Brexit: Medical Research and Innovation

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 21st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of our unique life science industries. Regarding the clinical trials regulation, preparations are continuing to implement that regulation in 2018 because we remain in the EU while negotiations continue. Of course, a great repeal Bill will come before Parliament after the next Queen’s Speech. That will end the authority of EU law and return power to the UK, but we will transpose current EU law into domestic law while allowing for amendments to take account of the future negotiated UK-EU relationship in this and other areas.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that if we are to succeed in medical science research and innovation we need more home-grown science and maths graduates? That requires more science and maths teachers in our schools. Is she aware that teacher training targets are being missed, that vacancies are rising, that retention rates are falling, and that now more than a quarter of maths and science teachers have no relevant post A-level qualifications? What action are the Government taking?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The situation on STEM teaching is incredibly important. Indeed, thinking about our skills and how they relate to our industrial base, and our research and innovation will be a key strand of our industrial strategy, on which we will issue a consultation paper this side of Christmas.

Nissan: Sunderland

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. On these Benches, we are of course pleased that 35,000—some people argue 42,000—direct and indirect jobs have been saved because of the Nissan decision. We too join the tributes that have been made to the workforce and to Nissan for its commitment to the United Kingdom. But we remain unclear about cost, unclear about whether or not the deal extends beyond the Nissan Motor Company, unclear about the implications for sectors other than automotive and, frankly, completely in the dark about where the Government are seeking to take us. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, we wonder whether we have heard all there is to be told about the Nissan deal.

The Business Secretary says his negotiating demeanour—to use his word—will be to try to ensure continued access to the markets in Europe without tariffs and without bureaucratic impediments. What is the fallback position if he fails? WTO rules do not allow compensation to be paid to Nissan for imposed tariffs, so what will happen then? Alternatively, are the Government seeking partial membership—for some sectors and not others—of the single market and customs union? After all, the Prime Minister has said that membership of the customs union is not a binary affair. Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister? Is she aware that experts simply cannot see a system where there is, for example, free movement for cars but not for bicycles? Does the Prime Minister know something that the rest of us do not?

If the Business Secretary succeeds in a tariff and bureaucracy-free solution for cars, who will then have responsibility for the manufacturing regulations? Will the UK have a say on them? That will be so important, not least for the specialist car sector and for our work, as the Minister said, on electric and driverless cars. What guarantee can the Government give Nissan in the long term if we do not have a voice in any regulatory framework? What of those other sectors, including aerospace, pharmaceuticals, the service sector and many others including the millions of small businesses? The Business Secretary has made clear that the Nissan deal is not a general deal. So is it the case simply that those who shout loudest get the best deal from the Government? If the Government cannot have a sector-specific customs union, will they stay in the customs union entirely? If so, why do we have a Secretary of State for International Trade trotting around the world proposing deals which would of course be illegal?

The Nissan saga shows all too clearly that the Government do not have a clear plan and that their idea of not having a running commentary on Brexit is, frankly, laughable. When Cabinet discussions are leaked, and when some companies and not others are given specific assurances, it causes confusion and rumour that impact on the economy and the confidence of millions of business owners, savers and investors across the country. Does the Minister agree that it would be better if the Government came to Parliament with a clear statement of their intentions for negotiations and then let Parliament have a vote on that negotiating strategy? We would like to hear the answer.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Foster of Bath, for their support for this important investment by Nissan. We are right to welcome it so widely. It seems to me a very long-term decision—a new plant and a new supply chain—and I congratulate everyone involved. It is in everyone’s interest and shows the strength of our economy. It builds on three decades of success, supported by all parties, in Sunderland and for Nissan.

What is the best way to start on the nature of the assurances? I emphasise that this is not a compensation package. That is important in relation to all the points that have been made. This was about convincing Nissan of the UK’s continuing competitiveness. Governments regularly invest in UK competitiveness by supporting businesses making major investment decisions. This investment has been secured thanks to the highly skilled workforce, the strong partnership between government and industry that we now have, and long-term investment in new technology and innovation. Those same strengths are what matters to the other sectors and other companies that noble Lords have touched on. There is real progress with the announcement that these two important, new, potentially world-leading models will be made in the UK.

I set out in my Statement the importance of electric cars. I do not apologise for the fact that putting the two departments together helps with the electrification of vehicles and encourages those sectors of industry in the UK to tool up to be world-competitive. That is also helped by the departments coming together in BEIS, the curiously pronounced new department.

On Brexit, as the Prime Minister has said, the Government want British companies to have maximum freedom to trade with and operate in the single market and to let European businesses do the same here. People do not emphasise often enough the huge mutuality of interest. That has to be taken into account in the Brexit negotiations that are being developed.

I do not want to stray into a running commentary, which would go beyond my brief, but we have been showing Nissan and others that we are committed to getting the best possible deal from the future relationship that we will be negotiating with the European Union. We wish to ensure and assure the competitiveness of the British economy, which is what they have been so pleased about. We understand the concerns of industry, and it will be a priority of our negotiation to support UK car manufacturers.

We are working across government in a joined-up way, coming to the correct, mature decisions, and we have an ambition to do the very best for our industries. That includes the other industries mentioned. We have been working across the divide as part of the Brexit process. We have 50 streams of work looking at the different sectors, including aerospace, pharma and steel, where there has been some good progress since we last debated it in the Chamber, with the reopening of the plate mills in Scotland and progress in Scunthorpe and, I would say, Port Talbot.

Finally, I should mention the industrial strategy. We are determined to ensure that the UK is a competitive place to manufacture and to have financial services and all the other things that have been mentioned. As we develop the industrial strategy, we want to work with companies such as Nissan across the economy to ensure that we get the very best results for Britain.

I shall close at that point. I have tried to answer the questions. I will need to come back to the noble Lord on the training numbers.

BBC

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Thursday 12th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter is unwell, so it falls to me to respond to the Statement from these Benches. I know that my noble friend shares my view that the BBC is the best broadcaster in the world and one of the best gifts of this nation to the world—a treasured institution, respected and trusted around the world, and playing a central role in the wider creative industries. Nothing should be done to undermine trust in the BBC or the financial and editorial independence, the impartiality, and the scale and scope of the BBC. These are the tests against which the White Paper and the charter should be judged.

I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement but can she confirm whether the one-day debate that she has promised in your Lordships’ House will take place after we have had an opportunity to see the draft charter and agreement?

There is much in the White Paper that we on these Benches welcome: for example, the acceptance of the recommendation from your Lordships’ Communications Committee for an 11-year charter, to decouple the charter review process from the general election cycle and to allow full consultation and dialogue. We also welcome the abolition of the BBC Trust, which had the impossible task of being on the one hand a flag-waver for the BBC and on the other a regulator of the BBC. We support the establishment of the unitary board and an independent regulator. We also welcome the fact that diversity is to be enshrined in the new charter’s public purposes. We, too, are pleased, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was, that some of the rumours have proved to be unfounded. Top-slicing the licence fee for a contestable fund would have been extremely damaging. Interfering in the scheduling of programmes would have been unacceptable and forcing the BBC to sell off BBC Worldwide or its stake in UKTV would have been economic madness.

However, there are still areas of concern. The 11-year charter period, which is welcome, helps protect independence and impartiality but also provides security in terms of planning and investment for the BBC and stability for the wider creative industries that relate to the BBC. All that would be undermined if the mid-term review allows for the unpicking of bits of the charter itself. I hope that the Minister can give us assurances that this will not be the case.

While we welcome the establishment of the unitary board, we do not believe that the independence of the BBC will be achieved if non-executive members of the board are government appointees. Although the Government currently appoint all members of the BBC Trust, it is a far less powerful body than the proposed unitary board, which will set the BBC’s editorial direction, make key decisions on programmes and even have a say on how the BBC manages news. Giving these important powers to government appointees will understandably lead to accusations that we are creating a state broadcaster and not a public service broadcaster. All non-executives on the new board should be appointed by an independent panel, not by the Government. I hope that the Minister can explain clearly to this House why she appears to disagree.

There also needs to be greater clarity about the new role of the NAO. Can the Minister give absolute assurances that the charter and agreement, and the appropriate safeguards to which she referred in her Statement, will ensure that the NAO will not be able to second-guess or interfere in the BBC’s editorial or creative judgments? To echo the noble Lord, Lord Collins: can the Minister also give an absolute assurance that when the annual £20 million for the proposed contestable fund from unallocated licence fee money runs out, the BBC will not have to pick up the tab for its continuation? Can she explain to us where the money will come from?

Ensuring the independence of the BBC from government interference will be aided by providing a role for Parliament. Votes in both Houses on the draft charter, or acceptance of my noble friend Lord Lester’s proposals for statutory underpinning of the BBC, would be wise and I would welcome hearing the Minister’s views on these ideas. The BBC is the best broadcaster in the world. It is vital that the Government do nothing to damage that reputation.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly agree that the BBC is the best broadcaster in the world and I am grateful for the guarded welcome that has been given this morning. I should perhaps add that the noble Lord, Lord Hall, who is a Member of this House, has said today that:

“This White Paper delivers a mandate for the strong, creative BBC the public believe in. A BBC that will be good for the creative industries—and most importantly of all, for Britain”.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, made a point that we often agree on, which is that the devil is in the detail. I am sure we will come to discuss detail on this White Paper in the weeks and months ahead, but I will seek to respond briefly to the points that he and the noble Lord, Lord Foster, made.

We have tried to put independence at the heart of the proposals we have set out today. In relation to the executive board itself, I refer the House to page 50 of the White Paper, because it sets out very clearly exactly how the appointments to the unitary board will be made. A majority of members will of course be appointed by the BBC, and there will be a non-executive chair. As I explained in the Statement, that chair has already been appointed for a transitional term up to 2018, providing valuable continuity. The non-executive deputy chair will also be a public appointment. There will then be public appointments involving the nations—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—but all other non-executive members will be BBC board appointments.

It is good to know how the contestable fund will work at last after so much speculation. I set out that we will establish a contestable fund because we want to enhance plurality and provision, for which £20 million a year has been found for three years. It will enable the BBC to look at things such as children’s TV more imaginatively and is intended to fund underserved genres. I hope it will reassure noble Lords to know that we will be consulting on the scale of the fund and how it will operate. I do not see it at all as an attack on the fundamentals of the BBC; I see it as a great way of encouraging more creativity in this country.

There were questions about distinctiveness, which is rightly a key focus. We want the BBC to be different. It has other priorities to commercial broadcasters, and can take more risks and can innovate. That has been embraced by the BBC director-general, who has seen it as a driving force. He, of course, will be the editor-in-chief under the new system enshrined in the charter, which I think will help to offer reassurance going forward.

I wanted to say two or three things about a vote. First, we recognise how important the scrutiny of both Houses, including this House, is, and we have demonstrated that. We have had debates here which we have listened to, we have had excellent reports by the committees involved in both Houses and we have made it clear that the White Paper needs careful consideration. We have informed the House that there will be a debate in the coming Session.

I take the point that was made about the draft charter. I am not sure I can give an answer on that today, but I will bear it in mind. We will consider whether there should be a vote in Parliament, but I remind the House that there would be disadvantages in a vote as well as advantages. My noble friend Lord Grade said yesterday that:

“One of the underpinnings of the independence of the BBC is the fact that there is never a vote on the BBC in either House”—

poetic licence—

“and that is what has contributed”—

this is the important point—

“the most to its independence”.—[Official Report, 11/5/16; col. 1741.]

I tend to concur with that view, and would say that the BBC has been enshrined in royal charter for 90 years—a system which has served us well and preserved its independence.

BBC Royal Charter

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, S4C and the Welsh language are important and I think we have talked before about “Pobol y Cwm”, which I used to watch on maternity leave. We have protected the funding at nearly £7 million and the BBC has confirmed that it will continue to protect its funding. Of course, there is a great creative operation in Cardiff, which I have visited, embracing both the Welsh BBC and S4C.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the charter lasting for a good period of time. To guarantee security for both planning and investment, will she ensure that the charter lasts for at least 10 years and that there is no attempt during any mid-term review to change it?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

The length of time that the charter lasts will be one of the key issues that we address in the White Paper in May.

Press Regulation

Debate between Lord Foster of Bath and Baroness Neville-Rolfe

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

As the Secretary of State made clear in a speech before Christmas, he is reflecting on whether now is the time to bring in that provision. The noble Lord is right: it sits on the statute book—there is no suggestion of doing anything about that—but we are reflecting on when to commence it.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, further to that question and answer, does the Minister agree that an effective press regulator, as well as protecting the public, should also protect ambitious watchdog journalists from the threat of ruinous court costs by wealthy and powerful people who try to prevent publication of awkward stories? Notwithstanding the comments of my noble friend Lord Lester, does the Minister agree that this is another reason why the Secretary of State should rapidly enact the court costs incentives, which have already been agreed by Parliament?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I am not sure that I see it quite that way. The extended exemplary damages are a good thing and a good incentive. We need a free press; the system is getting under way; and the Secretary of State is entirely right to think about as and when—and when and if—to bring in the costs provisions, which of course sit on the statute book and can be commenced at any time.