Schools Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Adonis

Committee stage & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Monday 13th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

Since the noble Lord has raised the issue of Clause 3 standing part of the Bill, I wonder whether I might add a few remarks in the form of a question to the Minister. Unusually, the debates on this Bill in your Lordships’ House appear to be attracting the attention of the media, which very rarely happens, because people have suddenly noticed that these are extremely wide-ranging powers that have the potential to transform the whole educational landscape in England. One of the commentaries I read said that the person most frequently mentioned in the debates on this Bill so far has been Henry VIII. He has been much more frequently mentioned than the Secretary of State or any of us who are former Ministers, and so he appears to have been the principal author of this Bill. I think the remarks that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made last week are what the media are latching on to.

In trying to understand the Bill, I have a question for the Minister. My understanding of Clause 3(1) is that it would give the Government the power to override any existing admissions arrangements for an academy by ministerial direction. This is quite significant, because, as those of us who have laboured in this territory know, there are 101 varieties of non-selective admissions, and in respect of academies there are different forms of banding and inner and outer catchment areas—all these things—which are hugely important to the relationship between the school and its community which are usually brokered. I know that some people think that academies operate in a vacuum, but they do not; these arrangements have generally been very intensely negotiated, including with local authorities, to see that there is fairness between schools and so on.

My reading of this clause is that it will give the Government the power to override all the funding agreements in respect of admissions, in a way that may be very ill-thought through, just because a particular Minister or Secretary of State takes against one form of banding and wants a different form of non-selective admissions. This would completely subvert arrangements which, for very good reason, have been entered into between sponsors, multi-academy trusts and previous Ministers and would effectively override the whole contractual basis on which sponsors have taken responsibility for the management of schools. That is my reading of Clause 3(1). I know that there are ongoing discussions, which I have not been party to, but could the Minister confirm that this would give the Government the power to override any existing admissions arrangements set out in a funding agreement? If that is the case, I think Henry VIII has made a dramatic reappearance in the affairs of the Committee this afternoon.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank your Lordships. I will keep my remarks extremely brief, because we covered many of the points raised this afternoon when we debated this clause on the first day of Committee. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord on his question regarding admissions arrangements and set that out in detail. I ask my noble friend if he will consider withdrawing his remarks about the department taking revenge. It does not take revenge on anybody or anything. It works to serve Ministers to the best of their ability.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Adonis

Report stage
Tuesday 12th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that the House wants to move towards a decision and the arguments made have been utterly compelling. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, deserves to be parliamentarian of the year for his speech alone. I have rarely heard a government policy eviscerated so comprehensively by one of the Government’s own supporters.

However, the Minister has our deep sympathy in seeking to reply. Can she point us to the actual statement of policy on which we are supposed to think that this is a good idea? I have been in search of it in the run-up to the debate because I am always in the market for evidence-based policy; after all, this is supposed to be an education Bill and one might expect that it has evidence behind it. I have searched in vain. The only statement that I could find on the policy that the Government are pursuing is in the skills White Paper of January 2021, which has one paragraph on this policy—an Orwellian paragraph because it states as fact things that have not yet even happened. I will read it to the House because it adds compelling force to the arguments of my noble friend Lord Blunkett and the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Baker.

Paragraph 63 on page 33 of the White Paper reads as follows:

“In September 2020, students across England started on the first ever T Levels.”


That is one year ago. These are some of the students in those two colleges that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred to. It goes on:

“The first three T Levels are in Construction, Digital, and Education & Childcare, and a further seven will be introduced in 2021.”


That is now; they are literally starting just now. We are being invited to legislate to abolish the qualifications which people sit in favour of qualifications that are only just at this moment being introduced. The Government say:

“We are proud of this programme”—


I am delighted that they are proud of the programme—

“which is based on employer-led standards and offers a prestigious technical alternative to A Levels.”

How can we know that they are a prestigious technical alternative when most of them have only just started, only a small minority have been going for a year, no candidates have yet got any of these qualifications and been able to give a view on them, and there has been no evaluation whatever? That is the sum total of the Government’s justification for this policy of unilaterally abolishing all the existing qualifications in favour of those that have not yet started.

The really compelling point was the last one made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts. Not following the day-to-day developments in the education world, I had not realised that the Government were moving to abolish BTECs so quickly. We all support the development of T-levels, but to abolish the existing qualifications regime in this way is a truly astonishing act. He is completely right; I invite the House to imagine what would happen if the Government announced that in two years’ time, GCSEs and A-levels were going to be abolished in favour of a qualification which is only this year being piloted in schools for the first time.

When I was Minister of Education, we had to decide what to do with the Tomlinson report, which proposed to replace GCSEs and A-levels with a new 14 to 19 diploma. I strongly advised Tony Blair not to go ahead with this on the grounds that trying to run these two systems side by side—the development of a completely new diploma alongside maintaining GCSEs and A-levels—over a period of 10 to 20 years was simply unsustainable. In any case, we were being invited by Sir Mike Tomlinson, who is a friend of mine and I hold him in very high regard, on a series of assertions and nothing more, to think that a completely new qualification would outclass and—with the great English middle classes, who are very attached to the status quo—prove itself to be better than the entire existing system of education that was available then.

I can assure noble Lords that the arguments in the Tomlinson report did not get very far with Tony Blair; he certainly was not going to be the Prime Minister who announced that he was abolishing the entire existing system of GCSEs and A-levels in favour of an exam which had not even been introduced then. But that is precisely what is happening at the moment in respect of vocational qualifications. My noble friend Lord Blunkett brought up the social aspect, as did the noble Lord, Lord Baker—his closing remarks on the impact of this reform on students from black and ethnic minority communities and disabled students were literally breathtaking in their import.

We would not dream—least of all a Conservative Government, but I do not believe a Labour Government would either—of announcing in advance the abolition of the entire system of academic qualifications in favour of a new regime which had not even been properly designed, let alone tested. That is precisely what is happening in respect of vocational qualifications under the policy announced by the Government and taken forward by the Bill, and we need the biggest possible majority behind the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and these other amendments, so that the Government are invited to think again.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their powerful contributions on this group and I will attempt to set out again our measures in relation to technical educational qualifications. I underline that our ambition with these changes is for a technical education system that is directly rooted in the needs of the workplace. Our reforms will raise the quality of technical qualifications and give young people and adults the skills they need to progress into skilled employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Oh, I am so sorry, I will try to speak a little louder; forgive me. Our reforms will make sure that every qualification has a clear and distinct purpose so that learners attain the skills they need to succeed in high-quality higher education or to progress into skilled employment.

We set out the qualifications we intend to fund alongside A-levels and T-levels in the summer. I can assure noble Lords that we will fund a small range of high-quality qualifications at level 3, including some BTECs, that could typically be taken alongside A-levels if they meet our new approval criteria. These are qualifications with practical and applied elements, in areas such as STEM and IT, which support progression to high-quality higher education. For example, a student may choose to undertake an applied qualification in health and social care alongside A-levels in biology and psychology.

We will also fund larger qualifications that support progression to higher education in subject areas less well served by A-levels and where there is no T-level; for example, in the performing arts. These are not qualifications designed to relate to specific occupations and so will fall outside the institute’s remit, but we do expect them to include some BTECs.

In addition, we will fund technical qualifications which support the development of competence in occupations that are not currently covered by T-levels, where they meet the approval criteria. For example, this could include areas such as travel and tourism or training to be a blacksmith; these will be within the institute’s remit. Employers must play an active role in the technical qualifications system. The institute places the independent view of employers at the heart of its activity. It is important that the institute has discretion in its activity so that it can respond to the changing needs of the labour market.

Both my noble friends raised important points of detail about the data that we use to compare BTECs and A-levels and the specific rules around taking a second BTEC, the environment in which T-levels are taught, and the background to the recent policy announcement. If I may, in the interests of time, I will give responses and clarification to those points because there were possibly some misunderstandings, which I can address in a letter.

Amendments 28 and 33 from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and my noble friend Lord Willetts, would require public consultation and the consent of employer representative bodies before institute approval is withdrawn, or before funding is withdrawn where a qualification no longer has institute approval. Institute approval is a mark of quality and currency with business and industry, showing that employers demand employees who have obtained that qualification. I hope that in some way that reassures my noble friend Lord Willetts and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, both of whom referred—my words, not theirs—to a certain academic snobbery about technical qualifications. This is not about academic snobbery but about what employers have told us they need and value. Approval would be withdrawn when a qualification no longer meets the criteria against which it is approved and no longer delivers the outcomes that employers need.

The institute will actively involve employers when making decisions, including through its route panels. These panels hold national sector expertise and expert knowledge of occupational standards which have portability across employers. The requirement for a public consultation and consent from employer representative bodies, which are not designed to give input on individual qualifications, is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 29 from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, seeks to delay withdrawal of level 3 qualifications for four years. It is vital in a fast-moving and high-tech economy that we close the gap between what people study and the needs of employers. That is why we are introducing more than 20 T-levels in 2023 and strengthening other routes to progress into skilled employment or further study.

The number of T-level providers is already growing quickly, from 43 providers in the first year to over 100 delivering in year 2, 188 in total by 2022, and significantly more by 2023, when we allow a greater range of providers to start delivery. We are looking carefully at where students currently take qualifications that may be withdrawn to ensure that relevant T-levels and sufficient numbers of industry placements are available in those areas. I know that both points were of concern to your Lordships this evening. I want to be clear that we will not leave learners without access to the technical qualifications that they and employers need during this transition phase.

We have provided significant support to help providers get ready for T-levels and will continue to do so. This includes £165 million to support industry placements, and over £250 million has been made available in capital funding and the T-level professional development programme, available to all staff teaching T-levels.

T-levels raise the quality bar for technical education. They are co-designed with over 250 leading employers and based on employer-led occupational standards. We have tried to learn the lessons from the past, when new, high-quality programmes, such as the 14-to-19 diplomas, failed because they were added to the market without the removal of competing qualifications. We want as many young people as possible to benefit from T-levels, which is why it is important for us to proceed at pace.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

Did the noble Baroness just say—I think the House was slightly surprised by that remark—that it was mistake not to have abolished GCSEs and A-levels because that might have led to the development of a 14-to-19 diploma?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am happy to write to the noble Lord to clarify the background to that but my understanding is that there were quality programmes, such as the 14-to-19 diploma, which did not gain traction, which I am sure the noble Lord would accept. I suggest that in part, that was because other qualifications were not removed.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

GCSEs and A-levels?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to proceed.

Amendment 30 from the noble Lord, Lord Watson, seeks to confirm that the decision to withdraw approval from a technical qualification may be subject to judicial review. I assure your Lordships that the institute is a public authority and its decisions can be reviewed by the courts in the same way as the decisions of any other public authority.

Amendment 32 from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, would require the institute to publish in advance the criteria which must be met before withdrawing approval of a technical education qualification. It is absolutely right that the institute should publish information so that awarding bodies know in advance the matters the institute will take into account. The Bill already provides for this in new Section A2D6(4).

As I said, approval will be withdrawn when a qualification no longer meets the criteria against which it was approved; for example, where it fails to keep pace with the relevant occupational standard, which will evolve with industrial advances. Specifying criteria that must be met for withdrawal—in addition to criteria that must continue to be met for a qualification to retain approval—would result in duplication and will remove the flexibility the institute requires to meet employer needs.

A number of questions were asked regarding the impact of T-levels on social mobility. Again, if I may, I will set out our position in more detail. However, I would like to be clear that the Government are absolutely committed to levelling up. Social mobility is clearly an integral part of this and education, skills and careers are vital to making a success of those efforts. We believe that T-levels represent a much-needed step change in the quality of the technical offer. As we have heard, they have the endorsement of employers, and alongside T-levels we have introduced the T-level transition programme to support students who are not yet ready to start a T-level at 16 but who have the potential to progress to one. We have also introduced flexibility for SEND learners across all elements of the T-level programme.

In conclusion, our reforms to post-16 qualifications aim to ensure that we will have a system where the choices are clear and learners can be assured that every option is of high quality, whether it supports progression to higher education or to skilled employment. Extending the role of the institute will make certain that the majority of technical qualifications available in England are based on employer-led occupational standards and deliver the skills outcomes that employers need. Given this, I hope that my noble friend Lord Lucas will feel comfortable in withdrawing his amendment, and that other noble Lords will not feel it necessary to move theirs.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Adonis

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 28th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, we are very grateful for the Minister’s reply. She said that the Government wished to table a specific amendment which was ruled out of order by the Public Bill Office. Is it the Government’s intention to bring the precise power that they were going to take in this Bill in the Telecommunications (Security) Bill? The Government control the legislative process. Will they bring forward the precise proposal they wished to bring forward in this Bill in another, which will come before us in the near future?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Just to clarify, the Government brought two versions of the amendment, not one. To the best of my knowledge, there is no intention to bring it back because the focus of the Telecommunications (Security) Bill is on telecoms security and national security. Therefore, any such amendment would face the same barrier as it faced in this Bill—namely, it would be out of scope. If it were effective on the supply chain, it would be out of scope.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Adonis

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

My noble friend makes an important point. It is something we keep constantly under review and I will take her comments back to my colleagues in the department, so that they are aware of her remarks.

[Lord Adonis]

I am glad that the Minister has a sense of humour. Those of us in this Committee will regard her predicament of having a very weak connection as fully justifying the Bill. I do not know whether she is in a shared property that does not have fibre throughout, but we cannot properly conduct this Committee stage because even among ourselves we do not have a sufficiently strong internet signal, despite having weeks to prepare. This demonstrates why, as a country, we need to get going on this.

I did not pick up the first time round what the Minister said about BT, because of her dropped connection. When she repeated it in response to my noble friend Lord Liddle, she left me somewhat concerned. She said that the stories in the FT were “inaccurate”, but she would not say in what respect; she simply referred to other press comments. I see exactly what she is seeking to do: she is trying to keep clear of revealing to us private information, which the Government or the regulator will surely have, about what is going on in this context. However, I think she will understand that we do not really regard this situation as satisfactory.

As my noble friends Lord Liddle and Lord Stevenson rightly said, although Openreach is formally a private company, our whole understanding is that rolling out enhanced gigabyte connectivity crucially depends on Openreach. If we do not have confidence in its capacity to do this, the Committee will certainly not be satisfied that the Government have a strategy. To be fair, I do not think that the Government themselves would be satisfied with the situation either.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran]

My Lords, I will now respond to Amendment 2 and the points raised by noble Lords.

This amendment would limit the use of the powers contained in Part 4A only to operators installing gigabit-capable services. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, stressed, the spirit of this amendment is to test the Government’s commitment to providing gigabit-capable broadband. I am obviously disappointed that he found insufficient the remarks of my honourable friend the Minister for Digital Infrastructure in the other place.

The Government remain completely committed to bringing faster, gigabit-capable broadband to the whole country as soon as possible. Our ambition remains nationwide coverage by 2025. However, we do not believe that we should force consumers to take out specific services.

Clause 1, as currently drafted, supports our ambition. It provides a bespoke process in the courts that will allow an operator faced with a landowner of a premises within the scope of this Bill who repeatedly fails to respond to notices, and a tenant waiting for a service to be connected, to gain interim code rights for the purpose of connecting that building to their broadband service. To limit provision only to services

“that can deliver an average download speed of at least one gigabit per second”

runs the risk, particularly in the short term, of limiting access to better broadband, which, as all noble Lords have agreed, is extremely important.

This Bill, like the Electronic Communications Code, which it amends, is technology neutral and therefore speed neutral. It makes no distinction between the type of service being deployed but recognises the consumer’s right to choose the service they want from the provider they want. Of course, many consumers will want the speed, reliability and resilience offered by full-fibre or gigabit-capable connections, and it should not be the role of government to limit their ability to choose.

In a similar vein, although gigabit-capable services are being rolled out across the UK, they are not yet being deployed everywhere. In practice, the amendment would mean that households in areas yet to be reached by gigabit-capable networks would have to wait—maybe for a long period—even though a superfast or ultrafast service might already be available. Our experience and current practice suggest that an operator would be very unlikely to install outdated technology, and therefore such a delay would be unnecessary and extremely frustrating for consumers.

Finally, were this amendment to form part of the Bill, we consider that it would not have the effect intended by noble Lords. It amends paragraph 27A, which is an introductory provision and explains in very general terms what Part 4A of the code does. The amendment in itself does not amend any of the Bill’s substantive provisions, such as paragraph 27B of the code. Its drafting would not therefore operate within the rest of the Bill.

I understand what noble Lords are seeking to achieve in tabling the amendment. The Government absolutely share the aspiration of achieving gigabit-capable broadband across the whole country, but it is important that the Bill, and the Electronic Communications Code more widely, stay technology neutral for the sake of the consumer’s right to choose and to ensure that we do not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

A number of noble Lords raised the question of the universal service obligation, which is the safety net that we legislated for and which went live on 20 March. It ensures that everyone across the UK has a clear and enforceable right to request high-speed broadband of at least 10 megabits a second from a designated provider and up to a reasonable cost threshold of £3,400. We keep the speed and quality parameters of the USO under review all the time to make sure that it keeps pace with consumers’ evolving needs, and our officials work closely with Ofcom regarding the implementation of the universal service obligation.

With that, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Adonis]

Before I make my concluding remarks, perhaps I may ask the Minister three further probing questions. I am obviously extremely grateful to her for her full response, but she raised three questions in my mind.

First, she raised some technical concerns about the amendment—in particular, that it amends not the code but only the introductory provisions. That raises an obvious question. If I return with this amendment on Report, properly drafted—indeed, I might invite the noble Baroness herself to provide a draft that the Government think is adequate—would the Government then be prepared to accept it? Indeed, if they proposed it themselves, they would not have to accept it.

That is important because there is an inconsistency in the noble Baroness’s argument in respect of the other two points. She said that it is unlikely that operators would want to install what she called “outdated technology”. I take that to mean technology that is not gigabit-capable. Not only is that unlikely but, if they were to do so on any large scale, of course the Government would then not meet their target, which is to have gigabit-capable coverage.

If the Government are committed to their target and believe that operators are unlikely anyway to want to take forward what she calls outdated technology, what is their objection to having this specification in the Bill? I do not understand what it is. I will give the Minister a moment further to consider her answer to that.

I was very concerned about a point she made about the Government being speed neutral. When Matt Warman spoke in the House of Commons, he did not use the phrase speed neutral but said the Government were technology neutral. I am sympathetic to technology neutral but totally unsympathetic—as I suspect colleagues in the Committee will be—to the idea that the Government are speed neutral. Speed neutral means that the Government may not actually be committed to having superfast broadband rolled out across the country in the first place. Indeed, if the Minister considers what she means by speed neutral and elucidates it a bit further for the Committee, it may be that we get to a position where we have underlying concerns about whether the Government are committed to their own target.

Can the Minister tell us what she means by speed neutral? Does she mean that the Government would be perfectly happy to have a national rollout of something less than gigabit-capable coverage? If she does not mean that and is committed, on behalf of the Government, to gigabit-capable coverage—which I think is what the Committee wants to see—why will the Government not accept an amendment of this kind, properly drafted, which does no more than hold them to their own public commitments?

[Baroness Barran]

With regard to the noble Lord’s first point about the technical amendment, he is of course right on one level. We—or, I am sure, the noble Lord himself or his team—could make technical amendments to make sure the Bill is coherent and consistent. We could address those points. However, the central issue is one of not delaying the implementation of the rollout and staying true to technology neutrality. I gather that speed neutral is a consequence of tech neutrality, so it would insert into the Electronic Communications Code a tech-specific provision that does not exist anywhere else in the code. The code is about regulating relationships between operators and landowners, not about technology. I will set out these points clearly for the Committee and the noble Lord in a letter.

[Lord Adonis]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her last point about setting this out in a letter. It is very important to the Committee that the Government do so. I do not at all like this idea of speed neutrality, which implies that the Government’s target might not be worth the paper it is written on and that Parliament is about to grant the Government powers that in principle we support but whose purpose will not necessarily be met unless we can maintain the commitment to gigabit-capable coverage. I think the Minister understands that, because, while she said that speed neutrality is a consequence of technology neutrality, she has not said that the Government are not committed to gigabit-capable coverage across the country.

If the Government are committed to gigabit-capable coverage nationwide, it follows logically that it is not speed-neutral. The Committee is looking forward to hearing, in the Minister’s reply, how the Government will square that circle. What she says in that regard will have a big bearing on how we take this matter forward at Report, but on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Alton of Liverpool, have expressed a wish to speak again, so I will call them in order and the Minister will answer after each noble Lord has spoken.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I shall make a brief comment and ask a question in response to what the noble Baroness has just said. She and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, both talked about assessments of telecoms and infrastructure security that have been made historically. Does she accept that relations with China are dynamic and appear to be particularly so at the moment, in dealing with the Covid epidemic and its fallout, which could have a significant bearing on future relations, not only with us but with the West. Are the Government cognisant of that?

Because I have not been following these things very closely, my question is this. Have the Government given a categorical undertaking to introduce a telecoms security Bill before the summer?

[Baroness Barran]

I think the noble Lord knows that the Government are absolutely cognisant of how international relations with multiple partners, including China, evolve. The current situation is obviously unprecedented. Forgive me, but I must ask the noble Lord to repeat his second question.

[Lord Adonis]

My question was: have the Government given a categoric undertaking to introduce a telecommunications security Bill before the summer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister. As she says, there are drafting issues, but I am sure that if they were the only concern we would all be happy for the Government to do the drafting for us. There seems to be a contradiction in the Government’s position. May I ask the Minister to clarify it? Is she saying that under the Bill as drafted, and the terms of the agreement with the proposed Part 4A order, alternative operators will or will not have easy access to new infrastructure? To prevent people unfairly undercutting initial investors, it is important that they should not. It is not clear to me and that point seems to go to the heart of the Government’s argument. Are they arguing that operators will have easy access, so that what is proposed here is irrelevant; or that operators will not have easy access, which is intentional because if they did, there would be undercutting? Which of those is the Government’s position?

[Baroness Barran]

The Government’s position is that there is fair access, in that any provider can apply for a Part 4A order of their own to deliver a service. Alternative operators have equal access to the existing operator or other alternatives.

[Lord Adonis]

That is a very helpful response because it seems to indicate a possible way forward in a redrafted amendment that underpins fair access. In my proposed new sub-paragraph (3) to new paragraph 27F, instead of saying

“that alternative operators can easily install the hardware”

it should say that they can install their hardware on a fair basis. My sub-paragraph (4) would then be the definition of fair, to be provided by Ofcom. I do not want to press the Minister too far, but can she at least undertake at this stage to look at such an amendment, without making any commitments to come back on Report, and write to me about it?

[Baroness Barran]

What I am saying is that we believe that we already have a fair system and that this could best be explored in the accompanying regulations. However, I will be happy to write to the noble Lord on the point.

Covid-19: Public Interest Reporting

Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Adonis

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord has covered a number of points. I absolutely echo his sentiment about the importance of journalists and those involved in public service broadcasting at the moment; not only are they a trusted source of facts, but they will have a role to play in rallying communities and getting the message across about how we can keep ourselves and our families safe, and protect our NHS. Undoubtedly, they have a critical role. I know the noble Lord understands the pace at which government has had to work over the past couple of weeks. In a number of these areas, it may be worth waiting a couple more days and getting the solution right, rather than being too hasty.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, might this be an appropriate moment for the over-75s to be given back their free licences?

[Baroness Barran]

The noble Lord might not be aware that an announcement was made about the changes to licences for the over-75s due to be effective from 1 August.

Covid-19: Business Interruption Insurance

Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Adonis

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran]

On my noble friend’s final point about the opportunity to review those issues here, I understand that that will be dealt with through the usual channels as speedily as possible. On the need for cash and the need to change regulations, I think that is the point I was trying to make a few moments ago about how we sequence this. Cash flow appears to be the single most pressing issue, and that is where we are focused.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, it is my understanding that the Statement is not being repeated later today. Could the Minister take back to the usual channels the acute concern about that? This Statement is the single most important business that Parliament will conduct this week, and I sense that noble Lords would like the opportunity to ask the Government questions about it and to give their views.

[Baroness Barran]

I understand from my noble friend on the Front Bench that an offer was made to repeat the Statement here today, but the usual channels agreed that the economic debate tomorrow will be used as a platform to debate it.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Barran and Lord Adonis

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, if we are to modernise these Houses of Parliament for the next generation, and if there is to be a major programme of work, then I am sure that setting up a special-purpose vehicle is the way to go. I have no particular objections or embellishments to offer to the proposals in the Bill, which are well thought through and workable. As the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, they learn from the best practice of the Olympic Delivery Authority and other special-purpose vehicles established for such a purpose. I do not in any way object to the structure set up in the Bill if what we are to do is to modernise these Houses of Parliament, as a working Parliament for the next generation.

There is an issue which merits more consideration as the Bill progresses through your Lordships’ House, particularly since it was hurried through the other place so rapidly—as the noble Baroness said, it went through there in two days. To be frank, I was shocked by how cursory the examination of the Bill was in the other place. One issue that we should spend more time considering is whether a wholesale modernisation of this House in these buildings is the right thing to do for our political democracy in the next generation or whether at this juncture, when we have a moment to plan for the century or century and a half to come—just as Pugin and Barry did in their time—we should seek to rebalance our political constitution and move Parliament away from London. I know that will be a revolutionary suggestion to noble Lords, and I do not expect for a moment that it would be agreed to in any rapid timeframe, but it is worth us considering it. The planning work for this complete refurbishment will take many years so it may be that further work on this issue could continue in parallel with the early planning work, not least because so little work has been done on the cost estimates.

To be frank, having now read all the documents to which the Leader and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred, at the moment all we have is a few back-of-the-envelope figures. There have been no proper costings and we have been told that one of the purposes of the new delivery authority is to produce and estimate the costings for the future. A figure of £4 billion has been touted but looking at the schedule of works, from my own experience in leading major infrastructure projects, I would say that any figure between £5 billion and £20 billion is credible at the moment for the scale of the works being talked about. Given the likely timescale, I would expect it to come out at the higher and not the lower end. It is also important to understand that the parliamentary estate which is not part of the Palace of Westminster is hugely valuable, not least buildings such as 1 Millbank. If they were to be sold as part of a relocation, that would realise an enormous capital sum which could go a long way towards making it affordable to make a move.

There are lots of issues which merit consideration. I am afraid that I am a natural reformer; I cannot see any institution without wanting to reform it, which is probably why I am on this side of the House rather than the other, so I am not in awe of the Barry and Pugin Houses of Parliament. As Pevsner said, the Palace of Westminster is,

“the most imaginatively planned and the most excellently executed major secular building of the Gothic revival”;

it is also true that it is probably the most recognisable building in the world besides the great Pyramid, the Taj Mahal and the Eiffel Tower. All of that is true but none of it would be affected by a decision to move the actual working of Parliament to another place. No one is talking of pulling these Houses of Parliament down; they would obviously be maintained. It is possible that their world heritage status, which my noble friend Lady Andrews referred to, would be enhanced by the working Parliament moving out because they would be much more accessible to the members of the public who want to study and are interested in Pugin.

My noble friend Lady Andrews, for whom I have the utmost respect, said that the Houses of Parliament are unusual in being one of the few historic buildings which retain their original purpose. If we could have an historical debate on this, I do not think that is the case at all. Most of the public buildings in this country—cathedrals, churches, schools, stations and town halls—are old but sometimes the institutions have moved. In particular, our most dynamic business institutions have tended to move to new sets of buildings. In the City, we have very successfully created a complete new sub-city in Canary Wharf to meet the needs of marrying the old and the new, without pulling down all the historic City of London, which would have been required if we were to ensure that a modern economy could co-exist with our old infrastructure.

It is also worth noting—and I feel this very strongly as a working Member of your Lordships’ House—that the Pugin and Barry design of Parliament is singularly inaccessible to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, referred to Mr Barry’s War and I recommend to noble Lords Sir David Cannadine’s excellent essay in the book on the planning and origins of the Houses of Parliament. Pugin himself thought,

“the medieval world better than his own time”.

I had not realised until reading it, but it makes complete sense to me now that I inhabit these buildings every day that, as Sir David Cannadine says, they were intended to be anti-modern, anti-democratic and inaccessible. The Houses of Parliament were designed to be such. It is why the biggest entrance to this building is the Sovereign’s Entrance, which is used once a year. It is why all the most lavishly embellished public rooms are used least. They are essentially a backdrop for the State Opening of Parliament by the King or Queen. All these rooms are designed for that.

It brings to mind my only attempt to change anything in this House. I gave up quickly, I assure you, and I recommend that other new Members of the House do not try to influence in any way the work of the authorities of this House, because you will fail. I predict it. It is easier to try to reroute HS2 or affect Brexit than to change the way anything in this House operates. I made one attempt. I see the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in his place. Under his predecessor and the previous Black Rod, I made what I thought was a perfectly innocent suggestion. The Royal Gallery is the largest and least-used public room in this building by far. It is massively embellished and barely used at all. Why can it not be used to receive members of the public? Why not have some kind of coffee bar in there, as our mini-version of Portcullis House? I can already hear intakes of breath from the officials of the House as I say that.

On accessibility, it is hard to bring people into this building, but the obvious way is through the Sovereign’s Entrance. Let me immediately add, it could be restored with no change, and we could take the coffee bar out of the Royal Gallery for the State Opening of Parliament. Those of us of a certain age remember that that used to happen about once a year, but it appears to happen about once a century now. It may not be until the 22nd century that Her Majesty again opens Parliament in state. That could be done, but I was given 101 reasons why it could not. I will not bore the House with them, but one was that it would require the Queen’s consent. Black Rod thought that it would involve adjusting some of the tiles. I could go through all the reasons, but I gave up very rapidly.

Reading David Cannadine’s essay was instructive, because all those features of the Houses of Parliament that closed them to the public were designed that way, from the outset. Sir David Cannadine says:

“One of the architect’s prime concerns was to create a palace that would enhance the position and assert the prestige of the monarchy vis-à-vis the Lords, the Commons and the people”.


It is one of the reasons why the focus of the House of Lords is the throne, which is only used once a year. He says:

“Hence the Victoria Tower at the south-east corner, which on its completion in 1858 was the tallest secular building in the world, and beneath which was placed the magnificent Royal Entrance, which was exclusively for the use of the sovereign. Hence the succession of state apartments of unparalleled splendour”.


All reinforced the medieval image of the Palace, which was, as a conception,

“profoundly conservative, anti-democratic, anti-utilitarian and anti-industrial”.

All these issues are worth considering and have not been at all, so far, in how we take this forward.

I would like to speak for a few more minutes, because I do not intend to speak to my Motion later. The issue of moving the Houses of Parliament outside London is very real. Anyone with a long historical sense knows that Parliament’s location exclusively in London is relatively modern. In the medieval period, Parliament used to travel around the United Kingdom—mostly England then, although there was the phrase “towards Scotland”—with the King. In the 14th century, Parliament met 11 times in York, three times each in Lincoln and Northampton, and twice in Nottingham, Coventry and Reading. There were parliaments in Carlisle, Osney, Salisbury, Stamford, Winchester, Leicester and Bury St Edmunds. In the 1,000-year lifetime that we all go on about all the time, it is a relatively recent innovation for Parliament to meet exclusively in Westminster. It was another two centuries before the Houses of Parliament, where we are now, became its main meeting place, when Henry VIII moved to Whitehall Palace.

The question therefore is whether, in rebalancing our constitution, which is overwhelmingly dominated by London, there is a case for simply moving the Houses of Parliament outside London. I want to read out an exchange from the other place. It was the only moment—it lasted about two minutes—when the other place considered the fundamental issue of whether Parliament should move out of London, not just for a decant but for longer.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I appreciate that the noble Lord said that he was not going to speak later, but I remind him that the advisory speaking time is eight minutes.

[Lord Adonis]

It is an advisory time. I shall make one speech rather than two. I would be very happy to bore your Lordships with the second speech, but it might be for the convenience of the House if I finished my remarks and then did not need to make a second speech.

The matter was raised by a Plaid Cymru MP, Jonathan Edwards, who asked the following question of Andrea Leadsom, the then Leader of the House:

“The Leader of the House will be aware that nine of the 10 poorest parts of northern Europe are within Britain. Are the British Government not missing an ideal opportunity to decentralise power and wealth away from London and the south-east by relocating this Parliament somewhere else in the UK?”


That was a very good question to ask about this whole enterprise. The Leader of the House of Commons simply replied:

“Moving away from this Parliament permanently to another location … would require entirely relocating Government”.


I do not see that the one follows from the other in the modern age. The resources of Whitehall directly related to servicing Parliament are small; they are ministerial offices and those officials who deal immediately with Parliament. It would be perfectly possible to have Parliament in one place and the bulk of the Civil Service in another. My right honourable friend Yvette Cooper then asked a more fundamental question of Andrea Leadsom:

“Has the Leader of the House actually done any assessment of the costs of relocating … Government Departments out of London?”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/19; cols. 637-41.]


For those of us who think that this country has overcentralised its political system in London, if moving Parliament out of London also means relocating some government departments out of London, it gets better and better. It might give us the opportunity to rebalance our constitution and political system particularly within England, which is overwhelmingly dominated by London and the south-east, sapping so much vitality from the parts of the country beyond. These issues deserve wider exploration in Committee.