Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) (Amendment) Order 2017

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I was waiting to see whether anyone else would intervene. I will not detain the House very long. Will the Minister, either now or in writing—I promise I will not talk about Sheffield this afternoon—be kind enough to reflect on the juxtaposition of the existing Data Protection Act 1998 with the Digital Economy Bill in relation to data sharing and, crucially, with the general data protection regulation of 2016, which the Government indicated on 1 March they would be taking forward and putting on statute the necessary changes, prior to implementation, in May 2018?

I welcome very strongly the proposals for the pilot schemes. The discerning approach will be very important for getting to households that are difficult to reach, dealing with churn and ensuring that, particularly with the Glasgow and Birmingham proposition, there is a real understanding of the difficulty within inner cities. I am concerned that we do not get caught with what is otherwise a very sensible privacy change—a tightening of the regulations under the GDPR—taking into account, as the Minister indicated, that there will be a privacy impact assessment. Will he say a little more about that?

Electoral Fraud

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I am not familiar with the electoral system in Estonia. When we pilot a number of projects next year, we will be looking at various means by which the voter can identify themselves at the polling station. This might be a bus pass, a bank card or an NUS card, but in order not to exclude those who do not have those forms of identification, we are also looking at non-photographic identification. I will see that the helpful information that the noble Baroness has given us about proceedings in Estonia is fed into the options.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I wonder whether the excellent Minister will reflect on a practice which involves freepost by a political party, encouraging those who have signed a postal vote to send it back to the party’s local headquarters. Does he feel that that is totally inappropriate, as I believe it was in the 2015 general election, practised on behalf of the former Deputy Prime Minister?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Without getting involved in Sheffield politics, it is certainly inappropriate for postal votes to be handled in that way. As I said in response to an earlier question, that practice is already discouraged in guidance from the Electoral Commission. There have been recommendations that it should be banned for precisely the reason that the noble Lord explained, and the Government are deciding how best to take that forward when legislative opportunities present themselves.

Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) (Amendment) Order 2017

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am inspired by those words of the noble Baroness to say that she makes an extremely good point and one that would be warmly echoed in Lincolnshire where there has been a decision not to have a directly elected mayor because it is not felt suitable in such a large county and for a largely rural area. This obsession with elected mayors is frankly ridiculous. It may be appropriate in certain urban areas, although to me it is inimical to the British tradition of local government, but that is my prejudice and I readily admit it. It frankly does not sit happily in largely rural areas. For the Government to say, “You cannot have your devolution unless you have a mayor”, is a thoroughly unreasonable ultimatum.

Shortly after Mrs May became Prime Minister, I was greatly encouraged when it was noised abroad that she is not wedded to this idea. That is one divorce which I hope she will expedite because it is not a good idea in rural areas, it should not be persisted with and I hope my noble friend, while possibly rebuking the noble Baroness and me for talking about areas which are not the subject of this order, will take the message that is coming from both sides of the House and all political parties that in rural areas this is something up with which we should not need to put.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points just put by my noble friend Lady Hollis and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I shall address the order before us in relation to the Sheffield City Region. I obviously have no objection whatever to the order that is being laid. It makes sense in the light of the decision of Derbyshire County Council to take the judicial review. In this case, with some reluctance, the combined authority has agreed to an elected mayor and Chesterfield Borough Council wished to join the city region, as did Bassetlaw. Unfortunately North East Derbyshire District Council does not appear to have taken the same decision, even though travel to work, travel to leisure and the whole synergy of economic, social and cultural life would lead to the conclusion that it might in the future. Although I understand Derbyshire County Council’s desire not to see its bailiwick confined, my concern this morning is to seek confirmation from the Minister, who I have known for a very long time, that the Government will continue providing the necessary support, encouragement and facilitation for the combined authority to be able to get on with the job, both with those aspects that have been devolved and those which would follow through from a mayoral election for the city region in 2018.

There are two reasons for this. First, it is really important that the vision strategy that was published on 17 February this year should be carried into fruition rather than languish on a shelf. Secondly, as some of us east of the Pennines have recognised, the difficulty that the Leeds City Region has been having with progression means that the north of England, Greater Manchester and to some extent Merseyside are now taking the lead on what the Government came to pronounce as the northern powerhouse.

There was a great deal going on before the northern powerhouse was “invented”, including One North and combined activity on transport and economic development. But there is a real danger that having the north-west of England as the driving force—even though it is clearly welcome and flows from very sensible bottom-up drivers, particularly from Greater Manchester—will imbalance the north of England. Yorkshire has a population slightly greater than Scotland, yet because we do not have a devolved block grant, its investment from national government is confined. It is really important that the inevitable delay spelled out in this order should not preclude government working with the city region to ensure that the driving force of not just economic change but also social change is encouraged and supported rather than being held back by the inevitable delays spelled out in the order.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interests as laid out in the register, particularly as a member of Sheffield City Council. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. He may not agree with everything I am about to say, but he may agree with some of it. First, I welcome the devolution deal to Sheffield, even though it does not go as far as it should do and particularly, as other noble Lords have said, even though it is predicated on a mayor—I wish it was not, and was based on another model, but we are where we are and we have to go forward with the deal that has been negotiated between the leaders in South Yorkshire and the Government. But I thank the Minister and the Government for keeping their confidence in this, and for keeping going and being patient despite the most frustrating of circumstances, which are destabilising the confidence of some in South Yorkshire about whether the deal will actually go ahead under the leadership that has been shown so far there.

I will remind your Lordships how we got here. There has been infighting and dithering—and, as one businessperson said to me, complete incompetence—among the local leaders back in South Yorkshire about this deal. First, we thought it was signed, sealed and delivered, but then the leader of Sheffield City Council decided either that she had not read it or had not understood it, and that there were things in it which she wished to change. That slowed down the process and caused disruption and, again, misunderstanding among South Yorkshire businesses about what was happening. We then had the botched consultation, which I shall return to, and more recently the four leaders fighting about whether they are going to be in a Yorkshire deal or a South Yorkshire deal. All this undermines business confidence in the deal going forward, and it must stop. It does not instil confidence in local business, and it shows a lack of clear local leadership to deliver the devolution deal.

The botched consultation was a basic mistake. It did not ask the people in the consultation whether Chesterfield Borough Council should be a member of Sheffield City Region. Why did Sheffield City Region, the combined authority or the four local leaders of the councils in South Yorkshire not see this basic mistake? The error, for which no one has apologised, taken responsibility or been held to account, has cost the South Yorkshire taxpayer dearly. I thank BBC Radio Sheffield for putting in a freedom of information request that has shown exactly how much taxpayers in South Yorkshire are paying for that mistake. The consultation cost just over £104,000. The legal costs to Sheffield City Region to defend Derbyshire County Council’s judicial review are £130,000. Furthermore, the taxpayers of Sheffield City Region have had to fund Derbyshire County Council’s costs of £161,000. That is over £430,000 of taxpayers’ money wasted on a consultation that has stopped, or at least stalled, the devolution deal that is about empowering our local area to deliver greater economic impact. The costs do not include the 500 hours of officer time at both Derbyshire County Council and Sheffield City Region, or the London fees. It is estimated that overall the deal will cost taxpayers £500,000.

I have three simple questions for the Minister. First, does he agree that local leaders in South Yorkshire, who have wasted £500,000 of taxpayers’ money on this botched consultation, should be held to account and apologise? Secondly, does the in/out dithering approach to this £1 billion deal not undermine confidence locally and should it not stop immediately? Thirdly, what message are the Government sending to local leaders back in South Yorkshire that this kind of dithering and incompetence must stop to get the deal over the line so that business and our local economy can move forward?

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to oppose Amendment 150. I am sure that noble Lords will listen very carefully to the arguments that have not yet been made. I should make it clear that I speak as someone who is firmly in favour of foreign students. I agree with much of what my noble friend Lord Hannay had to say, and it is hard to disagree with most of the contributions that we have heard this afternoon from people who run universities and colleges, who know students and who are absolutely clear about the benefits of foreign students. I agree with that.

However, that is not the issue. The issue is whether there is a problem here in relation to immigration—a massive issue for the public—and, if so, what should be done about it? Is it sensible, viable or feasible to make immigration policy by legislation? I rather doubt that, and if your Lordships look a little more carefully at this amendment, you will see that there are matters in it that do not square up with the reality of how the immigration system works and really go beyond legal matters in terms of trying to suggest what policies should be.

The first, most incredibly obvious, point to make—and it has not been made yet—is that any student who comes here, does his course, maybe works for a while and then goes home, does not contribute to net migration. They are counted in and they are counted out: they do not make any difference to net migration. What is more, all of our competitor countries mentioned today—Canada, the United States, and Australia—include, by the way in which they calculate their immigration figures, their students who stay on. There is no question about that. Therefore, the issue for public policy is, surely, how many do stay on illegally, not how many stay on legally. As my noble friend Lord Bilimoria mentioned, that is a matter, at the moment, of intense scrutiny by the ONS and the Home Office, and rightly so. That issue needs to be resolved. If there is a serious degree of overstaying, that has to be dealt with. If the statistics are weak, then we need to change our tune and perhaps change our policy.

It is not clear to me what, in practice, this amendment is intended to achieve; in the real world, the ONS will continue to use the international passenger survey in order to assess the flow of students in both directions—exactly the same definitions used by all of our competitors. If the amendment is intended to mean that students should be ignored, both on their arrival and on their departure, there is simply no measure whatever of whether they contribute to net migration or not. As international students from outside the EU now contribute 46,000 a year to net migration, it is a significant number. We do not know whether that is accurate, but it is a significant part of the case and needs to be considered.

Therefore, this proposed new clause will not clarify matters: it will only add to confusion over the numbers. If its only purpose is, as some noble Lords have suggested, to require the Government, when all the numbers are put together, to put into a separate paragraph those who are students, that is fine, but that is a political decision, not a matter for legislation. Whoever takes that decision is going to have to say, “Now wait a minute: what happens if we actually do that?”. I can think of one or two newspapers that might add them straight back in and then accuse the Government of fiddling the figures. That needs to be borne in mind.

Lastly, subsection (3) of the proposed new clause seeks to legislate to prevent any tightening of conditions for foreign students. Surely that is a matter for policy and not law. The House will be aware, I hope, that there are very strong pressures on our immigration system and, in particular, that there has been widespread abuse at the college level. The National Audit Office estimated that in one year, to 2010, about 50,000 students from the Indian subcontinent came here to work rather than to study. That largely explains the drop in students from India, which has been referred to once or twice. The House certainly knows that 900 bogus colleges have lost their licence to bring in foreign students. That is a massive number. This has been a scandal that has gone on for years and I very much regret that from the academic lobby, which should be powerful, accurate and on the case, hardly a word have we heard. I sometimes wonder whether some of the stuff put out by Universities UK gives a negative impression of our universities. These are the people who have been complaining and complaining for six years—of course foreign students are going to think that something is up and they are not terribly welcome.

I turn now to the university level, which I think is what most noble Lords have been talking about. We cannot preclude the possibility that there will, in future, be scams that apply to universities. Noble Lords will remember, I hope, that in 2011-12 the highly trusted sponsor licences were suspended from Glasgow Caledonian University, Teesside University and London Metropolitan University. Why? Because they had been on the fiddle. What will happen in the future if this amendment is passed and a raft of smaller, less distinguished universities than those mentioned by my noble friends start fiddling the system, one way or another? The Government’s hands will be bound by law. That cannot possibly make any sense.

In my view, these amendments do not amount to scrutiny nor to holding the Government to account. Rather, they are an attempt to make policy by legislation. I suggest to the House—and I am not in a majority tonight—that that is wrong both in practice and in principle.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I did not intend to speak but when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Green, I understand that what he believes to be fact, others perceive to be opinion. It seems to me that we need to get this straight. We are not talking about bogus colleges in this amendment at all. The noble Lord has drawn attention to the example of 2012. I do not normally go out of my way to defend a Conservative-led Government, but that example actually demonstrated that the toughening-up of the system in higher education was working, albeit there were questions at the edges in relation to the 10% threshold. However, it also demonstrated that the system of inquiry and review was secure.

What we are talking about tonight has to be good for Britain, by common sense, morality and economy. It has to be good for Britain for a psychological reason, which I probably need to try to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Green. It is true that students who come in and go out eventually contribute to the net migration calculation. But if we have a drive to bring people to the United Kingdom, which I think virtually everyone in this House wants, then when those increased numbers come in they show up in the immigration figures as a net increase, but it is down the line that they show up as a net decrease. By driving to bring people here, you negatively affect the psychology of the way in which people perceive net migration. If higher education students are taken out of the figures, it would immediately reduce the perceived totals—the headlines to which the noble Lord referred in the tabloid newspapers for which he has written and for which, from time to time, I have written myself.

It is all about the way people perceive that the Government are failing in their net migration targets because things are included that should not be, specifically higher education students. People see the headline figure and they react to it—understandably so, because they do not have the arguments put in the way that we are debating them tonight. I am sorry to delay your Lordships’ House but when the noble Lord, Lord Green, speaks, my hackles rise and my intellect demands that I at least try to counteract his lifelong drive to reduce the number of people coming to the United Kingdom.