Schools Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Lord Lucas

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, large families are not a school unless they are very large families and fish. I beg to move.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 147 and 152.

I applaud the Government for including in this Bill Clause 56, which seeks to ensure that schools currently avoiding registration and inspection are included in Ofsted’s remit in the future. This is a far more important issue than we may have considered it. This country has been standing by while an unknown number of extremist, fundamentalist, isolationist schools are teaching children to reject the values of the country in which they are growing up. What will some of those children do when they grow up? Will they join a terrorist organisation? We simply do not know.

Ofsted has written to me to give us the benefit of some of its information, which is worth quoting. It says that at least 6,000 children are being educated in 900 unregistered schools, or, as it puts it, likely many more. It is very concerning that Ofsted has issued more than 100 warning notices to those it believes are running illegal schools, and 40 % of those settings have not changed to comply with registration as a result. These are people who do not respect the law, so we have to be very tough with them.

It is worrying that children are not learning the most fundamental subjects, including maths and English. Not only is the narrow religious curriculum in many unregistered schools unacceptable but these schools may have unsanitary and unsafe conditions. Ofsted says that it found settings with severe health and safety hazards, and other problems. No one is able to check on these things so long as schools evade registration.

I want to thank Rob Cann of Humanists UK for his very detailed briefing and the precise wording of these amendments.

In Clause 56, the Government are seeking to extend registration to independent education institutions—that is fantastic—but only to those which provide all, or the majority, of the child’s education. Herein lies a significant loophole. The proprietors of some such settings know that if they are inspected, they will have to choose between changing to something very different and closing down. They are therefore very wily and will do all they can to continue to evade regulation and inspection. They will use every loophole they can find to wriggle out of their safeguarding duties. Amendment 146B would limit registration to establishments that provide 18 hours of teaching for 39 weeks of the year. That would be something, but I believe these schools would adjust their regime and continue to avoid registration.

Without doubt, as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, these proprietors—who all know one another; there are little groups of them—will get together and split their provision into separate morning and afternoon settings, or some other configuration such as one teacher taking kids in the morning, another in the afternoon. Neither will then be subject to registration under Clause 56 as it stands, and I would be grateful if the Minister would comment on this loophole and whether the Government are content to see these extremist schools escape the important purpose of this Bill.

I recognise that Clause 56(2) allows further tightening definitions to be done through regulations. Here, I am going to say something from experience. Nine years ago, I allowed, if you like, the Government to have a little adjustment to my proposal for an amendment on the face of a Bill on the basis that they would introduce regulations and deal with the problem. I thought, “Well, that sounds okay”. Was I naive? Nine years later, nothing has happened, so I am not impressed with the idea that this can be dealt with through regulations. I fear that it simply would not be done. That is a bit cynical, but it really is my experience.

My Amendment 147 has been carefully thought through. By applying registration only to establishments providing at least a quarter of a child’s education, it would not catch common after-school classes in music, sport or, indeed, religion. I very much hope the Minister will feel able to accept it.

Amendment 152 would close off another loophole for unregistered schools. Many of them operate in private dwellings; indeed, 85% of illegal education settings in Hackney, the borough with the greatest prevalence of illegal schools, are private dwellings. If the proprietor puts down a mattress in a school, on inspection, the school may be classified as a dwelling and a warrant would be required under the law as it stands. Without a warrant, the inspection would be invalidated, so, as Clause 63 stands, a warrant will be required for almost every investigation to prevent that. This will generate unacceptable pressure on the courts, the courts will then put a whole lot of pressure on the inspectors to prove that they really need the warrant, and the whole system could be snarled up. It is reasonable to suppose that determined proprietors will disguise their settings as dwellings to try to protect themselves from Ofsted’s new powers. As I said, they will do just about anything.

Clause 63 introduces a requirement that inspectors can enter a private dwelling only if a warrant has been issued, and a request for a warrant is permissible only if consent has been refused. This leaves in limbo the situation of an inspection in what could be deemed a private dwelling where consent has been given. I am sure this is not the intention, but the wording leaves open the situation of those inspections where consent is given but there is a problem; it leaves an issue.

Registration and inspection of schools must, of course, be dealt with sensitively and authorities cannot be given free access to private dwellings without a warrant if consent is not given. Nevertheless, if the first intimation for Ofsted that a school is in a so-called private dwelling is when it attempts to enter the building, it will need to go away, fill in the forms and ultimately get a warrant, which could take a week or more. This will allow lots of time for the proprietors to conceal, dispose of or fabricate false evidence about whether a school was in operation within the dwelling. Surprise is essential in such situations.

Some proprietors will be less cunning than others and perhaps have less need to be, if a proprietor provides access immediately to an inspector arriving at the address. Amendment 152 clarifies that a warrant will be required only where consent has not been given for entry and where the setting visibly appears to be a dwelling. That sounds a bit pedantic, but it is important, on the basis that these people may just put a mattress down somewhere and claim it is a private dwelling. What is a private dwelling? All sorts of things can be done by them.

I hope the Minister will therefore ask officials to give serious consideration to the following two points. First, the current drafting of Clause 63 is poor and risks making matters worse for Ofsted inspectors. The element of surprise is so important, yet Clause 63 seems to reduce the scope for that surprise. Secondly, the clause does not clarify what a private dwelling is. Will the Minister ensure that, if possible, a definition of a private dwelling for the purposes of the Bill is given in it?

I failed at the beginning of my speech to thank the Minister very much indeed for the discussion we had, and I remember that one of her points was: how on earth do you define a private dwelling—it is probably impossible? I hope that efforts will be made to define a private dwelling to avoid what I call the mattress problem.

Again, I emphasise that the Government seek to achieve a very important objective in these clauses. I hope these comments are helpful; they are certainly intended to be.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Lord Lucas

Committee stage
Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group: Amendments 263 and 265. I thoroughly welcome the Government’s approach in this area. We have a responsibility as the consumers of forest products to make sure that they are sourced in a way we are comfortable with. To keep blindly consuming, say, palm oil without regard to the consequences is to take less than our responsibility for what is happening. It is our demand that is driving the production, and it is therefore our responsibility. We need to find ways in which we can exercise that responsibility without encroaching on the national rights of the people doing the producing. For instance, in the case of palm oil, I think it is entirely reasonable to ask that it is produced without further encroachment on virgin forest. My Amendment 263 suggests that we should also include peatlands and wetlands within that definition of “forest”. Both of these are environments that palm oil plantations can encroach on. They are both environments of great ecological significance, and we should therefore have as much interest in them as we do in a forest.

In order to know what is going on in response to our demand for palm oil, we need some information. The obvious information we have access to is satellite records, but they are not much use unless you can tie them to what is happening on the ground. We will need some form of baseline—I hope very much that COP 26 may provide that—or a map of where things are so that change can be measured from that. We need to be conscious of the fact that it is not necessarily the big boys doing the encroaching. It can be small farmers, subsistence farmers or people working out a small living who make the first cut, and then the big boys come in behind them, reward them and move them on to the next patch of virgin forest. What we need to watch is not some small detail but the overall effect, so that we know that palm oil sourced from a particular area or country has been done so ethically.

Amendment 265 deals with how we might make that work. I am suggesting that we should be able to give our approval to an organisation such as the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil so that we can use it as an internationally recognised collaborative method of telling us which sources of palm oil are ethical. Then we should build some reward into that system. I am sure we would come up against the WTO again, but, as we have discussed before this evening, we need the WTO to become responsive to environmental imperatives. If a country is producing ethically farmed palm oil, we should be able to reward it with a premium, which should then go back into the process of making sure that palm oil is ethical and supporting the people producing it on those terms, so that we get a virtuous circle.

Those are my two suggestions for how we might make things more effective than they appear to be in the Bill. It is important that we look for a system that does not just deal with the import of the primary product but enables us to get at imports that contain substantial amounts of the product; otherwise, we just disadvantage our own producers. Working through something like a round table or an import tariff scheme would allow us to do that.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 264A. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was very keen to speak on this amendment, to which he added his name, but for technical reasons was unable to do so.

I congratulate the Government on their attempt to tackle the alarming rate of deforestation. They plan to do this by prohibiting the use of certain commodities associated with illegal—I emphasise the word—deforestation and by requiring large companies to undertake due diligence and report on their activities in the relevant areas. I emphasise the word illegal because here lies the risk; the Bill as it stands risks incentivising Governments to change their laws to make sure that far greater deforestation—perhaps all of it—becomes legal. This Environment Bill will then have little or no benefit in preventing deforestation. I know this is not the intention of the Government, but I ask the Minister to consider most carefully the risk of leaving Schedule 16 as it stands.

As other noble Lords know, deforestation is a huge global problem and solving it has to be a top priority for COP 26. Just a couple of statistics will make the point. In 2020 alone, primary humid tropical forest loss covered some 4.2 million hectares—an area the size of the Netherlands. Paragraphs 2(1) and 2(2) of Schedule 16 make it clear that, as long as local laws are complied with, commodities grown on land where forest has been cleared can be traded commercially by UK companies. However, deforestation behind UK imports of commodities accounts for an area of tree loss almost the size of the entire UK. This year has seen the highest deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon in over a decade. This will only get worse without this amendment.

Apart from the Bill as it stands incentivising Governments to legalise deforestation in their own countries, even now a third of tropical deforestation is defined as legal and will not be tackled by Schedule 16, unless it is amended. Scientists in Brazil tell us:

“Currently in Brazil, approximately 88 million hectares … 4 times the size of the UK, could be cleared legally on private properties under Brazilian forest law.”


Another major issue is that laws relating to land use, forests and commodity production are often uncertain, inconsistent or poorly implemented, making the determination of legality very difficult, time-consuming, expensive or virtually impossible. Schedule 16 as it stands risks bogging down UK courts with difficult questions about the interpretation and application of foreign laws.

I know the Government have absolutely no wish to impose these problems on our industries. If they accept this amendment, they will surely provide clarity, consistency and certainty for UK businesses and for the countries of origin where deforestation is currently taking place. Leading UK companies have appealed to the Government to support a more rigorous standard than that set out in Schedule 16.

I thank the head of the Bill team and four other officials for the very helpful meeting we had on Thursday. They argued that 70% of deforestation for agriculture is illegal. Yes, but 30% is legal. Also, this is changing as we speak. The Brazilian Government are in the process of legalising forest lands. Paulo from Brazil, at a highly informative Global Witness meeting—I thank Global Witness for its incredible help on this—referred to a recent forest code which has legalised 12 million hectares of forest and a legislative package that will retrospectively legalise deforestation. The Bill encourages further legalisation to circumvent laws based on legality. This is dangerous. I understand that, despite all these issues, the Government want to work with producer countries to improve governance. This approach assumes that we are dealing with Governments who share our values—sadly, we are not.

Paulo from Brazil was appealing to the UK—appealing to me to appeal to the Minister, I should say—to introduce a strong law to prevent commercial activity based on deforested land, whether legal or illegal. He is deeply concerned about his Government’s determination to undermine our legality-based legislation.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Baroness Meacher and Lord Lucas

Tuesday 24th July 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I find myself in happy agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. People should pay their debts, and I imagine that the Minister will join me in looking at things that way too. It is a good basis for looking at this amendment. However, I support the amendment, particularly because of my view of what local authorities are getting up to.

[Baroness Meacher]

Where errors have been made by officials, most particularly, it is completely immoral to turn on the recipient family, couple or individual and expect them to deal with what can be an enormous debt, about which they have no knowledge whatever. It is not their fault. We need to be careful about saying that in all circumstances people should pay their debts.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness misunderstands me. I was picking up on what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said and the way in which he described that this should be done. I am not trying to address myself to the particular circumstances of that part of the amendment. I support the amendment, by and large, but I am looking at it from this point of view: when I read this, I see an instrument for getting local authorities to behave better than they do and to pay more attention to their duty of care to the people to whom they are charging council tax.

About 3 million liability orders are issued in respect of council tax each year. Councils charge an average of about £100 a time for this, which is £300 million a year that councils are charging for liability orders. This charge is supposed to be based on the cost to councils of getting the liability orders and the magistrates’ court orders together. It is totally out of proportion to that cost. It is high time that the Government did a little audit to check out what one or two councils are charging and to see whether those costs are real.

It is no good, particularly when you are looking at charging money to people who often do not have it, to proceed in the same way as councils do with motorists: we all know that those charges have nothing to do with the costs of providing services, that they are completely out of proportion and that the councils are running them as a profit centre. I gather from the hornets’ nest that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea continues to do that, which is certainly my experience from being on the wrong end of their fines. Parking has become a major profit centre for some boroughs, and I can understand why they consider that people who have cars have money to be got. However, that should not be their attitude to those who find themselves unable to pay council tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that I will indeed do what I can to provide her with some evidence. I should be grateful if either she or the noble Lord, Lord Tope, or anyone else who was belabouring me for being beastly to councils could point out to me where on a council’s website there are references to the sort of behaviour which they say goes on as a matter of routine. I have just looked at some; I looked in vain at Norwich, and at several others, and they all lay out the bare bones of the charges and the bailiffs and say nothing about finding your way into the care of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, or other ways in which to deal with the problems that you may have. It is not there on their websites. I cannot say that I have seen them all, but I have looked at half a dozen in the course of the winding up. I would be very grateful if those who have belaboured me could show me where on the websites of the councils with which they have involvement this sort of attitude to people who fail to pay their council tax is demonstrated. I hope that we shall manage to make some progress at Report in this direction, because it seems that there is considerable scope for not only bailiffs but councils behaving better to take care of the vulnerable but also effectively and efficiently recover council tax while causing a minimum of distress on the way. I am delighted to hear that things are better than I had understood, but I would love to see some evidence.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I thank the many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate so powerfully and helpfully. I must also thank the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust and the reverend Paul Nicholson, who has been behind all this.

Important points were made in this debate, albeit that, as I mentioned in our meeting with the Minister, this is a probing amendment raised in the context of the DWP and the MoJ. The point was to bring to Ministers’ notice the relationship between the three departments and the similar issues that apply, whatever words one might use. I certainly agree that the amendment does not deal with all the problems. I particularly endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that we need a regulatory or licensing system. Ten years ago, when I was chairman of the Security Industry Authority, I pressed hard, as far as I could at that stage, for such a regulatory system for bailiffs. Often they say it takes 10 years before an idea comes to fruition, so this is about time for the regulation of bailiffs. I am sure that it was raised 20 years ago, and, no doubt, 30 years ago, but there we go. It is certainly time that that was done.

I also very strongly support what was said about advice agencies. It is in no one’s interest that advice agencies are being cut back now. I appeal to the Minister to do anything that she can to ring-fence or support local advice agencies and prevent the totally destructive withdrawal of funds from those bodies. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, local authorities need to collect the money, but they seem to be spending an awful lot of money on trying to do so, which again is self-destructive.

I understand the Minister’s comments, but we need this looked at across the three key departments—there may be others—to see whether sensible regulations can be drawn up. As has been said, guidance is fine, but it is not mandatory. We would like mandatory provisions within regulations that cover the collection of debts from those families and individuals who are in financial hardship and where some injustice is being done.

Having said all that, and hoping that we will have further discussions with the department and its officials, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.