Education Recovery

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Tuesday 8th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am pleased to assure the noble Lord that this third chunk of money for tutoring is being distributed in a different way. One reason is as he outlined. Some £579 million will go to schools for what we are now calling school-led provision. Schools may want to use their existing staff, make part-time staff such as TAs more full-time and use local tutoring, such as retired teachers and so on, in their workforce. The noble Lord is right to say, particularly in the case of many SEN students and vulnerable children, that the existing relationship with a TA, for example, might be the best provision for a student.

Therefore, this £579 million, which is separate from academic mentors and tuition partners through the NTP, will now go to schools. As I said to the noble Lord yesterday, that will provide even greater flexibility to schools that might want to fund other subjects that the tuition partners are not providing in support. More of the arts subjects, for example, could therefore be covered, so there will be flexibility. Around £1 billion is going into tutoring, which is a large sum. I would not want to say precisely in relation to each jurisdiction that it is the top amount, although we are spending a considerable amount on tutoring because the evidence tells us that it will help children to catch up.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, I applaud the noble Baroness for her defence of a policy that I think she recognises is entirely indefensible. She calls for more evidence but have the Government thought of looking at the US, which is spending £1,600 per child, or the Netherlands, which is spending £2,500 per pupil? When she talks about fiscal consolidation, has she thought about the competing pressures on a global Britain, the future of work and the technological changes that will happen? They will require a little bit more spending than £50 per pupil per year.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

On technological advance, I will be in front of noble Lords next week talking about schools and post-16 education, which is part of the Government’s skills policy. As I previously outlined, I am nervous about international comparisons. It is appropriate in relation to some of the money distributed, such as the £650 million, which, from memory, is £80 per pupil, and £240 for SEND or AP pupils, because it relates to general schools money. However, one cannot look at the £200 million on a per-pupil basis because it is for summer schools and available only to year 7.

The £1 billion for tutoring is targeted at disadvantaged students and we do not know whether the figures that the noble Baroness outlined include the £400 million that has gone into technology and remote learning for the 1.3 million laptops. Per-pupil funding is not always comparing apples with apples. That is a key part of our strategy. I agree that the pandemic has affected all children and there is a case for amounts such as the £650 million to go to all schools but the evidence that we are getting from different areas of the country on disadvantaged students is why a huge proportion of the money is targeted at them through the tutoring programme.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Thursday 11th March 2021 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. Lady Falkner?

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]]

My Lords, forgive me; I had trouble unmuting. I am more used to physical participation now than to virtual participation. That is my excuse.

In the debate today, we have had powerful testimony about the impact of the pandemic on women. I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. At the commission, we stand not only for women’s rights but for all those who experience discrimination, and with nine protected characteristics, we have a lot on our hands. Today I want to speak specifically to our work on women.

In this House we recently passed the Ministerial and Other Maternity Allowances Bill, where the drafters of the Bill decided to describe those who benefit from its very welcome provisions as “persons” rather than as “women” or “mothers”. I mention this as it is pertinent to our work at the EHRC. At the commission, it is becoming increasingly clear to us that the most contentious work that we have to do is around the critical issue of balancing different rights. As we seek to reduce discrimination, and sometimes even hate, we do not want to see one group pitted against another, but we are also clear that we must not shy away from difficult judgments of balance in the name of political correctness and must not appear to be in one camp versus another. We stand for all the protected characteristics, but we also judge every policy issue on its merits and with guidance from the Equality Act. Hence we look forward to the review of the guidance on legislative language promised by the Government in this regard, and we were very pleased with the successful amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Winston—I note they are both speaking in the debate today—that got the Bill through this House satisfactorily.

Turning to the impact of the pandemic, evidence so far suggests that the economic impact is likely to be very significant. Women already face a range of inequalities and barriers to work: an overconcentration on low-paid or part-time work, limited flexible working opportunities and responsibility for the majority of unpaid and often undervalued care work. While men have experienced more severe health outcomes and faced greater unemployment, many lockdown restrictions, such as the closure of certain sectors and of schools and childcare settings, have particularly affected women’s equality in the workplace.

The workplace is the area about which I have the greatest concern for the future. If the statistics are correct as to the impact of a loss of women from the workplace, which is what the survey evidence points us to, that has grave implications well into the future. Take key workers: ONS figures show that nearly three-fifths of all key workers in the UK are women, at 58%. The IFS estimates that women were more likely to work across all the sectors that were shut down during the first national lockdown. As of July last year, more women than men had been furloughed; mothers were more likely to ask to be furloughed than men, and found it harder than fathers to work productively at home. A TUC survey indicated that 71% of working mothers were refused furlough. There is evidence of potentially unlawful and discriminatory practices towards pregnant women and those on maternity leave.

Research published on International Women’s Day by the Guardian and Mumsnet found that more than half of women across the UK believe that women’s equality is in danger of going back to the 1970s. In our work as a regulator, we at the EHRC will use our compliance and enforcement powers to carry out strategic as well as specific litigation, to push back against any diminution of women’s equality. As advocates, we will campaign for improvements in women’s welfare. We know that both are critical at this point in time.

Educational Settings: Reopening

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the Government introduced a well-being on return to education initiative, which provided expert support to schools through local authorities and others to help with return. One of the most important things that the Government are doing is that if teachers are concerned about the mental health of a child at home, they are able to classify them as a vulnerable child and bring them into school if that is what they believe is best for them.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB) [V]]

My Lords, will the Minister, in informing the Government about the reopening of schools, bear in mind the equalities considerations for women, who, along with the children who are disadvantaged, have been most significantly impacted by home-schooling requirements?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, it has been a tribute to schools and parents that during this third lockdown—the second lockdown where children have been educated at home—the remote provision of education has been of a greater standard. Yes, we pay tribute to all those parents who are delivering the curriculum at home, particularly, as I have outlined, those who still have to go to work and do not have access to a school place.

Educational Opportunities: Working Classes

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for initiating this terribly important debate and for her passion in sticking to this subject over many years.

I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, because I too want to pick up on that end of the educational spectrum—the post-16 to 18 choices made by our young people. In our educational policy to date, the underlying assumption has been that levelling up requires a few limited pathways of social mobility. Therefore, if you are more cognitively able, it is university, and for the less advantaged, we have further education colleges and apprenticeships.

The route through university now results in more than 50% of under-30s in the UK being university graduates, which, along with that shiny degree, also carries significant burdens of debt. However, there is growing consensus that technological change—automation and AI—is changing the quality, quantity and types of jobs that will exist as children in today’s schools make choices in the next five to 10 years. Whereas in the past, technological change was job-augmenting, the next wave of change—the fourth industrial revolution —is likely to be job-displacing. Although our new-found emphasis on technological education is welcome, it is not sufficient either to augment future jobs or to mitigate job displacement.

What jobs are vulnerable? The Oxford economist Carl Benedikt Frey, whose work is about labour market impacts of technology, shows that recent developments in machine-learning will put at risk a substantial share of employment across a wide range of occupations in the very near future. In Britain, the estimate is that about 35% of the workforce is in jobs at high risk of automation. Most of these jobs will be white collar and will probably result in a scenario where we get what is described as “job polarisation”. The cognitive elite will still have jobs—after all, judges, academics, scientists and software developers will always be fine—but, at the other end, so will baristas and hairdressers. The problem will be for all the people in the middle.

What is to be done? Our current system of education overall needs a rethink. Since 1945, educational systems have encouraged specialisation, so students learn more and more about less and less. However, as knowledge becomes obsolete more quickly, the most important thing will be to relearn and then to relearn again, rather than learning to do one thing very well. Therefore, what you learn in college and university will not be enough to keep you going for the next 40 years.

I go back to where schools comes in. The City of London Corporation is adopting a “fusion skills” agenda, which is pioneered in its schools. It is a response to what employers are demanding in terms of transferable skills that are capable of being reconfigured and adapted over time. It defines fusion skills as

“a mix of technical and creative skills which … encompass a broader ‘bundle’ of skills categories including digital, creative, social, interpersonal competencies as well as a range of cognitive skills such as judgement and decision making, critical thinking and problem solving.”

To conclude, is the Minister aware of this new type of agenda, and will she take the time to have a closer at what the City of London Corporation is doing on fusion skills as a way to the future?

Trade Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 6th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I hope we will send back a clear message to the other place that it needs to reconsider the importance of having a customs union—for our integrated supply chains, for the success of our manufacturing industry and, indeed, for peace in Northern Ireland and security on the Northern Ireland border. I am afraid that a number of colleagues in the other place do not seem to understand how international trade deals work. The idea that we would have rolled over all 40 trade deals that we had through the EU by now has been shown to be fanciful. I do not believe that it is safe, in the 21st century, to assume that operating as a medium-sized country outside a customs union will deliver us more and better trade than remaining within it.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, I would like clarification from those who tabled this amendment: they refer to “a” customs union but other speakers have used the expression “the” customs union, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has. For the purposes of what I am going to say. I will assume that they mean remaining in the EU’s customs union and common commercial policy.

If that is the case, I understand the motivation for seeking a halfway house between leaving and remaining, which is what this implies. However, being in a customs union and being entirely subject to the EU’s common commercial policy, which is the overarching umbrella under which the customs union sits, is the worst of all options. That is why Switzerland and Norway—two countries with different arrangements in the EU—have chosen not to be part of the customs union. So while the idea may be attractive to protect trade in goods—and I admit that is important—given that we have an economy where trade in goods is a relatively small part of our exports, the sting of the common commercial policy, although it is encroaching into services, is primarily about trade in goods, not trade in services.

Being under the umbrella of the CCP without membership of the EU will mean that we will not be present in the European Council, which has the ultimate say over trade deals; we will not be present in the European Parliament or in regional parliaments. Noble Lords may remember the Canada-CETA story and the Parliament of Wallonia. We would not even have the status of the Parliament of Wallonia in future trade deals were we stay in the customs union. We would be a rule taker without a seat at any table. It would also render the previous amendment, which the House overwhelmingly passed, entirely redundant.

Turkey feels so disadvantaged by its current arrangement in the customs union—which, incidentally, was only agreed as a stepping stone towards full membership—that it is seeking to change those terms. However, I suspect that by now it is not seeking to change the terms because it accepts that it is not going into membership of the European Union.

The CCP is designed to serve the interests of member states—and so it should—but it is not designed to serve the interests of the fifth biggest economy in the world. Even those who feel that the United Kingdom will be much diminished if it leaves the EU must surely recognise that we are a more significant economic power than Turkey. So when the EU rightly seeks to advance its own interests, who will speak for UK interests? When the EU moves to use trade remedy laws—we have had a great deal of discussion during the passage of this Bill about trade remedies—to protect its own industries, and when that does not cohere with the United Kingdom’s interests, while we remain a member we can say something about it; we can indicate our preferences. If we are out of the EU but within the customs union, we would have no say over our interests being disadvantaged in the interests of any of the 27 member states which would be at the table.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The situation the noble Baroness is describing will obtain if the Prime Minister’s deal goes through and we go into an interim transition period. It is certainly the situation that would obtain if we go into the backstop. We would be a rule taker. We would have no say in the making of the tariffs but we would have to apply them. We would not be consulted; we would be notified.

The amendment refers to “a” customs union. We have never attempted to work out what kind of customs union the EU would be prepared to agree with us. We have never done that because the Prime Minister’s rash red line ruled it out. We are now going into the worst possible case, if the deal goes through, of being absolutely a rule taker and absolutely not in the European Council, as correctly described by the noble Baroness. However, that is not what the amendment is asking for. It is asking for the negotiation of a real customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

The noble Lord has expressed sentiments that I have heard many times over the past three years from Mr Corbyn. In our various EU Select Committee meetings with the EU’s chief negotiator Mr Barnier, some of us raised the issue of whether there would be a possibility of negotiating a different sui generis, unique, bespoke customs union. We have been told in terms that that is not possible. I fear that concealing one’s intentions behind “a” customs union in the hope that if all else fails the EU will come around to providing us with a customs union presents the EU with a situation where it would have to consider how it could give each country it does any negotiation with in the future a bespoke customs union.

Anyone who knows anything about EU law—I accept that the noble Lord does, but I do too—will tell you that it will not uniformly make such an enormous exception in a law that has been there from the 1950s to accommodate the United Kingdom, particularly not at this late stage.

[Baroness Altmann]

I think what the noble Baroness is doing for the House is eruditely explaining the trade-offs that the country is facing as a result of the decision that was taken and the red lines that were imposed. What this House is talking about—and what the amendment seeks to achieve—is to protect the manufacturing success, jobs and the integrated supply chains that we have built up in this country on which so many people’s livelihoods depend, as well as protecting the border in Northern Ireland. That is entirely accepted. Indeed the House has already passed the amendment which would also require us to have some kind of regulatory alignment in order to better achieve the aims we are trying to set out. However, that does not mean that we should not have and do not need a customs union.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

The noble Baroness has just told your Lordships that the House was trying to protect manufacturing through being in “the” customs union. So we have on one side “the” customs union, which is the EU customs union, and on the other side we have a bespoke customs union. That in itself illustrates the problem with those who want to reverse where we are today.

I urge the House to look at the common commercial policy carefully, not only in the light of Articles 206 and 207 of the TFU, and to look at the jurisprudence. The jurisprudence on the part of the CJEU expounds the EU’s common commercial policy into foreign direct investment rules way beyond common commercial policy and into the EU’s external action policy. Some of us may have no problem with that, but the jurisprudence will continue while we are outside the room and not at the table. The jurisprudence will reflect the EU’s priorities, not ours. It would leave us in a vulnerable position going forward whether we were in “a” customs union or the bespoke customs union, which would potentially give us bargaining rights and some say in jurisprudence. Certainly that customs union would give us no rights at all.

I am not used to evoking Mr Blair in support of any cause—I suppose it will have the same impact here as it does elsewhere in the country—but even he has gone public to say that the worst of all worlds would be for us to stay in the customs union. If noble Lords want to support trade in goods they need to move either towards the withdrawal agreement and the FTA that is likely to come with it, or to move to simply remain in the EU. This amendment is an ambush to try to achieve that latter aim. I am pro that latter aim—I am pro remaining in the EU—but I can see, with 20-something days to go, that either we have to agree with the withdrawal agreement, as I voted the last time, or we have to go the other way, as I said in my previous speech, and ask the Prime Minister reconsider our position. A customs union is not going to do that and, on that basis, I will be voting with the Government.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, at this hour, and given the debate, there will probably not be many Members of your Lordships’ House who are carefully weighing the arguments on either side, wanting to know what the Minister is going to say from the Dispatch Box that could just persuade them another way. We have been around this course many times and the arguments have not changed. The House knows the Government’s position on this: they have set it out many times. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union and to take back control of their laws, borders and money, and have an independent trade policy. If we had a customs union, we would not get that. That is the central point against the amendment. On the other hand, we have a withdrawal agreement that allows us to have many of the benefits of our membership of the European Union without being members of it, and honours the referendum result.

I shall come to two points. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, when moving the amendment—which is worthy of further examination as to what it is seeking the Government to do—said that he wanted to give the other House an opportunity to think again on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in a brilliant, brief contribution—perhaps because we had heard his eloquence on this point in Committee—reminded the House that it voted in favour of his amendment. What they did not mention was that when it went to the other House, giving it an opportunity to think again, it rejected not only your Lordships’ amendment but the concept of a customs union put forward by Stephen Hammond when the Bill was at this stage in the other place. If the purpose is to give that House another opportunity to think again, perhaps it could shout down the Corridor, “We have already said it; did you not hear us the first time?”

Some noble Lords have pointed out that the uncertainty is damaging for business. I accept that. Uncertainty is always damaging for business. What business needs is certainty. However, right at the 11th hour, when we are within sight of and have an agreement, with an exit day that meets the criteria, the amendment proposes to require Her Majesty’s Government to reopen the whole negotiation process that has taken place over the past two years. Somehow that is supposed to help business. Not many businesses would sign up to that level of reopening negotiations and uncertainty. The presentation of the amendment presupposes that the outcome and benefits of a customs union are known. No—they would have to be negotiated. That would be the case unless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, rightly said, it actually related not to “a” but “the” customs union. In that case, the noble Lords’ option would be there immediately. That is the position of those who want to stay in the European Union, and we understand it.

The amendment therefore plunges us further back into uncertainty and more years of negotiation. The House has already given its view, not once but twice, on this issue. The other place does not need the chance to think again and I therefore urge noble Lords to vote against the amendment if it is pushed to a Division. Most importantly, I urge all Members in the other place not to listen to the amendment but to look at the withdrawal agreement before them next week and make sure that they vote for it, so that we leave the European Union on 29 March, as the British people wanted, but with a deal.

Trade Bill

Baroness Falkner of Margravine Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, to the House. As she knows from our personal interactions, and after her fabulous contribution today, she will find friends right across the Chamber. I have had chats with her since she arrived here but it was good to hear from her formally in the Chamber.

Turning to the forceful arguments advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Risby and Lord Tugendhat, regarding resources for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as we go forward, I would go further and suggest to the Minister—whom I welcome to her first Bill—that she tells her colleagues that the logic of the UK’s future trade relations requires that we amalgamate the Foreign Office and the Department for International Trade, as the Australians and, indeed, the Canadians do. They have been doing this on their own for a very long time and they know how to do it.

The Minister will be pleased to hear that I broadly support the Bill and, given the generalities that she has heard around the Chamber today, that I will confine my remarks to the detail of the Bill itself. It is a wholly necessary piece of legislation to keep the show on the road as we prepare to leave the EU. Continuity will be fundamental to ensuring that we get the best for the British economy.

It is good that the Government improved the Bill in the Commons; for example, the change in the duration of sunset clauses, which the Minister mentioned in her opening remarks, and the reassurances of parliamentary scrutiny. I find the Bill in rather better shape than some others that have made their way to the Lords in recent times. However, the argument in the Commons that the Government should emulate the European Parliament’s powers in the provisions of the Bill is flawed, and they should resist those sorts of moves here if it comes to it. Although there are elements of the scrutiny of trade negotiations where the European Parliament does a very good job, there are others where it is effectively a sui generis institution: it reflects the weight and strength of national groups. For those of us observing TTIP, when we hoped that it would go through, it was evident that the trade preferences and political priorities of certain countries prevailed, while those of others did not. It was not a level playing field and some countries were disadvantaged by that. It was hardly a negotiation that delivered for all 28. Although the EP attempted to improve it, it seems just as well that it did not go forward in the way it was likely to.

Clause 3 concerns parliamentary scrutiny. I note the debates in the other place on enhancing scrutiny. I have similar aspirations for what we do with the Bill in this Chamber. I have no doubt that we will see debates along those lines and amendments of those sorts moved here and I look forward to debating them. But when it comes to parliamentary approval of the negotiating mandate, as well as the requirement for the Government to publish their negotiating text at the end of each round of negotiations, I urge against this level of micromanagement. In trade negotiations, both sides have red lines but these are not necessarily disclosed as they form part of the give and take of the negotiation itself. I cannot see how giving Parliament, in effect, control of the negotiation would lead to a more optimal result in that regard.

I welcome the improvements to parliamentary scrutiny in Clause 4 but it is not entirely clear to me why the clause was deemed necessary given the concessions made in Clauses 2 and 3. I know that the Minister is required to lay a report as soon as possible after the trade agreement is ratified to explain why it was not possible to do so before ratification but perhaps we might be given an indication of the cases that are so exceptional that ex post facto reports would be deemed necessary. This exceptional cases clause seems to slightly contradict the powers that the Minister has.

Turning to the Trade Remedies Authority, paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 4 restricts the total number of members of the authority to nine. This appears unduly restrictive. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why the Government have settled on a firm figure rather than having a range, such as nine to 12. One can foresee situations where, over time, in a complex, multisectoral, comprehensive future agreement taking several years, it might be helpful to expand the membership of the TRA to bring on board those with specific and particular skills, to build flexibility into the body’s governance. In paragraph 2(4) the Government are rather more flexible about how they define good governance. It states:

“The Secretary of State and the Chair must ensure, so far as practicable, that the number of non-executive members is at all times greater than the number of executive members”.


That seems rather too tentative. If the Trade Remedies Authority is to be accountable, as it should be, the number of non-executives should always exceed the number of executive members. I hope the Government will look again at that in Committee. If the restriction in paragraph 2(2) was resolved, it is likely that the issue in paragraph 2(4) of the balance between executive and non-executive members would conflict. I look forward to the Government’s response in that regard.

I will conclude on a general point. I see this as a necessary Bill to prepare the ground for Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. Here in the Lords we have a duty to improve it and I have no doubt that we will. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act is now behind us and we need to move forward to put in place machinery in government and Parliament to ensure continuity and build on the UK’s interests as an open, globally significant trading nation, building on a philosophy articulated by Adam Smith and David Ricardo more than 250 years ago. We know how to trade, we know how to make things that other people want, and we know how to work with others to make multilateral institutions fairer and more effective. I have no doubt that we will face significant challenges in the period immediately following our exit from EU arrangements, but I also remain open to new opportunities for trade with new partners—and, more importantly, in new sectors—as the global economy changes and evolves, as it is doing, with phenomenal speed. The challenge still awaits us but for now we need to get on with the Bill.