may not be totally up to date, was that under his successor the cost of London Buses is of the order of £700 million a year. That is in a very large city, of course, but £700 million a year is a huge amount to have to find to subsidise bus services.
Throughout the country, local authorities will have to subsidise buses if they are to provide the sorts of services that this statutory instrument and this Government are holding out as being possible. Where is the money going to come from? Without massive investment in capacity and the subsidisation of operations, this statutory instrument is fundamentally meaningless.
So do the Government intend to publish a full assessment of the expected impact of this policy on the quality, frequency and accessibility of bus services? Will the Minister commit to assessing the relative impact of this policy on rural communities in particular, as opposed to urban communities?
Finally, the Official Opposition, as I say, support the desire for improved public transport and we generally support the increase of powers to local authorities. But this policy appears to put showmanship ahead of practical improvements. The Government have yet again got their priorities wrong, focusing on who runs local bus services rather than on delivering the people’s priorities, which are the quality, frequency and reliability of our public transport network.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats welcome this Statement. As it has emphasised, it is clear that buses are crucial to our economy and society. They provide services for many of the poorest groups—the young, the old, more women than men—and are crucial for access to education, jobs, health services and other aspects.
We welcome rapid action to deal with our rapidly declining bus network outside London and we are fundamentally in favour of devolution, believing that decisions made locally are generally more effective and efficient. If the Minister looks back to Hansard in 2017, he will see that I put down during debates on the Bus Services Bill amendments that did roughly what the Government’s proposed measures will do—allow all local authorities to franchise and set up their own bus services. The response from the then Minister was that it was all about issues of capacity. To be fair, that is still an issue. On its own, this will not be enough, so what are the Government going to do? Will they provide additional funding and funding changes in the Budget in order to ensure that franchising is enabled in those local authorities that are not generally as big as, for example, Manchester.
As with the rail Bill, our concern is that the key issues are not necessarily included in the Government’s proposals in order to be broad enough to solve the problems. I have a couple of associated questions. Reference has been made to government subsidies to support the £2 fare cap. That will run out in December, and another funding stream that is designed to support improved services will run out in April. Can the Minister give us a commitment that we will see the end of temporary funding and that it will be replaced with a multiyear, more encompassing set of funding that is less divided up? There are four sets of funding that go to local authorities. They need, as the bus industry needs, certainty and a long-term approach, so I hope the Government will do that.
Finally, can we have an assurance that the Government will look at badly needed incentives and assistance to encourage young people on to our buses? For years and years, we have had free fares for elderly people. Young people need a nationwide scheme of at least reduced fares in order to get them on the buses and encourage them to become the bus users of the future. Many rural areas in particular need additional bus services, and young people using the buses would be a great incentive to the establishment of new bus services in those areas.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I do not normally agree with anything that the Front-Bench spokesperson says—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
It is the turn of the Minister.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their comments on this subject. Despite the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, having just congratulated me on my position, I find myself virtually wholly disagreeing with what he said, save only one thing, which is that the quality, frequency and reliability of bus services are very important to all those who use the most popular form of public transport.
The noble Lord raised the issue of the £2 fare cap. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, observes, the money for it runs out in December. The Government are looking urgently at this to determine its future, and we will respond on it as soon as we can.
The noble Lord talked about the TfL system, which of course I am as familiar with as maybe he is, having administrated it for the best part of 15 years. He said that the fares risk is borne by TfL and questions the capacity of local authorities to deliver that. His observations about the capacity of other places in England to do this do not need to be theoretical, because the Mayor of Manchester, a combined authority, has had bus franchising in place for some time.
One of the features which distinguished it in London is being replicated in Manchester: in the last six months alone, the first tranche of franchising in Manchester has produced revenue growth of 5%. It has enabled the introduction of more buses, the service is more reliable, and a night bus service has been introduced. Those are features which occur because of the comprehensive network, its promise of stability, its consistent information, ticketing and planning, a closer interaction with traffic authorities to allow buses to progress more freely, and the introduction of real-time information. Those are all features that local authorities can deliver if they choose to go down the franchising road.
The noble Lord questions the capacity of local authorities to put in such a system. My department is building its capacity in order to give assistance on the ground to local authorities that want to proceed down this route.
On the full assessment of the impact of this policy, I have already described the interim assessment from Manchester, which is wholly good. Throughout England, in towns and cities and in the countryside, there are huge variations in the quality, volume and reliability of bus services. The Government’s suite of measures, of which the introduction of franchising is one for those local authorities that wish to take advantage of it, will stabilise things so that the quality, frequency and reliability of the bus service is more certain. That will encourage people to travel and give the bus service itself more passenger volume and revenue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, supports local devolution, and this Government strongly support that too. Franchising is a measure which will be available to all local authorities. They can choose what to do in their particular circumstances. She refers to the end of temporary funding. We certainly have a keenness to amalgamate funding streams; there are several, and it would be easier for local authorities and bus companies to understand one funding stream. We would like to give certainty on multiyear funding, but that must be subject to the parlous state of public finances that this Government have inherited. She is right that giving certainty in this direction will improve the quality, frequency and reliability of bus services in Britain.
Lastly, the noble Baroness refers to young people. Greater local authority control of bus services gives the opportunity for more local authorities to give concessions to young people, where that is justified. There are already concessions for young people, but we agree that getting young people into the habit of public transport usage is extremely important.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for leaving the depot prematurely a few moments ago.
I rarely agree with anything that the main Opposition spokesperson on transport has to say, and I notice that he glossed over the fact that hundreds of bus routes and thousands of bus miles disappeared under the previous Government’s policies. However, he does have a point as far as the financing of franchising is concerned. Does my noble friend accept from me, the former chairman of a major bus operator, that franchising outside our major cities in particular will be an expensive business, and that if franchising is to succeed, as most of us on these Benches would hope, it must be properly funded? What discussions have been held between his department and His Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that proper funding is in place?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his contribution. I should have said in my previous remarks that this is all preliminary to a buses Bill, which will be introduced to the House in due course and cover a wider range of subjects.
This is offering a choice to local authorities. It gives them the opportunity of franchising, if they believe that it is the right thing to do. Of course, all funding is being considered in the round as part of the spending review. I cannot share details about the discussions with His Majesty’s Treasury at this stage, but, in the meantime, the department is building its capacity to provide tangible, on-the-ground support to local transport authorities that wish to take back public control of bus services. We are also working with all stakeholders to determine how the buses Bill will make franchising easier and cheaper to deliver and further reduce the barriers to its introduction.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome my noble friend’s Statement, because it is about time that buses fulfilled their role of providing local transport for so many people. I worry about where they will get the money from and how many people will use them, if they use them to start with. As the noble Baroness said, it is important to get young people into the idea of using buses. How young is young? They need to be school kids right up to people starting their first job, who may well be in their 20s. If they live a long way from an established bus route, they will not get a job.
It is quite clear from what my noble friend said that all local authorities will be invited to do this and to participate one way or another, be it concession or franchise. But what happens if they do not want to do it? How will the Government encourage them? It is important to enable everyone who needs it to access public transport.
I have one example that I ask my noble friend to look into, although he may not be able to answer today. For those who live in the Isles of Scilly who want to go between the islands, the average fare in the winter is somewhere between £10 and £100—to get to the doctor, to the chemist or to work. It seems to me that what is good for city centres and the countryside in England could also be useful to people who live on islands. It might apply to the Isle of Wight as well, I do not know. I look forward to my noble friend’s comments.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his contributions. What would happen if local authorities did not want to pursue this course? The existing and partnership arrangements for bus operations, which have been in place locally for some time, would continue. It is a fair observation that there is a huge variation in standards of bus provision across Britain. If local authorities do not wish to participate or to pursue franchising, they can continue to pursue the arrangements that they currently have with their bus operators.
I cannot, of course, comment on the costs of transport between the islands of the Isles of Scilly or the minimal bus service on St Mary’s. However, as my noble friend knows, the provision in Cornwall, which is a largely rural county, is very good. That is an example of an arrangement that has been tailored to a rural area. None of these new arrangements would prevent existing arrangements from continuing.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I declare an interest: I got the bus on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and today, and shall be getting it tomorrow. As I live in Greater Manchester, I have been a real beneficiary of what the previous Government allowed for franchising in my city and its surrounds. The buses have become more reliable: I can now go to a bus stop and expect a bus to turn up within 10 minutes, not 40 minutes, which I sometimes had to wait for before.
I have two questions. First, I am old enough to remember when local authorities in Greater Manchester often had joint boards. The wonderfully named Stalybridge, Hyde, Mossley and Dukinfield joint board provided buses in parts of what is now Tameside.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
They were indeed green. I remember them very well. I wonder what the possibilities are for rural areas that are not part of a combined authority like Greater Manchester. Will local authorities have the capacity to combine together to franchise bus services jointly, rather than doing it by themselves?
Secondly, we made great progress in Greater Manchester; we got the buses and the fantastic Metrolink tram system. It would help to integrate the whole thing if we gained control of local rail services at the same time. For many people, local rail, as well as buses and trams, is necessary to make journeys. Could the Minister give any indications of plans to allow the franchisement of local rail services in places such as Greater Manchester?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his comments. I particularly note his support for the effects of the initial tranches of franchising in Manchester, which have indeed increased service and produced better reliability. He refers to the very old organisation of public transport in Manchester. Many of those magnificent vehicles are in the Manchester transport museum at Queens Road.
These days, the increasing number of combined authorities are of a good size to take advantage of this Government’s franchising proposition. It is, in effect, bringing together local authorities of sufficient size to be able to take advantage of the benefits of a network. I do not have an answer to whether this will allow individual local authorities to join together, but I am happy to write to the right reverend Prelate about that.
The right reverent Prelate raised the subject of the integration of rail services. We have already made a lot of progress with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, and with the Mayor of the West Midlands, in integrating rail services into the local transport network in information and in ticketing. Although this is not the subject of today’s discussion, I have no doubt that there will be some announcements on that. He is right to aspire to an integrated local network that is modally agnostic and includes rail and, in Manchester’s case, metro and buses.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, if we are going to use TfL and the London bus network as the example for going around the country, the dread problem of safety goes around again. Carrying on from the question I asked the Minister earlier this week, it often seems that in London—where, from memory, someone is killed by a bus every six weeks—the bus companies investigate their own incidents, with the DVSA checking for legalities. Who will be responsibility for safety in these franchises, and will they have teeth?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
One of the benefits of London’s large system of bus franchising is the work that Transport for London has done on the design and safety of bus travel. The noble Lord has to remember that those vehicles are on the road for 18, 20 or 24 hours a day, and they form a major part of the mileage of vehicles in London, even though their numbers are fairly small.
A significant amount of work has been done on the safety of driving and drivers, and on the design of vehicles. I know that has been shared with manufacturers and bus operators across the country, and with organisations such as Transport for Greater Manchester and the Urban Transport Group. I would expect more of that to happen.
The safety of buses is considered by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Authority, which is an executive arm of the Department for Transport and has the power to investigate serious bus accidents, which it does. It has the power to prosecute the drivers and operators of those vehicles. None of these proposals would alter its powers to continue to do so.
Prison Capacities
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to address challenges around prison capacities, and to ensure the safety and wellbeing needs of vulnerable prisoners.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am so glad that so many noble Lords have expressed their wish to speak in this debate, and I am sorry that each noble Lord will have only a short speaking time. I will try to be succinct. Please do not waste time congratulating me on securing the debate.
I thank all the agencies that have sent information, which I have heavily leaned on, including the Howard League for Penal Reform, and of course our excellent Library.
We are in a sorry mess with our Prison Service today. The number of prisoners is double what it was just over 20 years ago, and the average length of sentences has doubled. One does not have to be a statistical genius to work out that there is some kind of causal connection.
The Minister himself has described this increase as a societal addiction to punishment, leading to sentences that are much too long. I was delighted to read that the Government have indicated that they will review sentencing—a move that is very welcome indeed. I wonder if I can tempt the Minister to say a little more about this review, such as how soon it might take place, what sentences it would cover, and whether alternatives to prison will be used more frequently.
On the subject of sentence reviews, will the Government consider implementing the recommendations of the Justice Select Committee to the previous Government on imprisonment for public protection, including a resentencing exercise for that unfortunate rump of individuals still serving sentences that are today obsolete? Today, no one receives this cruel sentence, and no one has since 2012. The British Psychological Society describes such a sentence as leading to a sense of anxiety, helplessness and depression, with self-harm and suicidal behaviour. I strongly commend the work of the previous Government, in particular that of the former Secretary of State Alex Chalk, on diminishing the time on licence and delivering more improvements for IPP prisoners. But the point remains: all this falls short of the one thing that would make the difference—having the certainty of a release date.
IPPs are just one problem confronting the prison system, and those people are not the only vulnerable group suffering in our prisons today. Women prisoners are another; their travails warrant a separate debate in their own right. While they themselves are low risk, they typically suffer from trauma, domestic abuse, mental ill-health and substance misuse. Their rates of self-harm are eight times that in the male estate. And all that is before we take into account the separation effects on families and children.
Mental health problems are also huge. The British Psychological Society says that nine out of every 10 prisoners enter prison with at least one mental health or substance abuse problem. There is a complex cocktail of health and social problems. In the last year alone there has been a 24% increase in self-harm and a rise of 27% in the number of assaults in the men’s estate. Too many prisoners mean that there is not enough space, and not enough resources, to make a prisoner’s experience rehabilitative, or even safe.
Recently, the BBC’s Sima Kotecha wrote a piece about Pentonville prison, describing the dire conditions, in which most prisoners were being held in their cells for up to 22 hours a day. I think if those prisoners were animals, the RSPCA would be called. Overcrowding makes everything so much worse. Prison officers have to deal with a highly inflammatory situation. Trying to keep prisoners and themselves safe preoccupies most of their time, and rehabilitation sometimes goes out of the window—no wonder recidivism gets worse.
I hope the Minister will outline a more effective plan to control the eternally rising prisoner numbers—a plan that does not necessarily use prison. He himself has said that society has an addiction to punishment that leads to sentences that are much too long, and we know that long sentences have an inverse effect on rehabilitation.
We also know that we cannot build our way out of an overcrowding problem. The Ministry of Justice’s forecasts say that the prison population will grow to between 94,000 and more than 114,000 in the four next years alone. It is time to stop the rot, because other services are not equipped to deal with this situation. The Probation Service is on its knees, with chronic staff shortages, excessive workloads and poor morale. Many of us will have had a briefing from the probation officers’ union Napo, which is dismayed at the mass release of 1,700 prisoners this week; it fears that they will not cope, so there will be more risk to the public and to themselves, and more mistakes will be inevitable.
Turning people out of jail earlier, without proper preparation before and after release, is a recipe for disaster. People will not get the help they need. They will reoffend, and the whole merry-go-round will go faster and faster until the parts fly off.
My final question for the Minister is this. How does he plan to address the needs of prisoners? If he does not, our Prison Service will continue on its inexorable spiral of decline until it breaks. Wrongdoing must be punished, but there are other methods of punishment as well as prison.
Lord Mann (Lab)
My Lords, I shall make two quick points—or perhaps two and a half, if I am quick.
My first point is to ask the Minister why, with the prisoners released this week, the local authority where I live was given no notice of which prisoners would be released from the local prison or who had a previous address in the local area? That has been the case with other prison releases over the past decade, but why is it that somebody does not inform local authorities and did not do so this week? Is that going to happen again?
The Government have made a big announcement, and rightly so, about planning infrastructure and bureaucracy, and there has been a lot of talk of a 10-year plan. That gives me the opportunity to raise something that I raised in the House of Commons many times, without any success. We have old prisons, such as Armley, in Leeds, that clearly want knocking down and the land used for expensive capital development, such as housing or whatever else, but they will need replacing with new prisons. Near where I live, and once represented, is Ranby prison. It is a more modern prison and does not need knocking down, and has vast amounts of land. I have regularly proposed to Ministers in many Governments that it would be a suitable place. There is a suitable workforce, with plenty of people who would love to work there in that industry, as plenty have done and do. Why not get on and build a brand-new prison there, with one governor and one set of management managing the two prisons as a combined prison? On long-term planning, I do not understand why that has not happened.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, successful rehabilitation reduces pressure on prison places. My two reviews for the Ministry of Justice, which it continues to implement with dedication and enthusiasm, emphasise that healthy relationships greatly reduce reoffending, as those who receive family visits are 39% less likely to reoffend than those who do not have them. HMPPS is very mindful of closeness to family when selecting which prisoners to send abroad. Some 28% of foreign national prisoners are Romanian, Polish or Albanian, and would be closer to home in Estonia than in British jails, which would give us some more space.
Many prisoners without family on the outside or friends to help them go straight benefit from well-supervised peer support in prison, and those relationships protect against repeat offending. Trained prisoners mentoring others derive much purpose from this. They take a huge load off officers and recipients more readily take their advice about going straight.
I recommended that prisons be extrovert and draw in local charities and other organisations to expose men to opportunities on the outside. Community days in prisons ensure that those who never see the visits hall can learn there about work and volunteering, including from former prisoners. One revolving-door prisoner attending his first community day was very doubtful but said, “For the first time I found myself thinking about what comes next. Now I never want to come back in again”. Does the Minister plan to roll out peer support and community days across the estate?
Finally, the Question refers to vulnerable prisoners. Much is said about diverting women who have experienced trauma and abuse away from custody. Male offenders with similar histories are treated far more harshly. Surely we should be moving towards equality of approach in this area.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Many years ago, when I was a Member of another place, I was one of many who were horrified that the prison population had reached 45,000. We do not see a more law-abiding country today, with double that number in prison. I will offer a short urgent shopping list.
First, we must deal with sentence inflation. Then we must give young offenders the opportunity to graduate out of their juvenile criminal records, which can cause them trouble with employment. We need a vast improvement in prison education facilities. We need to provide release accommodation for those who are released and have nowhere else to go. We need to provide opportunities for prisoners to leave prison for the day to be able to work their way into the normal economy. We need to enable much earlier release, maybe 25% of the sentence where it is justified; for example, by a prisoner having been to work or undergone education courses which will lead them to a better life outside. As already has been said, we must reduce the number of women in prison. It is far too high and much too damaging. Finally on my list, which I could increase, mental health provision has to be much better in person, including a greater possibility of transferring prisoners from prison mental health supervision to supervision in hospitals or in the community.
I welcome the appointment of the Minister. He comes here with very great and relevant experience and a background as a prison and punishment reformer. I hope that the promise of his appointment will reap a reward with results.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for enabling this debate and for the opportunity to speak in it. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, lead Bishop for prisons, is unable to be here today. I know she wishes that she had been able to contribute. I share her interest in the welfare of prisoners and of those called to work in prisons, not least in the four prisons in my diocese in and around Doncaster.
Ministers have made plain their deep concern at the capacity problem in our prisons and have set out their plans to address it in both the short and longer term. I urge the Government to think deeply about the factors that have led us to this crisis and to respond creatively and boldly when considering the purpose of prison and the alternatives to custody. At their best, prisons are places of transformation. Every person supported to turn away from offending makes our country safer for everyone. But truly effective rehabilitation almost always takes place in a context of care and trust. It surely goes without saying that overcrowding in prisons is not conducive to a transformative culture.
On these Benches we celebrate the important role that prison chaplains play in helping to create the sort of culture of respect and trust which maximises the chances of rehabilitation. Those working in prisons rightly expect to be protected from harm and to carry out their duties with dignity. Current overcrowding has made a difficult role immensely challenging. Hidden from public view, prison staff work in conditions in their place of employment that few of us can appreciate or would tolerate.
Prisons must be safe for staff if a culture of respect and trust is to be built there, yet training and support for prison staff in this regard are limited and staff retention is a concern. What assessment are the Government making of the training and support required for prison staff when working under these pressures?
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I will focus on one of the most vulnerable groups in our prisons, elderly prisoners, who all too often can be forgotten amid all the other problems in our prisons. The Prison Reform Trust, of which I am a trustee, reported last week that the number of prisoners aged over 50 in England and Wales has nearly tripled in 20 years, from 5,000 in 2003 to a projected 14,800 by next July—that is one in six prisoners.
The ever-rising length of prison sentences is obviously a contributory factor. It is hard enough coping with age-related infirmities outside prison. Dealing with illness, disability, dementia and other health problems in prison means coping with the significant challenge of accessing adequate healthcare. Diet, restricted physical space and sedentary lifestyles accelerate the onset of frailty and worsening health conditions. Some prisoners face the lonely prospect of dying in prison.
In 2020 the Ministry of Justice promised a national strategy for the care and management of older prisoners. I would be most grateful if the Minister could indicate when that will emerge. Such a strategy should ensure that older prisoners are placed in the prison estate so as to maximise accessible and personalised health provision. More resource needs to be committed to training our hugely dedicated prison staff in recognising and responding to the needs of older prisoners, including the necessity of restraints for prisoners who are frail and present less risk, as well as dealing with dementia and pain relief. As ever, it comes back to the invaluable front-line prison staff on whom the entire prisons edifice daily depends.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I shall highlight the vital work being done by Barnardo’s. I declare an interest as its vice-president.
We are seeking to address the factors that lead to young people entering the prison system, with a focus on how to address the overrepresentation in prison of care-experienced young people, especially black boys. We need to identify the young people most at risk of being drawn into crime and build a package of support that responds to the challenges they are facing, addressing issues before they escalate.
The Government’s proposed young futures hubs will play a vital role in preventing young people becoming involved in crime in the first place, but it is also important that when young people encounter the police they are treated fairly, with a focus on ensuring their safety, not illegally strip-searching them.
Research shows that one in 10 black children in care has received a custodial sentence by the time they are 18. That simply cannot be right. This is why I have been working closely with Barnardo’s and the Ministry of Justice over the past year to look at this issue and what needs to be done to tackle it. Barnardo’s Double Discrimination report reveals that many black children face racism from the very systems that are supposed to be supporting them, leaving them feeling isolated, marginalised and vulnerable. As one black care-experienced young person said, when someone treats you like a problem you become one.
We must stop the conveyor belt of vulnerable young people getting involved in crime. We need to focus on the treatment of care-experienced young people by the justice system and the police if the Government’s aim is to prevent and reduce young people’s involvement in crime.
Will the Minister meet me and Barnardo’s to discuss our vision of how to keep vulnerable children and young people out of prison? Every child deserves to have the opportunity to be safe, happy, healthy and loved, because childhood lasts a lifetime. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, amid the serious general concern about the state of our prisons, which we all share, I want to focus particularly on the risk of prisoners committing suicide. The death of anyone by suicide is a great sadness but there is a particular forlornness, a sense of failure and defeat, when someone kills themselves in prison.
The number of self-inflicted deaths in prisons last year went down slightly, from 92 to 85, and the number of deaths—1 per 1,000 prisoners—has remained roughly the same since 2018. However, as we know, the rate of suicide in prison is much higher than it is in the population as a whole and 54% of deaths that occur in prison are self-inflicted. For a range of reasons, those in prison are particularly at risk of taking their own lives. Stresses that contribute to those deaths include mental health struggles, deaths of loved ones, planned transfers to different institutions, the prospect of deportation, lack of family support and sex offender status. It is easy to see how those factors, often in combination with one another, can push people to the brink of despair.
A breakdown of the kind of person likely to kill themselves and the time they are at most risk is revealing. I do not have the most up-to-date figures, but those from previous years reveal that those most at risk are predominantly male, nearly all white and in the age groups 21 to 24 and 30 to 39. Moreover, a high percentage of suicides took place in the first 30 days in prison, even the first week, the rate being particularly high among those on remand, mostly by hanging. Arrival in prison is a particularly high time of risk. One-fifth of prisoners who take their own lives in prison do so within seven days of reception, and 39% of them die within a month of arrival. All this indicates a group of people who are particularly at risk.
What steps are taken in the early stages of remand in prison to try to identify those most at risk? Is the Minister really satisfied that those who are mentally unstable are given the opportunity to see a medical specialist?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in two minutes I will speak about two films.
I recently saw the film “Sing Sing”, based on the wonderful Rehabilitation through the Arts programme at Sing Sing maximum security prison in New York. One key figure, Divine G, a former prisoner who plays his younger self in the film, is an inspiring reminder that, yes, prison is there to punish and prisoners need to acknowledge they have been anti-social and were a threat to their fellow citizens, but that prison can find ways to help prisoners to become the best version of themselves.
However, we also know that prisons can be unsafe hell-holes that breed criminality, cynicism, addiction and despair. This sadly brings me to the second film. I was proud to speak at the premiere of “Britain’s Forgotten Prisoners” at the Sheffield documentary festival in the summer. The director, Martin Read, does an excellent job of following the stories of individuals on IPP sentences, trapped in
“a Kafka-esque world of labyrinthine bureaucracy that has seen them swallowed up by a system”.
I cried at both films, one at the humane hope of rehabilitation and one at the frustration and cruelty of inhumane and unjust prison policy.
For prisoners to stand a chance of rehabilitation, they need to believe that, however firm the system is, it is at least relatively fair. Recent events suggest there is no fairness for IPP prisoners. Never mind two-tier policing; we have a two-tier prison policy. Imagine you have done the crime, you have done your time—years earlier, in fact—yet now, way beyond your release date, you are still locked up indefinitely. The excuse is that IPP prisoners are too risky and could present a threat to public safety, with no evidence ever given. Now fellow prisoners, who have committed far worse crimes and have not done their time, are being released early for pragmatic political reasons. Will the Minister promise to at least look at releasing a batch of IPP prisoners via the early release scheme as a gesture of good faith that could restore much-needed hope to the IPP prison community?
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, if we are to cut prison numbers we need to cut reoffending. If we are to cut reoffending, prisoners need jobs, housing and hope. If they are to get jobs, housing and hope, they need to be seen in a different light.
I have visited 50 prisons in the last seven months, and 170 prisons in the last eight years. I have visited 12 different types of prisons—category B and C—and have been surrounded by hundreds of men. I have never once had an act of violence, threat or intimidation shown to me, or even a hint of one.
That scandalously bad scaremongering BBC report last Monday, which highlighted terrible travesties inside Pentonville, did not reflect the visit to Pentonville that I had made just two weeks earlier, when I was surrounded by multitudes of men of different ages, all of whom were positively looking forward to the graduations that they will receive on 23 September, when I will graduate over 100 of them on the Time4Change programme. In other words, we need to change our attitude to how we see prisoners: we perceive them to be a perpetual risk. This week’s headlines have been nothing but appalling, scandalous and destructive; they do not reflect the reality. I wonder whether the very good governor at Pentonville, Simon Drysdale, was happy with that distorted view of his prison, or whether the chaplain, Jonathan Aitken, previously of another place, was happy with that distorted view of the prison in which he serves so effectively.
I wonder whether we could take account of the fact that many prisoners who have gone through reform and renewal are fantastic role models for others who follow behind them. At the moment, through the group that I lead, we have a man called Anton who served a sentence in Swaleside and then in The Mount. With still four years left to go before the end of his sentence, he moved to HMP Isis to act as a father figure to the young men up to age 27—he is 40. He leads responsible training programmes inside the prison to change mindsets. Another prisoner from Ranby prison will move in three weeks’ time. We need to change the perspective on prisoners so that they can get jobs and housing.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, the crisis in prison capacity results from the fact that the prison population of England and Wales has more than doubled over the last 30 years, and this trend is expected to continue. Why? A large part of the answer is that the length of prison sentences has been steadily growing over the same period. Indeed, the sentences imposed today are about twice as long as they were when I started out at the Bar; they are far longer than those imposed in the rest of Europe and, indeed, in Northern Ireland.
Sentencing laws have long provided that a prison sentence should be for the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, but successive Governments have not been content to leave it to the judges to apply this test. They have introduced legislation requiring judges to impose higher sentences for offences considered to be of particular concern to the public. These have not been necessary for the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation or protection of the public. They have usually been imposed to cater for a perceived public demand for greater punishment, but this has come with a cost: over £50,000 a year for each man in custody.
It makes no sense to spend such sums on increasing punishment when they would be better spent on rehabilitation and other measures to prevent reoffending. Doubling sentences has brought no benefit to the criminal justice system; it has led to the crisis that confronts the Prison Service today. Will the Minister seek to persuade the Government to consider the merits of reversing the trend rather than building more prisons?
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, I add two points to those already made. First, there is much talk of prison capacity, but it is important to appreciate the difference between capacity in the sense of how many can be crammed in and the real capacity of our prisons. The Ministry of Justice has its own “baseline certified normal accommodation”, designed to provide decent accommodation. At the end of August, its figures suggested that it was about 8,500 over that baseline—perhaps fewer today. The adverse consequences are well understood. Its baseline, in its own words,
“represents the good, decent standard of accommodation”.
When does the ministry expect to achieve that level of decency and return to its baseline?
Secondly, overcrowded prisons risk the courts seizing up. During my final months in office as Lord Chief Justice, I received daily prison figures, broken down region by region. There was a risk that people being remanded into custody or sentenced would have nowhere to go—and, if they cannot be taken away, the work of the court is paralysed.
We have seen two interventions by the senior judiciary to delay cases that were likely to result in custody to avoid that eventuality. There are also prisoners being located far from courts in which they are appearing, resulting in transportation problems and delays in their hearings. I observed to colleagues on more than one occasion that we were only one riot away from meltdown—and so, alas, it has transpired.
Severe overcrowding in our prisons has a multiplicity of adverse consequences beyond the most obvious. There is little realistic prospect of substantially expanding prison capacity in the near term. That is, in any event, the wrong solution. The record number of those in custody must come down.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, by this time, the Minister must be thinking that this is going to be an easy job. I am afraid he has to learn, if he has not learned already, that the House of Lords is not the best place to assess either public opinion or opinion in the other place about penal policy. Nevertheless, the contributions that he has heard today should give him confidence that if, as most of us are hoping, he will lead the charge in genuine prison reform, he will not be without support.
Fourteen years ago I arrived at the Ministry of Justice with the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, as Secretary of State. One of the first things we did was to send a memorandum to No. 10 suggesting that we manage down the prison population to under 80,000 during the course of the Parliament. The message came back from No. 10: “Not politically deliverable”. The truth is that today it is not politically deliverable to continue longer sentences, with more and more people in prison and a criminal justice system at the point of collapse.
In some ways, the Minister has come to office at just the right moment to press the arguments that he has heard from all parts of the House: there is another way, a better way, a more civilised way of treating offenders. That is not to move away from the need for them to take responsibility for their crimes, but in many of the suggestions that he has heard today there are real and positive ways that we could cut prison numbers, make the public safer and do a really good job in our criminal justice system.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the one thing that we can take away from this timely debate, which was well introduced by my noble friend Lady Burt, is that it has demonstrated that the Minister has an inbox full of difficult decisions. The current action to release prisoners early cannot remove all the risks inherent in this exceptional situation, but it does expose the problems, weaknesses and failures of the current justice system. The immediate need to free up prison spaces cannot be allowed to mask these failures. A top-to-toe set of reforms is needed from pre-sentencing through to licensing ending.
This debate has shown that the problems are extensive: there is a lack of meaningful activity in prisons; sentence inflation; vulnerability of prisoners to self-harm; drug abuse; poor morale in the Prison and Probation Service workforce; shortage of staff at all levels; and a lack of resource to effectively provide essential housing, skills and healthcare when leaving prison. The list goes on—in the course of this debate I have written down another seven or eight that should appear on the Minister’s action list. I want to add another: the so-called dynamic pricing of facilities offered to those seeking to train offenders within prison, which is pricing NGOs offering training out of prisons, such as Redemption Roasters at The Mount prison.
But there is great work going on, as we have heard. That needs replication and augmentation. Will the Minister, with all his experience at his elbow, agree that wholesale reform is needed, and as swiftly as possible? When will he be able to set out the actions that we need to take to resolve all these difficult issues, and will he provide a wholesale reform?
This is a massive project, which needs fixing so that the punishment needle can be moved back towards rehabilitation and reducing offending. That will produce a much more productive activity list for prisoners when they leave prison as well, but it will also save huge costs to taxpayers and make an improvement to society at large. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, this will be quick. Four years from now, the prison population will be around 106,000. The Institute for Government has stated that, even with new prisons being built, there could be a shortfall of 8,000 prison places by 2028. Under the previous Government, we delivered the largest expansion to the prison estate since the Victorian era. Please will the Minister let us know exactly when and where the Government are going to build new prisons to accommodate these additional offenders?
It has been reported that probation officers are aware of criminals convicted of sexual and serious violent offences who are eligible for the early release scheme because they are serving consecutive sentences and Prison Service staff take into account only the sentence for a less serious, non-sexual offence. Please can the Minister reassure the House that this is not the case and confirm that any offender serving such consecutive sentences will not be eligible for early release?
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales has warned that a third of the victims where perpetrators were due for release on Tuesday were likely to be unaware of this. Many of these victims are not eligible for victim notification schemes, and those who are often fall off the Probation Service’s lists. Please can the Minister let us know how that can be allowed to happen and the exact number of victims who have not been informed?
A senior probation officer has also recounted that, by the time the Prison Service had determined who was eligible, many colleagues had been given only four weeks to prepare for offenders confirmed for release. In one instance, a colleague had been given just one week’s notice. The Government said that at least 1,000 new trainee probation officers would be recruited by the end of March 2025. Please can the Minister explain why it takes seven months to recruit trainees? That is surely too long. Does he not agree that four months should be the target to complete this?
Finally, for prisoner well-being, will the Minister commit to building an extra exercise facility in each of the UK’s 141 prisons to help the mental and physical rehabilitation and social interaction of prisoners?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on securing a debate on prison capacity and the safety and well-being of vulnerable prisoners. The women’s estate, which she mentioned, concerns me greatly. As she said, it is a complex cocktail of social problems—I could not agree more. As well as the focus that we need as a Government to rehabilitate prisoners and help them lead normal lives, this has to be our focus.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. It is clear that there is a real strength of feeling about the state of our prisons, which I share. As your Lordships are aware, when this Government came into office, men’s prisons were consistently operating at around 99% of their capacity. In recent weeks we came closer to total collapse than ever before. If that had happened, the consequences would have been dire, with courts forced to grind to a halt and the police unable to make arrests. The result: a total breakdown of law and order. The impact is also felt in prisons. Overcrowded prisons are dangerous places: tensions run high, and violence can erupt without warning. That makes them dangerous for prisoners and prison officers, with violence against staff rising rapidly.
Prisons should be safe places. They should be places that create better citizens, not better criminals. When they are this full for this long, all prison officers can do is attempt to control the chaos. For the sake of public protection, as well as the prisoners themselves, prisons should help offenders get back on the straight and narrow. We know that is not happening as things stand, because 80% of offending is reoffending.
On coming into government and facing the total collapse of our prisons—going from running a retail business to running the Prison Service, this was quite a shock—we were left with no choice: this week, as noble Lords know well, the temporary change to the automatic release point for some offenders serving standard determinate sentences came into force. Let me be clear: this was not something we wanted to do.
We announced this measure eight weeks ago, to give ourselves as long as possible to put in place everything we could to protect the public. We excluded a series of offences: sexual crimes, a series of crimes associated with domestic abuse, terror offences, and serious violence with a sentence over four years. We gave probation time to prepare release plans for every offender. I have visited the probation units at Cheshire East and Camden and I know that staff are doing their very best in what are very difficult circumstances. Offenders released are subject to licence conditions, including tags, exclusion zones and curfews, and can be returned to prison as soon as any condition is broken. We have announced that 1,000 new probation officers will join by March next year. We have by no means solved the many problems that face the prison estate and the wider criminal justice system, but we have made a critical first step.
I turn to the contributions of colleagues, which led us through some of the challenges that this Government will address in the months and years to come. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, focused on suicides. I should note that, in prisons as full as ours have been, suicides at this level are, tragically, all too common. I can tell noble Lords that I receive a daily incident report and, in the first six months of the year, there were 36 self-inflicted deaths. Every death is a tragedy. In terms of prevention, new prisons have been largely fitted with ligature-resistant cells. Our ambition is to make a small number available at every prison for use by vulnerable prisoners.
To the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield, I reiterate our appreciation for the work the chaplaincy does. Having been around prisons for 22 years, I always meet the chaplain whenever I can: I think the relationships chaplains build with prisoners are fascinating. As for prison officer training, which the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, also mentioned, before I took this job on I had just completed a review of prison officer training and I hope that now I am in the seat on level nine of the MoJ, the prison officer training review will come into action.
A number of noble Lords discussed IPP prisoners. The noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Fox, both talked passionately about imprisonment for public protection sentences. Those serving IPP sentences face unique challenges and there are, sadly, too many IPP deaths in custody. It is right that this sentence no longer exists, but we must address a historic challenge of the British state’s own making, and I will return to this place in the months to come with more detail on how we will do that.
For now, we are balancing two considerations. First, I know that many noble Lords feel passionately, as I do, about IPPs, and with 30% of IPP prisoners not currently in the correct prison to support them with their sentence plan, they continue to be failed by the system. I am clear that this must be addressed as a matter of urgency. We need to get it right, but IPP offenders need to engage with their sentence plans too. I have seen some fantastic work recently in HMP High Down, with its community living unit, where IPPs are living and really engaging. In my previous job running the Timpson business, I was proud to have 30 IPP colleagues working alongside me.
Secondly, however, we must always balance this against the importance of protecting the public, and any measures that are taken must begin with this as our priority. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, must be commended on his incredible visit record. I think he must have visited more prisons than any other Member of these two Houses. It is good to hear of the graduations coming up at HMP Pentonville: there is hope and there are great people, such as Anton, who need to be given a second chance.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the noble Lords, Lord McNally, Lord Carlile and Lord Moylan, all made important points about sentences. The Government will be launching a review of sentencing, with a focus on how it both protects the public and reduces reoffending. I believe that we will soon be in a position to share the terms of reference of that review and announce its chair. I note noble Lords’ interest in the review and look forward to engaging with colleagues in due course. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunity to debate sentencing.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned violence in prisons. In overcrowded prisons, violence has soared. Now that we have begun to address the capacity crisis in our prisons, we must tackle violence too. Violence can be driven by the illicit economy. We are working to restrict the supply of drugs, reduce demand through rehabilitative services and support prisoners to build recovery from substance misuse. We know that debt drives poor safety and outcomes, and the drug trade really fuels it. We need to make sure that our vulnerable prisoners are not extorted, assaulted or forced to do things they do not want to do. There have been many instances of prisoners inheriting the debt of a former resident of a cell. Some prisoners arrive with no money, so they borrow to get canteen items and have to repay “double bubble”.
The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord German, spoke about education and purposeful activity, healthcare, and housing. As I have already mentioned, capacity pressures make these more difficult than they should be. However, we continue to build on good practice through our employment advisory boards, and we work with education experts, employers and the voluntary sector to improve the offer across the prison estate so that offenders have the best chance to get the input they need to turn their back on crime for good.
With the capacity as it has been, it has been difficult for prison staff to get people into classrooms and places where they can find housing and employment. In my time going round prisons, I have walked past too many classrooms where there are lots of computers but no prisoners. That is something I want to sort out. The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the level of reform I am hoping to do. I hope to be here for a long time—I think it will take a long time.
The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked about prison building. It is very much our plan to build the 20,000 prison places that we need. We are committed to building more prisons and the rate of prisoner growth means that we will have to.
I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, brought up the subject of elderly prisoners and I was interested to read the Prison Reform Trust’s recent report on this. While the physical prison estate can present challenges to older prisoners’ safety, the newer prisons we are building are accessible by design, with cells adapted to the needs of those with mobility issues and physical disabilities. I recently visited HMP Holme House, where they are building a specialist wing for elderly prisoners which is wheelchair-friendly. I remember going to HMP Stafford a few years ago, where I met a prisoner who was in a wheelchair. On talking to him, I found out he was 104 years old. We have a range of work ongoing to improve provision for elderly prisoners, focusing on health and care support, how we are using the estate to best meet their needs and how to spread best practice on purposeful regime activities. There is a lot more we need to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, asked about local authorities and the recent releases of this week. All local authorities were engaged with by probation teams and they have done their best in very difficult circumstances. It is not perfect by any means—but the prison system that we have inherited is far from perfect.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his continued and considered commitment to supporting the important work on strengthening offenders’ positive ties with their friends, family and peers, and for our recent meeting. Phone calls, visits and temporary release from prison help prevent offenders returning to crime when they leave prison, by providing the opportunity to build these crucial ties. I want to be inspired by the best practice demonstrated by the impressive visit centres that I have seen, and the community days that I have been a part of are inspirational. Holding establishments to account by means of the family ties performance measure has led to a continued improvement in this vital contribution to reducing reoffending.
The plan to rent prison places in Estonia was explored by the previous Government but is not something we intend to implement. We value our strong relationship with Estonia, and I know we will continue to co-operate and share learning on a range of justice and security measures.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, raised a very good point about young people coming into the prison system. I completely agree that it cannot be right. I was brought up with foster children and far too many of them ended up in prison. I will arrange for colleagues at the Home Office and the Department for Education to meet the noble Baroness and Barnardo’s—only last week, I met Martin Narey, who used to run the prison estate and then went on to run Barnardo’s.
I remember discussing the daily prison figures with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, when he was in his previous role. The impact of prison capacity on the courts is significant. Had we not acted, I think it would have been even worse, but we cannot have prisons overflowing. The recent civil disorder has highlighted how difficult this is. Further reform will be necessary to ensure that we never get so close to the catastrophe we have had in the past.
In closing, I once again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for raising this hugely important issue for debate and noble Lords for their contributions. If there is anything I have missed from the debate, I will be happy to write to colleagues as soon as possible.
I have been around prisons for longer than I care to admit, but while I am new to this House, I already feel enriched by the level of your Lordships’ expertise and engagement. In all these years, I have never known things as bad as they were when this Government took office. We are acutely aware of the pressure this has put on our prisons and probation services when they operate so close to the limits of their capacity. Full prisons put prison staff and prisoners at risk of harm from violence and disorder, and they make it much harder for our dedicated staff to support offenders properly. For a small but significant number of vulnerable offenders, that can lead to tragic cases of self-harm and suicide.
As Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending Minister, I am clear that any one tragedy in our prisons is one too many. I am determined to work throughout the life of this Parliament to support prisons to become safer places to work and live for everybody inside them.
Higher Education Funding
(3 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs
That this House takes note of the current challenges of higher education funding.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to introduce this debate. I thank my fellow Cross-Benchers who voted for it. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Tarassenko, who has chosen to give his maiden speech during the debate; I very much look forward to hearing what he has to say, alongside the contributions of other noble Lords.
When I proposed the debate, my title was “The Crisis in Higher Education Funding”, but the Table Office, in its wisdom, preferred the more neutrally worded Motion we are debating today. While recognising the importance of all HEI providers, I will talk particularly about universities in England. As I started to think about today’s debate, I wanted to begin with a fact, so I asked myself: how many universities are there in England? I contacted the Higher Education Policy Institute, and its chief executive said to me:
“That is a fascinating question and almost impossible to answer”.
His best guess is around 150. I checked with the Higher Education Statistics Agency—HESA—which said that, unfortunately, its open data does not list universities. However, it tells us that there are 285 HEI providers. The Office for Students has 121 universities in England on its register. There are 141 members of Universities UK, most of which are in England. Can the Minister, in her response, tell us how many universities there are in England? She is quickly texting to find out.
Regardless of the precise number, we should be in no doubt that our universities are facing a funding crisis. This is not a case of “Crisis? What crisis?”. The interim chair of the Office for Students, Sir David Behan, has referred to a “significant” funding crisis and has said that universities “can’t just carry on”. In its insight briefing of May this year, the OfS notes that 74 of England’s universities will run a deficit in 2024-25 and that the forecasts of recovery in future years made by universities are based on overly optimistic assumptions, so that by 2026-27 nearly two-thirds are likely to be in deficit. The OfS concludes:
“The current financial climate could mean that some universities and colleges face closure”.
It refers to
“the unplanned closure of a university, perhaps in the middle of an academic year, without arrangements in place to support students to complete their courses”.
The OfS clearly takes this seriously, as it has launched a £4 million tender for auditors to analyse what the document describes as “market exits”. Universities themselves are responding to the crisis. Estimates suggest that about 70 universities have in place redundancy programmes or are closing courses or departments.
The main factors leading to this funding crisis are well known and include the following. First, the student fee has not increased since 2016 and therefore has been eroded by about 30% in real terms. The Russell group estimates that its members lose £2,500 per year for every home student they teach. Secondly, most if not all universities have become dependent on income from overseas students to subsidise the rest of their activities. Thirdly, the number of overseas applicants for taught master’s courses has dropped following changes in the visa rules that prevent them bringing families with them.
In addition to these three core reasons, there are other factors. Many universities, for example, have ageing buildings that require upgrading to meet net-zero requirements. Government grants to universities have gone down from 30% to a mere 13% of income in the past 10 years. In my own university, Oxford, out of a £1.6 billion income, 11% comes from government grants. Furthermore, research funding from the Government and from charities does not cover the full costs so, paradoxically, the more successful a university is at winning research grants, the further into deficit it goes. The Russell group estimates that only 69% of full economic research costs are funded. UKRI has said there is a £5.3 billion black hole in research funding. Does the Minister agree with that number? If so, does she think it matters?
Given that we know the main causes of the crisis, what are the options for responding to it? Should the Government take the view that universities are independent institutions that manage their own finances, and that the crisis will be resolved by market forces, or should they take a strategic view of the future shape of universities in this country? So far, the signals have suggested that the Government are inclined to the first of these, a laissez-faire policy, but I hope the Minister will tell us that that is not the intention.
Discussion in recent months has concentrated in particular on whether the Government would allow individual universities to go bust. For instance, on 15 August on “Channel 4 News”, the Minister was asked:
“Are you willing to see a university go bust? Because there are some institutions – you’ll know where they are – that are at that point now”.
The Minister replied:
“Yes. If it were necessary. Yes, that would have to be the situation. But I don’t want that to be necessary. I want us to find a way for there to be financial stability for universities, and most importantly, for the students that they are serving into the future”.
The Minister says that she wants to secure financial stability for universities. How might this be achieved? One answer would be simply to spend more public money on universities. Figures on the Statista website show that our public expenditure on higher education, as a proportion of GDP, is lower than any other country in Europe apart from Luxembourg, about half that of the United States and under half that of France and Germany. Nevertheless, I doubt whether the Minister will tell us that the Government’s response to the crisis is to inject more public funding.
A second option might be to reverse the visa restrictions and encourage more overseas students to come and participate in taught master’s degrees, and allow them to bring their families. According to HESA and the OfS, one in six universities earns more than a third of its income from overseas student fees, and it has been estimated by one source that at least a quarter of the total income for the sector comes from international student fees. There is the question, however, of whether it is appropriate for our universities to be dependent on the cash cow of overseas students. That is worthy of debate, and other noble Lords may wish to raise it. I do not have time to go into it, but I hope the Minister will tell us whether it is the Government’s view that dependence on this cash cow is central to their strategy for the future of the university sector.
A third option, raising the student fee from £9,250 to over £12,000, in line with inflation, would be highly unpopular and might well deter UK students from attending university. The average student debt on graduation is said to be £45,600, and the Sutton Trust reports that, for students from the poorest families, this rises to over £60,000. According to government figures, graduates pay 9% of their income once they are earning over the threshold for starting to make repayments. This is really a swingeing tax on young people. Indeed, if one considers the student loan fee as a graduate tax, those who have done introductory economics will be familiar with the Laffer curve, which might suggest that revenue to universities might actually go down rather than up if fees were increased.
However, I want to suggest that, while the Government should act to help solve the short-term crisis, there is a longer-term question: is the university sector as a whole fit for purpose? Could the crisis be turned into an opportunity to rethink the size, shape and role of the university sector? Once we know how many there are, we might be able to ask, “Is that too many or is that too few?”
The Secretary of State for Education herself has said that it may be time to “reform the system overall”. We know from history that universities are very adaptable. They have adapted in the past and, if government policy changed, universities would adapt to whatever change the Government produced. I very much hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government intend to take a strategic view of the university sector, instead of leaving it entirely to the market.
If she does, perhaps I might make one suggestion—one among many possibilities. A key objective should be to encourage greater diversity of purpose among universities. The current funding arrangements for universities tend to drive them towards convergence. They are essentially competing to climb up the same ladder and I question whether this is desirable. There is of course already considerable diversity of mission among universities and government policy could be deployed to support and encourage greater diversity.
We all know, because it is often said, that the UK has some “world-leading” universities in research and teaching. The Minister said in her Channel 4 interview:
“We’ve got world leading universities in this country. We’ve got four out of the top ten universities in the world. We’ve got 15 out of the top 100 universities”.
I believe she was referring to the recent QS rankings in which Imperial, Oxford, Cambridge and UCL were in the top 10. We are the only country other than the United States to have four in the top 10, and the 15 in the top 100 include two Scottish universities, which is not relevant to today’s debate but nevertheless a very important mark of distinction.
But, even if you take a generous view of what “world-leading” means and go further down the ranking list, a majority of English universities would not be counted as “world-class” or “world-leading”. That does not, however, diminish their importance. Some may be world-class in particular subject areas, while others might be fulfilling important roles such as technical and vocational skills training for the economy and providing training for professional qualifications such as nursing. We should celebrate and encourage this diversity of mission and ensure that government policy supports and steers it.
Suppose, for example, that we were to accept that England could afford to support a relatively small number of research-intensive universities—I put a number in my speech notes but I will not give it because that is a hostage to fortune—with global aspirations for attracting talent, being at the forefront of research in many fields and spinning out companies that will create wealth in the future. Suppose that, at the same time, we were to agree that many other universities should have, as a major part of their mission, training and skills for the local economy, working in partnership with business and complementing the excellent work of FE colleges, to build sustainable skills-based jobs in the area, alongside providing professional qualifications. This initiative could be a genuine contribution to economic growth and to supporting disadvantaged communities. Of course, the reply will be that some universities are already doing that. So what I am calling for is nothing radically new but a more overt recognition of the diverse role that universities can play and the development of government policy to support this diversity.
In summary, my proposal is that the Government should not simply stand back and allow market forces to determine the future size and shape of our university sector. Education is a public good and therefore should be shaped by what the country needs and shaped by the Government rather than by the random exigencies of the market. I have put forward one idea. There may be others for encouraging diversity of mission.
As an aside, some noble Lords may be aware that in the United States, facing declining student enrolment numbers, universities including Stanford have diversified into becoming retirement homes—university-based retirement communities. I just float the possibility that we might be able to solve the social care crisis and the university funding crisis with one manoeuvre. I am not being too optimistic there but just floating a thought.
I look forward very much to hearing what other noble Lords have to say on this and to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government are readying us for grim times ahead, though my noble friend the Minister remains genial and I am so glad to see her in her place.
I gently submit that we cannot afford not to refund our universities. It was an extraordinary dereliction on the part of the previous Government, by freezing fees for years on end, to allow the present crisis in the funding of higher education to develop. An extensive and thriving university sector is crucial to our economic, social and cultural progress. The new Government should not contemplate institutional bankruptcies, market exits or enforced mergers. These would be too damaging for students, staff, the academic enterprise, host communities and local and regional economies. The Government should treat investment in the HE system—and schools as well—as capital investment. Human capital, intellectual capital, is the capital that is most valuable in the 21st century. If the accounting conventions do not permit this, disregard them. The markets will not mind.
In those relatively carefree days of opposition back in March when she delivered her Mais Lecture, my right honourable friend the Chancellor distinguished between the then Government’s indiscriminate constraint on all government borrowing and Labour’s willingness to allow a greater freedom to borrow to invest. She spoke of the virtues of supply-side policies to enhance human capital and spur innovation, and of the wastefulness of excessive austerity. Her vision was of a smart and strategic state which would identify sectors in which Britain could enjoy comparative advantage in a global marketplace. Higher education is an obvious instance. Investment would be fostered in partnership with business and the OBR would report, as indeed it already has, on the long-term benefit of capital spending decisions. She said:
“Investment matters not just for what it can physically build, but for the ideas it can nurture”.
She praised the part played by our universities in enabling Britain to rank in the top five countries in the Global Innovation Index and made the point that innovation must be nourished with reliable sources of funding. To grow our economy, she also noted, we cannot rely on just a few pockets of the country but must mobilise the human potential in every town and city.
So the Chancellor herself has provided the clear rationale for borrowing now to invest in a rescue package for our HE system. Of course, it must be a well-designed package, drawn up not only with Universities UK but with business leaders and others, and not a bailout of poor academic leadership and weak management.
As for the ongoing funding of university teaching, there is now nothing for it but to bring in a graduate tax. It would be less of a deterrent to young people contemplating university-level education than student loans at their present atrocious rates of interest, and it would have the merit of being what it said on the tin. I would prefer HE, being a public as well as a private good, to be funded from general taxation, but that has been ruled out for the foreseeable future.
Domestically generated funding must be sufficient to end the distorting and demeaning dependence of our universities on charging exorbitant fees to foreign students. When the Government turn their attention to alleviating poverty in our society, they should not omit to consider the hardship faced by some students.
As for the funding of blue skies research, the Government should not stint in providing funding via the research council to the ablest academics in all fields of inquiry. What will transpire can never be predicted, but the Government should not hesitate to invest in the brilliant academic talent that, somehow or other, we still have in our universities. The cost is trivial; the potential benefits are immense.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on calling this debate and thank him for his exciting vision for our universities as the care homes of the future. I declare my interest, especially if we are talking about care homes; I am a visiting professor at King’s College London. His speech correctly identified the pressures that universities face, on both their research funding and their teaching funding. They are linked in various ways, including because overseas student fees, which used to help subsidise the cost of research, are increasingly being used to subsidise the cost of teaching, which puts extra pressures on research funding. The DSIT capacity to do research is being cut because the DfE will not increase teaching fees for undergraduates.
I think it is important that we tackle the pressures on the cost of teaching students through an increase in the fees that they pay. This is important, above all, because of the interests of students themselves in a well-funded higher education. It is also in the interests of the wider economy to have well-funded, effective higher education, with good-quality teaching.
I particularly draw the Minister’s attention to an excellent piece of research showing the economic benefits of universities, and of creating more universities, by two academics at the London School of Economics, Professor John Van Reenen and Anna Valero, who now both happen to be in the Chancellor’s Economic Advisory Council—a very useful place for them to be located.
If we are to increase funding for teaching in universities, the Minister has a mechanism available to her—fees. There may be arguments for more selective funding of research. The UKRI budget is already allocated in a pretty selective way; a very high proportion of current research funding goes to the most prestigious, elite, research-intensive universities. More research funding could be allocated, if that is what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, wants, but it would not tackle the underlying need to have better-funded teaching across the entire sector.
There is no brilliant alternative. Of course, if fees go up, it is right to expect clear evidence that this will mean better quality teaching. My noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone, who increased fees from £9,000 to £9,250, did so in association with that much more rigorous assessment of teaching quality in universities.
Most depressing is the belief that this mechanism is somehow no longer available for us, despite the fact that almost every party represented in this House now has in the past used precisely such a mechanism to fund higher education. It has been the cross-party agreed basis for funding higher education over the past 20 years. I have heard people say that students cannot afford it because of the cost of living crisis, but we know that students do not pay upfront. We also know that it does not affect the amount that graduates repay; there is a repayment formula for that, which is highly progressive. Rightly or wrongly, there are no longer interest rates on graduate debt. It is reasonable to expect a prosperous middle-aged person to pay back for a couple of extra years if it means that the university education of the younger generation is properly funded. I very much hope that the Minister will accept that this is one mechanism at her disposal to tackle this financial crisis.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, UK universities are a source of national pride. Their reputation for research and teaching attracts not only the brightest and best of UK students but those from all parts of the world. However, they are, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, set out so brilliantly, currently under severe financial pressure as they face challenges on multiple fronts.
I think it was Lord Dearing who commented that the beneficiaries of higher education are the individuals, the state and employers. Should these not also be the people who contribute to our universities? We are well aware that the income from students has not kept pace with inflation, but successive Governments have been reluctant to raise student contributions, knowing the hardship that many students face. Government contributions are essential, of course. Perhaps we might look to employers to increase their funding, not only for teaching, which is troubled and has seen the cutting of some important programmes, courses and provision, but for research, where funding has also faced limitations.
Our woeful decision to leave the EU has seen a huge decrease in EU students studying here. It is to be welcomed that we have seen a partial about-turn on funding from Horizon, which made such an impact on our research through both collaboration and funds. We hope that the EU will welcome our return to fully participating in a programme to which UK researchers contributed so greatly.
Anti-immigration policies have had a dangerous effect on the UK’s reputation for welcoming overseas students. Those students provided not only much needed income but, perhaps more importantly, diversity and international friendships, which greatly enhanced the experience for home students. The changes to immigration policy have sent out messages that the UK does not welcome those from overseas. These damaging moves include the hit on dependants. Students and their dependants are not permanent residents—the vast majority will return to their home countries after their period of study—so why such a vicious policy?
Our lack of welcome is a boost to other countries which open their doors more readily and cream off many of the high achievers who would otherwise have studied here, enjoyed living in the UK and become British friends for life. Given how many international leaders have studied in the UK, this soft power can be enormously beneficial to future international relations.
The British Academy has major concerns about the impact on the social sciences, humanities and the arts for people and the economy—SHAPE, as it is calling it. These are essential programmes if we are to grow the people who will lead our institutions. Of course we need to remain leaders in science, engineering and technology, but the arts play a critical role in life, growth and productivity. The creative industries are one of the jewels in the UK crown, making a major contribution to the economy and to our well-being.
Increases in the cost of living have a disproportionate effect on students, who are traditionally strapped for cash, and we hear horror stories of some student accommodation that is not fit for purpose but is often all that students can afford. What is being done about student accommodation?
The Labour Government have committed to reviewing HE funding but must act fast if we are not to see some fine institutions damaged beyond repair. As one who went to university many years ago when we paid nothing, I would be happy to pay a graduate tax late in the day. But why not target those of us who had free university education? Has thought been given to restoring grants, implementing the lifelong learning entitlement from 2026 and, as a first step, introducing credit-based fee caps to facilitate growing demand for accelerated part-time study? Valuable organisations, such as the Open University and Birkbeck, have done much to bring HE to those who might not have considered it. They deserve a boost of this sort.
It is tough on young graduates to have to embark on adult life with eye-watering debt around their necks. As the HE situation grows grave, what measures are the Government considering to rescue these institutions of which we are so justly proud, to ensure that they not only survive but flourish?
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, the UK’s whole post-18 education system surely needs not only a greater funding stream but more institutional variety, and increased flexibility in its offerings.
There is currently a systemic weakness. The missions of individual institutions are not sufficiently varied. They nearly all aspire to rise in the same league table. Most of their students are between 18 and 21, are undergoing three years of full-time, generally residential, education, and are studying a curriculum that is probably too narrow even for the minority who aspire to professional or academic careers. Even worse, the school curriculum is too narrow as well.
Students should be able to choose their preferred balance between online and residential courses, and to access distance learning of higher quality. We need a blurring of the damaging divide between technical and university education, and a consequent shift towards the attitude that a vocational diploma has the same status as a degree. We should abandon the view that the standard three-year full-time degree is the minimum worthwhile goal. The core courses offered in the first two years are often the most valuable.
Moreover, students who realise that the degree course they have embarked on is not right for them, or who suffer problems of various kinds, should be enabled to leave early with dignity, with a certificate to mark what they have accomplished. They should not be disparaged as “wastage”. More importantly, they—and everyone else—should have the opportunity to re-enter higher education, maybe part-time or online, at any stage in their lives. This path could become smoother if there were a formalised system of transferable credits across the whole system, as urged in the Augar report supported by the previous Government, and a flexible grant or loan system.
Admission to the most demanding and attractive courses is naturally competitive, but the playing field is still far from level. Many 18 year-olds of high intellectual potential have had poor schooling and suffered other disadvantages, often dating from their pre-school years.
It will be a long slog to ensure that high-quality teaching at school is available across the full geographical and social spectrum. In the meantime, it would send an encouraging signal if UK universities whose entry bar is dauntingly high were to reserve a fraction of their places for students who do not come straight from school. They could thereby offer a second chance to those who were disadvantaged at 18 but have caught up by earning two years’ worth of credits at other institutions or online. Such students could then perhaps advance to degree level in two further years.
What about graduate-level education? In the US only a minority of universities have strong graduate schools. That is a model which, as other noble Lords have said, the UK should move towards.
I shall say a word here about foreign students. We should surely welcome talent at graduate level, especially from the global South—and not just for the money those students bring in. Indeed, we should foster international north-south collaborations in advanced teaching and research—in food science, health and clean energy, for example. This could prevent a widening gap and resist brain-draining of the talented students to the north, so that they can pursue careers that narrow their own nations’ gap with the north.
Universities are currently one of the UK’s distinctive strengths, but we should not be complacent. The sector must not be sclerotic. A rethink is overdue if we are to sustain its status in a changing world. It needs to be responsive to changes in needs, lifestyles and opportunities. It will then be able to offer springboards to the long-term prosperity not just of our nation but of the world.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for focusing the attention of the House on the HE crisis and for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko.
As the Bishop of Sheffield I have close ties with both universities in the city, the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University. I am told that those two institutions support more than 19,500 jobs and generate more than £1 billion annually for the local economy. I know at first hand that they bring a rich cultural diversity to our city. What is true in Sheffield is true across the country: universities are generally hugely beneficial to the communities within which they are situated.
The Church of England believes that higher education should be in the service of the common good—that is to say, not merely the private good of personal enhancement but the public good of benefit to the community and society that it derives from the education of its citizens. For example, working together, Sheffield University and Sheffield Hallam University support communities across South Yorkshire in a variety of ways, and I would like to celebrate just three. First, they have partnered with local and national government to create the South Yorkshire investment zone, bringing jobs and billions of pounds in private investment to the area. Secondly, their students volunteer and work on placement years across health, education, social care, law and other areas, directly impacting the experience of local people of these essential public services. Thirdly, their HeppSY partnership supports those at risk of missing out on HE to make informed and inspired choices about their future.
Civic activities such as these are seriously threatened by the financial crisis in HE and the perfect storm currently battering the sector. In the past few years, as noble Lords have mentioned, there has been a drastic drop in EU students while international students from further afield are facing visa restrictions. UK students have been poorly placed to cope with the cost of living crisis, and I gather that a lower birth rate in the early 2000s means that there are reduced numbers of young people in the cohort currently in sixth-form and FE colleges. As a result, there has been increased competition between institutions for the same smaller pool of students, and the pinch has been felt most keenly by the smallest of our HE institutions.
Among these are the universities that belong to the Cathedrals Group, 14 church-founded universities committed to higher education for the common good. These 14 institutions make higher education disproportionately available to underserved communities, such as rural and coastal areas. They typically have a higher proportion of students who progress to university when they are older and who are the first in their family to make that step. I mention the Cathedrals Group simply by way of illustration. Our HE sector as a whole is under threat, and what is at risk is not just the private good of students and potential students, whose opportunities to study and to enhance their prospects have been eroded, but the common good that universities bring to the communities in which they are set.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this debate and declare an interest as a professor at King’s College London, a trustee of the Council for the Defence of British Universities and a member of the Augar review of post-18 education and funding in England.
We are all very aware of the declining value of student fees, but I also emphasise to noble Lords the precipitous decline in direct government top-up funding for high-cost subjects. A university gets little more for a home student in chemistry or bioengineering than for one studying business or law, with horribly distortionary effects. We highlighted this in the Augar review with, I have to say, minimal effect. We have some special problems in this country, but this is a global issue, and that is what I shall say a little about now.
Countries everywhere have expanded student numbers, often at speed. They recognise citizens’ aspirations and the importance of graduate skills, but the background is sluggish growth. University is still a route to most of the best jobs, but the average return for a degree inevitably falls and government budgets are under increasing strain. The simplest response to this is always to reduce per-student funding. At the moment, England has higher levels of support per home student than any other part of these islands. Scotland has student number controls and has recently reduced the number of places it funds, and still spends markedly less per student than England. Northern Ireland has lower fees and lower funding. The Republic of Ireland is committed to demand-led enrolment without student fees, although it levies a so-called contribution. Its enrolments have risen, but its spending per student has gone down substantially. The European University Association confirms that this is the modal pattern: enrolment up, total government spending often up, spending per student down. In the USA many states are cutting funding for their public systems, and if you talk to Australian or Canadian vice-chancellors it feels like you are still at home. The challenges, the worries, the difficulties and the solutions that are not quite as attractive as they seemed are all the same.
So, with no easy answers on finance to be borrowed from elsewhere in the world, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that we really need to turn our thinking around a bit. We should start to think not just about how to top up funding but about what it is that we want to fund, and therefore how much and how we want to fund the different parts. What does it take to deliver what we recognise as high quality in engineering or law? When we look across the world at everybody cutting funding, cutting per-student funding, increasing class sizes, abolishing most personalised feedback in many of our institutions, what does this do? What happens? What do our students learn? How far are we charging students and taxpayers for what economists call “signalling”—which in this case is having letters after your name—rather than a transformative experience?
I do not think we know nearly enough about this and I do not think we know nearly enough about what makes different institutions more or less efficient in how they use their funding. With the current model running into the sand, not just in England but everywhere, we should be thinking much harder about what we want university education to be and what universities should be doing in a mass system where we want to respond to the desires and aspirations of the entire citizenry, and then we should think about what the different components cost and how we might best pay for them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the parlous state of our universities—extending far beyond, although deeply interrelated with, their funding crisis—was a subject of considerable discussion at Green Party conference last weekend, so I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for securing this timely debate.
I am going to focus on the deeper and broader problems of which the funding crisis is a symptom rather than a cause. The University and College Union (UCU) fringe, at which I spoke at Green Party conference, summed it up with “Cancel the Market”. The chair of the Office for Students recently claimed that the “golden age of universities” could be over. That is not how recent decades look to growing numbers of academics and other workers in universities, to students or to the communities that house them.
Forced by neoliberal ideology to become competitive businesses, with control taken from communities of scholars and put into the untender hands of business managers, universities have certainly grown their shiny, glass-fronted buildings—and their debt loads. They have added to GDP with massive student fees that weigh —unpayably—on their graduates for decades. They have presided over growth in staff numbers—increasingly, low-paid workers on zero-hours and other insecure contracts. Universities have bulged across disadvantaged communities and then risked dumping them deeper in the financial mire. I was in Hull last night, where one in 10 academic staff faces the chop and the city faces a significant economic blow.
The neo-liberalisation of the university is a trend that has progressed, to varying degrees, around the world. It has been accompanied by the meteoric rise of the work of the website Retraction Watch—exposing fraud and error at startling levels—and the replication crisis, a growing area of literature and of great concern. This is not an accident. It is what the market—what publish or perish—demands: volume and rankings, not innovation and sense.
Visiting universities, I often see that the most celebrated academics are those who have produced a spin-out company, a marketable product. That attitude has seen, particularly from the former Government, a drive against the humanities and creative subjects, dismissed as luxury, unnecessary items, “More STEM, more STEM—there’s money in it.”
At the Green Party conference at the National Education Union fringe, a despairing student from a fast-expanding and hopelessly overstretched aeronautical engineering course asked, “What do we do when the universities collapse?”
Positively, I would say that this direction of travel has come not from within universities but from ideological forces here in Westminster, but universities, students, academics and communities want something different and they have lots of ideas. We have to look to them for the ideas for how to repair this situation.
I also note the Slow Knowledge movement, as charted by Cal Newport. His model of slow productivity has three principles: do fewer things, work at a natural pace and obsess over quality. How do we create institutions that do that? How do we take this crisis of funding and turn it into an opportunity—as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—to change direction?
The world needs our universities to generate knowledge and wisdom to reshape our broken economic, social and environmental systems, not just debt and new profit opportunities for planet-wrecking products. To quote the Australian academic Tyson Yunkaporta, founder of the Indigenous Knowledge Systems Lab at Deakin University:
“I’ve been chipping away all the bits of the Age of Reason that contain world-terminating algorithms and I have to tell you it’s getting a bit thin”.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for securing this important debate.
There are two major problems converging now on the higher education sector: first, a level of underfunding, with an estimated 40% of institutions likely to be running a budget deficit this year and, secondly, an eye-watering amount of accumulating student debt, which in England alone is approaching £236 billion. It is increasing exponentially and much of it will be unpaid. There is no doubt that our best universities are world-class and a jewel in the UK’s crown, and our objective should be to ensure their financial sustainability. However, I question if we need all the universities that exist.
The seeds of this crisis lie in the policy of the then Prime Minister Tony Blair in 1999 to have 50% of 18 to 30 year-olds attend university. Following this, the number of UK higher education institutions rose by 45%—according to the numbers I have been able to get—up to 2021, with, sadly, an attendant fall in further education colleges by 40% over the same period.
The introduction of fees paid by students was meant to introduce market choice, but virtually all institutions that became universities have charged the maximum fee, irrespective of the quality of programmes offered, and many young people have been encouraged to pursue expensive degree programmes of questionable worth. The Augar report in 2019 concluded that too many students were being recruited to poor-value higher education courses, with both poor graduate retention and poor graduate outcomes. Many students may have been better served by vocational programmes preparing for employment and a defined career path.
In expanding the numbers of universities and university students, we have reduced their unit of resource, such that we are not now properly funding those quality institutions providing the academically and technically demanding qualifications that we need in certain key sectors. At the same time we are underfunding the FE sector, which provides the skills training we are desperately short of.
An example in the HE sector with which I am familiar is veterinary education. Our UK vet schools are world-class, with five in the global top 20. The funding for a veterinary degree programme is about £20,000 per student per year, but the estimated true cost to provide that education is £25,000. To compensate for this shortfall, many vet schools are admitting substantial numbers of overseas students, who pay £30,000 to 40,000 a year in fees. Currently, over 20% of our veterinary graduates from UK vet schools are overseas students who are less likely to work in the UK, yet we are desperately short of vets.
This pattern is repeated in many other degree programmes that provide high-quality graduates urgently needed for our strategic sectors, and direct government support for these programmes needs to be adequate. I am not sure whether increasing top-up fees can be the solution, because presumably that will mean increasing student borrowing and further escalating the massive total of student debt. At the same time, greater investment in more vocational college and work-based programmes, including apprenticeships, will help provide the skills training we need so desperately.
I suggest that we are currently failing the country’s needs and the capabilities of our young people throughout the spectrum of tertiary education. Let us focus the finite resources we have in an evidence-based way to address the strategic needs for our economic and intellectual development.
Baroness Clark of Calton (Non-Afl)
My Lords, let me declare an interest: I benefited from the expansion of university education in the 1960s and received free tuition and generous means-tested maintenance grants, at both undergraduate and postgraduate level. This was the only reason I was able to pursue a career in law. Over the years at different times I have been privileged to be a member of the court at three universities: Edinburgh, Edinburgh Napier and, more recently, until 2022, the University of Dundee. Drawing on my experience at Dundee, I will illustrate some economic benefits of one university in one community—that is in Scotland, of course.
A recent economic impact assessment for the University of Dundee, which has an outstanding research record, concluded that directly or indirectly the operation contributed £449 million and 6,760 jobs to the city of Dundee’s economy. It contributes £975 million and 9,410 jobs to the Scottish economy, and it makes an enormous contribution to both the UK economy and to the international economy. The University of Dundee has an outstanding research record. It is a modern university and noble Lords may agree that it is perhaps not given the same research funding and opportunities as some of the older universities, so it has made that enormous contribution despite that.
Looking more generally, a study for Universities UK in 2023 found that, in 2021, the university sector directly or indirectly supported 76,800 jobs and added £71.3 billion of value to the economy. Educational institutions all over the UK contribute in many and varied ways to the economy, at both local and national level, and noble Lords have given us some examples today.
It is true that higher education, including university education, is a devolved function, for which the Scottish Government have responsibility. However, the economy of the UK and UK government policies have a great impact in all parts of the UK, including Scotland. An example of this impact is the immigration changes to family visas and post-work visas, which we had have heard about from other noble Lords. I point out that, in Scotland, these policies may have even greater impact because of the different model in Scotland, where we have no tuition fees but cap the number of students. These are serious problems for Scotland.
The wider issues relating to the purpose and funding of higher education, which noble Lords have touched upon, have been too long neglected by successive Governments, who have made piecemeal changes and short-term solutions which sometimes exacerbate the problems. We have heard about the problems: inadequate and short-term funding, high inflation, Brexit, Covid, incoherent government policies of internal competition—I exclude the present Government from that—heavy-handed regulation and sudden policy changes, structural inequalities, and long-standing pension and staffing issues, particularly low-paid short-term contracts. These can all be added to this unhappy picture.
Much as we have praised the research functions of our universities, there is constant underfunding in virtually all our methods of research funding. Our greatest problem is to face up to some fundamental questions. What is the public good that we want universities and other higher education institutions to achieve? How best can that be achieved and funded for the future?
The purpose of my contribution today is to say that I recognise that the new Government have many problems to deal with, and I sympathise. But higher education is so important to public good in its widest sense, as well as integral to the Government’s policies of economic development, that the Government must take action. I urge the Government to work actively and urgently with the devolved Governments and the regions to bring people together to find the short-term solutions to the many problems we have. But much more is required.
Royal commissions appear to have fallen out of favour, but we need some research. We need evidence-based solutions and cross-party consensus to consider the purpose, future and funding of higher education, and how the public good can best be served. We have heard many ideas put forward today, some of which I agree with. The Government need to push this forward. Sorting out the higher education system is essential if the Government are serious about economic revival, fairness and justice in opportunities.
I think a royal commission would be a way forward. There are obviously other models, but I urge the Government to plan now for a long-term solution. The provision of creative solutions and investment in higher education is one of the best ways to help this Government achieve their economic ambitions, and it will also transform lives and communities. That, perhaps, is just as important.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, looked at objectively, the crisis facing universities seems inevitable, given that the two key elements of their income have been undermined. Government grants have been cut by 78% over the last 12 years, and the level of fees paid for tuition in 2012 has not been revalued since then, so inflation has reduced £9,000 to £5,942 in real value. It is scarcely surprising that the sector regulator expects at least 40% of providers to be in deficit this year. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others have highlighted, research excellence is also at risk, as the funding method for our universities’ world-class research has been undermined as well.
Fees from international students, who pay the full cost of their tuition, have been the mechanism for trying to bridge these ever-increasing gaps in funding, and this helped while the numbers remained buoyant. But the numbers are inherently unstable and subject to, among other things, political changes in immigration policy. The drop in numbers this year reinforces this. I hope that the Minister today will undertake to change the previous government rhetoric on international students to restore confidence that the UK will be an open and welcoming place for them.
Recent independent scenario-planning shows that a significant proportion of universities are vulnerable to reductions in international student numbers, increased expenditure, and reduction in growth of undergraduate students—what UUK has called “a perfect storm”. At the same time, it is important to recognise that students, too, have been directly hit. Frozen household income thresholds and inadequate maintenance increases mean that the maintenance loan falls £582 short of covering living costs every month. Pressures on staff are leading to demands for pay increases to mitigate rising living costs.
Universities have not yet sunk under these pressures. Most have introduced restructuring and efficiency programmes. Some very unpalatable course closures have been made, which will inevitably restrict student choice; estates are being neglected; and carbon reduction plans are stalled. This cannot continue without irreparable damage being done. I am glad to say that our Government have recognised this; they have said that they are committed to a sustainable funding model which supports high-value provision. They are not short of suggested approaches as to what that funding model should look like, including from Members of this House.
The Secretary of State has said that she intends to “reform the system overall”, which may be eminently sensible, but it will inevitably take some time, possibly considerable time. In the meantime, all the pressures on higher education will continue, to the detriment of students, institutions at risk, and
“powering opportunity and growth and meeting the skills needs of the country”,
to quote Minister Janet Daby.
I urge the Secretary of State urgently to talk to Universities UK to ensure that her longer-term ambition does not mask the need to stabilise the system now. UUK has proposed measures that will
“create … space for a wider review of university financing”,
and I hope that my noble friend will ensure that the Government respond speedily.
I have focused on universities, but we have received some telling evidence from the FE college sector, where higher education is a relatively small but strategically important part of the provision. It, too, is facing increasing financial pressures. I refer specifically to the fact that demand in key areas such as construction, engineering, and health and social care is outstripping the funding that it has available to provide them. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will refer to this in her response as well.
Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this important debate. As ever, I find myself in very strong agreement with my noble friend Lord Willetts, who I note incidentally may not be the only candidate in this House for the role of Chancellor of the University of Oxford but is the only one who, day in, day out, demonstrates his commitment to the future of the sector and would be absolutely splendid in that role, were he to be successful in that campaign.
I turn to the issue at hand. I want to say right at the outset that I truly welcome the change in tone from the new Government towards the university sector. It is a wonderful breath of fresh air not to have the negativity and university-bashing that has characterised too many of the airwaves from the previous Government.
In particular, I warmly welcome all the positive messages that the new Government have been sending out about international students, who make such a huge contribution to the success of our higher education system, society and broader economy. That said, I of course agree with others, including the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who have pointed out that we should avoid an excessive dependency on the fee income from international students. We need to put in place a funding system that is sustainable and does not leave us exposed as a country to volatility and factors well beyond the control of the sector itself.
However, I do not think we need a long, two-year review to come to a conclusion as to what a sustainable system is. My view remains very much that the current model, as Winston Churchill might have put it, is the worst imaginable—except for all the others. There is essentially nothing wrong with it. It does the job you need a funding system to do in three key respects: it maintains the unit of resource, potentially, for what we need to have a world-class HE system; it is fair to the taxpayer; and it removes barriers to access because, as my noble friend Lord Willetts said, fees are not paid upfront by the student but underwritten by the Government in the form of a loan. There is nothing structurally wrong with the model we have, except for two flaws, which are fixable: first, it is not inflation-proof and, secondly, there is no link to quality. We fund volumes—bums on seats—rather than outcomes; clearly, that is unacceptable.
The Cameron Government tried to address those two flaws and, in 2017-18, we allowed a system whereby fees were indexed with inflation, but only for institutions that were able to demonstrate high-quality outcomes as assessed by the teaching excellence framework. I strongly think that we should return to that model. Had we continued with that system over the past six years, many of the institutions that are now forced to make these rationalisations would not be doing so. A mid-sized institution such as Teesside would have £30 million a year of additional tuition fee income, had we continued to upgrade tuition fees in line with inflation over recent years. Such a system is, frankly, the only game in town and everybody needs to get real and recognise that, given the current fiscal environment.
There is not a chance in hell that we are going to return to a system of funding tuition fees through the teaching grant. There is a political window now, early on in the Parliament, for the new Government to put in place a progressive ratchet of fee uplifts with inflation over the next few years, and I urge them to do so.
Lord Tarassenko (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to address this House for the first time. I must first thank noble Lords for their warm welcome, and the officials and staff for their guidance and advice. Everyone has made great efforts to pronounce my name correctly. It may be a very common name in Ukraine—my paternal grandfather was born in Kharkiv—but it is much less common in these parts. For the record, I should add that my maternal grandfather was born in a small village in northern Brittany. I also thank my two supporters, the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackwood and Lady Royall, each of whom does much to ensure that the University of Oxford maintains its excellence in research, teaching and innovation.
Within five years of arriving in this country from France, aged 13, I was privileged to be offered a place at that very same university to study engineering science. Ten years after leaving to work in industrial R&D, I became a professor in the same department. Looking back, I value the freedom I was given to pursue research into machine learning before it was even called machine learning. Sceptical colleagues would tell me that learning from data using neural networks had no future; today, machine learning research in our higher education sector is world leading, especially in its application to fields such as healthcare, with access to uniquely valuable datasets.
The exam question before us today is how we address the current challenges of higher education funding. As already noted by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, according to the QS rankings, the UK has four of the top 10 universities in the world and 15 of the top 100. It is from the perspective of these research-intensive universities that I will tackle the exam question.
I have had the privilege of supervising 70 PhD students during my academic career. For the first 25 years, 60% of my research students were British; in the last 10 years, 20% were. We should of course be wary of small-sample statistics, but other data from Russell group universities confirms this trend: there has been a clear decrease in the percentage of UK-domiciled graduates going on to doctoral studies since 2017, when the first home students to have paid £9,000 per annum in fees were graduating from English universities.
We should not be surprised: which English student with a first-class degree is going to want to stay at university for a doctorate and accumulate further debt when they already have £50,000 of debt at age 21 or 22? For STEM subjects, the stipends to support PhD students are much lower than the sums a bright student can earn for doing almost anything else. The reduction in the number of UK-domiciled students studying for a doctorate as an unintended consequence of the introduction of the £9,000 tuition fee in 2012 should not be ignored in any discussions about increasing the tuition fee beyond £9,250.
To help ensure that the UK still has 15 universities amongst the top 100 in the world in 10 years’ time, we should promote further the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship within our research-intensive universities. In March this year, the previous Government welcomed the Independent Review of University Spin-out Companies and accepted all its recommendations. Much of the report was about sharing best practice in the setting up of spin-out companies and attracting seed and growth capital. Less noticed was the recommendation that all PhD students funded by UKRI should have the option to attend high-quality entrepreneurship training. The world famous Martin Trust Center for Entrepreneurship at MIT is unequivocal: entrepreneurship is a craft that can be taught.
The first employees of spin-out companies set up by university professors have often been their PhD students, but there is now a growing trend of spin-outs, with university IP, or start-ups, where there is no university IP, being founded by PhD students. The annual survey of Oxford students for the last three years reveals that between 20% and 22% of them now see entrepreneurship as a career path.
The competition for talented students is global, and we need more graduate scholarships to recruit not only the best international students but also those talented home students from lower-income backgrounds. The few graduate scholarships that are available are highly competitive, and there are many UK students with excellent first degrees who miss out on them and are unable to accept a PhD offer; the maximum doctoral loan available to them is insufficient to cover the cost of doing a graduate degree, being lower than the sum of the tuition fees and living expenses.
Growth in innovation activities can make a major contribution to the long-term viability of our higher education sector. It requires a growing population of students with a PhD, from whom many of the innovators and entrepreneurs of tomorrow will come.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko. As a Cambridge engineer, I speak on behalf of the whole House in extending a very warm welcome to an Oxford engineer. The noble Lord is a distinguished electrical engineer and a world-leading expert in the application of signal processing and machine learning to healthcare. His many achievements include being a founding director of the Institute of Biomedical Engineering at Oxford, which was awarded a Queen’s Anniversary Prize for new collaborations between engineering and medicine, delivering significant benefit to patients. This House does not have enough engineers, so we are very fortunate to have the noble Lord as a new Member. We look forward to benefiting from his considerable engineering and academic expertise and to his many contributions to the activities of the House.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Krebs for introducing this important debate and congratulate him on his thoughtful opening speech. I will briefly comment on tuition fees and international students, declaring an interest as an emeritus professor of engineering at Cambridge University.
On tuition fees, the current higher education funding model is based on sharing the financial burden between student and taxpayer. However, the value to English universities of the maximum home tuition fee has been steadily eroded by inflation. The current level of £9,250 is worth only £6,000 in 2012 prices—2012 being when the £9,000 fee was introduced. Analysis by the Russell group shows that the average deficit universities incur for teaching each home undergraduate student was £1,750 in 2021-22 and will increase to around £4,000 in 2024-25. This is clearly unsustainable and is already causing serious financial difficulty for most English universities. Indeed, in many cases it is causing a crisis.
Under the present system, the Government may therefore have no choice but to allow universities to increase tuition fees in line with inflation. This would, of course, be unpopular and have a regrettable effect on student debt. However, to minimize the impact, the forthcoming review should consider the key conditions of the student loan: the repayment threshold, the period of repayment and the effective interest rates. Importantly, any increase in tuition fees should be accompanied by an increase in maintenance grants for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, to offset any increase in debt for the poorest students.
On international students, from January this year, those on master’s courses are no longer able to bring their dependants with them for the duration of their studies. Postgraduate research students continue to benefit from an exemption to this rule; it is to be hoped that this permission continues, as it is immensely valuable for universities to recruit postgraduate research students against international competition. The Russell group calculates that a single cohort of international students generates a £37 billion net economic impact for the UK. It is therefore crucial that the UK’s visa offer to international students can compete with that made by other major higher education destinations—the US, Canada, Australia and Germany. The level of fees, the length of post-study leave and dependants’ rights are all important factors in a student’s choice.
The UK punches well above its weight in global research rankings. Our outstanding research plays a key role in attracting investment and boosting the economy, especially in science, engineering and technology. International postgraduate research students play an increasingly vital role in achieving this, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Tarassenko; they and all other international students also play a key role in funding our universities. It is therefore essential for the prosperity of the UK and of our universities that our visa offers remain competitive globally.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for securing this debate and for his thoughtful and thought-provoking opening speech. I also very much enjoyed the very well-engineered maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko; I look forward to his future contributions in your Lordships’ House.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield said, universities bring a massive input to local economies. The average across each constituency in the UK is some £58 million, which is an enormous contribution to the general well-being in their communities. According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency, tuition fees account for 53% of higher education institutions’ income. With fees capped since 2017, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, told us, it is hardly surprising that by 2026-27, two-thirds are expected to be in deficit. For that reason, international students have become increasingly important to universities, and whether or not that is a good thing, it is a fact of life as we are at the moment. Yet the latest Home Office data, in July, showed a 15% decline in total international student visa applications compared to the same time last year. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, has just said, the reasons for that are very clear.
It was a bit disappointing that a letter sent to all noble Lords two days ago by my noble friend Lord Hanson, the Home Office Minister, outlining a number of changes to immigration rules, did not have anything to say on the question of the dependants of international students. Of course, immigration rules are not the responsibility of my noble friend the Minister, but Ministers and officials from the Department for Education and the Home Office meet from time to time, and I hope she can indicate that discussions on this important issue will soon take place.
Arguably, the most straightforward option for the Government in addressing the sector’s creaking finances would be to end the cap on tuition fees. The Secretary of State stated this week that she did not want to do so, preferring instead to reform the system overall. I welcome that, but it is going to take considerable time. In the interim, allowing the cap to expire at the end of this academic year, and then increasing fees in line with inflation, would be welcomed by the sector.
I want to highlight a part of the higher education sector whose role is too often undervalued: part-time higher education. It is most notably delivered by the Open University, although Birkbeck also has a long tradition of offering courses to working Londoners. Part-time distance learning is critical to widening access and supporting social justice by allowing adults from higher education cold spots to access higher-level qualifications in their local area. That is evidenced by the Open University, where more than half the students begin their studies without the traditional entry qualifications demanded by other universities.
The lifelong learning entitlement will offer a real opportunity to tackle many of the barriers to people studying flexibly in England. It is not due to be introduced until next year, and I hope my noble friend can clarify the Government’s intentions regarding its rollout. The positive impact of the lifelong learning entitlement could be enhanced by extending maintenance support to all part-time students, including distance learners, through either an extension of maintenance loans or the introduction of targeted maintenance bursaries. The Government should also protect the value of part-time student premium funding in real terms to enable the continued viability of part-time provision.
I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lady Warwick, who recognised the role that further education colleges play in the delivery of higher education. There are more than 100,000 students of higher education at colleges, and often this is the only option for mature students with families and dependants, as well as those looking to reskill or upskill locally. Despite the fact that FE funding has historically compared very unfavourably with both school and university funding levels, the vast majority of FE colleges delivering higher education do not charge the maximum tuition fees. That in itself is a strong reason for the new Government to examine FE funding, as well as that for the HE sector.
Ensuring that the country has a sound base of the skills needed for the demands of an ever-evolving economy should not be seen as a cost. It is, as my noble friend Lord Howarth said, clearly an investment in the future and an essential component in driving economic growth.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this debate, but will perhaps challenge its focus. When the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson halted the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act only a week before its commencement, she insisted that the Office for Students should instead “be more sharply focused” on the financial stability of universities. To me, this rather implies knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. When we discuss the challenges of a sector struggling financially, it worries me if government or university senior management think that academic freedom is a dispensable lower priority and is valued less than propping up higher education institutions as businesses.
I rather regret the marketisation of education that we have seen over recent decades. It has long since caused problems, undermining the core role of universities in intellectual freedom, and academics are told to treat students as customers who need to be kept satisfied, rather than offended or challenged. Students are educated to see degrees as commodities that can be bought and assessed via value-for-money metrics. I regret such philistinism and its consequences.
I am heartbroken, for example, to see the closure of many arts and humanities courses and to see wonderful academics lose their jobs. They are often told that, because they do not tick the production of job-ready graduates box, they are not relevant for 2024. What is the good of all that useless knowledge associated with philosophy, classical music, medieval history and so on?
Realistically, I think that we need to ask whether we should keep universities, departments and courses open at any cost and have that conversation. The question has to be asked: what price academic freedom in that context? When vice-chancellors and higher education NGOs, which lobbied the Government to smother the free speech Act, said they were worried that the legislation could lead to universities being sued at a time when they were facing crippling costs, surely the Government’s reply should have been, “Well, you won’t get sued if you promote and protect free speech on campus stridently”. The Government should also say, “You aren’t a university worth its name if you don’t understand that free speech is a core value, more valuable than anything else, and totally valuable to your existence”.
When the Free Speech Union sent a pre-action protocol letter to Ms Phillipson threatening a judicial review for the failure to commence a free speech Act, it was shocking when we found out that government lawyers noted that concerns had been raised by university managers and senior managers about the consequences of the law on doing business with authoritarian countries that have restrictions on free speech. How grubby that, because some British universities operate overseas students and do not want to lose out on the money, they are prepared to compromise on free speech. The fact that English universities want to boost opportunities for lucrative research partnerships means that they do not want a piece of free speech legislation that might upset China, Dubai or Singapore.
As for attracting more international students, I do not, in any way, do anything other than endorse that. But the self-congratulatory tone that we have heard worries me, because, too often, international students are cynically treated as cash cows rather than welcomed here as some act of philanthropic generosity. Many of the overseas students I have worked with over recent years have noted that they came here imagining that they would find free speech on campus as a value, but actually, having left China, they found it even more restrictive to face some of the cancel culture on campus. I ask for a different set of priorities here.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his excellent introduction, after having secured this debate. I want to turn to one aspect of what he said: the need for us to consider this in the long term and in the wider interests of the UK economy. It may be surprising that I want to take this from the vantage point of law, which is not necessarily seen as an important industry—but it is, as well as a significant contributor to the economy.
One can see two aspects of the current lack of a coherent policy in what has happened recently. The first involves overseas students. As the chancellor of Aberystwyth University who has travelled to visit lawyers and the judiciary in overseas countries, I have seen the enormous advantage of training overseas lawyers here. In Aberystwyth, a huge number were educated in the 1960s, 1970s and onwards who now have important positions in the law in other countries. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, brought in an excellent programme for teaching judges from countries such as China and elsewhere.
This is not soft power; it has real benefit to the UK economy. The muddled thinking of the previous Government on visas shows that there was no strategy for how you relate universities to the greater benefit of the economy.
One can take this analogy with the subject of law slightly further, in that you not only learn law at universities but you gain hugely from doing a short amount of practical work. Therefore, not thinking through the restrictions imposed on working thereafter was a grave mistake. The other mistake in this respect was to fail to realise the intense competition other nations have in law and other fields.
There is a second aspect of the lack of strategy, which law illustrates. Law is a very cheap subject to teach, and cheaper now than it has ever been because you do not even need a library. Therefore, it is often referred to as a cash cow—I am sorry to use such a cheap and vulgar expression in such a place. It is important to realise that this has a detrimental effect—unlike the example that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, gave—on the way the UK works. We are teaching people law when we do not need them, but we are doing it to drive the universities’ finances.
Therefore, I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others who have spoken. We need a proper long-term strategy, and there are three points about that. First, it must safeguard university independence, because that independence is almost as important as the independence of the judiciary—I hope noble Lords do not mind the word “almost”. Secondly, it seems to me that we must look at this on a UK-strategic basis. I am a huge supporter of devolution—many may be surprised to hear that—but you cannot do this without the strategy of a union Government, so that all have the same purpose. Thirdly, I fear that there probably is no alternative other than looking to fee income.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, during the so-called Robbins expansion of the university sector in the 1960s, there was a clear understanding between the Government and the universities. Whereas the Government would provide the necessary funds for the sector, the universities would be left largely to their own devices. However, there was strict control over the numbers in the student intake, so as to match the provision of funds. Nowadays, matters are quite the reverse. There is a severe shortfall in the funds available to universities. The direct subventions from the Government and the income from student fees have not kept pace with inflation. Recently, there has been a dramatic loss of income from overseas students.
Brexit and the state of Britain’s international relations have been factors in discouraging overseas students from joining universities. The policies of the previous Government, which was keen to discourage even the most temporary immigration, have worsened the situation.
The interference of the Government in running universities has led to an unbridled expansion of the administrative staff, whose numbers typically exceed those of the academic staff. The administrators have been given the tasks of academic quality control, the adjudication of degree classes, the award of degrees, the corporate publicity, and much else besides. Latterly, they have taken control, in many instances, of the academic syllabus, on the grounds that it is necessary to ensure that what is taught is popular with the students. This is the consequence of the National Student Survey, which is also an imposition of the Government. There is ill feeling between academics and administrators. Recently, an academic colleague of mine described the relationship as an old-fashioned conspiracy of the management against the workers.
Leaving these matters aside, the most immediate concern is for the financial viability of the universities. The largest item in their current expenditure is the salary bill. There may be enough leverage over this item to ensure that there will be only a handful of bankruptcies in the short term. In the past, when academic staff had the guarantee of job security by virtue of what was described as academic tenure, the salary bill would have been a fixed cost. Nowadays, the bill can be reduced quite readily by reductions in the numbers of staff. Most universities are now pursuing programmes of voluntary and compulsory retirement. This is greatly facilitated by the fact that most academic staff are nowadays employed on short-term or time-limited contracts. In some cases, they have been dismissed and partly re-employed on new and lower-paid contracts.
Staff redundancies are affecting the academic subjects to differing degrees. The arts and some of the sciences have been suffering, while more worldly studies, such as business studies in its various guises, including accountancy, have been prospering. There is an abundant student demand for these subjects.
I have a sorry story to tell regarding the mathematics department of the University of Leicester, of which I am an emeritus professor. The pure mathematicians have been dismissed and the department is now calling itself the School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences. It is to be devoted mainly to teaching job-focused degrees, including actuarial science. Some of the staff were spared the sack; they were downgraded to assistant lecturers and teaching fellows, and their salaries were cut. Most of those remaining quickly resigned from the university.
This experience is being repeated throughout the university sector at a time when we are becoming increasingly conscious of the need for mathematicians in industry, and for those who can teach them. The problem is affecting particularly those universities that would be expected to train the mathematicians who will enter the teaching profession. Our schools will be unable to teach mathematics effectively, since the task will have to be undertaken by those who are not trained in the subject.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of King’s College London, where my neighbour on these Benches is a distinguished professor.
It is surely clear to everyone—it has been stated many times today—that the situation with university funding is now unsustainable. The coalition Government bravely increased student fees to £9,000 in 2012, against massive opposition at the time, but there was probably no alternative at that moment. They then lost their courage and, in the following 12 years, the only increase was a further £250 in 2017. Whenever a Government, in effect, freeze fees of this nature, there eventually comes a moment of reckoning. I feel very sorry for students who now leave university with a debt of £40,000 or more. Fortunately, the latest iteration of the student loans scheme now charges an interest rate equivalent to the retail prices index, but previously it was very much higher, which in my opinion was shameful. But although the interest rate is lower, so is the threshold above which the loans are repaid, currently £25,000 a year. This seems far too low, and I suggest to Ministers that they ought to raise this threshold and, as others have said, from now on they must consider small annual increases to the student fee.
However, the real problem is that universities are running at a deficit. In 2022-23—the latest figures I have seen—a government agency has estimated the loss by the universities from teaching at £1.5 billion per annum and the loss from doing research at £4.5 billion. In fact, very few, if any, universities make a margin on their research, yet most universities undertake research. Although it would be very much against the culture of many universities, we must at least consider whether the country can afford for so many universities to do research.
The other major difficulty for universities is the reduction in overseas students, as many have said. This year, there has been a considerable decrease in foreign postgraduate student applications. This is a very important source of revenue for most universities and the decrease is a direct result of the previous Government’s decision to restrict visas for families. But as the average age of postgraduates is 25, they are likely to have families, and it does not seem reasonable to place such a harsh limit on family members accompanying postgraduate students.
I could never understand the previous Government’s hostility towards overseas students, although of course they always claimed otherwise. The fact is, it is very much in this country’s interest for overseas students to come to our universities. I therefore suggest to the Minister—apparently she has tried and not yet succeeded—that she must try again to persuade the Home Office to issue more visas, not fewer, to foreign students. The alternative is to put more taxpayers’ money into the university system, and I cannot believe she is able or willing to do that.
So, although it is a somewhat overused word, I agree with the original wording of this debate from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that there is a crisis in the funding of our universities, and, regrettably, Ministers will have to do something about it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in welcoming the Minister to the Lords, I remind her that I have often thought that the academic lobby is the most powerful lobby in this place. If you add up the chancellors, chairs of councils, former professors and others, it certainly is overrepresented in the Lords and its voice is always quite loud. I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko. It reminded me that when I was a graduate student working on some of the most advanced computers available, you fed punch cards in at one end, got reams of paper out of the other and typed up the result on your typewriter afterwards. The world has moved on a great deal in the last 40 or 50 years.
I disagreed strongly with the interpretation of free speech in universities of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, just as I disagreed with the article by her former colleague Frank Furedi in the Times the other week, but that is a debate for another time. On the whole, the question of freedom of speech in universities is very complex.
We all know that our university sector is one of the jewels of our global reputation and our economy. The global rankings show that. I am particularly proud of having a child who is now on the staff at Imperial, which rose to second in the QS global rankings this year. My son works in another of the top 20 universities in this country. However, we must remember that universities do not necessarily stay at the top of the list. I am always conscious that 120 years ago, German universities were dominant in the world, far better than British universities and much better than American universities at the time. Of course, German universities collapsed when the Nazis came into power. Many of their best staff left to colonise British and American universities, which led to the dominance of American universities for some time.
Our universities have improved considerably over the last half-century. The quality of teaching in our universities has improved a great deal since I started out, without any training at all in how to teach at university, in a research university which often regarded teaching as an interference with the serious work of academic research. I therefore have mixed views on students as customers. We now have to pay more attention to our undergraduate as well as our graduate students, which we certainly did not do in universities that thought they were important in the 1960s, when I was first appointed to one.
We do not need a major restructuring of the current system or a royal commission. It is far better to promote a gradual evolution towards an even more varied higher and further education sector. We need to take higher education and further education together and to recognise that if we talk about the challenge to higher education funding, the challenge to further education funding is even more acute. The intermediate skills which we need in this country—construction, nursing, social care—we are desperately short of. That is part of what drives high immigration into this country: the Ghanaian nurses, the Latvian builders and others. Getting further education right is as important to improving the British economy and the quality of our society as getting higher education right.
We often underestimate the sheer diversity of our higher education sector. I have worked in three research universities, but I am very conscious in the north of England of the extent to which regional universities play a very important part in the regional society and the regional economy. I often hear people say that students who come to study in a particular place often stay on after graduation, which reinforces the local economy and society.
Therefore, we absolutely must go on supporting teaching universities as well as research universities. I look at Huddersfield University as an example: the quality of the classical and pop music it teaches its students becomes an important part of a different part of our economy, as does the quality of its teaching of textiles and other useful vocational elements. So I hope we will come back to talk about the further education sector in more detail; it is one we should never neglect.
The previous Government were incoherent about and often hostile to universities. I heard someone yesterday talking about the “war on universities” hopefully now being over. We are all conscious that the Home Office has done its best to push back against the Department for Education and those concerned with research in imposing the appallingly high visa and health charges on staff and students visiting Britain. I hope the Minister will take up with the Home Office the sheer damage that these charges do to international staff and staff exchanges.
My son is a systems biologist working on joint projects with academics in Germany, France and the United States. If you say to someone, “We would like you to come and work in our lab for 12 months but, if you want to bring your wife and two children with you, it may cost you £20,000 or more up front to arrive in Britain”, you are blocking academic exchange and academic quality. Good universities are unavoidably international universities and movement is a very important part of how they all behave. Getting universities right and having a coherent policy across Whitehall, with a sense that universities are again valued, is an important message which I hope this Government will get across.
Let us also recognise that there is a substantial problem in maintaining the quality of our universities in pay. Academic pay, as with teachers’ pay and even more so with further education pay, has sunk very badly over the last 20 years. My son has just been given a permanent contract, 14 years after he finished his PhD. On promotion, his salary is now larger than his mother’s professorial pension. I note that as an example of just how poorly academic scientists in key areas—he is a systems biologist—are paid now. That is another part of the funding challenge for our universities because, in a highly international world, we will not keep our academics. They will take jobs in the United States, Berlin or elsewhere unless we do something about pay.
Research funding has been mentioned, as well as research buildings and computers. The decision to review the Edinburgh exascale computer is extremely worrying, because we need to maintain global quality by maintaining the quality of resources for our research. That is all part of a very broad challenge to funding.
We are now at peak international student flow. Nearly a quarter of students in our universities come from abroad—almost too many from China, and I suspect more at the present moment than there will be in three or four years. That means that we need to think about other ways in which to fund our future universities. I would like to see our university and higher education sector moving towards a model that I saw when I went to the United States, to Cornell University. It is a comprehensive university that has a Nobel Prize winner teaching in its physics department, but also faculties of home economics, hotel administration and labour relations. I would like to see universities run from top to vocational, if you see what I mean.
We should have more part-time degrees, apprenticeship degrees and continuing education. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rees, that we should think about two-year degrees as well as three-year degrees, and taking your higher education in bits as you move on. It is important to be more flexible and less snobby about that dimension of higher education.
We agree with the Quality Assurance Agency paper, which said:
“It is increasingly apparent that the current funding arrangements in England are unsustainable in the long term”.
They are unsustainable and they need to change. That probably means we have to increase student fees to some extent. We certainly need to increase research funding and we must also fundraise for bursaries, scholarships, endowments and buildings.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on securing this important debate. I add my warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and thank him for his maiden speech—in particular for his insights into the impact of the student finance system on the number of home students doing PhDs in his field.
As we have heard, the challenges facing our higher education institutions are not isolated. They are interconnected with the challenges facing students, taxpayers and, more broadly, the economy. We are rightly proud of our universities and need them to thrive as part of building a path to higher economic growth and prosperity in terms of undergraduate and graduate degrees, and of research.
I was struck by the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, suggesting that we should perhaps consider a more intentional split between research and teaching. In preparation for this debate I read the paper Triangle of Sadness, produced last year by the vice-chancellor of King’s College London, Professor Kapur, which many of your Lordships may have seen. He made the contrast—I hope I reflect this accurately—between a state such as California, which has a GDP of similar size to the UK and a similar number of universities which are split very much between research, teaching and state institutions. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on the potential for that in this country.
The last Government tried, in a different way, to encourage collaboration between business, the further education sector and the higher education sector through the institutes of technology, which I hope the new Government will encourage and develop further. I also hope they will build on our record of access and participation for students from disadvantaged areas.
I attempted to make a point in a debate last May—clearly completely unsuccessfully—when we debated the excellent report from the Industry and Regulators Committee on the Office for Students on the risks of making sweeping statements about the financial health of the sector. Despite having failed in May, I will make another attempt today. Both in that debate and today, a number of your Lordships cited the figure of 40% of the sector being in deficit. To put this in context, this is a sector that has grown 50% over the past few years. The OfS report projected a surplus of £2.1 billion for the sector for 2026-27 and a margin of 3.9%. Average borrowing in the sector is 30%. That is not a typical picture of a sector facing impending collapse.
The point I am trying to make is that some universities remain financially very solid and successful. The aggregate deficit of providers in England, referred to in the recent report from the OfS, was just over £330 million, the aggregate surplus of those in surplus was £3.3 billion, and 50% of the aggregate deficit was accounted for by 10 providers. We need to focus on the institutions that are financially fragile, but not to paint the whole sector that way. None the less, obviously, there is a risk that an individual institution could get into serious financial difficulty. I, along with other noble Lords, would find it interesting to hear the Minister’s plans to address that, and in particular, how they plan to protect student interests if it does happen, to ensure that students’ education is not disrupted.
As for the pressures on students from the affordability of their university education, I absolutely recognise your Lordships’ comments and criticisms of our policy to freeze fees for the last seven years. But, looking forward, I am interested in whether the Minister can update the House on the Government’s plans, and whether they intend to keep the student loan system as we have it today. I cannot quote my noble friend Lord Johnson of Marylebone accurately—but I am referring to the Churchill version.
In her speech to the Universities UK conference last year, the now Secretary of State mentioned
“modelling showing that the government could reduce the monthly repayments for every single new graduate without adding a penny to government borrowing or general taxation”.
I wonder whether the Government still hold that view.
The Minister will be aware that there are Muslim students who have been excluded from higher education because of the nature of the student loan system. Can she confirm that she will continue to meet stakeholders quarterly to ensure that alternative student finance is delivered in a timely way?
We have seen an extraordinary expansion in the number of students in franchised provision, and in universities offering foundation years. I would be interested in the Minister’s reflections on whether those students are getting value for money, and how the Government will ensure that.
I echo the questions from other noble Lords about international students, given that the Office for Students projects that international students will account for 48% of university income by 2026-27. What is the Government’s assessment of the risk to universities from volatility in international student numbers? Obviously, we have seen the depreciation of the Nigerian currency, and the impact on students from that country.
This House has often debated the need for more qualifications at levels 4 and 5, as well as level 6, and of course our further education colleges play an important part in the delivery of those. I wonder what the Minister’s response is to the Association of Colleges report which says that almost a quarter of colleges have waiting lists for qualifications such as engineering, which the economy so badly needs.
The previous Government very much appreciated the support that the current Government gave us when in opposition with the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement. That is obviously a huge opportunity both financially for universities, because there is a cohort of potential students who could benefit from additional qualifications, and for our economy. I know that the Open University has been calling for those entitlements to be able to be used more flexibly to facilitate the growing demand for accelerated part-time study, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.
Before I close, I want to pick up very briefly the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on the issue of academic freedom and freedom of speech, because that is clearly one of the challenges that our higher education institutions face. I know the noble Baroness committed recently to looking at the Secretary of State’s decision further, but I wonder whether she will take this opportunity to withdraw what felt like an ill-advised statement describing the Act as a hate speech charter, since obviously, as she knows, it does not change people’s rights to free speech under the law but rather gives them easier redress.
We have heard a thoughtful and well-informed series of speeches in your Lordships’ House today, and I look forward very much to the Minister’s reply.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing to the House’s attention today the important matter of higher education funding. I also very much welcome the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, his maiden speech and the considerable expertise as both a student and an academic that he brings to our debate today. I thought I was relatively new, but I am pleased that there are now those who are even newer to this House than I am. I feel confident that he will make a strong contribution.
Our higher education sector is one of the very best in the world, and we are rightly proud of it. I have been very pleased with the tone of the debate today in which that fact has been largely recognised, not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, because a large number of Members of this House have considerable expertise in this area. I think I mentioned that in my maiden speech when I said how much I was looking forward to learning from it, not realising that I would be brought to the House on a very early Thursday afternoon to respond on that. Nevertheless, I welcome the contributions made today.
I welcomed the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in which she talked glowingly about the university sector. I wholly understand that that has been her long-term approach. It is just a shame that it was not so much the approach of the previous Government, who tended, particularly towards the end of their time in government, to see higher education as an opportunity for political point-scoring rather than the enormous benefits it brings to the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, challenged me on the number of higher education institutions. I have to say to him, “It’s complicated”. The UK higher education sector comprises different types of providers, including universities and university colleges as well as HE providers without university titles, and there are also FE providers offering HE courses. In 2022-23, there were 291 HE providers in the UK reporting student number data to HESA. These figures do not include further education providers that offer HE courses as they report data to the Education and Skills Funding Agency. I hope that has brought some clarity to the debate.
I return to the contribution of higher education. UK higher education creates opportunity. It is an engine for growth in our economy, and it supports local communities. As the Robbins report set out over 60 years ago, and as I believe today, universities have a broader role to play as well in shaping and enriching the society we live in and the culture we enjoy—not just for each of us but for all of us. For that reason, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that we have too many students and too many universities. I do not believe that we should cap student numbers or the number of universities, because of the contribution to individuals and to our society as a whole, and, of course, because of the crucial role they play in promoting economic growth. Universities will have a key role in developing the growth that is so important for this country. For these reasons, I assure noble Lords that this Government are committed to creating a secure future for our world-leading higher education providers, so that they can ably serve and benefit students, taxpayers, workers and the economy.
Several noble Lords emphasised the significant contribution that higher education makes. My noble friend Lord Howarth, the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and his campaign manager, the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Clark, are all right that the higher education sector has a huge role to play locally, nationally and internationally in driving growth. Teaching and research activities are estimated to generate £158 billion total economic impact for the UK, with a further £37 billion in value from education exports.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and my noble friend Lord Watson identified the substantial contribution made throughout all regions and locally in the UK, and although economic and employment impacts are the largest, in absolute terms, in London and the south-east, the sector’s proportional contribution to employment is between 2% and 4% in all individual regions and nations. It is an integral part of our landscape at a local level as well. Why do so many people—colleagues in the other place, for example—campaign for university campuses in their constituencies? It is because they understand the economic, social and cultural power they can bring to the communities that they represent.
I did not agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said about universities, but where I do agree with her is that they are a public good as well as autonomous organisations and that they owe a duty to students and staff. Given this enormous contribution, we may ask ourselves—as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, did in introducing the debate—why we are facing such a very worrying financial position in the higher education sector. I agree with him: whether or not we call it a crisis, it is enormously challenging for our higher education sector.
The Office for Students has identified that 40% of higher education institutions will be in deficit this year. For that reason, I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Clark, and my noble friend Lady Warwick urged speed in addressing this issue. This Government did act quickly: we refocused the Office for Students on to the issue of financial sustainability; we brought in the interim chair, David Behan, who is helping to ensure that we have that focus through the Office for Students; and we have already started reviewing options to deliver a more robust higher education sector. It will take some time to get right but I do not believe that it will take as long as some people fear. We are determined that the higher education funding system delivers for our economy, for universities and for students. I look forward to bringing further information about this to this House.
I also recognise, as noble Lords have identified, the impact of the current situation on both courses and staff, although I say to my noble friend Lord Hanworth that I think that is an impact on all staff. Trying to create a distinction between academic staff and those who support them to deliver their work is not particularly helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, suggested that I was relaxed about higher education providers closing. I am most certainly not relaxed about that, but I recognise the autonomy and independence of higher education institutions. That is the point that I was making.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked what we would do in the event that a provider was at particular risk. We would work enormously closely with the Office for Students, the provider and other government departments to ensure that students’ best interests were protected in those circumstances. Students will always be our priority.
Several noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, have identified the range of funding that needs to be part of a response to this challenge: the contribution of tuition fees, the importance of research funding, the grants that the Government provide and of course the contribution of international students. I will talk briefly about each of those.
The noble Lords, Lord Mair and Lord Johnson, my noble friend Lord Watson and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, all identified the challenge with student fees and the fact that in real terms they have reduced in value in funding the teaching that they are aimed at helping to provide. That is of course a challenge as part of the funding arrangements that the Government are thinking about, but we also recognise that students have been particularly badly affected by the cost of living crisis. It will be important to find a funding arrangement that is fair to both institutions and students. That is at the heart of the very hard thinking that, I assure noble Lords, the Government are doing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, asked about progress on alternative student finance. I assure her that we will be restarting the work on that and bringing together the stakeholder group to make progress. She also mentioned franchising, which for some higher education institutions is a source of funding and provides high quality, but she is right that in some cases there are concerns. We will monitor that very carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, talked about the challenge of research funding. The noble Lord referenced a deficit in research funding of £5.3 billion, and that is a number that I recognise. The Government recognise the importance of research and development to our national success. We are determined to work with the sector to transition to a sustainable research funding model, including by increasing grant cost recovery. Of course universities will also need to take their own steps to ensure that they are working as efficiently as possible and, where necessary, make difficult choices. Across all the areas that we are talking about, we need to find a suitable balance that provides stability for our higher education sector.
On the point about the Government’s strategic priorities grant, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I recognise her concern about the levels of government funding, but the strategic priorities grant is particularly focused on those subjects that are expensive to deliver, which she identified. The Government will keep that under review in order to support teaching and students in particularly expensive subjects such as medicine, science and engineering. That is important in terms of the contribution of HE.
Several noble Lords spoke about the importance of international students, sometimes as contributors to the finances of higher education. I have to say I do not accept the use of the expression “cash cow” that was used by several noble Lords. Some have feared that international students are somehow displacing domestic students but, actually, international students have made a very important financial contribution to the teaching of domestic students. They make a broader contribution than that, and we recognise the vital contribution that they make.
I want to make the Government’s position clear, as my noble friend Lady Warwick asked. We are committed to a UK that is outward-looking and welcomes international students, who make a positive impact on our higher education sector, our economy and our society as a whole. Our top universities benefit from strong international ties, as many of our universities do—so much so that, as noble Lords mentioned, we have we have educated 58 current or recent world leaders. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, identified, we have educated top lawyers as well.
International students enrich our university campuses. They forge lifelong friendships with our domestic students. They become global ambassadors for the UK and for too long international students have been treated as political footballs, not valued guests. This Government will take a different approach and we will speak clearly about that. Noble Lords should be in no doubt that international students are welcome in the UK.
Several noble Lords challenged me on the position of the Home Office with respect to international students. I do have the benefit, although it was some time ago, of understanding some of the challenges and interests of the Home Office. On the cost of student visas, the Home Office keeps fees under review. It also does not, as some have suggested, make a profit from fees. Any income from fees set above the cost of processing is utilised for the purpose of running the migration and borders system.
There is, of course, despite some threats, the maintenance of the graduate route to enable students to come to this country and stay after their period of study. This is an important way of recognising and welcoming international students, but I have to say that the Government do not have any intention at this time of removing the restrictions on dependants that were introduced by the last Government.
Several noble Lords identified the range of provision and different ways of learning. That is important for both our higher education sector and its relationship with further education. I do not see a distinction. I do not think it is helpful to see a university education and a vocational contribution of the further education sector as being in conflict. We will be successful when we manage to find the successful links between them, not least because it will provide better access and give different routes depending on the strength of the students and it will be good for the economy. So we will continue to support degree apprenticeships, which we know can deliver excellent outcomes.
We are working to ensure that the approach to lifelong learning will be as effective as possible, enabling people to gain the skills that they need to support their careers, and to do that in a way that enables them at different times in their life to benefit from education. I want to come back to this House to update it on the issue of the lifelong learning entitlement. I hope noble Lords are in no doubt that we consider the objective of lifelong learning to be a very important one. That was an important point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, and my noble friend Lord Watson.
On the subject of freedom of speech, I have to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, wholly misrepresented the position of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. In actual fact, she said at Questions in the other place earlier this week that of course, it was a Labour Government who enshrined freedom of expression in law. The recent decision to pause further implementation of the freedom of speech Act at this point was made precisely because we believe in the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom, and it is crucial, therefore, to make that legal framework workable. My officials and I are meeting with a range of stakeholders, including academics concerned about their free speech being protected, and their views will form part of our consideration of options for protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom in future. On that too, I shall want to come back to the House to update noble Lords on our proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked us to take a strategic approach. He is absolutely right, but stable funding has to be at the heart, and the basis going forward. Many of the things that noble Lords have argued for—considering the diversity of the sector; better access; ensuring progression for students; the contribution of our higher education sector to growth, skills and innovation; the local and regional contributions; and the quality of teaching and the student experience—all require that stable funding basis; but we are also committed to making progress on all those areas.
I close by thanking noble Lords for their contributions. I assure them that the Government will consider many of the excellent points made in this debate. As I said in my maiden speech in this House, our higher education sector is one of this country’s greatest enablers. It provides opportunities for people to follow their passions and expand their horizons; through research and teaching, it enables us to challenge our understanding and develop new ideas. In many communities, higher education provides a vital anchor for wider economic development and progress. That is why this Government are committed to creating a secure future for the sector.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Tarassenko for his excellent maiden speech and thank my noble friend Lord Mair for confirming that you cannot have too many engineers. I was beginning to worry about the balance on the Cross Benches but, fortunately, another newly appointed Cross-Bench Peer, my noble friend Lady Freeman, is, like me, a zoologist; she tells me that I taught her when she was an undergraduate at Oxford. So the balance is maintained, and I am grateful for that.
With the level of expertise in the contributions, we have been very fortunate to have the wisdom and experience of two excellent former Universities Ministers —thank you very much—as well as many other noble Lords who have worked in the higher education sector and have direct personal experience.
I do not intend at this late hour to summarise the many points that were made, but I turn to the Minister’s response, for which I thank her very much. Partly it was “wait and see”, because she said that the Government are reviewing the options for dealing with the current crisis. We have to hold our breath and hope that they come up with a solution. In the here and now, I hope I understood correctly that, on the question of research running at a deficit, the Government are minded to look for ways to increase cost recovery, so that the black hole that UKRI has identified can eventually be filled in. That I welcome very much.
I think the Minister said that she agreed with me that the time is right to take a strategic view of the higher education sector, rather than simply leaving things to the vagaries of the market. I very much welcome that. The third point I picked up was that, although the Government want to be welcoming to overseas students —in my academic career I have taught and supervised graduate students from many different countries, and they have hugely enriched my academic experience and the quality of work that goes on in this country, so I am all in favour of them—they do not intend to change the cost of visas or the current visa restrictions. It will be interesting to see how the message, “We welcome you, but actually we are not removing some of the barriers stopping you coming here”, plays out.
At this point, I simply once again thank all noble Lords who have participated, thank the Minister for her reply and close the debate.