Trade Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 7th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am very pleased to endorse this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I congratulate him on his impassioned and persuasive introduction, as has been mentioned by other noble Lords. I fully support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his recognition of the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, to uncover atrocities around the world and be fearless in their attempts to unravel them and draw them to our attention.

The number of Members of your Lordships’ House who are listed to speak on this amendment is an indication of the seriousness of the issue that it seeks to address. I shall be brief, but I emphasise that I fully support the view that in this new era of our history it is an opportunity to reset the dial and have the courage of our convictions by taking the global lead. We absolutely cannot condone genocide and must, through the channels available to us, uncover and condemn it. To condemn genocide on one hand as a nation state, then be willing to negotiate trade deals and perpetuate trading arrangements is inconsistent in the extreme. It would be hypocritical, and the Government would be guilty of turning a blind eye to atrocities that have been proven to be taking place. Walking past on the other side, to use a biblical phrase, is not a stance that a responsible global state should adopt, and it would undermine our moral influence.

I quote Robbie Burns, the famous Scottish poet, and complete the phrase “Man’s inhumanity to man”:

“Man’s inhumanity to man

Makes countless thousands mourn!”

I hope that the Minister takes the matter very seriously and accepts the amendment.

[Baroness Deech (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am sorry that I was not able to vote for the previous amendment, although I am very much in support of this one, because I felt that there were ambiguities—not least because there are offenders against human rights very close to us, such as in Poland, Hungary and Greece.

This amendment is quite different. It is one of the most profound and important amendments to be discussed in your Lordships’ House for a long time. We have an obligation under the genocide convention to prevent and punish genocide and its perpetrators, but if we rely on the Security Council or the International Criminal Court, we are dodging our obligations. We know full well that China’s seat on the Security Council means that it would veto any such move against itself. What a terrible indictment of the international order today, especially the UN and its constituent bodies. Instead of living up to their original ideals of maintaining international peace and security, better living standards, friendly relations and social progress, action—or, more likely, inaction—by the UN has come to represent quite often the very opposite of those ideals: self-seeking and looking for a scapegoat, a cover for some of the most reprehensible Governments in the world.

This amendment possesses the advantage of bringing the UK into compliance with its obligations under the genocide convention. Several states have argued, like the UK, that it is for the international and judicial systems to make the determination of genocide. This argument is profoundly flawed, as it neglects the basic fact that it is the state that is the duty bearer under the genocide convention—hence the states that are parties to the genocide convention must act to ensure that the determination is made by a competent body and that decisive steps follow to fulfil the states’ obligations under the convention to prevent and punish. Moreover, to have the issue of genocide, or not, examined in our courts would be a good thing.

It will likely be argued that the amendment may jeopardise relationships with states accused of genocide in the UK. It should be emphasised that positive genocide judgments are exceptionally rare, owing to the extremely high evidentiary standard. A formal legal examination and determination of genocide in court, to which the trade signatories might make representations, should not be any more diplomatically upsetting than, for example, the UK making complaints at the United Nations against nations such as China for their alleged human rights abuses. The amendment—if passed, as I hope it will be—will in time become a matter of diplomatic pride, sending a strong signal about the values of the UK as a leader in global human rights.

Owing to the rarity of genocide judgments, very few countries would fall within the purview of these provisions. It is difficult to envisage, therefore, that the Government’s ability to trade will be significantly affected. Generally speaking, Governments tend to seek to strike trade deals with nations with which they share common values. The UK does not currently have a trade deal with a country credibly accused of genocide, I believe, and one is not in prospect.

As it happens, we are unlikely to achieve or even want a trade agreement with China. The experience of Canada shows why. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had been expected to come away with an agreement to formally start trade talks, but he insisted that any talks include gender and labour rights and environmental standards. He also raised human rights and China’s use of the death penalty. Basically, he was shown the door and was told no—that there would be no negotiation of a free trade agreement.

Likewise Australia, which, along with many other countries, has been a vocal critic of China’s treatment of the Uighurs in Xinjiang, its suppression of democracy in Hong Kong, and its military activities in the South China Sea. The anti-climax came in April when the Australian Prime Minister took the lead in calling for a thorough investigation into the source of the coronavirus. That incensed China. Since then, the deterioration of the China/Australia relationship has been swift. China is barring Australian goods and putting punitive tariffs on them.

As for the attempted EU-China comprehensive agreement on investment, it is only to be expected that the EU will put finance ahead of human rights, and even the mildest rebuke from the EU about human rights in China elicits a response from China that it should not be meddling in China’s internal affairs—that the Chinese people will not accept an instructor on human rights and oppose double standards. It will all likely end in tears.

This amendment embodies the only thing that we can do. International courts are ineffective; international arrest depends on the perpetrator coming here. It is insulting to the victims of genocide to imagine that putting up monuments, especially after the catastrophe, will make any difference. Nor will lighting candles or pulling down statues—all empty gestures.

If captains of industry and politicians had adopted the practice outlined in this amendment in the 1930s, history might have been very different. For example, IBM had immoral commerce with the Third Reich, supplying it with tabulating machines and punch cards, so useful in rounding up victims.

Can there be any doubt now about the genocidal moves of China? Modern communications ensure that no one can hide from their senses the genocidal policies that it is pursuing against the Uighurs. Foreign companies have wittingly or unwittingly helped China with facial recognition technology and artificial intelligence to enable social control. Trade with any part of China should be under the microscope, and let us not forget Tibet and the danger that now faces Hong Kong. Governments have the power to influence this. If China’s trade and investment are cut down, it may not be able to finance its barbaric projects. Not only should this amendment be passed with acclaim, but other Governments should follow suit.

We must remember the genocide against the Tutsis in Rwanda. The world failed to react to the events while they were unfolding. What did the Security Council do? It removed its peacekeeping mission and allowed bureaucratic foot-dragging to obfuscate the need for prompt—indeed, advance—action. That has weighed heavily on the international community, which now realises that it must do more. Advance action is needed to prevent genocide. Once it is happening it is too late. That is why this amendment is so well crafted and so deserving of support from your Lordships.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner and Lady Kennedy, on this important amendment. I would also like to congratulate them and the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on their work on the issue of genocide more broadly.

I need to declare an interest: I have been appointed as a member of the panel for the independent review of the Human Rights Act, which was announced today. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was unanimously adopted by the UN in 1948. It is important, perhaps, to remind ourselves of the definition of genocide, because it is not just killing or causing serious bodily harm or mental harm to members of a group because of their national, ethnic, racial or religious affiliations. It is also deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. These are all things we are currently seeing in Xinjiang.

Amendment 9 provides a mechanism for limited prevention and sanction of genocide, and it hence recognises the ongoing obligation of all states with which we trade not to engage in genocide.

There has been reference already to Xinjiang, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke eloquently of the extent of trading contracts in China which involve operations in Xinjiang. Your Lordships will recall that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination described the region as

“a massive internment camp shrouded in secrecy, a … no-rights zone.”

The China Tribunal, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice, says that the “organised butchery” of living people to sell body parts of those from religious minorities and ethnic groups could be compared

“to the worst atrocities committed in conflicts of the 20th Century”,

such as the Nazi gassing of Jews and the Khmer Rouge massacres in Cambodia. The tribunal went on to say,

“But nothing, or nothing much, will be done by the Government because the damage caused by even trying to extinguish such abuses comes at what seems to be perceived as an unacceptable cost to trade, and ultimately to our other legitimate interests.”


Through Amendment 9 we can show that something will be done, that genocide is unacceptable, that we will not engage with trade deals where genocide occurs, and that such deals will be revoked where the High Court makes a preliminary determination that they should be revoked on the grounds of genocide, should that be the final decision.

Genocide may not be a popular topic, and it happens far from home, but genocide affects us all in various ways and to a varying extent. One of the most direct ways in which genocide affects us is that by trading with genocidaires we become complicit in the genocide itself because we are not taking action to sanction or prevent it. It is not enough to respond by saying that if we do not enter into such a trade agreement, others will. We have moral and legal obligations on the international stage, and our standing will be diminished if we do not recognise the need to protect the peoples of the world against genocide by refusing to contract with those who use people in their jurisdiction as slave labourers, or so regulate their lives that they can be forced to act as slave labourers.

During the struggle against the slave trade, which engaged Parliament for 40 years, ordinary people in their millions boycotted sugar from slave-owning plantations and refused to add to the bottom-line profits of that sordid trade. Recent activity on the public stage tells us that the British people today would not wish to be complicit in slave labour and genocide, even if there is a price to pay.

Amendment 9 is tightly drawn; it will not prevent trade, except in these very exceptional circumstances. It puts down a marker that UK trade is based on an adherence to our obligations in international law to prevent the crime of genocide.

One Minister recently suggested that possible trading partners might be put off by the possibility that the trade arrangements would be ended if they were found to be in breach of this amendment. We should not be entering into trading agreements with any country that is engaged in or planning genocide in its various forms. If countries subsequently move towards genocidal actions we should provide this remedy through our courts, for we are committed to our obligations under the convention against genocide. The Minister said that to withdraw from a trade agreement because of human rights abuses would be extraordinary. Genocide is extraordinary and the measures required to combat it may well be extraordinary, but we need to do this.

Trade Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I salute my noble friend Lord Alton for bringing the amendment forward in the style to which we have become accustomed, for he has always been a champion not just of the underdog but of those who are on the verge of death and torture. I rely on his description of genocide and that of my noble friend Lady Falkner. The definition is a complicated one and it is quite correct for the amendment to rely on the High Court to decide whether a country is guilty of genocide.

It is a sad day when we have to debate this, but the amendment is perfectly in keeping with the trade amendments that we have been discussing all day, because we can see the thread: morality and trade go together. The amendment is a very good example of that.

It is sadly no longer the case that genocide is something of the past. We have many modern examples of genocide or steps toward it: the Darfuris in Sudan, the Rohingya in Myanmar, the Christians in Nigeria, the Yazidis. We must now ensure that UK business and consumers do not support or profit from forced labour inflicted on the Uighurs in China. It is shameful that China is in such a position that it controls so many international organisations and enables itself to be free from any attack on its behaviour. That is what makes the amendment so important.

I quote Yehuda Bauer, an Israeli historian who himself escaped from a possible Holocaust and was able to get to Palestine in the days when the United Kingdom prevented most refugees entering Palestine. He said:

“Politics that are not based on moral considerations are, at the end of the day, not practical politics at all. It is out of these considerations that I beg you to permit me to repeat here what I said, exactly eight years ago, in a speech to the German Bundestag: I come from a people that gave the Ten Commandments to the world. Let us agree that we need three more commandments, and they are these: thou shalt not be a perpetrator; thou shalt not be a victim; and thou shalt never, but never, be a bystander.”


He writes in a new book:

“I can no longer bear the speeches void of content and packed with clichés of presidents, prime ministers, rabbis and others … What does it actually mean to say ‘Never again’ when genocides keep recurring? It’s just an empty slogan.”


We are learning that in this country. Holocaust remembrance is a major event every year, but building monuments will not do it. There are countless memorials around the world to genocide and atrocities, but they do not help the victims or teach other countries to change their behaviour. We cannot block China because of the unfortunate structure of the Security Council.

Some people say that we will at least be able to bring the perpetrators to justice, but the number of trials before international tribunals is actually quite small. Yes, there was the Nuremburg tribunal. A Japanese war general was put on trial. Tokyo war crimes were tried. There was a tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, for Rwanda and for Cambodia, and the trials of Saddam Hussein and Charles Taylor. But they are ex post facto: the murders and genocide happened before the trials. It is too late for those who died. There is no indication that the punishment of a trial awaiting them has deterred mass killers.

Moreover, the International Criminal Court does not have universal jurisdiction and its stances are partial. Indeed, President Trump gave an executive order in June threatening consequences against anyone who supported this court. There is now a perception in many quarters that the International Criminal Court has not fulfilled the expectations of its founders. The court’s proceedings are cumbersome and lengthy. Many of those accused are still at large, including Omar al-Bashir, the former President of Sudan. Some €1.5 billion have been spent, and there have been only three convictions for core international crimes. Cumbersome procedures, ineffective prosecutions against high-level alleged perpetrators and weak internal management are among the current criticisms of the International Criminal Court.

We are therefore left with nothing else that we can do apart from taking in refugees and supporting this amendment. I wish that there were mechanisms for going into the countries of the accused and rescuing those who are suffering from genocide or coming near to it, but it seems that we cannot do that. Supporting this amendment and perhaps hitting them where it hurts, which is in trade, is the only thing we can do. I cannot see any reason for the Government not to accept it. I support both of these amendments wholeheartedly.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

Owing to an error in the listing, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will speak later. Meanwhile, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.

Science Research Funding in Universities (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Deech (CB) [V]]

My Lords, because of Covid-19, we are in a different university world from that envisaged in the flurry of recent reports on science funding in our universities. I take this opportunity to make two points. One is that we all acknowledge the pre-eminence of Oxford University research in the urgent quest for a vaccine and drugs to beat Covid—indeed, the university was recently ranked number one in the world league tables. We must pray that the reported adverse reaction we heard about today is not a setback.

It is time for Oxford-bashing to stop. We have had too many ill-informed and damaging statements, largely from the Opposition, implying that Oxford discriminates in admissions and ought to abandon its painstaking quest for excellence in intake and consequent outcome. Oxford has invested in building up internationally leading teams over the years and providing the right environment for them; this has paid off. The whole world cannot afford to let this go. We need to prepare for other pandemics to come. The UK can provide the leadership in Covid treatment that has not come from the US, the EU—which has chosen to cut Horizon funding—or the World Health Organization. Oxford’s recent success points to its integrity in seeking and retaining the brightest from all over the world and from every quarter. It is time to dispel the clouds of distrust.

Secondly, I recall that at a meeting of vice-chancellors a few years ago, I commented that we were taking too many Chinese students and that, if there were ever a reversal of policy, many universities would be in trouble. One particularly naive and woke vice-chancellor called me a racist. I rest my case.

Colleagues in Oxford tell me that there should be priority for their research into the repurposing of drugs for antiviral and anti-inflammatory use in Covid cases—a particular Oxford innovation. Oxford is leading in the science and technology of fusion energy, which needs a 15 to 30-year perspective on support. It advised me that the UK should not spread its support too thinly but should pick a few renewable technologies and aim to be world leading at those with, for example, generation, storage and transmission of energy.

Universities such as Oxford turn away hundreds of really excellent graduate students every year because there is no funding for them. Many are international. With the Government’s help, we need to do as well as Singapore and Germany in supporting non-EU graduate students here. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.

Finally, there are Chinese students, on whom we are so dependent by way of cross-subsidy. We need to treat them properly—because sometimes they suspect they are cash cows—and integrate them with other students, but we cannot rely on them as we used to. We have to welcome Indian students and others from all over the world. But a word of warning: the Chinese Government are perfectly capable of using their students as a bargaining chip, reducing the outflow to put pressure on the countries that take most of them, which is us, Australia and the US.

We also have to be careful about which Chinese students are admitted here, especially into the sciences. China is trying to curb criticism of its regime on British campuses; senior administrators have been pressured into censoring speakers who would be critical of the Chinese regime. Chinese students emerged en masse at Warwick University to vote down a student union motion supporting democracy and freedom of speech in Hong Kong, and it is thought that the Chinese Government carry out surveillance over their students in Britain. Partnerships between British universities and Chinese companies may pose a risk to national security. This could involve the theft of intellectual property and sensitive technology. We must be aware of their penetration into UK research, no matter how attractive it is financially.

Environment and Climate Emergency

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, again, this was asked of me last week. I was asked by one of the noble Baroness’s former noble friends whether I would lie down in front of the runway. I said that that was not my plan and I believe I made it clear—if I did not, I make it clear now—that we are awaiting further advice on Heathrow from the Climate Change Committee.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Can the Minister explain how the planned Oxford to Cambridge expressway, with up to a million houses to be built alongside it, will contribute in any way to the reduction of carbon emissions?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, following the comments on Heathrow, I do not think the noble Baroness would expect me to comment on every development or building project in the country. The Climate Change Committee has said that it believes we can meet our targets with Heathrow, but we are awaiting further advice from the committee. If it wishes to comment on the Oxford to Cambridge expressway, or we feel it necessary to do so, we will do so.

Oil and Gas: UK Continental Shelf

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I am not sure I can give the noble Lord those figures but I can assure him that there are opportunities to continue to meet our obligations in that respect, particularly by making use of shale gas exploration if we move onshore. We certainly reckon that current production represents some 65 % of UK oil demand and 50% of UK gas demand, but there is much more to be found.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain what plans there might be to exploit the continental shelf around the Falkland Islands and whether there are any issues relating to the legal position of that shelf?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness is moving on to a different continental shelf and rather a different question —one that I do not think I am qualified to answer at this stage. I will no doubt be prepared to write to the noble Baroness.

Better Regulation

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 7th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a regulator of long standing—a “quango queen”, if you like—having been involved with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the BBC, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education and, most recently, as chair of the Bar Standards Board. I found them all worth while, because I had some familiarity with, respect for and interest in the organisations involved. The current belief is that only a lay person can be trusted to regulate a profession. I am not convinced; I have found that understanding and communicating with the profession are more important and that a professional person, such as a doctor or lawyer, is likely to be far more unforgiving and demand higher standards of their fellow professionals than a lay person, for they know how much is at stake for the reputation of their profession.

My conclusion is that the structure of governance, much discussed in relation to the BBC, for example, is less important than the quality of the persons set to regulate. Once you have too many strangers to the profession on the board, they take refuge in that meaningless jargon that gives the impression that they are doing something—drill down, low-hanging fruit, going forward, heads-up, pathway, challenging; noble Lords get the drift.

My other conclusion is that regulatory bodies, more specifically bodies that regulate regulatory bodies, have run wild. It is true that the Public Bodies Act 2011 set in train a movement to abolish some bodies and merge others, with some success, and that leaving the EU will save us £471 million in annual budgetary contributions to 21 EU agencies that will be completely redundant for UK purposes, according to a recent report by Fieldfisher. But the Government seem intent to row back on some of the good work by continuing to establish more bodies. We read a great deal about the failures of the relevant regulatory bodies in uncovering failing schools and hospitals; the most notable failure in recent years was the Financial Services Authority in relation to the financial crash of 2008. It is now reborn as two separate bodies, and there is a lesson to be learned there from the shortcomings of one overarching body, possibly too distant from the institutions it was to oversee.

My remarks will relate mostly to regulation of the legal profession, but one may generalise from that. In relation to the structure of regulation under the Legal Services Act 2007, there are too many bodies jostling to be master. The Legal Services Consumer Panel is now in competition with the Competition and Markets Authority, both investigating the market for legal services—although, as someone once said, why should there be only one competition authority? Not only that, but we are to have a new body, the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision, to oversee the adequacy of the anti-money laundering supervisory arrangements of the 22 professional body anti-money laundering supervisors listed in Schedule 1 of the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017. Costs will be covered by the many accountancy and legal bodies affected, adding, in the end, to the costs that have to be met by the client, in addition to the already considerable costs run up and passed on by more immediate legal regulation. Even so, the legal groups involved deny that there is any evidence pointing to legal-sector involvement in money laundering, and that this new exercise is therefore unnecessary.

Muscling into the field as well are the Regulatory Policy Committee, the Cabinet Reducing Regulation Sub-Committee, the Better Regulation Executive and the Regulatory Futures Review. This pointed out that the annual spend of the 45 regulatory bodies reviewed was £2.54 billion, of which half is grant funded. It could have looked at over 90 bodies, with a total expenditure of £4 billion, ranging from civil aviation to the Human Tissue Authority. Many were set up in response to disastrous events, such as sports-ground accidents. The review and the executive call for regulated self-assurance—as I said, trust the professionals to police themselves; the chairs of the front-line regulators should not be ruled out because they have legal qualifications. We need fewer business regulations and to reduce the costs, as they called for. The Legal Services Board, established under the 2007 Act, certainly goes far beyond that. It over-enforces and places burdens on lawyers which are passed on to their clients.

The Legal Services Board grew from an OFT report in 2000 about market competition and the Clementi report of 2004 on the regulatory framework of the legal services, which was regarded as self-serving and overcomplex. By the time the 2007 Act came into force, it was all already out of date because of the financial crash. The Clementi report highlighted consumerism, but recent events have taught us that the protection of innocent victims, the public interest and the highest ethical standards on the part of lawyers and bankers are more important than free market competition. Now we have legal services regulation—which is overregulation, duplication, interfering and sometimes without regard to the good practices of the professions—under the umbrella of the Legal Services Board.

Now that we are leaving the EU the legal profession is standing up to promote its past and future strengths and successes, with London as the choice of venue for litigation. That Brexit strategy needs a profession whose standards and integrity are beyond doubt and which is not seen as dominated by government. Yet, ever since the Legal Services Act, the perspective from the rest of Europe and North America has been that the legal profession suffers from government interference. I was shocked at a European conference when a delegate from an eastern European country only newly liberated from communism said to me that it was shameful that the British legal profession had come under government domination. There should be accountability only to Parliament, not to the Government, on the part of the Legal Services Board, and no government hand in appointments to the board.

The Legal Services Board presides over eight professional regulators with very different functions and characters. They apply to them the eight regulatory objectives in Section l of the Legal Services Act, which have no hierarchy. The Act is badly crafted, for there is no clear focus, and mission creep was bound to happen; one objective can be played off against another. Professional standards, although listed, seem to come low down. The fact that the Legal Services Board entertained the notion of abolishing the cab-rank rule and allowing referral fees went completely against the hallmark of the independent profession of the Bar, whose ethos underpins the rule of the law and citizens’ rights. Outcomes-focused regulation, as pushed, scarcely hits the mark. In its first programme of work in 2010, the Legal Services Board promised that, by 2013, legal services regulators in the UK would be seen as world leaders—the opposite, sadly, is true, as I have shown.

Reform is urgently needed, even though the Ministry of Justice reviews have shied away from legislative change. Indeed, at one stage, the Legal Services Board itself stated that its goal was to make its own existence unnecessary. But rare is the quango that self-destructs. The legal regulators’ own working party recommended one single regulator for the entire legal profession, which would make an oversight regulator redundant. It recommended the complete separation of the representative bodies and the regulatory arms because the professions cannot be seen to police themselves. This is a good principle. The Advertising Standards Authority is sadly an exception, in that it is a self-regulating body funded by the advertisers. Will the Minister start reform of this body?

The unregulated sector in law has a problem. There is an unregulated sector versus a reserved activities focus and it is both confusing and possibly harmful for the public. At the same time, it may pose overly onerous regulation on those who in fact need it least. There is no logic to which legal activities are regulated and which are not. I hope that the Minister will tell us that this needs review, too.

The Ipsos MORI veracity index shows a steady climb in the number who trust lawyers—up to 54%—while politicians remain steadily at the bottom. When I was a regulator, I said that I was more regulated against than regulating. This has to stop, and legal regulation is more than ripe for total overhaul.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 30th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Deech]

511: Clause 113, page 67, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) an order under section 43(1) (variation or revocation of other authorisations to grant degrees etc.);”

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

I shall speak to this amendment although my name is not on it. As we got to the end of this Committee stage, this group of amendments struck me as a chance to give Parliament more oversight into fleshing out the Bill. The Bill—and now we are nearly at the end—is not much more than a framework, albeit a very heavy framework, on which later policy is to be hung. We have no detail on the metrics in the teaching excellence framework or the detailed criteria that the Office for Students may use to establish or abolish universities. It is not clear how a lot of this Bill will work in practice. Over and over again we have been asked to take matters on trust and have been told that details will follow. We do not know how much of a light touch or not the Secretary of State will be using in guidance to the UKRI and the OfS. We do not know what providers will do to the market or how the status of the sector will hold up. We do not know how much there will be a fracture between teaching and research to the detriment of both. Now that we have reached the end of the Committee with so many gaps in the Bill, can the Minister assure us that there will be some process of post-legislative scrutiny to ensure that this experiment is working? I beg to move.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I take this opportunity simply to congratulate the Minister on having taken over this intricate and important part of the Bill. He has discharged his responsibilities with great skill.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, because of the invitation to reflect, I will take a slight liberty and make two points. The worst time of my life was when I occupied a post in the British film industry and was involved in trying to get decisions for funding for films. We were often engaged in trying to deal with larger, richer and often foreign bodies, which were prepared to tantalise us with the thought that they might invest in our films. It became well known in that process that the worst decision you could get was the slow maybe. I am afraid we are in that situation. The Minister has said that he is reflecting and thinking, but we have not been able to get clarity. It is easier to have a straight, “No, we are not taking this forward”, than it is to have variations on “thinking hard about” or reflecting. I appreciate the gesture that he has made, but it has been a bit of a frustrating period, and I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, will also say that sometimes it has been very hard to understand where the Minister has wanted to get to with a particular issue because we did not get clarity about it.

However, that is all past. We are now into a period of calm waters, and perhaps we can pick up the threads of some of what we are doing and try to take forward the ideas for Report and possibly onwards from then. I hope that that will be a fruitful time, and I look forward to it.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but given that this is such a massive Bill with so many unknowns in it, I and probably others will be calling on Report for some sort of post-legislative scrutiny and checking. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 511 withdrawn.