Government Policy: Plain English

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend. There have been a number of discontinuities in my service as a Minister over the years. I share his alarm when one goes into the Printed Paper Office and picks up a huge tome, particularly if a Minister will have to answer a debate on it. When I was a civil servant, I was guided by Sir Ernest Gowers, whom many will remember. He wrote The Complete Plain Words and he had three principles: first, use no more words than are necessary; secondly, use words that are familiar; and, thirdly, avoid vague and abstract words and use words that are precise and concrete. I commend Sir Ernest Gowers to all Ministers and all civil servants when they produce White Papers, and I heartily endorse the exhortation from my noble friend.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on the clarity of his response. The Plain English Campaign advises, as he has mentioned, “Keep your sentences short”, “Prefer active verbs” and “Avoid nominalisations”. I am sure we would all aspire to that. What training is given to civil servants and Ministers to ensure that they avoid gobbledegook in government documents?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Like the noble Baroness, I too follow the progress of the Plain English Campaign. A winner this year was an NHS trust, the George Eliot Hospital, which was commended for its publications. So far as advice to government Ministers is concerned, the Government Digital Service runs workshops to help Ministers and civil servants to write clearly. It has had workshops with the DWP and Public Health England, and its content team maintains the content of the most trafficked content. It encourages everybody to avoid jargon but my brief tells me that content on websites should “be updated to improve the end-to-end user journey”.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to have added my name to the hugely important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I, too, regret that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, cannot be here due to ill-health, and we of course wish him well.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, gave a powerful and comprehensive introduction to the amendment, the content of which we have discussed many times in your Lordships’ House with agreement from all parts of the Chamber. The Bill presents us with a great opportunity to address the concerns expressed in debate and in various Select Committees of both Houses. For example, in recent years, six parliamentary committees have recommended the removal of students from the net migration target.

Apart from the Government, I have spoken to no one who is against the measures in the amendment: quite the contrary, there is strong support. I have spoken to overseas and UK students, academics, administrative staff of higher education institutions, people working for the bodies responsible for standards and quality, and many of our citizens from all backgrounds in different parts of the country. They understand, as my noble friend Lord Darzi said at Second Reading, that we must secure and sustain our ability to excite, attract and retain the world’s greatest minds. This is fundamental to the excellence of the UK university system.

Like the polling undertaken by UUK, my conversations provide clear evidence that even those people who are anxious about immigration welcome foreign students and do not think they should be included in the migration figures. They do not want immigration rules that are any more restrictive than the current ones placed on undergraduate and postgraduate students and academics: not now nor in future, when our immigration policy is revised to deal with Brexit. To use somewhat unparliamentary language, it is a no-brainer.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, the case for the shift in policy set out in the amendment is unanswerable. The problem of bogus students studying at institutions has, thanks to government action, been dealt with. We still await the results of the consultation on the study immigration route and a firm rebuttal of the destabilising statement made by the Home Secretary at the Conservative Party conference, but the statistics on overstaying students are, to say the least, questionable, and new data demonstrate that the number of overstayers is negligible.

Undergraduate and postgraduate students are visitors, not economic migrants. Their contribution to our higher education institutions is enormous: not just the fee income, which enables universities to thrive and innovate, but their economic impact on the wider community; the culture they bring, which enriches the experience of our students; the soft power that lasts a lifetime; and the huge addition to and influence on the invaluable research being undertaken in our universities, which affects the economic and social well-being of our country, our capacity to deliver industrial policy and so much more.

It is absolutely clear that we should and, indeed, must welcome overseas students, especially as we begin life in a brave new global Britain, where collaboration and soft power assume a greater importance. The Minister can say until he is blue in the face that overseas students are welcome, that there is no cap on the figures and that our offer compares favourably with our competitors. The fact is that even if all those things were true, the perception is very different. We can all cite numerous examples of potential students now choosing to study elsewhere. The statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, are clear evidence of this.

If the Government agree to the amendment, this perception will be changed immediately and the flow of Indian students and others now choosing to study elsewhere will be stemmed. I hope the Minister will not rely on the argument about best practice in migration calculations, which requires us to follow the stipulations of the UN. This has always been a weak argument, but post-referendum, when the Government proudly assert their determination to take back control, it is risible—likewise, the Minister’s statement that it would be inappropriate for the Government to seek to influence how statistics are compiled. What are the Government for?

The amendment would provide a strong signal in the increasingly important and competitive higher education market that this country really welcomes international students.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, as I did in Committee. I add my regrets that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is not here and wish him well. My support comes for all the important reasons set out so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—and it was evidence-based persuasion, which is always the very best sort.

Our higher education sector has derived immense benefit from collaboration with European research establishments—not just financial, but benefit in research, scholarship and international understanding and good relations. In this new, uncertain world, those relationships are ever more important.

We have discussed international students at length; they are valued and valuable and should in no way be deterred by any undue immigration categorisations or controls. In the light of the overwhelming view not just of this House but of people around the country in all the messages we have heard, I hope the Minister can assure us that the amendment will be accepted.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

The purpose of my Amendment 151 is, by collecting data and publishing it, to drive improvement and collaboration. That has been urged on me by several universities. They feel that there is another way—that we do not need to proceed by confrontation if the universities and the Home Office will agree to work together. That is something that we should insist on. Particularly given what we are going to spend the rest of today doing, this is not a time for argument, however hallowed by time that argument is; it is a time for pulling together for the good of the United Kingdom. This is not a one-sided thing; it means that the great universities really have to join in the great campaign that the Government run to support the whole of British education abroad. At the moment, it is really supported only by those who do not have sufficient of a reputation to justify marketing on their own. For this to succeed and for the good of the nation, we need the great universities to join in. There are a few which have and a few more on the periphery, but it has been a shameful show, by and large.

We need universities to recognise that, in their alumni, they have an enormous ability to help us to trade internationally. This is not something that they should seek to keep to themselves for their own commercial interests, although, obviously, that is important. This is a time when they should actively look for ways in which to make this available to the nation. However, as was seen in Committee, this is not the case, and universities really need to recognise that they have a role to play in helping the nation over the next few years.

Universities also have a role to play in supporting the immigration system. It is not there, like some tax-avoiding man in the pub, to be gamed to see how much money you can make out of it by taking the money from overseas students and not shouldering the burdens. I know that universities are better at this than they used to be, but they are by no means perfect. They are at the focus of a lot of people coming into this country. As a House, we are offering Amendment 150, which I shall support wholeheartedly—but there needs to be reciprocation from universities; they need to recognise that cheating on immigration is the same as cheating in examinations. They need, for the good of the country and of themselves, to get wholeheartedly behind supporting that concept.

The Home Office, as we all know, is not set on collaboration. I asked the Home Secretary a question a month ago in a meeting as to whether the Home Office would collaborate with universities, and she said that it would. I wrote her a follow-up letter to which she has not replied. I think that that is pretty typical of the attitude at the moment. It seems to think that it is in a little box and that all it has is its responsibility to keep people out of this country, but it is not true. At this moment, everything is all our responsibility; we must all help the Home Office to do what it has to do, and it must help us to do what we have to do to make a success of leaving the European Union.

The Home Office is, to a substantial extent, at the front sales desk for universities. It talks directly to the customers who universities wish to attract, but it runs an antagonistic website; it has impenetrable documentation and treacle-filled systems in which it can take six months for an appeal to be heard. It refuses visas on the basis of unanswerable questions such as, “What modules do you expect to take?”. Nobody knows that until they have had a bit of experience of the university and the modules may not even be set. There are even some cases where students have been told that they are being refused a visa because the equivalent courses are cheaper in their home country and they ought to be following them. This is not collaboration in any sense of the word.

I hope that we will achieve a notable victory on Amendment 150, but when it comes back to this House we should be looking not for victory at the end but for reconciliation. We need the Home Office and universities to be working together for the good of us and for each other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment goes to the heart of what the Bill is all about. Let us set aside for a moment the questions of fees, numbers, quangos and validations. The Bill is ostensibly about teaching excellence and academic freedom. We take it as implicit—the league tables confirm it—that our universities are among the very best in the world. Some of them are consistently found in the top 10, alongside American universities. We are united in wanting to preserve our excellence, as the vote of a few moments ago showed. We want to preserve it for its own sake and because it is a valuable, international attraction, embedding our intellectual values in cohort after cohort of future world leaders who come here to study. But you cannot have academic freedom, as now included in the Bill, or teaching excellence without freedom of speech. That, as I have repeatedly warned in this Chamber over the last couple of years, is in danger. Sometimes it is farcical gagging of speech and other times it is very dangerous.

The Bill will rank universities’ teaching skills as gold, silver, bronze and ineligible. There exists another ranking—that of freedom of speech—in our universities, which is, in my opinion, to be taken even more seriously as an indicator of excellence. The free speech university rankings 2017 examine all our universities according to the following criteria: bullying and harassment policies; equal opportunities policies; students unions’ attitude to no-platform policies; safe space; student codes of conduct; bans on controversial speakers and newspapers; and even expulsion of students on the grounds of their controversial views or statements. The sampled universities are then ranked: “red” means a university that is hostile to free speech and free expression; “amber” means a university that chills free speech and free expression by issuing guidance with regards to appropriate speech; and “green” is for the other universities which place no restrictions on free speech and expression, other than where it is unlawful.

Sixty-one universities, or 63%, actively censor speech. The censoring is either by the university administrations or by the students themselves. The examples of censoriousness are well known, whether it is the silencing of a Muslim woman calling for reform of religious attitudes towards women, the playful adoption of foreign dress or cuisine, mentions of transgender, the likelihood of blasphemy, or even complaints about censorship itself. We all remember the suspension of Sir Tim Hunt and the LSE lecturer who was silenced when his views about welfare were found to be likely to be unacceptable. Violence met Israeli peace activists speaking at UCL and KCL.

At the other end of the scale, hate speech is being heard unchallenged. A recent review of people convicted of terrorism found that a significant number were in education at the time of the offence. Student Rights logged 27 speaker events in London in four recent months where speakers referred to homosexuality in the most derogatory and punitive terms, and defended convicted terrorists. That is unlawful speech and universities are not always stopping it. My amendment, if accepted, would incidentally clarify, limit and strengthen the Prevent policy, which is likely to be reviewed because it would single out unlawful speech as a target of prohibition rather than the more woolly “extremism”. In sum, there is no point pursuing teaching excellence and academic freedom, in ranking universities gold, silver and bronze, if at the same time their real freedom and intellectual excellence comes out red or amber. These rankings are known internationally.

The Government maintain that my amendment is unnecessary because the required laws are already in place. I submit that not only are they ineffectual but there is a gap in the Minister’s summing-up letter which relates to enforcement. Students union premises are included in the premises on which a university must afford freedom of speech, but in practice some university authorities claim that union-organised activities taking place on university premises are not covered and the authorities back off, claiming the union is autonomous. Nor do they put a stop to safe-space controls. Or the universities tell students who have been discriminated against by their union that complaints are handled exclusively by the students union, which is wrong in law.

The Universities UK 2016 task force on violence against women, harassment and hate crime set out guidance for a disciplinary code for universities to adopt. The task force found that the evidence also suggested,

“that despite some positive activity, university responses are not as comprehensive, systematic and joined up as they could be. A commitment to addressing these issues is required within every university, from senior leadership down”.

Yet the report’s guidance does not seem to have been widely accepted. Some colleges—for example, SOAS—reject the new definition of anti-Semitism helpfully disseminated by the Government. I say “helpfully” because it distinguishes between lawful, political criticism of a state, which is fine, and race hatred which is not.

I turn now to the other points made in the letter sent to all Peers by the Government. It is stated in that letter that legal proceedings should be brought against universities if the freedom of speech duty is not complied with. That is too slow and the action needs to be against the disruptors in the first place rather than the university. There have been complaints to the Charity Commission about some unions but that, too, is slow and difficult. I respectfully suggest that the basis on which the Government now state that they are confident that students unions are sufficiently controlled by existing law is because I provided them with advice from a QC. Most universities do not know the law and dispute the conclusions. The Office for Students could require freedom-of-speech principles to be included in the public interest governance conditions but there is no requirement at the moment. It ought to be included in the Bill.

As we heard a few moments ago, many of our future leaders, both British and international, are being educated here in our university system. Since the referendum last year, there has been a spotlight on hate incidents, a rising number of unacceptable actions and speech. We are all disgusted by it. Some of us know that this has gone on for years and we are relieved that, finally, the occurrence of hate and intolerance in higher education, the media and society generally is getting the attention and disapprobation necessary. We will be letting down our future leaders if we allow them to receive their education on campuses where censorship is accepted and where hate speech and actions are overlooked. We will be storing up even more trouble for the future.

Accepting my amendment would not only show genuine commitment to excellence and academic freedom but clarify and control the Prevent guidance. It would provide for enforcement and support the UUK task force on hate and harassment. It would help students who have suffered from silencing and worse. To reject the amendment will send yet another message round the world—I am not exaggerating—that the Government and the university system remain passive in the face of a great threat to the future of our young. Our students must not graduate in the belief that there is no real freedom of speech, or that hate is mainstreamed. They must not leave university believing that it is routine to settle debates by silence or violence. For their good, I seek to have this amendment accepted. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and spoke to it in previous stages of the Bill. I will be brief; in any event, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, set out a comprehensive argument as to why this is so important. Who would have thought that it was important in this country to champion freedom of speech? Sadly, obviously that has become necessary. We are living in strange times. We have heard tales of students closing down free speech, and universities have taken remarkably little action over some issues when freedom of speech should have been protected.

It is difficult. There are obviously grey areas between what is lawful and what is not. As the noble Baroness said, we must not in any way encourage hate speech or incitement to violence but university students should be subject to ideas they find uncomfortable and be in a safe place where they can address them without those ideas immediately being shut down. This amendment also includes students unions, so it should help activities and events organised by students to make quite sure that they too encourage freedom of speech. It is a precious and valued part of our national life, and it is currently under threat. This amendment would add powers to ensure that we preserve it.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is a very important debate. We are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising again with such powerful arguments the point she has been making consistently throughout Second Reading and Committee about the need to focus on this and get it right in the legislation. This issue is at the heart of what we really think about universities and higher education providers more generally. As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, it is almost shocking to think that the understanding we have of what constitutes a university does not read across to what actually happens on the ground. The stories are legion and very unpleasant, and in many cases almost too awful to talk about in these circumstances.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 126 and 127 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Willis. I accept the arguments that the noble Lord set out clearly and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

I also add my support for Amendment 130, as I did in Committee. As we have already discussed, those on non-permanent contracts may find it more difficult to deliver quality teaching with all the uncertainties hanging over them, and it would be useful to have data to see whether that is in fact the case. The reverse situation with lifetime tenure tended to have the effect of too much certainty of employment, which could lead to a lack of incentive to devote time and trouble to quality teaching, but tenure is not really a problem that we have to address these days. The employment status of staff and the staff to student ratio are both significant factors in teaching. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment and I look forward to his reply.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Willis, which were explained very well by the noble Lord. They would contribute to a better understanding of all the issues that have arisen during the course of the Bill and would be a source of good data for the future as we see how the system being brought into play works in practice.

My Amendment 130 stems from Clause 61, which would place a duty on the relevant body or the Office for Students to put in a series of measures in relation to data that are to be published. The requirements are not very detailed—there is broad discretion—but the broader areas relate to student entrants, the number of education providers of different types, the number of persons who promote the interests of students and a good range of other things. Curiously, it does not really go down into the detail of some of the mechanics mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, when she spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and these are the issues picked up in my amendment. It happened to be topical because, when the Committee stage took place, there was an investigation into the use of part-time, non-permanent and permanent staff in higher education on zero-hours contracts—I think that was the term used. This amendment at least points in that direction but I think that it has a wider resonance, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Deregulation Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I am now rising to speak very briefly to the group—

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

I apologise to my noble friend but I think that under the rules of the House we are still on Amendment 47 and Amendment 48 has yet to be called. There has obviously been some confusion in that people are speaking to two groups of amendments. I think that Amendment 47 is still being debated.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, we have got terribly confused tonight. I thought that we were speaking to the generality of the amendments and that that was the noble Baroness’s position. If that is the case and the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, wishes to make his contribution now, I will happily follow him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I am waiting for the Minister to reply before I do.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

I hope my noble friend will agree that the Minister has already given his reply.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I am sorry to hear that, because he really has given no reply on so many points. I find that unsatisfactory but at this time of night, and with so few people here, I would not think it at all fair to test of the opinion of the House. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Social Mobility

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord McFall, for initiating this debate. Working for a fairer society and improving social mobility have long been at the heart of Liberal Democrat policies. We do not have a monopoly on that—and certainly mutuality would be something else that we would espouse. But being in coalition government has given us the opportunity to put forward measures and arguments which, as with today’s debate, resonate not only with our coalition partners but across political parties and well beyond.

As the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission highlighted in their excellent report, when one in six children—2.3 million children—are officially classified as poor, it extracts a high social price, and there is an economic price in wasted potential and lower growth. I shall concentrate my remarks on education and training for adult life, particularly for those whose start in life has been disadvantaged, and I acknowledge that women and girls can experience additional difficulties in the campaign for equality.

One of the forms of poverty that most severely hampers growth is poverty of aspiration. My noble friend Lord McNally spoke eloquently about aspiration. For those children whose experience has been limited and who know little of stable family life, or perhaps of the rewards and demands of working life, schools have a vital part to play in introducing them to the opportunities of the world of work. From an early age, children should understand the connections between school and work, between study and business, and between applying themselves and earning a living. Even at primary school, children’s imaginations can be captured by hearing about jobs and careers that they knew nothing about—and better still by visits to workplaces and meeting those genuinely enthusiastic about the work that they do. If this is important for children who enjoy academic learning, it is even more so for those who struggle with conventional lessons but who may have practical skills and talents that are not immediately valued, especially in league tables in a school environment.

Having worked for years on vocational qualifications for City & Guilds, I have seen how pupils can blossom when the curriculum gives them a chance to shine. I had been a classroom teacher, and I recall visiting schools that offer prevocational qualifications. The enthusiasm of the students was contagious as they applied themselves to mending car engines, caring for babies, planning and cooking meals—the very young people, as the schools told me, who had been demotivated and disruptive in academic lessons. They were acquiring not only skills but confidence and self-respect, which is much more likely to happen with good careers advice. One of the report’s recommendations was to urge the Government to improve resources for careers advice, a call that we are now hearing from all sides. I shall not task my noble friend the Minister with committing to this, but I hope that the Department for Education and Skills can be persuaded of the importance of careers education even given all the constraints on public spending and indeed, on the school timetable.

As my noble friend Lady Eaton said, we all welcome the increase in apprenticeships as a valid alternative to university, a true aid to social mobility. In a statement last March, the Government announced:

“We are extending apprenticeships to higher level skills and into the professions like insurance, accountancy and the law”.—[Official Report, 14/3/13; col. 400.]

Many of us are probably old enough to remember the days when professions had direct routes from school which were as highly regarded as graduate entry and led to careers that could be just as successful. For many young people, learning at work is more in line with their culture and ambitions, and we look forward to expansion of these routes into more professions and the end of inequalities between academic and practical attainment. As the commission recommends, non-graduate routes should become the norm across the professions.

Finally, I pay tribute to youth organisations for the part that they play in social mobility. Organisations such as scouting and girl guiding and the cadet organisations, and a wide range of voluntary and community youth groups, provide invaluable services, particularly in more disadvantaged areas and give young people an opportunity to develop personal and social skills, take responsibility and gain confidence, and learn both self-respect and respect for others. With the uniformed organisations and schemes such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award scheme, young people are faced with challenges; they learn how to manage risk and develop ways which, whatever their start in life, can lead to fulfilling and useful lives. We cannot afford to squander the talents of any of our people, but I would submit that it is not just government that has a key role. All of us as members of society can play our part in helping young and old to fulfil their potential, realise aspirations and build a fairer society.

English Premier League Football

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I join in the thanks to my noble friend Lord Bates for the opportunity to debate the considerable contributions that the Premier League has made to the United Kingdom in its 21 seasons. I pay tribute to him personally for all he did for the Olympic Truce, and for his continuing, active support of charity and sport.

I mean no disrespect to Scotland, nor to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, nor my noble friend Lord Lyell, if my reply is focused on the English Premier League. It is easy, when considering the Premier League, to become ensconced in the passion: the league table, the transfers, the occasional controversy on or off the pitch, and the sense of community that supporters enjoy following the pinnacle of English football. Although for some it was controversial at its inauguration—a breakaway group of clubs striking out against the formative traditions of the sport—the league has come to be woven into not only our own culture, but that of over 900 million Premier League fans worldwide. It has even encouraged the participation in this debate of my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.

There can be little doubt that the global profile, ambassadorial activities and work supporting overseas investment bring not only corporate benefits for the league and the constituent clubs, but a raft of broader benefits felt by the country at large. Premier League clubs drive significant tourism across the country, with an upward trend of fans coming to watch top-flight football. The league is supporting the “Great” Britain campaign, to which my noble friend Lord Bates made reference, with focal points for soft diplomacy across the world. In the past week alone, officials in Costa Rica, Vietnam and Bulgaria have been reporting back on the leverage that engagement with touring Premier League teams can provide. The Premier League also drives charitable initiatives abroad such as the Premier Skills programme, developing English language and social education through the medium of football.

The Premier League is, of course, just one tier of our domestic football programme. It is the height of league performance, and its profile extends to the far reaches of the globe. However, it is part of the bigger picture of the contribution that football as a sport makes to the UK. For example, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Premier League and the FA jointly fund the Football Foundation, and have spent £780 million over the past 10 years, investing in grassroots facilities. The Football Association invests upward of £43 million each year in supporting the grass-roots game, as the national governing body. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, made reference to this, and we recognise the match-funding that the Football Foundation attracts and the excellent projects it supports.

The Premier League-level investment in grass-roots football therefore provides a welcome addition, for which it should be commended. In the past month it launched a joint project with Sport England to expand two community programmes. Both the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, and my noble friend Lady Brinton made reference to the Kickz programme, which will be expanded to get a further 30,000 young people from disadvantaged areas into sport. Premier League 4 Sport, which has already engaged 60,000 young people, will now offer a broader range of sports while continuing to support the training of volunteers, competition delivery and qualifications in sport.

It is not just the financial support which contributes to the success of football at all levels. Across England, approximately 400,000 people volunteer in the delivery of over 140,000 football clubs and teams, many giving up innumerable hours to support their local community clubs. Many noble Lords have made reference to these activities and their contributions. Supporting the sport of football means, to many, far more than watching their home team, and has developed into a strong culture of volunteering.

That is not to say that the Premier League, and English football more widely, do not have their share of issues, some of which have been acknowledged here today. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner, Lord Lipsey, Lord Hunt and Lord Stevenson, all referred to governance issues. The sums of money reported in the business of football jar in the current economic climate. The will of the ownership is not always consistent with the wishes of the fans. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, made reference to possible revenue of £3 billion. This wealth should surely bring with it a share of responsibilities. The noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Graham, mentioned the cost of a ticket to see a match. This, of course, seems to contrast with the enormous wealth that the sport generates. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, raised concerns that 70% of the revenues go to the wages of players who may not all be the finest role models for the young.

Governance has been a concern to Members of both Houses for some time. As has been mentioned, a Select Committee has twice considered the matter. The Minister for Sport and Tourism has acknowledged their findings, and a response is expected from the football authorities. I am assured that this is a matter taken very seriously across government, and if the football authorities themselves cannot effect change then we have pledged to act. The Government will continue to press football for change but will move to legislate only if football cannot improve, as my honourable friend Hugh Robertson has indicated. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, raised considerable concerns about this. The Government will of course be working with the new chair of the FA, Greg Dyke; he has only been in post for two weeks, so it is perhaps early days to expect results, but I am sure he will be working on this too.

I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made a cri de coeur for Birmingham City, but the Box seemed to think that it was also on behalf of Coventry City. It was both? Excellent. Actually, that is not excellent, because they are both in need of support. Although the plights of individuals clubs are not matters in which Ministers would wish to intervene, the Government are aware of the impact that ownership issues have had on the fans of Coventry City. The Minister for Sport and Tourism has met with local MPs. He has raised their concerns with the Football League and is in contact with them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Lord, Lord Birt, all brought up the plight of Portsmouth. We welcome the role of the fans and the supporters’ trust in developing a community-owned club to continue in its place. We certainly wish them well. My noble friend Lord Wei also commented on the possibility of more fan ownership of clubs. Of course, in the case of Portsmouth it would not have been possible without the support of dedicated fans and, indeed, the valuable assistance that Supporters Direct provides. There are many ways for fans to become engaged in ownership, and Supporters Direct is guiding them in the development of trust and the exploration of options. That might seem like a way forward.

My noble friend Lord Wei also raised foreign ownership. It is a fact that the global appeal of the league will continue to attract foreign ownership and the football community must capitalise on the benefits of this. The Premier League is international in its operation and appeal and it is true that a great deal of global talent is attracted to our competition.

The implementation of the FA’s youth review seeks to break the mould in English football and develop more skilful players at grass-roots level. This is where the Premier League and England players of the future reside. The new skills-based approach will be rolled out in the 2013-14 season. The noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Faulkner, referred to the small number of English players in the teams. My noble friend Lord Taylor also mentioned the small number of British Asian players.

From these foundations, football now has a clear strategy to give our brightest youngsters the best possible opportunities to develop. The FA supports an elite pathway through professional clubs and the FA England teams. Representative teams from under-16s to under-21s are all based at St George’s Park, the national football facility. Professional clubs provide the feeder system for these teams and the new elite pathway, which has extensive interaction with schools and will provide players for our future squads. As part of the elite pathway, there is close co-ordination between the professional clubs and the Football Association’s leading charter-standard clubs. This ensures that the entry and exit points of the professional game support continuing player development, allow young players to keep playing and potentially allow for their return into the professional structure, should their future development allow it.

My noble friend Lady Brinton raised the question of football academies. As she says, not every academy player will make the Premier League and it is vital that supplementary training prepares them for this eventuality. The best examples of integrated training do indeed leave youngsters prepared for a future outside of football. As she says, Ofsted has rated as outstanding the Premier League in its best practice report of April 2012, noting that apprentices could,

“achieve their footballing potential while also developing their academic and personal skills”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the links between sport and modern languages. Of course, she chaired a committee which reported on European sport. We have also been involved in APPG meetings where sport and languages have been associated. We think that that perhaps will be wider than the vocabulary that my noble friend Lord Lyell was claiming to possess in this respect, perhaps reflective of the language that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, recalls hearing at his local game. Inevitably, with its international flavour, sport encourages the learning of languages.

The noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, also referred to the programmes for literacy and numeracy. These have had a powerful effect, particularly in disadvantaged areas. Training also extends to the work of many Premier League clubs to engage disaffected individuals back into education. It is one of the many positive ways in which the power of football can influence hearts and minds and, as my noble friend Lady Brinton says, can transform the lives of many young people.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, raised concerns about disabled access to Premier League stadiums. This will be noted in our ongoing engagement with the sport. I think that the example he quoted obviously should be shaming to the game.

On diversity, the joint inclusion and anti-discrimination action plan for English football has set clear targets across the game and is now reporting significant progress in initiating its work against discriminatory behaviours. A better understanding of equality and inclusion in the environment of football is being created, ensuring that it is open to a wide and diverse talent pool. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, for the work that they have done against racism. I note their concerns that there is not an ethnic mix at the top of the managerial and professional tree. The statistics do not read well, but we welcome the work that bodies such as Sporting Equals—funded by Sport England—are doing in partnership with clubs such as Liverpool, as well as the work that Kick It Out and Showing Racism the Red Card, mentioned by noble Lords, have been carrying out successfully to encourage greater diversity of coaching staff at all levels. This is a key part of the Football For All strategy. Against this backdrop, the access needs of a diverse fan base must not be forgotten.

As we commemorate the Olympic and Paralympic legacy one year on, some have noted the successful inclusion of British football teams in the London 2012 Olympic Games. It did immeasurable good for the profile of the women’s game, setting a record attendance figure of over 80,000 at the gold medal match. It offered many more thousands of spectators the opportunity to enjoy watching Olympic competition, and incoming Olympic tourists the opportunity to enjoy visiting the hosting cities outside London.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, drew attention to the challenges that women face. My noble friend Lady Brinton pointed to the lack of gender balance in this particular debate. I suppose that it is just as well that my noble friend Lord Gardiner was double-booked on this occasion, as I have been able to raise, at least slightly, the participation rate. We also note that the Women’s Super League is expanding to two leagues in 2014 and that many participating clubs are affiliated with Premier League sides, enjoying the facilities and expertise provided, including a new side from the Manchester City stable. Although it may not yet attract the same funding as the men’s game, the relationship between the two is improving.

We entered Olympic football as Team GB for the first time in 52 years, but the merit of any future Olympic participation in men’s or women’s football must be left to the football associations and the BOA. Team GB Football more regularly appears in the Paralympic roster and squads will no doubt continue to represent us with pride in Rio 2016 and beyond. We must not forget other British football squads, such as those who attended the recent World University Games, or Universiade, which is now one of the world’s largest multi-sport events. Following a successful campaign, in Kazan, Russia, the British men returned with silver and the women with gold, with a squad featuring many players tipped for full international duty. Through their successes I have no doubt that both teams, and the wider squad of athletes and support staff, have done much for the global face of British sport.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised the issue of broadcasting rights, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I believe. There was the suggestion that a proportion of that income should be given back direct to the sport. I will write to the noble Lord on that as I do not have a direct answer for him at this time. However, I rather suspect that this will be something for football governance and it will not be for the Government to interfere.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also mentioned the lack of diversity in sport at board level. I believe that the Government hope to work with the sport very closely to ensure that board level is more representative of the diversity of people who take part in and are interested in football.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

Is the Minister aware that when the Olympic Select Committee took evidence from the Football Association, its representative was asked how many women were on the council of the Football Association and the answer was that in a council of more than 100 people there were three women?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I was not aware of that. I wish that I could say that it surprises me. We should take note that that sort of representation does not reflect the way in which football is supported and should not be tolerated in the 21st century.

We acknowledge the Premier League’s efforts to date in addressing issues of governance and other issues that would better enhance their undoubted success and hope that they continue this work for seasons to come. Noble Lords have raised a number of key issues that they see fit to be addressed. I include in that the trickling down of their wealth, one of the comments with which my noble friend Lord Bates began this debate.

The contributions that the Premier League makes to the UK significantly go beyond its remit of delivering the top tier of domestic competition. Beyond its place domestically, close to the hearts of so many, the world has embraced our league as its own. It is from that privileged position that it can continue to showcase the very best of what the UK has to offer globally. There have been some amazing contributions from around the House in this debate. I renew my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bates and thank all noble Lords who have contributed their wide-ranging expertise to this stimulating and productive debate.

Government Procurement Policy

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Sugar for creating this opportunity to debate a subject of vital importance, especially in today’s economic circumstances, against a background of government policies that are not delivering the growth that we need but delivering, unfortunately, the highest level of unemployment for 17 years. I congratulate my noble friend on his customary and characteristically robust analysis, and I look forward to the ministerial response to some of the points that he raised. I am not sure that centralised purchasing is the total answer, but there are certainly savings to be made—we saw that in the recent Green analysis. I am certain that my noble friend is right to call for a more holistic analysis that goes beyond the lowest price. He made a valid point also about the restrictions that still exist in relation to SMEs.

To pay our way in the future, we need to build an economy that works; we need private sector growth, more people starting businesses and growing businesses succeeding in business. But we need that to work with public investment and procurement. To set this new direction, government cannot just stand at the sidelines. Government must use every tool purposefully and consistently to shape and support this business environment, from competition policy to taxation, and from regulation to procurement. That means developing institutions for collaboration and support, making sure that the right finance is in place, as well as the research base, the skills base and the other elements that support innovation and growth. It means investing in infrastructure, offering certainty in the policy environment and giving businesses the confidence to invest. It is active government, shaping markets, growing key sectors of the economy and supporting the growth of more companies which build value over time, invest long term, innovate, offer good jobs, pay fair wages, and train.

Governments cannot tell individual companies what strategy to pursue—we know that that will not work—but nor should they be indifferent to the choices that they make. There are many businesses already pursuing these strategies—it can make good business sense—but the policy environment does not always mean that this is the case. The challenge for policy-makers is how to create the framework so that that which is good business—socially valuable, sustainable—is also that which is most profitable, good business always being good business. This brings me back to procurement: getting it right so it can shape that environment and enabling procurement to play a critical role in the economy that we need for the future.

In government, we took steps to improve the way in which services are procured. In 2006, for example, we launched the Supply2.gov portal to make it easier for SMEs to access government contracts. In 2008, we commissioned a report on using public sector procurement to encourage SME growth. In the Pre-Budget Report, we committed to advertise government contracts worth more than £20,000 via a single, free online portal; to introduce measures to reduce bureaucracy and make opportunities more transparent for small businesses; to standardise the qualification criteria and encourage innovation by specifying outcomes rather than prescribing solutions; and to help SMEs get a fair deal when they were subcontractors.

Just before we left office, we set in the 2010 Budget central departmental targets to increase the proportion of central government procurement spend that goes to SMEs by 15 per cent throughout the supply chain. I know that this Government have a deep-rooted aversion to targets, but as we have heard a number of noble Lords say in this debate, it is all very well saying that one is going to encourage SMEs, but the track record to date shows that there is a lot more progress to be made.

This Government have sought to build on that legacy: they want 25 per cent of government contracts to be delivered by SMEs and to eliminate pre-qualification questionnaires for all central government procurements under £100,000. They have sought to introduce a one-stop shop that displays every central government tender opportunity and they want to iron out wasteful practices and unnecessary complexity in procurement processes. These measures are welcome but there have been contradictory signals too. The Government’s own adviser, Sir Philip Green, suggesting ways that government procurement would squeeze out SMEs and delay payments is an example. In recent months we have seen the case of Bombardier, which brought into focus the failure of the Government to recognise the significance of this procurement to our future competitive success, the consequences of which have placed the future of the train manufacturing industry in the UK in jeopardy. We believe it is essential that there is a UK-based train-building industry capable of designing, building and, of course, winning orders for those trains. We are urging the Government to outline the strategy for ensuring that this can happen, including for the new Crossrail rolling stock. We want to see UK rail manufacturing in a position to win these orders, not put at a disadvantage following the Thameslink decision.

This draws me to the fundamental question we need to consider—how we ensure that procurement is an engine for growth and how we improve the processes but, critically, the ambition that procurement can unlock. The Government are unfortunately missing this opportunity in our view. With £240 billion to spend, the Government are by far and away the UK’s biggest single consumer. Procurement can and should be a driver of growth, driving innovation, opening up markets, creating new markets and opening up to new businesses and new ways of doing things. That means putting procurement centre stage. We know that that has not always happened across government, local government and in the public sector. We must ask how we can demand more of procurement. How can this buyer power be leveraged to support the kind of economy we want to see? How can we make every single pound of spending create the most value to our economy and society? I suggest that it can be done in the following ways. We should build broader objectives into public procurement contracts, as we did with the Olympics. Construction contracts included clauses requiring the training of apprentices, creating 350 new apprenticeship places. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government will not act in this area. There is no legal prohibition against doing that. When we have more than a million unemployed young people, it seems to me that every apprenticeship place that we can create is vital. Haringey is doing this; through its procurement process it has opened up business to SMEs and created new employment opportunities for many long-term unemployed people, while saving £8 million over five years. EU law is often put up as an obstacle to so-called “social clauses”, not least because they can limit competition. However, they do not have to, as the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, and other noble Lords have said. This is an area where we need to explore the full potential and test the boundaries rigorously and robustly. Other countries manage to do it and we have heard references to French and Dutch examples.

We need to create markets for innovative products and services. My noble friend Lord Haskel referred to the importance of innovation in design. When in government, Labour created the Small Business Research Initiative, using procurement to create markets for innovative companies which often lack financial backing during exploratory development phases. However, it remains very small; it is worth between £10 million and £15 million a year. By contrast, the US SBIR programme, on which it is modelled, has now been running for almost 30 years and is worth $2.5 billion a year. Properly scaled, we should probably have a programme worth something like £240 million in the UK.

I have already talked about Bombardier so I will not develop that further. However, I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for giving a more balanced assessment of where we are going on Labour’s defence industrial strategy. I know from my experience of being a member of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body for four years that our record in ensuring that the forces had the best possible equipment was well appreciated. Labour's defence industrial strategy, which gave certainty to the UK industry, is being replaced by a commitment to buy off the shelf. There are arguments about whether this really is cheaper given the costs of adaptation. My noble friend Lord Davies demonstrated the importance of having a very strategic analysis in the area of defence.

This has been a very wide-ranging, important and constructive debate. I cannot possibly hope to deal with all the points that were raised. My noble friend Lord Puttnam said that there were ways of driving costs down and value up and mentioned the Promethean experience and the interesting incorporation of Phil Smith of Cisco on to the Technology Strategy Board. I share his optimism on that front. My noble friend Lord Kestenbaum made the important point about the need for government investment in vital areas such as global positioning satellites or the development of the internet protocol. Without those seed-corn investments it is doubtful whether important progress would have been made in those areas.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion agreed.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that the next debate is timed. Back-Benchers have seven minutes, so when the Clock shows seven, their time will be up.