King’s Speech

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to the House, and I congratulate him on his brilliant maiden speech. As a fan of all his biographies, the one I most enjoyed and that is most relevant to this House is his magisterial biography of Lord Salisbury, the last Prime Minister to serve in this House. He gives the most brilliant insight into the Conservative mindset, which is valuable for someone like me. When it was proposed that shop workers should be given relief from having to stand up for more than five consecutive hours, Lord Salisbury said, “Change, change, aren’t things bad enough already?” That is how it seems when we look at the world order today.

Many noble Lords have referred to the optimism that we all felt 30 years ago, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and a belief, with Fukuyama, that liberal democracy was then on a triumphant path. That was not to be. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, was completely correct when he said that we pay too little attention to the strength of our arms. It may also be true that we deployed them in the wrong places in many of the developments that took place thereafter, and we now need to start putting that right in a serious way.

In particular, we need to stand resolutely behind and strengthen NATO. It was only three or four years ago that President Macron said that it was “brain-dead”, but it has now sprung into life again in Ukraine. Never has its role been more vital since Ernest Bevin’s actions led to its creation in the middle of the Berlin airlift. A war is taking place in Europe, and the largest invasion of Europe since the creation of NATO has taken place. Some 18% of Ukraine is still occupied and there have been more than 150,000 casualties in the Ukraine war, with 17,000 killed—and it is still ongoing.

It is on Ukraine that I will focus my questions to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, whom we are pleased to see continuing in his place—he does a superb job in this House and he will be of great assistance to the future Lord Cameron. On my side, my noble friend Lord Coaker’s speech from the Front Bench was absolutely superb, showing the continuity in our foreign policy on our essential national interests.

I accept the point of the noble Earl, whom we also welcome, in opening the debate—namely, that we have not been distracted—but the big question in respect of Ukraine is that we are in danger of a stalemate. Over the last year, after the initial significant gains that the Ukrainian forces made, with our support, there has been little change in Ukraine in recent months. Indeed, last week, President Zelensky had to contradict his own chief of staff, who said that there was a stalemate in Ukraine. If that is the Ukrainian assessment, there is no reason why we should defy it. We are faced with a very unstable situation in the United States, and it could be that US aid is reduced over the next year.

As I see it, the issue on Ukraine—and I want to put it directly for the Minister to reply to at the end of the debate—is not that we lack consensus, because there is plenty of consensus in the House on Ukraine. It is about whether there is enough action on Ukraine and enough support for the Ukrainians. It is worth a thought experiment at the moment, given the situation we are in and the existential nature of the threat we face from this Russian invasion, whether we should double our support for the Ukrainians at the moment. The Germans have found it very difficult to rise to these challenges historically, but they have just agreed an €8 billion budget for the support of the Ukrainians next year. By my calculations, they are providing three times the military support that we are providing at the moment. Just to take tanks—there are many other measures too—we are supplying 14 Challenger tanks, while Germany is at the moment supplying 18 Leopards and has just committed to another 25.

The question that I put to the Minister is whether our support for Ukraine is sufficient. We need a breakthrough in Ukraine in the next year; if we do not get a breakthrough, we could have another frozen conflict and another type of Berlin Wall across Europe for the next generation. We need to consider urgently and with the space required, despite the other conflicts, whether a really significant upping of our support is necessary, in collaboration with our European partners. I much regretted that in the noble Earl’s speech the words “France”, “Germany” and “the European Union” did not even feature. We need the strongest possible military collaboration with our European partners; we need to consider what it will take to bring about a breakthrough in Ukraine. We have supplied £2.3 billion of aid to Ukraine this year and last. Should that be £5 billion? Should we be doubling our defence effort? What will it take for us to win? The cost of us losing could be incalculable over the next generation.

Ukraine: Update

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that the wilful disinformation and misinformation engaged in by Russia is absolutely appalling and very unwelcome. It is worth emphasising that it remains the case that the UK respects the people, culture and history of Russia. The conflict in Ukraine has confirmed the UK assessment as set out in the integrated review: that the current Russian Government remain, and will continue to pose, the most acute threat to the UK and the alliance for the foreseeable future. Our criticism and objections are directed to the behaviour of the Russian Government.

However, the noble Lord makes an important point. The UK, and particularly the MoD, made a courageous decision fairly early on to release more intelligence to the public. That was quite a culture change for the MoD; we are usually pretty protective of our intelligence information. We decided to do that to counter Russian disinformation by providing an accurate and truthful picture of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. To date, those intelligence updates, issued via social media, have proved very popular; they are reaching a large audience across the UK and internationally. There was some reference recently to a poll carried out in Russia—I was trying to find the specific information, but I do not seem to have it in my brief. My recollection is that the poll indicated that, in Russia, there has been a sharp decline in support for the war over a period of months. It seems that many people are becoming very unhappy and very questioning about what the Russian Government are doing in their name. We will continue to do what we can with the careful release of intelligence—the noble Lord is absolutely right—to neutralise lies and to provide a counternarrative which is correct.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the Ukrainian Prime Minister has said that the Ukrainians need and could deploy more than 100 tanks. We are providing 14 Challenger 2 tanks. The Minister said that there are 227. Could we not do rather better than 14?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As I said earlier, the issue is not just what we as an individual country can do. We are providing Challenger, and the weaponry and ammunition accompanying it, to work with the American Bradley vehicles. That is a tandem capability. I indicated earlier that other countries are providing tanks as well. The question is where the need arises and the best way of addressing it. The Challenger 2 is obviously a very formidable piece of equipment, and it has a remarkable reputation for withstanding damage—in the current battlefield in Ukraine, that is a very important component. It is not a question of any one particular vehicle being what is needed universally; it is a question of thinking intelligently about how we ally with other bits of equipment and capabilities that allies and partners are producing to ensure that, in aggregate, we have something really effective.

Ukraine

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, we are all Ukrainians today, in the same way that we were all Czechs and Poles in the face of Hitler, we were all Berliners in the face of Stalin, and we were all Bosnians and Kosovars in the face of Milošević. We share a common humanity, and a common interest as democratic Europeans in checking invasion, imperialism and tyranny.

In Putin, we are dealing with the latest of the great dictators: part rational, part megalomaniac, a wholly cynical and brutish menace to humanity and peaceful relations between states. He may be economically weaker than Hitler and Stalin, but with a nuclear arsenal and a mastery of modern cyberwarfare, he poses threats which even they did not pose. The only solution is his departure, and the only palliative is containment and the maximum possible strength and unity among the democracies he threatens. That is all of us in Europe, starting with his neighbours but not confined to them—as we in Britain know from his chemical weapons attack in Salisbury and Russian disruption of our democratic events and institutions.

Looking back critically, the mistake we made was of demonstrating insufficient strength. The idea that it would have been right, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to force the new democracies of central and eastern Europe to be neutral when they wanted freely to join the EU and NATO, is now obviously misguided. If Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were not in the EU and NATO, what is happening to Ukraine today would probably be happening to them too, and may already have happened.

In respect of Ukraine, we clearly failed in the weakness of our response to the annexation of Crimea eight years ago. The sanctions and preventive measures we are discussing today should have been taken then. We should have moved immediately to isolate and weaken Putin in the same way that we did the equally despicable and dangerous Iranian regime after it, too, started to destabilise Europe from its borders. Part of the reason we did not—and why Ukraine did not become more integrated into the European system—was intense Russian destabilisation, which some people in high European counsels who should know better foolishly and very naively and condescendingly said was evidence of Ukraine’s unsuitability to become part of the very European institutions which might have enabled it to survive and grow as a free and independent democracy.

On the crisis we now face, every speaker in this debate has agreed that sanctions must be for real. As the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, said in his extremely able and powerful speech, for sanctions to work, they have to be far bigger and more immediate than Putin is expecting. Chancellor Scholz showed commendable leadership when he announced on the day of the invasion that Nord Stream 2 will be cancelled, but the fact that, four days later, Europe’s leaders cannot even agree to exclude Russia from SWIFT and other international payments systems, as we did Iran years ago, is a bad sign. This should happen immediately as part of a Russian trade embargo, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, obviously must include Gazprom.

Our Government have a particular responsibility to promote financial sanctions because so many of them apply to transactions and investments in London. Thousands of Putin’s cronies should have their UK assets frozen or seized. The operation in the United Kingdom of all Russian banks, financial institutions and state companies—not just a handful—should be disabled. If we could stop Napoleon trading with and through Britain, we can certainly stop Putin.

It is all the more important that we in the UK take the lead on these financial measures—at the price of real pain, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said—because our continental European partners need to do the same in respect of their energy dependence on Russia, although, with our own oil and gas reserves in the North Sea, we have a vital part to play here, too. Nord Stream 2 is only the start of the change that is needed to prevent Putin holding Europe to ransom; it has to start now.

We should also offer immediate asylum to all technically qualified Russian personnel, as the United States did after 1945. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said in his immensely powerful speech, militarily and logistically, we should reassert the North Atlantic Treaty’s Article 5 guarantee to NATO’s 30 members, and we should support Ukrainian resistance so that Putin faces in Kyiv what Brezhnev faced in Kabul: an increasingly debilitating, costly and unpopular guerrilla war with mounting losses of Russian life and prestige.

In his heartfelt address to the Russian people yesterday, delivered in Russian, President Zelensky said:

“We know for sure that we don’t want war. Neither cold, hot, or hybrid. But, if we are threatened; if someone is trying to take away our country, our freedom, our lives … We are going to defend ourselves.”


Today, we are all Ukrainians.

Afghanistan: British Equipment and Training

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises an important point. As she will be aware, we have made it clear that ARAP extends to all who worked with us. It is a scheme without a time limit, and we invite people to continue applying. In so far as British nationals are concerned, we have endeavoured to find where they are and maintain contact with them. We are doing our level best to support that. As the noble Baroness will understand, this is a difficult situation. The advice we have given to anyone wanting to try and get out who is either a British national or eligible under ARAP is to try and make their way to a neighbouring country. That is the best advice we can give. I reassure the House that we are supporting that advice by providing additional staff in neighbouring countries.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, in the wake of the desperate Afghan crisis, almost everybody agrees that we need stronger European defence co-operation, and I believe the Minister shares that view. Will she therefore have a word with the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who is sitting next to her, whose EU trade and co-operation agreement decimates our trade with other European countries, undermines our co-operation with them and is a terrible prelude to greater defence co-operation?

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 22nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. I absolutely agree with everything that has been said. Frankly, it is a no-brainer for the Government not to agree with the amendment. Apart from anything else, if they do not, they will be seen to be offside with common practice these days in restoration projects.

If the House were to come to the Heritage Lottery Fund—I declare my interest as deputy chair of the board—with a proposal for a fairly significant grant, as the House may still do although we could not fund the whole thing, the very least we would expect is a clear strategy. It is not necessarily as simple as consultation; I mean a serious public engagement strategy which would allow us to tell who would actually benefit, how their voices had been collected and heard and how they had been reflected in the proposal. We would not consider proposals which could not provide us with that obvious proof of public benefit.

What we are considering here, for all the reasons we know and which the noble Lord has again spelt out, is a national project of the greatest public benefit that we could conceive of. By not acknowledging that in the Bill or making clear plans to involve and listen to the voice of different communities around the country, we are missing a massive opportunity. We also neglect our public duty.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

Did I follow my noble friend correctly in thinking that the lottery might fund parts of the restoration and renewal work? I would strongly deprecate that. This should be paid for by the Treasury.

[Baroness Andrews]

No, my Lords, I did not say that. I was making a hypothetical case that, were such a grant to be considered—I am not saying that it would be—it would have to satisfy different conditions. Of course I agree that this is a public project for national Treasury funding.

I have now lost my thread completely. This is the second time that my noble friend has interrupted me when I was developing my strategic thinking. I return to the principle. It is extremely important, for all the reasons we know, that this change is owned by the people we are here to serve. It is absurd not to recognise them in the Bill or to give them a voice.

We know how to do this, although it is complicated. At what point do you start involving people? How do you structure it? How do you reach out? How do you collect the voices, as it were? But we do it every day in major and minor projects around the country. It is not a miracle; it is a science.

To take just one example before I close, the National Museum Wales has, I am delighted to say, just won a national museum of the year award. In its redevelopment, which involved a great deal of new building, it involved thousands of people from all manner of excluded groups in the local and national community. The result has been transformational in their and our understanding of what people expect from a national museum.

This is not a museum. We have a much greater duty. But those principles and methodologies can certainly be adopted and followed.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that we are trustees, or custodians, of this Palace of Westminster, which ultimately belongs to the public that we exist to serve. Clearly, we need to ensure that, through this programme of works, the Palace that belongs to the public and the people who occupy it are in a position to serve the public better.

I also support the need for public engagement with and consultation on these works. I would counsel one thing, however. During the debate, I have been a little worried by comments about attempts by us to help the public to understand better what this project is all about. At the moment, those of us in positions of great privilege and some power think—too often and mistakenly—that we are the ones with all the information and that we need to impart it and impose it on other people. As has been made clear by other noble Lords in their contributions, we want to understand better what the public expect from their Parliament and reflect on what they want so as to influence how we change.

However, I would go one step further: we must be frank and understand that the process of consulting people is another opportunity for us to show that we are changing and that we want to serve them better. I want us to ask about what it is that people want to see us change in terms of our behaviour as parliamentarians. If we can understand better what they want from us in terms of how we behave—to show that we take them seriously and listen to them in carrying out our work—we should consider what we need to do differently in terms of how our building is formatted, refurbished and renewed to make sure that we are better placed to show that we are listening and responding, and to give people confidence that that is what this is all about.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said about making much better use of the Royal Gallery. I referred to this in my speech at Second Reading. I wish him luck because it will mean taking on the fully entrenched forces of the officialdom of the House, but I will willingly make one last attempt at getting a coffee bar in the Royal Gallery. I will join the noble Lord; perhaps my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, might also commit themselves. It may be that, if all the party leaders and many noble Lords converged on a maximum point of pressure, we could persuade the authorities of the House to act. This might be the moment: if we have a series of speeches on this, a revolutionary change that would make this place far more accessible could be brought about. Part of the problem with the House of Lords is that it is largely inaccessible to the public because the points of entry are so narrow and constrained; it is almost impossible to get here unless you have an appointment with a Peer who meets you. The number of meeting places that are not offices is also limited. Perhaps we will have brought about a revolutionary change by the end of the debate.

I am very sorry for interrupting my noble friend Lady Andrews. I was anxious to interrupt her because, when she mentioned the lottery, I could see the Treasury’s eyes gleaming at the prospect of possibly being able to pass on large parts of the cost. It is important that we establish that this is absolutely a public project. If the Victorians could build this extraordinary Palace—Mr Gladstone was very mindful of the public finances—we in this generation can certainly live up to our responsibilities.

[Lord Blunkett]

For the record, Mr Gladstone came on to the scene for this particular building a bit late, did he not?

[Lord Adonis]

Actually, he was Chancellor of the Exchequer when a large part of the work was being carried out. I assure my noble friend that Gladstone took a keen interest in the allocation of the public finances; my noble friend and I can correspond on this matter afterwards.

The amendment moved by my noble friend seems at one level to be a statement of the obvious but, on another level, the fact that it needs to be stated is of some importance in itself. The two changes that he essentially wishes to make are: to enlarge the sponsor body’s duties to include promoting to the public the work of R&R; and to add to the sponsor body’s duties consulting not only Members of each House but members of the public. That should not need to be said; it ought to be obvious that that should happen. However, there are two reasons why this is important. First, I do not think that the Government are racing to accept the amendments; I am looking at the noble Earl. If so, there must be some reason why. It is precisely because the actual duties will be expanded in a way that the Government think will be distracting to the sponsor body. Why would the Government regard them in that way? They impose additional duties.

However, those duties—the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was completely right about this—are exactly what we would and should expect of the sponsor body in two respects. First, it is a matter of self-interest: the body is going to spend a lot of money—the figure of £4 billion has been touted before but, from my intimate knowledge of how infrastructure projects go, I think that we can safely assume that it will be significantly larger. When the inevitable controversy comes, as it will, about the cost, overruns, delays and everything else, the sponsor body, your Lordships and the other House of Parliament need the ultimate protection possible, which must surely come from having engaged with the public and having proper public promotion and displays. Westminster Hall needs to be full of displays about the work that will be undertaken and we need the visitor centre to do the same. That is important. Secondly, part of the justification for the spending on this work is that it will enhance public access significantly.

To extend the point about what happens at the end of restoration and renewal, not having proper citizenship education is part of the problem. My noble friend Lord Blunkett has done more than any other Minister—in history, I would venture to suggest—to put citizenship at the core of what we teach in schools. It is hugely important. However, we still do not pay nearly enough attention to it. In particular, we do not make visiting Parliament, engaging with parliamentary institutions and meeting parliamentarians a systematic part of secondary school education, as it should be. Since the Germans’ massive renovation of the Bundestag’s beautiful old buildings in Berlin—at the behest of British architects, as it happens—they have had comprehensive programmes for schools and schoolchildren proactively to visit Berlin, tour the German parliament and meet their parliamentarians. We do not do that here. Even with all the expansion we are talking about, the creation of a visitor centre and all that, it all depends on people wanting to come here, whereas we should be proactively engaging. This problem goes to the wider issue: the further one goes from London, the more disengaged people feel from their parliamentary institutions, not least because they hardly have any contact with what goes on here. Their schools are much less likely to come here.

I am struck when I meet school parties—some I show around; many I just meet when I am walking around the Palace—and ask where they come from. They disproportionately come from London and the area immediately around. Why? Because if you have to proactively seek to come here and cover expenses and things of that kind, it will particularly be private schools—we come back to this issue—who will come here. We have to end this. We are now in a massive Brexit crisis because of the massive alienation between a large part of our people and our parliamentary institutions.

[Lord Bethell]

The noble Lord makes the point well, but I think he is too limited in his analysis of the problem. It is not just that schoolchildren do not understand the parliamentary democracy they live in. They do not see for themselves the opportunities that lie in the Civil Service and other forms of public service. There is a massive disengagement between schools and universities and the whole ethos of public service. There is a good argument that that kind of personal contact with Parliament would do a huge amount to invigorate a sense of public service that is missing at the moment, particularly in the schools to which he refers—schools outside London and non-grammar, non-independent schools.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I agree with every word the noble Lord has just said.

What I would like to see in this Bill—as noble Lords know, I always try to push things to extremes—is a duty on the sponsor body to see that, once the restoration and renewal work is completed, there are facilities and arrangements in place for every schoolchild in the country, during the course of their secondary education, to visit the Houses of Parliament, have a tour and get the opportunity to see the work we do.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

I have to take the noble Lord to task on engagement in schools north of the south—if you see what I mean. Not enough of us take part in the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme, but many do, and I assure the noble Lord that the majority of schools I go to are not private but state schools, and they engage through citizenship. They are often either GCSE-level or sixth-form level—I have been to a couple of primary schools as well—but they do come down. With this project we have a chance to enlarge on that, but I would hate to think that people following this debate would think that we do not engage already. On the whole—I cannot speak for others—I have been to state schools, certainly not private schools.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness on her work. I did not say that we do not engage at all; I said that we do not engage nearly enough. The overwhelming majority of state secondary school pupils across England do not have any engagement, will not have come here on a visit and will not have met their parliamentarians. We should take that as a criticism of us—this institution—because it is.

My noble friend Lord Blunkett is pushing the door further—which he does so brilliantly on these occasions —so that we at least recognise in the Bill that the public exist and that the promotion of public engagement should be a duty on the sponsor body. These amendments seem entirely uncontroversial, unless the noble Earl is going to argue that they are distracting to the work of the sponsor body. If he does, I hope that at the very least he will agree to consider that issue further. If they are distracting, we are admitting that engaging with the wider public is a distraction to the work of the very body and the restoration and renewal programme that should seek to serve this wider public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I fully support the amendment, although I would go one step further. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has rightly identified the planning problems that could occur with Richmond House. I suspect that there will be equal problems with the design of the temporary Chamber for our friends down the other end—the colour of the carpet, the comfort of the Benches and so on. However, the same problems will occur when we start thinking about what this place will look like when we come back. We have been speaking about it all evening but I am referring to the kind of facilities that we want, how much it will cost and what changes there will be. No doubt that will cause delays as well, if only because the Treasury will say that the costs are too high or something like that.

I agree with the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. There should be very regular reports—maybe every six months—on the timescale of the decant and, subsequently, on the refurbishment of this place. But, if he considers bringing it back on Report, he should add something about cost. We are not very good at maintaining costs for things; he knows my views on Crossrail and HS2. Whoever is to blame, we are very good at hiding the real costs or results of programmes for several years then suddenly shocking Parliament and the public. Crossrail was on time and on budget until this time last year; now it is several years late and we do not yet know what the budget is going to be as we have not been told. People must have known about these things, as relating to HS2, several years before the problem occurred.

I hope that we will not have the same problem here. We need to be honest and transparent and set an example with respect to the changes that we have made. I hope the Minister can give us some kind of commitment that such honesty and transparency, and regular updates, will be features of rebuilding this place. It will be very difficult; there will be many changes and probably cost-overruns, which is not surprising when you are working in a building like this, but let us at least know what is going on, in good time.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I will be brief: the situation is worse than that described by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, if I can deepen his gloom. With HS2 and Crossrail, with which I was deeply familiar, by the time we came to publishing legislation we knew what the project was going to be. The project was defined; indeed, at the second stage of the HS2 Bill, which had just been agreed by the House of Commons, we knew within a few metres what the line and specification of works would be and so on. We have a defined project—it has just proved much more expensive and problematic to deliver than was conceived. The problem we face with the parliamentary rebuilding work is that we are setting up the sponsor body before we have a defined project.

There is a very good reason for that: we are literally starting from scratch and trying to decide the best way forward, and this probably is the best way forward. I have views on whether we should consider other options —we will come to that in a while—but we are currently at such an early stage of the work that we do not have the faintest clue what the costs will be. We do not have a project description; all we have is a few back-of-the-envelope, broad objectives, a very old costing on the basis of them and a few timelines plucked out of a hat. We also have the potential for massive controversy, which we can already see, about the nature of the decant, where we will go, what we will come back to and so on.

What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is proposing—that there should be best estimates for the timeline at the point at which the strategy is published—is perfectly sensible. There is also another reason why it should be done: it is my view that we are at such an early stage of planning, and the issues involved in the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament are so great—because of the wider context referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, of big questions about the future of our parliamentary democracy—that I do not believe it is sensible to be closing down significant options at this stage; we are at such a preliminary stage in devising what the project will be. I am sorry to keep making this point but, since we will be returning to it in September, I am very anxious to keep it open: we should include the question of where the decant should be—there is very good reason to propose that it should not be somewhere immediately adjacent to the Houses of Parliament but could be in another part of the United Kingdom—and where the ultimate Parliament will be.

I agree with what the noble and learned Lord said. On the basis of my knowledge of big infrastructure projects and the stage we are at currently, it is very plausible that there could be three or four years’ delay before the decant starts. If the decant does not start until 2028, we will not move back here until between 2038 and 2040. To put some context on this, phase 2 of HS2 is currently scheduled to open in 2032. So, relatively speaking, it is going to take much longer to complete the restoration and renewal of Parliament than to build a 330-mile high-speed line, which is the biggest single infrastructure project in the world outside the Republic of China. Keeping a few options open at this stage is sensible in terms of planning. We should take advantage of the situation at the moment to think a bit more broadly about where we intend our parliamentary democracy to go over the 100 to 150 years ahead, and in doing so demonstrate the same vision that our Victorian forebears showed when they designed these Houses of Parliament to be the centre of an imperial legislature in the 1840s.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I feel that we have already segued into later debates. With due respect to my noble friend, I have to challenge his “back of an envelope” assessment. If he comes to my office, I will show him a huge amount of paperwork—documents that some of us have worked on over the last couple of years. If it was all on the back of an envelope, the envelope would be enormous.

We have gone a little wider than the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, but I do think he is on to something. I understand that the question of the Ministry of Defence and the car park has now been resolved—but, I suspect, given the extra cost that would have been involved had it not been resolved, that public attention might well have encouraged them to move a little more quickly than they did. Again, we come back to what we are really talking about here: engagement, information and openness. The more that we can say what is intended to be done, the greater will be our ability to monitor the project.

In most large projects that I know, there is some slippage. Noble Lords are right that this project is at a relatively early stage, but quite a lot of planning has gone into it already. We do not need to say, “This will happen on 3 January 2022”, but it should be possible to have an idea of a timeframe for when certain things are likely to happen. That would help with public engagement and the engagement of colleagues around the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have taken part in this debate and indicated some support for the general approach I was taking. I am very grateful to the Minister for his response and thank him specifically for his update on the planning in relation to Richmond House—although I think it was very clear, or at least implicit in what he said, that there are still possibilities of that taking time. There is the possibility of a challenge if Westminster City Council were to give positive approval. So it is quite clear that there could be some factors that could delay decant.

As the debate unfolded, it seemed that there was some support for having some kind of reporting back to Parliament. I note and understand the point the noble Earl made that if we do it at the consultation stage it could raise expectations, and that the appropriate point would be after the outline business case had been made. He said that if there was a material change, the sponsor body might have to come back. I will reflect and consult with others on whether we want to put something in the Bill on that, rather than just leaving it open-ended about what would be a material change. We may want to do something that would require the sponsor body to continue to update us after the initial approval of the outline business case.

[Lord Adonis]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. To some extent, this debate is unreal, because there are already dates out there. We have been debating the dates of 2025 for the decant and 2035 for moving in. At every stage of the preparation of the plans, the questions that will be asked are, “Are you sticking to the 2025 date or not? If not, when is it moving to and how long will it be before you get back?”. The idea that the sponsor body—with its chair and chief exec—will be able to avoid publishing and giving its view on this issue is entirely unreal.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord makes an important point. When I was on the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, our expectation was that we might decant in 2023, but it is now clear that that is no longer the case. Dates have been put out there. We need to maintain public confidence in the project, in terms of not only time but cost. Having been one of the first Members of the Scottish Parliament, I recall well what that can mean in relation to building a parliamentary building. To maintain public confidence, it is important that explanations are given. Often things are no fault of anyone—they are just circumstance —but often it helps to explain what the circumstances are. Therefore, it might merit considering whether we can come back to this at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bethell]

My Lords, I will first say a few words in support of the excellent amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. It makes complete sense to have someone in the Chamber who is able to explain to us the proceedings and progress of the project whom we can ask questions of. To have that in the Bill makes sense. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how that could be achieved.

My amendments have a different purpose, which is to get the voice of the public on the sponsor body from the outset. There is some flexibility in its current composition, described in Part 1 of Schedule 1: the sponsor body will have between seven and 13 members, between three and five of whom will be external members, including a chair. Between four and eight will be Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament or Peers will be in the majority, which makes sense. But there is not much room in those numbers for somebody who could perhaps represent the public and champion issues such as access and education. One of them will need to be a chair, whose focus will be on driving the project forward and managing the sponsor body itself. I imagine one might be a leading person from the construction industry, and another might have major project experience or heritage experience. That is why I would like to ask the Minister how the voice of the public could be best represented at a very high level from the beginning, when the brief for this project is being decided and the strategy formulated.

In many ways, there are fewer concerns about the delivery authority. It will have nine members, who will be more broadly recruited, with only two executive directors and the rest non-executive directors. It is really the sponsor body where I detect a bottleneck. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister explained how it could be tweaked to give more access to a voice from the public.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is sensible because it is not otherwise clear in the Bill how the sponsor body will interact with the two Houses of Parliament. Under Schedule 1, there will be a chair who is specifically required not to be a Member of either House of Parliament; then there will be between four and eight persons among the membership who will be Members of this House or the House of Commons. By virtue of the fact that they are here, people will expect them to give accounts of what is happening, but they will have no formal standing. They will not formally represent the sponsor body and it is not clear, for example, how one would put questions to that body.

If we are not careful—this comes back to the 19th-century experience—in order to interact, people will want to get at the chair and the chief exec, who are not Members of either House. A Select Committee will be set up so that it can call them before it and interact with them. However, it would be more sensible if Members of the two Houses of Parliament are required to be members of the sponsor body. It could be rather like the way we interact with the Church Commissioners; I cannot remember whether it is the Second Church Estates Commissioner who is a Member of one House or who represents the Church Commissioners here. Is it the Bishops? Anyway, it is possible to interact directly with them. Having a similar relationship would be perfectly sensible, given how important this body and its parliamentary work will be over more than a decade.

The noble and learned Lord said that he did not intend to press his amendment; what he is actually doing may come from his experience of the work in Holyrood. He may be anticipating exactly the problems and issues we will have. It is as well to get this right in the Bill, rather than having to make significant adjustments and take what might be avoiding action, such as setting up a special committee to interact with the sponsor body because we have no provision for the body itself to have a direct relationship with the two Houses of Parliament.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride]

My Lords, Amendment 22 brings our attention to the relationship between the sponsor body and both Houses. The sponsor body must remain engaged with the wider Parliament throughout the work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, made a number of points in this regard.

Amendments 24 and 25 seek to create within the body a new champion for education and a champion for participatory democracy, as touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. The benefits of Parliament for educational and participative democracy purposes are well established and were discussed earlier, so I have no need to go back over them. I hope that the sponsor body will agree to promote both these aspects.

Meanwhile, Amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith would introduce the idea of a report to ensure that the Palace is maintained beyond the works. This is an attempt to look to the future and ensure that the Estate cannot fall into its current level of disrepair. The can has been kicked down the road for far too long and work must begin as soon as it has been agreed, but there would be great benefit in reporting on how these works will preserve the long-term future. Be it in a separate account or as part of the pre-existing reporting arrangements, this issue should be given consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend in opposing the amendment. This is not an imposition we should place on the sponsor body.

I start with a technical point, because the amendment is deficient in that it says:

“The Sponsor Body must make arrangements for the report to be laid before and debated by both Houses of Parliament”.


We can impose a duty on the sponsor body to lay a report before Parliament; we cannot give power to the sponsor body to make arrangements for debates in either House of Parliament.

I would link the substance of the amendment to our earlier discussions and relate it to a point that has not been raised and which leads me to be somewhat surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is supporting this amendment. If we have a temporary Parliament elsewhere, it is not only the cost of relocating Parliament, the cost of relocating parliamentary staff, the cost of relocating government so that it is near Parliament and the cost imposed on all those bodies that are in London because they want to make representations to government and Parliament and who would have to move, but, in relation to what we were discussing earlier, Parliament needs to be accessible to the people. They need to be able to come here. We need their visits and they have to be able to come and watch what is going on. They can do that because London is at the centre of the transport infrastructure—it is easier to get to London.

Where else in the country will you be able to create a transport infrastructure in the time available for this temporary relocation so that schoolchildren and any member of the public who wants to come and observe Parliament can do so? It will be extraordinarily difficult—indeed, impossible. London has the convenience that enables us to fulfil that particular function. The proposal is not feasible and it is not a burden that we should impose on the sponsor body, because it has far too much to do already.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I am surprised that, as a resident of Hull, the noble Lord thinks that London should be the centre of everyone’s attention in transport infrastructure.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

I did not say it should be; I said it is. That is the reality.

[Lord Adonis]

That does not need to be the case. Depending where you choose to locate your temporary Parliament, it could have good transport connections. I understand that we are talking about 2028 or 2029 for the move. That will be after the first phase of HS2 is opened in 2025, which will make a dramatic change to the economic geography of this country. I am trying to persuade my good friend the Mayor of West Midlands, Andy Street, to rename Birmingham International as “UK Central” because that is where it will be in terms of accessibility. It will be more readily accessible to most parts of England in terms of proximity than will London when HS2 is opened. The noble Lord has set out an old way of thinking which does not take account of the other changes that are taking place.

To bring Parliament closer to a large part of the country in the interim period is desirable, as we are going to have to move out anyway. The noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, asked what is going to happen afterwards. The plan is that we would move back here. However, there will have to be an interim which will incur huge expense. The doing up of the QEII Centre and Richmond House and all the associated facilities will involve massive expense.

The suggestion in the amendment is well worth looking at. It would not involve any delay. I know the noble Lord is anxious that the sins of the past—ceaseless delay—are put right, but there will be no delay. It would involve the presentation of an assessment of the option alongside the presentation of the plans. Clause 7(2) provides that no work can take place until specific parliamentary approval is given. It states:

“No Palace restoration works, other than preparatory works, may be carried out before the Sponsor Body has obtained Parliamentary approval for … Delivery Authority proposals in respect of those works, and … funding, up to an amount specified in the approval resolution, in respect of phase two works”—


and it sets out elaborate provisions thereafter.

So there would be no further delay. Other work would be carried out alongside it; it keeps an option open; and it takes account of changing circumstances, including the dramatic improvement of the transport infrastructure which will make other locations accessible. It also meets the wider concerns which most of us share—the reason this issue is so live—that Parliament is too remote from the people, and not having all of the centres of government and parliamentary authority located in London would be one way of distributing power more evenly across the United Kingdom.

My own view is that this is a good idea whose time may not quite have come—it certainly has not come at 10.55 pm, a few days before Parliament adjourns for the Summer Recess, with 10 Members present in the House. But its time may be coming and, in the context of wider debates that will take place on constitutional reform in the light of Brexit—including what might well be a decisive move towards a federal United Kingdom in the not too distant future—may come soon. Therefore, making preparations to assess it now is sensible.

I am reasonably laid back about it because of the timeframe for the work. We will not, in any event, have the presentation of the full costed plan to which Parliament can give approval for two years, as we were told at the beginning of Second Reading by the Leader—but I suspect it could be longer than that before we even get the plan. We may not move to decanting into the temporary facilities for the best part of a decade, and it could be the best part of two decades before the work is finished. I suspect, therefore, that what is needed at the moment—as I am anxious to do and as my noble friend did in her very able speech—is to plant the idea in the public mind. In particular, we should encourage political leaders outside London—who are already starting to be interested in this idea—to begin to develop it further. The context of this may change dramatically in the years ahead.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

As noble Lords have said, the reason for the delay is the complexity of having to adapt the estate here, which just emphasises the difficulty of creating or finding space elsewhere where we can do what we are seeking to do here.

[Lord Adonis]

In many ways, it is actually much easier to do it if you are building on a greenfield site next to a major transport interchange such as Birmingham International, where the National Exhibition Centre is. That would be much simpler than the hugely complex, difficult and historic estate here. I wrestled with exactly the same argument on the question of whether we should upgrade a 200-year-old railway line to provide additional rail capacity between our major cities or build a completely new line. Often, building completely new is a good thing.

This is a debate that will run for the next few years, and we have done a good job of planting the idea. I strongly encourage my friends and colleagues who are mayors of the major cities and city regions in the Midlands and the north to advance this idea further. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, but I suspect that he has not heard the last of this, by any means. Whatever decision is taken in this Bill, we will return to this, because it is a fundamental issue about the governance of the United Kingdom, alongside what will be a £5 billion, £10 billion or £15 billion investment—who knows what the final figure will be?—in the future of Parliament. I do not think that we will be able to keep these big strategic issues off the agenda.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on this amendment because it has started a debate which I have supported for a long time. Maybe she should have gone one step further. We are talking about a report on the temporary relocation of Parliament outside London, but if you are going to build a new temporary Parliament, be it in Richmond House or outside London, there is a cost attached, and I suspect that the cost would be not very different either way. The work in Richmond House will not be prefab but extremely glossy, expensive and difficult, as it so often is with building in a capital city. And we can forget for the moment what will be done in the QEII—although I suspect it will be lovely. There is actually an argument for building something somewhere outside London, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, and staying there.

This place has to be refurbished because, as many noble Lords have said, it is in a bad state, but it could be used for educational purposes and conferences. That is what they do in Hungary: they built a parliament in Budapest—almost mirrored on this place—and the architect got a second prize for doing it. Hungary now has a parliament with a single chamber and the other half, which I have been to, is used as a conference and education centre. It is a lovely building and it works really well. If we really wanted to maintain a link with this place, we could still use it for the State Opening of Parliament and then go and do our work somewhere else. There are a lot of options.

Schools: Cadet Expansion Programme

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Tuesday 18th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly agree with everything that the noble Lords, Lord Robathan and Lord Lingfield, have said in praise of cadets. They make a valuable contribution to our national life, to the Armed Forces and to providing a rounded, character-based education for young people. We need more of them—I say that without reservation. The task is to extend these opportunities to more young people. I was fortunate enough to be a cadet at school. I was not desperately good at taking on the enemy on Salisbury Plain or in the Brecon Beacons but I rose to a high level in my CCF because I was in control of all the logistics of getting people to and from camp. This gave me an encyclopaedic knowledge of railway timetables and the issuing of warrants, which was still done manually. Other skills developed from there.

I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said about extending these opportunities. Nobody should be forced to do this at school, but they should have the opportunity. As it happened, in my school we had the choice of the scouts or the cadets. I did both and could give a speech on their strengths and weaknesses. The key issue which it would be good for this debate to attend to, and which I hope the noble Earl will say more about in his reply, is how we extend those opportunities, which are very inequitably distributed at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, referred to the target of 500. I was Gordon Brown’s Minister for Education and played a part in setting up the objective of every state secondary school having a combined cadet force. Alas, only a tiny fraction do now. The target is very welcome; I do not detract from it. I give credit where it is due to the former Prime Minister for setting it, but it is 500 as a total. At the moment, there are 194 CCFs in private schools. Even if the target is met, nearly half of cadet forces will be in private schools. There will be cadet forces in about 300 of the 3,300 state schools in England—a tiny fraction.

I will say this as diplomatically as I can: there was not wholehearted endorsement from the Ministry of Defence for making the investment required to put more cadet forces in state schools. There was an acute concern then—I hope it is less now—about taking resources away from existing cadet forces. That was couched in terms of not wanting to reduce the efficiency of existing cadet forces and the supply chain that they provide to the Armed Forces, but I am afraid that I could not escape from noting a desire to preserve the status quo in the MoD and not to weaken the links between CCFs and private schools, if that was to be the price paid for extending to state schools more widely.

What I would like to see happen is for the model of the exemplary CCFs we have in private schools to be replicated across the state system, but even if the target of 500 is met it will be replicated in only a tiny fraction of state schools. Teenagers who want to get involved in cadet forces in other schools, which will be the overwhelming majority of state schools, will either not have the opportunity or will have to enter cadet forces in the community. The ACFs also do a great job with great volunteers, but let us be absolutely frank; the opportunities are nowhere near as readily available to young people to take advantage of those forces, compared to those teenagers who actually have cadet forces in their schools.

To understand what this means in terms of follow-through, a freedom of information request which I think the noble Earl’s department has just granted shows that 49% of those who entered the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst this January came from fee-paying schools. I do not begrudge any of them their opportunity —we need the best people in our armed services and anyone who serves their Queen and country deserves our praise—but I want to see those opportunities extended more widely. I say as diplomatically as I can that I do not think the Ministry of Defence should regard it as the endpoint of our evolution as a society that half of all officer cadets should come from schools which serve 7% of the population. A substantial part of the reason that entry to Sandhurst is so socially and educationally restricted is that opportunities to become cadets are much greater in private schools.

It is not just what the raw figures suggest, with 194 private schools having CCFs compared to 205 state schools. Of course those 194 private schools, in addition to the support of the MoD, which I should say is a straightforward subsidy of those 194 private schools, also make a substantial contribution. The noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, referred to the one day a week, which is of course not remotely enough to be able to run a CCF. Most private schools will supplement that. They often supplement it very substantially, in terms of the resources and staff they provide. Also, of course, many teachers in those schools—I pay tribute to them—give of their time, or are expected to as part of their commitment to the school, well over and above that one day a week. That tends to happen much less in state schools, and it is not just because there is not the same ethos in state schools, although I think that is true in many of them. It takes time to build up support for a cadet force, but they are also much more stretched, to be frank, and have much less capacity to manage after-school activities. They tend not to be boarding schools—a high proportion of the private schools that have CCFs are boarding schools—so it is much harder to structure CCF activities. The truth is that they need more support if they are going to succeed in establishing and building up CCFs, and I think that that support should be available.

I have two questions for the noble Earl. Would it not be sensible and equitable if there was a redistribution of resources for cadet forces away from private schools and towards state schools? My view is that it is very hard to justify state subsidy to CCFs in private schools. It is not impossible to do so, because to some extent it is helping the process of recruitment into the Armed Forces, but it is hard. At any rate, I certainly do not think that state support for private schools should be in any way increased, whereas I think the case for increasing state support for state schools setting up CCFs—not only setting up new forces but providing more time and support for those state schools—is very strong. At the very least, I think there should be a two-tier system.

My second question echoes that of the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield. What happens after the 500 target has been met? My view, going back to the policy of now over a decade ago—alas, we did not make much progress in implementing it—is that every state secondary school should have the right to establish a CCF. This may require a new source of funding beyond existing MoD budgets, but it should be regarded as a significant source of opportunities and character development for young people and not just as a straight military operation.

The Minister will of course not be able to make a commitment of that kind from the Dispatch Box this evening, but I hope he will indicate a willingness to look ambitiously beyond the existing target of 500 once that is met.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

That is certainly a risk. It is one that we are alive to and determined to prevent.

Head teachers of all the new schools that have come forward have done so because of the benefits that they see for their pupils. Many head teachers can give testimony to the positive impact of their cadet unit on attendance, behaviour and discipline. Head teachers have commented, for instance, that, “the pupils are more confident and attendance has improved”, and that their cadet unit, “brings out self-discipline, team work, working together, ambition and wanting to be the best”. Head teachers also speak of how others look up to the cadets in their school and how their cadets provide excellent role models for other pupils.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene and break up the harmony that had lasted until the Minister’s speech. He said a moment ago, rather to my concern, that his department is setting an upper limit to the number of state schools that will be able to have Combined Cadet Forces, and that the capacity of the Armed Forces to manage more than 500 units was not there. Is he aware that that will be greeted with widespread disappointment in the state-school world? Effectively, he is saying that private schools, most of which have CCFs, will maintain them and a relatively small number of state schools will get them—that is, the 300 or so that will get them as a result of the expansion programme—but the 3,000 state schools that do not have Combined Cadet Forces will have to make do with Community Cadet Forces because the MoD says it is not capable of taking on more responsibilities. Could he indicate to the House an open mind about keeping this issue under review? I can tell him that his remarks will be greeted with very serious disappointment in the state-school world.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, this is a time-limited debate and I have lots to say, but I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I am not saying that 500 is the absolute upper limit; of course, we keep that under review. We continue to push the envelope and would always want to do that in a geographical area where we have capacity to increase the number of cadet units in schools. I was simply pointing out that capacity is a challenge, which is why we are looking to increase numbers in the particular kinds of schools that we are targeting, but the figure of 500 is not fixed in stone. I hope that corrects any impression I gave earlier.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned the Ecorys report. It is several years old and we regard it as having been superseded by newer studies, such as that currently being undertaken by the University of Northampton. So far, this work has been published in two interim reports which clearly set out the benefits of the cadet experience. This research gives head teachers, who have a crucial role to play in enthusing parents, pupils and staff about the benefits of a cadet unit, the evidence to convince others of the value of having a cadet unit in their school.

However, despite the clear benefits, schools can face significant challenges and barriers to establishing and running a cadet unit, particularly in relation to funding and human resources. Unfortunately, along the way towards meeting our Cadet Expansion Programme target, a number of new units have not flourished and have had to close. These closures have occurred for a variety of reasons which neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Department for Education has the leverage to influence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised a number of important points, but one I would like to pick up on is that the key to the success of a cadet unit is the enthusiasm of the head teacher. If a head teacher who is in favour of cadets is replaced by one who is not, there is a clear risk to the survivability of the unit. Head teachers must also be able to attract and retain sufficient capable and motivated individuals, either from the staffroom or beyond, to run the cadet units. Given the responsibilities and workload of teachers, this is not always easy—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. We also recognise that difficult decisions sometimes have to be made as head teachers balance priorities while needing to live within their budgets.

We are therefore continuing to support schools through the cadet bursary fund which provides additional money, where possible, to meet the costs of cover for teachers who are away on courses training to become adult volunteers, and helps schools afford to employ staff to administer their cadet units. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked how much money has been spent through this fund. As at 23 May, the figure I have for money paid out since December 2014 is just over £5,900,000.

One thing that has frustrated schools in the past has been the perceived lack of recognition that they receive, despite the significant commitment and effort involved in establishing a cadet unit. I am sure that head teachers will welcome Ofsted’s new framework, which places clear importance on personal development and positive attitudes. I want to take this opportunity to thank all the school staff, and others, who volunteer to support their cadet unit. We encourage school staff to take part in running the cadet unit so that it becomes an integral part of the school, but there is also an important role for adults from outside the school community.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked whether we could consider introducing a review of awards for cadets and adult volunteers to ensure they are recognised in the honours system, particularly the volunteers. Where possible, and in the majority of cases, cadet and adult volunteer courses already result in recognised national body awards, such as the Duke of Edinburgh, the Royal Yachting Association and St John Ambulance. This ensures that they are recognised outside of cadets and assists cadets with their CVs.

Adult volunteers are recognised through the honours system and are included in the military honours system. While there is no quota, when compared with regular and reserve Armed Forces personnel, cadet adult volunteers do well. Adult volunteers who do not wear uniform are recognised through the civilian honours. They also do well. Adults can receive recognition through various other awards, such as the lord-lieutenant awards or RFCA awards. The mechanisms are there; we just need to remind people that they should nominate deserving individuals.

I also thank all those schools with established cadet units that have partnered with a state school to enable them to offer the cadet experience to their pupils. This is of particular value where staff in schools setting up new units have no prior military experience and helps to transfer important skills. To date, of the schools that have established a new cadet unit under the expansion programme, over 70 are benefiting from such partnerships.

I hope noble Lords will allow me a little extra time, since we have some in hand, to finish my speech, bearing in mind the interventions we have had. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked how we encourage greater participation by young females and those from BAME backgrounds. We do not have targets for either category and the associated numbers are not measured. Any cadet unit, self-evidently, will be composed of young people who are representative of the local area. Having said that, areas with a high BAME population often correlate with areas of high deprivation.

My noble friend Lord Lingfield asked how we can build on what we have achieved, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others. The Government’s ambition is to increase cadet numbers in school cadet units to 60,000 over the next five years. This can only be good for our young people, but as we work towards this ambition, we must ensure that legacy schools continue to thrive. We must also continue to support our 3,000 community cadet units across the UK and ensure that we keep the offer relevant, up to date and appealing to today’s young people. I am pleased that improvements to a number of cadet training facilities funded through the programme are also available to cadets from the community cadet forces. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the single services are committed to sustained funding of cadet units.

Cadet units have a vital role to play in building the character and resilience of young people. The Government remain committed to supporting all cadets and the adult volunteers, who are the lifeblood of the cadet units. I firmly hope that in the coming years, we can build on the success we have achieved to date and continue to give many more young people the life chances they deserve.

Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, having read this lengthy SI and being conscious of the other 600 or so coming our way, my sympathy for the officials working on Brexit is deeper than before. My despair at the Government refusing to rule out a no-deal Brexit is deepened when I think that some of all this is to guard against the contingency of no deal and would not be necessary if we ruled out that possibility. I know that a huge amount of extra work is going on across Whitehall to guard against a contingency that Parliament would not accept if we found ourselves drifting towards it. However, in the event of a withdrawal agreement, we will still have public procurement issues.

I want to ask primarily about the agreement on government procurement and the adjustment of moving to WTO terms, so to speak, in moving from the EU regulations to the GPA. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I heard the Minister say that others have “agreed in principle” to this and that we are “working to join” the GPA, which suggests that we will not have joined by the end of March. I hope that he can tell us when we might do so and what will happen if we leave in an orderly fashion in the next few months—I do not know how we will manage that but we will try to do it somehow—before we have joined the GPA, with a gap in between.

I note that paragraph 12.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that,

“in a no deal scenario where the UK is not participating in the GPA, it may be that economic operators would no longer have guaranteed access to the procurement markets of GPA parties (including the EU) or the remedies provided for by them”.

I understand that to mean that British companies will suffer in having no access to other countries’ markets. What would the situation be? Can the Minister explain a little about the difficulties we appear to have run into between October and November last year in applying to become an independent member of the GPA? Why was the United States so resistant to UK admission, as some of the documents I have looked at suggest? Are Her Majesty’s Government confident that, in rejoining the GPA as an independent country, we will find that procurement in the United States—by states as well as by the federal Government—will be open to the UK? I recall from my time in the US as a student that other countries constantly complained about how they could access federal procurement but states did not think that they were bound by international agreements of that sort.

Why did New Zealand express reservations about the UK becoming a full member of the GPA? Given that Liam Fox provides constant assurances that New Zealand is willing to offer open arms to the UK through the most generous possible trade deal after Brexit, it struck me as rather odd that its Government did so. New Zealand is a massive friend to the UK, ever grateful for having been colonised by British people. One would have thought that there would be no problems what ever.

Will Irish firms be in an intermediate position in any way in terms of access to government procurement? I am conscious that the Belfast agreement and our future relationship with Ireland are not exactly foreign matters. Can the Minister say anything about our confidence in standards of enforcement in the GPA? Moving from the EU framework to the World Trade Organization GPA framework represents moving to a looser framework. It is a bit like moving from Europol to Interpol. Standards of enforcement tend to be lower; for example, I know that China is about to join the GPA but I cannot imagine the Chinese opening their domestic state procurement market as fully as we have managed with France, Italy or Spain. Is a little more assurance on that point possible or are we simply accepting that we are moving from a tighter, more effective framework to a looser and less effective one?

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I will begin by asking the noble Earl some specific questions, and then make some wider remarks. First, what status would British public procurement contracts have in the Official Journal of the European Union? In a no-deal scenario, is it the intention that the United Kingdom would still advertise its contracts in the Official Journal? Indeed, would it be legally possible for it to do so? If it does not, either because it is not legally possible or because it is a policy of the Government not to do so in a no-deal scenario, will that not in practice mean that our procurement market in the United Kingdom is a great deal less competitive after than it was before because, if people do not know about contracts and there is not a level playing field for them to apply, fewer people will apply? That is an important point. I simply do not understand the position in a no-deal scenario.

Secondly, from what the Explanatory Memorandum says, I assume that it will still be entirely open to UK companies to bid into the EU procurement market, in the same way as it is open to countries outside the EU at the moment. It is the issue about the advertising of contracts in respect of the United Kingdom that seems significant.

My third question relates to the point just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, of the slightly conditional language used by the noble Earl in his opening remarks about whether we will or will not be a member of the GPA by 29 March. I took him to say that we might be, but he could not give a guarantee. Having looked at the statements made by the WTO and Julian Braithwaite, the United Kingdom’s representative there, my under- standing is that our application has been accepted in principle but that there are a number of issues still being worked through. Perhaps the noble Earl could update us. That seems a point of some importance for people in these markets to understand—whether we definitely will or may not be an independent signatory to the GPA by the end of March—not least because of the remarks made by the noble Earl himself in his introduction, where he said, I think, that having that independent membership would give us,

“continued guaranteed … rights and remedies”.

I assume the reverse is also true: if we are not an independent member at the end of March, then for the period when we are not we will not have guaranteed rights and remedies, and this could leave British companies seriously vulnerable in enforcing their rights.

My fourth question relates to paragraph 7.39 of the Explanatory Memorandum and what the regime will be in respect of state aid. A number of questions arise from the paragraph, so I will quote it:

“In respect of abnormally low tenders submitted by bidders who may have been in receipt of state subsidies, the intention”,


of the Government,

“is to treat non-UK economic operators on a level playing field. Further, although a new UK State aid regime is envisaged in which the function for enforcement is to be conferred on the Competition and Markets Authority, in the area of public procurement, it would be inappropriate for economic operators established in the UK to be required to demonstrate that aid provided by the UK Government was compatible with the UK’s State aid regime in contrast to economic operators not established in the UK”.

Is my understanding of this correct, namely that whereas we intend to apply state aid rules to European bidders for our contracts, we are not intending with these regulations to insist on those same state aid rules being applied in respect of UK bidders for European contracts? The obvious point which arises if that is the case is that it will not be accepted at face value by our European partners, who will of course presumably continue to insist on the application of their state aid rules, which are the same as now. They will not change those rules. I therefore do not understand the actual effect, because the implication in paragraph 7.39 is that the UK could start, for example, flouting existing state aid rules to support UK bidders for EU contracts. As I understand it, that would be legal under the regime envisaged. What is the point of allowing that if those same rules are going to be applied by the EU in the first place? Let us think about real-life situations. It is not in the interest of the United Kingdom that we be regarded as an unreliable bidder in respect of state aid for EU contracts. If a belief gains ground that because these rules do not apply we are content for UK companies which are in receipt of state aid to bid, that will in quite short order lead to significant tension between us and the European Commission. Would a better arrangement not be to say that if we are so keen on state aid rules being applied in respect of EU bidders for UK contracts, the right, reasonable and collegiate thing for us to do would be to insist that those same rules applied in UK domestic law to UK bidders for European contracts? Is the noble Earl with me on those points? They are technical but extremely important for bidders for these contracts.

More broadly, we are again in a slightly surreal Alice in Wonderland situation. We are told—it comes up again in the impact assessment and the statement on consultation—that these changes are technical. Indeed, they are technical in the sense that they replace an existing procurement regime which operates within the European Union market with one that operates within the UK, only with minimal changes. That is certainly correct, and for that reason there is no impact assessment and there has been no consultation. However, at another level they are anything but technical; this relates to a point that my noble friend Lady Hayter made. The act of leaving the EU with no deal means that we are at one stroke potentially rupturing our entire access to these markets and the entire access arrangements of EU bidders to our market. As the noble Earl does not appear even to guarantee that we will be a member of the GPA—subject to what he says in his response—we cannot even be sure that we are able properly to enforce existing contracts which United Kingdom operators have entered into, because the ability to enforce those contracts depends upon our membership of the GPA.

While the technical wording of the rules may not have changed in terms of how we intend to operate public procurement, the act of leaving the EU will fundamentally rupture the entire regime for public procurement, including potentially closing European markets to UK operators over time and closing UK markets to EU operators. This goes against the whole drift and success of EU policy over the past 20 years, which has been systematically to open public procurement markets. I see from the latest EU statement on the three directives in this area that they are estimated to be worth €1.9 trillion a year, paid by 250,000 public buyers across the EU. This is a very significant reason why we engaged in the construction of the single market, why we have played such an active role in setting up the rules and why we have been absolute hawks on issues of state aid and intervention by EU Governments—some of our fellow European Governments have not been as open to the concept of competition in public procurement markets as we have been.

As this statutory instrument goes through, it is important to note that the loss to the UK will be huge. It relates directly to paragraph 12.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. Those of us who are becoming familiar with these statutory instruments after dozens of them are now used to this formula. The technical changes made in this statutory instrument to make it compatible with UK law on exit are minimal. However, the actual act of leaving the EU in relation to the real-world operation of the law is massive. Paragraph 12.3 is another statement exactly in that tradition. It says:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because the framework and principles underlying the Regulations have not been substantially amended”.


Three sentences later, however, it goes on to say:

“It will be open to UK economic operators to continue to respond to contract notices published on OJEU by member States but in a no deal scenario where the UK is not participating in the GPA, it may be that economic operators would no longer have guaranteed access to the procurement markets of GPA parties (including the EU) or the remedies provided for by them”.


Those euphemistic words amount to the undermining or closing of a substantial part of the markets in which UK companies currently operate. The fact that it is caused not directly by these regulations but by the decision to leave the EU in a no-deal scenario—which underpins these regulations—will not greatly satisfy or mollify those companies whose livelihoods are trashed as a result of a no-deal Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

No, my Lords. These regulations are designed to ensure that the experience of businesses using the public procurement system is virtually unchanged from today. Our aim has been to produce as smooth a transition as possible—even in the event of no deal. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has pointed out, there will be changes in the wider context of bidding in the European market; I will come to that in a minute.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked what would happen if exit day was deferred. If that were to happen, and the withdrawal Act amended, that would feed directly through into these regulations, so no specific amendment would be required for that. She also asked me about the GPA thresholds and how they will be published. To update the thresholds, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will need to exercise the new regulation-making powers conferred by this instrument. The new thresholds will, therefore, be reflected in the public procurement regulations themselves and be publicly available and notified by procurement policy notice.

The noble Baroness, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about the GPA. As I said in my opening remarks, the UK currently participates in the GPA via its EU membership. We need to accede to the GPA in our own right to maintain legally guaranteed access to public contract opportunities that the GPA provides. The offer that we have made to GPA parties maintains our existing commitments in the UK part of the EU schedule. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 aims to ensure as much continuity as possible. It is, therefore, the UK’s intention to join the GPA in its own right and, ultimately, to transpose the other international agreements between the EU and third countries. Accordingly, all suppliers should continue to be treated equally and fairly through open competition. Keeping our procurement market open to international competition clearly ensures better value for money for the taxpayer and facilitates UK suppliers being offered reciprocal rights to participate in procurements abroad.

Noble Lords asked me what would happen if our GPA accession did not take place by exit day. We have made good progress in our accession process and, as I said, we have received agreement in principle to our GPA market access offer. Despite this progress, we have taken the necessary precautions in the event that the UK’s application to accede has not been fully completed by exit day. In this scenario, economic operators established in territories and states that are GPA parties would no longer have the guaranteed access and associated remedies that they currently have in relation to UK public procurements. One of the amendments in the public procurement regulations guarantees continued access, rights and remedies for suppliers from GPA countries for a time-limited period from EU exit. This approach has been taken to mitigate the risk of a short gap in GPA membership. This will facilitate UK suppliers being offered reciprocal rights to participate in procurements abroad.

The noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Adonis, asked about the attitude of other countries—New Zealand and China in particular—to what we were doing in relation to the GPA and standards. New Zealand has, in fact, accepted our final market access offer. It continues to be interested in other aspects of the UK’s WTO membership. China’s application has been in train for many years and I am advised that it is unlikely to be completed in the near future. There will be no change to the standards that we currently operate. A draft decision inviting the UK to join has been sent to all GPA parties. It is expected that the formal invitation will be issued at a committee meeting this month. Parties were interested in how the decision described the UK’s relations with the EU during the transition period.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, also asked about oversight carried out by the Competition and Markets Authority. This instrument does not provide for oversight by the CMA of the public procurement regime. Aggrieved suppliers will, however, continue to be afforded the remedies provided for in the regulations. In that way, contracting authorities and other entities will be held to account by the courts.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked various questions about the Official Journal of the European Union and the publication of contract opportunities. In a no-deal scenario, the UK is unlikely to be afforded access to the Official Journal for the purposes of advertising public contracts. That is simply a facet of no longer being a member of the EU, and that is why we have developed our own system to which UK bidders, EU bidders and bidders from the rest of the world will have access and in which they will be able to see UK public procurement opportunities. UK authorities may continue to advertise some types of procurement opportunity in the Official Journal—where the UK is participating in EU research and development projects, for example—though we anticipate that being a relatively rare event.

[Lord Adonis]

Is the noble Earl saying that to advertise in the Official Journal of the European Union you are required to be an EU member? Could he say—or follow up in writing afterwards—whether Norway and Switzerland, countries with very close economic associations, including membership of some of the economic institutions of the EU, do or do not advertise public procurement opportunities in the Official Journal? If it is possible to advertise in the Official Journal without being an EU member, it would be good to know whether the United Kingdom could continue to do so, since it would be a big advantage to be able to advertise our public procurement opportunities in that way.

[Earl Howe]

I take the noble Lord’s point entirely. I need to seek advice on the question that he asked me about Switzerland and Norway, as I do not have that information to hand, but clearly, to the extent that we are allowed to avail ourselves of the OJEU in any public procurement context, it will be an advantage. However, I am advised that the new UK e-notification system which is being developed will be accessible by the same portal that suppliers use at the moment. To that extent, the process which they go through will feel quite normal. I can advise the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that the new system is on track to be in place by 29 March 2019.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have answered most of the questions from noble Lords to the extent—

[Lord Adonis]

I raised the issue of state aid.

[Earl Howe]

I have just alighted on my note to that effect. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, essentially asked whether the implication of the Explanatory Memorandum is that the UK could start flouting the EU state aid regime. On leaving the EU, the UK will no longer be bound by the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, so economic operators will not be subject to the EU’s state aid regime any more than a third-country supplier receiving state subsidies would be. The UK has developed its own state aid regime, but it is important to remember that this instrument does not disapply the state aid rules. Rather, contracting authorities will simply no longer be required to look behind an abnormally low tender to investigate whether a bidder was in receipt of unlawful state subsidies. That is because the UK will no longer be a participant in or bound by the EU’s single market and competition rules.

Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Grand Committee

I note the references to Gibraltar, which is clearly of significance to our Armed Forces. I have a wider question: how do the Government envisage ensuring that the duty owed to economic operators in Gibraltar can be met in the absence of a deal? There is discussion of this in the Explanatory Memorandum, but there is very little to say how it would be seen in practice. As with the previous SI, what about state aid? Do Her Majesty’s Government envisage giving subsidies to the defence industry? Is that one of the expectations of Brexit? What are we to understand by that aspect of the Explanatory Memorandum when talking about state aid?

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked a number of pertinent questions. I hesitate to intervene in this area, because this is the first time I have ever made any remarks in the House on defence issues. I have always regarded the defence of the realm as so capably safeguarded by other noble Lords, not least the noble Earl himself—and, indeed, his family historically—that I never thought I needed to intervene in such affairs. I have two questions, which will reveal my ignorance but seem to be important in the context of us leaving the European Union in a no-deal scenario. The noble Earl said that once we have left in a no-deal scenario, we will allow bids in the defence sector from inside the EU on the same basis as we currently allow them from outside it. What is that basis? Is it codified? Looking at it from a great distance, I have always thought that we are extremely selective in the countries and suppliers outside the EU from which we are prepared to entertain bids for defence contracts. For example, I do not believe that at the moment we entertain bids from Chinese companies—and some other countries—for extremely good reasons. What is the noble Earl saying? Is there a document to which he can point me, and those who will be reading these proceedings, showing the basis for bids being entertained? The noble Earl may correct me, but if the basis on which we allow bids from outside the EU at the moment is essentially arbitrary, will that be the same basis on which we allow bids from existing EU states after Brexit?

I know that the noble Earl was simply reading his brief, but in his positive-sounding remarks at the outset he said that there would be real opportunities in procurement from leaving the EU, which I took to mean also in a no-deal scenario. It is not immediately obvious what those real opportunities are. Will he tell the Grand Committee something about them, as there are many disadvantages in leaving the EU? Readers of our proceedings will be delighted to know that there are some opportunities and would be grateful for any optimism that the noble Earl can provide for the world after 29 March if we leave without a deal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

If the noble Earl will forgive me, I think I follow what he is saying, but I invite him to say whether I have understood him correctly. Because we will no longer be part of the EU procurement regime, we will have no statutory obligation to make these contracts available to bidders from the EU, but we intend to continue to invite applications from those countries. Is he saying that, in practice, for suppliers from the EU—leaving aside those from outside the EU about which we have security concerns—there will be no change in the bidding regime as a result of a no-deal Brexit? If that is not correct, and there will be a change, could he tell the Grand Committee what that change would be?

[Earl Howe]

For UK Government defence procurements, the process from the point of view of an EU supplier will be no different. What it will experience is the need to bear in mind two separate portals or bidding channels; one is the UK e-notification system, which I mentioned earlier, and the other is OJEU. It will need to keep an eye on both if it wishes to participate in the Europe-wide market; in using that phrase, I include the UK as still being a European country, even if not a member of the EU.

[Earl Howe]

That is technically right. It is our policy to maintain access for EU member states—and indeed, non-EU states—in many, if not most, instances of procurement. A good example might be the fleet solid support ships. We invited tenders from all over the world to build those ships and that should provide the best value for money. We all hope that UK suppliers will feel confident in bidding for that contract, but we wish to benefit the taxpayer as well as the Royal Navy and the process will be an open one.

To answer one point which the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, alluded to, there will of course be opportunities to reform the defence procurement rules after we leave the EU. The current rules are generally seen as out of date, compared to the PCR 2015. We have the opportunity to take a fresh look at what is needed for defence procurement—

[Lord Adonis]

What is the PCR?

[Earl Howe]

They are the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. This will involve public consultation to ensure that we strike the best balance between value for money and protecting national security. However, I emphasise that that is a long-term project and does not relate to the regulations before us today.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about exit day in the event of a deal. As with the non-defence procurement that we debated earlier, any amendment to exit day as a result of a deal will track through from the EU withdrawal Act to these regulations. Therefore, the no-deal element of the amendments will not come into force.

I hope I have explained clearly the effect of Article 346 and why we have replicated it in the regulations but, just to make doubly clear, it is to ensure we can continue to disapply the procurement rules when required to protect our national security interests. For example, if we did not do so we would be required to advertise our sensitive procurements as a matter of domestic law. In so far as I have not answered noble Lords’ questions I will certainly do so in writing, as for the previous debate, but I hope that my responses have clarified any points of uncertainty.

Student Loans: Interest Rates

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

That is because it is not necessary to do so. The proportion of borrowers liable to repay when the £21,000 threshold took effect in April was significantly lower than could have been envisaged when the policy was introduced. The threshold would now be set at £19,000 if it were to reflect the same ratio of average earnings.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister think there are any circumstances—

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

We believe that RPI is more appropriate than CPI for student loans. It takes account, among other things, of changes in mortgage interest payments and council tax, which, I may say, are typical expenses for graduates that are not included in the calculation of CPI.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I am not sure about reforming universities but I certainly think we should reform the way in which we conduct Question Time in this House.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Adonis]

Does the Minister think it justifiable for any vice-chancellor to be paid more than £300,000 a year?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I made the position clear on vice-chancellors’ pay the other day in the House. Although the Government do not wish to interfere, my colleague in the other place, Jo Johnson, has made it quite clear that universities must have restraint in the pay offered to vice-chancellors and, indeed, to other senior positions.