Police: Reduction in Numbers

Debate between Lord Bates and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Thursday 26th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I saw out of my window a car being broken into. I dialled 999 and was answered by a lady from Bombay. Those doing the break-in took their time but the police arrived two days later. What does this incident say about the Question asked?

[Lord Bates]

I am happy to meet the noble Lord later to find out where he was living and the particulars of the incident. One of the measures that we have introduced, of course, is to differentiate—it does not apply in this case—between non-emergency calls and real emergency calls. The ability to triage calls is an important way of ensuring that the police respond to incidents where they are desperately needed as fast as possible.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Bates and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

That is a fair observation. We are in unknown territory, but in order to have an impact assessment, some basic assumptions have to be made. Those are the assumptions we are using to understand how this guidance would be implemented on the ground. Academic institutions might be able to undertake particular research about its effect.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The concern we have is that an assessment of their costs has not been made. As I said in moving the amendment, the more that the universities and colleges have thought about this—and many of them have still not got the draft guidance—the more they realise that this is imposing a very considerable bureaucratic burden which they will have to pay for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

Of course there is nothing in the Bill to say, stipulate or prescribe that, but there is nothing to stop it. I would have expected, although I am happy to reflect further on this—perhaps we should reflect further on these comments in the guidance when it comes forward—most higher and further education institutions to engage with the student body, particularly student associations, about how this should be implemented on their campuses in order for it to be effective, and not to be onerous but to be very targeted. That would be a very good thing to do.

I am conscious also that I was drifting in the direction of Amendment 14B from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rather than the noble Baroness’s Amendment 14D. Still, this has been a helpful debate to have; it has elucidated some important principles about the engagement of young people, and about ensuring that the costs and the impact of the duty and the guidance—when it is produced—should be evaluated and should be in the spirit of what is intended, which is to be light-touch, not onerous, and to be focused on what Clause 25(1) says about avoiding people being drawn into terrorism specifically. With that, I ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I thank the Minister. I have to be honest with him and say that he has not addressed at all the nub of Amendment 14B, which requires the report first of all to concentrate on the cultural impact on universities, particularly the academic freedom and mutual trust within them between staff, students and so on. He did not say a single word about that, which leaves me concerned, because either he thinks it is insignificant or he has no answer to our request for a report. Since everyone tonight—

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend rightly chides us to say that we do not want to be overly bureaucratic or impose too many costs. To undertake qualitative and quantitative research on the scale that he proposes in the amendment would add a huge cost, if not to the Government then to the institutions themselves. We are simply saying here that we will set out some guidance and then leave it to the institutions for it to be evaluated. There will be a process—through HEFCE, should that be something that the consultation decides—for progress and how it is implemented to be evaluated. I would have thought that that would be more in keeping with the light-touch, focused approach that we are talking about, rather than avoiding getting drawn into a very bureaucratic approach, which he would rightly reprimand us for.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I have to disagree with the Minister. It seems to me extraordinary to argue that we cannot afford to do our homework, so let us just make this law and see what happens. Because that is what he is saying. Also, it is no good talking about guidance without realising that, once it is brought into force, it has the effect of law; it becomes enforceable, even unto the point—the Joint Committee made this point—of somebody going to prison. A vice-chancellor could end up in prison if he or she flagrantly refused to comply with what he or she thought was a serious incursion on academic freedom.

I remain confused as to how the Government can say, “Well, it will all come out in the wash”; we do not know what the academic consequences are, whether cultural or in any other way, but you can make a complaint later if it does not work. That is not good enough. This House should not be imposing a regime of this nature without the facts and without due research having been undertaken. We may be the only country in the developed world that will have a statutory regime of this nature. That alone should give serious pause for thought.

[Lord Bates]

I want to clarify a remark that I made earlier. The impact assessment, referring to the higher education sector itself, higher and further education co-ordinators, actually refers to our assessment of the burden on university staff, rather than on the BIS co-ordinators, as I may have led my noble friend to believe.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful for that, but I want to say a word on the second amendment. Most of the debate has been around the need to inquire of the students themselves how they view the consequences of the guidance becoming law. The Minister did not make reference to that. Does he agree in principle that universities, including the students, should be consultees prior to the guidance being finalised and brought into effect? This extends the duty of the consultation to universities under the provisions of Clause 28. I am bound to say that I cannot see, in view of all that the Minister has said, why the universities should not be consulted, along with the other two bodies named in the Bill. They are the people most affected and surely, therefore, the Government could at least say that they will be consulted before the guidance is finalised.

I hope that the Minister will respond to that and then I will consider withdrawing the amendment.

[Lord Bates]

I am not sure that I can add a great deal more to what I have already said on this point, but I am happy to reflect further on my noble friend’s last point and I shall write to him ahead of Third Reading to clarify the position.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

That is a very fair way of wrapping this up, but just to make this clear, the Minister did not refer, in responding to the amendment, to the universities as such. All that he said was concentrated on the young people at the university. However, on the basis that he will have an open mind when looking at this—because it will cost the Government nothing to make the universities consultees, and I believe that it will go some considerable way towards assuaging the concerns that are behind both these amendments—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Bates and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

I can tell the noble Baroness that the “particular regard” element is actually in relation to the Secretary of State’s duty. It is to say that she must have particular regard to the duties under freedoms of speech. The difference between due and particular in this context is that the latter, in all cases, elevates the freedom of speech consideration among all the considerations that must be borne in mind, whereas specifying that due regard must be had to a factor simply underscores the importance of that factor while leaving the degree to which it must be elevated by the specified authority to be determined by the circumstances of the case.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

I cannot resist asking: how is this going to go down with schoolmasters and the rest?

[Lord Bates]

I will leave that to the schoolmasters. However, in this regard, my noble friend should find this reassuring because we are saying that the Secretary of State should have a particular regard. That is a higher threshold to be aware of: the importance of academic freedom of speech within universities. It is a higher test and it is appropriate to say that before she offers direction, she ought to be able to satisfy whether that test has been met. I shall hand back to the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful for both those interventions. However, I think they make my point: the fact that the guidance is there to put in place in universities for speakers but it is just brushed aside and ignored seems to give some veracity to the arguments put forward by the extremism task force, which reviewed our counterterrorism strategy and arrived at the conclusion that there is something to be said for having a more statutory footing.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Could it not be that the universities simply thought that the guidance was—I will not use too strong a word—hopeless and misguided?

[Lord Bates]

It could be. I do not know what was in their minds.

The pressure and stipulation that are contained even in the consultation document issued in December, which we went out to consultation on—sadly, I have then gone and pre-empted the consultation by assuring your Lordships that certain sections of it would not apply—are a much lighter touch. There is no question, none at all, of the Government telling people who to have on their campus, in their university or in their college to speak. All we ask is that they have systems and procedures in place by which they ensure that the people who come on to their campus—

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Bates and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

Of course, many of us subscribe to the view that one of the greatest forces against extremism is the freedom of speech that exists within universities so that people’s radical views can be challenged, and should be challenged, in an open way. Nothing being brought forward today says that the Government are going to tell any university who it should invite to speak. Nothing is going to tell any university who it should have on its faculty or in its student body. That is for the university to decide. All we ask is that at a time of national alert on issues of terrorism universities have due regard to their responsibility to the challenges and vulnerabilities of their institutions and the students who are in their care. That is where we are coming from on this. On the great sweep of what the noble Lord said, I fully endorse it.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

The Minister just, for the second time during his winding up, referred to the phrase “having due regard” in Clause 21 of Part 5 as if to placate those who are concerned by the directions which are still out for consultation. Is the reality not that Clause 25 gives the Secretary of State power to make directions with regard to any of these matters and then to follow that up by a mandatory order? If that mandatory order is breached there are serious punitive consequences, so is it not a trifle inadvertently misleading to refer again and again to this merely having “due regard to”?

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend has great legal expertise in the terms being used here. We are saying that, clearly, if you put anything on a statutory footing—even to “have due regard to” the guidance—then there must be a consequence should you fail to have due regard or are found not to have due regard; and that that must be specified in the legislation. That is all we are doing here. I am sure we are all of the view that such a measure would be used only in extreme circumstances. We fully expect that all universities will do what the best universities are doing already, which is to have their systems and procedures in place for this. As I have said, I am very conscious that we will be returning to this in further groups; but in the mean time I would be grateful if my noble friend might consider withdrawing the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I accept the point that my noble friend makes about charities. That is the reason why the Charity Commission has taken robust action against some charities that are not fulfilling that public duty. We will certainly look at that further.

I am conscious that this has been a long debate and I have given a commitment to reflect on it. Specific questions were raised. If they are not addressed in discussion on subsequent groups of amendments, I give an assurance to write to your Lordships ahead of Report. Given that important commitment which I wanted to get on the record—namely, that in relation to some of the amendments, particularly Amendments 105, 112A, 112B and 112D, I would very much like to reflect on the debate that we have had—I hope that the noble Baroness and other noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments at this stage.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, the Minister made a remark earlier that went to the highly contentious issue which at least half a dozen noble Lords have raised relating to paragraph 66 of the guidance. It says—I quote from the letter that the Minister wrote yesterday—that,

“we note the difficulties of requiring all visiting speakers to submit their presentations in advance, and … we will be making changes to that text in the … guidance”.

There is no equivocation there. The Minister says that that will be changed. Earlier in his speech, he said that he would look at this and consider the response to the consultation. There is a big difference there and it is very important to a lot of people here to know what the position is.

[Lord Bates]

Normally I go beyond what I am instructed to say by my patient Bill team who work behind me, but on this occasion, I think that I am probably behind them in that the letter says in terms that we have heard enough already to reach a judgment on the practicalities of the provision in paragraph 66 and that we will rework that, notwithstanding the answer which I accept that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, earlier, that we would reflect on the issue and did not want to prejudge the consultation. I suppose that we have prejudged the consultation in that particular regard because we do not want what we consider is the important issue of keeping the universities within the broader statutory provision to be, as it were, misunderstood or challenged on relatively small procedural matters which could cause alarm and are many miles away from where the principal focus of our efforts should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

Obviously I am sorry if the noble Lord feels that the response was not adequate. The amendment was trying to say that there should be some regular means of assessing the effectiveness of the measure and its impact on higher education institutions. I was trying to set out several existing mechanisms by which that reporting and accountability to Parliament could take place. In relation to the other point, I said earlier that in a sense, as a first stage, my letter of yesterday was a step down the path towards what I hoped he would find was a fuller response regarding how this might work. I shall look to take further steps as we move into Report and Third Reading in this House.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister, but I am afraid that I shall be even less complimentary than my co-signatory to the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I believe that my noble friend gave us no new facts at all. We have had extraordinarily little by way of evidence or factual backing for this. For example, his letter, which he put in the Library yesterday, refers to two students—one, I seem to remember, a Swedish student and the other an American student—who had been influenced at their universities. There was nothing about English students. We have had nothing about the cost to universities, direct and indirect. He has not attempted to deny, because it is undeniable, that it will be a heavy bureaucratic burden, as my noble friend Lord Hanworth said. If we are acting responsibly, we really need to know these things before we plunge in. It is no good saying that there will be a report next year. It will then be too late to reverse the compulsory legislative nature of this measure, destroying the hugely valuable voluntary basis upon which the Prevent strategy currently takes place.

[Lord Bates]

All the way through, we have tried to say that we envisage a light-touch duty to have regard to systems which will already be in place. I do not imagine that there is an academic institution in the land or in the world that does not have policies for the welfare of its students, for risk assessments, for online safety and for the conduct of meetings. Therefore, I expect that we are talking here about, if necessary, a small addition to what is already happening in existing institutions.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I thank my noble friend for that but I have to disagree with him. He talks about a small addition to the present state of affairs. The universities are telling us loud and clear that it is not a small addition; it is a massive new addition. Before we make this decision, some attempt has to be made to find out the cost to government. I think that even the present voluntary panels in the counties cost £26 million a year. That will be but chicken feed if the universities are subject to this new regime with this vast statutory guidance.

I will leave it at that for tonight, but I hope that my noble friend will endeavour to come back at Report, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, suggested, with something a great deal more satisfactory by way of background to the need for this than we currently have. Perhaps we can have a conversation before then, but the time is terribly short. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Lord Bates and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

Does the Minister not accept that there is a difference between the judicial oversight, on which he laid some emphasis, and the political oversight that comes from having a sunset clause? Her Majesty’s justices can take only certain legal considerations into their protection of legislation. They cannot consider the wider political considerations that bear upon the matter in hand. Does he see the distinction?

[Lord Bates]

I see the distinction between the issues—as did the other place and the Constitution Committee. But in this area, we believe that a sunset clause is not necessary in relation to this chapter of the Bill. In other parts, such as Part 2, when we will come to TPIMs, the sunset clause is there. It is not a general principle written through the Bill; we are looking at this area by area, and we remain open to advice from your Lordships’ House, Parliament and the independent reviewer as to what their thoughts are on the necessity of that.

People have not happened upon the sunset clause up to now because they have found it too difficult to arrive at a precise point for where the amendment should be. Should it be at two, three or four years? We have heard a range of different discussions. It remains there, open to review, and the procedures will be subject to regulations, which will give rise to further debate and scrutiny, but it is not appropriate to offer a fixed and arbitrary time limit for this chapter of the Bill.

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Bates and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Monday 28th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for moving this interesting amendment. My default position when I first read it was that it was completely opposed to what the whole Bill is trying to do: to free up Ofsted inspectors so that they do not spend endless amounts of time visiting schools that are simply outstanding across the board but devote that time to schools that are failing in some areas so that those schools can be given greater attention and support. I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Perry, but that was very much where I was coming from.

When I heard the debate, however, I began to move towards seeing a couple of problems that need to be explored. I wonder whether part of the solution, which probably needs to be developed a little further, should not be the partnering of a highly successful school, which is enabled to become an academy, with a failing school. What would be the format of that relationship? Could the successful school assess and supervise the failing school in the interim?

Then there is the role of the governing bodies. Often very little is said about them, but under the new arrangements they will have hugely more power, authority and responsibility. How much training are they given? When one becomes a non-executive director of a firm, there are often lots of training courses about your duties, statutory responsibilities, the pertinent questions to ask and what you should look out for. The head teacher on the first governing body of which I was a member absolutely insisted that there was never any need for a member of the governing body to come to assemblies or to visit any of the classrooms, as that was way beyond their remit. Later on academy boards, I found that the head teachers of good, successful schools went out of their way to encourage governors to experience classroom teaching, to sit in the staffroom and to talk to teachers. Do people actually know this?

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does he accept that his personal experience may not be universal? As one who has had a series of non-executive directorships over the past 30 years and has served on a number of school governing bodies, I must confess that the picture he draws is not that of my experience.

[Lord Bates]

I defer to my noble friend’s experience, but bodies such as the Institute of Directors put on training courses and provide structured guidance for directorships, so I wonder what the equivalent is for governing bodies? Is there a body which fulfils this role?

Academies Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Bates and Lord Phillips of Sudbury

Monday 21st June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I hope that I am not going to spoil the party by referring to the first two or three amendments in this odd group. The debate seems to have become about the composition of school governing bodies which, as far as I can see, is the subject of a later group of amendments. Never mind; we soldier on.

The first two amendments in the group seek to amend the words at the start of the Bill:

“The Secretary of State may enter into Academy arrangements with any person”.

“Any person” seems an unambitious expression and one wonders why it should not, for example, say, “Any charity”. I understood the Minister to say earlier without equivocation—this is how I read the Bill—that only a charity can be “the other party” for the purposes of academy arrangements. If we were to get technical—which is what we are supposed to do in this House—we would consider the Interpretation Act, which states, I think I am right in saying, that “any person” is any corporate entity or any individual person. It does not, for example, cover unincorporated trusts—and a great many charities are just that.

If I had been kinder I would have raised these issues with the Minister before the debate, so I do not expect him to answer directly. However, I strongly recommend that the phrase “any charity” should be substituted for “any person”. That would be happier, clearer and avoid the technical argument I have touched on.

[Lord Bates]

Following on from the previous speaker, I should like further clarification on the rules concerning the new schools. It is desirable that the Bill should encompass all three types of new schools. This would, first, allow the best schools to become better by freeing them up; secondly, tackle the failing schools through the academy orders in Clause 4; and, thirdly, make provision for the new schools so that they, too, can become academies. It would be tidy if those three elements could be within the Bill.

We do not need to be too anxious about the burden that this will place upon the Government. Taking things in context, the brief on the Bill pack prepared by the House of Commons includes two or three helpful sections on new schools. It states that currently 19 per cent of the 3,200 secondary schools are judged to be outstanding and will qualify for the fast track. So that is potentially 600 schools out of 20,000. At the other end, depending on how you define inadequate Ofsted reports for longer than a year, there are about 100 failing schools. So, added together, that makes approximately 700 schools out of 20,000.

In the document Raising the Bar; Narrowing the Gap, which was the discussion Green Paper of the Government when they were in opposition, it was anticipated that the total number of new schools—roughly about 300 to 400—would be equivalent to about 220,000 places. I mention this for two reasons. First, all of the proposed changes might touch upon, potentially, 5 per cent of the total cohort of schools within the country. Therefore, the sense that this will send shockwaves through the entire system is unfounded and it is perhaps unfair to concern people about that. Secondly, the catchment areas of the new schools—