Scrutiny of Secondary Legislation

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Lords Chamber

I find this Motion well founded in its subject matter and timing. I do not think that the delay was solely the result of the general election. That merely exacerbated the repressive timetable that had already been set.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and the Minister will be pleased to hear that I will concentrate my remarks on its work. Our task is to keep the Government up to scratch so that Parliament can properly scrutinise secondary legislation. I thank my noble friend for moving this Motion, which draws attention to this work and helps us in carrying it out.

What was wrong with these regulations? I do not want to repeat everything that has been said but, as my noble friend explained, we were unhappy with both the drafting and the process. We were unhappy with the definition of a “person with significant control”, and explained why that was unclear. We were unhappy with the fact that, although it was promised, there was no analysis of the consultation—this, of course, is standard practice. As my noble friend said, the impact assessment came two weeks after the regulations were laid. When it did come, there was no assessment of the value to be gained from the cost to business.

These regulations were laid in a rush. As the noble Baroness and my noble friend explained, instead of the normal 21 days between a regulation being laid and it coming into force, there were only two or three days. When we drew the Government’s attention to this, we were told that it was “because of the election”. However, as others have pointed out, the consultation ended in November 2016, so why the delay? If the Government want Parliament to scrutinise regulations properly, everything should be done in good time and with proper care; otherwise, Ministers will be called into account—that is what we have to do.

The committee wrote to Stephen Barclay MP, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, about its concerns. Perhaps it was because of those concerns that, in his reply, he helpfully said that HM Treasury was instituting new proceedings and that he would become the “secondary legislation champion”. That was good news, but that was in July. Will the Minister confirm that this has actually happened, because it would greatly assist Parliament in its scrutiny and the public in their understanding of the law?

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for moving the Motion. I was in the middle of reading my notes seeking to answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and then realised that it was my time to speak. Perhaps he might bear with me as I quickly try to offer a response.

We can confirm that Stephen Barclay is now acting as the secondary legislation champion, as set out in his letter of 17 July to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, chair of that committee. The new prioritisation and planning process is now operational. I will come back to some of those points, because they overlap with points made by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who talked about focusing more on procedure rather than on questioning the argument for the need for these money laundering regulations to be put in place.

I thank the noble Lord for bringing about this debate. I am sure noble Lords will agree that protecting the public and our economy from financial crime is vitally important and something that cannot be taken lightly. Indeed, the size of the UK’s economy, our open economy and the attractiveness of the London property market to overseas investors exposes the UK to money laundering—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about the importance of London. The Home Office estimates that serious and organised crime costs the UK at least £24 billion every year, which is a significant sum. I am sure that we all agree on that.

In June 2017, the Government updated their anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing regime. In doing so, the EU’s fourth money laundering directive was transposed into UK law. This was mainly through the 2017 money laundering regulations, but also through two linked statutory instruments produced by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. This brought the UK’s anti-money laundering regime in line with the latest global standards.

The Government’s overarching objective in this area is to ensure that the UK’s anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing regime is current, effective and proportionate. The money laundering regulations have made it clear to both firms and supervisors that they must take a risk-based approach, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, taking steps to avoid putting disproportionate burdens on businesses.

In terms of processes of implementation, before the directive was transposed, the Government sought views and evidence through public consultations. The noble Baroness referred to the consultation exercise and the 186 responses that were received. The responses to the autumn 2016 consultation, which was also referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, were used to inform the Government’s decisions. Therefore, the draft regulations were published in March 2017.

The UK was legally obliged to transpose the directive by 26 June 2017 and meeting that deadline was imperative to minimise uncertainty for businesses that had prepared for implementation on this date. While I am not trying to suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that this is in any way an excuse, the Dissolution of Parliament came at a difficult time for the implementation of those directives because it was not possible to lay the money laundering regulations and the two separate but linked BEIS statutory instruments within the appropriate timeframe. That is something that we have acknowledged in our communications with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, noted, we were unable to lay one of the impact assessments along with the regulations. A draft was however published in September 2016, alongside the first consultation, and eight months prior to the regulations coming in to force.

I shall now address some of the key policy questions raised by noble Lords in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, rightly pointed out that the gambling sector, except for casinos, has been exempted from the scope of the money laundering regulations. While the Government recognise that money laundering risks exist in the gambling industry, in comparison with other regulated sectors, they are lower-risk. That was confirmed by the national risk assessments in 2015 and 2017. The Government will keep that decision to exempt gambling service providers, except casinos, under review as we move forward.

On the national risk assessment that the Treasury and Home Office must produce, I can confirm that that was published on 26 October 2017. It had the benefit of input from across government and the private sector. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also raised the question of the different levels of consumer due diligence that firms should apply and the need to be consistent across sectors. Businesses are required to carry out risk assessments and base their level of customer due diligence checks in line with those risks. To ensure consistency across sectors, all guidance is reviewed by the Money Laundering Advisory Committee, which includes representatives from law enforcement, the Government, industry and regulators, so there is a voice to be heard there. The Treasury is also in the process of reviewing the guidance and ensuring that messaging across sectors is consistent, which I know was a concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about regulators and the strain on their resources, I can confirm that anti-money laundering responsibilities in the FCA, HMRC and the Gambling Commission are paid for by relevant businesses, which they supervise. The noble Lord also notes the steps that businesses have taken to comply with the regulations include appointing a compliance officer. Around 100,000 businesses are subject to the money laundering regulations and, where appropriate, based on the size and nature of the businesses, they may be required to take steps, including appointing a compliance officer. I can also confirm, as I was asked, that the money laundering regulations specifically state what mechanisms are in place if businesses fail to comply.

Consumer and Personal Debt

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Haskel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to deal with the concerns of the Money Advice Service and the Financial Conduct Authority about the level of consumer and personal debt in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)]

My Lords, with the permission of the House and at the request of my noble friend Lord Haskel, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Public Sector Pay Cap

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2017 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Haskel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to review the one per cent cap on public sector pay.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, we have been through difficult times these past few weeks. The response of our police, fire and ambulance services, our security and social services, our hospitals and our doctors has been absolutely outstanding and inspirational. But when we realise that, because of pay restraint, their earnings have effectively decreased in recent years, some of us feel a little bit awkward—not to say hypocritical. That is why in recent weeks, this topic has generated lots of heat but very little light.

As a result, I thought that noble Lords on all sides of the House would welcome a more measured debate that generates more light than heat, because these events remind us how much we depend on our public services. In 2015, the Chancellor announced that the Government would fund public sector workforces for a pay award of 1% for four years. In the debate on the Queen’s Speech, the Government voted down a Labour amendment to end this 1% pay cap. Self-inflicted heat was generated when, despite this, anxious Ministers concerned about recruitment and retention in their departments pressed for pay rises above 1%. They referred to the recommendations of the Government’s independent pay review boards. More heat is generated because of the obvious split in the Cabinet, with the Chancellor taking a firmer, more rigid view. Conservative Home adds to the heat by telling us that this behaviour is manoeuvring for the leadership of the party, and tweets create yet more heat by referring to finding £1 billion on a money tree in Belfast.

So let us see whether we can throw a bit more light on the subject. To do so, we need to know that there are eight pay review bodies, mainly covering the vocational part of the public sector, which recommend pay levels in their sectors. They take evidence and send their recommendations to the Government. They were originally created to avoid protracted disputes but, since 2010, when inviting them to make their recommendations, the Government have also told them what they expect the results to be. When you do a management course, lesson one is: do not blur the lines of responsibility and accountability. Otherwise, you cause confusion and irritation, which is exactly what has happened. Either we have pay set by the review bodies, or by the Government. The current system blurs responsibility, creates dissatisfaction and certainly does not help to produce a thriving public service.

The letter to the review bodies setting out their work for 2018-19 will soon be going out. What will it say: to review pay by looking at the evidence, or not to bother, because of a cap of 1%? In France, public service pay is determined by central government, but at least that is honest.

Many think that this dismissive attitude towards pay review bodies stems from years of ideological assault on public services: private good, public bad. But we have learned that even when public services are contracted out to the private sector, it costs taxpayers more than they think. It is estimated that nearly 1 million low-paid private sector workers actually work in outsourced public service jobs—social care, school staff and hospital service staff. Many of the contracts to supply those services were won on the basis of low pay, so it is not surprising that most of those 1 million workers rely on tax credits to make ends meet. So the taxpayer pays in the end, but from another pocket.

Lifting the pay cap may enable public sector employers to provide better value by being better employers, instead of contracting out to employers subsidised by tax credits who rely on the minimum wage.

Both manifestos in the recent election spoke of the state becoming more active: more active government. One reason why this Government have put a cap on public service pay is that productivity, on average, is static—in the public and private sectors. In his Statement last Wednesday in reply to a question on productivity in the public sector, the Minister replied in terms of growth. What he did not say is that many workers are now more expensive to employ per unit of output because of low productivity, and that is why there is a pay cap. Yet the Government have an industrial strategy partly designed to deal with this. Can we not review this strategy before the White Paper is issued, with particular reference to raising productivity in the public sector as a means of removing the pay cap?

Charlie Mayfield’s report on Tuesday, launching a movement to raise productivity through better management and skills, applies just as much to the public sector as to the private. Is the public sector working with the catapults or with Innovate UK? My inquiries say, only indirectly. I put it to the Minister that this is a much more constructive narrative than having a pay cap, and that it is within this narrative of greater productivity and improved public services that one can speak of tax rises. Surely they will be inevitable. Within this narrative, one can justify continuing to broaden the tax base, as the Government are already doing on expensive homes and flats. They can extend council tax beyond band H and bring heavier taxes on activities which damage the environment. That makes sense in this changed narrative of better public services. It makes a lot more sense than a pay cap.

Some compare pay in the public and private sectors. It is complicated but a recent paper from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research shows that, taking into account pensions and other benefits, pay restraint has meant that public sector workers have lost 12% since 2010 while private sector workers have lost 2%. So, the pay of public and private sector workers has now become more or less equal.

It was not surprising that on Monday we received a report from the education review panel drawing our attention to serious staff shortages and recruitment and retention problems. We had reports of 96,000 teachers taking strike action in the 12 months to May. We have had similar warnings in health, care and local authority services. Cabinet Ministers are rightly worried about this in their own departments, yet the Treasury’s official position is that the 1% pay cap holds.

I have tried to point out the dishonesty of and damage caused by hiding behind the pay review bodies. I have tried to point out the cost to the taxpayer in money terms and inferior public services, and how caps can lead to cuts, and I have tried to point out what can be done about it by a Government who believe in action. I look forward to hearing what other noble Lords and the Minister have to say.

Women: Contribution to Economic Life

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Royall spoke about looking forward to speaking to her grandchildren. I have reached the ripe old age where my grandchildren ask me what the biggest change is that I have seen during my life. When I compare the life of my mother with that of my daughter and granddaughters, I have little hesitation in saying, “The contribution of women”. But although this change has been enormous, there is still a long way to go. It is in the spirit of discussing what is yet to be done that I, too, welcome this women’s day debate. Most of my career has been in business and it is here that there is much to do, and much benefit to gain, as many have pointed out. I think that this is captured in the United Nations theme for this year’s International Women’s Day—“Equality for women is progress for all”.

Some have tried to show that companies with women on the board produce better financial results. I have always been rather sceptical of this because so many other factors affect the financial results of a business. It is getting the combination right that matters. Businesses with a greater gender diversity reflect society, and a good business serves society. Perhaps this is why greater gender diversity benefits the financial results of these businesses. It is this attitude of serving society that enables businesses to embrace diversity rather than just help women to fit into a male-dominated culture. As others have said, men, too, benefit from flexible working hours and spending time with their families. Embracing this culture of diversity enables women to flourish, and their flourishing talents, knowledge, skills and abilities benefit the company and the nation.

So how do you do this? For the answer I am grateful to the Chartered Management Institute for its Women in Management paper. As did the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, the paper points out that this issue is not just about women on boards; it concerns women in all parts of a business. It is about unblocking the career pipeline and allowing women’s talents to flourish. As my noble friend Lady Prosser said, it is not just a matter of a glass ceiling that has to be broken; it is getting round an obstacle course—barriers, as the Minister put it. Enabling women to overcome this obstacle course and these barriers is the mark of a business that truly embraces diversity.

Like the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo—I welcome his maiden speech—I support employers who embrace flexible working for men and women. They understand that results are more important than merely being present. This means creating supportive networks and mentoring opportunities for female managers and providing them with management training and qualifications throughout their careers—for instance, providing them with training and career development when they are in their 40s, when there is less family pressure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, pointed out.

Women’s ambitions and the way they get results can differ from men’s. For example, many women prefer to work in transformation and interactive management. They work better in less hierarchical businesses. This may mean challenging corporate cultures. A company that believes in diversity will understand this and provide mentoring support for this kind of career development. This may mean a more varied career structure, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, indicated, and redefining workplace cultures, but being true to yourself and redefining success is the hallmark of many of today’s successful businesses. The Government have recognised this. In January this year, ACAS published a guide to handling requests to work flexibly in a reasonable manner—a guide designed to help employers and employees with their statutory rights regarding flexible working. WISE—Women into Science and Engineering—mentors women entering science and technology in all of this. The Women of Influence initiative also supports female scientists in this way. This flexibility is invaluable.

Many have spoken of role models. An interesting bit of research by the Chartered Management Institute looks at the importance of role models. We need to replace the tired old role models, many of them men, with women such as Karren Brady or the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who is in her place. There is a lack of female role models, not only in the public eye but also in the workplace. Part of management training is for line managers to set a good example and be a good role model in their wider organisation. After all, this is how you engage people and improve their performance. In this regard, bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said about engineering role models, I congratulate the University of Sheffield, which has built a magnificent new building for its graduate school of engineering and named it after Pam Liversidge, one of the world’s leading female engineers and the first woman to be president of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers—a wonderful role model indeed.

An important part of embracing gender diversity is to close the gender pay gap. The Office for National Statistics tells us that in full-time work the gender pay gap increased from 9.5% in 2012 to 10% in 2013. Others—my noble friend Lady Prosser quoted Oxfam in this regard—put the figure as high as 19%. Whoever is right, the gap is there. It would be very helpful if the Government could give us the official figures, as there is so much dispute over them.

The Chartered Management Institute tells us that the average bonus given to male directors was double the average given to women, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, pointed out. Some say that this is due to women pursuing a different career path. Others point out that big bonuses encourage the short-term interests of managers rather than the long-term interests of the business. The gap is less pronounced at lower levels because women are the majority of the workforce at entry level, but they lose out on top positions and top pay. It seems to me that the way to tackle this is to measure and report on equality of pay and the percentage of women and men at junior, middle and senior levels. Some organisations may want to set targets to close these gaps. Yes, there is a useful joint government and business-led initiative called Think, Act, Report, which encourages employers to do this. It is designed to help companies to consider gender equality in a systematic way on issues such as recruitment, retention, promotion and pay. I hope that the Government will do more to publicise this scheme and encourage all employers to use it, and perhaps even name and shame those who do not.

Does the Minister agree that companies now face a financial imperative to hang on to women who are coming into the workforce? Some do so at graduate level and many are highly qualified, but many leave in their 30s because the workplace culture has been developed and designed by men and does not work for women. What a waste, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, put it. That is why it is becoming an economic imperative to make sure that women remain in the talent pipeline. We should do so by providing ways around the barriers—ways that are all part of a culture of gender diversity. That is yet another reason why gender diversity is a feature of a successful business.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2013 Grand Committee

I have to remind your Lordships that the usual channels have agreed that the next two groups will be combined.

Amendment 263

Moved by

Children and Families Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Grand Committee

Clause 32: Advice and information for parents and young people

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, there is an error in Amendment 119. It should read, “Page 26, line 16, after the first ‘responsible’, insert ‘and children’”.

Amendments 119 to 122 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, the Committee stands adjourned.

Committee adjourned at 7.54 pm.

Children and Families Bill

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

If Amendment 53 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 54 and 55 because of pre-emption.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I assume that I am allowed to speak to Amendment 54. I agree with, particularly, Amendment 55. It is extremely sensible because it cuts out the division of a child’s time, which all too many lay people see as “shared parenting”. Thank goodness the Government have taken those two words out of the draft Bill.

Clause 11 raises a technical legal point of considerable importance. It will affect the way in which all family judges and family magistrates try private law cases where the arrangements in relation to children have to be decided by the court. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would be affected by it sitting in the family proceedings court. I have discussed this clause with some members of the judiciary, who view it with some concern.

I start with a problem. If the clause becomes law, it will raise two potentially conflicting presumptions for the court to tackle. I regret to say, with the greatest respect, that the Minister will be wrong if he says what the noble Baroness said was in his brief. Under Clause 11 the court, in the various circumstances, is to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that the involvement of each parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare. That is a presumption. However, the whole basis of family child law is the presumption of the paramountcy of the welfare of the child, which is in Section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989.

“Where a court determines any question with respect to … of the upbringing of a child … the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration”.

That is engraved on the hearts of all family judges and magistrates. In order not to be appealed, they always put it at the beginning of all their judgments. It is extremely important.

The effect of Clause 11 is to bring in a second presumption. You cannot help it because you are presuming in Clause 11 and you are presuming in Section 1 of the Children Act. Those two presumptions potentially clash. Quite simply, a court can have only one presumption at a time.

This is not just me making a legalistic technical point. People might be forgiven for thinking that I am going back to my judicial days, but I promise that this is far broader than a legalistic point. The NSPCC and Coram are very concerned, and I am happy to adopt the points that they make. They make three very important points: this clause could lead to a shift in emphasis away from what is best for the child towards the feelings and desires of parents; it could inadvertently increase risk to children by putting pressure on parents to agree to contact arrangements that are unsuitable or dangerous in the erroneous belief that a court would order that kind of contact; and the proposed change is unnecessary because no evidence of a bias in the court system has been found.

It is not good enough to have two presumptions that the judge has to juggle which could clash. It is particularly difficult for family magistrates who are not lawyers. It is also important to bear in mind that the litigants in the cases to which this clause applies will be unrepresented in the absence of legal aid. As to the increased risk of harm to which the NSPCC and Coram refer, these unrepresented litigants have gone through the traumatic experience of a failed relationship. As I said earlier, 90% will not go to court, or only for an agreed order, 5% can be persuaded by the family information and assessment meeting and the remaining hardcore 5% will be extremely antagonistic towards each other. Some of them actually hate each other. They can hardly bear to be in the same room and the failed relationship has become corrosive. That is not a happy situation in which to make arrangements for their children. I regret to say that I have said from time to time that when parents are in dispute about their children, they are the last people who should ever make arrangements for their future. They are simply unsuitable.

However, one parent or the other may give way and agree to unsuitable access/contact—two failed words—because of the way in which this clause is framed and in the mistaken belief that that is what a court would order. Although the phrase “shared parenting” has been deleted, the public perception is that they will get 50% of the time. When they are not necessarily going to court, that is what one parent will try to impose on the other. Those who cannot agree are likely to hold out for more contact, and this will lead to increased litigation before the courts. The courts are already beginning to be clogged up as a result of the absence of legal aid in private family law cases, particularly at district judge level, where, I am told, district judge first appointments, which used to last half an hour, now go on for at least 45 minutes. The backlog of cases is bound to grow. Of course, the children will suffer while the parents go on fighting and carrying on their dispute about child arrangements because it will take longer for these cases to be heard.

My experience as a family judge and then as head of the family court is that judges look to parents rather than impose gender discrimination in favour of mothers. I made a very large number of decisions in favour of fathers, although Fathers 4 Justice did not believe me. If it had looked at my track record, it might have seen that that was the case. I cannot tell the Committee what Fathers 4 Justice did for me, but its members did lock the gate on one occasion so that I could not get out and I had to get my husband to get the bolt cutters to open it. They also had Batman and Robin on the roof of the law courts. Noble Lords may remember that they stopped Tower Bridge functioning for a week by climbing up to the top, and they also climbed up on to Buckingham Palace.

I know that fathers do not accept that there is no gender discrimination against them and in favour of mothers. However, as the NSPCC said, there is no independent evidence of a bias. The Justice Select Committee accepted that there was no such evidence, as did, I understand, the Children’s Minister in the other place. There is no evidence of bias in the courts in favour of one parent. Therefore, the changes appear to be based on perceived rather than actual bias. I hope that the Minister and those behind him will look at the experience in Australia. At this stage of the evening, I shall not go into that, but it has been unhappy, and it has used similar phraseology. Much of this otherwise admirable Bill is very much based on the Norgrove report, which interestingly does not support a change to the Children Act.

Having said all that, I recognise and support the intention behind the clause that the importance of both parents should be at the forefront of the court’s mind. It is very sad that countless children are losing one parent, generally the father, who leaves home and there is no further relationship between him and his children. That is a very sad situation. Of course, we must encourage the continuing involvement of both parents so that after they separate, both are encouraged to stay in touch. However, to make it a presumption is a step too far, and that is why I have not sought to delete this clause. I have sought to amend it to highlight the importance of both parents, but not to create a second presumption. My amendment leaves out the word “presume” and inserts “pay particular regard” to highlight to the judge that he or she must,

“pay particular regard, unless the contrary is shown, to the importance of the”—

and then the wording of the clause is followed.

This is an important matter that cannot be brushed aside. I am speaking because of the issue of presumption and the effect that it will have on the public who come to court. From my practical experience, I am extremely concerned about the impact on the overriding presumption of welfare not just in the courts—where I think most judges could cope with the provision, although they do not like to have two clashing presumptions—but in the minds of the public who are trying to come to some sort of settlement. That is worrying, and I ask the Government to look at this issue carefully. My amendment would meet the need to emphasise the importance of the relationship between the child and both parents and the continuing involvement of both parents, but would not create the real problem of competing presumptions.

Tourism: Music

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord on organising this music fest. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, told us that now is the time when music tourism is at its busiest. I quote the words of the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, Ed Vaizey, who said that,

“our creative and cultural sector is such a vital element in delivering economic growth, by encouraging economic investment through tourism and business”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, also reminded us, when responding to a debate last month in your Lordships’ House, the Minister told us that four in 10 leisure visitors to the UK cite heritage and culture as the primary motivation for their visit. This means that in 2011 more than 10 million inbound visitors to the UK engaged in some form of arts and culture. How much is related to music? UK Music commissioned research from Bournemouth University’s International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Research. It told us that music contributes £864 million a year to the national economy with an amazing 19,700 full-time jobs. This, of course, includes all kinds of music. My particular interest is in tourism and classical music, partly because I have always felt that festivals of classical music are less disruptive and classical music tourists seem to spend more and stay longer. Also, like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I just like classical music.

There are classical music festivals all over the country. The Manchester International Festival is on at the moment. The Proms start tomorrow. Music festivals at Edinburgh and our other great cities certainly attract people who would not normally come. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, told us about Liverpool and there are a large number of smaller music events at stately homes, churches and cathedrals, and other buildings in towns and villages. My noble friend Lady Liddell told us about such events in Scotland and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby told us about the festival in Buxton, which I attended last year. All of this illustrates the power of music to increase the number of people who come to a tourist destination.

Certainly, Arts Council England is aware of this. It is investing £3 million in cultural destinations to boost international and domestic tourism to these special places, both to stimulate the local economies and to provide visitors with world-class cultural experiences. Surely one such destination is Aldeburgh, a place mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. Of course, Aldeburgh would attract tourists without music because it is a charming seaside town on the Suffolk coast in an area of outstanding natural beauty, but music has transformed it into a world-class cultural and learning centre that attracts tourists throughout the year, contributing to the excellence of our musicians, about which the noble Lord, Lord Black, spoke. Music sustains a whole infrastructure of places to stay, eat, shop, play and hear music, learn and improve musical skills and develop talent, as well as all the other fringe activities—and all this with the attraction of being in an area of outstanding natural beauty.

The point that I wish to make is that 66 years ago the festival was started by Benjamin Britten and Peter Pears as a two-week event. Through hard work and clever and innovative management, Aldeburgh now attracts tourists not just for the two weeks of the festival but throughout the year. There is a prom season during August for holidaymakers, with proms featuring every kind of music. There are residences, masterclasses and orchestral and vocal development courses, and all of these involve concerts and are themselves a tourist attraction because of their excellence.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke of the need for hard facts. I shall give him some. To give a measure of what happens at Aldeburgh, the number of tickets sold during the two-week festival is 25,000. The number of tickets sold through the year is 100,000, music bringing tourism all year round, and not only from Britain. At this year’s festival alone, audiences were from more than 20 countries. Some 117 journalists visited the festival, with 43 from abroad representing 16 countries.

I hope that the Minister will join me in welcoming this successful model and congratulate the staff on turning a two-week festival into a year-round attraction. However, that has not been easy. First, Aldeburgh is away from the amenities of London and other major cities. Secondly, overnight the Government removed its co-ordinating structure, the only one available in this rural area, by abolishing the regional development agency. It was abolished at a time when the year-long Britten centenary celebrations, as well as all the other activities, were being planned in association with various arts organisations, the BBC, tourist organisations, schools, transport and the 101 other things that you need to co-ordinate arts and tourism successfully—just the kind of local co-ordination about which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke.

Therefore, in addition to planning the music, a new organisation had to be set up—a destination management organisation to promote tourism on the Suffolk coast. Indeed, Aldeburgh Music must be one of the few arts organisations, and perhaps the first, to become involved in setting up such an organisation. Yes, the work is being endorsed by the Norfolk and Suffolk local enterprise partnership, but it is new and still pretty embryonic. Perhaps the regional development agency had its faults but, instead of removing it on an ideological whim, the right thing to do was to rectify the faults and maybe reinvent the RDA to build on what was there. I hope that the Minister can assure me that in future more thought will be put into these changes, and that the institution that is now being built up will be sufficiently independent so as not to become a political plaything with an uncertain lifespan but, hopefully, can look forward to 10 or 20 years of life to develop arts, heritage, culture and tourism on the Suffolk coast.

My noble friend Lady Liddell said that we have to do better. That may mean money but, in the overall scheme of things the amounts of money are small. So I have two suggestions. They have been made before. After taking money from the lottery for the Olympics, I hope that the Government will review the lottery distribution and be generous to music. There is also the question of tourism and VAT, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. The Government are looking for growth. As other noble Lords have spoken, I have tried to show how music and tourism can deliver this. I hope the Minister will tell us how the Government will enable this. The right reverend Prelate reminded us that music raises our quality of life. There is another advantage. Music has shown itself to be an extraordinary driver of social mobility. We should all welcome that.

Olympic and Paralympic Games 2012

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness for moving this Motion. It has given us all an opportunity to relive some of those wonderful Olympic memories.

My particular interest is road cycling. The road race fortunately passed very close to my home, and so I benefit from a nice personal bit of legacy every weekend by cycling along smooth roads that were especially resurfaced for the Olympic event. However, that is far from the only infrastructure legacy; 75% of the funds spent went on buildings and infrastructure. The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, in his excellent maiden speech, told us how 30 years of regeneration in east London were squeezed into five years. I agree with my noble friend Lady Ford that it was a great achievement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, explained, the conversion of the Olympic site will be the major physical legacy, with new homes, new parks, new schools, and the training facility in east London, and there is the bringing into public use of the stadia, sporting facilities and so on. This is at a time when the underlying economy is weak.

The plans are impressive, but all will depend on how well the London Legacy Development Corporation carries them out. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, in her concern about how it will execute the social regeneration, the jobs for local people and the quality of life. Furthermore, there is still no agreement on who will take over the main stadium. Operators are being appointed for other facilities, but will those facilities be well used? Will the charges be reasonable if they have no public subsidy? Will all the ancillary services be provided? Will the open spaces be well maintained? We did well in meeting the deadline but will we do as well in delivering the legacy?

When the Olympic area was built, green issues were high on the agenda. The procurement process was used as a tool to introduce new products, new technologies and new designs, with wonderful results. Unfortunately, we were unable to persuade LOCOG to allow most of the suppliers, mainly British, fully to use the Olympics as a shop window, in spite of the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, so these firms were, in a way, deprived of some of their legacy.

However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the noble Lord, Lord Hall, and others that a good legacy would be a change in attitude towards disabled people. As the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, explained, London’s bid was for both the Olympic and Paralympic Games. By giving both equal prominence, London put disability into the limelight; the disabilities were not hidden away. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, explained how this made us more at ease with disability. She is right. We talked about it; we marvelled at modern prosthetics; and the disabled athletes were wonderful role models. So the legacy I would like to see is the elimination of the 2,095 cases of hate crime against disabled people recorded by the police last year.

What can the Government do to help this legacy? First, they can review the contract with Atos to manage the personal independence payments which will replace the disability living allowance from next year. Atos has caused so much distress to so many disabled people that the disability charities cannot work with it. Amazingly, the Government have said that this was not a factor in awarding the contract. If the Government are serious about securing the Olympic legacy for disabled people, perhaps they will review this. Secondly, disabled people must not be put at a disadvantage by the complicated reporting system being introduced when the universal credit scheme comes into force next year.

Let us not forget the legacy from the cultural Olympics and from volunteering. The noble Lord, Lord Deighton, explained how, by providing a structure for volunteering, the Olympics were able to harness a passion for volunteering that was surely greater than most of us could have imagined. I agree with him. The Games makers were one of the most successful aspects of the Games. Learning better how to harness this passion for volunteering might be the legacy which involves more people than all the other legacies added together. For instance, Ministers this week are talking about 1 million voluntary dementia friends. Add to this the legacy from the cultural Olympics; and I do not just mean theatre such as “The Hollow Crown”, theatre which most of us want to see again.

The noble Lord, Lord Hall, spoke of young musicians. I congratulate him on the Aldeburgh World Orchestra, an orchestra composed of more than 100 young musicians put together by Aldeburgh Music from many Olympic nations. They really gave quality performances. Is the Minister aware that all the auditions to put this orchestra together were done over the internet? By showing that it can be done, that is an interesting bit of legacy. Incidentally, I include the television coverage by Channel 4 and the BBC as part of both the cultural legacy and the health legacy.

My noble friend Lord Mitchell told us how most of us lived the Olympics via television. The production and the commentary, by people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, were so good that they must have encouraged increased physical activity. That must have something to do with the fact that virtually all sports clubs now have a waiting list. I see proof of this every weekend as, since the Olympics, when my wife and I enjoy the legacy of cycling on our nice, smooth road surfaces, we are joined by many more riders than before.

Economy: Growth

Lord Haskel Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Haskel]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lady Liddell that Aung San Suu Kyi is a hard act to follow. However, I would like to speak about something that she may recognise: namely, confidence. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, spoke about this in his very interesting remarks. The Government have missed out as regards confidence as the threat of a double recession and problems with the euro convinced them that there was no future—economic or political—in austerity alone. Sadly, the Government felt unable to adopt Labour’s five-point plan which comprised deferring or slowing down cutting the deficit, a temporary reduction in VAT and getting more young people into employment and training. In doing so the Government missed the fact that these actions would improve confidence by giving hope for the future. I do not agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said in that respect. It is the Government’s original policy of austerity alone that has contributed to this lack of confidence—a lack of confidence in the real economy, which is where the growth lies.

One reason for this failure is that we have a Government who think largely in terms of the financial sector. Money makes money. But you need the real economy, with goods and services that everyone who has been speaking in this debate has described, to create the money in the first place. This is where the growth will come from. This is where confidence is required. This is where we need to encourage and make positive sentiments, just as much as we need to in the financial markets. Yet this hardly features in the Government’s actions. What we have is a conventional pulling of financial levers—tight fiscal policy, loose monetary policy, and more or less quantitative easing. As the noble Lord, Lord Popat, said, this is not an ordinary crisis. I agree with him; and to help deal with it we all need to take every opportunity to build confidence to support and encourage the real economy.

I agree that Ministers talk about the march of the makers. They talk about the importance of competitiveness. Yes, the Plan for Growth laid out strategic aims, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, told us about them; but when practical opportunities arise to create confidence, the Government do not take them. In fact, they do the opposite.

Let me give you examples that have been raised in your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke about the Olympics. Twice the Government have been asked to take steps to relax the rules that the noble Lord complained about whereby British companies can use the Olympics as a shop window for their products. Twice the response has been what I can only call—with apologies to my noble and learned friends—a lawyer’s response, not a Minister’s response. Sure enough, only last week an article appeared in the Financial Times saying how this had been a blow to confidence because those companies felt they were,

“being left out in the cold”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the noble Lord, Lord Popat, and others are urging companies to export. They are right. Indeed, we sit on a committee looking into this. There may be problems with the euro, but business in Europe goes on. Firms want to export to the EU, but are not sure how. Since January 2010, it has been a legal requirement for each member state to have a single point of contact in English on the internet for the purposes of opening up their markets. However, this is not working, and the matter has been raised in your Lordships’ House. It has been raised by the Federation of Small Businesses but nothing has happened. The result has been that people say, “Why should I bother?”. Confidence therefore ebbs away.

The Government’s most recent low-interest lending scheme is designed to spur the banks to new lending. I agree on this occasion with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that clearly the money from quantitative easing and previous schemes is staying in the financial sector. It is not reaching the real economy. Project Merlin is not working and there is a great deal of wringing of hands about this. What do the Government do? Why, they offer more of the same with promises that this time it will work. The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, described this. Is this going to build up confidence and encourage the real economy to produce the growth that we all so desperately need? It is beginning to look as if this is a Government who never lose an opportunity to miss an opportunity to give confidence to the real economy. These are examples that we have discussed in your Lordships’ House, but there are many more examples elsewhere.

As well as taking these opportunities to build confidence, how else can the Government temper austerity with encouragement and build confidence? Certainly, infrastructure projects, about which many noble Lords have spoken, must help. We are all aware of capacity restraints, shortages and things that need replacing. However, to build confidence, it is also essential to understand what is happening in British business and industry, and then we can build on our strengths.

There are very few large British-owned industrial companies any more, and they have been shedding workers. What we do have is a large number of clever, lively, innovative and enterprising companies that specialise in selling their products, ideas and services to narrow markets—markets which very often they themselves have discovered and shaped, as my noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya described, and which often turn out to be large because we live in an age of global markets. All the data show that these companies are accounting for a larger and larger share of our economy, and they have been the ones taking on people. For example, Formula 1 may be a very narrow area of activity but the spin-off businesses, such as those producing rain-sensing wipers or the sensors that tell the pit about the driver’s physiology, have become worldwide businesses. The growing trend of mass customisation exactly suits this kind of business. Additive manufacturing is becoming a destructive technology in the same way that music databases on the internet are now closing down record shops. We are good at this sort of thing.

Nowadays, these companies often work in groups and clusters, supporting each other, to reduce risk and share knowledge. Business has become much more permeable, especially in the digital world which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, described. If the Government want to bring about growth and competitiveness early, these are the kinds of businesses they have to support and encourage. The Government can create confidence by championing their products, services and way of business, not by neglecting them. Ministers do not have to take it from me. The Government are well aware of what is going on. Each government department has a scientific adviser who must know about these products and services. Foresight, the Government’s own horizon-scanning service, has and is studying all this and is well aware of what is going on, as is the Technology Strategy Board.

As my noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya explained, our skills and education system need radical improvement, as does our infrastructure and financial system. We have to get 1 million people aged under 24 back into work, and, yes, our industrial base is too narrow, but that takes time. That is for tomorrow and the next day, but today we have to show a sense of urgency and deal with this unusual crisis. We have to find growth by showing support and encouragement, and by building confidence where our strengths lie; then tomorrow we can deal with the rest.