Lords Chamber

Thursday 2nd July 2026

(began 3 weeks, 4 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:06
11:06
11:07
11:07
11:08
11:09
11:09
11:10
11:11
11:11
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:13
Baroness Levitt Portrait Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I will be there on the 15th of July, and I urge everybody else to go to the MoJ and join in with that advert over. And the point was made that that we see these as trivial offences, and some of them are serious. But what is trivialised is the recall and the mother of the prisoner that noble Lord Moylan referred to actually handed her own son in recently on a recall after an anonymous malicious complaint.

No charges have been made, nothing has happened. And the mother says, this is cruel, it's torture. It's a sword of Damocles hanging over families. Will the noble Lady, the Minister, act with urgency or her department act with urgency about the fact that IPP prisoners, when recalled for no criminal offences, actually spend 28 months before they can even possibly see a probation officer on average. That is cruel. That is wrong and the ministry needs to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

something about it, surely. Can I can I make two things clear? The first thing is that clear? The first thing is that recall is not used as a punishment for a minor breach of licence. I'm afraid the noble Lady is wrong afraid the noble Lady is wrong about that. It is a means of protecting victims and the public. When the Probation Service assesses When the Probation Service assesses that they can no longer manage that offender in the community. Recall is an important and swift public protection measure measure.

But also HMP has strengthened the scrutiny and the quality assurance of recall decisions. There is a higher threshold for IPP prisoners in relation to recall. Now not only has to be a breach of their licence conditions, such that there is a concern about the risk that they present, but there also has to be a causal link between that breach and the index offence, which they are serving the sentence in the first place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Conservative. Conservative. Conservative. You're not going to come to the Crossbenches? No.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

come to the Crossbenches? No. My Lords, I want to refer back to the figure my noble friend Lord Moylan mentioned. That's to say, Moylan mentioned. That's to say, the thousand or nearly a thousand prisoners on IPP sentences who are
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:28
None Portrait Oral questions: Reducing waiting times for consideration of cases in the Employment Tribunal system
-

Ainsdale. >> I leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
11:28
11:28
11:28
Lord Barber of Ainsdale Portrait Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-
-
I thank my noble friend for that reply, and I very much welcome the reply, and I very much welcome the work that has has been done and is now being done with Acas and others to address this challenge and hopefully quickly develop proposals for change. The waiting period for employment tribunal hearings is clearly unacceptably high two years or more in many areas. Important new rights and protections have been established by the Employment Rights Act, but they must be delivered in reality, not just on the statute book.

But can the Minister give an assurance that, as well as speeding up the handling and determination of cases, attention will also be given to ensuring the effective enforcement of tribunal awards without the need for complex and time consuming county court procedures. The last official survey on this issue showed that less than half of successful claimants had actually secured the full payment of the award that had been made by a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

tribunal. This is. The question. Can the Minister assure me that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can the Minister assure me that the issue of enforcement of awards will be taken firmly into consideration in developing new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consideration in developing new system? To make myself popular? If I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To make myself popular? If I simply say yes, I'll go. I'll give a bit more detail than that. The law, my Lords, is absolutely clear.
11:30
11:31
11:31
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:37
11:38
None Portrait Oral questions: Children’s Commissioner’s report 'Children’s and Young People’s Mental Health Services: 2024–25'
-

Oral Question. >> Baroness Tyler of Enfield my Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order Paper. My Lords, we welcome the report of the Children's Commissioner. It
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:41
11:41
11:42
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:47
11:47
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:51
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
people within those institutions. They must trust also that the oversight arrangements will work. And if someone or something breaches that trust, there will be a mechanism to put things right within our democracy. And in common with other Western liberal democracies, there will always be questions about political party finance and political party finance in the UK is regulated by the Electoral Commission, and I will come back to them shortly. Trust in the ruling party in Scotland is at a very long term low.

The First Minister, who couldn't see a huge and shiny motorhome outside her mother in law's house. The refrain in rural Perthshire is she should have gone to Specsavers. The same First Minister who believes that full cooperation with the police is hours in their custody. Repeating no comment. Another First Minister is vigorously trying to stop a Scottish Parliament inquiry into something so damaging for our democracy, with no apology for the obvious and serious conflict he has. As such an inquiry would inevitably seek to look into his actions and inactions as well.

For, be it a Cabinet or a board of directors, members have joint responsibility for what has gone on. Indeed, a director is personally liable for their negligence. The SNP leader claims the SNP National Executive Committee to be different members of the NEC, he feels, have no responsibility or liability for their actions and inactions over the decades of the moral mess. The judge in the case made it clear that the embezzlement was not particularly sophisticated, which only underlines how deep the NEC's failure was individually and collectively.

The senior members of the NEC then have reached for the Pontius Pilate kit to wash away the blame, and that is very wrong. The leader, former leader and long term treasurer over the decade all owed a particular duty to their party and each year would have made the usual clear representations to their auditors. They remain the most active at trying to prevent more scrutiny, which would examine their actions and inactions. And this presents that horrible conflict. And they do this to their great shame.

But the seriousness of the situation means a lot of questions must be answered. The nation has rightful questions over the short money. The policy development grants, the money raised for the ring fenced funds that have disappeared, and simply the monies of the members of the SNP. And to the extent that they have been improperly used, restitution must be made. The Electoral Commission is the regulator of political finance, and I would expect them to play a public and leading role in the processes.

But a parliamentary investigation also is more than warranted. And could I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, whether the government intends to be fully supportive of any Westminster or other parliamentary inquiry, to look at this very serious matter? The other recent situation that has been so damaging to our trust has been the saga of the £5 million and Nigel Farage, Mr. Farage announced in March 2021 that he was quotes stepping back from frontline politics. Christopher Hagen, who had been a very major supporter of reform UK Party Limited in early 2024, gave Mr.

Farage £5 million. Subsequently, in mid 2024, Mr. Farage stepped back into in quotes frontline politics in time to be elected as the MP for Clacton on Sea. He says that there was no need for him to report to anyone. The £5 million gift. The trouble with this account of affairs is that Reform Party UK limited is a company and during the relevant period there were three directors Richard Tice, Murtaza Azami and Nigel Farage. Nigel Farage, therefore, never stepped back from politics.

He's a very strong personality and he sat on the small central board of his party at all the relevant times. I imagine his lawyers are fighting very hard to get him off on a technicality, but morally at least, he's in the wrong. The vital thing where any regulator is concerned is to ensure that they have the correct powers, the correct duties and the correct level of resources. The Electoral Commission is rather a new body born in 2001, following the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act, or PPERA, it came to life in what was already a very large and very complicated field and canon of electoral law.

In the intervening years. Since 2001, there have been several Acts of Parliament which have amended the PPERA and several carefully thought through reports, pointing a direction of simplifying and strengthening matters. And I will briefly mention one of the or two of the key ones. The Law Commission produced a 230 page report on electoral law in 2020. Well, this was not so much about political funding. It did pick up strongly on the theme of needing to simplify things. There were 106 recommendations, but recommendation was, and I quote, the current laws governing elections should be rationalised into a single, consistent legislative framework governing all elections.

And as we settle down to a 27th representation of the people's Bill later this year, I, for one, will be recalling this simple wisdom. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by our own Lord Evans of Weardale, published in 2021. Regulating Election Finance, and this report, with its 47 recommendations, said recommendation one. And I quote, the government should bring forward a bill to simplify and consolidate electoral law. The second respectable institution making the same powerful and obviously correct point.

Last year, the government produced a policy paper in July, Restoring Trust in our democracy. The sponsoring Minister was Angela Rayner. This essentially was the training document for the representation of the people Bill that was announced in the latest King's speech. There is no, however, no mention of a consolidation bill. And could I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, to comment on this? In March this year we had the welcome Rycroft review, which was aimed particularly at the difficult issue of foreign money.

The government response to this review was given in the House of Commons chamber orally, the day that the review was published. It was almost positive on the review and announced that there would be a ban on cryptocurrency and donations cap of £100,000 for overseas voters. You could ask the noble Lord Minister to clarify exactly how these proposals will be brought forward. It is easy to see how trust of the electorate can be in question when the legal environment is so complex and so unclear, and when institutions such as the Law Commission and the Committee on Standards in Public Life are recommending major and logical change, before I close, I must set out at least some of the major areas where change would help.

Apart from a simple consolidation bill. First would be to decriminalise offences that are essentially administrative in nature. This would allow fines and enforcement notices to replace the full force of the criminal law. Regulators would no longer need to bother hard pressed police to pursue wrongdoers, creating a much speedier and proportionate regime. As in most of the rest of regulated life. Secondly, maximum fines are too low, the maximum fine for a breach of political finance law is 200 £0 today and was set in 2009 for the special regime set up for the Scottish referendum.

It was 500 zero zero £0 and I would suggest that this is a more proportionate number. Thirdly, the Electoral Commission is today limited as to how it can give and receive information with other agencies and organisations. Most other regulators have statutory regimes that allow for this to happen, and the Electoral Commission needs to be put in a similar place. These things and others, I suspect, will be part of our work as a chamber on the 27th representation of the people's Bill.

In closing, I return again to the importance of trust in all of our institutions and the people that work within them. As I survey the scene, I feel that the position is most unsatisfactory, and we owe it to ourselves and to our citizens to be better here. The Electoral Commission must have greater legal clarity on its duties and its powers, and it must have sufficient resource to be able, as an independent body, to give confidence to us all in this difficult area of political finance.

We will have an interesting debate, and I look forward to every speech. And in the meantime, I beg to move.
12:01
Lord Blunkett Portrait Lord Blunkett (Labour)
-
-
To the question is that this motion be agreed to. motion be agreed to. >> Yes, sir. Both. A pleasure. To follow the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Normal Lord and to thank him for initiating this short debate. I agree entirely with him about his opening remarks in relation to what has happened in Scotland. Even my guide dog would have been able to see the motorhome, never mind the multiple very clever coffee makers. My Lords, it's appropriate that we should be debating this before the latest reputation of the reputation representation of the people's Bill reaches us because on the last occasion, the 26th Bill, it was my pleasure to join with Lord O'Donnell predecessor, the much missed Lord Judd judge, in terms of trying to get right what we were debating at that time, both the powers and independence of the Electoral Commission and where we're going.

Much has changed in those very few years. And I say to my noble friend on the front bench, whose fault it is not, we didn't really need the Rycroft review important to us and informative as it is to tell us that there was a major problem with Bitcoin. And it's remarkable that the bill, as drafted and not yet amended on Report stage in the Commons, actually missed this out. I think, sadly, it's an indication of our time where reviews, rather than action, were missing, the point where being somewhere behind the door where looking at the past rather than the future has been too prevalent.

And in this area, we've got to get real. It is time to understand the absolute reality and to have a check on what is taking place now, and to equip our laws and our electoral commission for the future. Because if we don't, the very basic tenets of our democracy will be undermined. It's a sadness to me that one of the great donors to reform UK 5 million direct to the leader and 12 million to the party, turns out to have been born in Sheffield.

This is not not something I can be proud of. Mind you, the particular location wasn't in Sheffield at the time he was born, so maybe I can avoid that one. We've got a situation where it's suggested and Rycroft suggests this, that, you know, it may be possible for people who are registered to vote. And this also undermines the underlines the importance of those who pay taxes, should should be enabled to to donate, I would suggest and ask the noble Lord, my friend the Minister, whether we should always have a cooling off period when people change their location or seek to renew their electoral rights so that we can't have a situation where somebody changes their domain and their ability to be able to donate very large sums at a whim.

In other words, we've got to be much more surefooted in my short contribution. I also think that it's really important that we move quickly on developing still further and reinforcing citizenship and democracy in our schools and colleges. As the new representation of people's Bill indicates that we will be asked to approve that 16 and 17 year olds will vote in general elections. It's beholden on us to make sure that they understand how our Constitution works. In fact, it's beholden on all of us to take a good look at how our Constitution works, that we're not a presidency, that we elect a parliament, that a parliament then selects and then puts forward a Prime Minister, and only in circumstances with complicated PR, would a situation arise where there would have to be a general election, because the parties that had colluded in deciding who should be the Prime Minister would actually have to have changed, and therefore, the suggestion at the moment that a change in Prime Minister automatically should result in a general election is a misunderstanding of how our democracy actually works.

So this morning, it's, I think, really beholden on us to send a message to the House of Commons to get on with bringing forward this bill, to complete Report stage, to allow us to scrutinise it, but above all, to look to the future, not the past.
12:06
Lord Maude of Horsham Portrait Lord Maude of Horsham (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> My Lords, I. >> Join the noble Lord Lord Blunkett in thanking congratulating Blunkett in thanking congratulating the noble Earl in introducing this debate. It's timely and it's. And it's an incredibly important it's an incredibly important subject. And I speak as a veteran of various at various stages in a long and chequered career, engaging in cross-party talks on on party funding and the concerns I have about where we are today is that the well established, long established convention that these matters of changing the rules on party funding are pursued through only after cross-party talks, with agreement being sought that seems to be being abandoned.

The noble Earl made a powerful case for a much more comprehensive and simple approach to these these matters. And so it's again a matter of regret and concern that the government has chosen to pick a couple of cherries out of the Rycroft report and introduce them into a relatively late stage, into a bill already in going through its legislative process, that that is a breach of of the approach, which has been followed pretty rigorously. I recall in the period after the 2005 election, where Sir Hayden Phillips was asked sadly, late Sir Hayden Phillips was asked to undertake one of these reviews, and Jack straw and I.

And I was accompanied by the noble Lord, Lord tarry. And we had very comprehensive discussions which sadly didn't reach agreement. They didn't reach agreement because the Labour Party had a concern that a cap on donations of £50,000 could not be applied to donations by trade unions. And at that point, the the whole deal which was being fashioned, which would I think have gone some way to establish a re-established trust and support in the system. The whole deal fell down.

There's another concern here, which is the introduction of a retrospective element into what is apparently being proposed, that this cap to be introduced retrospectively on donations from electors, legitimate electors, people who are entitled to vote, but who happen not to be living in this country, that that should be introduced. But I would also query the whole principle of saying that some voters are more equal than others. If there's a concern about the right of which the noble Lord Lord Blunkett slightly raised the right of people living overseas to have full rights in our Parliament, our democratic processes, then that should be dealt with differently.

But to say that for one particular aspect of participation in our parliamentary democracy, they should be disadvantaged in this way just seems plainly wrong. So I would say, my Lords, that these matters should be treated very, very carefully indeed. There was a very good reason, first set out, actually, by Sir Winston Churchill in the late 1940s, on why parties should treat these matters very carefully. Because if we get into a situation where a government in power is seen to be using its position to advantage itself and disadvantage its competitors, then that can trigger a tit for tat approach.

Because no party has a lifetime hold on power. And the approach that Jack straw and I took at various stages during that 2005 Parliament and the conversation, the discussions that took place subsequently in the coalition government, that's the approach that the Labour Party at that time were strongly committed to a pro approaching all of this by consensus and seeking consensus wherever possible. And I would strongly urge the noble Lord Minister to take this message back to his colleagues in the other place, because this is a dangerous path.
12:11
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
In following the noble Lord Lord Maude, with whom I worked in the Maude, with whom I worked in the coalition many years ago, I am thinking of the 2022 act, in which thinking of the 2022 act, in which it seemed to me that the conservative government was certainly trying to advantage itself and disadvantage its competitors, which is one of the reasons why we have this bill before us today. That is the debate to which we will return as we reach that. Last Thursday, we debated the problem of rebuilding public trust in our democratic institutions.

So it's highly appropriate today that we move on to discuss the Electoral Commission as the guarantor of the integrity of our campaigns. To play its role effectively, the Electoral Commission needs to have sufficient powers and to be and to be seen as independent of government. In last Thursday's debate, the noble Lord Lord Hannan argued that political debate is, I quote, a free and open encounter in which truth will always emerge victorious, regardless of the channels of influence available to, for example, Elon Musk, as opposed to the ordinary citizen.

The noble Lord, Lord Frost, in his speech denounced, I quote, the absurd and dangerous Rycroft Review which was written to justify unnecessary and authoritarian solutions. The noble Lord Baroness Fox of Buckley decried, I quote, self-righteous campaigns against foreign actors as an effort by the establishment to distract the public from what she sees as the real reasons for public discontent. Both Frost and Fox regarded the BBC as a greater threat to democracy. All three dismissed the impact of money on politics.

Yet all of us who've been involved in democratic elections know from painful experience how important financial resources are. Money on its own does not win elections if candidates are poor and message is weak, as reform has been discovering. But effective campaigns carry costs. And when one side is richly funded and the other skint, campaigns are not an open and fair contest, American democracy is providing us with a test case in the importance of money in politics. The Supreme Court's ruling against congressional limits on political donations opened the floodgates for donors to try to buy candidates the sums of money now involved for congressional elections are mouthwatering.

A presidential campaign costs more than the GDP of several members of the UN that brings with it corruption, and certainly also foreign interference. The Republican Party and the think tanks, which drive his agenda, had been captured by ultra wealthy individuals and companies which resist progressive taxation and government regulation and often deny climate change the impact of their products on human health. Growing inequality between the extremely wealthy and the ordinary citizen exacerbates this distortion of democratic debate. Wealthy British expatriates who avoid paying tax but nevertheless want to reshape British politics, similarly aim to change the balance of public debate in this country.

The flow of private money from ultra wealthy sources in America is now, I believe, a greater threat to free and open debate within Britain than money flowing from Russia, China or to the recent elections from Hungary. That money flows into third party campaigns and partisan think tanks, as well as political parties, and we will need to look at that. So far as I understood Lord Frost speech last week, he sees the ultra wealthy as better able to understand and support the real wishes of ordinary voters than government, or what he calls the British political class.

I'm not sure whether that makes him an anarchist or an illiberal Democrat, which is to say, an authoritarian in the style of Viktor Orban or Donald Trump. I believe in liberal democracy and in creating, as far as possible, a level playing field for all contending opinion in the public debate and in particular in political campaigns. For that, we need a trusted electoral commission with sufficient powers to punish those who break the rules. I hope that the conservative frontbench will admit the error it made in government in attempting to limit the independence of the Commission, as well as to enormously increase campaign spending limits.

Wealth piles up on one side of politics, which is not whatever Lord Frost believes the side of the poor or the left behind money is a vital aspect of political campaigning, but massive flows of money pollute politics and endanger democratic debate, and we must use the forthcoming scrutiny of the representation of the people's Bill to regulate that flow more tightly.
12:16
Lord Jay of Ewelme Portrait Lord Jay of Ewelme (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I've learnt much from the debate. So far, and we'll learn the debate. So far, and we'll learn a lot from the speeches still to come, and its particular pleasure come, and its particular pleasure to follow and speak after the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock. I'm conscious that I'm somewhat outside my comfort zone in speaking today, and so I will speak principally as a voter. I vote assiduously in local elections. I used to vote assiduously in European parliamentary elections, but alas, no more.

And I would vote as in general elections were I allowed to do so. I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will tell us what plans the government has to enable peers to vote in general elections in future. My Lords, the need to tighten up the present arrangements for political party financing is clear. As the noble Lord, Lord Nolan has said, the Law Commission reported in 2000, when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister, that the current laws governing elections should be rationalised with a single, consistent legislative framework and the Rycroft Review recommended in April 2026 under the present Prime Minister, that there should be an annual cap on donations from British donors living abroad, a moratorium on donations in crypto assets, and that political parties ability to monitor donations and deal with the threat of foreign financial interference should be strengthened.

Now, that's all very sensible, and I'm glad that some, at least of the Rycroft report's recommendations, will be included in amendments to the representation of the people Bill. And could the noble Lord, the Minister, update us on the progress of that important Bill? And could the noble Lord the Minister, also update us on proposals to strengthen the Electoral Commission, whose role in monitoring and enforcing the present system is absolutely crucial? My Lords, it does strike me as the noble Lord Lord Blunkett has said that this is all becoming quite urgent.

The noble Lord Lord Greenhalgh has rightly spoken of the importance of trust in our political system and trust in our political parties. The Electoral Commission's annual public opinion tracker shows that 14% of the British public think that political party financing is transparent, and without transparency, there is no trust. And without trust we will see the rise of parties on the extremes and a dangerous lack of public confidence in our democracy. So we need reforms soon. And my Lords, there are alternative ways of funding political parties.

France, Germany and Spain all permit public funding under certain conditions, and to do so here would not be especially innovative. There is already short money. There is the Policy Development Grants scheme. There is free TV airtime for party political broadcasts. Nonetheless. Nonetheless, I know the outcry that further public funding of political parties might cause. One can imagine the response of the Daily Mail if it were proposed by the Labour Party and the Daily Mirror, if it were proposed by the Conservative Party.

But if the choice is between the continuation of the present system, with all its failings on the one hand, and public funding effectively monitored by the Electoral Commission on the other, I would not, as a taxpayer, self-evidently choose the former. I therefore hope that all three political parties in responding to this debate, will make clear their absolute commitment to reformed and properly monitored political party funding arrangements that will still, arguments for extended public funding.
12:20
Lord Johnson of Lainston Portrait Lord Johnson of Lainston (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord. >> Into this important matter. >> But more to help put the record straight than to add further fuel to the misconception about. >> How mainstream political.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

How mainstream political. Parties raise funds. The Earl of Kinnoull raised some extremely important points, but the situation, as he illustrated, were criminal acts. In my view, the law was clear it's the enforcement that is the problem now, I've been involved in party fundraising for, I think with the exception of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, probably longer than anyone in this House, and I see it as my duty to encourage people to support my party. And indeed, when asked by people from other persuasions if they should donate to their cause, I always encourage that too.

I don't have an interest to register. I've stopped raising money for the Conservative Party for this time. I find I run out of friends and people are crossing the road to avoid me. But in all my time as a treasurer and as chairman and as vice chairman for finance, for the last 15 or so years, I never, not once, not ever was asked to influence something in exchange for a donation. All our donors wanted and sadly seldom got, were basic conservative principles put to work in government.

And I'm sure I see some union Barons opposite. They probably feel the same way about their own contributions. It's a totally incorrect idea that there is a nefarious influence, either from home or abroad. In fact, everyone who I dealt with in the Conservative Party involved in finding funding were absolutely petrified that they might break the rules in some way. So what these debates do in these sentiments end up doing, actually, is building further on the myth that giving to a political party is somehow a bad act.

We in this House should actually be making it easier to donate less friction, full and frankly, more applauded. The noble Lords worry about the potential for Elon Musk to make huge donations, but that is illegal for him to do that as a foreign citizen from a foreign entity. And in fact, it will be worse for us if mainstream parties cannot raise enough money to take their messages out to the electorates and are superseded by fringe parties. Instead, the proposals for enhancing the powers of the Electoral Commission do have some merit, though the reducing of certain classes of offence, as has been mentioned to a civil matter, is eminently sensible.

The fear of good people acting as election agents or some village tombola raising a few hundred pounds should not be a matter for the police where genuine mistakes are made. This is a good move for our politics and I applaud the current leadership of the Electoral Commission for their very sensible approach to proportionality, which we should always bear in mind. And now what I would recommend is probably a bit contentious from my own side, but is quite simple, which is we should impose a cap.

And I said this consistently of donations from any one individual. It could be £100,000 or 5075, whatever it is to be discussed. But we should at the same time raise the threshold of reporting to a higher level, maybe £20,000, under which only a record should be kept, and remove small fundraising events entirely from the onerous rules which reduce the level of local activity in politics. No one person should be able to buy a political party, but many people should be encouraged to engage at a sensible level and not be hounded for it.

And unless we do these things, we will further denigrate our system to huge cost to our security and our future. And I also think to some extent, this should relate to the unions. I'm very careful, and I don't like the political manoeuvring that tries to limit the power of unions to donate, because the Conservative Party has a foundation, which is also an aggregation of donations, which is a very important part of our funding. But we should be aware of where influence is directed, and to suggest that the unions don't have direct policy making power is absurd.

Indeed, they've been championed in terms of how they've selected the new leader of the Labour Party and potentially the new Prime Minister. So any debate we have, we should be very open about that because that's what we want is transparency. And if we have transparency, we'll have faith in politics. My Lords, at the end of the day, we are missing a key point here. The real issue is to confront the fact that we now have in this Parliament, MPs elected not on national issues, but on narrow sectarian issues based on communities abroad.

We have serious issues of voter fraud, family voting, intimidation of candidates and people's trust in our elections is declining fast. We are so worried that a rich American might give some money to restore that. We are totally missing the point about where we should be directing our attention. The people who are trying to influence our politics from abroad, they're not donating to the Conservative or Labour or Liberal Democrats. They're running their operations from abroad in order to influence voting intentions here.

And we're entirely missing the point. If we think that it's about donations to parties, we should use this debate not to spend our time limiting and controlling, but in finding ways to enlarge the support bases of our mainstream parties, showing the country that donating to a political party is a good thing, and using our powers here to encourage people to step forward and become a more meaningful part of our democracy. The alternative is state funding of political parties, which we can neither afford, and I don't think we should support.
12:25
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Portrait Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. Labour's 2024 >> My Lords. Labour's 2024 manifesto promised to protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political rules around donations to political parties, an aim shared, I'm sure, by all of us, from whichever party or none. Trust in politics, in Parliament, in our system of government and law making, is crucial for the maintenance of democracy. But sadly, such trust has declined and we need action to restore that trust. Money is one element. Donations to political parties have a sort of whiff of buying influence or access, whether the money comes from corporate, from companies or wealthy individuals.

And I say wealthy because it is big money that concerns people, not the purchase of £20 of raffle tickets that, yes, we still do. The government has taken action. And unlike Lord the noble Lord Lord Maude, I'm delighted that the Rycroft review recommended a cap on donation from non-residents. It's been mentioned by other noble Lords. Most in the House will know that I've raised this issue ever since the last government extended from 15 years to life, the period when those who've left our shores but still have a UK Parliament passport can remain on the electoral roll.

So I do welcome the cap, though I still actually can't understand how someone who pays no tax here doesn't use our services or contribute to our economy or to civil society should be able to fund a political party. They've no skin in the game, so why are they influencing our politics? By financing a party's ability to campaign and win? We've already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kanu, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett, about the enormous amounts of money paid to reform by people who no longer live here.

I think some of them are based in Thailand and elsewhere. That money from people who do not live here, they may have a British passport, is not good for politics, and it's not good for our democracy. And further than that, how many how can we check on the bona fides of overseas donors in a sort of know your donor requirement? Where did they get the money from that they're then going to contribute? Is it their own or has it come from a non permitted donor? And is the donor even alive or in prison? And are they working for another government? Maybe quite legitimately, but does that feel a bit odd that they're then funding our political parties? And how is the electoral Commission or indeed any individual party going to police these donations and undertake due diligence, either on the person or on the source of their money? Furthermore, how effective in terms of democracy is a cap of £100,000 a year per person.

So over a five year parliament, a couple could give half £1 million each. It's £1 million per parliament from an ex-pat couple who may or may not have lived here for decades and may have no intention of returning. I hope when the bill arrives here, I and others in the House can persuade my government to reduce this cap to ten 000 a year, or else make donations only possible for those who are registered for tax in the United Kingdom.

My second ask of the government is to support my private member's bill, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow. This would require any person or organisation lobbying a Minister or permanent secretary to be on the register of lobbyists and report such meetings. It's not a lot to ask, and what virtually all our equivalent democracies do. I'm an old lobbyist, so I have no problem with the practice. In fact, I think when I was lobbying on behalf of Alcohol Concern, the noble Lord Lord Frost was arguing exactly the other case on behalf of the Scotch Whisky Association.

Quite right that we both did that. But surely that should be out in the open, because many of these lobbying approaches are from people with money behind them. Good government does mean listening to everyone affected by policies or legislation and affected by policies, but it shouldn't be in secret. We should be able to see who has the ear of government. Can I finally just finish by thanking the noble Earl Lord Kinnock for introducing this and for particularly his opening bits about Scotland.

It is bad for the whole of the United Kingdom. What has happened in one part of it.
12:30
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Well done. >> Well done. Good. >> It's very good that we're having this discussion today, and I want to raise two issues in it, the to raise two issues in it, the first being the role of the Electoral Commission and the second being an issue around the being an issue around the composition of the electoral register. Now, on the first, on the role of the Electoral Commission, I can't entirely agree with the general approval of the direction of travel of the Electoral Commission in recent years.

And I do worry, actually, that we are creating another quango, as we have done in other areas before. We're creating another quango that in day to day practice is relatively unaccountable. Now, we've touched on the reporting arrangements that were originally brought in for the Electoral Commission when it was created. It's not real accountability to the Speaker's Committee. It's a it's a sort of financial scrutiny loop, really. And the Speaker's Committee, of course, has a government majority on it.

And that's why the government that I was briefly part of changed this in 2022. So there was at least some attempt to pay due regard to broader strategic priorities in this area. And of course, we're now going to change this this back. It seems the problem is that somebody has to decide how the Electoral Commission acts, and if it isn't proper accountability from outsiders, then it is the permanent bureaucracy who run it. And the permanent bureaucracy is not, in my view, neutral, but has this very strong worldview in these areas.

We saw it on the Electoral commission during the Brexit period, when the commission went after people without properly understanding its own rules and putting individuals through the ringer. We saw it. And I say this at the risk of distressing the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, but we saw it in the highly contentious and political recommendations in some areas of the Rycroft review, and we see it in some of the actions of the Electoral Commission. Even today. I don't think the Electoral Commission ought to be a semi political actor, and I don't think the head of the electoral Commission ought to be a political figure.

But that's what's beginning to happen. I happen to agree with his comments a few months back that I quote, as a matter of principle, we don't think the capacity constraints are a legitimate reason for delaying long planned elections. But I don't think it's the job of the head of the Electoral Commission to be rebuking the elected government on these highly political areas. I think there are real risks here, my Lords. The only thing would be worse than government. Direction of the commission would be the Commission becoming a player itself.

It should be an umpire, not a player. The head of an electoral regulator carries automatic media authority. When he pronounces on contested questions, he lends the weight of officialdom to one side of a live political argument. Public confidence depends on visible restraint by the Electoral Commission. I worry that the powers that we're about to give it are going to push it in the opposite direction. On my second point on the electoral register, we all believe, and we often say, that you have to be a British citizen to be able to donate to a political party.

And Ministers often say this actually, it's not true. The condition is you have to be on the electoral register. And as we know, the electoral register includes many qualifying Commonwealth citizens and indeed Irish citizens resident here. So the right to bankroll the British political party actually goes rather further. Now, of course, the real problem is not the donation issue itself, but the absurdity in the first place of having large numbers of non-British citizens on our electoral register. And I must say that when I have written and spoken on this subject, I find that people are incredulous, literally incredulous.

They cannot believe that you do not have to be a British citizen to be on the UK electoral register. The scale isn't marginal. It runs to the millions. Almost certainly the Electoral Commission itself holds no record of it, but we can estimate it. In the 2021 census, there were a million adults here holding only a Commonwealth passport. That figure has plausibly doubled at least since then. The Electoral Commission's own report in 2023 found that 66% of eligible Commonwealth citizens in Great Britain were in fact registered to vote.

Now, this isn't even properly policed. Zimbabwe withdrew from the Commonwealth in 2003. Yet more than 20 years on, its nationals can still register to vote because Parliament never amended the relevant schedule to the Nationality Act. My Lords, this isn't a new problem. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith in 2008 recommended the rules should be changed to establish a clear connection between citizenship and the right to vote and to donate, and that has never been taken up. My Lords, I think this is the real scandal.

If we're really worried about foreign influence in our politics, we need to stop foreign citizens voting. If people want to vote in our country, they need to commit to our country and become citizens. I think this anomaly has lasted too long and it really should be ended.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I declare an interest since I've been advising the since I've been advising the charity Spotlight on Corruption on these issues. I'm very grateful indeed to the noble Earl, Lord indeed to the noble Earl, Lord North, for initiating this debate, since what is more important than
12:35
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
policy making. Now that we have more parties, some at the extremes of right and left, competing for power and receiving large donations, the need to instil a greater degree of fairness in how much each party can receive and spend has never been so important. To their credit, the government are addressing some of the issues in their representation of the people Bill, such as the commencement of section 54 A of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which will require donors to declare if they've received money from another individual in connection with their donation and parties will be prohibited from accepting any donation without such a declaration.

But the wording of section 54 A enacted unbelievably 17 years ago but never commenced, is vague and too easy to circumvent in 2026. It prohibits money given to the UK donor quote with a view to or otherwise in connection with the making of the donation, unquote. However, the UK donor might have received the money from a person abroad who was not on the electoral roll and who purported to give it for a different purpose in circumstances where it was obvious to each of them, but no one else, that it was intended as a political donation.

It's a point which the noble Baroness Baroness Hayter touched on. One answer is to expressly prohibit foreign money unless earned by an elector here or abroad, since it would be much easier to establish where the money's come from abroad and test the legitimacy of that than to try to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the donor knowingly or recklessly made an unlawful declaration. Under section 54 a the government have said they will impose a 100 zero zero £0 limit on donations from an elector abroad, but this does not deal with electors abroad, and it also seems inconsistent to treat electors in the UK and abroad differently.

So it does not deal with non electors abroad. And it also seems inconsistent to treat electors in the UK and abroad differently as an alternative to a donation cap. Is it time for a tighter cap on campaign spending after the 80% increase in the spending limit in 2023, both Labour and Conservative increased their campaign spending by tens of millions. Set at the right level, spending limits promote fairness by preventing wealthier parties massively outspending others, and they thereby reduce the risk of electoral success being influenced by financial power.

The amount of the spending limit should be independently agreed with the Electoral Commission, the Ethics and Integrity Commission and the speaker's committee. Fair spending limits are arguably the best way of putting political parties on a more equal footing. Professor Keith Ewing put it not having fair spending limits is like, quote, inviting two people to participate in a race, with one participant turning up with a bicycle and the other with a sports car. The government should also facilitate criminal enforcement, which is virtually non-existent.

Despite receiving referrals from the Electoral Commission, there have been no prosecutions by the met, no doubt because of the complexities of electoral law, lack of resources and other priorities. But there's no point in having rules if they're not enforced. The Electoral Commission have the expertise in electoral law, and one option is to give them more resources to investigate offences, for example, by having greater powers to demand information from financial institutions and others, with the police retaining responsibility to refer cases to the CPS.

Alternatively, as recommended by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy in their recent third report, creating a new National Political Finance Enforcement Unit staffed by Secondees from across existing agencies to conclude, election bills don't come around much. The government are addressing some issues in their bill, but not going far enough. They need to take this rare opportunity to finish the job by tightening restrictions on political donations and spending, and giving more powers to the Electoral Commission to investigate breaches.
12:40
Lord Massey of Hampstead Portrait Lord Massey of Hampstead (Conservative)
-
-
Can I start. for introducing this debate on such an important subject for our country? I declare my interest as a former chief executive of the Conservative Party and indeed a donor to the party for over 25 years, although not on the scale of Mr. Harbaugh. It's a great shame. So I come to this debate from a slightly different angle, perhaps from other noble Lords. I've always believed that assisting the work of a political party that shares one's views and values is a form of public service.

As a party, the Conservative Party has always been deeply committed to the principles of the electoral commissions, and we have. We adhered very carefully to the rules and carried out, always carried out detailed due diligence on large donors. I agree with the idea of a cap on overseas donors, and with the idea of increased fines for misconduct. However, I am also concerned about some proposals in the bills, which would be unfair to companies wanting to support any of our parties.

I'd also like to address another concern, which is the matter of electoral fraud, as I am concerned that some of the items in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill could have Unintended consequences of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Unintended consequences of making this easier. My Lords, most political parties believe that companies should indeed be able to donate to a political party. At the same time, we are all aware of the same time, we are all aware of the potential for foreign money to enter our politics, which of course can come through individuals as can come through individuals as well as corporates. The question is, what is the test we ought to apply in practice to judge eligibility to donate, and the bill stipulates three tests, and perhaps I'm getting slightly ahead of myself, as the bill isn't yet before us, but I am addressing an item that will be in the bill.

The three tests are UK generated revenues, UK headquarters and majority UK control. I strongly agree with the last two. We need companies to be in the UK and and majority controlled by UK shareholders. However, the idea that the revenue should be generated in the UK itself could create some unfairness to those who make some or all of their revenues outside of the UK. The revenue source condition will stop, will not stop a determined shell company, but it does penalise genuine UK owned businesses.

In addition, the information on the geographic source of revenue is simply not discoverable for private companies, effectively making it impossible to apply this new test to any company. So I would ask the government to look again at this revenue source requirement. And I now turn to the question of voter fraud, which is another serious issue that should concern all of us. The bill unwittingly might be opening a door to fraud by allowing Non-photo ID to be used as verification.

The bill also provides for the acceptance without proper checks of digital ID, and introduces the idea of vouching. For those who haven't read about vouching. This means that voter A can tell the polling station staff that voter B is eligible and has the necessary ID. These proposals amount to a significant loosening of our voter verification rules. At a time when there are rising concerns at the growing number of election frauds that have been alleged over several years. If we are worried about interference in our politics and we should be, we ought to be alive to the real risks posed in certain areas of voter fraud.

In this context. It is not clear why any dilution in the stricter requirement introduced by the last government should be reduced. This fraud risk is also reinforced by the proposal of automatic registration, which will provide further opportunities for wrongful voting. As we know, the electoral roll is only 84% accurate. However, I do want to commend the government on one important change, which is that for candidates for UK general and local elections, they will now have to prove their identity. It seems extraordinary, does it not, that until now we have allowed people to stand for Parliament without actually having them prove their identity.

The whole system needs to be as rigorous as possible in order to reinforce public confidence in our electoral system and democracy itself. It is all about trust, as mentioned by Earl of Kinnoull right at the beginning of this debate. A final concern I would like to raise, and I'll be very brief, is about votes for 16 year olds, as this change is manifestly inconsistent with almost all rules defining adulthood, including by the by this government and the eligibility rules of the overwhelming majority of EC countries.

In implementing the social media ban up to 16, the government recognised the vulnerability of young people to malign influences. Yet this bill places an expectation of competency for them to vote as soon as they turn 16, which is a dangerous precedent, I think, and should be resisted when the bill comes before us.
12:46
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard Portrait Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (Crossbench)
-
-
Introducing debate with his >> Introducing debate with his usual courtesy and wisdom. But he also reminded us that as a also reminded us that as a Highlander, for all the courtesy, he carries a claymore I, I, I can't he carries a claymore I, I, I can't follow him. And I'm a boring lowlander. I want to support Lord Blunkett plea for urgency with the representation of the people Bill. I, I think it's it's worrying that it's three months since the Rycroft report came out.

I thought Rycroft was quite right when he presented it, saying he didn't want to press a panic button, but he did want to ring an alarm bell. I think it is alarming. If you look at the particular angle that I'd like to explore is one that hasn't been touched on so far in this debate is hostile state actors using agents of opportunity, gullible, greedy, or malevolent in this country. I, I think we need to look closely at the financial links that have been well documented between our N in France and Moscow, the links that are well documented between the AfD in Germany and Moscow, and the link with Budapest is, of course, notorious.

There were reports of close involvement interference by Russia in the Romanian and Moldovan elections. I don't I can't stand that up, but it seemed to be convincing reporting. Last weekend I heard a senior Ukrainian say that with the war going rather better, even though the Americans have reduced their support. The worst thing for Ukraine, the thing they feared most now was an election going wrong in a major European state. I think he was talking about France, but he might have been talking about Italy or Germany, or he could have been talking about us.

What? What will the Russians be doing if they reach the same analysis? If they believe that undermining our trust in our democracy or assisting in getting in power in West, in a Western European capital, a an a party less willing to support Ukraine. You don't need a crystal ball. They've done it before. They know how to do it. The representation of the People Act has been sitting in in the Commons, and we don't know when Report stage is coming up.

I think that the message we should send Lord Blunkett message is that we want to see it soon, and we want to see it amended, strengthened along the lines that Rycroft recommended. We need to increase rather sharply the penalties if political parties are found not to have checked adequately on their donors if they don't know their donors, and that a state actor turns out to have been behind a donation by an individual, an association or a company, and we should nudge the parties in the right direction by increasing the risks of their not doing so.

By giving the Electoral Commission unless they run. If they don't do so by giving the Electoral Commission stronger investigatory powers, the power to require information from other government agencies. As the noble Lord Lord Greenhalgh recommended, and the deterrent of much higher penalties. I don't share Lord Frost concern about the leadership of the Electoral Commission, the current leader of the Electoral Commission and Lord Frost occupied the same desk in the Foreign Office, and they were both extremely effective.

I hope the government are using the delay in the Bill to strengthen it, and that toughened up. It will reach us before the leaves are off the trees. Rycroft was right to sound the alarm.
12:51
Lord Shamash Portrait Lord Shamash (Labour)
-
-
Thank you for allowing me to speak in the gap. I declare an interest. Having been the electoral interest. Having been the electoral lawyer to the Labour Party for many decades. I just want to talk to one decades. I just want to talk to one small, narrow issue. One particular frustrating one, though, is the consolidation of the representation consolidation of the representation of people at the number of volumes that you have on my desk. Is this wide? It's about time we did this.

It's been called for for years. What I'm particularly concerned about is enforcement, and it's actually quite tricky the way you deal with this. If an MP has transgressed, you can bring an election petition or defend it or commence an election petition. That is very, very, very expensive to do. And parties and people I've advised over the years have had to think twice about, is this something they want to take the risk for? There is a legislation that many of my noble friends will know called the Recall of Parliament Act.

So yes, recall of Parliament Act 2015, where MPs can be recalled if they are convicted or suspended by the House of Commons. And I think I would invite my noble friend, the Minister, to think how we could revisit this bit of legislation and whether the better bits of that legislation could be incorporated, perhaps in a separate legislative legislation or amended bit of legislation, so that the enforcement powers could be such that if somebody gives foreign money, comes in and seeks to promote whoever it is and they win an election, they're there, they're elected, and the procedure to get rid of them has got to be easier and clearer and obvious to the public, because otherwise people will give up because they don't have the resources, they don't have the political commitment to it.

I'm going to ask the Minister to perhaps think I'm very happy to meet with him separately about this, just to see how we could take this forward. But enforcement and Lord Jay is no longer in his place. Did raise this. And it's important that the Electoral Commission has that kind of power to be able to achieve this. But again, we've got to be very careful about giving the electoral commission too much power, because we don't want them breathing down the necks of all the politicians.

And I'm sure many of you who have been involved in politics over the years would not want that. So thank you very much indeed. And that hopefully the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister will now consolidate the representation of the people at. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Join with others in thanking the noble Earl Lord O'Donnell for such a helpful and timely debate. And I a helpful and timely debate. And I think, particularly as we have heard from the contributions today, it is useful to be debating this it is useful to be debating this topic in advance of legislation coming to this House. But with a step back from the necessary micro
12:54
Lord Pack Portrait Lord Pack (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
focus, we very quickly get into when the exact legislation is in front of us. As someone who has also long called for consolidation of election law, I've been particularly heartened at the number of contributions, including the one just before me, highlighting this issue and raising its importance. And when I did ask an oral question in this place a little while ago about the topic, it was perhaps understandable, but a little bit disappointing that the government's position seemed to be that because consolidation will take a long period of time to carry off, that, it wasn't going to prioritise it.

Now, one can therefore, unfortunately characterise the government's position as being because it's going to take a long time. We're going to put off starting it when there is an alternative interpretation, which is, of course, because it's going to take a long time to do. Maybe that's all the more reason to get on with starting it sooner rather than later. And I also very much agree with Lord Carter's comments about the long delay in implementing the provision about the original source of money, and it is welcome to say something nicer about the government's position in this case.

It is welcome that the government has definitely moved on that from. For example, it happened to be the very topic of my first oral question in this House, and it certainly should acknowledge the government has moved on that issue. But underlying all of this is a basic tension in a free and democratic society. It's that tension between, on the one hand, the basic principle of one person, one vote, and essential equality between us all, but also in a free and democratic society.

We all should be free to spend or give our money as we wish. And that therefore does mean that those with more money inevitably have an ability to chip away a little bit at that fundamental equality that there should be in a democracy. So not all of these issues are going to be easy to resolve or address, but I did think it might be useful, therefore, to focus in on one particular area which hasn't had attention so far in the debate today.

And that is the issue about donations that are made directly to candidates at election time and therefore declared on their candidate expense returns. This is an issue that I did some research on with Chris Butler that was published in Political Quarterly a couple of years ago. I'm sure you're all deeply familiar with that, but I will just expand a little. For those of you who are newer to the topic, which is that if, for example, a general election time someone makes a donation to a candidate, which is then declared on their election expense return perfectly, legally and properly, the problem is that money then essentially disappears from the system because those donations, director candidates, don't appear in the Electoral Commission's register of donations that are published.

And moreover, when Chris and I asked the Electoral Commission for copies of some of the expense returns that they had kept so that we could do our research, they decided, and I'm sure they did this on good legal advice, but they decided they could only share those forms with the names of the donors redacted for data protection reasons. So we have a system where donations are declared on bits of paper. But when you ask to see the bits of paper, the name of the donor is redacted.

That is, I think it's fair to say, an unsatisfactory situation. It's also unsatisfactory, not just in principle, because our estimate was that around £3.5 million was donated at the 2019 general election in this way. So it's not merely a sort of obscure, fun, trivial point, but it is actually a route by which literally millions of pounds are flowing into our political system. And indeed, about 1 in 4 of the donations received by candidates who were successful and were elected were donations direct to them, not the recycling of money from a political party that was then passed on to them and, as I said, in effect, kept secret who those donations were from.

Now, of course, in some cases where people then are successful and are elected, there is the MPs register of interest, which people are meant to fill in and declare appropriate sums on, but that does not wholly solve the problem, because that only applies to donations actually of a higher threshold. It only applies to people who are successful and given the names were redacted on the on the forms that the Electoral Commission were willing to provide. One has to step cautiously in trying to compare those forms with the MPs register of interests.

But certainly Chris Butler and I found that about 1 in 10 of the donations that appear to be of a significant enough sum to an MP that they should then be on the MPs register of interest. There was no matching entry on the MPs register of interests of the right size. And so while there may be 1 or 2 explanations in 1 or 2 cases, I think it is also fair to say there is a question about how the system does not appear to be properly joined up, and a non-trivial amount of donations that people who end up being MPs receive and should be declaring do not appear to be being properly recorded at the moment.

Now, there are many other circumstances in which donations direct to candidates and direct to politicians is absolutely reasonable and legit and above board. And the system works well. And I say that not only because myself, when I've twice run to be president of my own political party, received donations directly, which are all properly recorded. And indeed you can look them up on the Electoral Commission website. But I hope the example I've given highlights how much of an issue there is around the donations of money directly to individuals.

And I will just briefly give one other example, which is the representation of the people bill as it currently stands, introduces, it is true, a cap on foreign donations, but that cap is a per candidate cap. It's a per person cap, and therefore very simply for any political party that is contesting all the seats in the country. Most of the parties that contest generally across the board do not also stand in Northern Ireland. So it's what, 633 or maybe 632 also exclude the the Speaker The 632 candidates.

Well, you can therefore essentially donate. Under the current proposals, you will be able to donate 632 times the cap. So in fact, the figures that are Baroness Hayter gave earlier are unduly modest in terms of the amount of money that could quite legitimately be given within the spirit of what is currently proposed. So I very much hope we will be hearing from the noble Lord, the Minister, some intentions and some thoughts around tightening up some of the proposals, particularly around this issue, about donations that are made directly to politicians and to candidates.

And of course, if the Electoral Commission is is right, and I grant, you know, they will have taken some specialist advice on this. But if the Electoral Commission is right that it is not allowed to release the names of those donors, that may indeed be a suitable ground for perhaps an additional amendment to the representation of the people Bill when it comes our way. But also more generally, I will end on this, what may seem slightly less important point, but it is a fundamental underpinning point.

This issue about consolidation of election law. It's really easy to always think that tidying stuff up, making it neater, making it a bit more. That's just never quite the priority. I will confess, I've never put demanding consolidation of election law on as the headline story on the front of the Lib Dem Focus leaflet, and were I to find a colleague who was planning to do so, I would very much be reaching for the phone to tell the printers don't print this yet, but nonetheless, that long term commitment to keeping things neat and tidy, clear and comprehensible does bring significant benefits.

The Rycroft review rightly highlights the potential benefit in terms of helping protect our democracy against foreign interference. Returning officers would absolutely talk about the benefits of making their lives easier, and in particular, in an environment of very stretched budgets, actually making it more possible to run elections successfully in a more cost effective manner. And so perhaps a bit like the frustrated parent who is trying to tell their teenage child to remember, actually, no, you do have to tidy your bedroom. Now, again, I hope in that spirit, we will be hearing from the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister on the topic of consolidation as well. My.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My. My Lords, I thank. The I to. Thank the noble Earl of Kinnoull for bringing forward this important for bringing forward this important debate and also for the opportunity to discuss some of the issues beforehand. There is a simple constitutional question at the heart of this matter. A government should not direct the power of the
13:02
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
should not direct the power of the state to undercut the lawful flow of funds to its political opponents. Once that line is crossed, it is not easily uncrossed. It invites reprisal when power changes hands, and it weakens public confidence that electoral law is being made in the national interest, rather than the interests of the party temporarily in office. Party finance law is not ordinary law making. It is the law by which the competitors in our democracy agree upon the rules of the contest.

The government of the day is the trustee of those rules, not the proprietor. The previous government was right to be tough on hostile state activity. It passed the National Security Act 2023, creating the statutory framework for the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. No one in this House should be complacent about foreign interference, but the existence of that threat does not justify Ministers blurring the distinction between foreign interference and lawful donations by registered electors or genuine UK businesses. This side of the House has been consistent.

Changes to the rules should be made through proper cross-party consultation. That is a long honoured constitutional custom, an argument so eloquently put forward by my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham. In its 2016 report, the House of Lords Select Committee on Trade Union Political Funds and Party Political and Political Party funding, chaired by the noble Lord Lord Burns, recorded the importance of cross-party consensus on matters affecting the interests of rival parties. The committee quoted Sir Winston Churchill as indeed, and Lord Maude referred to him, which was delivered in the other place on the 16th of February 1948.

It has become a well established custom that matters. Affecting the interests of rival parties should not be settled by the imposition of the will of one side over the other, but by an agreement reached either between the leaders of the main parties and or by conferences. Under the impartial guidance of Mr. Speaker, my Lords, that was the right principle in 1948, and it remains the right principle today. It is striking that one of the witnesses who repeated Churchill's words to the committee was the then general secretary of the Labour Party, now the noble Lord Lord McNicol of West Kilbride.

He described that custom as a principle of fairness. So I therefore simply ask the noble Lord, the Minister, what has changed. Sir Nick Clegg warned that issues of money and power in British politics should be dealt with on a cross-party basis. Jack Straw said that in this area, the government of the day acts as a trustee for our democratic system. They were both right. Following Sir Hayden Phillips's report, commissioned by Sir Tony Blair, cross-party talks were convened. In 2011. Sir Nick Clegg again convened cross-party talks on party funding and donations.

In 2013, an unofficial cross-party working group published a draft bill. My Lords, if cross-party consensus was already a well established custom in 1948, then by 2026 it is more than a passing courtesy. Whether or not one calls it a full constitutional convention, it is plainly an established democratic restraint. The Byrnes committee ultimately concluded. While there is no formal convention that all reform of party funding must take place by consensus, history shows that governments of both main parties have acted with a degree of restraint, and indeed, it is desirable to seek consensus.

If any government were to use its majority unilaterally to inflict significant damages on the finances of opposition parties, it was risk starting a tit for tat conflict which could harm parliamentary democracy. That warning could hardly be clearer. Whatever party's in power, it would be detrimental for conventions to break down and to open the door to US style, hyper partisan legislation. As Nick Clegg warned the committee in 2016, if a government acted unilaterally, it would rue the day because one day the boot will be on the other foot.

My Lords, that is why the government's handling of the Rycroft review and the representation of the people Bill is so troubling. I do not here criticise Sir Philip Rycroft Review, nor do I deny that there are legitimate questions about transparency, enforcement and the resilience of our political finance system. But an independent review commissioned by Ministers is not a substitute for proper cross-party talks led by Ministers. The Labour Party manifesto contained a broad statement that the government would protect democracy by strengthening the rules around donations to political parties.

That sentence does not give Ministers carte blanche to rewrite the financial rules of political competition unilaterally. Ministers have said that officials have engaged with political parties through the Parliamentary Parties Panel on Technical Aspects of reform. That is not enough. Technical consultation with party professionals is not the same as cross-party political agreement, a review by officials or by an independent reviewer is not the same as party leaders, Ministers and opposition parties sitting down to agree rules that affect them all.

Now, the government has chosen to take forward some of the recommendations, but not all of them, through the representation of the people Bill. That selective approach is precisely why trust is so important. If Ministers cherry pick from a review in a way that happens to disadvantage their political opponents, they should expect the closest possible scrutiny from this House. My Lords, I turn first to the proposed cap on donations from overseas electors, and I should like to make one point absolutely clear there is a fundamental distinction between foreign interference and a lawful donation from a British citizen who is registered to vote, and I take note of what the noble Lord Lord Frost said about being a British citizen.

There is a long standing principle originally recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, that permissible donors should include those on the electoral UK electoral register prior to 2022. British citizens overseas could already vote in UK parliamentary elections and make donations subject to the 15 year time limit. In response to the comments made by Lord. Lord, what the noble Lord Lord Wallace of Saltaire, the Elections Act did not invent that principle. It removed the arbitrary 15 year cut off. The government proposes a £100,000 annual cap on donations and regulated transactions by overseas electors, with retrospective effect from the date of announcement.

We do not support that arbitrary cap and we do not support its retrospective application. All this should not happen without cross-party agreement. I turn next to corporate donations, a matter so effectively addressed by my noble friend Lord Massey. If Ministers intend to adopt a post tax profit test, they should first publish a full impact assessment showing how it would affect donors across all parties, including donations accepted by the governing party itself. They should explain how the rule would apply to start ups, investment heavy businesses, social enterprises, companies and volatile sectors, and firms with uneven earnings.

They should also explain why a profit test is preferable to genuine business, to a genuine business test backed by stronger due diligence and enforcement. The government should not smuggle through a major restriction on corporate political giving under the banner of anti interference. My Lord, the. The noble Lord Earl, the Earl of Kinnoull, has rightly drawn attention to the important role of the Commission, the Electoral Commission. We agree that it needs operational independence and sufficient resources to perform its functions effectively and command the confidence of the British people.

The moral case is a salutary reminder that the improper use of party funds is not a technicality. It strikes at trust in political life. But that case also illustrates the point. The answer to to wrongdoing is the effective enforcement of the law. As my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston made clear, it is not the partisan remaking of political finance rules in a way that burdens lawful opponents. My Lords, the government's present approach risks confusing two very different things. One is the legitimate need to protect our democracy from foreign interference and financial abuse.

The other is the temptation for a government to tilt the rules of political competition in its favour. This House should be vigilant in resisting the second, while supporting the first. We are ready to engage seriously on transparency, enforcement and the protection of our democracy. But we will not accept unilateral, retrospective and partisan changes to party finance law. We will not accept the conflation of British overseas voters with foreign actors. We will not accept broad restrictions on genuine UK businesses without proper evidence, proper scrutiny and proper cross-party agreement.

The government should change course. It should withdraw from unilateralism. It should convene proper cross-party talks. It should return to the constitutional restraint that has served our parliamentary democracy so well. Above all, Ministers should remember that in this field they are not merely legislators, they are trustees of the democratic system itself.
13:12
Lord Lemos Portrait Lord Lemos, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Yes. >> Yes. >> My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate on the regulation of political finance and the role of the Electoral Commission, and I thank the noble Earl Lord Kinnock for opening the debate and other noble Lords for their contributions. For what what has been a fascinating and very, very timely and important debate. And it is clear from these contributions that we all share a deep commitment to sustaining trust in our elections and in our democracy.

And that is what is at the heart of the government's approach. I'll try, my Lords, to to respond to the many important questions raised, but I'm afraid I'm a bit hopeless at the name checking. But. But I'll do my best. But I will certainly read Hansard carefully with my officials and, if necessary, follow up any points I miss in writing. My Lords, I do want to start by making the general point, which I know other noble Lords have made, not least the noble Earl Lord Kinnock.

There are. Democracy in this country is central to our very identity as a nation, and our. And our democracy is is respected, and in many cases revered around the world. And we are all proud of that democratic heritage and seek to protect it. This is why it is a priority for this government to stop into foreign interference in UK politics, including from foreign state actors, as Lord Kerr has said, and protect our democracy. And a key pillar of this is strengthening the rules on political donations and ensuring ensuring they are effectively enforced.

The representation of the people Bill contains crucial reforms that will deliver stronger safeguards against interference from malign foreign actors. And I do recognise what the noble Baroness, Baroness Finn, said that the previous government did indeed take action which which we have built on greater transparency for voters and more effective enforcement. These reforms implement a number of recommendations from key stakeholders, including the Ethics and Integrity Commission and the Electoral Commission, and I will come in a moment to the question of consolidation of electoral reform on political finance.

Our reforms aimed to strike the right balance between protecting UK elections from foreign interference, while making sure and I do want to emphasise and reinforce this point, that legitimate donors can continue to fund electoral campaigns. This includes an enhanced due diligence. Know your donor scheme to guard against the possibility of money from illegitimate sources of finding its way into the UK political system. Lord Kerr drew attention to this are recipients of donations. Over £11,180 will be required to carry out a risk assessment, considering the risks of donations being from impermissible sources.

As such, they will have to check for signs of foreign or unlawful funding before deciding whether to accept or return the donation. I note the points made by Lord Johnson about about as being overly intrusive in these matters, but we do think these know your donor approaches will help with transparency. Key turning to company donations. Key stakeholders have also warned that the current eligibility for companies to donate is far too weak, and we are also introducing new requirements on company donations.

Lord Massey made a number of important observations about company donations. I fear I won't have time to deal with them all, but all companies will have to demonstrate that they have a genuine connection to the UK through strict new eligibility criteria, and note the points he made. I'm sure we will debate them again. They will have had to have made sufficient revenue to fund their donations, be headquartered in the UK and be majority owned or controlled by UK electors or citizens.

My Lord, it really is quite a simple principle at stake here that foreign companies, foreign investors that have no meaningful stake in the UK should not be part of our democracy. These measures will help prevent the use of shell companies and reduce the risk of improperly sourced, impermissible funds being channelled into our politics. Stakeholders. I can can I turn briefly to unincorporated associations? Stakeholders have also argued that existing rules surrounding unincorporated associations are a key vulnerability in our current regime.

We are therefore tightening these rules and improving transparency by reducing reporting thresholds. They will also be subject to stricter transparency requirements. Can I turn now to the issue that a number of noble Lords have raised, which is in relation to enforcement and and the role of the Electoral Commission? My Lords, the government's view is having a properly empowered regulator in the Electoral Commission, which has the right powers, the right deterrents and the right capacity for enforcement is essential to a functioning democracy.

To that extent, I. I don't share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord Frost, although he did make some other very significant points. These changes to the rules that we are proposing around political donations will address vulnerabilities and close loopholes in the existing systems. However, to uphold trust in our democracy, we also need to ensure, as I have said, that enforcement of those rules is robust but proportionate. We are strengthening the powers of the Electoral Commission to ensure enforcement is effective, and there is a strong deterrent for breaches of the rules.

We are extending the Electoral Commission's remit and civil sanctioning powers to include the enforcement of political finance offences relating to candidates. Currently, these can only be pursued through the police and the courts, which has led to a notable gap in effective enforcement. Since criminal prosecution is rarely pursued. Extending the Electoral Commission's role will close this enforcement gap by providing more flexible and proportionate avenues for enforcement and promote more robust and encompassing regulation regulation. We are also clear at the noble, the noble Lord noble raised this with me, and I want I want to make this point very clear.

We're also clear that a robust political finance framework must be underpinned by a strong deterrent against serious malpractice. The current maximum fine the Electoral Commission can impose is just £20,000, and that is is insufficient. And therefore we will significantly increase the Electoral Electoral Commission's fining powers to a maximum of £500,000 per offence. We hope that will have both a deterrent effect and improve enforcement. Can I turn to the points made by Lord Kinnock but also by Lord Kerr? The Electoral Commission is also hindered in its ability to share information with other regulators and law enforcement bodies, and we are therefore providing the Commission with an explicit statutory gateway to share information, nurturing collaboration on cross-cutting issues like foreign interferences.

I know many stakeholders would want us to go further, and I'm sure we will debate that at some length when the legislation comes before your Lordships House. We also recognise how vital it is for the health of our democracy that we have a regulator that is truly and fearlessly independent. And I do think this is a central point in the government's approach to this. We are appealing the government's powers to designate a strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission.

We regard that as an unwarranted requirement, and we want to put beyond any doubt the foundational principle of the Electoral Commission's independence and strengthen confidence in its abilities to oversee elections and regulate political finance without fear or favour into the future. Can I now turn to the Rycroft review, which I think virtually all noble Lords have mentioned? The government welcomes Philip Rycroft Review, and we will we will be responding to the report in full very soon.

Not in due course, but very soon. Very soon. I understand, but but I obviously am not going to give any further hints. I can I can tell your Lordships House that Report stage in the Commons will be on the 14th of July. So a number of. A number of noble Lords asked me about that, and I'm happy to confirm that's the case. We are. Lord Blunkett asked me about that with particular force, so I should acknowledge that. And we're already taking immediate steps to implement two of his recommendations through the bills currently before Parliament.

Firstly, we will cap donations from overseas electors at £100,000 a year. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lady, Lady Fin, has commented on that. And my noble friend Baroness Hayter. But. But we do want to cap donations from overseas electors and the cap will include all donations from overseas electors received from March the 25th to Lord Blunkett question. Secondly, we will introduce a complete moratorium on crypto asset donations. They're far too opaque until such point that Parliament and the Electoral Commission are satisfied that there is a sufficient regulation in place to ensure confidence and transparency in donations being made in this way.

Can I turn now to some of the specific questions that noble Lords asked me on the question of consultation on the Bill, which the noble Lord Lord Maude, but also the noble Baroness, Lady Fin, laid some emphasis on. We do accept, of course, that individual political parties are important stakeholders and are crucial to this process. It is right that reforms that. At that address systemic risks such as foreign interference, such as opaque funding routes and inconsistent assurance tests, are also grounded in independent expert analysis and not only negotiated with those who are directly regulated and affected.

This is. This ensures the framework operates impartially, consistently and free from perceptions of favouring particular parties. I do take seriously the comments that both the noble Lady, Lady Fin and Lord Maude made about the need for restraint and vigilance about tit for tat sort of prisoner's dilemma approaches to party funding. But we do think these measures will ultimately enhance trust and integrity in the system for the benefit of all campaigners. Turning to the question of overseas electors raised by Lady Fin and also by Lord Carter, many donations from British citizens, British citizens living abroad are legitimate and lawful.

We're not. We would not seek to completely prevent them. We're acting on the independent recommendations. In the Rycroft review. He identified the risks and he recommended a cap rather than an outright ban. A cap provides an additional but proportionate safeguard against the risk, and we are acting to implement this without delay. I know my noble friend Baroness Hayter has strong views on this, which she has expressed, but that's where that's where we are. And noble Lords will not expect me to comment on individual cases currently being invested, investigated either by the Parliamentary Parliamentary Standards Commissioner or the Electoral Commission.

But I would say, in response to the opening remarks of the noble Lord Earl of Kinnoull, that we do take very seriously some of the issues that have been raised in relation to these individual donations, and we would encourage all the authorities, but particularly the Electoral Commission, to. To take any investigative or enforcement action necessary. I will say this about the Peter Murrell scandal. This does raise serious questions about the SNP's misuse of donations and possibly public money as well.

About about the about the scale. Sorry, I've lost my. Of the cover up. Sorry. Has the Prime Minister said there are clearly serious, legitimate questions that deserve answers and scrutiny? And to to to the question from Lord Kinnaird. It is now for the Scottish Affairs Committee to decide whether to take undertake substantive work on this matter. A number of noble Lords raised the question of the consolidation of electoral law that Lord Lord Pack spoke eloquently on on the long history of his commitment in this area.

We do understand the calls for consolidation of electoral law and perhaps even modernisation in some ways, but the government has made manifesto commitments. And while it may be true, as the Lord noble Lord Lord Pack suggested, that if you want something that's going to take a long time, you should get on with it. And you made the analogy to tidying bedrooms. I have to say, I have a portrait record in that department. I would say these are manifesto commitments and that that is our priority.

And I think he I think he would expect and accept that. Can I just say, in relation to Lord Blunkett question about decriminalising administrative offences, our reforms will clarify that it is the Electoral Commission who is responsible for enforcing such administrative breaches via civil sanctions, allowing police resources to be directed towards tackling more serious criminal offences and clamping down on foreign money. Entering politics and. One final specific point, and then I'll wind up on donations to individuals. The government is extending the remit of the Electoral Commission to close enforcement gaps and strengthen scrutiny of candidate finance.

My Lords, I've already said that the Report stage of this bill will come to the Commons next week. On July the 14th, and we, the government, will publish our response to the Rycroft review very soon. Those are two two important milestones in this whole conversation which we will return to in the autumn, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr said, before the leaves fall from the tree.
13:28
Earl of Kinnoull Portrait The Earl of Kinnoull (Crossbench)
-
-
Well. taken part in the last very interesting 90 minutes all round. I thank particularly the Minister for answering very fully, quite a lot answering very fully, quite a lot of questions that were put to him and in an encouraging way. I thought, in summary, that the first thing, as a common theme among every everybody was there is a problem with trust, and accordingly we must do something about it. I thought that the point I wish I'd made was made by Lord Blunkett, which was about education and about the importance of educating people in our country, about our Constitution, and about the difficult things you've been talking about today.

And I do hope we'll think on that all round. I was not going to say, but I will say that my logical deduction was that Lord Johnston doesn't exchange Christmas cards with Christopher Harborne, when he said he'd run out of friends and had stopped raising money for. But anyway, I was on the trade union bill committee, and when we sat for a very intense month and were chaired by. Lord Burns in 2016. And so I well remember, in fact, all of the evidence we got and the necessity, I thought, for there to be cross-party cooperation on some of these very difficult areas that were discussed by Lord Maude and Baroness Finn and Baroness Finn.

Read out some quotes from our report. And I remember those sessions and the feeling we definitely had. Lord Burns and I, being the two crossbenchers on that committee, is that if you if you bash someone of the three main parties, then when the other party is in power, you'll get bashed back. And we were very keen with our report to point that out and to try and make sure that that we didn't get into some sort of seesaw arrangement between the two parties.

And so, speaking purely as a crossbencher, I would hope that there could be some sort of starting up of the of the cross-party consultation on this difficult area without presupposing anything to at least see if there could be a landing area, because the machine gun wasn't being aimed at the Conservative Party, it was being aimed in a different direction, and it was being aimed at the £5 million. And I well understand that. And so I'm sure there is a way through that.

Somehow the the Electoral Commission was widely praised, I think, by everybody. I was extremely interested in the noble Lord Lord Frost remarks. I don't think in listening to his remarks he was anti Electoral Commission, but he was very keen to point out that they needed to remain independent and that they must be non-partisan, non-political and I would agree with him on on all of those points all round. And I think it was a very valuable contribution. And so I had said that it was important that the Electoral Commission had the correct powers, the correct duties and the correct resources.

But there's a fourth thing that's important, which is they must remain very independent, truly crossbench, as it were. And I think that that is is something that has been widely agreed here in terms of what's going to go on. I spoke about the need for the decriminalisation, and I was very pleased to hear what the Minister said about that. I spoke about the necessity of raising fines, and I was very pleased to hear what the Minister said about that, and I spoke about the need to be able to share lots of information, and I had a very detailed briefing with the Electoral Commission about all the problems they've had with information sharing, and I was very, very pleased what Minister had to say about that.

Two very interesting speeches on the hostile states came from Lord Kerr and Lord Jay, and I must say that I think those are very wise points indeed. And I do hope that when we come to the bill, we will think hard about whether what is being proposed is going to cope with that particular threat, which is very substantial and is something that we we must not miss the opportunity which, as someone pointed out, even though there have been 26 of them now, soon to be 27, we we they don't come along that often.

And we must do that. And finally, before I sit down, the matter of consolidation, I don't think there was anyone who was anti consolidation, and I do hope that there will be a desire to move, to try and consolidate those at least the 26 soon to be 27. But there are also 1 or 2 other things that might go into it, like the PPERA itself. And we must get on with it. And I hope that the consolidation effort won't be tripped up by the worries about political party funding.

There's lots in the consolidation that can get on with that and that could get on, but that's for another time. be agreed to, as many as are of that opinion will say content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. Question for short debate. The contribution of live music.
13:33
None Portrait Short debate: Assessment made of the contribution of live music to the UK’s culture and economy
-

Lord Brennan of Canton and my Lords.
13:33
Lord Brennan of Canton Portrait Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
-
-
In the Register of interest, including my membership of the Musicians Union and the Ivors Academy, and it won't surprise a number of colleagues here that I'm going to take this opportunity of a debate about live music to talk and plug my fan led review of live and electronic music, which came out electronic music, which came out earlier this year. Now, I was commissioned by the culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, and it was of the House of Commons, and it was a pleasure to be able to speak to music fans in conferences, roundtables, venues, clubs and festivals right across the UK.

And I know the House is very familiar with some of the facts about the contribution of music to our economy, and with the fact that, as outlined in my review, the live sector in 2024 was worth £6.7 billion to the UK economy. One fine example of that from my own part of the world is the Green Man Festival in Wales, which takes place in August. It's a proudly independent festival run by the remarkable Fiona Stewart, who was recently profiled in The Times and it sells out, My Lords, each year in half an hour, without anybody even knowing who's going to be playing at the festival the following year.

It contributes £28 million to the Welsh economy, as well as doing great work in the community through the Green Man Trust, its charitable arm. My Lords, I think that's proof positive that what music fans want to maintain is that independent spirit in an ever more corporate world, and that came through very strongly in my fan led review. Now I want this to be a review, and I and I and I hope my noble friend the Minister will take this in the best possible spirit.

I don't want this to be a review that gathers just my Lords on the shelf somewhere in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. I want the government to go through it, and when they come back to appear in front of the culture committee in the Commons, and I believe I might also be making an appearance in that time, I'd like to hear very positive responses to the bits of the report, the recommendations that are recommendations for the UK government because it contains recommendations for the industry.

It contains recommendations for local authorities but also contains recommendations for the UK government. And I do hope they'll take it on board. Now, I'm as aware as anyone that when you change the lead singer in your band, it doesn't always go well. But I've been encouraged. I think I would say so far by some of the mood music that is around politically in relation perhaps to a change in the administration, in government. As to the government's approach to music, it's always been positive, but I think there's something else in the air.

I hope very much. I detect something else in the air now that we're getting a new lead singer, and I hope that it means that my report will very much be taken to heart by the government. Now, it contains what I call the Seven Essentials of Life. The first one is celebration. We should celebrate incredible contribution that live music and electronic music makes to our economy and culture, not just as a money making exercise, but actually as a public good in and of itself.

And I think there's growing evidence of the way that live music contributes to our well-being in this world of screens and social media and so on. It's something very special, live music, and that came across very powerfully in the review. The second essential was around the issue of ticketing. A number of us were slightly disappointed that the government published a draft bill, rather than an actual bill in the King's Speech, in relation to its proposals to tackle the issues around secondary ticketing.

And I do hope that that will be given greater priority now as we go forward, because I think fans are absolutely crying out for this action to be taken around secondary ticketing and also, you know, looking into the primary ticketing market as well and making sure that anti-competitive forces there aren't taking hold and driving up prices unnecessarily for fans or adopting practices like surge pricing in the music industry world, the third of the seven essentials is about grassroots.

The importance of that grassroots music scene to the live music sector in this country. Again, not just as the R&D. If you like the research and development of the music industry, bringing forward the pipeline of talent for the next generation of great musicians that this country is going to produce, but also as something that's a good in itself. The grassroots music scene is very, very important in and of itself, even for those who are never going to, you know, become the great megastars of the future.

And apropos to that, I think one of the recommendations I've made in the report, and I think the government could take this on board in its ticketing legislation, if it is just a draft bill, is to make sure that the the levy that's been introduced, the live levy, which was introduced on a voluntary basis for larger venues like stadiums and arenas, to contribute a small amount to the ticket price to support the grassroots, which, you know, fundamentally holds up the whole system to take the powers in that bill to make that statutory a statutory levy.

If it's shown that the voluntary levy isn't working and the government has committed previously that if it's not getting to a level of 50% by this summer, that they will look at that. And I would strongly urge them to look very closely at the statistics to see what's happening with the voluntary levy. Is it working on a voluntary basis? Are the big players really, you know, putting their hands in their pockets and making their contributions? And if not, the government should live up to its word and make it a statutory levy.

The fourth of the seven essentials of life is about safety. There are several recommendations in my report for the UK government, including asking the UK government to work to develop a new level of accreditation for security staff at live venues. The. The. The next of the seven essentials of lives around accessibility. Some venues, as I found in undertaking this route, have review have excellent accessibility credentials and facilities, but it's too patchy across the sector and fans report very, very different experiences from time to time at very different venues.

Part of my report. One of the recommendations is that the UK government could help develop a disability access kitemark for live music venues. The sixth of the seven essentials is transport. Lots of cities around the country now call themselves music cities, but can you get a bus home at the end of the gig? You can't be a music city if you can't get home at the end of the gig. So the report calls for the government to lead research into, you know, economy, mobility gaps really between cities, towns and rural communities, and obviously for local government to do their bit around transport to make sure that you can get a bus at the end of the gig.

And the final of the seven essentials, my Lords, is about voice giving music fans a real voice, because too often their voice is not listened to and is not heard, and it asks the government to help start a seed fund, if you like, along with the industry to set up a music fans association in line with the sort of thing we've seen with the Football Fans Association, we've been very successful in getting football fans voices heard and also to commission an annual survey. So, my Lords, I know this is a very popular subject and I wish we had longer, but I do ask the Minister to take on board everything within my fan led review and hopefully respond in kind, positively, if not entirely.

Now, then certainly when the Minister appears or whoever the Minister is before the Select Committee in September, he.
13:41
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Portrait Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative)
-
-
Lords, I will focus on the >> Lords, I will focus on the cultural importance of live music which can enrich the lives of all which can enrich the lives of all of us. And I think the response to Lord Brennan opening shows that there is feeling around the house and just that, my Lords, it and just that, my Lords, it supports artistic expression, preserves musical heritage and strengthens our communities. Live events showcase artists from different backgrounds and cultures, promoting inclusion and cultural exchange.

Does the noble Lady, the Minister, I beg pardon, agree with me that charities are vital in protecting and promoting opportunities to take part in producing live music, or simply to enjoy it. Charities such as something Lord Brennan just mentioned. Charities such as the Live Trust, which which raises funds via voluntary ticket contributions to fund grassroots music events and venues. All My Lords Music for All, which provides grants and instruments to disadvantaged communities to ensure everyone has a chance to participate in and experience live music.

And what about youth music,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which invests in Hundreds of. Grassroots music projects. They help marginalised projects. They help marginalised young people to learn about music production, singing and live performances. My Lords government performances. My Lords government can play a role in supporting the development of live music. I note development of live music. I note that in creating the Every Child Can fund for the period 2024 to 28, Can fund for the period 2024 to 28, the government pledged that it would work with the National Lottery Community Fund, young people and youth organisations to ensure that the monies would be spent in a way that would reflect the priorities of young people to make, perform and produce music.

So my question, my Lords, is what assessment has the government made of the progress achieved over the past two years of this government by the Every Child Fund?
13:43
13:46
Baroness Keeley Portrait Baroness Keeley (Labour)
-
-
system where music had been squeezed out of the curriculum by the IBA, which from 2010 incentivised schools to focus on subjects that excluded music and the arts, and this damaged music the arts, and this damaged music teacher recruitment and the take up of music at A-level and GCSE A-level music remains in crisis. Only 4635 students took it this Only 4635 students took it this year, a record low down 41% since 2013. GCSE music entries remain around 27%, down since 2010.

Music teacher training recruitment has fallen by around 51% since 20 1011, and it remains a shortage subject. Even last year's welcome rise in trainees came with a warning. The number of music teachers with no relevant qualification beyond A-level rose 10% in a single year. Now Teach first found that schools in the poorest areas have three times more likely to lack a trained music teacher, and 17% don't offer music A-level at all. Over triple the rate in schools in the most affluent areas.

The Social Mobility Commission found that children from the poorest backgrounds are three times less likely than wealthier pupils to learn an instrument, sing in a choir or play in an orchestra. Now, UK music has warned that fewer trained teachers and a shrinking A-level cohort are damaging the industry's talent pipeline. Without music in schools, music in the economy, culture and society will be seriously impacted. This Labour government has rightly committed to scrapping the EBacc, but now we face the task of rebuilding music education, particularly in state schools in our most deprived areas.

So I urge my noble friend, the Minister, to press DfE Ministers to do all they can to reverse this decline. We inherited by rebuilding the music teacher workforce and restoring the bursary for music

**** Possible New Speaker ****

teacher training so that every young person, whatever their background, has the chance to choose music here. Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. I'd like to congratulate the noble Lord Lord Brennan on his epically superb speech, and declare epically superb speech, and declare my interest as a trustee of the Cocoa Foundation. As all noble Lords will know, cocoa is a Lords will know, cocoa is a fantastically cool music venue in Camden. In fact, it was made live music venue of the year and the music venue of the year and the point stemming from my involvement with cocoa that I want to make is a more general point about businesses in general.

Cocoa has never received a penny of government money since its creation. It's created about 10,000 jobs, paid £80 million in taxes. Been helpful in terms of the regeneration of the area. But the recent increase in NI, for example, means that cocoa now has to attract 4000 additional
13:48
13:50
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
I congratulate my noble friend >> I congratulate my noble friend Lord Brennan for securing this debate and on his powerful introductory speech. At a time when introductory speech. At a time when live music is at the crossroads to reference an iconic song by one of my heroes, the Delta blues singer my heroes, the Delta blues singer Robert Johnson. I want to focus on the crisis facing grassroots music venues, on whose behalf the Music Venue Trust campaigned vigorously. I regularly enjoy music at such venues as Mercato Metropolitano at Elephant and Castle, and Ain't Nothing But the Blues in Soho.

But sadly, two live venues music venues closed every week across the UK. And that's not because people are losing interest in music. There are more than 100 million audience visits to a gig in the UK in 2024, but 75% of that was accounted for by concerts. Now, over 30,000 people work in grassroots music venues, which are the R and D of the music. The UK music industry, which generated £8 billion in gross added value to the economy in 2024 and in various new arenas, are proposed to open in the UK over the next few years.

But there is no record of such venues making a financial investment in the pipeline. And I think we are entitled to ask why that is. My noble friend Lord Brennan mentioned football fans in comparing them to music fans, and that support demonstrates what can be done to help develop the next generation. Because the Premier League shares 16% of its revenues with the wider game, and I see there's no reason why the top end of the live music industry can't do the same and reinvest in their talent in venues that are supporting it and supplying the next generation of performers.

Because venues are suffering extreme hardship from unaffordable energy bills and other costs, as well as a cost of touring crisis, live music generates huge returns for the Treasury. Yet currently 20% of the value of every ticket sold to the grassroots venue is lost to VAT, removing almost £5 million from the sector in potential investment in new and emerging talent. So there is now no impediment to the government zero rating VAT on ticketing for grassroots music venues. So can I urge my noble friend to consider

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that as a means of supporting this vital pipeline? Hear, hear.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear, hear. My Lords, I declare my interest as Chair of Trustees of Cdmt. I as Chair of Trustees of Cdmt. I thank my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton for his leadership of the fan led review of live music. Its fan led review of live music. Its central message is simple live music must work for audiences, artists and communities alike, and
13:52
Baroness Wilcox of Newport Portrait Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Labour)
-
-
artists and communities alike, and that starts with strong foundations. In my home city of Newport, live music is not an abstract concept. It's part of our identity. You can hear it, you can see it, and you can feel it. We have a proud musical heritage. That spirit lives on in grassroots venues such as Le Pub, a community owned venue that has nurtured local talent for decades while attracting touring artists from across the UK. And it reminds us of a vital truth the music industry is not built from the top down, every headline act and every arena and every tour begins on a small stage somewhere.

The sector contributes billions to our economy, supports hundreds of thousands of jobs, but its value goes beyond economics. Every gig supports local businesses, strengthens town and city centres, and brings communities together. But these foundations, my Lords, are under real pressure. Grassroots venues face rising costs, tight margins and increasing uncertainty for Wales. This matters profoundly. We are a nation of song, of culture and community. From the Eisteddfod to the streets of Newport, music helps define who we are. So I asked my noble friend the Minister, will the government recognise the full value of live music, not only as an economic asset, but as a cornerstone of community life? And will there be meaningful support for grassroots venues so they can survive and thrive? Because if we want a world leading music industry tomorrow, we must invest in the small stages of today.

A nation that values its music must value where the music begins.
13:54
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
Do you want to know a secret? It's not unusual. Hit the road, It's not unusual. Hit the road, Jack. We will rock you song to. These are all songs that last just two minutes. The length of our speeches, but have had a long lasting impact and just shows that music has the unique ability to bring people together across generations and communities. I congratulate the noble Lord Lord Brennan of Canton on eloquently setting out in his speech the importance of this matter, and I congratulate him on getting the debate.

And we know that whether in our great concert halls, theatres, churches, festivals or grassroots venues that nurture emerging talent, those performances enrich our national life and strengthen the social fabric of our country. And the economic contribution is equally compelling, with the industry contributing several billions of pounds and supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs. Yet none of this success is guaranteed. Our international reputation as a musical powerhouse rests upon the strength of our grassroots sector, and pretty much every globally recognised British artist began performing by performing in small venues in front of audiences.

Yet too many of the venues face mounting financial pressures, particularly from rising energy costs and business rates. And when venues close, we lose local culture and the opportunity for local talent to prosper. So therefore, supporting live music is both a cultural choice and an economic necessity. Venues were well supported during the pandemic. The Cavern Club was saved for sure in Liverpool, and I do welcome the voluntary levy, which raised over £6 million since starting last year. And it is right that industry supports the grassroots, just as we see in places like football.

And the last government did abolish permitted demolition rights for live music venues. And I appreciate that not every music venue will be saved. Even the Hacienda in Manchester, the career defining gigs of the Stone Roses New Order even Madonna had her first concert in the UK. There is now a block of flats, but it is the changes to business rates that have hit really hard. And while the government gave a 15% relief on business rates, I asked the government to go further, to go much further, to make sure we have live music for generations to come.

My Lords, I welcome this debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton for bringing it forward today. I, managing many
13:56
Baroness Dacres of Lewisham Portrait Baroness Dacres of Lewisham (Labour)
-
-
of us in this chamber, can still remember our very first live music concert. It's almost a rite of concert. It's almost a rite of passage. I certainly remember taking my son to see his favourite taking my son to see his favourite band at the time, Linkin Park. It was more than a concert. It was a shared experience and a memory that shared experience and a memory that has stayed with us ever since. The United Kingdom has long been one of United Kingdom has long been one of the world's greatest great musical nations.

Few countries have shaped modern music quite like Britain. From rock and pop to classical lovers, rock, grime, neo soul and drum and bass, just to name a few. British artists have changed cultures around the globe for generations. For millions of people around the world, their first introduction to Britain is not through our politics or our history, but through our music. Last year, around a record of 23.5 million music tourists travelled to concerts and festivals. Festivals across the United Kingdom, generating around £10 billion for our economy.

Yet every world famous artist started somewhere before the arenas, the festivals appearances and those platinum albums came their very first performance at a local pub or a grassroots venue. Those smaller venues are the lifeblood of our music industry. They provide aspiring musicians with opportunity to learn their craft, develop the confidence they need, connect with audiences, and build careers. Every legendary performer once stepped onto a small stage for the very first time. If those stages disappear, we risk losing our artists who will inspire the next generation.

I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister, what further assessments the government have made on the long term sustainability of grassroots music venues, and what further steps will they take to ensure that Britain's live music sector can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue to thrive? My Lords. I too would like to congratulate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I too would like to congratulate Lord Brennan on securing this debate and on his very eloquent debate and on his very eloquent speech. Live music is defining strength of UK culture. Live music strength of UK culture. Live music matters because it reflects the diversity of the UK, from grime,
13:59
Baroness Gill Portrait Baroness Gill (Labour)
-
-
diversity of the UK, from grime, bhangra, indie to classical orchestras and global festival sounds. Events like BBC Proms, Glastonbury, Leeds Festivals, Reading Wireless amongst others showcase the richness, while local schools and community performances keep music venue at accessible at every level. It is where, as we've heard new artists break through and were established, acts stay connected to audiences across generations. It is also a massive contribution to our economy, as Lord Brennan has already outlined in 2023, the UK live music industry contributed around 6 billion to the economy and attracted more than 23 million music tourists.

The sector also sustains over 200,000 jobs, from performers to technicians to venue staff, according to a briefing from Live Nation. They welcomed 16 million fans to shows and festivals in more than 200 UK towns and cities across 750 venues. Just this year generated an estimated 1.65 billion in additional consumer spending, including 1 billion for local economies. However, as we've already heard, the sector is also facing challenges in AI, with secretary ticketing, Brexit and visas for artists.

In recent years, we've heard that AI has begun to reshape the music industry. It can generate songs, mimic voices and even stimulate lifestyle performances without human artist on stage as again, it was highlighted earlier and by the Musicians Union, while it is also used to support productions, lightning and ticketing, it is growing ability to replicate creativity by raising a serious concern. It can. If music can be generated and performed without musicians. What happens to the uniqueness and value of live performances itself?
14:01
Baroness Wheatcroft Portrait Baroness Wheatcroft (Crossbench)
-
-
This is proving to be a passionate debate, and no wonder passionate debate, and no wonder music has the power to stir emotions, to lift the spirits and to uplift the soul. And more prosaically, as we've heard, it can create jobs and boost the economy. create jobs and boost the economy. So I add my congratulations to MP for guitarist the noble Lord Lord Brennan on securing this highly relevant debate. I'll limit my remarks to two main issues. The first is the crucial importance of encouraging music in schools.

The noble Lady, Baroness Keeley and others have already talked about this. Being able to play a musical instrument is a great gift, and while the player may never get to pursue a lucrative career in music, playing in amateur bands and orchestras is rewarding in so many other ways, and it has been shown that making music together can provide a much more constructive alternative for children than joining a different sort of gang. Andrew Lloyd Webber's charitable efforts to give to gift instruments to children in some schools has been hugely successful.

It's the ownership of being able to play when they want that makes all the difference. But he can only reach. So far. The London Music Trust is doing what it can, but I encourage the government to plead with orchestras, musicians and manufacturers to get involved in trying to ensure that children do have the chance to make music. In recent times, it's tended to be the prerogative of those receiving a private education or private tuition. Hence, many of the big names on today's music scene Ed Sheeran, for instance, Florence of Florence and the Machine.

They benefited from a private education and now we need to spread it. My second point out of time we need to deal with the EU obstacles which are still being put in front of musicians. What's the government doing?
14:03
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton Portrait Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm delighted. >> My Lords, I'm delighted. >> To take part in this debate. In the midst of King Harry's record breaking run at Wembley, whilst the other King Harry is busy cementing other King Harry is busy cementing his place in football history. I thought I might sing a few minutes of Bohemian Rhapsody to illustrate of Bohemian Rhapsody to illustrate the breadth and power of live music, but I remembered I wasn't Freddie Mercury, nor was this Wembley Arena. Oh well, another one bites the dust, I'm sure.

Noble Lords from all sides of your Lordships House have encountered a kind of magic when attending a live musical performance. It is good for the soul, good for local economies and good to connect with others. Having a shared experience. Advantages in advances in technology mean researchers now understand more of how these communal live experiences shape us, whether that is a live music audience experiencing cardiorespiratory, synchronising and interbrain coherence, or the shared embodied experiences of music between those playing and those listening.

With thanks to Gabriel et al 2025. But don't stop me now on this small, wildly creative island. We are the champions, or close to being one of only three net exporters of music globally, the second largest after the United States music tourism revenue reached £10 billion in 2024, supporting around 72,000 full time equivalent jobs. Visit the UK and we will rock you. And whilst the UK sent this message to the EU, I want to break free. Live music in the UK has clearly been put under pressure by our exit from the EU, with 82% of musicians saying their earnings have decreased because of Brexit, as other noble Lords have mentioned.

So I implore my noble friend the Minister, the show must go on because live music changes lives, brings all kinds of people, people closer together and is essential essential in enabling each part of the UK to thrive culturally and economically.
14:05
Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach Portrait Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach (Labour)
-
-
Here. >> My noble friend Lord Brennan has consistently championed live music and we're grateful for that. As we've heard, he's an accomplished we've heard, he's an accomplished musician musician himself, so he does his bit to enrich our lives within and outwith the chamber. I within and outwith the chamber. I have no doubt that many in this House understand and applaud the cultural contribution live music makes. I am not so sure we think enough about its economic importance. From the Shetland Islands to the most southerly tip of England, music contributes to the economy.

Let me tell you about the splendid Skye Live Festival set up by Neil Munro in 2015. It's independent and against the backdrop backdrop of the islands. This three day festival generates an estimated annual revenue revenue of about £2 million and puts money directly into event production and local staffing. And let me tell you, that is a great boost to portray a village of only 2000 people. It serves as a prime driver for Scotland's booming tourism industry, which now attracts a million and a half visitors each year and boost the Scottish economy by nearly £600 million.

Live music brings jobs it employs, employs talented musicians, maintains venues, fills hotel rooms and campsites, and benefits the transport system. But, as we have heard, not everything in the garden is rosy. Fewer people are attending live musical events. As you have heard, touring to European countries is more difficult since Brexit. Venues large and small struggle to stay open, so there is a major contraction on the touring circuit and margins are getting ever tighter. This contraction means fewer paid performance opportunities, fewer chances to build audiences and less sustainable career development.

This particularly affects artists based in Scotland, with the domestic market is too small to sustain many professional music careers on its own. My plea to the Minister today is to be prepared to help without intervention. The live music sector risks becoming less diverse, less independent and less able to develop the artists who will become the headliners of the future.
14:08
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Portrait Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I too would like to congratulate Lord Brennan on securing this debate. I was fortunate to chair the committee fortunate to chair the committee looking into the Licensing Act 2003, where we heard very powerful where we heard very powerful evidence that grassroot venues were closing owing to the failure in this country, particularly in England, to properly implement the agent of change principle. The agent of change principle is basic, easy to understand, but it's not followed in practice. We need to have it comprehensively implemented in England and put on a similar statutory basis as exists in Scotland.

It is neither acceptable nor satisfactory that section 106 guidance is seen as a substitute. The starting point is that agent of change is a practical response to a long recognised defect in the way British planning, licensing and nuisance regimes interact. The structural problem sits within a wider change in how land is used. The trend now is towards dense urban living, brownfield regeneration and intensified mixed use development, which has made these conflicts more common. That is why the central question before us now is not whether the government accepts the principle of agent of change in the abstract, which it clearly does.

It's whether the government is willing to move from soft policy to hard law. I just submit one argument to the noble Lady, the Minister. Today in Scotland, the provision is limited in law to noise sensitive development and noise sources, but they now at least have an established statutory basis. We need to move in England from applying agent of change principle in policy and guidance only, but put it on a firm statutory basis, protecting existing lawful uses from unreasonable restrictions arising from a sustainable, sustainable development.

That's the very least we can do for the music industry and the grassroots venues.
14:11
14:12
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord. Brennan. as we head into the peak summer season of music, live music across the nation which brings investment, jobs and joy to so many people. We jobs and joy to so many people. We had a powerful reminder of that on the tube this weekend. I was on my way back from the Bad Bunny concert in Tottenham and ran into fans who were coming from Take That at West Ham, Harry Styles at Wembley and Lily Allen at the O2 like a series of rivers Eddying we all met.

It could have been a hot and bothered day on the underground, but everyone was in such good heart as the noble Baroness. Lady Hyde says music is good for our soul. The lady who sat next to us at Bad Bunny had come all the way from Italy, especially to see him and Harry styles earlier in the week, and my noble friend Lord Vaizey will be pleased to know that my. My parents travelled to cocoa just last night. They are much cooler than me, as he said.

Harry styles record breaking 12 night residency at Wembley is estimated to have brought more than £1 billion to our economy. By my calculation, just another 40 nights and we can close the funding gap in the defence investment plan. So music makes a huge contribution to our economy. How can we help it do more? Well, we can celebrate it. I know the Minister is as enthusiastic as I am for the Unesco Living Heritage Inventory. Will she ensure that lots of live music and cultural practices are enrolled on that? From sea shanties to short pipes, from Eisteddfodau to Evensong? And we've heard a lot about the pipeline artists, venues and the classroom.

As the noble Baroness Pitkeathley rightly pointed out, music venues are closing. As Lord Watson said at a rate of two a week. Of the 34 venues Oasis played at the start of their career, only 11 remain. If Manchester tourism is to mean anything, it must surely be about arresting that decline. The noble Lord Lord Brennan mentioned that when the government introduced the voluntary levy, it would look at whether that reached 50% of venues by this summer. In fact, the deadline was, I think, this Tuesday.

So can the Minister say whether the government will begin that assessment and if they will make it public, will they look in earnest at the agent of change proposals that have been advanced repeatedly by my noble friend, lady McIntosh, and others? And will they look at the again at the impact of their tax hikes? The Music Venues Trust's annual report shows that the government's changes to national insurance and business rates shrank the workforce in grassroots music venues by 19%. That is 6000 jobs.

And of course, will they protect artists themselves? At a lunch earlier this week with the noble Lord Lord Brennan, the noble Baroness Liddell Gill and others, we heard how AI is already making it harder for songwriters and musicians. As the noble Earl of Clancarty said, there is no substitute for real music, so I hope the noble Lady will listen to the many good ideas that have come from this debate to help ensure that music continues to move our soul, our economy and our culture.
14:15
Baroness Twycross Portrait Baroness Twycross, The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton for initiating Brennan of Canton for initiating this important debate and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions. Today, it's really clear from the number of speakers clear from the number of speakers how much passion and expertise there is among noble Lords for music, and I may struggle to respond to all the points and questions during the debate, but will follow up in writing where required. Unlike my noble friend Baroness Hyde of Bemerton, however, I won't use lyrics to make my point, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson might have got a few in as well.

There can be no doubt in your Lordships house of. Among noble Lords in your Lordships' House of my noble friend Lord Brennan's passion, talent and expertise, both of the former as well as a staunch advocate for the music sector. Over many years I have been told we can't encourage any excess time to entertain us in your Lordships' House, but hopefully we'll find another time in the near future. To quote my noble friend directly, however, I do agree that everyone's life is enriched when they gather with others to enjoy live music.

The sheer joy my Lords brought by our country's performers from popular music through folk, country, rock, jazz was also mentioned to some of the foremost classical performers is unparalleled, and this government is committed to protecting one of our country's most valued and valuable sectors. As my noble friend Baroness Dacre said, British music has changed not just this country but other countries around the world, and that reflects what my noble friend Baroness Gill said. Around the rich, the richness and diversity of music within our rich and diverse country.

I commend my noble friend Lord Brennan for his recent work chairing the fan led review of live and electronic music, launched in the Other Place by the culture, Media and Sport Committee, which the government warmly welcomes and which I thoroughly enjoyed. Looking through. Fans and music lovers are at the heart of our live music ecosystem. The government will be responding to the report's recommendations shortly alongside our upcoming music plan, which I will come on to. I can commit to the noble friend, however, that we don't intend to let his report and the views of fans to gather dust as.

As so many noble Lords mentioned, music is a fundamental part of our nation's life, our human human experience, sparking inspiration and. As noble friend Lord Brennan said, there's a benefit to our general well-being, but also our mental well-being. It's also, my Lords, a universal language that connects us across generations, backgrounds and communities. It's vital that all fans, wherever they live, have access to live music, whether it's thousands gathering for mega stadium gig, as I did last night at Wembley, to Shania Twain and Harry styles, I was fortunate enough to be there all neighbours, packing out a local pub to hear a local band.

Live music fosters a powerful sense of community in all its forms, bringing different generations together in shared spaces. It deepens local pride, connects our communities and gives a powerful voice to our national story. Not least to Wales. As my noble friend Baroness Wilcox of Newport said, I welcomed the noble example, the example of my noble friend, of the importance and value of music in her home town of Newport, points that were echoed by my noble friend Baroness MacLeod description of the festival in Skye.

And as the noble Lady Baroness Coffey said, music strengthens our society. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord Lord Vaizey, my noble friend Baroness Wilcox, my noble friend Baroness Gill, and my noble friend Baroness MacLeod reflected on the positive economic impacts of live music. The music industry makes an incredible contribution to our economy. A record breaking £8 billion in GVA to in 2024, generating 4.8 billion in export revenues and supporting over 220 000 jobs across the country.

The suggestion that we use it to finance a defence plan is an interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. I'll pass that on. Indeed, the government's industrial Strategy explicitly identifies our creative industries as one of eight priority growth sectors, fully backed by our ten year creative industry sector plans to support long term growth. The noble Lord Lord Vaizey asked about what the government would do to work with the private sector to fulfil our ambitions for the UK to be the best place in the world to create and invest in music, we're delivering on our commitments to a dedicated music plan.

We will soon set out how this government is working hand in hand with the industry to unlock talent, empower entrepreneurs and give our creative businesses the the the definitive conditions they need to thrive. We're back in this commitment with the landmark investment, our new £30 million music growth package, which more than doubles previous government funding for the music industry. My noble friend Lord Brennan highlighted support for grass roots music and a number of noble Lords indeed spoke about the importance of strengthening our grassroots infrastructure.

We. We have this at the heart of our music growth package, alongside boosting domestic touring and expanding international exports. Ultimately, this will support at least 40,000 creators and professionals across the UK over the next three years. The noble Lady Baroness Coffey, my noble friend Baroness Dacres. My noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie also mentioned grassroots and alongside government investment, there's vital role for industry here too. We're actively backing the live music sector's £1 voluntary ticket contribution, led by the Live Trust, to ensure success at the top is reinvested into the grassroots space that forge our global headliners and in relation to the point made by the noble Lady Baroness Anelay.

I agree that we recognise the significant role played by charities, and indeed, Live trust is one of the foremost examples which the noble Lady shared. Lord Brennan of Canton my noble friend mentioned what happens and I think another of noble Lords asked, what happens if the industry fails to adopt the voluntary levy at scale? While we welcome the significant progress made by the Live Trust, we've been absolutely clear that we are prepared to explore legislative options, if necessary, to ensure the long term sustainability of our world leading, leading live music.

Noble Lords, including my noble friend Baroness Keeley, the noble Lord, Lord Lily and others raised creative industry creative education for our young people. The government is committed to ensuring every child has access to a quality creative education. With £13 million over three years for the National Centre for Arts and Music Education, and our £37.8 million music and dance scheme. Baroness Anelay referred to every child can. DCMS is also rebuilding opportunities through one 132.5 million every child Can programme, which will ensure every young person has something to do, someone to go, somewhere to go and someone who cares.

And that obviously does also include access to music education, which is made by Baroness, my noble friend Baroness Keeley. The government is committed to revitalising arts education, including music, through reform, national curriculum. Arts Council England supports the national youth music organisations, help talented young people from less privileged backgrounds, access high quality music and dance training. Baroness McIntosh of Pickering us about the agent of change in planning policy to better protect grassroots music venues from noise complaints. The government is currently consulting on strengthening the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure consistent application of the Agent of Change principle by local authorities.

Moving on. Noble Lords, including the noble Lord. The noble Lord Lord Lilley. My noble friend. Baroness Hyde. My noble friends. Baroness Gill. The noble Lady. Baroness Wheatcroft. The noble Lady. Baroness Bonham-Carter Yarnbury noble Earl Lord Kakkar. All raised issues arising post Brexit, including European touring. Helping touring artists is a manifesto commitment. The UK and European Commission have jointly committed to supporting UK, EU cultural exchange, explicitly recognising the vital activities of touring artists at the inaugural UK EU summit, the Earl of Clancarty, and it is very good to have the noble Earl back to continue the debate on EU touring artists and other other matters that he's championed, noble Lords championed over the years.

Following the Prime Minister's resignation. We have agreed with the EU that it will not be possible to go ahead with the summit on the 22nd of July. We will, however, continue to discuss options for the EU for the summit to take place at the next and earliest opportunity. The noble Lady Baroness Bonham-Carter asked about a range of EU related questions. The only thing in this context I can say to the noble Lady is, please watch this space and I. I hope we will continue to discuss that and hopefully I'll come back with some firm commitments at a later debate.

My noble friend Baroness Gill and raised AI and apologies other noble Lords raised it. We are back in the sector of targeting investment while building safeguards around AI, and remain firmly committed to protecting creators while supporting AI innovation. We are launching a consultation on digital replicas later this year. Established taskforce on AI labelling and launching a working group for smaller creative organisations to drive progress. Noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Brennan, raised secondary ticketing. We're tackling an industrial scale ticket touting head on through our upcoming secondary ticket ticketing legislation.

We will destroy the touts business model once and for all, protecting hard working fans from being ripped off. We are working at pace, a phrase I don't like, but I. I've said it out loud now and I will continue to push for this to be published at the earliest stage, not least for the purposes of my response at the Sporting Events Bill, we're working at pace to publish a draft bill for pre-legislative scrutiny in the session to ensure our measures are truly effective, more importantly, enforceable and future proof.

My Lords, I appreciate the wealth of expertise illustrated in today's debate and the commitment to making sure our fantastic and world class live music sector is supported. I look forward to future discussions, both in my noble friend Lord agenda.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, my Lords. I know that. Lord Brennan is going to sum up

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Brennan is going to sum up because we have time. Oh do we? Can we not use the remaining seven we not use the remaining seven minutes for more points? I had such an incredible point to make.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before I call the next business. There'll be a short break so noble Lords can withdraw quickly and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done. Well done. I Well done. I know.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well done. I know. Well done. I know. Baroness
14:27
14:27
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
outset that our universities are a brilliant global asset and in order to carry out the innovation and research that they do, they must be free to be elite and not be held back by manipulative regulation or excessive preferential diversity targets. In my maiden speech 20 years ago, I pointed out that it years ago, I pointed out that it was taken as axiomatic that students see themselves as consumers with rights and outcomes, namely, that higher education is mostly about higher earning power in a lifetime.

I begged to differ. I understand this quantifier now because the burden of repayment of loans is so heavy, but it remains true that he is not simply about equipping students with skills for employment. It involves unmeasurable assets which add up to a public benefit, induction into citizenship, leadership and employment, instilling ambition and motivation, ability to save a work and leisure independence of thought, intelligence and intelligibility. Having a stake in the future and control over one's destiny, and an informed interest in politics.

The difficulty in gaining employment is not a weakness of he. It is a result of this government's own policies and the expectations of arguably too many graduates. Studies show, nonetheless, that only 8% of graduates regret going to university, and far fewer of them are out of work than the non university population. The quantity of graduate salary should not be taken as a marker of success. Counting success by salary level undervalues the public good of teaching nursing, social work and the arts.

Traditionally not so well paid. I profoundly disagree with the ranking of subjects according to how much graduates will earn with creative arts at the bottom of the table. Is it seriously considered that creative arts, one of the glories of our culture, are to be axed because students will, and they know it, be precarious wage earners in the sector faces a significant funding and quality crisis. Without sustainable funding and the maintenance of the standards, which has put Britain at the top of the International League, there will be closures.

Further reliance on international students who may well find that what they came here for no longer exists a revolt against fee paying and loans, and lower research, input and success. The government 2025 White Paper, Post 16 Education and Skill categorises courses rather than institutions. Noble Lord should also read the Policy Exchange report. Tarnished Tallas. I propose fewer universities with a type of return to the former Division of Universities and Polytechnics, and a fee differential. As an aim, I suggest that outstanding quality and differential is something to be valued.

In contrast to the universality of admission and outcome grades that we have at the moment. There are some lessons to be learned from Europe. There lower ranked universities supply teaching and training and make contracts with local industries. They nearly all have far less luxury facilities and buildings than British universities. The pay of staff and leaders in Europe is about one third of what their UK counterparts receive, and ranked the civil service pay. I urge emulation of the ratio of European university leaders salaries, where they are no more than 3 or 4 times what ordinary lecturers get, whereas here it is 13 or 14 times more a ratio that destroys loyalty and replaces it by distance.

Grants in Europe are more often for living costs than tuition. This is excellent because, as the Sutton Trust has shown, social mobility is achieved here by students leaving home to mix with others who have the same ambitions and where the course is the best in their subject. Rather than having to stay at home and go to the local university. So the White Paper is right to reintroduce maintenance. Our great quality is under threat. This is due to the low admissions requirements, the inflated degree results and the lack of data about or requirement of student input.

The proportion of firsts, 30% and two ones awarded by each institution should be capped. The National Student Survey asked detailed questions about the education provided to the students and their opinion of it. It asked nothing about how much work they do and whether they've done it as required and on time. In other words, they are treated as passive consumers. The office is right to consider the credibility of the inflation of first and seconds, which does nothing to help employment prospects and contributes to the number of students complaining to the authorities that they have not received the grade they thought they were buying, or that they should have received if their disabilities were taken into account.

The figures about the lack of qualifications of entrants are shocking. 8% of UK undergraduates starting in 2024 had no formal qualifications. 75,000 did not have a single A-level, and this lack is concentrated at certain universities, which I suggest are ripe for transition to distance learning and skills provision. Ravensbourne Bath Spa and Leeds Trinity took in more than 60% without qualifications. I would recommend national entry qualifications. I leave aside mature students. There's a decline of standards of admission and assessment for both undergraduate and master's degrees.

In response to many universities dependence on foreign student fees and pressure to widen access and close performance gaps in favour of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. So I think some universities should transition to being different, low cost digital institutions making use of AI learning or merging with further education institutions. This might make room for higher grants for higher quality institutions. Places should be gradually reduced, student loans tailored and foundation years of access schemes reviewed for their worth.

The office has the power to downgrade an institution, although I would not call it that, or the institution can change itself into a different one. As the White Paper acknowledges, international students are as much of a problem as a benefit. I have no doubt that international students who come here for graduate work are not a problem. They've already proved themselves, and they are likely to be funded by external sources and to be collaborating with established colleagues here. So I welcome the government's global talent fund.

But universities are far too dependent on international undergraduate student fees. And if China, for example, were to reverse its policies or as is already happening, the Chinese student age population reduces and China's own universities are doing so well that they might even attract non-Chinese students. Then the financial consequences here are clear. So it is time for our universities to wean themselves somehow off that reliance, not only for the reasons I've given, but because of the integration problems I know from my time dealing with complaints that some foreign students felt that they were cash cows.

They were not given orientation. They clustered together. Their English wasn't good enough. They had visa and funding problems, and it was difficult to integrate them into academic work for this reason, international students have for long been overrepresented as complainants to the office of the Independent Adjudicator. It's also possible that the entry regulations are being abused by those who seek to remain here, rather than study short term. I agree with the policy exchange recommendation that there should be a cap of 30% foreign students at each institution undergrads.

That is, we have universities in the top 35 of the World League tables, and the European Union has none. It is also the case that this top quality brings many more foreign students here than British ones going abroad, where in my experience, they were disappointed by the lack of pastoral care and face to face contact with lecturers. So I'm wary about giving any loans to international students as a record of repayment is very bad. They should, of course, pay full fees and now that Erasmus is being restored, the costs to our government will increase because it has always been the case that three times as many overseas students came here as ours went abroad.

The government has proposed an international student levy, which seems a good idea, albeit there are complex issues given that the number is likely to reduce. In any case, while the attractiveness of the UK will remain, the loan system is a real blot on the landscape. The average student debt is over 47,000. Most graduates will never repay in full, and if they do, it can take 31 years fees that are insufficient. In any case, the balance is 492 billion and less than one third are likely to repay.

The issue is the high levels of unemployment undermining the repayment aim. The scheme is complex, not at all understood by teenagers who sign up to it without full knowledge or understanding. Unbelievably, they may end up paying more than they borrowed over decades. With shifting rules. The interest rate is excessive. It pushes graduates into very high tax rates, and it's a regressive system. They see it as a tax on ambition. The way out for women is to get married right after university and not work.

I predict that the outstanding debts will have to be written off sooner or later. After weighing it all up, I've concluded that the way forward is indeed a graduate tax for several decades. It is relatively simpler and easier to understand, avoids huge debts and can be progressive. Still, we should await the report of the Treasury Committee inquiry into the scheme. I can't leave this topic without looking into freedom of speech, which lies or should lie at the heart of higher education.

There was a fight for centuries over freedom of speech in all arenas, free from religious domination, just as it seems to have been won, there re-entered a new religious repression, gender issues and racism. And because of the misuse of human rights and loss of liberal leadership, respect for divergence, curiosity, courage and tolerance are vanishing. This is a serious rot at the heart of the system. Universities have failed to uphold free speech and have tolerated extremism and anti-Semitism, which I've spoken about many times here, as if they're frightened of their students excesses.

The OfS must take this on if the vice Chancellors will not. The government has finally implemented the complaints process for freedom of speech complaints as mandated in the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act 2023. So long ago, the jurisdiction is rather awkwardly split between the office and the office of the Independent Adjudicator. The latter can only deal with students and then only after the university's internal procedures have been exhausted, the OIA would look to see whether the university's procedures have been followed, not at the substantive issue of whether freedom of speech was actually threatened and whether or not it was permissible.

The office for students, on the other hand, will deal with academics, staff, external speakers and student unions and has more substantive enforcement powers. The danger with both is that they may be too slow. After all, if a free speech issue manifests itself in May, the students and others will be long gone by the time there is a decision and the costs will be high, there's no mechanism for immediate injunctive relief. So unless university authorities show muscle, we can expect more of the crowd and intimidation tactics that stop a speaker in his or her tracks.

It's time for an overhaul. Fewer, more diversified universities, more skills and technical ones. Lifelong Learning Entitlement quality of admission and grades. Caps on numbers. Courage to deliver quality and free speech and to tell the world about the public good that our excellent system delivers. So I ask the Minister, will she push for fewer universities? Recategorised capping the firsts and the seconds that the National Student Survey should ask students how much work they've done, that there should be a national entry qualification, a cap even on undergraduates.

And will she reconsider graduate tax and keep our system at the front of the world as it has been for so long? The question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is that. This motion be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I'm grateful to the the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to reflect on the opportunity to reflect on the future affordability and quality of higher education in this country. Her interest in each year's long Her interest in each year's long standing, and I recall her very effective role of inaugural chair of the independent of the of the independent of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. My Lords, I won't attempt to address some of the issues that the noble Baroness has raised, but I will be addressing others.

But this House is well aware that there are real pressures on students, on graduates and on our universities. Funding has been eroded in real terms. Costs have risen and institutions are being asked to do more for for more students with fewer resources. But let's be equally clear this is not a system in decline. It's a system under strain, but one that remains one of the country's greatest national assets. Our universities are engines of growth. They sit at the heart of the government's ambitions for productivity, innovation and regional development.

From digital arts in Dundee to naval defence in Plymouth, from graphene to in Manchester to advanced manufacturing in Sheffield. From compound semiconductors in South Wales and the extraordinary film and television industry in Belfast, our universities create opportunity in all parts of the UK. They're doing much more than educating the next generation workforce. They're at the heart of industry clusters. They drive inward investments in towns and cities all over the country. They generate jobs. They spin out
14:44
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-
companies and work with public sector organisations in deep partnerships. Our universities have faults and there are real problems to which I shall return. But they should not dominate our understanding of a sector which remains, in my view, one of the best reasons to be optimistic about the future of our country. That's why it's so important that this House pays attention to the House pays attention to the challenges and is honest about the problems. We must encourage government and the universities themselves towards renewal in the national interest, and I've been pleased to see that universities UK recognises this need.

Following on the work of The blueprint, published two years ago, universities UK has now embarked on a programme of work which they calling future universities. They're asking how the university system needs to change and adapt to deliver what the nation needs in the next decades. And as a former chief executive of universities UK, I'm pleased to say that they're not afraid of criticism, but are thinking hard about how the system can respond to it. It is certainly as a sector widened opportunity over recent years, more students from disadvantaged backgrounds have entered higher education than ever before.

Sutton Trust research shows that around two thirds of upward mobility amongst those from Non-graduate families is accounted for by higher education. The government is right to want to continue to expand and widen participation because access remains unequal, because higher education transforms lives. We see it in institutions such as Teesside, supporting students from non-traditional backgrounds into high skilled employment. We see it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in Work done by the Open University, whose data shows that higher education study reduces prisoner education study reduces prisoner reoffending by 22% value. As the noble Baroness Cass said, isn't noble Baroness Cass said, isn't just about earnings. We know that graduates are more likely to be in work and less likely to be unemployed. On average, they enjoy better health and graduate parents have a positive impact on the educational outcomes of their educational outcomes of their children. A newly qualified nurse from the University of Birmingham.

A teacher from the University of Cumbria. A social worker from Cardiff University. These graduates may not enjoy high salaries, but surely we value them. These are the professions on which our public services depend, and they're sustained by our universities and by students who choose careers which allow them to contribute to society in a variety of ways. The office for students has an important job to do in safeguarding the reputation of this country. For high quality. The sector should and is being held to account.

There's very little understanding, though, I think, of the processes universities use to uphold quality from the way they design and validate programmes to the sector wide structures which ensure consistency. They're not understood. They may not be fit for the age we live in. The Quality Assurance Agency wants a globally recognised mark of the trust you can place in our universities now has a marginal role in England, although in Scotland and Wales things are different. No one, not even the most ardent supporter of university expansion, would argue that there should not be high quality alternatives to university education.

But improving one should not come at the expense of the other, and I strongly believe that those who believe that we've gone too far in the expansion of universities are wrong. We cannot win in a global economic competition by decreasing our ambition and aspiration. But, my Lords, high quality provision depends on a financial sustainable system. And here we come to the central challenge. The real value of domestic tuition fees in England and Wales has declined sharply over the past decade. Scottish universities received about £2,000 less per student than those in England.

The gap between the cost of teaching a vet and the money an English university receives to provide an education is about £10,000 per student per year. The Westminster government is about to hand another cut to English universities through cuts to the Strategic Priorities Grant. Despite having made the commitment to ongoing increases in the fee, which is a good and brave move. The financial position of the sector is getting worse due to tighter immigration requirements and decisions like the introduction of the international levy.

Institutions have responded with innovation and efficiency, but there are limits. We can't continue to expect world class teaching, research and student support on a diminishing resource basis. So finally, my Lords, we have to resist false choices. This isn't a question of universities or skills of academic or technical education. We need both. So let us, without underestimating the needs, the needs for change and the changes and the improvements that need to be made. Let us be confident in what we have a system that is high quality, a system that is globally respected, a system that changes lives and drives growth.

Because at a time of global competition and economic uncertainty, to weaken our universities would not simply be short sighted. It would enact a profound self-harm.
14:49
Lord Willetts Portrait Lord Willetts (Conservative)
-
-
I congratulate the noble Baroness Deech for calling this debate. I should declare my interest as a visiting professor at interest as a visiting professor at King's College in London and a director of Thames Holdings. I think you'd be the spirit of an education debate to have some set texts, and I do have two set texts, so I'm afraid they are rather heavily oriented to economics, and I should therefore apologise straight away to the Baroness Cass. She made some very important points, but I'm thinking of the policy exchange paper for which she wrote the foreword, and also the very recent report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies on Graduate Earnings.

And it's worth focusing on these two documents because they have very different accounts of what is going on. In the words of a policy exchange paper for graduate premium has plummeted. Those are their words. And that is a widespread narrative in the media. The IFS finds no such effect. In their words. Average net returns are large, and by large they mean really large. They mean for men. And this is after discounting lifetime earnings at a at a rate of inflation plus 3%, a very high rate which people object to when it's applied to student loans.

But they apply it actually to earnings. You find it's £290,000 extra earnings for a man and three for a woman, sorry, and £370,000 of extra earnings for a man over their lives. After you then allow for tax and loan repayments, and also make some rather heroic calculations about the counterfactual. What someone like that would have achieved by earnings had they not gone to university, even after all those deductions and the very high discount rate, you get a £90,000 gain for women and £109,000 gain for men, and the government gains two.

The government is a net beneficiary through the repayments of loans and through the higher taxes paid by people with higher earnings of £48,000 for women and £107,000 for men. Unless there is to be a challenge on a comparable methodology. And I have to say the policy exchange methodology is not comparable, they take the national living wage at an hourly rate and multiply it by 40 and in 2026, and compare it with graduate earnings in 2022 and including part time earnings. I think you have to take the IFS assessment as the authoritative assessment unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and this matters for the policy debate.

The noble Baroness Deech expressed concern about people with lower qualifications going to university. The people, the IFS has looked at the particular outcomes for the. The. The 30% of students with the lowest prior attainment, 85% of women and 60% of men are better off as a result of going to university. And the evidence not just in Britain but in other advanced Western countries, is if you take the marginal students, the people who just got in, who have particularly low attainments and compare them with people just like them, who didn't go to university, you find a significant benefit for going into university.

But behind this, behind these averages, there are indeed on the IFS figures. After all the allowances, 20% of men and 30% of women who are worse off and they are concentrated in the performing arts and languages. And that's why I do feel I personally fought as the Minister long and hard to make this evidence available, to get HMRC to agree that they would make their evidence available so it could be linked with educational data, so that these calculations were possible.

But I do occasionally feel like the sorcerer's apprentice at what has been unleashed, because the noble Baroness is right. This is useful information. It is the kind of information that prospective students should have. And indeed, the IFS research shows it is having an effect, a decline in participation in some of those courses, an increase in participation in, say, Stem courses which do better on these earnings measures. But that is supposed to be a useful tool. It should not be the be all and end all of the debate about higher education, because then the higher education debate looks appallingly different from at all other stages.

On schools. We talk about teaching quality. The only thing we seem to be able to talk about and regard as a measure of quality is earnings. Whereas the noble Baroness is right, there is more to education than that. Nevertheless, it is the case that both the government and the opposition want to use this evidence in order to decide which departments and courses and universities they should close. So they owe us an account of exactly how they are going to use this data, how they're going to interpret it, and what decisions are going to be taken.

For a start, as the government has said, it wants fewer people to go on these courses and more to go on apprenticeships as a minimum. Surely analysis on the lines of the IFS analysis should also be applied to apprenticeships. We need to be comparing like with like and although of course there are some useful assessments of apprenticeships, they do not have anything like the rigour of this IFS analysis. So will the Minister commit today that this analysis should be applied to other forms of education and training as well? And can we also know exactly how granular the information is? The IFS material is not the basis for deciding on an individual course in an individual university.

Is that to happen? And if so, on the basis of what information and how up to date is the information going to be? There's a real dilemma here. That evidence in the IFS assessment is for people who did their GCSEs in the year 2002, is that to be the basis of a decision? And if it's more recent students, how can we effectively forecast their life long earnings? There are important questions here and I very much look forward to the minister's reply when I hope she will address them.
14:56
Lord Bishop of Leicester Portrait The Lord Bishop of Leicester (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, I too am grateful to Baroness Deech for initiating this Baroness Deech for initiating this debate. It's good to have the opportunity to contribute to thinking about the future affordability and quality of higher affordability and quality of higher education. I do so as Bishop of Leicester, but also with a close interest in the cathedrals group of universities. 14 universities whose distinctive history and mission speaks directly to the themes before us that of public service, social inclusion and the flourishing of local communities.

At its best, higher education is not simply an individual good, but a common good. It forms professionals, nurtures civic responsibility, and strengthens the social fabric of our nation. Many institutions across our system, including those in the cathedrals group, exemplify this tradition with roots in civic purpose and long standing commitment to education as a vehicle for service, inclusion and human flourishing. Historically, a number of these institutions were founded to train teachers for communities experiencing deprivation. That purpose continues to shape their work today.

They now educate not only teachers, but nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, paramedics, often in close partnership with schools, multi-academy trusts and health bodies. In my own Diocese of Leicester, we see clearly how this local and regional role is vital. Our universities, that of Leicester, De Montfort and Loughborough University, are deeply embedded in place. They help to sustain public services, provide pathways for local people and actors, anchors of opportunity within diverse communities. This brings me to the importance of widening participation.

This is not simply about entry into higher education, but also about ensuring success beyond it. It therefore requires sustained engagement starting in schools, continuing through further education, extending into higher education and beyond. In many parts of the country, including areas of Leicester and beyond, the challenge is not only individual disadvantage but structural fragmentation. Too often the system can feel disjointed, with schools, Fe colleges and universities operating under different pressures, incentives and expectations. If we are serious about both quality and affordability, we must also be serious about coherence.

So I would argue we need a more joined up approach across the whole education sector, one that recognises the vital role of further education alongside higher education and the importance of strong, sustained partnerships with schools. A flourishing system is one which learners can move with confidence along clear and supported pathways, whether academic, technical or vocational. Higher education institutions have a key role to play in this, but they cannot do so alone, particularly in the face of growing financial pressures.

Among these pressures are externally determined and potentially volatile costs, which continue to constrain universities ability to sustain the very activities we value most. So, for example, the increasing cost of pensions across the sector is one such factor. The teachers Pension scheme in particular has placed significant strain on university finances in recent years, with employer contributions at high levels, while a reduction is anticipated in 2027, this will not resolve the underlying challenge and the point is not to weaken pensions, but to ensure that institutions have sufficient flexibility to manage these costs without undermining their broader mission.

Without that flexibility, rising costs inevitably place pressure on staffing, investment and the range and quality of provision offered to students. My Lords, there is a moral dimension within all of this. If universities are less able to invest in partnerships with schools and further education, or to sustain provision in key professional areas such as supporting social good, then the consequences will be felt not only in higher education but across our schools, our health service, our communities.

And if we fail to build a more coherent system linking schools, Fe and he into one. A flourishing system, then we risk leaving too many learners without clear and supported routes to flourishing. I therefore urge the government to take a broad and integrated view of higher education sustainability. Yes, we must consider funding levels and student experience. Yes, we must safeguard in quality, but we must also address the structural pressures that sit beneath these debates. And we must strengthen the relationships across the whole education system.

Universities know that they need to adapt and continually iterate their offer for a changing world. In order for this to be possible, greater flexibility for institutions and a stronger emphasis on partnership will be essential. My Lords, the universities of the cathedrals Group remind us that higher education is not only an economic endeavour. adjourn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, please stay seated and then follow the doorkeepers. The then follow the doorkeepers. The doorkeepers will help you evacuate the building and you will be sent the building and you will be sent text messages or emails, and the annunciator in other buildings will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

say when it is safe to return. The debate will then resume. Attention, please.
15:02
15:35
None Portrait Debate: The future affordability and quality of higher education
-

briefly, my Lords, the universities of the cathedrals Group remind us that higher education is not only
15:35
15:36
Lord Patel Portrait Lord Patel (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, if the noble prelate >> My Lords, if the noble prelate Bishop Leicester speech was inflammatory, minds burnt. So it's starting afresh ad libbing. I congratulate Baroness Deech for securing this debate. It's not an easy task to win a ballot of debates among the crossbenchers. The competition usually is pretty fierce, particularly as one of the competitors was the convenor. But how you want it? So thank you for securing this debate. My Lords, I'm briefly going to speak about the challenges that the universities face in regards to research.

We know that our leading universities are world leaders in research. We contribute globally more publications than any other country in the world. Our citation index for universities is 1.54, which is extremely high, and 16% of publications are rated at more than 10% in citations. So the value of universities is enormous. We do we do blue skies research universities contribute to early start in innovations and help build billion pound industries. And for the population of 0.8 percent, we have publication record of about 6%, 60% of the publications are international collaborations.

Of the £72 billion of R&D, which is 2.64% of GDP, that United Kingdom spends higher. Higher education is responsible for 24% of all R&D, which is £17.1 billion a year. What is amazing is that is the highest of the OECD countries. Japan, for instance, is the next highest, but is 11.11% compared to 24% of higher institutions in United Kingdom. So what do universities get their funding from? They get mainly from Ukri, which is a structure, dual support funding that is given to universities of about £6 billion on a competitive basis.

The second is the so-called QR funding, which is related to the efficiency metrics of research efficiency funding. And then they get this from charities, mostly from Wellcome and Cancer Research UK, in health sciences, from philanthropy and from alumni network. For some universities. But there are deep structural flaws in how the universities. Get the funding. And what happens? The so-called 80% full economic costs that they're supposed to get from UK are in reality, about 68%. So the funding deficit amounts to about £5 billion that the universities have to found from somewhere else.

Mostly they do this just now from international student levies, but that is now going down. The QR funding has been down to less than 15% since 2019. So the universities are in trouble about supporting research if they don't support research, that either there's job cuts or there's a plan to cut research in certain areas, not to bid for charities research, because the overall funding that we require to support will be higher. And the implications, therefore are severe. The implications also are on PhD trainings, which is now gone down to you.

Ukri only supporting 5000 students compared to, what, nearly 7000 that they used to support. They cut PhD training institutions from what used to be about 6076 to about 45 now. So it's a huge implications for postgraduate PhD training that supports university research. In fact, PhD students are the fuel that supports university research, and if you take them out, it then impacts on our industrial strategy and therefore on our economy. So we need something to fix this. So what is are the fixes.

The fixes are you restore 80% support for research funding to 100% that you support QR funding for ref to, to a level that is compatible with both inflation and with other costs such as energy, etc. rather than 15% down from 2019. So the question to the Minister for me is, what will the government do to restore university funding to full economic costs? The QR funding to the level there should be, and in future, how will they control the talent visas, not the international student visas that the global talent visas that attract international scientists to work in our highly, highly competitive and globally recognised research universities.
15:42
Baroness Freeman of Steventon Portrait Baroness Freeman of Steventon (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Baroness Deech for friend Baroness Deech for initiating this debate, and I declare my interest as principal of declare my interest as principal of Hertford College in Oxford. I was incredibly lucky to have 1 to 1 1 to 2 tuition at university. My tutor said, I have you for three years. I'm going to spend two of them teaching you how to think. And then at the end, I'm going to teach you how to pass the exams over two years.

I learned how to learn by myself, how to think critically, how to interrogate evidence and ideas. I was perhaps less good at learning how to pass the exams, which was not my tutors fault. I then went on to do a doctorate, like all doctorates, on a weirdly specialised topic that few outside the field would think important, perhaps even few inside the field. But again, I was lucky. In my supervisor, he reminded me that a doctoral degree is education. It's about learning skills, not about making advances in the field.

Every chapter was training me in a different skill. As a doctoral student, you have to become even more independent as a learner, a thinker, and do more creative thinking within the bounds of your topic. So as an individual student, the skills gained from this kind of education are very flexible. The specific facts and knowledge are not the point. For those of you that have done a degree, even one that's related to your professional career, I suspect that you rarely use much, if any, of the actual knowledge from the course.

Instead, subjects are more a way of embedding the teaching of critical thinking and learning, and that gives you transferable skills and confidence to work in a wide range of fields for the country, then this is very important. Higher education that equips people to be confidently adaptive, to learn things quickly and independently, to be creative that's vital to a workforce, as is diversity, plurality of thought. People who have different experiences and have learned different ways of thinking and approaches.

Now more than ever, surely we need critical thinking skills, intellectual flexibility, and diversity. As technology increases, the pace of change in work and the spread of ideas through society. So how do we encourage this kind of learning? The answer is dialogue, structured argumentation, personalised challenging conversations, and detailed feedback. I was incredibly lucky to get that from a great tutor and then doctoral supervisor. The time investment and the skill needed for this kind of teaching is intense, and it's really important that academics who commit to it are given adequate recognition.

I'm sure many people will be starting to wonder whether AI can be a good tutor, at least for undergraduates. It's personalised, it's challenging. It can respond to challenge. In some cases, it probably could be good. But whether we can take advantage of its pros without losing other aspects of good tutoring through poorly thought through use of it remains to be seen. So much of what we learn during higher education is social. It can't all be delivered digitally. Human mentorship, sports, music, drama, administration, the normal social interactions with people from different backgrounds can be at least as important as the course tuition itself.

We have to learn key skills such as resilience and appropriate risk taking, confidence and humility. These are priceless. But of course they're not. They have a price. As a country, we have to think quickly and hard about how we can have a higher education system that's affordable, that gives students the chance to develop these skills, and that works in the world of AI. Now, others have spoken and will speak with more experience about the financial issues. I would just say that as the number of young people in the UK falls, following changes in demographics and immigration, there is the opportunity to increase the ratio of tutors to students more affordably.

If funding is not allocated on a per student basis. And I would like to ask the noble Lady, the Minister, what plans they have for higher education funding as student numbers fall in the immediate term, we also need to address the costs for students. Looking at our undergraduate students at Hertford, we see a squeezed middle now of students who come from households within the household income bracket, where the government assistance tapers as the cost of living has risen.

Those in that taper band have less assistance from the government, but their families are now also unable to give financial support. And I'd like to ask the Minister whether they're increasing the income bands used to assess student support as the cost of living increases. And finally, a plea for those students who want to continue their studies, particularly to do a higher research degree, like a doctorate. These students, however promising, are really struggling to find the means to study, particularly outside the disciplines of science and medicine.

Higher research degrees are not professional training for those who want to stay as academic researchers. They're for people who want to learn to research topics to the greatest depth, to learn how to teach themselves new techniques, and to be creative thinkers. Half of our home students studying higher degrees at Hertford are now self-funding. We cannot afford for our future thinkers to have low diversity, either through narrow domains of study restricting the number of people who've learned to approach problems in certain ways or through narrow demographics.

Having only those who come from backgrounds where they can afford to fund themselves. So I would like to ask the government to think about how it can best ensure that students from all backgrounds have the opportunity to be taught, how to think, how to learn for themselves. Within the frameworks of a broad range of subjects. Because that is what this fast changing world demands.
15:48
Lord Tarassenko Portrait Lord Tarassenko (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I do congratulate my >> My Lords, I do congratulate my noble friend Baroness Deech on securing today's debate, her commitment to the issues of quality commitment to the issues of quality and affordability in higher education is second to none. I education is second to none. I declare an interest as the presence of Reuben College, Oxford's newest college, a 21st century college in a 100 year old university. In early 2025, just over two years after the launch of ChatGPT.

The survey, carried out by the Higher Education Policy Institute, revealed that 90% of UK undergraduates were using AI in their assessments. As a professor from the University of Warwick recently put it, all type work by students is now worthless as a means of assessing them and their knowledge. Many departments are going back to handwritten assessments for all tests that matter, and I believe that we should contemplate reintroducing all exams as part of summative assessments, such as finals. Right now, conversations about AI in the higher education sector are mostly defensive, and this needs to change.

The question should not be how do we catch students cheating with AI? But how can we reimagine the delivery of education in the age of AI? As with the social media ban, it appears that Australia is ahead of the UK in this domain. In a recent paper to Australian academics argued that AI automates analytical tasks. The true purpose of a university must shift from teaching students how to generate answers to developing capabilities in reasoning, critical judgement and acting under uncertainty.

My estimate is that we only need about 20% of the lectures which we required prior to the advent of generative AI. Lectures should only be given to introduce a subject, occasionally go through a particular difficult topic or proof, and then provide a synthesis at the end. In between, students can and will in any case, use their favourite generative AI tools to progress at their own pace and with immediate personalised feedback through the subject framed by the lectures. Now, the time which professors would save by only giving 20% of the pre AI age lectures should be devoted to their facilitating small group seminars, with typically 10 to 12 undergraduates in each group.

In these settings, the students will not be allowed to have their smartphones or their laptops with them, the professor will probe their knowledge and enable them to develop the critical cognitive capabilities now being blunted by the regular use of AI during the learning process. Of course, small group teaching, as opposed to giving lectures to 200 or 300 students, is much more inefficient. For such a strategy to be feasible. I believe that the higher education sector will need to embrace the use of graduate teaching assistants.

As in the US, these would be PhD students or post-doctoral researchers who would be trained to deliver high quality small group teaching. Working in tandem with the professor responsible for the undergraduate course. My Lord Sikka Department for Education cannot tell universities how to teach, but it controls the financial levers. The large scale deployment of graduate teaching assistants to support small group teaching were required. DfE and Ukri to develop plans for an alternative model for funding PhDs. Those UK domiciled postgraduate students who chose the option to become teaching assistants would be able to start paying off their student loan whilst doing their PhDs.

I am aware that the office for students has launched a research project to investigate how universities are using AI. With the nationwide data collection phase closing at the end of next week. The OfS will analyse the findings in collaboration with advanced AI. They expect to publish the findings later this year to support institutions in using AI tools to improve students experiences of higher education. But we need to be bolder in our ambition if we are to maintain the quality of higher education in the age of AI.

We need to start now to develop the rigorous training programmes required to turn PhD students and postdocs into expert facilitators, able to lead device free sessions in which undergraduates can develop genuine critical thinking and independent reasoning. AI guided learning, framed by just a few lectures combined with rigorous oral probing in small group seminars, is surely of higher quality than 100 hours of passive sitting in a lecture theatre. We need a DfE to fund pilot programmes in selected university departments, from the humanities to engineering, to demonstrate how undergraduate teaching can best be adapted for the age of AI.

It is a challenge which we cannot ignore, and I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will be able to reassure the House that the DfE is indeed devoting some critical thinking time to addressing the issue.
15:54
Lord Isaac Portrait Lord Isaac (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it's an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tereshchenko, and to see Oxford so well represented in this afternoon's debate. With that in mind, I would like to declare an interest as Provost of Worcester interest as Provost of Worcester College in Oxford, but also as the chair of governors of the University of the Arts in London. As has been so widely acknowledged in this debate this afternoon. Our universities are amongst the finest in the world. They generate world leading research, they attract international talent and contribute billions of pounds each year to our economy.

Yet I think it's no. And a statement to say that the higher education sector is in crisis. Higher education should be an opportunity for all, not a financial burden that deters talented students from fulfilling their potential. I was fortunate to be the first in my family to To go to university. I was supported by a student grant and I was able to graduate. Believe it or not, without any debt. Times have changed, but I would like as many young people from similar backgrounds to enjoy the same good fortune.

Tuition fees have undoubtedly provided universities with a stable income, but rising living costs and concerns about debt are discouraging many able students from applying. It's therefore welcome that the government has announced the return of maintenance grants for lower income students. However, these are currently linked only to priority courses and my preference would be that such courses are defined more broadly so that students from lower income families have the same freedom of choice as their more affluent or more economically confident peers.

Of course, universities themselves, as we've heard this afternoon, face mounting pressures even with recent fee increases. We now know that 4 in 10 institutions are expected to be in deficit by the end of this year. Student numbers are falling, and whilst heavily reliant on international students, leaves the sector vulnerable to geo political uncertainty. I also fear that the new international student levy also raises the risk that many international students are less attracted to studying in the UK, because inevitably, and I speak as part of a governing body that actually has to assess the cost of international fees, we may well be passing these additional costs on to our students.

Cuts and delays to the Strategic Priorities Grant, together with the loss of world leading specialist funding, adds further pressures. My Lords quality must never become the casualty of financial constraint, and we must continue to invest in excellent teaching and research, including and I wish to stress this. This afternoon in the humanities, the recently announced deep Cuts in the Humanities at Exeter University reminds us just how fragile these disciplines have become. I agree that to deliver on these ambitions, universities must embrace new forms of collaboration, share resources more effectively and, as we've heard, make full use of digital technologies and AI.

All of this must, I suggest, lead to an improvement in teaching and will drive innovation. But finally, I'd like to turn to creative education, which the noble Baroness mentioned in her speech. As I've said in this House before, the creative industries are one of Britain's greatest success stories. They contributed nearly £150 billion to our economy last year. Yet creative courses remain extremely vulnerable because they are more expensive to deliver and fewer students are increasingly attracted to them. These courses, my Lords, must not become the preserve of only those who can afford them, or who are prepared to take on debt.

If they do, we risk denying future generations of David Hockney's, Tracey Emin's and Alexander McQueen's changes to the Pre-degree courses in peril. People just like them. We need a pipeline of people moving from further education to higher education, and endorsing their preference for the creative industries. Creative education is the pipeline for one of the UK's most successful industries, and its value, I would suggest, cannot be judged solely by graduate earnings. These disciplines enrich our culture.

They strengthen our international reputation and contribute significantly to economic growth. My Lords, our universities must remain accessible to all. They must offer the widest range of disciplines and be financially sustainable. The future prosperity of our country, my Lords, depends on all of this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise first of all to thank my noble friend Baroness thank my noble friend Baroness Deech for securing this debate, and also, if I may say so, express my agreement with many of the themes agreement with many of the themes in her in her speech. My Lords, I declare the interest as a jobbing declare the interest as a jobbing academic, and as I listened to
15:59
Lord Bew Portrait Lord Bew (Crossbench)
-
-
what's already been said this afternoon, I speak with great relief that I did not have to compete with AI, although I think some very important things have been said about on that subject this afternoon. But also because of the exigencies of my life being married to a an academic whose books were occasionally more fashionable than mine, I have travelled around a lot. We've moved around a lot. So I've taught in one of the old polytechnics. I have been a fellow of a Cambridge college.

I have taught at a fairly basic. If I can say this American State University. I've taught at an American Ivy League school. So I have seen a. Our educational systems in this country and abroad have been. External examiner in Galway. External examiner in the European University in Florence. So I have been around a bit. It's multicoloured. And what I'm going to say is, based on that experience of. Have been around a bit. And the first thing I want to say is I agree with all those who have spoken this afternoon and said, we really do have.

We talk so often in this country about our world leading this and that. The one thing that really is world leading is our higher education. The figures are indisputable. If you look at the top ten universities, if you look at the the number of universities, 26 we have in the top 200 in the list, if you look at the list and so on. The figures are indisputable. The Holland, perhaps, is one of the countries that comes even remotely near to the level of achievement of this country.

We really are in this respect, if not in others, genuinely world leading. And it's something to be very proud of. I would say one thing about this, because in the leader in this debate, I've been reading and preparing, and I find that there are those who believe that the research assessment exercise of the RAF is now known. I was really surprised to see a very fine professor, Stefan Collini, saying few things would improve the intellectual culture of our universities more quickly.

The complete abolition of this flawed and coercive exercise. I can assure you, if you're teaching in a provincial, unfashionable university, as I was at the time, there is nothing more liberating. Anybody who's read a novel about university, Princeton University life will realise the need of some sort of external pressure, saying research is important was vital and liberating, and to talk about an education system I know quite a lot about an enormously respect the intellectual culture of Ireland. But one of the reasons why Ireland has only one university in the top 200 is simply the absence of the.

A similar mechanism over the last 4 or 5 decades of the research assessment exercise. It definitely, definitely propelled upward this system. And I know it's gamed, and I know that there are brutal and silly aspects to it. But nonetheless, broadly speaking, I'm strongly opposed to the idea that it would be liberating to drop that or equivalent forms, forms of that exercise. But there's one reason for the research excellence of this university. Our university system, and may I say something else. From my experience of teaching in an American Ivy League school.

There is no traditional humanist point. Oxbridge actually is a great research. There are great research universities, but they're also great teaching universities. Most American Ivy League schools. Princeton now is quite rightly shooting up the league tables towards the top. It is not a undergraduate teaching institution in the way that Oxford and Cambridge are. It's just not a priority. And again, from a traditional humanist point of view, I think it's something we can congratulate ourselves on. The one thing we cannot congratulate ourselves on is something I'm amazed by, which was certainly not part of my student life in Cambridge, and I'm still amazed by it, which is the rise of anti-Semitism in our universities.

And I will just simply say, I'm just surprised in a way that is something I just never expected to see. And so I want to qualify my my praise for our system. Now, finally, there's no question that the golden age of financing is gone. The Chancellor recently said it is not right that people who do not go to university, or are having to pay all the costs for those who do go to university. And I absolutely think that is. These are our students who are now the political class who are telling us this.

There is no going back to Golden Age. I think the implication must be less universities than those we currently have. I think that has to be the implication. If you link it to what the incoming Prime Minister has been saying about localism, and if we link it to the fact that more and more students are staying at home because of costs, that therefore means fairness requires more good, locally established universities right across the country. And in conclusion, I think this particularly applies to my own place in Northern Ireland.

I taught at both the main universities there. They both have great things to their credit. 202 for the Times Higher Ed said the University of Ulster was the best University of the year. Queen's University, where I taught most of my career, has just gone up significantly and impressively in the SHS rankings just gone up a number of key places, but the university also is a major financial crisis. It is time now to look at whether or not we really need two universities in a small place like Northern Ireland, and I suspect that's a debate to be had in other parts of the country.
16:05
Lord Biggar Portrait Lord Biggar (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak as a >> My Lords, I rise to speak as a former professor of Christian ethics at the Universities of Leeds, of Trinity College, Dublin and of Oxford. I declare an interest as the chairman of the Free Speech Union, and I simply want to underscore the noble Baroness Lea Lord plea for our universities to become more muscular in the defence and promotion of liberal culture. Britain's universities are culturally strategic because the. Educate the elites who run our institutions, be they economic or social or political.

And let's be clear elites are a social necessity. Even if elitism is something we should avoid because they educate our elites. Universities are important not just for economic success as they are, but also for the kind of society we want to be. Do we want to be a society whose leaders have been educated to reason, to proportion claims, to evidence, and to yield, to justify criticism? Do we want our leaders to be the kind of people who are capable of honest reasoning, because they've been formed in the virtues of self-restraint, humility and courage necessary for it? Or do we want to be led by graduates, indoctrinated by dogmatic ideological professors who penalise dissidents? Do we want to be led by graduates who witnessed university authorities let aggressively ideological students abuse and intimidate them? Do we want graduate leaders who've learned that the only way to advance in the world is to keep their thoughts to themselves and their mouths shut, and to run with the prevailing wind? I take it we don't want that.

But if we don't, then our universities are going to become have to become much more assertive in defending and promoting a liberal culture, by which I mean a culture where everyone is free under the law without fear of penalty, to say what they believe the truth to be, and then to test it in the critical give and take of reasons, as the noble Baroness Lea Lord Peach has written in her preface to the Excellent Policy Exchange Report, mentioned several times already this afternoon, and I quote, too many universities have repeatedly failed in their duties to foster civil debate.

Indeed, I think too many universities have tolerated highly uncivil aggression. Let me give you two examples. Five years ago, the admirably temperate and reasonable feminist philosopher Kathleen Stock came under attack for her gender critical views at the University of Sussex. After a sustained campaign of vilification led by students and even supported by some of her academic colleagues, she became so depressed and demoralised that she resigned from the post she held for 18 years and effectively terminated her own academic career.

To this day, as far as I can tell and trust me, I have hunted high and low. To this day, the authorities at Sussex have offered no public explanation of why they failed to support Kathleen Stock and what they've done since, to ensure that what happened to her won't happen again. To the outside eye. The aggressive, illiberal ideologues at Sussex triumphed and nothing has changed. Then, less than a month ago in Oxford, Professor Michael Foreign abandoned his lecture series on Law and Gender because Pro-trans protesters had stormed the stage and intimidated his student audience, all the while passively observed by one of the university's own disciplinary officers.

For one, I've been told, the university is unrepentant about its conduct, has offered no apology and thereby granted aggressively illiberal hecklers an effective veto. Now, the problem is not just these individual cases. The larger problem is their generally chilling effect. As the late sir Tom Stoppard said five years ago, it's not so much cancellation as cancellation. People tread warily. They're careful of what they say. End of quote. In other words, a single successful cancellation causes a thousand horrified observers to beware of trouble and bite their tongues.

On the eve of civil war in 1920s Ireland. W.B. Yeats famously wrote the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity. If instead of civil war, we want a civil society led by virtuous, reasonable elites, not repressively illiberal ones, then I think university leaders are going to have to muster greater liberal conviction and face down visibly, the intensely passionate ideologues running wild before their eyes.
16:11
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
Yeah yeah yeah. Very good. noble friend Baroness Deech for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I wish to make one single point, I wish to make one single point, which is to draw attention to the threat to arts and humanities courses at universities, which is a courses at universities, which is a long term concern, but one that appears to be getting worse. As Lord Isaac said, the latest victim of this is the Faculty of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Exeter, a Russell Group university with over 110 academic roles proposed to be cut, affecting subjects including the visual arts, history, English and languages.

But Exeter is not alone. The universities of Hertfordshire, Leicester, Nottingham, Cardiff, Bristol, Goldsmiths, College London and others have all recently either closed courses or threatened closures in music, creative writing, film studies, theatre, English theology and modern languages. But my worry is not just that this trend, which has deep seated roots and I'll come back to that, but the. But the government's own attitude towards this trend, which is more than worrying in the DfE's announcement, in the press release last week of the New Deal for young people.

The Department says that Ministers will unveil plans to crack down on poor quality university courses on Tuesday. In an oral question, I asked the Minister what criteria would be used to define poor quality courses. In reply, she said that it is in part, and I quote, the ability to determine what the returns are from individual courses. It is for that reason we will take action to prevent the expansion of those courses that are not providing the returns that students have the right to expect.

My Lords, when pressed further by Baroness Cash, the Minister referred to last week's report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies, which identifies courses which affect the greatest financial return for students in terms of a salary and those which do not. As Lord Willetts has pointed out, if you look at the graph which IFS supplies in that report, then it is courses such as philosophy, performing Arts, other creative subjects, English and history, which lie to one degree or another on the low side of that equation.

And it is precisely those courses which are already suffering. While the government seems to wish to discriminate against them further. Also, the Minister said in reply to my question that if necessary, they will legislate to do this. I dread to think what that might be in legislation. My Lords, we are not hearing the language the Conservatives used of Mickey Mouse courses from this government, but the effect will be the same. The opposition do not now talk about Mickey Mouse courses. In fact, Baroness Cash in an oral question on June 22nd, suggested precisely because the returns we are talking about that creative courses should be the first to be cut.

My Lords, this way of thinking from both the opposition and the Government of education in this narrow and crude transactional sense is deeply wrong because it is narrow, short term thinking, concerned primarily with the economic effect on the individual. There is no thought here of the sum total of a diversity of knowledge and experience, of their total value to society, of the social value of subjects, arts and humanities subjects, perhaps more than others, stimulate an agenda of the critical thinking so necessary in our society, and therefore entirely worthy subjects to be studied in universities.

We know many starting salaries can be low, but that should not invalidate the study of such subjects, since it ignores, amongst other things, the larger scale economic effect. In that respect, the creative industries are hugely important. Their profound social value, as I say, and the acknowledged wider application of the experience of these studies for different kinds of work and in defence of these subjects. Vivien Stern, of Universities UK, has said, and I quote, in an age of AI, we'll value the understanding of how human beings think and act more, not less, in the future.

My Lords, in terms of the pipeline, the government is being inconsistent because the policy works so much against the intended encouragement of art subjects and secondary schools, through changes being wrought through the Curriculum and Assessment Review, particularly with the removal of the EBacc. And this is, of course, those 14 years of squeezing of art subjects in schools and the knock on effect that has had on higher education, which has in part left higher education in the precarious state it is in with respect to the arts, as the Guild h e report, the value of creative graduates pointed out in 2024.

My Lords, the British Academy has also pointed out, if we believe these subjects to be worthwhile, that further reduction of these subjects at universities will create cold spots across the country. And of course, those cold spots will become more prevalent in the regions outside London. My Lords, I am confused about what the government is trying to achieve. Are they trying to remove vocational subjects from universities and boost apprenticeships that way? If so, this is misguided as not all vocational subjects are about apprenticeships.

And whatever we may think of the long term developments in higher education. I, for one, regret that art colleges are not the standalone institutions they once were back in the 1960s. That is, nevertheless water under the bridge. These subjects have ought to have a settled place in our universities. The universities of the Arts, London and many of our arts and humanities departments do a great job. And to be fair, that is not what the government appear to be criticising in this strange label of poor quality courses.

My Lords, I said at the beginning that these concerns have deep seated roots, and many of these roots lie in the introduction of the loan system back in the 1990s, with the effective commercialisation of our higher education system. The government really need to look at how complicit they are now, alongside some university management, in deepening that culture, because it is bad for education and bad for society.
16:17
Lord Verdirame Portrait Lord Verdirame (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Yes. >> I would also wish to express my gratitude to Baroness Deech for securing this debate. I declare an interest as a professor at King's interest as a professor at King's College London. I am one of the many Europeans who came to this country to pursue an academic country to pursue an academic career. I arrived at the age of 22 with a first degree from an Italian university with respectable but certainly not native English, and with a social network that consisted of only two people, both Italian students.

Yet after my master's degree, I obtained a funding to do PhD, a PhD at the LSE, and I had my first academic job in Oxford. What academic immigrants like me found was that British universities. Unlike universities in other countries of origin, were liberal and based on merit. They did not demand conformity. They were institutions where especially young academics could flourish, in part because, as a young researcher, one did not feel stifled by overbearing professorial egos, as was unfortunately the norm in Italian, German or French universities.

In my 32 years in this country, things have changed. These changes have been examined in the report by Policy Exchange that has been mentioned before, with a powerful foreword by Baroness Deech. I associate myself with what she wrote in that report and with the excellent introductory speech that she gave. The Policy Exchange report identifies several trends that many of us who work in universities recognise well. First, there is the growth in managerialism and bureaucracy. Of course, universities need good administration, but administration should serve scholarship and teaching.

When the best paid jobs go to the administrators, you create the wrong incentives. Moreover, what is worse is that the academic managers too often understand their main role as ensuring and enforcing compliance with the myriads of regulations that these days govern academic life. In turn, they generate vast amounts of internal policies and processes that take time away from scholarship and teaching. Another major change that has happened in these 30 years is that students are now treated as consumers who need to be satisfied.

This has changed higher education for the worse. The purpose of education is not to flatter students, it is to form them. Satisfaction is completely the wrong notion. If anything, the objective of education should be to encourage dissatisfaction. I support the a number of recommendations in that report by Policy Exchange, including abolishing the National Student Survey and making the OfS a light touch regulator. Another even more sinister trend has emerged, and both Baroness Deech and Lord Biggar have addressed it.

In the late 1980s, Alan Bloom wrote a famous book entitled The Closing of the American Mind, where he examined the narrowing of argument in American universities and the rise of intolerance and dogmatism. I fear the British mind may be closing, too. In my field, international law, there is less diversity now than before. When I say diversity, I mean the diversity that matters in a university. Not how we look, but how we think. In the 1990s, there were Marxist socialists, liberal and conservative international lawyers in academia.

As many studies have shown, however, the range of political opinion in academia has become considerably more limited. In addition, people holding minority views, as we heard from the noble Lord Lord Biggar, are often not argued with. They are denounced even in academic international law. Can you believe it? The bigotry of seeking to denounce and ostracise those who hold different views, whether on migration or empire or sex and gender, or the European Union or human rights, has taken hold and it beggars belief that this could happen.

Among academics devoted to the study of the Law of Nations, which was invented in the early modern period, so that nations divided by wars of religion could find common ground. As a famous alumnus of Hertford College who disagreed with that view, but hopefully we will prove him wrong. It was obviously Thomas Hobbes. We must remember, my Lords, that universities have not always promoted free thinking and advancement in knowledge. There have been long periods in Western history where universities became the guardians of orthodoxy.

We should not take too much comfort in international rankings. They don't spot these trends. And by the way, while the top British institutions are still performing well, those just below have been losing ground in recent years. The government's White Paper last October does deal with some of these problems and identify some fixes, but there are also many of the problems that have been debated today that still need answers. And it would be useful to understand for the government, where the government sits in the But But by But by no But by no means But by no means a foregone conclusion.

But there is no room for complacency. We must act urgently if we want to secure a better future for higher education. Can surely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Be no doubt as to the timeliness indeed. To that, warned the House, that the line I will take on international students is a bit different from hers. Let's hope, therefore, that those with responsibilities for universities in the new government will read this debate and give it due weight, this debate and give it due weight, as they themselves move towards decisions which cannot be laid without damage being done to a sector of our economy, which really sector of our economy, which really matters to its future health and growth.

Now, any analysis of the higher education sector in this country can surely not escape the country can surely not escape the conclusion that it is potentially highly positive to our economy. After all, we don't have that many sectors of our economy where we stand second in the global rankings behind only the United States, nor many. Where the benefits to such a wide spread of our economy, including often being the principal employer in relatively small towns and cities, is so marked. You might expect such an economic treasure to be nurtured and promoted by the governments of whichever party.

If we had an industrial sector which had such characteristics, you can be sure it would be treated like the crown jewels. But higher education is not. Instead, the government's immigration policies seem designed to damage the highly valuable contribution which foreign students make to its financial health and to our subsequent influence worldwide, and the system
16:25
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
for making loans to students for their tuition fees is manipulated to charge punitive levels of interest, which remain a burden on students for most of their lives. students for most of their lives. This is hardly credible if it were not happening before our eyes. Now, I welcome the fact that the I welcome the fact that the government seems belatedly, to have woken up to the immigration problem and to be planning to introduce in the autumn a new immigration channel for universities.

I hope the Minister replying to this debate will supply some of the details missing so far from the initial announcement, and that these measures that these measure up to the damage already done. And then there is the value of a university education to its recipients and to our economy overall. I made myself rather unpopular many years ago when I asked the then Minister responsible from the front bench in your Lordships House, the noble Lady Baroness Ashton of Upholland, who was announcing the target of 50% of our population to receive a university education.

I asked her whether it wasn't wise to be able to answer that question about what the benefit to our economy was before announcing any target at all. Well, now the question is being posed rather haphazardly and we still don't have an answer. I hesitate to conclude these remarks with a call for another full scale inquiry into the higher education sector, and I will not do so. But there are quite a lot of questions that need answering, and I hope that they soon will be answered, because this country is putting at risk now one of its greatest assets,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

albeit albeit doing so inadvertently. My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. First I must thank my noble. Friend Baroness Deech for securing this debate, which has securing this debate, which has been framed appositely with the words affordability and quality. words affordability and quality. And I'll tackle these words from an economic angle and also from an economic angle and also from an employer's perspective, reflecting in part on my own experience. Before I go down that path, I readily accept, like many others, that higher education should not be measured purely through the lens of economic impact jobs, salaries, and the ability to pay back student loans.

Universities should be character building through those vital, formative years. It's where you develop life, social and communication skills and indeed have your beliefs questioned and challenged. You should graduate with much more than a degree, and many students develop friendships that last for a lifetime or indeed partnerships. And my Lords, it would be remiss of me not to mention that I met both my wife and my business partner at university, and both claim, quite rightly, to be of greater importance to me than my rather modest second class degree in economics.

That said, it's difficult to avoid the economic and financial consequences. And whether you look at this from the government's employers or students perspective, the data is deeply concerning. Put bluntly,
16:29
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
higher education is not working. Let me start with our public finances. Sitting on the Treasury's finances. Sitting on the Treasury's balance sheet is a current balance sheet is a current liability of £295 billion of unpaid student debt. Now that figure, my student debt. Now that figure, my Lords will reach £500 billion in the next decade, and much of that will eventually be written off. Now, that would be less of a problem if we were a high growth, low debt economy.

But we're not. Our national debt has trebled in size in the last 15 years to almost £3 trillion, and we now spend more in servicing the interest on that debt 130 billion a year than we do on our entire education budget. That's a damning statistic. And with productivity growth averaging a feeble 0.5% over the last 20 years, our graduates, which have grown in number by 50% over this period, face double trouble. A sharp fall in the number of graduate jobs and a significant shrinking of the graduate premium on wages.

So it's no wonder that the latest British Social Attitudes survey found that 34% of people agreed that a university education just isn't worth the amount of time and money. That's up from 14% that held that view in 2005. And there's also been a marked decline in those who believe going to university leaves graduates a lot better off in the long run. It's down from 50% in 2005 to 36% today. These perceptions, I acknowledge, are challenged by the data analysis of such bodies as the IFS.

But nonetheless, the perceptions are there. Now let me turn to employers. Low growth with significantly increased employment costs has resulted in much slower job creation. And that's before you take into account the impact of AI. And yet, employers in multiple sectors continue to complain about all sorts of skills gaps, many of which could be filled by vocational training, training rather than university education. Supply is not meeting demand. Fundamental mismatches are growing. Employers also complain that graduates are often poorly prepared for professional life, not so much in terms of the quality of their degree courses, but in terms of personal discipline, social interaction and communication skills in general.

And this has been compounded by the increasing practices in higher education of working and studying from home, and overdependence on online teaching and remote communications, not to mention the productivity sucking distraction of smartphones and social media, which is not just an issue for schools, but also for universities and indeed the workplace. My Lords, I believe universities need to do a much better job in preparing their students for professional life. Degree courses should be rebalanced to address the broader human skills deficits cited by employers, and much more emphasis needs to be placed from year one on careers advice and development.

Employers will often tell you that graduates from Europe are better prepared than their British counterparts for working life, and that was certainly my experience as an employer. We should be less hubristic and learn from our European counterparts, whatever the league tables suggest. My Lords, if you want higher education to be affordable, then we should focus on quality, not quantity, and develop a more holistic approach to preparing our graduates and indeed non-graduates for the realities of the marketplace.
16:33
Lord Stevens of Birmingham Portrait Lord Stevens of Birmingham (Crossbench)
-
-
I wasn't sure whether Lord Rees was going to at that point. My was going to at that point. My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of King's College London and as an Honorary Fellow of Balliol as an Honorary Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, and I, at this stage of the debate, would just stage of the debate, would just draw out a few of the salient points I think, that we've heard so far, and propose 1 or 2 related questions. The first is, I particularly want to commend the excellent speech of Lord Willetts, drawing attention to the latest data published from the IFS.

And indeed, although he didn't mention it, we've seen new data from the Department for education this month demonstrating that graduates go on to earn higher average salaries, even when compared with those who had similar GCSEs but didn't go to university. So that is clearly encouraging. It is also encouraging. On the 11th of June, we saw revealed that the number of students who view their university course as good value for money has risen to its highest level in more than a decade, and in fact, only 7% of students now say that with hindsight, they would have preferred not to go to higher education.

And that interestingly contrasts when you ask the general public, what do they think the student response would be the general public about, say, about 40% of students probably have regret. It's actually only 7%. So that's the good news. But as we've heard extensively this afternoon, there is absolutely no grounds for complacency. For students. Living costs are increasing burden such that more than two thirds of full time undergraduates now have paid jobs in term time. Teaching is under stress.

The figures from universities UK suggest that English universities now get £6.4 billion less in real terms for teaching than they did a decade ago, and even with tuition fees going up by inflation, in other words, staying flat in real terms, in a sense, that £6.4 billion pressure is now baked in. So for students, for teaching, but also for research, there are significant grounds for concern. This week, the political headlines have been dominated by the £5 billion black hole in the defence investment plan.

But there is, of course, a £5.4 billion black hole in the full economic costs of research recovery. As Lord Patel pointed out, such that on average, for every £1 of research that universities undertake, they're only able to recover £0.66. And so this combination of pressure on students, pressures on teaching, pressures on research, mean that something is going to have to give. And while we tell ourselves in these rear view mirror based measures about the brilliance of British universities, which obviously I entirely endorse, these are to some extent, if we're not careful, resting on past glories, the proportion of top decile field rated research citations that UK researchers have participated in worldwide has fallen from 11.5% of those top decile publications a decade ago to 8% now.

And although we may pat ourselves on the back, that in Germany that's only 6%, and in France is only 3.2%. The fact is that in India it has grown over that decade from 3% to 9.6%, and in China from 13.5% to 35%. So we have no grounds for complacency. We need a step change on teaching and on research. And in that context, we need to obviously, as we do so, avoid acts of self-harm. Had Lord Rees of Ludlow spoken, he might perhaps have referred to the Science and Technology Facilities Council proposed reductions of up to 30% in the funding for some astronomy and particle and nuclear physics, which is set to be extremely damaging for those disciplines.

And finally, one particular question I want to pose to the Minister is about the further potential act of self-harm that the Daily Telegraph reported this week. The government apparently had been contemplating, and I hope she can confirm that that's not the case, which is to, as part of a new reset deal with the EU, offer EU students the automatic ability to access English universities at home tuition rates. If that were the case, that would be a hit of another £580 million to British universities.

And the consequence of that would be home students being displaced by EU students. It would be a further deterioration in the teaching experience. It would be a further hit for research. Now, the government spokesperson, in response to that piece in the Telegraph, said we do not recognise these claims, which is a classic non-denial denial. I would invite the Minister to, on the record, now say that the government will not put on the table, will not sell down the river. British students, as part of an EU reset to the tune of £580 million.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. I think Baroness Deech is to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think Baroness Deech is to be congratulated on stimulating a very good debate. I agree with her fundamentally on the freedom of speech point and the shocking rise speech point and the shocking rise in anti-Semitism and intolerance in other in in our universities. But I
16:39
Lord Liddle Portrait Lord Liddle (Labour)
-
-
other in in our universities. But I don't agree with the central thrust of her argument, which is that we should revert to being a more elitist higher education system. I was a product of the elitist system. When I got the telegram that told me I'd got a scholarship to the Queen's College at Oxford in 1964, only 6% of of of the age group went to university. And I had a great time. You know, my dad was a railway clerk.

I had a full grant, all my fees paid. And I went on to do masters for another two years, all at public expense. And it was great. But I think that we were right to try and make higher education a mass model. And obviously, as we did that, the. The that degree of generosity to an elite couldn't be sustained. And it was obviously unfair that people who didn't go to university paid very high taxes for the the people who did and therefore the fee system had a great logic to it.

Now, I had the privilege of being chair of council at Lancaster University for seven years, and there I saw how wonderful this mass expansion of higher education had been, because this is an institution which had one of the best records. Among academic universities, research intensive universities, the best records of equity in terms of recruiting state school students and at the same time came out very well in the research assessment exercise. So I think in principle that can be done and we should resist these temptations to go back to a narrowly based elite system.

And in fact, I think in our politics and the the Member for Makerfield, the Member for Makerfield, who's about to become Prime Minister, he will recognise that the core of the economic success of Manchester is actually its university sector and how it has contributed to the great revival of that city. And I think that story is there, right across Britain now. Obviously there is, as my friend Lord Stevens has said, there is no grounds for complacency and there is something of a crisis.

I think we can overcome this. We mustn't be restrictive of international students. I think prioritising immigration control over over international students is the wrong decision. I also think that there are efficiencies that can be realised in universities. I saw that as chair of council, a small university like Lancaster should be considering partnerships and mergers. And indeed at one time, one occasion I proposed to the University of York that we merge to create a roses university, which would have saved quite a lot of administration.

So I think there is efficiency that can be done. But where I do agree is I do not like the way that humanities is being run down. And I think that is not in conformity with my ideal of what a university should be about. And the only criterion for assessing the worthwhileness of courses cannot be employability and earning power. We have to recognise the value of people who study arts or even study theology. You know that that is very important contribution to society.

I think universities also. One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this debate is that there is a great need for the post 16 education system and training system to be improved. And I think universities should be thinking about how they can contribute to that. One of the radical things that the last government did, in fact, it was Gavin Williamson, who I wouldn't normally congratulate, but he introduced the idea of modular courses being part of lifelong learning entitlement.

I think universities should be seeing how they can cooperate with further education colleges, in partnership with further education colleges, in order to make a reality of that. And I would advise, as my final point, the government to look at the affordability question, particularly on of graduates on these plan two loans. I think it's very unfair. I think that it's one of the reasons why we're finding in the Labour Party that a lot of young people are going off to the Greens.

Is that the what we is what is happening is that, you know, if you get a salary of 50 grand a year, you're effectively paying a 50% marginal tax rate. That's not acceptable for people who have spent and devoted years of study.
16:45
Lord Trees Portrait Lord Trees (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lord, I join fellow Lords in thanking my noble friend Baroness Deech for securing this important Deech for securing this important debate. As we have heard several times this evening, two major times this evening, two major problems are converging in the higher education field. Firstly, the underfunding of universities and the office for students has warned that 45% of higher education providers are likely to run a deficit in 2025 and 2026. And the second problem, of course, is the colossal accumulation of student debt, which in England alone has reached the figure of £295 billion and is continuing to increase and much of it will remain unpaid.

Now, there's no doubt, as we've heard from many noble Lords, that the our best universities are world class and a jewel in our Crown, and our objective should be to ensure their financial sustainability. But I would question if we need all the universities that currently exist. Now, that may be a heresy from someone who has worked in higher education for 30 years, but I think, my Lords, we have to be honest about the problems we face and the possible solutions. The seeds of this problem lie in the policy of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in 1999, who set a goal to have 50% of 18 to 30 year olds attend university.

Following this, the number of UK higher education institutions rose by 45% up until 2021, but the attendant fall in further education colleges was 40% over the same period. But my Lords, what was the evidence for that goal of 50%? It sounds to me more like a political slogan than an evidence based objective. It created an image, an impression that if you didn't go to uni, you were some kind of failure and encouraged many young people to pursue expensive degree programmes of questionable worth.

Now, my Lords, that's not just my opinion. The Augar report in 2019 concluded that, quote, too many students were being recruited to poor value higher education courses, with both poor graduate retention and poor graduate outcomes, unquote. In January 2026, an analysis by the centre for Social Justice has found, sadly, that over 700,000 graduates are now out of work and claiming benefits to be kind. In 1999. The incredible recent developments in AI probably couldn't have been anticipated, but now it's quite clear that AI will have a differential effect on the job market, with vocational and customer contact roles such as those in social and health care, catering and hospitality, building, plumbing, fixing things in general are less likely to suffer than many roles formerly regarded.

As for graduates, we're likely to need fewer graduates, but more people trained in technical and vocational and practical skills. Indeed, many students will be better served by vocational programs, preparing for employment and a defined career path. Five years after qualifying a higher level, level four apprentice earns almost 12,500 pounds more than a graduate from a low value university course and £5,000 more than the average graduate. But whilst we are likely to need fewer graduates in total, we will require graduates from those quality institutions, providing the academic and technically demanding qualifications we absolutely still do need in certain key sectors.

Yet by expanding the total numbers of universities and university students, we've reduced their unit of resource for all such programmes. An example in the sector, which I'm familiar, is that of veterinary education. Our veterinary schools are world class, with five in the global top 20, but their funding for UK students is inadequate. And to compensate for this shortfall, which Baroness Warwick reminded us was in the region of £10,000 per student per year. Many vet schools are admitting substantial numbers of overseas students.

Currently, over 20% of our graduates are from from UK vet schools are overseas students and this pattern, my Lords, is repeated in many other degree programmes which provide high value graduates urgently needed for US sectors. Yet government support plus fees is inadequate due to changing immigration policies, which have been referred to pursuing large numbers of overseas students is now an insecure and probably unsustainable means of propping up quality higher education. So could I ask the noble Baroness, the Minister, what plans have His Majesty's Government got to close this funding gap? I suggest we need to value the huge range of contributions to society by tertiary education in its entirety, ranging from vocational skills to academic degrees, and give targeted and appropriate funding to each element.

Currently, my Lords, I would suggest we are failing the country's needs and the capabilities of our young people. Let us focus the finite resources we have in an evidence based way to satisfy the aspirations of students and the actual needs of society for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our economic and intellectual growth. Yeah. My noble friend Baroness Deech

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend Baroness Deech is to be congratulated for securing this crucial debate as a current Pro-Chancellor at Cardiff Pro-Chancellor at Cardiff University and a previous Chair of Council at Cardiff Metropolitan, I suggest this debate should not be framed as a choice between affordability for students and sustainability for universities. Why? Because a system unaffordable for students damages participation, a system financially unstable, unsustainable for universities, damages quality, choice, research capacity and economic growth. Overall in Wales, enrolments at Welsh higher education providers fell by 5% in 2425, compared with a 1% fall across the UK as a whole.

Wales already faces participation challenges, particularly amongst learners from deprived communities and those needing more flexible routes into higher education. We also has a more integrated tertiary education system, which does create an opportunity to plan across schools, colleges, universities, universities, apprenticeships and
16:53
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Portrait Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (Crossbench)
-
-
lifelong learning. But high quality provision is not cheap. Cardiff provision is not cheap. Cardiff University hasn't been alone in recording a recent underlying recording a recent underlying operating operating deficit. Almost a third of the £33.4 million a third of the £33.4 million deficit in 2425 was through loss of international student tuition fee international student tuition fee income. To address this, we developed our academic future strategy, which has embraced change across the whole university. Like other intensive research research intensive universities, research has been cross-subsidised from other income streams.

But as my noble friend Lord Trees highlighted, that model is fragile and international recruitment falls. To illustrate this, we cross-subsidised research by tens of millions of pounds in 2324, as well as receiving around 40% of Ukri funding coming to Wales. In our major role in Welsh research and innovation capacity, a Universities Wales London Economics analysis found that Welsh universities generated an estimated £10.97 billion in total economic impact in 2020 122, including teaching, research, knowledge exchange, educational exports and institutional expenditure.

Every £1 of public funding for Welsh universities generated £13.1 of economic impact. Higher education. My Lords, is an investment, not simply expenditure. Wales has some specific issues, with only around 1 in 3 young Welsh people engaging with higher education overall, but more likely to return to higher education later in life. Predicted at 55% by the age of 30, Welsh medium provision is key to our identity, but realistically, Welsh language teaching costs around £10 more per credit than English medium provision.

Better collaboration across the tertiary sector is hindered by competition law, increasing the risk of cold spots in provision if high cost or low recruiting subjects become financially unsustainable. Artificial intelligence prevents presents a systemic change to university operations. We have created master's courses in AI and in AI, robotics and AI in business and in AI digital media. These developing opportunities build on our high profile research and innovation ecosystem around digital, cyber and AI. With a number of spinout companies contributing to the AI growth zone for South Wales, AI skills will be essential to growth, with courses co-designed with industry to meet employer demand, particularly in prompt engineering and data ethics.

Cardiff University has established a continuous improvement hub to lead process redesign, following lean principles and to make processes efficient, joined up and student focussed, ultimately delivering cost savings in some areas. But we face huge changes. As my noble friend Lord Tarassenko raised, we must identify acceptable and unacceptable use of AI in an academic context. APPs 2026 survey reports 95% of students using AI in at least one way, and 94% using generative AI to help with assessed work, while 64% say assessment has already changed significantly in response.

Potentially, AI can improve learning support, feedback, accessibility, study coaching and productivity for both staff and students, but this must be balanced against the challenges around academic misconduct and a dangerous overreliance on AI. Finally, as my noble friend Baroness Freeman so rightly raised, there are concerns about the implications of the rapidly escalating use and emergence of AI, which has very limited evidence that currently to underpin it, we have three such concerns that I'd like to add to the list.

One is widening inequalities as a result of access to paid for AI platforms. The second is around AI's ability to operate as effectively through the medium of Welsh. And the third is the challenge of sustainability. Meeting AI and energy needs and the difficulties of the green agenda.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. Can I start by joining other noble Lords in thanking the noble noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for securing this important debate and thanking all noble Lords who have taken part all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the points they've raised that are clearly important to many of us who are important to many of us who are interested in the higher education sector. And it comes at a crucial moment for higher education in England.

And I just want to declare an interest that my daughter has
16:58
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
just finished her first year at Sheffield Hallam University, and I Sheffield Hallam University, and I just want to also note that, you know, there are a number of challenges that are facing challenges that are facing university sector at the moment. Mounting financial pressures on universities, as we heard earlier from many noble Lords, declining, from many noble Lords, declining, declining affordability for students, particularly given the cost of living crisis and a growing cost of living crisis and a growing concern about quality and value for money, and the need to ensure that world class universities remain engines of opportunity, innovation and economic growth.

My Lords, this debate comes at a pivotal moment, as I said, because only this week, during all the questions I asked the government what the long term strategy they had to address, the growing financial crisis facing our universities. And I did so following a meeting in my home city of Sheffield that I attended, where students and staff from both University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University came together to describe first hand the consequences of years of financial uncertainty.

Redundancies, course closures and growing anxiety about the future of institutions. They are central to our city's economy and identity and for us, the starting point is straightforward. Higher education is not merely a private benefit, it is a public good. Universities educate the teachers, doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs upon whom our society depends. They drive, research, regenerate communities and contribute billions to our economy. Any debate on the affordability must therefore consider both the financial burdens on students and the long term sustainability of the institutions themselves.

My Lord, the current system is failing on both counts. Students continue to face the cost of living challenges while maintaining support has increased in recent years. Maintenance support has increased. In recent years, it has not kept up with the real increases in living costs experienced during this inflation. Inflation surges, leaving many students working long hours simply to make ends meet. The House of Lords library notes that term time employment has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Become the norm for many students. Not a lifestyle choice, but as a financial necessity. but as a financial necessity. Education should expand our horizons, not for students, my Lords, to choose between attending Lords, to choose between attending lectures and paying. We consistently argue that maintenance consistently argue that maintenance support should reflect the real cost of living. We welcome the principle of reintroducing maintenance grants, but limiting maintenance grants, but limiting them to selective subjects just created a two tier system.

My Lords, that value some students more than others, financial hardship does not discriminate by degree subjects. If we are serious about widening participation, support must be based primarily on need, not on Whitehall judgement on which courses deserve assistance. At the same time, we cannot ignore the financial realities facing our universities, my Lords. After years in which tuition fees failed to keep up to pace with inflation, many institutions are under severe financial strain similar to what I described is happening in Sheffield.

Some of these have become increasingly dependent on international students. As we heard from many noble Lords, including Lord Isaac incomes, simply to subsidise domestic teaching research, a model that is neither stable or sustainable. However, solving one problem by simply transferring ever greater costs onto students is not the solution. We need a funding settlement that is honest, sustainable and commands public confidence. My Lords, that means government accepting its responsibility to invest proper properly in higher education as a national asset, rather than expecting universities or graduates alone to carry the burden.

My Lords, affordability must also be matched by quality. Students and taxpayers alike deserve confidence that every course offers high quality teaching, strong student support and meaningful outcomes. Where provision consistency falls below acceptable standards, regulators should intervene. But regulation must be intelligent and proportionate. We should be wary of reducing educational value to a narrow set of earning metrics. A graduate entering social work, teaching nursing or the creative industries may never command the salaries of those entering investment banking.

Yet these contributions to our society are no less valuable. My Lords, universities should certainly be accountable, but they should also not be judged solely by graduate pay packets. We have long championed diversity in the higher education sector. Universities succeed because they pursue different missions, research intensive institutions, specialist providers, civic universities, teaching focussed institutions are all vital roles. My Lords, regulation should be should encourage excellence in all its forms, rather than forcing every institution into the same mould. We also strongly support greater flexibility in lifelong learning.

The proposed lifelong learning entitlement offers significant opportunities for adults to retrain, upskill and return to education throughout their working life. As technology transforms our economies. As we heard from many noble Lords. Learning cannot stop at the age of 21, but flexibility will only succeed if employers, further education colleges, universities work together to create genuine, accessible pathways. And finally, my Lords, we must remember that widening participation is about far more than admissions statistics. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds must be, must be, not only the ones entering university, but the ones that will thrive once they are there.

They require adequate maintenance support, affordable housing, high quality mental health services, effective career guidance, and inclusive learning environments. The measure of success is not simply who gets through the university gates, but who graduates, succeeds and fulfils their potential. My Lords, Britain's universities remain amongst our greatest national strengths. They deserve a funding system that is sustainable. Students deserve one that is fair, and our country deserves a higher education system that combines excellence with opportunity. We believe that these goals are not competing ambitions, but mutually reinforcing one another by investing in students, my Lords, supporting universities, and maintaining high standards, we can ensure that higher education remains both affordable and world leading for generations to come.

Our hope your Lordships' House agree with the principles as I have outlined.
17:06
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, what is superb debate >> My Lords, what is superb debate secured by the noble Lady Baroness Deech and I thank all noble Lords this afternoon for really excellent and informed contributions. I feel the least academically qualified in the House to actually speak among so many doctorates and masters and prestigious holders of positions at some of the universities. Weve referred to. What Ive heard this afternoon is that where our higher education is good. Its really, really good world beating and where its not so good.

There are so many factors that what we need, as Lord Willetts has said this afternoon, is a lot more data to really understand and dig into where its going wrong. We welcome the work that the government is doing on apprenticeships from these ventures, but we also believe that we need more data on whether those apprenticeships are going to provide the outcomes, the fair outcomes for those who participate in those. In the same way as the IFS has undertaken an exercise on university degrees.

We need to think about the lower value courses, and I take on board the point made by the noble Earl of Clancarty about creative arts, and I actually spoke in another question about history master's degrees and made very clear my position that the humanities are essential to the health of our nation and the future of our intellectual vigour. But we need to understand which of those creative arts courses are not performing. And again, with Lord Willetts, I agree that perhaps there is more data to be collated by the government, and I invite the noble, noble Lady, the Minister, to think about this.

Perhaps if not today, with so many other points have been raised on another occasion that we have to find a way of analysing some of those creative arts subjects which are really not coming up to scratch for the students who are spending and accruing a lot of debt to take part in them. Baroness Warwick made some really important comments about social mobility and the value of education for children when their parents are educated is very important for their outcomes. I declare an interest as the founder of a behavioural science business, mind you, but also its philanthropic arm, parent Jim, where we've always looked at what education means for families overall.

And we shouldn't neglect that. But what we need to do, and it's very clear this afternoon that we need to be thinking about what we are, how we resolve the tension between what the individual aspires to and what we as a country aspire to. And there is some tension there because we need an in funding our higher education and in funding the courses that our students are taking to think, as Lord Londesborough has talked about this afternoon, our growth strategy, because how we fund all of this and how we create employment at the end of it is absolutely crucial.

It isn't sustainable otherwise, and I was alarmed to hear Lord Stevens refer to a dropping off of research, because I actually had a beautiful passage prepared. I'm now ad libbing, obviously, but I had a lovely passage about all our current research, and I would be very grateful if you could share that, because I would hate to see our research dropping off. And I do feel that continuing to ensure that our universities are incentivised to invest in research, and that the government looks at how to encourage that is very, very important.

The last government did actually look very hard at how we build our economy and grow our future as a nation globally, using our universities, and we are. In 2023, we backed the reform of how universities share their research wealth through the independent review of university spin out companies. Some of you may recall it did work. Ucas UK spin out value has nearly tripled since 2020, second only to the US in Cambridge alone. The cluster of firms now around the university are known as Silicon Fen number over 5000 and turns over more than £18 billion a year.

The barrier now, according to the Ukri, is speed and early capital, and I would urge this government to build on the previous study and to act on that. The other thing is that we're. American colleges build lasting relationships with employers, sometimes securing places for their own graduates in different firms, places held specifically for their institutions. British universities don't have that culture or that tradition to the same extent. It should become a measure of performance and not an afterthought. So there are ways of measuring quality that benefit both the nation and the economy and the individual students on outcomes.

But recruitment for international students or bringing more international students here, I do would caveat with making sure that they do not lean on our loan system. The displacement and the costs identified by Lord Stevens this afternoon is really serious, and we already have an employment crisis for our graduates, which needs to be addressed. We can't be funding and subsidising international students at the cost of our own. So I do support today the case made for minimum entry standards and for a cap on the proportion of firsts at any institution, both modest, sensible steps.

I also agree with much that's been said by Baroness Deech and Lord Verdirame about the culture and Lord Biggar about the culture at our universities, and I'll come back to that in just a moment. But first of all, I want to just say very quickly that I. Well, Baroness Finlay has touched on this. AI could serve us so much better than it currently is. And on this I urge the government, perhaps more than anything else this afternoon, the cost saving potential of the proper harnessing of AI is huge, not only in terms of how universities deploy teaching and learning for students, but also in the in the efficiencies of how we run the diagnostic technology now is incredible, and we have seen it used in the workforce quite regularly.

We see it used in the NHS. This could be deployed across higher education to much greater effect, removing the managerial class, which so often creates the cultural problems and the difficulties identified so well by Lord Verdirame today. But we have to come back, I'm afraid, to the culture point, because without the liberal, the muscular defence of liberal education, as Lord Biggar so beautifully put it, none of this is really of any value to us, either as a society or as or the individual students.

I'm very proud that the Conservatives introduced the Higher Education Freedom of Speech Act in 2023, but I'm sorry that it was necessary to do it because of the nature and extent of cancel culture across our campuses, the vice Chancellors must be ready to confront cancel culture and insist on vigorous debate as a measure of the quality of an institution, and I really urge the government to look at this more carefully, so that we are restoring the value of a degree by restoring the confidence in the institutions that award it.

The year after the publication of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty in an Oxford museum in 1860, Bishop Wilberforce and Thomas Huxley argued out the theory of evolution in public before a packed hall. I mean, it's hard for us to imagine now how how absolutely controversial that was. And it was one of the great contests in the history of science, won by argument, not by cancellation or silence. And too many higher education institutions today appear to struggle with that concept.

I urge the noble Lady, the Minister, to address this, along with the many other issues on her desk as she moves forward. Baroness Cash.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I thank the noble Lady Baroness Deech for raising Lady Baroness Deech for raising this subject in my two years in this place and in this job, it's become very obvious to me that become very obvious to me that there's nothing that the House of Lords likes more than a debate about higher education, perhaps because people are able to bring such expertise and experience, as such expertise and experience, as we have seen today. And I'd like to begin, as many noble Lords have
17:15
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
with the with the recognition of the value of higher education and of our higher education sector, of our higher education sector, which is, as many have said, world leading. It includes four of the world's top ten universities. It's educated 59 current or recent world leaders. It generates significant leaders. It generates significant economic value, contributing over £265 billion to the UK economy and £265 billion to the UK economy and supporting around 750 000 jobs. I think the noble Lady Baroness Freeman and can I congratulate her on her relatively recent appointment as principal of my former college? Hertford was absolutely right.

Also in identifying that it enables the development of of critical, independent and creative thinking, and I recognise the point made by the noble Lady, Baroness Cash, that this is also something that we need to safeguard within our universities. But beyond its economic impact, higher education is, as others have argued, associated with substantial social benefits, including better health outcomes, longer life expectancy and higher wellbeing among graduates and higher education providers also play a vital role, strengthening local communities and contributing to public services, placemaking and regional development.

And that is why this government is committed to maintaining that world class, higher education sector that delivers for students, for our society and the economy. And I share the view of my noble friend Lord little that however powerful the overarching speech of the noble Lady Baroness Deech was, we disagree that what we should be aiming to do is to reduce the opportunities to benefit from higher education in this country and the number of universities. In fact, of course, what an analysis of our skills needs showed us, shows us is we need more higher level skills, not less.

And that's the reason why the Prime Minister has set a target to increase the proportion of young people with level four and above skills to two thirds by the age of 25. And I think that I hope that that also reassures the noble Lord Lord Rees. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, and my noble friend Lord Liddle, that a variety of opportunities to gain higher level skills, yes, through higher education, but also through apprenticeships and other technical education is very much part of this government's approach to seeing the tertiary sector as one and inter-related, and particularly in terms of cooperation on modular courses, on new pathways into higher education, the relationship between higher education and further education is very much at the heart of our plans, as is the development of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, which will enable people to come back to learning in both high and SFE for higher level courses throughout their lives.

Of course, we recognise that the sector's financial environment is challenging. The sector is rightly independent from government. That means that it is providers responsibility to manage their finances and ensure that their business models provide long term sustainability. Nevertheless, we remain committed to securing the sector's future and that is why, after having been frozen for eight years, we increased tuition fee caps in line with inflation in 2020 526, and we will also increase them once again in line with forecast inflation in 2026, 27 and 2728, and then legislate when parliamentary time allows to increase tuition fees automatically for future academic years.

That is, over the coming years, £6 billion worth of safeguarded increase in income index increase in income are underpinned by the government. A quite different position to be in than for many public sector organisations at the moment. We have been clear, however, that future uplifts will be conditional on higher education providers achieving a higher quality threshold through the office for students Quality regime. More broadly, the post 16 Skills and Education White Paper sets out our commitment to placing the sector on a more sustainable footing, supporting providers to drive efficiency, strengthen financial resilience and adopt more effective operating models.

And I do agree with my noble friend Baroness Warwick about the importance of UK's future university work. This is an important piece of work and actually I agree with the noble Lord Lord Mohammed as well about the diversity of the higher education sector being one of its strengths. And we, I think, made that case and spelt that out in the white paper that we produced last year. My noble friend Lord Stevens, invites me, invites me to make comment about stories in the Daily Telegraph.

I would first say he knows he can't believe everything he reads in the Daily Telegraph. He will also know that I will not be making, to use a cliche, a running commentary on what's happening within. Discussions about the EU reset. Where I do agree with him, however, is he is right that we should not penalise UK students or university finances through any agreements that we might make. As part of that reset, several noble Lords have identified research, quite rightly, as a very important element of the work of our universities and talked about the funding available for it.

This government is investing a record £86 billion in R&D from 2026 27 to 2930. As part of this, Ukri will deliver an expected 38.6 billion of research investment, rising to nearly £10 billion per year by the end of the period. In the Department for education, we are working closely with DSIT to deliver the white papers commitments, which include research, funding reform and improvements to research grant cost recovery. Early action includes reforms to the Research Valuation Framework 2029 to reduce the burden and place a stronger emphasis on institutional strategy and areas of strength, supporting more sustainable research planning.

But I did agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bew, in his view, about the significance and the contribution that the that the ref makes. I thought that was an important point. The noble Lady, Baroness Freeman Freeman, raised the point about support for postgraduate and doctoral students, and the government is working with Ukri through the New Deal for postgraduate research to strengthen financial support and the overall student experience. We've increased the minimum stipend by 40% in cash terms between 2021 and 2026, and have provided better support to students through revisions to their standard Terms and Conditions of Training grant, with changes implemented from October last year.

I also recognise that for our higher education sector to remain world leading, it must continually uphold the highest standards of quality, integrity and student outcomes. It must also remain accessible and affordable, ensuring that students from all backgrounds are able to benefit from the opportunities that higher education provides, and also to benefit from the undoubted outcomes and lifelong benefits that higher education brings. And the noble Lord, Lord Willetts and others have referenced the work of the IFS commissioned by the Department for education, published last week alongside the Leo Statistics.

I know the noble Lord worked hard to to make us detailed and wide ranging as possible. And there is a clear message there. It is still very worthwhile to go to university. There is a. In terms of the lifelong returns that varies by subject. But the vast majority of people who go to university, as well as all the social benefits that noble Lords have identified, will gain over their lifetimes a considerable return from. Having done that.

Having said that, and given the the work that we are also doing and that this research identifies in terms of the differential between subjects, it is the case that for some subjects the financial return is not as great, and for some it is actually negative. That doesn't, of course mean that people shouldn't continue, for example, to train to be teachers as I did, or social workers. Of course, it doesn't mean that people shouldn't study performing arts or creative subjects for all sorts of reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Clancarty, spelt out.

But what it does mean is that everybody should make those choices, particularly given the investment they are making on the basis of the best possible information. We are determined working with Ucas and Discover Uni to to provide much clearer information for people making those decisions about what they can expect from a higher education course and where they can expect that to enable them to go. And of course, we have committed to increasing the numbers of starters on courses which lead to priority occupations related to our industrial strategy.

And that's the reason for for producing, as we have done what we've called our pathways to priority occupations document. And we will use that, but also a whole range of other information and data to make decisions on support for higher education and want to make that available for people making decisions about which courses that they do in relation to the point by by the noble Lord Lord Willetts about the noble Lady. Baroness Cash about the returns to apprenticeships.

There is already a variety of evidence on the economic returns to apprenticeships that has been published by the Department, by the centre for Vocational Education Research and others. We will be considering how to apply a methodology similar to that used by the IFS to apprenticeships. As we go forward, we are committed to raising teaching standards in higher education so that every student receives a high quality education and strong outcomes that they deserve. We continue to support the office for students as it implements implements a stronger, more integrated approach to assessing quality of teaching and where lower quality provision is identified, it should be improved for existing students before it expands further.

So we are working to ensure that the office for students can impose recruitment limits on those providers. And as I have already said, the White Paper also sets out plans to reward and incentivise excellence through measures such as linking tuition fee uplifts to the office for students, high quality ratings, several noble Lords and the noble Lady, Baroness Deech, have raised questions about how we protect academic standards. And it is right, of course, that confidence in degree outcomes is key to maintaining the reputation of English higher education, and that is why we have committed to a range of actions to explore risks to standards, including whether recent patterns of improving grades can be explained by an erosion of standards, rather than improved teaching or assessment practices.

And I'm sure that there is continuing improvement in both teaching and assessment. We are also looking closely at assessment integrity and the external examining system, and including in that the threats and opportunities that artificial intelligence presents. Alongside this, we are working with the office for students to understand the risks presented by generative AI to academic standards. But I do agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tarasenko, and I recognise the point made by the noble Baroness Findlay and and cash that there are also important opportunities in the use of AI within higher education.

I do not believe that the. The primary one of those is how we reduce the numbers of staff, but I do think that there are a range of ways, and I know from having spoken to vice Chancellors that there is a lot of work going on in higher education as to how the benefits and opportunities from AI can also be recognised. I do just want to say something about in considering how we protect academic standards, that we address the risks posed by certain delivery models that have developed in the sector, and particularly franchised provision, where we have seen an enormous growth over recent years of that provision.

This is the reason why we are taking forward proposals to strengthen oversight of franchising in higher education, by requiring large franchise providers to register with the office for students. The response to the consultation on that, that we published in last December, sets out the details, which will ensure that student loan funding is better protected from misuse and that students studying at franchise providers can have confidence that their courses are subject to rigorous quality requirements. The changes that we are making through regulations will ensure that large, unregistered provision is brought within the office's strengthened regulatory regime, while not increasing the burden on smaller providers.

These regulations are the next step in the government's programme of work to strengthen the integrity of the student finance system and ensure that franchise provision operates in students interests with clear accountability and robust safeguards for public money and the the lead providers must also take responsibility for ensuring the quality and governance of their partnerships, and they must act swiftly where standards for short fall short, as will the government and the office for students. These risks to quality and oversight also underline the importance of safeguarding the proper use of public money.

This government takes very seriously the need to ensure that we protect the student finance system from exploitation, and that's why we're bearing down on any misuse or risk of misuse of that system. Because where that occurs, and I'm afraid through the Office of Students, we have seen some evidence of that. That is the behaviour that undermines student outcomes, that damages public trust and diverts funding away from legitimate higher education. Further to that, we do intend to consult on a new minimum English language requirement that will ensure that those receiving student finance are able to engage fully with their course.

We want to ensure that public funding supports students who are able to benefit from the investment that government make in higher education. I know that there are a whole range of ways, particularly for mature students, that they may well come to higher education through different pathways and different academic routes. We are really keen to to ensure that that access to higher education remains open, but the aim has to be as well to ensure value for money and protection for those students.

Frankly, my Lords students should not be mis sold courses that they are not equipped to undertake. I we will not set up arbitrary barriers to participation, but we will, in consultation and in the light of of evidence, think carefully about the potential impacts on students and providers as we take forward this approach to safeguard students, to safeguard our student finance system and to balance access with successful participation in higher education. Several noble Lords raised the point of student finance.

The noble Lord Lord Isaac. My my noble friend Lord Liddle. Our reforms on student finance are already regearing that system to better support disadvantaged students, to make things fairer for graduates and to create a more flexible and responsive post 18 education system. As I have said through the introduction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, we are also future proofing maintenance loans by committing to increase them in line with forecasts inflation every year. We are also making care leavers automatically eligible for the maximum rate of maintenance loan from next academic year, providing vital support for one of the most vulnerable groups in society.

We are reintroducing targeted means tested maintenance grants from academic year 2020 829 to provide disadvantaged students with up to £1,000 per year, on top of existing maintenance loans, funded by a levy on providers for international students. We know, as we've heard today, that some graduates are concerned about the cost of loan repayments, and it's exactly why we're making the system. We inherited fairer maximum interest rates on plan two and three. Student loans will be capped at 6% for academic year 2020 627, delivering stability and protection for graduates from escalating student loan interest.

We are increasing the repayment threshold for plan two loans in April. We increased it in April 2025 and have increased it twice. Again, this is higher than the average graduate salary. Three years after graduation of £28,100. I have already this week argued why I don't believe a graduate tax is the answer to the problems of student finance. And as I'm coming to the end of my time, can I just close this debate by thanking the noble Baroness, lady D, for bringing this important and timely issue before the House, this government remains firmly committed to a higher education system that is both world leading in quality and fair in its access, one that delivers value for students, graduates and taxpayers, including those who do not go to university, and that equips learners with the skills they need to success to succeed throughout their lives.

And I look forward to continuing to work with noble Lords across the House to ensure that our world leading higher education sector continues to thrive.
17:35
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, this debate has sounded the alarm to the Minister and the Department about what's and the Department about what's going on in our universities and in fact, ever since Prime Minister Tony Blair, the attitude of successive governments has been somewhat like the blue touch paper in relation to numbers. And stand back and see what happens. There is a real crisis, and the fact that we have gathered together this afternoon such a galaxy of leading academics of this country is in itself a tribute to the effect of higher education.

And in fact, there are dozens, maybe more than that, other members of the House who couldn't be here this afternoon, who are also the most distinguished academics. But I hazard a guess that many of them like me. And, as Lord Liddle said, benefited from free tuition, maintenance grants and a smooth passage through higher education, not least of our luminaries in this House is the noble Lord, Lord Rees. If ever there was an exemplar of scientific research at the highest level recognised around the world, it is him and it is a privilege that he sits here and I think he stands in himself for a more flexible attitude to higher education, less of a division between humanities and science, and the contribution that scientists can make to the general well-being of the country.

And I think we should learn from that and actually adopt a more flexible approach, whether it's allowing students to have a more of a mixture of subjects, or whether it is turning some universities into places that offer a different sort of learning or even over a shorter time period. I would call the noble Lord Lord Rees, the C.P. snow of our age, because that is what he has expressed to us in his time here. Now, there were some disagreements amongst us, but I think there's been very broad division on the fact that AI needs careful attention.

As Lady Finlay Lord Tarassenko and the noble Baroness Lady Cash said, many of us agree that salary is not the main issue. How many of us said to ourselves, what's the salary going to be? When we went to education? I'm sure we didn't say that. And when I was choosing students as admissions and said to them, why have you chosen this subject? If they said to me because of the salary, it would have been an immediate thumbs down. I can assure you it's the morality.

As the right reverend Prelate said, it's the personal qualities that are drip fed into by those precious 3 or 4 years. And many of us have agreed on that. Baroness Freeman and others. And in fact, I was thinking as people spoke, is it not such a good thing now that members of the Royal family go into higher education, even the women? That was not the case so long ago, and I think the values of higher education will indeed show themselves up in the attitudes and benefits that the Royal family can bring to us.

Access remains important. I agree with the noble Lady, Baroness Warwick, who herself did so much for the higher education sector. That access is important, but I putting it rather crudely, I think access should now swivel to class rather than ethnicity. I think the problem is with poor students, especially poor white students, rather than focusing all the time on diversity of ethnicity. Research, as I've already mentioned, is vastly important. We have led the way with Covid vaccination and AI, and unless research is supported, as the noble Lord Patel said, and Bew Lord Stevens Lady Finlay, Britain will sink back.

Our research is world beating and it benefits us personally. Freedom of speech has been a passion of mine for a long time, and I was pleased to hear Lord Verdirame express his anxieties. And indeed, Lady Kash, it is something that we absolutely must all promote lest our universities sink down. Student loans remain a real problem. I confidently predict that they will topple over and the whole system will not survive. It cannot, and something else will have to take its place.

My own bet is with some form of graduate tax, but one can see the student loans becoming unaffordable, the debt to the country mounting up and there being a deterrent. We are all keen to see the arts flourish regardless of salary, and we hope that the government will recognise that and we need to see vocational education flourish, whether it's through apprenticeships or different types of universities. As the noble Lord Lord Rees has said. So there is much that unites us.

I remain troubled about international students because I think they will be a great cost to the system, especially if, as was formerly the case, three times as many EU students come here as ours go there and they're not paying their full whack and not repaying. I think that is a real problem. So we have a wonderful system and all of us here implore the Minister to listen to what the academics here have said and preserve that system with special attention to the arts, the fragility of the loan system.

My Lords, I beg to move. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content. The contrary not content. The contents habit. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now
10:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Meeting families of prisoners serving an Imprisonment for Public Protection or Detention for Public Protection sentence
-

This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page