Race in the Workplace: The McGregor-Smith Review

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, on her report, which, as my noble friend Lady McDonagh said, is both practical and implementable, which make it a very welcome read. It is easy to see how she could arrive at that arrangement. I mean no disrespect to say this, and I hope the noble Baroness will not take it the wrong way, but the fact that it comes from the Conservative Benches and is written in a very level-headed and logical way makes its impact all the more powerful. We on these Benches, and other colleagues, have raised issues that she raises over a number of years but have not got the sort of response that I have heard today around the Chamber to the recommendations that have been made. I hope it bears also on the Minister when he comes to respond that this is a very well-considered report, which has come from a very interesting area in the political spectrum and has received support all round the House. As many people have picked up, it needs a lot more of a response from the Government than we have seen so far. I hope that when the Minister responds, he can fill in some of the gaps in the Government’s response to this excellent report.

We have had some very good responses from those who have spoken in the debate. I particularly liked the illustrations used by my noble friend—I can call her that, as she was once my Minister—Lady Bottomley and by my noble friend Lord Griffiths. I sympathise with his feeling that he was in the right place on all these matters because he was in an area that seemed to suggest that, as a jolly good chap, he could implement changes—but then discovered to his horror how difficult it was to actually make the transition. I have been there too. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, with his direct experience of trying to serve a wide and disparate consumer base, also picked up the point that there are some very obvious lessons to be learned by just looking around us at what we do. For example, looking at the Box to my right, it is very surprising to see a group so representative of the ethnicities in this country, and yet to not make that an issue at all. This is just how it is now in many parts of the Civil Service, and I congratulate it on what it has achieved in that.

It is worth reflecting on the key findings, because they are so startling. One in eight of the working-age population is from a BME background, but only 10% of the workforce and 6% of top management are. The employment rate for ethnic minorities is only 62.8%, compared with 75.6% for white workers. The gap is worse for some ethnic groups; for instance, for those of a Pakistani or Bangladeshi background, the rate drops to something like 54.9%. People from a BME background have an underemployment rate of 15.3%, compared with 11.5% for white workers, and many of them would like to work more hours than they currently do. I found this finding particularly interesting: all BME groups are more likely to be overqualified than white ethnic groups, but white employees are more likely to be promoted than those from all other groups. The potential benefit to the UK economy, which many noble Lords picked up on, from full representation of BME individuals is estimated to be an improvement to our GDP of £24 billion a year—1.3%. It does not take much to feel anger about that.

A lot of people have also suggested that that will lead to the agenda of change that one would like to see, but what we get from the Government is, I think, a very poor response indeed. As somebody has said, this is largely a voluntary arrangement: the report deals with the private sector and the Government can affect only the public sector. But this leaves completely untouched the areas in which the Government have both a stake and an opportunity to make real change. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, were very salient in this area: if it is true for health and safety, and for other aspects of public life, why is it not true for employment rights, for which the benefits are so clear and the attitude so obvious?

Looking in more detail at the government response, the response from the Minister, Margot James, is good in the sense that it picks up and reflects back to the report’s author the value that is in the report. We should all accept that it is indeed very valuable. The response says:

“It is clear from your report that you have examined the issues around race in the workplace … The findings are stark … it is clear that more has to be done”—


so the rhetoric is good so far. The recommendations are then dealt with, but it is quite clear that the Government have taken the strategic view that the only impact this can have is on employment in the Civil Service. They completely ignore the points made by my noble friend Lady Royall and others about the impact that the Government’s procurement system could have in changing the whole way in which people regard race, gender and other aspects relating to ethnic minority issues in relation to the world that we have to inhabit—and I suspect it will get worse after Brexit.

Under the heading “Supporting business”, the Government’s response is basically, “Not us, guv”:

“Businesses are best placed to know what support they need to improve diversity and inclusion and so we will work with them to ensure they have the resources they need to fully embed change within their organisations”.


I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. As far as I can see, that rather bombastic statement appears to apply only to,

“developing a guide on discussing race in the workplace as well as having a single portal where useful case studies and unconscious bias training packages can be sourced”.

That is pathetic, given the scale of the issue we are talking about. In any case, the Government do far more in making sure that training happens and ensuring that apprenticeships are going to be of a high standard—they will be specifying in future legislation and regulations all sorts of things to do with the quality and content of apprenticeships—so why do they not say in this report, “We will use the opportunities coming up with the Technical and Further Education Bill to ensure that these issues are taught properly and that people understand their responsibilities and the implications of what they do in the workplace”?

The next heading is “Improve transparency”. As people have said, daylight is often the best disinfectant, and we should never neglect that—it is often the first response and a good one—but it will never be sufficient to get to where I think the author of this report wishes to go. On this one, again, the Government seem to be incredibly limp, saying,

“we believe that in the first instance, the best method is a business-led, voluntary approach and not legislation as a way of bringing about lasting change”.

Ministers are always taught when they first step into their department that legislation is probably the last resort. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Prior, will have had that lesson when he first stepped into the Department of Health, his first appointment when he appeared in front of this House. He will have been told, “You can do far more by changing culture and attitudes”. At the end of the day, though, legislation is necessary. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, would be able to exemplify what she said about the way in which the courts deal with employment and other things have really changed how the culture operates because there is a standard to which employers will be judged.

I want to pick up issues relating to supply chains, which have also been picked up by other noble Lords. It is the case that organisations, particularly in the public sector but not only there, have been able to change attitudes and approaches all through their supply chains by specifying in contractual terms what they will and will not tolerate. Why is it so obvious in the Government’s response that they do not see this as an opportunity? We have found in other areas of government policy over the past few years examples of where the Government could use their power to effect change. I am thinking particularly of a debate that I had with the Minister only recently about how to improve payment practices for small businesses, where the exemplary, voluntary approach does not work, with something like £64 billion worth of outstanding cash sitting around in big companies’ pockets that should be paid over to small companies but no power that can get that to happen. This has a devastating effect on the economy, on small companies and on the whole process. The Government could do something to sort that out but have chosen not to do so, simply providing someone who will be a postbox for those who wish to complain about it.

The previous Labour Government required that all major projects should make sure that they had a supply of apprenticeships in all the contracts that were signed. Crossrail, which this Government have used a lot as an exemplar of where they want to get to, employs apprenticeships at a high level, and has been very successful in doing so, because the contract specified that those who had benefited from the monies that were being paid for Crossrail should employ apprentices. It can work, and I do not understand why the Government do not do that.

I could go on, but I will not. I will end with some questions for the Minister. The review concluded, in a wonderful phrase:

“There is discrimination and bias at every stage of an individual’s career”.

The figures that I cited reinforced that. The noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, asked businesses and the Government to act on her recommendations, as the consequences of not doing so would be damaging to the economy and the aspirations of so many, but the Government have decided not to do so. Can they explain why they think a voluntary approach is the right way to do this? As I have tried to exemplify, there are so many ways in which action could be taken, but a simple one, picked up by others earlier in the debate, is that a duty to publish figures in relation to gender pay has been imposed by this Government on all companies of a significant size. Why not extend that to ensure that we get the information necessary for companies to publish data on BME staff?

During the review, as I think was mentioned in the opening address, only 74 FTSE 100 companies replied to the call for data, and only half of those were able to share any meaningful information. Does not more need to be done here? Can the Minister give us an example of how he will put pressure on companies to ensure that at least the information required by one of their own who asks for it should be available? Again, this should be published.

The review highlights the importance of work experience opportunities that companies provide and reiterates a view that we on this side of the House have expressed that unpaid internships can act as a barrier to those without financial support to undertake them. What is the Government’s response to that observation in the review, and what action will they be taking to address the barriers of unpaid internships?

One of the review’s key recommendations is for the Government to assess the extent to which its recommendations have been implemented and take necessary action when required. Will the Government commit to doing that within the suggested timetable of a year and, if so, can the Minister explain how that will happen?

Finally, the Government’s response indicated that they will be setting out to all companies and institutional investors the value of employing a diverse workforce. How do they plan to do that and when will we see it?

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, said, picking up on a point made originally by the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, that we have had enough reports in this area. We know what the problem is. It is time now for action. I do hope that the Government will get on with it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, it is one of the privileges of being in this House that one can sit through a debate such as this. We are talking about one of the big issues of our time—not just in this country. It is incredible to me that, 50 years after Martin Luther King gave his great speech, “I have a dream”, we still have a Black Lives Matter campaign running in America because young black men are being shot by policemen. This is not a British problem; this is a societal problem in pretty much every country in the world—not just in white-majority countries but in black-majority countries, Indian countries, African countries and the rest. Race is a huge, profound and difficult issue. There are no easy answers to it. If there were, we would have found a solution many years ago.

Let me start with a short extract from the excellent review by my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith:

“Every person, regardless of their ethnicity or background, should be able to fulfil their potential at work. That is the business case as well as the moral case. Diverse organisations that attract and develop individuals from the widest pool of talent consistently perform better”.


My noble friend Lord Kirkham says that it is a no-brainer. I think that everyone who has contributed to this debate would say that: it is a no-brainer. That is the extraordinary thing about this subject: it is a no-brainer. The moral case is obvious. The economic case is a no-brainer. Yet, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, asked: why has it taken so long? If it is a no-brainer, why is progress so slow? Why do young black people have lower aspirations? That is the conundrum that we face today.

The Government welcome my noble friend’s report and encourage businesses to take forward her recommendations. We will work with employers to support them in improving their diversity and inclusion. From a personal point of view, I believe that daylight is the best disinfectant. That is an easy catchphrase, I know, but it is absolutely true.

I want to talk a little bit if I can about my own experience in the NHS, where I was chairman of the workforce race equality standard advisory group before I went to the Department of Health. We have heard a lot about institutional racism over the years, especially in relation to the police following the Macpherson inquiry into the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence. You would think sometimes, when reading about that, that it was only in the police and that it was only the police that were institutionally racist, but let me paint you a story about the NHS. It brings forward the contrast between words and actions, because the NHS constitution is clear that:

“All NHS staff have the right to be treated fairly, equally and to work in an environment that is free from discrimination”.


Those are almost the same words as in the constitution of the United States, which talked of liberty, equality and the pursuit of human happiness at a time of slavery and segregation. As we say in Norfolk, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. Again, this echoes the title of the McGregor-Smith review: The Time for Talking is Over. Now is the Time to Act. How many times and how many people have said that in the past—and here we are?

Some 20% of the NHS workforce are from a BME background, but only 5% of senior managers are from a BME background; 40% of hospital doctors are from a BME background, and only 3% of medical directors are from a BME background. Out of all the hundreds of NHS organisations, only three CEOs and four nursing directors are from BME backgrounds. People from BME backgrounds are twice as likely to enter a disciplinary process than white people. Even where there are very high levels of BME staff or very large BME communities served by a hospital, representation of BME people in senior leadership positions is far too low. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, is not here, because for a short time he was chairman of the Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and he told me that there was no one from a Pakistani background in a senior position in that trust, despite the fact that the community that the hospital served was largely made up of people from that ethnic background.

These facts have been revealed only recently, in a paper called The “Snowy White Peaks” of the NHS, by Roger Kline. From that, we have developed nine standards—the workforce race equality standards, or WRES. My noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith talked about transparency; every trust has to produce nine standards, in public, going from board representation, training opportunities, promotion, levels of discrimination and the like. They will be published every year, and they have been incorporated not just into the NHS standard contract, which my noble friend Lady Bottomley mentioned, but into the regulatory system in the CQC’s well-led domain.

Research has been published by the King’s Fund’s Michael West, Mandip Kaur and Jeremy Dawson, in a paper called Making the Difference, which makes it absolutely clear that there is a very close correlation between hospital performance, whether it is measured in patient or clinical outcomes, or however you measure it, and diversity. That is supported by work done by McKinsey which shows very clearly that boards with a diverse membership get better corporate results.

We know that black and other minority ethnic people suffer in other ways, not just in the workforce. They die younger. Research done by Professor David Williams, now of Harvard University, estimates that 200 adult black people die prematurely each day in the USA because they are black not white. It is not just about poor housing or less healthcare, because it is true also of college-educated black people in the USA, but because they have to try that much harder and have to be overqualified and put up with all those subconscious slights of day-to-day living: a look of fear in the face of a single white woman; the look of surprise at a moment of success; not getting a good table or good service in a restaurant; and lack of courtesy from other people—all those small slights.

I can recommend to anyone who is interested Professor Williams’s TED talk called “How Racism Makes Us Sick”. In it, he reported on a very broad experiment and noted that black people were associated with words like “violent”, “poor”, “religious” and “lazy”. For whites it was words like “successful”, “wealthy”, “progressive”, “conventional” and “educated”. That is why there is subconscious bias—because there is this stereotype. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, said, “I am not a racist, but”. I suspect that applies to everybody. We have a deep, subconscious stereotype of what different people are like and I will come now to why I think that is.

This is my personal view—but it is not just mine. Despite what we have heard from other noble Lords, we have made more progress in removing discrimination against disabled people, women and people with a different sexual orientation. The crucial question is: why has race been so difficult? In part it may be because the roots of the issue are not just cultural but evolutionary. Xenophobia has deep evolutionary roots; suspicion or aggression to outsiders has been an effective strategy for human beings and, more importantly, our forebears for millions of years. Today, interview, selection and promotion processes in the workplace are the modern setting where intrinsic, subconscious bias now most evidently—but, as I have argued, by no means exclusively—plays out. We pick people “like us”; people who will “fit in”; people who will be part of our team: in other words, white, male and who want to play rugby at the weekends.

I have just read a fascinating book called East West Street by Philippe Sands, who writes about the origins of two strands of international criminal law originating from the Nuremberg trials after the war: genocide and crimes against humanity. In the epilogue he concludes powerfully that, for all the disadvantages and unintended consequences of the former law—which focuses on groups rather than individuals—it is necessary because:

“I am bound to accept that the sense of group identity is a fact”.


As long ago as 1883, the sociologist Louis Gumplowicz, in his book on the struggle between the races, noted that,

“the individual when he comes into the world is a member of a group”.

This view persists. A century later, the biologist Edward O Wilson wrote that:

“Our bloody nature … is ingrained because group-versus-group was a principal driving force that made us what we are”.


It seems to him that a basic element of human nature is that,

“people feel compelled to belong to groups and, having joined, consider them superior to competing groups”.

Yvonne Coghill is the co-director of the workforce race equality standard programme in the NHS. She is a black woman from the Caribbean who has been a nurse in the NHS for 30 years. Knowing that I was taking part in this debate, she wrote to me last week, saying: “Beliefs about what good looks like, what constitutes beauty and brains, are deeply ingrained in our society … the problem of race is a systemic and structural one … we are fearful and anxious about differences”.

Of course things have got much better. The six race relations and equality Acts between 1965 and 2010 have had an impact. Overt racism is rarely seen. The civil rights legislation in the USA came in from the 1960s onwards, together with affirmative action programmes. Interestingly, Professor Williams, to whom I referred, got his first break with a minority scholarship to the University of Michigan. I believe very much in giving people an extra hand. You have to look at people’s potential rather than their actual achievements. However, subconscious discrimination is still a major factor in the USA.

What is the conclusion from this? I think it is that there are no quick, easy answers. There is no one piece of legislation that we can pass which will solve these problems. The case for greater urgency is made in this review. As the EY case study in the review states:

“We believe that culture change takes time—and we are therefore patient and at the same time impatient”,


to change the status quo.

We are impatient to tackle this issue because it is a moral and economic imperative. However, we will have to be both patient and impatient—patient because we are trying to change deep-rooted behaviour and impatient because racial discrimination is both a moral outrage and a huge economic opportunity. This very important review from my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith has the full support of the Government. We will not resort to legislation straightaway but will see how things go. If legislation is needed at some time in the future, we will, of course, consider it at that time.

I conclude by again thanking my noble friend for this report. I hope that in two, three, four or five years’ time, we can look back at this as a moment when things started to accelerate. However, I fear that we need some patience.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I congratulate the noble Lord on his interesting speech, which I will read in Hansard and reflect on. He was asked a number of serious questions about policy from not just me and my noble friends but by noble Lords on the other side of the House as well. I would be grateful if he could confirm that he will write to us about these issues.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I should have said that a number of questions were raised that I could not address—for example, on different issues connected with disability and other issues, including one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh. I will read Hansard tomorrow and write to noble Lords on those issues.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Report: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th March 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

162: Schedule 9, page 105, line 2, leave out from “least” to end of line 4 and insert “—
(a) one person with relevant experience of Scotland;(b) one person with relevant experience of Wales;(c) one person with relevant experience of Northern Ireland;with the respective agreement of the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and Northern Ireland Executive.”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 162 is taken from Amendment 476, moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. While there is no dissatisfaction with the way the Government responded at that stage, it is more that, particularly in relation to the changes wrought by the decision reached a few days ago for the Scottish Government to try to move forward on a second independence referendum, a certain piquancy has been added to the debate and discussion. It might be time to reflect a little further on some of the issues that were raised on that occasion.

When the noble Lord, Lord Patel, moved his amendment in Committee, he was clear that he did not expect this to be a surrogate for a change in the way in which UKRI is set up. It is not a representative body and I do not think that either he or I in this amendment are trying to make that change. However, as the noble Lord pointed out, there are significant differences in the customs, practice, legal systems and operational practices of the Scottish university sector and research community to suggest that at least there, and I believe also in Wales and Northern Ireland, it would be sensible for UKRI to have regard to—more than just once in a few returns around the membership cycle— having someone with experience and practical knowledge of how things operate in those parts of the United Kingdom. In Committee we also talked about other parts of England requiring certain attention, but I do not think the difference between what happens in the regions of England in any sense mirrors the differences present in the legal and other structures that operate in Scotland and will over time also accrue in Wales and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the amendments. I think we all share the sentiments that lie behind them.

Perhaps I may first deal with the interesting, rather technical point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, about the scope of the matters in the Science and Technology Act 1965 that are reserved under the Scotland Act 1998. He raised it with me earlier in the week and I agreed to write to him on it if I can, as it is of a fairly technical, legal nature, and to put the letter in the Library for others to see if they are interested.

I acknowledge that I and the Government appreciate the sentiment of the amendments and the underlying concerns from those working in the devolved nations. It is essential that we continue to work together to secure for the long term the UK’s global reputation for excellence in research and innovation. This joint working happens on a number of levels, from regular informal discussions to formal partnership arrangements. Where appropriate, it can include the development of an MoU between the bodies, the devolved Administrations and their agencies and institutions.

There are many such arrangements at present, from ESRC’s MoU with the Scottish Government on the What Works programme to the MoU between HEFCE and the devolved funding bodies, which ensures the operation of the UK Research Partnership Investment Fund across the whole UK. There is even an MoU between BBSRC and the Scottish Government for the horticulture and potato initiative. These arrangements will continue and I can commit to new MoUs being put in place where appropriate. I know from my own experience that MoUs can be window dressing, but they can be of great substance—it varies, entirely depending on the intent behind them of both parties. I sometimes think that we are beguiled by an MoU, when it is the informal relationships that lie behind them which are often much more important.

As we have debated at length and agreed on a number of occasions, it is vital that UKRI, a body which will operate UK-wide, is empowered to work for the whole of the UK. Noble Lords do not need to take my word for this. Duties for it are built into the Bill—hardwired, if you like—in multiple clauses.

Let me make it clear that these reforms will not affect current funding access for institutions in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. As part of UKRI, the research councils and Innovate UK will continue to operate across the UK, funding projects through open competition on the basis of excellence wherever it is found.

On the UKRI board, the Bill as amended in the other place recognises that the Secretary of State has a duty to consider appointing at least one person with relevant experience of the devolved nations. This change means that the Bill already goes further than the current legislation, which makes no such requirement. Of course, this should not be taken to mean just one person. The search for UKRI board members now under way actively seeks suitable applicants with experience from across all nations of the UK. We want and are actively working to recruit a board that will have this broad experience. However, requiring experience of all four countries at all times could have potentially unintended consequences. If a member of UKRI’s board were to step down from their position, we would not want only to be able to recruit a like-for-like successor with the same background as their predecessor. Equally, we would not want to limit experience of each nation to just one individual on the board if the quality of applications is high. Such flexibility is essential to ensuring that the diversity and quality needed to deliver the best outcomes for research and innovation across the UK is present on the UKRI board at all times.

Amendments 193 and 194 ask that UKRI and the Secretary of State have regard to the promotion of research and innovation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of these amendments. In fact, we already provided for UKRI to undertake this in its functions, described in Clause 89(1)(h), which says that UKRI may,

“promote awareness and understanding of its activities”.

However, the proposed drafting of these amendments limits the scope of this additional duty to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I understand noble Lords’ admirable desire to ensure that the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are suitably protected, but this should not be done at the expense of English institutions. Ministers’ responsibilities are to the whole UK, and the Secretary of State, and UKRI, should be held to account by Parliament on that basis.

I also share noble Lords’ desire that UKRI’s strategy should work for the whole of the UK. The strategy will be the product of consultation and engagement with research and innovation institutions and bodies from across the UK. Let me also assure noble Lords that this consultation will of course incorporate the views of the devolved Governments. However, the development of a full research and innovation strategy for the UK may be an infrequent affair. I have spoken to Sir John Kingman, chairman-designate of UKRI, and he agrees that regular consultation with the devolved Administrations on UKRI’s priorities would be a more appropriate way of ensuring their views are captured and taken account of regularly. This would be consistent with the MoU between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, in which the principle of good communication with each other is key. The primary aim is not to constrain the discretion of any Administration but to allow them to make representations to each other in sufficient time for those to be fully considered. I commit today to putting this intention regularly to consult on strategy with devolved Administration colleagues into guidance from the department to UKRI.

I have been clear today that there are many areas where we expect UKRI to work with the devolved Administrations, and many areas where we have a common goal. I have committed to capturing this in guidance to UKRI. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank all those who spoke in this debate. We learned a great deal from the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, whose experience is of course unparalleled in seeing things from the perspective of the devolved Administrations. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has real experience of trying to operate in an institution that is largely based in Scotland but that draws from the strength of UK science and UK contributions to its work. He therefore understands the mechanics of what we are about.

It seems that Goldilocks has been ignored in this process. I agree that “not just one” does not exclude “more than one”, but I think that Goldilocks would have wanted a little more in her porridge than just the promise that over a period of time there would be not one bowl but three bowls and that she could sup from all of them—I think my metaphor is about to run out, but noble Lords get my point. I hear what the Minister said, and he is an honest and good man. I am sure that he is trying to set up an arrangement under which we will achieve what is set out in Amendment 162. I will not press that to a vote on this occasion. We will take his assurances, but I hope he recognises that we are in difficult circumstances here.

Hardwiring may be too hard an approach to this. Underwiring, with support from below, may not be sufficient. I just hope that in some way, in the gap between memoranda of understanding and letters of guidance, we can get to a more settled arrangement over a period of time. I agree that it is difficult and I am not trying to constrain the Minister in any way. However, it is a bit defensive to say that one reason you do not wish to go down this route is so as not to disincentivise or in other ways constrain English institutions. That is exactly the sort of poison that will be used by those north of the border and in Wales and Northern Ireland to complain they are not getting fair treatment. The sensibility is probably right, but the wording must be looked at carefully. I hope that that message will get across.

We seem to be permanently in difficult times in terms of constitutional issues. This is not the time to let any chink through. If we all agree around the House, as I think we do, that this matter cannot be ignored and must be brought forward and foregrounded, then we can make progress together. Our commitment will not be doubted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 162 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, in relation to Amendment 166, I want to emphasise again the importance of having individuals from a business background because, all too often with these initiatives, the Government have the best of intentions but there are people involved who do not have experience in business and have not run businesses, and it is when you run businesses that you realise that innovation and creativity are at the heart of it. I would go further and say that they must come from science-related business backgrounds. Any good business has to be innovative. In my industry—food and drink—you have to be innovative. But the key issue here is having people with business backgrounds at the top table.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I confirm that we are signed up to Amendment 166 and support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. It is important to get the balance right. There is probably another Goldilocks pun there but I am sure the Minister will pick it up and we will get a response to that.

We have also signed up to government Amendments 173 and 183, which are at the heart of the debate we had earlier. Again, this plays to the argument made by the Minister that there are ways of improving the Bill. We have been able to explore them in Committee and now on Report, and it is good to see that there are movements here that have support right round the House, which we are pleased to be part of.

We also feel that more constraints may emerge from the business consideration than have perhaps been allowed to emerge so far. As my noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya pointed out, given the genesis of all this through the Technology Strategy Board, and now through Innovate UK, it is important that institutions learn from their history and gain from their experience over time. The formation of UKRI and the involvement of Innovate UK in that was not recommended by Sir Paul Nurse, who just felt that the issue should be looked at. But the Government decided to move forward and it is therefore their responsibility to make sure that we get the most out of it.

My noble friend Lord Bhattacharyya was also at pains to point out that we are talking about the creation not of a bank here but of a ginger group. It is an opportunity to create incentives and a ginger group that moves forward with the support of industry will be much better than one which tries to do it on its own. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Baronesses, Lady Brown and Lady Young, my noble friend Lord Selborne, and the noble Lords, Lord Bhattacharyya, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Stevenson. All our sentiments are the same. To pick up on a phrase from the noble Lord, Lord Bhattacharyya, about the purpose of Innovate UK, if we were to sum it up in three words, which he did, they would be “productivity from research”.

When we discussed the first amendment today, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about the serendipitous fruits that can sometimes spring from blue-sky basic research. The point of Innovate UK is to ensure that more of those fruits take root in the UK, rather than ending up in Silicon Valley or Israel, or in other countries which are frankly more innovative than we are. The whole purpose of UKRI in bringing together Innovate UK with the research councils is to create more fertile soil for some of the great ideas, technologies and research that come out of our universities.

In creating UKRI we are making something new, greater than the sum of its constituent parts. We are not merely bolting together nine separate bodies. To make this work the governance structures need to change, so we are introducing an overarching board in UKRI and a high-profile chair and chief executive. It is appropriate that the governance of the councils changes too to reflect this. We have been listening to debate on this for some time now, particularly the contributions on the role of the council chairs from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, the noble Lord, Lord Mair—I know that he cannot be here today for other reasons—the noble Lord, Lord Broers, and my noble friend Lord Selborne. However, introducing a non-executive chair for the councils into these new lines of accountability would risk confusing accountabilities within UKRI and undermine its key strategic role. This would apply just as much to Innovate UK as to the other councils.

Although I can of course see the attraction of having a well-known leading industrialist as a non-executive chair of Innovate UK, it would not sit well within the governance structure of UKRI. I think it would fatally undermine the whole concept of UKRI. However, we acknowledge that chairs can play valuable roles outside direct lines of accountability, for example in giving support to the chief executive and acting as a route for high-level communication. We have already discussed the sensible suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Broers, that we give one member of each council the role of a senior independent member. We have given assurances that that will be done and we hope that it is adequate to address his concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, gave a good description of the important role that a senior independent member can play in these circumstances, without undermining the integrity of the governance structure of UKRI.

Amendment 166 also seeks to determine the background of a majority of Innovate UK’s council members. As was discussed in respect of UKRI board members in an earlier group, prescribing the background of members of councils in legislation would encroach on the freedom of UKRI and its councils to manage their own affairs and could be unhelpful in achieving the best possible mix of individuals at any one time. However, we agree with the sentiments expressed. In the case of Innovate UK, government would have a strong expectation, set through guidance, that a substantial proportion of members should have a science-related business background. Indeed, Innovate UK’s current board membership speaks for itself, with most of the council members having science and technology-related business backgrounds. In addition, the board contains much complementary experience of universities, finance, economics, consulting and government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 177A and 178A. Amendment 177A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough returns to the subject of the ability of research councils to enter into funding partnerships. We discussed this extensively in Committee. We had two key questions. The first was, under UKRI, would there be any additional requirements above those already existing for research councils in forming these partnerships? The second question was, are there circumstances in which such partnerships would require explicit prior approval from UKRI?

The Minister addressed the partnership issue in his letter to us all of 8 February. He acknowledged that the councils currently engage in many partnerships, nationally and internationally, to significant effect. He quoted from a letter that Sir John Kingman had written to me in which he had said:

“The individual councils of UKRI will of course have delegated autonomy and authority to agree these arrangements within their areas of expertise”.


This was helpful but did not quite seem to answer our two questions explicitly.

I explored this further in a subsequent meeting with the Minister and his officials. The essence of our discussion was over the meaning in practice of “delegated autonomy and authority”. In particular, I was anxious to have an explicit answer to the two questions. I thought that it would be helpful for everyone involved, especially the councils, to have maximum clarity. What differences, if any, would the councils see under the new regime when it came to forming partnerships? Amendment 177A allows the Government to answer these questions and to put the matter beyond doubt.

Amendment 178A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough, who regrets that he cannot be present today, having urgent family business to attend to. As with Amendment 177A, this amendment looks for clarity and confirmation from the Minister. The context is set out in the letter of 8 February that the noble Lord, Lord Prior, sent to us all. On the penultimate page, the Minister addresses the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, over the employment by UKRI of the “relevant specialist employees” to which Clause 9 refers. Government Amendment 178 deals with that matter.

However, in his letter to us, the Minister also referred to the research councils’ role in appointing some relevant specialist staff in line with the principles of autonomy. As he reminded us:

“A package of flexibilities for research council institutes was approved by Her Majesty’s Treasury at the 2015 Budget”.


There were five flexibilities. Two of them are of concern to my noble friend Lord Willis, who is a member of the NERC, and to the CEO of the NERC. These are the exemptions concerning pay and the rollover of commercial income.

The CEO of the NERC has pointed out that neither of these exemptions is in practice available to research councils. They do not form part of the councils’ agreed delegations and there is no mechanism within BEIS for their approval, so they do not happen. For example, to address the 20% pay gap that now exists between NERC institutes and the HEIs requires a multiyear strategy. NERC as an employer must have confidence that this can be adopted without being placed in annual jeopardy by being subject to annual BEIS approval. There is no real sense in which the councils have the freedom to manage payroll within existing budgets as agreed at the 2015 Budget. Neither does the rollover flexibility work. In practice, an offer is made to HMT to consider a rollover of commercial income in January. NERC did this but had received no reply by the second week in March. If no answer is received, the money will be lost. Accordingly, NERC has now committed the relevant expenditure in this year. That means that in reality the rollover flexibility does not work either.

Our amendment addresses this problem. It seeks to impose an obligation to have regard to the agreed package of flexibilities and it seeks to give the Minister an opportunity to explain if the freedoms granted to the research councils in the 2015 Budget will in fact be available after the introduction of UKRI and the reorganisation of the councils.

I acknowledge that we are raising these rather complex matters at a late stage. I apologise for that. I should entirely understand it if the Minister preferred to write to us in response.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, it has been a good debate on a wide range of issues broadly around the work of the research councils. It includes the Government’s important and welcome commitment to uphold the Haldane principle—or Willetts principle—and indeed to enshrine it in the Bill and throughout the instructions that will be given to the various bodies that are to subscribe to it.

We are delighted to be able to sign up to a number of government amendments in this group. We are pleased to see the concession made to the point argued strongly in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about including under specialist employees all technical staff where they are involved in research. That contrasts with the attitude taken in Committee and earlier stages of the Bill, when we attempted to broaden the representational elements relating to the Office for Students—or office for higher education, as it should be called. In particular, we raised the lack of engagement with students, which seems perverse given the Government’s willingness at this stage to include others involved in their discussions.

I shall speak briefly to Amendment 177—the one amendment to which no one has spoken—and seek the Government’s response. We all accept that the strength of our higher education and research institutions will be central to the health of our economy and vitality of our society. As we look towards a post-Brexit world, the role of research in driving innovation, investment and well-being will surely assume greater significance. The capacity of research institutions to act with autonomy and independence will be key to their success.

The Government’s amendments, as I have already said, rightly respond to concerns raised about the need to embed the principle of institutional autonomy more firmly within the Bill. Why, therefore, have the Government not accepted Amendment 177 or brought forward their own version of it?

The Government did respond to arguments about autonomy in relation to the OfS. We welcomed their amendments and signed up to them—they are now in the Bill—such as that on,

“the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers”.

Yet as it stands, UKRI has no such duty, despite the extensive influence and engagement—indirect and direct—that it will have with higher education providers under the new system. We accept that UKRI is not a regulator, but its role is instrumental. It is bound to be engaged in discussions with institutions and bodies that are in a different sector from the institutional autonomy provided by the Secretary of State and the OfS.

That is an asymmetry that I regret. Could the noble Lord, when he comes to respond, at least give us some solace by accepting that, although it may be too late to amend the Bill at this stage, the institutional autonomy issue percolates through to research, is important to the institutions that will be working with the research councils and UKRI post-implementation of the Bill, and is something which the Government should address at some point, whether through memorandums of understanding or by guidance?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, first, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about excellence. I subscribe to the views he expressed on excellence absolutely, 110%. I am pleased as well that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay is happy with our Amendment 178. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his comments about the incorporation of the Haldane principle into the Bill. I think he almost called it the Willetts, rather than the Haldane, principle, but in any event, we will amend the Explanatory Notes to the Bill to make clear reference to my noble friend Lord Willetts’s Written Statement, so there is complete clarity about what we mean by the Haldane principle.

I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, introduced today by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, regarding institutional autonomy. I agree that this is also a very important principle and I think we are all glad to see it so clearly articulated in Part 1 of the Bill. I assure the noble Lord that UKRI has the necessary protections already built in through existing provisions in the Bill, much enhanced by the Government’s Haldane principle amendments.

Clauses 97 and 98 already protect institutional autonomy, as they mirror the language used in the definition of institutional autonomy that noble Lords have agreed should be added to this Bill, specifically with respect to courses of study, the appointment of staff and the admission of students. In fact, they already go beyond this and extend this protection to cover universities’ research activities, as supported by Research England. Funding from research councils and Innovate UK is competition-led, and I assure the noble Lord that they do not, nor can they, tell institutions and businesses what they may or may not research or develop, or how they may recruit staff.

This amendment would require UKRI to have regard to the need to protect the institutional autonomy of English higher education providers but, unlike the Office for Students, UKRI’s remit is not limited to these institutions. UKRI will have a strategic vision for research and innovation across the whole UK. It will fund and engage with research institutes and facilities outside the university sector as well as with businesses, both domestically and internationally.

This is why the Government have made the provisions I have already described. Combined with our commitment to the dual support system, the Bill already protects the autonomy of institutions in a way that is tailored to UKRI’s mission. This additional amendment is unnecessary and potentially confusing in relation to the scope and responsibilities of UKRI, which are very different from those of the OfS. Again, in sentiment, I think we are fully agreed on this, but I hope in view of what I have said the noble Lord will feel able not to press the amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made a powerful case regarding the research councils’ ability to strike up partnerships with other funding bodies directly. I have to confess I got a little lost at some point as he was making his speech, and I will take up his offer to write to him when I can read it tomorrow in Hansard, but I will try to be as clear as possible in my response this evening. As part of UKRI, the research councils will be able to form partnerships with other bodies, such as charities, in the same way as they do now.

The noble Lord has rightly identified the need to still abide by prevailing public sector expenditure rules—for instance, those covered in HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money. Although decisions on more routine partnerships such as joint funding research programmes in a particular discipline will still be taken by the councils themselves within delegated limits set by the department, other more complex arrangements—which might involve setting up an SPV or joint venture, for example—would, as now, require explicit prior approval from government. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for raising this important point, and I hope sincerely that my strong assurances are enough to persuade him not to press his amendment.

Amendment 178A would enshrine in legislation a package of spending flexibilities afforded to some research council institutes by Her Majesty’s Treasury in 2015. These flexibilities recognise the important work these institutes undertake and are designed to provide freedom over how much institutes can pay staff, how much they may pay for marketing and how they may carry out procurement, alongside assurances around approval processes for budget exchange activity and exceptional depreciation. I assure noble Lords that these flexibilities are not affected by the creation of UKRI, and there are no plans to alter them.

However, it is absolutely essential that we do not ossify such flexibilities in primary legislation. Not only is it the prerogative of Her Majesty’s Treasury to determine cross-government rules on public expenditure, but it is important that we are able to evolve these flexibilities over time to respond to changing circumstances. I hope noble Lords will acknowledge the irony of solidifying a “package of flexibilities” in primary legislation, rendering the package unalterable, and hence inflexible. These amendments enshrine the Haldane principle in law and further protect the autonomy of UKRI’s councils.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I have a brief question for either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, or the noble Lord, Lord Smith. One thing that slightly concerns me is that certain institutions, such as the conservatoires, are generally not funded in their research by UKRI at all. Very often these students, who do PhDs at the Royal College of Music, for example, are either self-funded or funded through other charitable grants. Could the noble Lord, in summing up, address why we would need that kind of governance for the research degree? I should just like a bit of clarity on that.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am also signed up to this amendment. I come from a slightly different position, but I arrive at the same point. Throughout this section of the Bill, the Minister has been at pains to stress how it has been improved by the preceding contributions and debate of noble Lords who have experience of operational activity in the field we are covering. He is, I think, aware of my feeling—I explained it to him earlier this evening—that, had we had the same measure of agreement earlier in the passage of the Bill, we would have made a lot more progress and the Bill would be a lot better. We had to force our way into a position of improvement in the earlier parts of the Bill, but we have been able to do it by dialogue and discussion in this part, which is to be welcomed.

I say all that because this issue of research degree-awarding powers is really important for the higher education institutions in this country. In this section, we are dealing primarily with the UK-wide impact on research funding, but the reality is that this issue relates to the power to award research degrees. English higher education providers, as we need to call them, have attached great strength to this—so great that it was the motivation behind the insistence that we try to change the way the Bill is configured by ensuring that an amendment, which was resisted very strongly by the Government, was added to the very first clause to set out what we meant by a university. Intrinsically wired into what we mean by a university is the question of who has responsibility for awarding degrees. That was decided in the context of the opening clause with a discussion of what universities meant. Then we agreed with the Government to insert a very strong sentence referring to institutional autonomy and academic freedom. With that goes the ability for universities—higher education providers in England, particularly—to award degrees in their own right within a framework established by statute. This issue goes right through the Bill. It is interesting and quite informative that we have come back to it at this point. It has been a long and interesting journey.

Goldilocks, who featured earlier in our discussions, would have taken the view that there was a need here for some sort of equitable approach. It is very surprising that the very presence of the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, sitting directly behind the Minister and looking sternly at him, although he cannot see it—that got him moving quickly—has not had more success in cutting through on this point than his case warrants. He made it clear early in Committee that this was something he felt very strongly about. He got a lot of support around your Lordships’ House and he is still there today. It is an extraordinary situation, unprecedented in my short experience here, and I cannot wait to see the denouement of this process. We wait to hear what the Minister will say. He has tried a letter, he has tried a phone call and now he is going to do it in person—what a wonderful triage we will have before us on this occasion. I am rambling slightly, but I wanted to make the point—

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Hush. I wanted to make the point that this is important. It matters to the institutions and cannot be taken away or given just by discretion—it really is about what universities are about. Not to approve the requirement that the Office for Students or office for higher education must work jointly with UKRI is to take away a very valuable part of our community. I support the amendment.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I rather fear that an irresistible force has met an immovable object on this occasion. That is a shame because we have agreed on so much in this part of the Bill and we all agree that the various amendments that have been made have vastly improved the Bill. I would argue that we have done 98% of the work required. Despite the very eloquent speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, I feel we are somewhat dancing on the head of a pin on this issue. What is the difference between the two cases being put? On the one hand, my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, say that research degree-awarding powers should be made jointly by the OfS and UKRI, whereas the Bill says they should be made by the OfS with advice from UKRI. There is clearly a distinction between the two and I understand it, but we are not talking about a huge distinction this evening. It is important to bear that context in mind as we wind our way to the end of this debate.

I start by stating that the Government fully recognise the importance of a co-ordinated approach to supporting the pipeline of undergraduate and postgraduate talent and skills development. Let me explain briefly where responsibilities will lie across the two organisations, UKRI and the OfS. The OfS will be responsible for maintaining the quality of higher education in England, including postgraduate provision, and promoting the interests of students in English higher education providers, including students engaged in postgraduate research and study. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland this is the responsibility of the devolved Administrations.

UKRI will support the cost of postgraduate research degree programmes in English universities through Research England’s dedicated PGR funding stream. Support of this type is also a devolved matter for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Additionally, the Government made an amendment in the other place that clarified UKRI’s ability not only to support postgraduate provision but to encourage it. At his appearance before the Science and Technology Select Committee last October, Sir John Kingman argued that these reforms would improve oversight of the research talent pipeline.

UKRI will be a major and influential advocate for the importance of maintaining a strong, healthy pipeline of research students. Crucially, it will have a strategic centre that can gather and analyse intelligence on the pipeline from across its councils and can work with the OfS and the devolved funding bodies to develop a more holistic and comprehensive picture of the landscape than is possible under current arrangements.

The Government are backing UKRI to succeed. In the Budget—funnily enough, very little publicity was given to this aspect of it, which is surprising given the importance I know noble Lords attach to it—the Government committed to spend £250 million over the next four years to increase the number of highly skilled researchers and develop the talent needed by British industries for a thriving and innovative economy. We also announced £100 million for global research talent over the next four years to attract the brightest minds to the UK and help maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in R&D. That was a very significant announcement. Let me be clear: UKRI will work closely with the OfS and its equivalents in the devolved Administrations to ensure that this vital part of the university system is protected.

I turn now to the amendment in front of us; there are two distinct proposals within this amendment. First, on the matter of research students, it must be said that the OfS is an England-only regulator, while UKRI is a UK-wide funder. It would be entirely inappropriate to give the OfS a decision-making power in relation to a research council’s doctoral funding for a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish university, for example. Secondly, each organisation will make countless decisions that relate to research students. Requiring them to make every one of these decisions jointly would result in a duplication of effort and, in many instances, simply not make sense. For example, the OfS will not be well placed to take decisions on where research funding should be allocated to fund doctoral training for the purpose of enhancing the UK’s research capability where this is outside the university sector—for example, in one of the UK’s world-leading research institutes. Conversely, this amendment would risk giving UKRI unnecessary decision-making responsibilities on regulatory issues which affect all higher education students, but where UKRI will have no particular remit or expertise, such as on ensuring institutions have appropriate student protection plans in place.

As we have been clear throughout the passage of this Bill, the OfS and UKRI can share information and will co-operate at all levels to ensure that the respective decisions they make regarding research students are appropriately informed by the expertise of the other organisation. This is a much more proportionate and effective approach. Clause 108 already enables this and, since both organisations have a duty to have regard to the need to operate in an effective and efficient way through Clauses 3 and 100, the Bill actively encourages such co-operation. In addition, this House has already agreed amendments that require the OfS and UKRI to detail in their annual reports how they have co-operated in the past year. We fully expect evidence of co-operation on matters related to research students to be included in these reports and, through provisions in Clause 108, Ministers can act to require this to happen should the evidence suggest otherwise. However, I put to the House that while co-operation and collaboration is appropriate, asking the OfS and UKRI to make joint decisions in every instance is not.

On research degree-awarding powers, we considered carefully the constructive arguments made in Committee by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, that this should be a matter where OfS and UKRI should make decisions jointly. Having given this matter much thought, we do not agree that the decision itself should be a joint one between the two bodies, given that UKRI has no direct regulatory function in relation to higher education providers. Nevertheless, while we believe that the OfS as regulator of the sector is best placed to take the final decisions, we fully agree that it is important that the expertise of UKRI should be fully utilised in ensuring that the OfS makes well-informed decisions. Because of this, we put forward an amendment, which this House has already agreed, requiring the OfS to request advice from the designated quality body or committee on degree-awarding powers. This amendment ensures that the advice must be informed by the views of UKRI when it concerns research degree-awarding powers, and this advice cannot be ignored by the OfS. This gives UKRI a clearly enshrined role, securing its influence in decisions on research degree-awarding powers, which is much stronger than anything that has gone before in securing a guaranteed role for such advice to be given for matters concerning research degree-awarding powers. Through our reforms, we see UKRI having a bigger role than any research organisation currently has, or that HEFCE has now.

The new system that we have designed has clear accountabilities, and instituting joint decision-making in this way could give UKRI a role in matters which have nothing to do with an institution’s research capability. Further, the Government will also commit to giving UKRI an important advisory role when the department is preparing guidance on the criteria by which applications for research degree-awarding powers will be assessed. These are meaningful legislative provisions. The Bill does not prevent UKRI having a role in the appeals process when appropriate. We believe that it is a more practical and reasonable alternative to the amendment, taking into account the real-world operations of the two bodies, while crucially ensuring that any decisions are informed by the relevant expertise. The amendment as drafted would make it a legal requirement for the OfS to jointly take decisions about the number of doctoral training places to be supported by the research councils, about the funding of doctoral research training in research council institutes and facilities, and about the support given by UKRI for doctoral training in universities in the devolved Administrations. These things are the primary responsibility of UKRI and are outside the scope of the OfS’s responsibilities, and I believe it would be wrong to put them into legislation today. It is with those things in mind that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Smith, to withdraw his amendment.

Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance Regulations 2017

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Grand Committee

Those are a few brief questions, but I am very supportive of the regulations as part of a package of measures, which, broadly speaking, we also support.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I will follow closely the words of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. Like him, we accept that these are good regulations. They stem from a Bill that we spent a lot of time on in 2015, talking about small businesses and their problems. It is good to see the output in terms of large companies and large limited liability partnerships, and to see the detail. I support that.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Foster, I have a number of questions, which I am sure the Minister will be able to respond to. Where the noble Lord finished is where I would like to start. There is no mention in either set of regulations about the role of the Small Business Commissioner, and I find that very surprising. From the reports that are circulating about the appointment of the Small Business Commissioner, it is clear that the department sees that as being one of a package of measures that will implement the small business Bill. However, there seems to be no mention of it and no role for the commissioner in the regulations. Perhaps the Minister has an explanation for that.

Having said that, the second question that comes to mind is: what is the role of the Small Business Commissioner? The Minister was not in post when we discussed this in 2015, but I think he will have been briefed about the general feeling there was in Committee and on Report that the move to introduce the Small Business Commissioner—it was a major change by the Government, who had previously set their mind against it—was a good thing, but that the powers were lamentable given the case that had been made by the Federation of Small Businesses in particular, which, after all, might be expected to know a bit about the problems that small businesses face.

It is brave of the department to bring the chair of the FSB on to the appointments panel—that is a good sign. However, as far as I can understand from the press comments he has made, he is still worried that even though he is on the panel, the post is not going to be sufficiently empowered or resourced to do the job it has to. He does not think that it begins to tackle the problem referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, of 50,000 small businesses going broke each year because they cannot get the money they are owed out of the larger companies. There is also the question of whether or not the will is there in the department to try to help shape the culture, rather than simply shine a light on current practices.

The Explanatory Memorandum to both instruments before us gives a little context about where all this has come from. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned one of those issues, the Prompt Payment Code, which has been heavily trailed by the Government and used as their only fig-leaf when we talked about this in Committee and on Report. However, it has proved to be a completely hopeless way of trying to achieve culture change. At the time that the Prompt Payment Code was being lauded, we had examples within this very House of major companies that were not even signed up to it, and many of those that had signed up had operating practices that would have made it impossible to stay in the code, and yet there was no apparent sanction as it is a voluntary organisation. The pay-to-stay scandal and the unilateral changing of payment arrangements from 30 days to 60 days to 90 days and all sorts of other things were going on in companies that should have been adhering to much higher standards. That is a clear example that the process does not work in practice. At least we now have a transparency arrangement, and I like a lot of the things that are included.

Delays always happen but I suspect that there is a bit of a story behind the way in which this has come out and around the engagement with both the major and the smaller companies in trying to find a way to make this work. Extraordinarily, but rightly in my view, the department has decided that the only way to get this to work in practice is to run its own website. It cannot rely on companies coming forward with material because it feels that that would be too difficult to interpret. Again, that is brave. I cannot say any more than that—I think it is terrific and I am sure that it is the right thing to do. Perhaps it opens up a new, aggressive policy chapter in BEIS, and it is actually going to do things that help businesses instead of just standing back and watching as they go under. However, I may be making the point a little too strongly.

The third thing I have to say is a compliment, which I rarely pay to BEIS and its officials because they are always in default on this. However, they have at last hit a common commencement date for these arrangements, and I am so pleased by that. However, it is extraordinary, is it not, and perhaps shines a different light on this area, when you discover that, uniquely, these are time-limited regulations, which is something I have never seen before. It is not so much a sunset clause but a total eclipse. We have the situation where these will come into force on 6 April 2017, which is great, and will then close on 6 April 2024 unless they are extended. There are substantial consultation arrangements around that, but it does not exactly send the message to small businesses that the Government are here to help and are on their side. The regulations are, at the very best, a pale imitation of where they want to get to, and are time-limited and will be withdrawn unless some future act of consultation comes through.

We welcome these instruments in so far as they go—it is exactly what the Government said they would do. They are late, but at least they are here. They will start very quickly and will be accompanied by an as yet unknown, but potentially powerful, person to take up some of the issues that are left undealt with here. With that, we support the instruments as they appear before us.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I thank both noble Lords for their broad support for the general thrust of this statutory instrument.

Potentially misleading or inaccurate information is a criminal offence punishable with a fine. Who is responsible for verifying the data? Our view is that the public nature of the data will ensure their accuracy. Businesses can raise their concerns directly with BEIS or the Small Business Commissioner. The whole thrust of this instrument is culture change. It is the reputational damage that firms will suffer, rather than the prospect of a criminal conviction, that will have the biggest impact on changing behaviour.

In terms of the scope and the companies caught by this, the definition of a large business for the purpose of having to make the disclosures is two of the following three: an annual turnover of £36 million; a balance sheet total of £18 million—I assume that that means net assets; and 250 employees. The noble Lord asked about a subsidiary of an overseas company—it could be a subsidiary of a domestic company, for that matter. As I understand it, this applies to companies or LLPs that are incorporated in this country. So I do not think that a small company over here that is a subsidiary in the US is captured by the instrument, but I will double-check that.

The noble Lord said that payment terms in the US were more typically 120 days rather than net monthly or 30 days but I am not sure that that is necessarily right. Also, we should be clear that in some big contracting industries, where there is delayed payment and that is negotiated upfront by suppliers, that is entirely legitimate. In their disclosures, big companies are perfectly entitled to say in their narrative that in their industry, a different payment schedule is typical. Where you have a long-term contract, which requires a different kind of financing, again, that can be disclosed and explained, and it will be perfectly legitimate. We are not saying that a longer period is necessarily worse than a short one; it very much depends on the industry. What is important is the transparency and a narrative around it.

Both noble Lords spoke about the appointment of the Small Business Commissioner. I understand that we will be appointing that individual during 2017. We launched the recruitment campaign on 12 February, with the intention of appointing later on in the year.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I just wanted to reassure the noble Lord that the process has started. As it started in February, that appointment will follow in due course.

I thank noble Lords for their contribution to the debate. The importance of transparency is clear. One economic reason that makes this statutory instrument so important is that for many small, particularly growing, companies, cash flow, rather than profit, is critical. Delayed payment terms can seriously undermine the ability of small companies to grow. I think that all parties in the Committee are apprised of that.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

It is true that the terms are important, but both the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and I were at pains to make the point that it is the reliance on the contract with a large company that causes the difficulty. It is difficult for individual small companies to challenge the payment terms they are first offered—particularly if, once they are in contract with the large company, it decides unilaterally to change them—because they need the business. The Minister said that he has worked in business before, and I have run small businesses. When you are waiting for that cheque to come and it does not and you cannot pay yourself, you cannot rip up the contract because you are so dependent on it. It is that defect—for which no powers are being given explicitly to the Small Business Commissioner—that lies at the heart of where we disagree with the Government’s approach. I am sure that this issue will be addressed, because the figures are now so open and clear that it has to be sorted: £26 billion is a stonkingly large figure. If we could sort that out and speed it up—although the Explanatory Memorandum does not go into this—a 0.25% reduction of the costs of organising small businesses raises something like £22 million. A small calculation of what that cash flow change would be changes the dynamics of the whole arrangement.

Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Returning to the main subject, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the police intellectual property office is also responsible for the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau—also widely regarded as being a terrific service which we would be sad to lose if there were funding problems. I visited it as part of my secondment with the Metropolitan Police—a scheme that I recommend to all Members of the House as giving an insight into the way the police operate. However, this goes back to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. Without certainty as to funding, there will be very damaging implications for crime. This crime needs to be stopped at source and this is the main unit to do so.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The noble Lord makes a good point. Of course, certainty is very important, but I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the US Chamber of Commerce rates our IP enforcement as number one in the world, as does the Taylor Wessing global IP index. We are doing a great job, so let us not beat ourselves up too much about this. We need to resolve this uncertainty about funding but we are doing an excellent job.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 30th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, a number of points have been raised in this group of amendments. I hope when he replies my noble friend the Minister will not lose sight of the extremely pertinent questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, about the ability of research councils to form partnerships and to do so without having to seek permission.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very good, sharp little debate. I look forward to the Minister’s response. Given his previous background in your Lordships’ House as a spokesman on behalf of the Department of Health, presumably he will speak with a bit more direct experience than would otherwise be expected. It must be very clear that, whereas in the first two groups of amendments we were talking about the mechanics and he was able to guide us away from any suggestion that the Bill might be amended, he is now firmly up against the fact that the culture is sorted here, but the mechanics are not. We will have to look very hard at the points made, with some force, by all those who have spoken.

We have signed up to most of the amendments in this grouping and support the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Sharkey. They made it absolutely clear that what we are talking about is completely different from desirable changes. It is about ensuring that the huge success we have seen in the development of research—particularly medical research, but it applies to other research councils—is wired into the structure. We must have an assurance from the Minister that that will be the case.

What was not said, but is available for those who have read the briefings, is that the current situation is also of concern to charities. They feel that they have been slightly taken for granted. If there had not been the change proposed here for UKRI they would probably have come forward with suggestions that they should have been brought in at this stage, if they had not been before, to the Medical Research Council and others. That is not a new initiative; it has been a bit of sand in the oyster for some time. It would be appropriate to do as they suggest. We have already been reminded that the Nurse review made it clear that charities felt that, given,

“the overlap in their interests with the Research Councils, it is important that strong contacts are developed and maintained between the Councils and the charitable sector”.

Indeed, Sir Paul, in the final section of his report, says:

“To facilitate such interactions and to ensure that proper knowledge and understanding of the entire UK research endeavour is maintained, I recommend particular care is paid to ensuring there are strong interactions between the charitable research sector and the Research Councils”.


That is a coded phrase, but it is fairly clear that his intention would be that charities, which make so much of a difference to what we are doing and bringing in patients—they have been doing this for so long and have so much experience to offer—should be hard-wired into what we are about.

Our Amendment 486A is subsidiary in a sense because the primary purpose of these amendments is to make sure that charities are involved going forward. One amendment, which we support, suggests that the mechanics of this should be done by continuing the arrangement that those charities which currently fund jointly with research councils should be able to do so and there should be nothing in the Bill to prevent that. We suggest that, in looking at this, the Government might also look at the question of making sure that the UKRI has that capacity as well and there is no problem in any legal framework about it. We support these amendments.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, this has been a really good short debate. I think we are all in huge agreement about the importance of the charitable sector. I recognise the figures given today: over the lifetime of this Parliament some £6 billion—I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said—will go into research from charities. That is about £1.3 billion a year, which is huge. As the noble Lord said, it is bigger than the NIHR. We are all acutely aware that research money from charities is absolutely fundamental to our whole research effort in the UK. Even after the increase of £2 billion a year from the Government in 2020, which is a fantastic change, if you compare our research spending with other countries we are still low. We depend heavily on the charitable sector.

I share with all noble Lords the aspiration for UKRI to work harmoniously and productively with the charitable sector. That is why the recent advert for the UKRI board lists engaging with charities among members’ duties and welcomes applicants with experience of the charitable sector. UKRI board members will be recruited on the basis of experience and expertise from across the full range of interests of the UK’s research and innovation system. We are ensuring this happens through our current recruitment exercise. If noble Lords will find it agreeable, we will reflect on today’s debate and see whether we ought to stiffen up that language.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

We have heard a number of variations on the theme of reflection. Before the noble Lord finishes, could he be clearer about whether he will seriously take this away and look at it with a view to coming back on Report or will he just sit and reflect on it? Noble Lords would be very grateful to know that.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I was under the impression that the word “reflection” has a parliamentary connotation and means more than just idly reflecting in the Bishops’ Bar after this debate, instead implying a serious discussion with colleagues and parliamentary draftsmen. Sometimes you can make amendments that satisfy the spirit of everything that has been discussed but they have unintended consequences which can have the opposite effect. When I use “reflect” now or later in this debate, I do so with serious intent.

Turning to Amendments 486A and 491 on partnering, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, with a third of university research income coming from links with business and charities, their contribution towards the UK research endeavour is clearly very significant. The councils continue to have an important role, encouraging links with universities and through forming their own direct partnerships. UKRI will continue this and ensure public, charitable and private investments in research are aligned to achieve maximum overall benefit. Noble Lords will have noted that UKRI has two specific powers to allow joint working: with the devolved Administrations and with the OfS. This is not just because these are important interactions; there are specific legal reasons why additional powers are necessary, for instance to allow Research England to continue to work with the devolved Administrations jointly on current UK-wide priorities, including developing the next research excellence framework.

In all other instances, however, I can reassure noble Lords that UKRI will not need specific provision to be able to work jointly with other bodies. I can absolutely reassure noble Lords that those partnerships between UKRI or its councils and the charitable research sector, not to mention other research funders, will be in no way impeded by the Bill. I can confirm the statement made by the UKRI chair, Sir John Kingman, in this respect. In fact, the Bill places a duty on UKRI to be as efficient, effective and economic as possible. It is difficult to envisage instances where collaborating with an appropriate funder from the charitable sector or elsewhere would not achieve these aims.

In conclusion, while I agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of this proposal and welcome the opportunity to recognise the important role of charity funders, no additions to the Bill are required to enable UKRI to work with other bodies or to ensure charity sector experience on the board. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I agree that consideration needs to be given to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, but one must not forget that there are regions of the United Kingdom south of the Scottish border which may require special attention.

I am hopeful that the reflection, which I am sure that we will have on these amendments, may result in good outcomes. Officials in the department have given me a copy of the application invitation to non-executive members of UKRI, which says:

“We welcome applicants with a range of experience from within the different nations of the UK, the charity sector, and with international experience”.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing it so well, because he covered all the nuances. We have one amendment in this group, Amendment 500A, which complements the points that he was making. It reflects the need to make sure that Research England, in its functions, which would be very narrowly focused on England—including, of course, the north of England—could have the capacity to consult other bodies that perform the same functions in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That goes with the general grain of what is being discussed.

I have a fantasy that this area was probably dreamed up in the good old days before Brexit was on the horizon, in the confident assumption that there would be no separate Scotland—and certainly no separate Wales and Northern Ireland, if these issues are still in play, as I am sure they are. That reflects a relatively straightforward analysis of what had to be done to pay lip service to the need to ensure that those people not physically located in England were seen to have some influence on the levers that generated the money. But that is such a naive view of what is now such a complicated world that I wonder whether what is in the Bill is sufficient to take that trick. It is one area in which reflection will be required, as the noble and learned Lord hinted, because I do not think that what we have here will do.

I take it as axiomatic that UKRI is not a representative body and that there would be no advantage in making it so—so we are not talking about ensuring that the representation on it is in some way reflective of the various agencies and constituencies that need to be served by it. However, there are optical issues—it has to be seen to be representative in a way that would not have been the case two or three years ago. The idea that, as we heard from the letter of invitation, it has an acknowledgment of the need to recruit from people with obvious experience in an area will probably will not be sufficient. We are talking about the allocation of resources getting scarcer as we go forward, despite the Government’s reasonable largesse, in an environment where it would be very difficult for those bodies that have been funded to seek alternative matching funding. The institutions we are talking about are not all universities, because research is carried out outside the universities—although much less than in other European countries—in research institutes and similar places. Up until now these have been very reliant on external funding and, as we will hear in later amendments, they are feeling a cold wind coming. In this very complicated area we have to ensure that the funds will reach the institutions which are best able to provide the research services which UK plc is looking for and in a way that is seen to be fair.

We have not touched on the fairness issue. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, talked about the need for firewalls to make sure that the funding streams were not absorbed by other pressures and under other arrangements. That is probably a necessary but not sufficient condition and does not need to be in the Bill. However, the idea exists that England, because of the golden triangle effect, has a pre-eminent chance of getting all the funding and that, despite the way in which these funds will be allocated—through the Haldane principle and others—there will be enough room left for those who wish to make trouble about this in, say, Scotland or other places. This is a worry and it will need to be looked at very carefully before the Minister comes back. I do not have a solution to it, but we are not necessarily in the right place at the moment.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his speech at the beginning of this debate which helped identify some of the issues. First, I emphasise that UKRI, as a UK-wide body, has a built-in duty to work for the whole of the UK. The prospect of having people on the UKRI board from all parts of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland does not fill one with much joy. Secondly, I make it clear that these reforms will not affect current funding access for institutions in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. In the other place, my honourable friend the Minister cited the Public Bill Committee evidence of the former vice-chancellor of the University of Dundee and current vice-chancellor of the University of Leeds, Sir Alan Langlands. I hope that noble Lords will permit me to echo that powerful evidence once more. Sir Alan said that,

“given the dynamics of devolution and the fact that essentially we are dealing with four different financial systems and four different policy frameworks, the one thing that has stuck together through all this has been the UK science and research community. The research councils, HEFCE and, indeed, BIS have played a hugely important part in that”.

As part of UKRI, the research councils and Innovate UK will continue to operate across the UK, funding projects through open competition on the basis of excellence, wherever it is found.

In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on capital, the devolved Governments have a capital allocation direct from the Treasury as part of their block grant. Decisions on whether to allocate any of these funds on research or innovation are entirely for them: this will not change. Capital allocated by research councils, as a result of competitive processes, wherever the researchers are based across the UK, will continue to be delivered through the UKRI councils: this will not change. The Secretary of State, when making capital allocations for research, most recently through the capital road map, also makes an allocation for HE institutions to support the sustainability consequences of their relative success in winning research council funding. This process will not change, including the requirement for the devolved Governments to match-fund any allocation by the Secretary of State to the devolved funding councils.

On Amendment 501, I share the noble Lord’s desire that UKRI’s strategy should work for the whole of the UK. The strategy will be the product of a consultation with research and innovation institutions and bodies from across the UK. I also assure noble Lords that this consultation will of course incorporate the views of the devolved Governments. However, I disagree that this should be achieved by requiring the Secretary of State to formally consult with the devolved Governments on reserved UK government policy, which would undermine the whole devolution settlement.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that we are putting in place extra protections for Research England. This reflects the provisions in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which places the same restriction on the Secretary of State in relation to HEFCE funding. The provision protects the academic freedom of institutions in respect of what is taught, what research is undertaken and who is employed. Likewise, I assure noble Lords that Research England will work closely with its devolved counterparts on matters of strategic interest—for example, on the research excellence framework. After discussions with the devolved Administrations, the Government passed a new clause in the other place, now Clause 107, to enable this joint working. Additionally, the current drafting of Clause 91 enables Research England to consult with its devolved equivalents, and we would fully expect it to do so whenever this was appropriate and valuable.

I turn to Amendment 502. UKRI must have flexibility to manage its funds to ensure best value for its resources and to meet our strategic aspirations for seamless administration of interdisciplinary research and joint research and innovation projects. Currently, allocations to funding bodies are discussed with the Treasury, which assesses any Barnett implications for the devolved Governments. This is not changed by the Bill. UKRI will also be bound by rules established for managing public money and a financial accountability and assurance framework which will be set up with the department. These arrangements do not constitute a reduction in current levels of parliamentary oversight. This amendment would place additional duties on Parliament to scrutinise even small variations in budgets that would be required in response to changes to project timelines or to support joint research and innovation projects, for example. This would not be a good use of Parliament’s time, and would hamper UKRI’s strategic agility by significantly slowing decision-making.

I urge noble Lords to consider the advice that the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, offered at Second Reading:

“I urge UKRI not to be overly prescriptive about partitioning funds between its component parts. We need a system that allows partners to come together across STEM subjects, the humanities and social sciences, and with industry partners, to drive a research ecosystem which goes from blue-skies research to commercial application and impact”.—[Official Report, 6/12/16; col. 624.]


Noble Lords have raised concerns about Research England’s funding stream. I reassure them that the Secretary of State would not agree to UKRI viring money in such a way as to result in a net change in Research England’s stated budget over a full spending review period. This will be made clear in guidance to UKRI.

Amendment 504 would give an effective veto power to the devolved Governments on matters of reserved UK government policy. The power of direction is limited to financial matters and reflects existing powers. The Secretary of State may use it to deal swiftly with financial issues, and it is an essential safeguard to the over £6 billion of public money that UKRI will receive per annum. Since this power is intended to allow the Government to deal quickly with urgent financial matters, I further appeal to noble Lords that a restrictive and drawn-out process of consultation is not the right approach.

As regards Amendment 507, the Government will continue to work with the devolved Governments on research and innovation policy, as they do now. The Secretary of State, as a UK Minister, already has a duty to act in the best interests of the whole of the UK. The Government made an amendment in the other place to ensure that the Secretary of State, when appointing members to UKRI’s board, must have regard to the desirability of including at least one person with relevant experience in relation to at least one of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. No such duty is currently in place regarding existing bodies with UK-wide remits. This strikes the right balance between ensuring relevant experience of research and innovation systems across the UK on UKRI’s board and giving the Secretary of State the flexibility to appoint the best people for these important roles. Here I assure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that there will be a proper gender balance on the UKRI board. Further wording around the Secretary of State’s duties in this respect would damage this crucial flexibility. With these explanations and assurances I ask the noble Lord, Lord Patel, to withdraw his amendment.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 30th January 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

483A: Clause 86, page 55, line 14, leave out subsection (2)

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, this continues on the theme of uncertainties. I think that I can deal with the issue fairly quickly; at least that is my aspiration in moving the amendment. The starting point for this brief debate is Clause 86, which lists the seven current research councils and then adds Innovate UK and Research England. The intriguing statement is:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend”,


that list so as to,

“add or omit a Council, or … change the name of a Council … But the regulations may not omit, or change the name of, Innovate UK or Research England”.

Inevitably, the question that arises is: why is that? This is not in any sense an attempt to set in concrete the existing structures. These councils have come and gone and changed their names with dazzling frequency and I do not think that what we have before us, the seven currently dealing with the range of research that they do, will last for very long. But it is important to have an explanation from the Minister, perhaps by letter if he so chooses, of what consultation might be undertaken before the councils are changed—because there is a bit of a worry about the uncertainty.

[Lord Willetts]

The noble Lord has just made an assertion which I do not think is quite correct. After the research councils were created in 1965 by the Wilson Government, if someone who had participated in those debates at the time were to look at this list of research councils, they would indeed observe changes. However, it is not the case that they change frequently: rather, they have changed very slowly over time. For example, the Economic and Social Research Council was created in the 1980s and the Science and Technology Facilities Council more recently. But the noble Lord should recognise that there is some quite deep continuity here, which is important if we want to ensure that they remain stable entities in the new dispensation.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

That is a very kind intervention because I no longer need to give the second half of my speech, in which I would have stated that the names of the councils are only one aspect; the worry is that the work might change. That was the point I was seeking to make. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I am almost humbled to accept such a wonderful offer. I thank the Minister very much indeed and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 483A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, this is a short but important point. Schedule 9 paragraph 8(1) states:

“UKRI may … appoint employees, and … make such other arrangements for the staffing of UKRI as it considers appropriate.


Sub-paragraph (2) states:

“The terms and conditions of appointment as employees are to be determined by UKRI with the approval of the Secretary of State”.


That is the general provision. However, there is an extraordinary provision in Clause 89. After listing the research councils—it is interesting that the arts and humanities are separate although the arts include humanities, although that does not matter too much—subsection (2) states:

“Arrangements under this section may, in particular, provide for the exercise by the Council concerned of UKRI’s functions under paragraph 8(1) and (2) of Schedule 9”—


those are the paragraphs I have just read—

“in relation to relevant specialist employees”.

In other words, the council is going to get, possibly, a chance to make arrangements in regard to relevant specialist employees. Who are these?

“A ‘relevant specialist employee’, in relation to a Council, means a researcher or scientist employed by UKRI to work in the field of activity of that Council”.


It is quite obvious that the term “scientist” is fairly ambiguous. For example, would it include a specialist doctor working for the MRC?

The other obvious question is whether this applies to technicians in laboratories. Is a technician a scientist? I would think they certainly are, but it cannot be taken as a certainty that the construction of the term “scientist” in this Bill would necessarily include a technician because sometimes we distinguish between them in the terminology. So far as researchers are concerned it is, vague in the extreme. Is a person who organises research but does not do any himself or herself qualify as a researcher? I thought that there must be some principle behind the selection of the terms “researcher” and “scientist”, and that is what my amendment ventures to suggest. It provides that, for a specialist employee,

“after ‘scientist’ insert ‘, or other person whose knowledge or experience is important to the operation of that Council”.

That is the only way to avoid ambiguity.

I have the impression from my discussions with the department that the general view is much in accordance with mine, but the officials seem to think that the terms “scientist” and “researcher” would include them all. I would like to say that they do not, but it is certainly not clear at all and I see no reason why it should not be. The easiest way to put it clearly is not to set out a list of all the people we can think of, because there would quite a number; rather, it is to set out the principle on which the relevant specialist employee as a characteristic is determined. That is what I have tried to do in my amendment, and I am happy to seek a better formulation if the Minister wishes it. I raised this point when I wrote to my noble friend’s predecessor and to the Minister in the Commons. I hope that we might be able to get an answer to this question tonight and I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, this is an interesting amendment and it has been well trailed since the noble and learned Lord made it clear in a couple of our Committee sittings that he intended to speak on this issue. We are glad finally to get the benefit of his words expressing concern about the current drafting and the need to unpick it. I think the Minister will be at a slight disadvantage because we have been making this point throughout the six days of our deliberations in Committee. We have tried to draw the attention of the noble Viscount to the fact that wherever there is an opportunity, in our view, for the Bill to inflect a sensibility within the structures and operations of the various bodies being established under the new architecture, towards an inclusive way of treating those employed within these structures, it has always been rebuffed. That might be too strong a word, but although it has been played back to us as something the noble Viscount would think about, we have not even managed to get him to reflect on it.

So the Minister is not able to take responsibility for the omissions of the earlier sittings of the Committee, but this is a great opportunity to pick up the point. Given that he has come from a department which must have responsibility for employees—indeed, in his last outing he was dealing with trade union reform and related issues—he will be well aware of the sensitivities that these matters can give rise to. He might want to reflect on the need to respond positively to the noble and learned Lord, who has made such a fine point.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I am going to respond but I will have to let the noble Lord draw his own conclusions as to how positive the response is. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has raised an interesting point and I thank him for that. In the interests of discipline and autonomy, and respecting the Haldane principle, it is right that the council should have special delegated authority to appoint and to set terms and conditions for specialist academic and research staff within that council and its institutes. There are particular cases where it may be necessary for councils to directly appoint and set terms and conditions for scientists, researchers and other technical staff involved in a research endeavour. In such cases, authority to do so will be delegated to the councils, as per subsections (2) and (3). A relevant example is the Medical Research Council’s Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge. There is no intention to change such long-standing and effective relationships.

I am sympathetic to the concern raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and agree that there are many other persons whose expertise is of great importance to the successful operation of a research council. As such, I reassure noble Lords that the Bill enables the continuation of existing practice to hire staff. Such persons will become employees of the councils through UKRI. Therefore, I ask my noble and learned friend to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support to the amendment. It seems extraordinary to imagine the Office for Students unilaterally making a decision that an institution should have the power to award research degrees. Surely it is quite essential that a research organisation—particularly, in this case, UKRI—should be heavily involved. Equally, I do not think that UKRI can make the decision alone because it relates also to the capacity of university departments to receive and look after research students.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, briefly, I put my name to this amendment because it raises quite a big issue in relation to the respective powers, which the noble and learned Lord explained very well. We have almost a surfeit of expertise around and it needs to be picked through very carefully. I invite the Minister to respond after due reflection, perhaps in writing, because this is something that we will need to come back to when we look again at the powers of the OfS on Report. This is not his current responsibility; it will probably be for the noble Viscount the Minister to respond.

This is a question of what powers the Secretary of State feels need to apply to which institution, not just in relation to the power to award research degrees—which is in itself an important decision—but in relation to, for instance, the quality of the teaching that might be involved.

We are hearing a lot about the way in which the department feels strongly that a measure must be introduced that will allow it to assess the quality of teaching. As far as we understand it, at the moment that is at an institutional level—although it will go down to departmental and, possibly, to course level. If it goes to course level, or even to departmental level, presumably it would be an imperfect measure if it did not also look at the research degrees that were awarded by that department or by the staff involved. We therefore have to know a lot more about this before we can make a decision about whether the powers are allocated correctly and whether the responsibilities lie in the right place. I look forward to having responses in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, as this is the last group of amendments, most of which were not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I shall respond briefly and particularly take note of the general comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I shall make a short concluding comment. If there are matters in this group of amendments that require some writing, I will write to all noble Lords and put a copy of such letters in the Library of the House.

I shall make some concluding comments about this quite long Committee stage. I record my appreciation of the whole Committee and of all noble Lords who have taken part in all the debates for the quality and constructive nature of the discussions we have been having in the past few weeks. I am very pleased that noble Lords recognise that Committee stage is about discussing the Bill, probing the detail and, importantly, giving all sides an opportunity to listen to other noble Lords’ points of view. As a result, noble Lords have not felt the need to divide the Committee beyond the first amendment on the first day. For that, I am grateful.

Now we have some time before the Bill enters its Report stage. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has challenged me on the meaning of different verbs used on occasion by me on and around the word “reflect”. I hope I can leave a smile on his face—or perhaps not—by saying that I am actively working with my honourable friend in the other place, Jo Johnson, to reflect on these discussions and consider the best way forward. On a serious note, I hope the noble Lord and the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Mendelsohn, realise that I have given much warmer words than that at certain points. In that spirit, I want to be sure that he understands that we are looking very carefully at Hansard and reflecting generally on all the debates. I am looking forward to Report. In the meantime, I would just say that I have very much appreciated the debates and look forward to future ones.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, because of the invitation to reflect, I will take a slight liberty and make two points. The worst time of my life was when I occupied a post in the British film industry and was involved in trying to get decisions for funding for films. We were often engaged in trying to deal with larger, richer and often foreign bodies, which were prepared to tantalise us with the thought that they might invest in our films. It became well known in that process that the worst decision you could get was the slow maybe. I am afraid we are in that situation. The Minister has said that he is reflecting and thinking, but we have not been able to get clarity. It is easier to have a straight, “No, we are not taking this forward”, than it is to have variations on “thinking hard about” or reflecting. I appreciate the gesture that he has made, but it has been a bit of a frustrating period, and I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, will also say that sometimes it has been very hard to understand where the Minister has wanted to get to with a particular issue because we did not get clarity about it.

However, that is all past. We are now into a period of calm waters, and perhaps we can pick up the threads of some of what we are doing and try to take forward the ideas for Report and possibly onwards from then. I hope that that will be a fruitful time, and I look forward to it.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, but given that this is such a massive Bill with so many unknowns in it, I and probably others will be calling on Report for some sort of post-legislative scrutiny and checking. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Brexit: Single Market and Workers’ Rights

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, why is it that I find it very difficult to believe every word that I have just heard from the Minister? It sounds great, and I am sure that parsnips are waiting to be buttered in order to benefit from that, but it is really not a very convincing argument from the party that brought forward the Trade Union Bill in the last Session. Is this not really about what we will be negotiating for? In its brilliant paper the TUC has no problem in setting out what the UK negotiating position should be—why can the Government not do so?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I think the Prime Minister, in a speech tomorrow, will be setting out the strategic objectives of our negotiations and what we are trying to get out of the negotiations that will take place over the next two years. It would be foolish of me to speculate in any more detail today about what those objectives are.

Green Investment Bank

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

The Government’s commitment to the integrity of the Green Investment Bank was made clear by enshrining its five green, core purposes in the articles of association of the company and the assurance that, if the company wants to change those green purposes, it has to get the agreement of the independent trustees, of whom the noble Lord is one.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Lord to his new Front Bench duties and look forward to working with him. The issue that has just been raised is important. Surely it is now clear that the trustees will be unable to prevent the green mission being changed, because the way that the deal is structured means they can be bypassed. Is it right that there will be no obligation on the new owners to continue investing in the UK, contrary to the requirements of the Act passed by this House?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

On the latter question of whether the bank may invest overseas, I understand that it is already considering projects in India and east Africa. One purpose of introducing private capital into the Green Investment Bank is to give it more flexibility to develop the business in future.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)]

My Lords, before moving the Motion, I should like to take a moment to reflect on the Bill and to say thank you. This is a small Bill of limited scope, but we have taken steps to ensure that it will work effectively for businesses whether in physical or online environments. I want to record my thanks to the Law Commission for bringing its great expertise to this most technical of subjects. Along with the Scottish Law Commission, it played a key role in the development of the legislation.

This has been a delightful new experience for me. It gave an opportunity to see the benefit of the Law Commission special procedure, which ensured that there was both a wide-ranging debate on the key issues and a robust examination of the Bill. The evidence sessions in particular provided access to a rich seam of expertise, and the procedure, having worked as intended, has produced a Bill that is much the better for it. This is a valuable route for much-needed and uncontroversial reform, and the Law Commission has asked me to express its gratitude to the House for the time and care it has given to undertaking its work. That is perhaps code for our careful scrutiny and the amendments we made.

I should also like to take the opportunity to put on the record our thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, for his chairmanship of the Special Public Bill Committee, as well as our thanks to our excellent clerk. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their polite, considered and probing questions. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his constructive approach, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for bringing her expertise to our deliberations. I also thank my noble friend Lady Wilcox, a former IP Minister, for her doughty championship of small businesses, along with our Whip, my noble friend Lady Mobarik.

Because of the structure of the Bill, we enjoyed not only the usual groups of amendments but vast families of amendments—a phrase coined by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles—across the various IP rights. Some of these families were quite large and, like any family, not always easy for outsiders to understand. Some of the families also appeared to be happier than others, but I would observe that we successfully manoeuvred our way through all the complexities.

I finish by putting on the record my thanks to the Bill team, the Intellectual Property Office and my private office officials for their support throughout the process. I believe that the Bill is being sent to the other place in great shape. I beg to move.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like briefly to echo the words of the Minister. This Bill has been a good experience and a novel and, for me, different way of doing Bills—something we might learn from, in fact, as we go forward. The Minister said that there were families of amendments, which was certainly true; and we became a little family as we tried to deal with the rather odd way in which the Bill is organised. That was because, every time we looked at one area, we discovered that we would have to amend the Bill in every other clause as well. We were in some danger of extending the small coterie of your Lordships who actually like IP matters, but that is a danger which I think not many would survive.

Like the Minister, I thank all those who gave evidence both in writing and in person. It was a rich and interesting experience. The Special Public Bill Committee worked very hard, and I would particularly like to thank, in addition to our chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, the representatives from the Labour side, my noble friends Lord Plant of Highfield and Lord Hanworth, who served a noble part on the Committee. I also echo the Minister’s thanks to the Intellectual Property Office and the Law Commission. Lastly, I thank the Minister. She has been rather modest in saying that we had improved the Bill; actually, it was she who took on the burden of heavy lifting not only by daring to go back to her own department and other departments to get clearance for various things, but also by taking on, in full measure, the Law Commission itself—and winning.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to intervene only briefly in the absence of my noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. From the updates she has given me regularly and from reading Hansard, she certainly proved more than a match for the Law Commission in many respects, and indeed she helped to inform the Government as the Bill went through. I know she feels that the Bill is now in a much more satisfactory form than it was when it arrived, and I thank the Minister for the amendments that were made in the course of its passage.

Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [HL]

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister and must declare my interests as a retired chartered and European patent attorney, former fellow of the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and former representative before the European Patent Office and European Union Intellectual Property Office; and that my husband has residual income from our former practice, and that we are proprietors of a registered trademark. That all means that I have had to send and receive the sort of correspondence that the Bill is all about.

The Minister has proposed amendments in this group and elsewhere that touch on most of the points on which I tabled amendments and spoke in Committee. The only points not touched on at all concern the proposed new section defining actionable threats, and I have not tabled similar amendments again, as these were perhaps overly substantive for this stage of a Law Commission Bill. That is a pity but, nevertheless, I have had the opportunity to elaborate on those points in Committee for the public record, and people can take note of what will remain problems.

With regard to Amendments 1, 2 and 4 for patents and the corresponding changes to the clauses for trademarks and designs, I agree that the deletion of “solely”, and clarifying the examples, make the safe harbour that is intended for permitted communications clearer and the accidental triggering of threats provisions less likely. I need say no more on that. I am grateful for the other drafting amendments on numbering and with reference to pending rights, which I raised.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure we will find when we examine the fine print that there is probably a prohibition in the Companion on making the sorts of speeches we have been hearing. That makes me even more determined to make them. It is right that we should record that the special procedures we went through for the Bill, although recognisably a labour—no pun intended—have generated a very successful outcome. I join others in congratulating our chair, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate, who got us through some interesting and tricky evidence sessions with great expediency and, as was said, on time.

I also congratulate the Minister, whom I recall making her first appearance at the Dispatch Box on an intellectual property Bill—“flustered” is perhaps too strong a word, but it certainly was not her natural habitat. But the feathers have grown and the plumage has become much more sleek and groomed, and now we have somebody who is fully equipped to deal with all matters of intellectual property. As has been said, those of us who have been involved with intellectual property Bills before have had not much success in getting changes, but she has come back with a raft of improvements to the Bill. Against the Law Commission, as has been said, you can say no finer than that.

It was a pleasure having an expert member on the committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. It is always a bit of a worry when you see somebody on a committee who knows a lot about the subject, because you think they may dominate it. She was indeed very powerful in her contributions, but they were to a point and finely judged. We all learned and benefited from that.

We have done extremely well, and the Minister has achieved a great deal and kept us informed. We had a letter only this week explaining what the proposals were and how they fitted into her thinking, and I am happy to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, I again thank the Minister for these amendments. I welcome that “necessary” has been removed from the judge’s discretion provision by way of Amendment 3 and its family of amendments. It was a feature of our discussions with witnesses and in Committee that the court’s ability to exercise discretion was important and that the flavour should be that the judge can do what is reasonable in all the circumstances. This is reflected in the simple words “in the interests of justice” without what might have been an unusually high or inflexible hurdle of “necessary”.

On Amendment 6 and its corresponding family, we had significant discussion during evidence sessions relating to the status of take-down notices that are sent to digital platforms and then by the platforms on to vendors. Case law had left a bit of a limbo as to whether these are threats and, if they are, whether the defence that “all reasonable steps” have been taken to find the primary infringer is too high a hurdle, especially in the digital environment, where vendors may be in remote places and it is effectively impossible to trace who may truly be the primary infringer and the customer is, in effect, the importer. Did every lead have to be pursued or, if not, how many?

There is some assistance through the Minister’s amendment that deletes “all”. This makes the defence, if it is needed, a little easier, and the word “reasonable” still retains aspects of proportionality, so the test has not been made too light in other circumstances and can adapt.

However, the amendment does not solve the lacuna of whether a take-down notice is or is not a threat, with two interim judgments—Quads 4 Kids and then Cassie Creations—indicating it was an arguable point but not deciding. This is left, as I said, in limbo.

This is a substantive point—again, too substantive for this stage of a Law Commission Bill—and there is an opportunity to pursue issues relating to digital platforms in the Digital Economy Bill. On these Benches, we are interested in doing that for the status of take-down notices, among other things. I know the Minister can give no promises now but at least it, and how it originated, will be no surprise when the issue returns.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I want briefly to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—my noble and learned kinsman—in expressing my thanks for the way in which these points have been taken, but perhaps I may add a little a gloss to what he said. The way he expressed it was that this is going to aid the generic judge in doing their job more efficiently than would otherwise be the case. However, it is worth recalling that the discussion we had in Committee on this—it was prompted by the evidence we received—turned on the fact that this is quite a key point in trying to perceive within the Bill the evolutionary steps that the Law Commission said existed, as this Bill provides a route forward from where we were in previous times to where we might be in the future in the possibility of establishing a more general tort in relation to business ethics and business behaviour, of which it is arguable that unjustified threats are a very unjustifiable part of the business environment. I know that the Minister shares my thinking on this and I agree with her that this is not the Bill in which to take these issues forward, but I think we both hope that there will be an opportunity to come back to this issue in some future legislation.

The point is an important one. If we see this piece of legislation as a step on a journey towards an alignment that is closer than is currently the case with the Paris convention 1883, we will be in a more satisfactory place to understand and perhaps plan forwards on how these things might happen. Whether that should be in the Digital Economy Bill, which is soon to arrive with us, we do not know, because it is not being dealt with in the Minister’s department any more. However, I am sure that she will take a close interest in it, particularly if the words “intellectual property” are flashed around. I am sure that she will be like a moth to the flame coming back to support us. In the interim, we support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

9: Clause 1, page 4, line 6, after “the” insert “specific”

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, for joining me in tabling this amendment and its parallel amendments in later parts of the Bill. I am sure that the Minister, when she comes to respond, will point out that, as phrased, the amendment does not achieve what I hope to draw out from her in the discussion. In that sense it is a probing amendment, which is probably inappropriate, but nevertheless it was the only way we could think of to get this thing up at this stage.

As the Minister said in Committee, the tactic of suing a professional adviser for making a threat has been used to disrupt negotiations and hamper legitimate client-adviser relationships. A professional adviser should not have to become personally involved in a threats action when they act only on behalf of their client. I accept that the Bill as drafted restricts the protection available to professional advisers to those who are regulated by a statutory regulatory body or entitled to legal professional privilege, but we already have in the Bill provisions under which the professional adviser may rely on the safe harbour provisions to avoid personal liability. Maybe there are other ways that other safeguards could be built into the Bill, such as when it is clear that the threat is speculative and when the principal and the adviser are clearly adopting a game of bluff with the alleged infringer, and so should, by rights, be at risk. I would certainly be happy to engage in discussions with the IPO and the Minister on this point if there was willingness to take it further.

I accept that exempting professional advisers from the threats provision has long been called for and that it would help stop game playing. However, to my mind this is a step too far. The Bill delivers an exemption that provides for the first time in English law that an agent would not be liable for following the specific instructions of his or her principal. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, I tabled the amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I have a few additional comments that bear some relationship to what the effect of the word “specific” would be in this position.

The fact that advisers could themselves be liable has been, at least in some circumstances, a gatekeeper to check on the appropriateness of communications concerning infringement of intellectual property rights. It has also created other problems, hence the exemption that has been put forward in the Bill. We took evidence to establish that at least in the UK there are disciplinary provisions for wayward professionals, which assists in that gatekeeping, but here we are exempting advisers worldwide. I remain a little concerned as to whether the definition of “exempted adviser” is too widely drawn, but it seemed that there was another way to ensure some element of the gatekeeping is there to make sure the instructions to the adviser are specific.

An adviser overstepping the mark or not warning their client of the consequences of an unjustified threat could well be on the receiving end of a negligence action, but it is a bit grey as to what that instruction might need to be. Could it be a blanket instruction to “go get ‘em”, or to be trigger-happy without discussion about a whole portfolio of rights? The amendment aims to make it clear that specific, conscious instructions are needed, and that due care and attention to that takes place whoever and wherever the adviser may be. It also carries with it the flavour—this needs to be said and recorded—that the exempting of advisers is a particular exemption, not a “get out of jail free” card. Care still has to be taken over the composition and sending of letters or notices that allege infringement.

--- Later in debate ---

The solution provided by the Bill seems much clearer and more certain than trying to capture the concept of bluffing and so on. I can understand why some concerns have been expressed, but, in the light of the background I have set out as to why we have drafted the provision in the way that we have and the need for clarity, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

I thank those noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. It is right that we recognise that there are particularities in relation to in-house lawyers and I take the point made by the Minister that the exemption would be particularly useful for them. It does not get round the fact that this could easily be the thin end of the wedge. While that should not detract from the specifics of what we are discussing today, it would be odd if a very small part of a very small part of the law—while I in no sense diminish the contribution made by this Bill to the greater good—was to be adapted to allow this exemption, which then spread.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

It may be clearer if I make one final point. My understanding is that the underlying law on agent liability is left undisturbed, so no precedent is being set here for other areas of law which concern agent-client relationships. I recall that being a concern expressed by the noble Lord, so perhaps my making that clear to the House will help him in agreeing to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

Yes. The Minister anticipated exactly what I was going to say. We were all looking for some words of reassurance so that those who had to interpret the provisions later would be better informed. We have not had the chance to see the Explanatory Memorandum in that regard. Perhaps we could receive that in correspondence before the final stages of the Bill, so that I might be more satisfied. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.