Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships to have a slight pause here to enable those who are not taking part in the Bill to leave the Chamber.

Clause 47: Validation by the OfS

Amendments 312 to 316 not moved.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. We should all listen very carefully to what he said, particularly on universal credit and welfare generally —which I still prefer to call “social security”.

It may well be that the most significant words in the Queen’s Speech yesterday were that,

“other measures will be laid before you”.

We will see whether that is the case. Sensibly, the Government are proceeding cautiously. In this respect I very much welcome the fact that the Department for Culture’s White Paper on the BBC charter was not what we were led to expect. The Secretary of State drew back from some of the more extravagant ideas that had been floated, which undoubtedly would have damaged the corporation.

I will raise one concern about the language that the Government use. They can claim that this is a consensual White Paper trying to achieve the maximum agreement— I agree with that—but they cannot at the same time refer to the concerns that had been expressed, as I fear the Secretary of State did in his Statement, as,

“hysterical speculation by left-wing luvvies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/16; col. 736.]

As much of the concern came from ministerial speeches, that does not totally add up, in particular when a recently departed Minister—lain Duncan Smith—said only yesterday that the Government had “watered down” their proposals on the BBC charter.

I will make two points on broadcasting. First, although the White Paper is a great improvement on what we had been led to believe, it would be wrong to say that there are not still matters of concern. For example, there are fears that the new board will be insufficiently independent. Having at last got rid of the BBC Trust, we do not want to see a board on which government appointments overinfluence the running of the corporation. I also remain to be convinced that the five-year review is necessary. I would have thought that between charter reviews we could leave this to the board, provided that it is strong and independent. Equally, the last thing I want to see is the Government interfering in the programming of the BBC. Frankly, I can think of very little that would be worse. So the debate on the BBC will continue.

I have a second concern on broadcasting that relates not to the BBC but to Channel 4, and arises from a detailed report in the business section of the Daily Telegraph—a newspaper with strong links particularly to the Treasury, as I know to my cost. I remember that when I was trying to abolish the state earnings-related pension scheme, this radical step first appeared there and totally inconveniently. The story in the Daily Telegraph is basically that the Government have stepped back on full privatisation but may still sell a minority stake in Channel 4, and that the Treasury may take a dividend from the broadcaster. Perhaps I can remind the House that Channel 4 was created by a Conservative Government, and in particular by two people whom not even the wildest special adviser would describe as “left-wing luvvies”: Margaret Thatcher and Willie Whitelaw.

Since that time, Channel 4 has had substantial success. It is a not-for-profit corporation and its surplus goes back into content. This year, a surplus of something like £26 million has been achieved, with £1 billion in terms of revenue. Channel 4 has done what we asked it to do and, on that basis, I think that it deserves support. So I would be grateful if the Minister, when she winds up, could tell the House what exactly the position is with Channel 4 as seen from the perspective of the Department for Culture?

The point that continues to trouble me the most in the broadcasting area is the power of the Executive. Channel 4 is a statutory corporation, so a major change such as privatisation would have to come to Parliament. The BBC is different; it is governed by the royal charter, which is another way of saying that, ultimately, it is Ministers who take the final decision. The Executive decide. That is how we got the BBC Trust. Many of us, including one or two colleagues here in the House today, argued—strongly argued—against this 10 years ago, but it was the Government who decided that they would go ahead in any event. That is why there is now a search for some kind of check, either to make the BBC into a statutory corporation or to do what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has proposed in his Private Member’s Bill, which is to keep a charter but to make any changes to that charter subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Underlying all this, it seems to me, is the question of the balance between Parliament and the Executive. That is one of the issues of the Queen’s Speech, particularly that the Government,

“will uphold … the primacy of the House of Commons”.

I have absolutely no quarrel with that as a general principle. The Commons is the elected House and that gives it authority, but I would say that it is not quite as simple as that statement suggests. We do not want the primacy of the House of Commons translated into the primacy of the Executive—the primacy of the Government unchecked. That question affects every subject that we are debating today. We know what can happen in practice, under any Government: the legislation that arrives here has been pushed through without proper scrutiny in the other place and, unless one is careful, it becomes the law of the land.

We should be concerned about the relationship between the Lords and the Commons but also the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. We should guard against giving the Executive too much power at the expense of Parliament. The starting point is that Governments—any Government—simply want to get their measures through. Chief Whips, in my experience, do not stay awake at night worrying about such niceties as balance and the good arguments of the House of Lords. They want their legislation—we all know that that is the case. I remember Margaret Thatcher saying after one defeat in the House, “What has happened to all those people I sent to the Lords?”—and, after another defeat, exclaiming: “What we should do is just send them there for one Parliament”. The subtext to both is, “Just you remember who the boss is”—and do not believe for a moment Margaret Thatcher is the only Prime Minister who has held that particular view.

In this Session we will doubtless come to the position of statutory instruments. Again, we need to recognise that, from the Government’s point of view, delegated legislation has the potential of a get-out-of-jail-free card. It cannot be amended and far less time is spent on scrutiny. The trouble is that matters of policy such as tax credits are much more profound than putting simple changes before the House. In the 1980s I was defeated three times in this House on social security. I went to see the Leader of the House, Lord Whitelaw, who said, “We’ll put back two but you’ll have to give them one”. I am not sure that that is a blueprint for advancing but it does at least illustrate that there is a certain amount of give and take on this basis.

My conclusion is that we should proceed with care. We are in a position now where all Governments are likely to be in a minority. The days of Governments with majorities of 200 have gone for ever. I hope that it will be recognised that the Lords is doing an invaluable job, particularly in improving legislation and in giving warning that some proposals raise serious issues of principle and practice. By all means let us examine the issues concerned with statutory instruments and the other issues, but let us also be vigilant and ensure that the power of the Executive is not increased at the expense of Parliament.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Fowler Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his speech and welcome my noble friend Lord Prior to the Front Bench. We very much look forward to his contributions.

In opening the debate on the gracious Speech, my noble friend Lady Bottomley was kind enough to recall a period when I ran a department that covered both health and social security. One result of that is that I have a certain trade union solidarity with the two Secretaries of State who now carry those responsibilities, particularly when it comes to public spending and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. If my experience is anything to go by, Cabinet discussions on public spending go something like this. Ministers in other departments unite in saying, “We must tackle this social spending, grasp the nettle, kill the sacred cows”, and, worst of all, “It is just a matter of presentation”, the implication being that people will rather enjoy having their benefits cut.

However, if you go forward a few weeks to discussing the actual savings to be made and you put forward proposals such as the abolition of the universal Christmas bonus and the death grant, which at that stage cost more to administer than to pay out, the reaction is, “No, no, no”—and that was just from the then Prime Minister. The poor old Secretary of State is left trying to find savings in a smaller and smaller pool, because it was already the rule that pensions and help for the retired could not be touched. That remains the case today. If we believe the reports that we have heard this week, we are now to be constrained by a pledge not to fundamentally tackle child benefit.

Benefits for the over 60s and over 65s, such as the cold weather allowance and bus passes, march on untouched. We cannot even put an age qualification such as 70 or 75 on the bus pass. I declare an interest in that those two age limits would exclude many but not me. So I am not going to lay into the Secretary of State, who has a difficult task, but I will just say this: to announce £12 billion of cuts without saying where they will fall is a perilous venture—I could put it more strongly. Certainly, in my day, the Government would not have got away with such an approach; Michael Foot would have been on to us in a moment.

More importantly, I challenge the assumption, as I did 30 years ago in my social security review, that the elderly are by definition those most in need. Some are, but some are certainly not. I am equally concerned about the position of poor families with children, hence my proposal for a family credit. My hope is that any reductions in spending should proceed from an analysis of need. We should also make as much progress as we can with universal credit, which I think is one of the great pluses of this Government.

Turning very briefly to health, a whole range of issues fill the newspapers daily, from cancer treatment to the promotion of better health, but above the individual issues is the crucial financial question of how all this can be afforded; we have touched on this in the debate. The Secretary of State says that for the immediate future, and with the extra resources going in, the National Health Service should be able to manage, and I believe him. What I am not convinced about is whether in the decades ahead we can go on in the same way, financing health predominantly from general taxation. We should be clear about the consequences of this protected policy. Inevitably, public spending in other areas will be reduced. The Treasury will have to look elsewhere for economies. It will have to look at reducing spending on the police and on defence—incidentally, reversing the priorities of the Thatcher years.

There may be no option but to follow that course, but before we settle on it we should look at the options of financing health. I emphasise that the present model may be best, but let us at least look at the other options and set them out. That does not commit us, the Government or anybody else to a particular course, but it allows a foundation to be built upon which we can base policy. For example, we should look at whether a separate health tax has some advantage in connecting the public more directly with the cost of health. We should look at some kind of health insurance along the lines of what is done in France or Germany and see whether that is practical. We should look at whether patient charges could make a greater contribution, and we should look at whether the private sector could make a meaningful contribution to the training of the health staff it uses.

Those are all difficult questions and there is only one time they can be properly addressed: at the beginning of a new Government with five years to go. I would favour a royal commission, which incidentally was a private proposal made to me by Lady Thatcher, but one that was demonstrably independent, working openly and relying on the skill of organisations such as the IFS and the King’s Fund. The aim would be to show the options, to inform not just the Government but the public. In my view, we have a once and for all opportunity to carry out such an investigation. Timing is everything and that timing is, frankly, now. We will not be forgiven if we ignore that opportunity.