Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Peston Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I participated in the Second Reading debate in November. I have not participated in the stages since, although I have read the proceedings in Hansard with some care. I intend to ask my noble friend to reject these amendments but, before I turn to the substance of my remarks and because this is such a difficult and emotional subject, I hope the House will permit me a brief diversion.

At Second Reading, I made it clear that I thought the activities of those who preyed on children—or vulnerable adults, as the noble Baroness has just said—were repulsive. That was the word I used then and I use it again this afternoon. I went on to argue for the need for proportionality and the measurement of effectiveness and impact and so forth. Therefore, I was very disappointed when the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—I am pleased to see him in his place on the Front Bench—said in his winding-up remarks:

“It is all very well wanting to reduce regulation, as clearly the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, does, but not if it is at the expense of someone else’s safety”.—[Official Report, 8/11/11; col. 219.]

I regard that as a cheap shot. I am happy to be told that my judgment is wrong, that my understanding of the law is wrong or that the practical implications of what I am proposing are wrong, but I am not prepared to be told that I put the reduction of the regulatory burden before the safety of children. That was unfair.

The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, gave the House a graphic explanation of her work in this area. I will just add my own few words. My wife’s cousin is a forensic pathologist, and he undertakes for the noble Lord’s department post-mortems of the most searing kind. I talked to him about his work and I asked him if he did not find it rather macabre. He said, “Not really, because I am a detective. Some detectives will crawl across the carpet looking for clues in the fibres. I am finding the clues in people, and I am therefore able to convict the guilty and let the innocent go free”. Because I am squeamish, I also say, “Isn’t it rather strange to be dealing with corpses?”. He said, “By the natural order of things you get used to it but when we have a child brought into our post-mortem room, there is a palpable change in the atmosphere, the tension and the behaviour of the team”. Whatever I am saying about the need to not accept these amendments, it is not because I think that children should not be protected. That forensic pathologist’s stories of the things he has seen are harrowing beyond belief.

On 6 February 2012, the second day on Report, in moving his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said,

“first, that we cannot create a risk-free society; secondly, that the steps we take to minimise risk should be proportionate. For those reasons, I very much sympathise with and support the Government in seeking to strike the right balance in this very difficult area”.—[Official Report, 6/2/12; col. 107.]

I say amen to that. I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I further agree that getting the balance right is exceptionally difficult.

However, I argue that to some extent the Government have already got the balance right, which is why I shall ask my noble friend to resist this amendment. I do so for three reasons: first, it changes the relative importance of judgment as opposed to process; secondly, there is a bandwagon effect in this whole area, which will result from some of the wording of the noble Lord’s amendment; and, thirdly, there is the danger that this amendment will contribute to the further atomisation of our society.

On judgment versus process, I follow some of the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. When I was taking evidence on the preparation of the report Unshackling Good Neighbours, it was astonishing how many people saw the official check as the beginning and end of the matter. There is health and safety, and other areas, as well as the CRB. Too often, individuals did not wish or saw no reason to use or trust their individual judgment. My fear is that the more we push the process forward, the less people will feel that they need to use their judgment and intervene, because they feel that it is someone else’s responsibility.

Strangely, in the briefing we received from Fair Play for Children, some of that attitude reveals itself. It states:

“We also point out the possibility that the person, in applying for another post within the organisation, might find himself subject to scrutiny against the barred list, and barring revealed. That places employers at that stage in an invidious position of having had such a person working for them with children and then having to comply with statute to refuse the new job”.

I cannot for the life of me see what is “invidious” about this. It is about a proper, disciplined and clearly run business. If a person changes his job and has different responsibilities involving further exposure and involvement with children, at that point the employer is entitled to say, “I am afraid this is not something which you can become involved with because of the role you are now undertaking”. When I read that the,

“day to day supervision is a reference to such day to day supervision as is reasonable in all the circumstances for the purpose of protecting any children concerned”,

I believe that the Government have got the balance about right.

On the bandwagon effect, subsection (4) of the new clause proposed under Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, states:

“Guidance produced for the purposes of subsection (3) … shall recommend that such organisations as described, should seek to obtain a relevant enhanced criminal record certificate as a matter of best practice”.

The noble Lord may think that he will cut down the number of criminal records checked but, faced with the matter of best practice, individuals running charities, voluntary groups and sports clubs will face ever greater pressure to obtain an enhanced criminal record certificate. It will be argued that this is needed to be on the safe side. Charities have groups of people which depend on CRB checks, so they are not going to say it is not needed; rather they will say that, for access, it is best practice.

We saw lots of examples in the evidence given to us before we completed our report, Unshackling Good Neighbours. It is tragic to see how many people, rightly or wrongly, are put off from volunteering because they do not want to be CRB-checked. In many cases they did not need to be CRB-checked, but the authorities thought they should be in order to be on the safe side. The University of Oxford has advertised for students to help invigilate in its museums. The job requires sitting in a room or corridor and watching the exhibits so that visitors cannot remove or destroy them. But they now have to be CRB-checked. It is hard to see how the job falls within the requirements of a CRB check but, to be on the safe side, that is what the university wants to do.

Last, I turn to the atomisation effect. Social scientists say that our society is becoming atomised, as they call it, and social media mean that we live increasingly isolated lives. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, in an interesting article in the House Magazine this week, talks about how social media provide the opportunity for grooming, and I agree with him absolutely on that. I said in my speech at Second Reading that this is one of the most difficult areas we have to tackle going forward. However, if we are not careful, we will enhance the selfish gene which lies within all of us. People say that they see no reason to help their town, village, street or community. To reverse this trend and encourage people to reconnect and get involved, we need to welcome them, not treat them as criminals.

It is a fact, thank goodness, that a fractional minority of people seeks to prey on children. The overwhelmingly vast majority of our fellow citizens are decent, law-abiding and want to do their best. It is with these people in mind that I urge my noble friend not to accept these amendments.

[Lord Peston]

Is the noble Lord saying that if we accept these amendments, there would be no net increase in the number of children who would be protected?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I cannot prove a negative, and that is one of the difficulties of arguing either for or against any form of regulation. You cannot prove what will happen. I suspect that there will be no net increase in the risk to children. I suspect that but I cannot prove it, just as the noble Lord cannot prove the contrary.

Immigration

Lord Peston Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. The changes we are making for overseas students are intended to make sure that they can come here to study and can possible stay on, but we do not want them to bring their families where that is not necessary or to stay on as permanent residents afterwards if that is not appropriate.

[Lord Peston]

Will the Minister enlighten us on the economics of all this? A great many of his noble friends in this House and his honourable and right honourable friends in the other place claim to be great supporters of free trade and the free market. Will he explain how that is compatible with denying employers and other institutions the right to buy labour services, wherever they might come from, that can be used profitably? Surely supporting the free market means allowing precisely that, and not limiting immigration?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I could, if I had the time—but I do not have the time—give the noble Lord a long lecture on the economics of this.

Education Bill

Lord Peston Excerpts

Tuesday 4th October 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, this is one of those amendments that speaks for itself so I do not intend to detain noble Lords long on this particular issue. Nevertheless, it is an important issue these days given the levels of redundancy and the need for people to retrain and reskill throughout their working lives. It is important that there is an assessment of the impact. It is difficult enough for people with disabilities to gain employment without any further impediments. Of course, there is the impact on women as well. I would welcome a response from the Minister.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. I do so with a certain degree of sadness. It is just under 50 years since I wrote the first paper ever written in the Treasury on loan schemes, and it would never have occurred to me then that we would end up discussing this sort of thing 50 years later. It would never have occurred to any of us who were among the first to think that loan schemes were the right way into student support that we would live in a world in which tuition fees were charged in higher education. That is why I say that there is a certain sadness here.

It may well be that the economy is so dire and so many people want to benefit from higher education that we have to have tuition fees, but it has always seemed quite awful to me. I assume that this amendment has been tabled so that the Minister can tell us exactly what preparations the Government looked at before deciding to go along the path that they have chosen.

I would like to hear what the research is that tells us that those who are disabled will not suffer from extreme disincentives because of these fee increases, and that there is no gender bias in them. I find it very hard to believe that there is no gender bias in what is happening here; quite the contrary. My noble friend has not told us this, but I assume this is why the amendment was tabled. This is all in preparation for the next stage, and for how we analyse these things. I look forward to a lecture from the Minister answering everything implicit in this amendment.

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, I support the amendment. It is an amendment that the Government should welcome, because they are always telling us that we do not have a skilled workforce, and that the workforce needs to be skilled. Here is a specific recommendation for reskilling people who are disabled. I would have thought it would have been welcomed by the Government as being well in line with their policies; the policies they are always telling us about, anyway. Therefore I am very happy to support my noble friend’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

A positive real rate of interest will impact in particular on the repayments made by mature students. Getting behind the figures, we find that there has been no increase in the salary threshold, so only the term has changed. However, as a result of that, many more graduates are likely to reach the end of the repayment period without paying off their loans—and I understand that these typically will be of the order of £45,000 at the end of a three-year course. It is also likely to have an inadvertent impact on female graduates and on men at the bottom decile of earnings. I am afraid that it is beginning to sound like a bad deal all round. It will set up a lifelong debt and borrowing habit that some people will take to their graves—a new form of the term mortgage. If this clause stays in the Bill, it should be seen for what it is: deeply unfair and divisive. It is not progressive. Indeed, it is easier to see it as part of the narrative of readying the Student Loans Company for sale as well as depressing demand for higher education than about cutting public expenditure. Our amendment would at least restore the status quo. I beg to move.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I am very puzzled by what the Government want to do. I thought they wanted people to “stand on their own two feet”—I think that is an exact quote from the Chancellor. The effect of raising the real cost of repaying loans must act for some people as a disincentive to going into the labour force. Otherwise, in my favourite remark, economics makes no sense at all—you may think economics makes no sense at all, but that is another matter. That is one bit that puzzles me. What do the Government think they are doing? Should they not be pursuing exactly the opposite policy and trying to encourage people where they can to re-enter the labour force?

The second thing, which goes back to the earlier amendment that we did not debate at great length but will on Report, is the gender bias question. Is it part of the Government’s view that they want women not to take out loans and go into higher education so they do not have this burden and therefore it does not act as a disincentive to marriage and family life? After all, if they go into higher education and carry this implicit cost with them, their ability to find a suitable partner, who may have to bear this cost at some point, might go down.

I thought the Government favoured families instead of the reverse. Equally, maybe it is much more subtle than that. Where there are lone parents, for example, who are graduates, maybe we do not want them to stand on their own two feet and take a job and hire a babysitter. Maybe we want them to stay at home, driving themselves round the bend trying to cope with the children, and so forth. My general point from all that, is that I can see no rationality in what the Government are doing, other than: “If we can get some more money from any route that we can find we will take it”. That is not a rational way to produce economic policy.

If I can revert to my 1960s Treasury experience, one of my thoughts listening to my noble friend’s speech was about when I wrote a hotshot paper on student loan schemes—nothing to do with fees, but about maintenance. One question that never occurred to me in what must have been a really bad paper—in those days you did not take home your work so I have no idea precisely what I wrote—was the rate of interest. It never came up in my mind. I just took it for granted that it would be the Treasury bill rate.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has made a powerful and cogent case, and I look forward with more than usual interest to the Minister’s response because there are some issues of real principle. I would add two points. One is that much of the odium for charging fees is falling on universities. I still remember sufficiently far back when that would have fallen on me, and it looks like there is an extra 3 per cent of odium being added. That is not a good principle.

More to the point, I have supported the principle of student fees on the basis that students pay for what they get in educational terms, not for an additional premium for whatever accounting reasons seem necessary to the Government at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

I remind the noble Lord, as he was in Government, that they also used RPI as a measure. It is a commonly used measure. My right honourable friend the Chancellor, of course, is the Chancellor, and has to find all means of reducing the debt that unfortunately we inherited from noble Lords opposite.

We should remember that the changes to the rate of interest on student loans are part of a new student finance package that creates a progressive repayment system and is designed to protect lower earning graduates, as well as balancing the financial demands of universities with the interests of students and future graduates by delivering necessary savings without cutting the quality of higher education or student numbers.

Under the new system, students from lower income households will receive more support than they do now—I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—although many will pay back for longer than they do now. Their monthly repayments will be less than now, and the variable interest rate we propose will mean that they will also pay back less overall. If we accepted this amendment and capped the rate of interest that we could charge on student loans, we simply could not deliver this new system, nor would it create a suitable or worthy alternative. A cap would have little or no positive effect on borrowers who did not repay in full, nor would it afford greater financial protection.

This amendment would mean that higher earners would be charged a lower rate of interest than under the Government’s proposals. Higher earners would therefore benefit the most from this amendment, since the interest rate that they are now charged would reduce typically from RPI plus 3 per cent to RPI plus 2.2 per cent, while lower earners would not benefit at all as their interest rate would already be less than the Government’s cost of borrowing.

The system of student support would be much less progressive as a result. The Government remain committed to delivering a progressive system whereby those who benefit the most from higher education contribute the most. Would the noble Lord really favour a package that meant that the highest earners did not contribute to the cost of their higher education in net terms, or one that would inhibit our ability to protect lower earners?

[Lord Peston]

What the noble Baroness has said is not quite right. Is it not the case that those very much higher earners whose parents pay off the loan immediately will not bear a higher cost? It is only those whose parents have not paid off the loan immediately who will do so.

Equally, while I am on my feet, I say to the Minister that there is no ideal index number at all. I do not use either of those—I always use the GDP deflator as the correct measure of inflation—but that is another matter; it is not what this debate is about. It is not about an ideal index number, it is about who pays what, and that is all it is about. My noble friends, particularly the noble Lord and I, have made it very clear: all that we are discussing is, who are we going to take the money from? Am I right that the plus 3 per cent is definitely decided?

[Baroness Verma]

Yes. And the noble Lord knows that I would be the last person here to make sure that people of low incomes could not get fair access. That is why it is so important that those who can afford to pay more do so, because they benefit more from higher education. Those families on low incomes will actually be able to be better protected. That is the key to this.

I am sorry that the noble Lord shakes his head. There will never be an ideal measure, but we have to have a measure. The previous Government did it and we are carrying on doing it. Anything to do with higher education will be coming up in the higher education White Paper, which we are consulting on at the moment, and of course that will be a wonderful opportunity to get the sort of questions posed by the noble Lord asked and responded to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

If the noble Lord will allow me to continue, I am hoping that I will be able to respond to the questions that he has raised.

The system of student support would be much less progressive as a result of the noble Lord’s amendment. The Government remain committed to delivering a progressive system whereby those who benefit most from higher education contribute the most. With regard to imposing the cap, the noble Lord asked if the current £15,000 threshold would have risen in 2016 compared with the £21,000 threshold proposed by the Government. Of course he knows that the previous Government did not raise the threshold annually, which is why we are proposing from 2016-17, as part of the progressive system, that it be introduced.

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about the impact on women. It is important to consider the package in the round. The amount that borrowers repay in a year is strictly linked to income. Borrowers whose income drops below the threshold, for example, when moving to part-time work or seeking downgrade posts at the end of their career, or who leave employment for whatever reason, will be protected because their repayments will cease immediately.

[Lord Peston]

But they will still owe the money.

[Baroness Verma]

But the repayments are written off after 30 years.

My noble friend Lady Sharp asked about the sale of student loans. The student loans Act makes clear that the borrower will not be affected by the sale. Their loans will be subject to the same terms as those that remain unsold. Nothing in the Bill changes that position.

I would like to finish on Sharia law. In relation to issues around Sharia compliance, the noble Lord mentioned the meeting between the Minister for Universities and Science, my honourable friend David Willetts, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies—a body that represents students from the Muslim faith—and the National Union of Students to discuss the issue. We accept the importance of the concerns raised by those organisations and have an ongoing dialogue to see how we can best ensure that student finance is not impacted on through the systems that we are bringing in. However, it would be better for me to write to the noble Lord on the outcomes after we have made sure that the consultations have been fully gone through.

Disabled People: Disability Hate Crime

Lord Peston Excerpts

Monday 27th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, the noble Lord, whose record in this area, particularly his long and distinguished association with Mencap, is respected throughout the House, raises an important point. Grouping people with disabilities together in a generic way is of itself a problem. Beyond that, it is important that as a society we start to recognise disabilities right across the spectrum, particularly those that the noble Lord has been such a good advocate for—those relating to learning difficulties and communication disorders where often the disability itself is not evident on first sight or first meeting. The noble Lord will know that I have taken a close interest in autism for the past 40 years and I have often described the disability as an iceberg—a third above the surface and two-thirds below. That two-thirds below the surface of the disability is as important as what people see on first sight.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Baroness has just said. One of the overwhelming problems among people who ought to know a great deal better, including many members of the medical profession, is that they accept that someone like me who has a damaged leg is not faking it, but think that someone who has a disability of a psychological origin is making it up. That is something that the Government must take a lead on. I am delighted to hear that that is precisely the noble Baroness’s position.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. One of the difficulties that we often face is with professionals who have only a passing interest. He particularly mentioned the medical profession. I do not want to generalise, because some very good work is done by the medical profession, but you cannot expect the medical profession to be experts in everything. There are important factors to remember when they come into contact with people, particularly those in the group mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, whom the Mencap report focused on. Learning disability is defined as people who have an IQ of under 70. Some of those on the autistic spectrum have very high IQs and yet their disability is still there. It is important that when people are referred to so-called professionals, whether in the medical profession or elsewhere, for some sort of assessment, the person seeing them either has the expertise to make a proper assessment or has the good grace to refer them to someone who has.

Parliament Square

Lord Peston Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble and learned Baroness puts her finger on a real issue. In the short term, that will not be very easy to do. But, certainly, over the longer term it is something that might be looked at.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Security, which has been looking at this for years and has got nowhere. At our last meeting, we were told something quite extraordinary; namely, that although what surrounds the square may look like a pavement and, if you fell on it, would feel like a pavement, the High Court has announced that, as it does not go anywhere, is not a pavement—which shows the idiocy of judges. That is one of the things that prevents anyone, including the Met, from doing anything about these squatters.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

This is getting into territory on which I tread with some trepidation. I think that the noble Lord is referring to the judgment which stated that, given the circumstances of the pavement in front of Carriage Gates which, I think it was judged, “did not lead anywhere”, it was permissible for the two protestors and those who were attached to them to continue their protest there.