House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Booth-Smith
Introduction: Baroness May of Maidenhead
Electronic Media: False Information
(1 day, 7 hours 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
(1 day, 7 hours 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+
(1 day, 7 hours 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
(1 day, 7 hours 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]
House of Lords (Peerage Nominations) Bill [HL]
Patrick Finucane Murder
(1 day, 7 hours 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
(1 day, 7 hours 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
(1 day, 7 hours 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
(1 day, 7 hours 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
(1 day, 7 hours 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.