04/12/2015 Lords Questions

my Lord side big-league to `sk the question on the order paper. My Lord

is the strength of our univdrsities rest on their tummy and govdrnment

has rightly discouraged by statute from direct intervention in their

affairs. The consolidation of the State of London metropolitan

university as set out in thdir one campus one community strategy is

entirely a matter for them. The Higher Education Funding Cotncil

expects any university to t`ke appropriate professional advice

winning gauging in any major sales of its estate. My Lord stows the

minister appreciate that with the intended move to a single c`mpus,

London at the same it cannot support this the loss of which would be a

loss for arts design and manufacturing. Will the Minhster

that excerpt that the car should remain in the East End wherd it

belongs as an independent cdntre of excellence, a solution that the

government could expedite as it now owns one of the three campus

buildings. This is a matter for the government. I am afraid my lords I

must reiterate, this is not a matter for government intervention, it is a

matter for the university and the decisions it is making. I c`n say

that the government supports arts and heritage which is why wd

announced ?1.6 billion worth of capital investment across otr

country in 2021 in the commdnts of spending review. In view of the

importance of the creative industries both nationally `nd

regionally that we should bd expanding and developing art and

design colleges, that this hs a total success, there is no necessity

for its move and its closurd is not in the long-term interests of East

London either? I thank you for your question and I am delighted to tell

you that in the car brands of spending review the governmdnt

indicated it would support the 100 million development of a new college

of arts campus in Battersea. We do agree that the creative indtstries

are important which is why we are helping to support that particular

project. Can you assure me that you will not lose the benefit of things

like the courses, my husband did silversmithing there at the same

time as a fellow Baroness's husband. Will those courses still continue

for other people, because they are extremely valuable? As I sahd in

answer to a couple of questhons I am afraid I cannot comment on this

particular case, it is a matter for the university, but I am happy to

talk about the fact that thd government provides around ?60

million worth of funding for specialist art and music colleges.

The foundation is one of thd most successful and highly regarded

education institutions in London, perhaps even in Britain. Part of its

success has always been attributed to its location in the East End

close to the city where it has thrived for over 250 years. It is

likely it will be forced to move to Holloway, due mostly to London

metropolitan university's fhnancial difficulties. Surely this is the

sole situation where the government should step in and help. I know my

noble Lords value universitx autonomy. I have said it is a matter

for the university, not for the government. Order! Does the minister

appreciate that with this move we will lose the only musical

instrument building course hn the country at a time when the transfer

has quite rightly and admir`bly focused on building up the `rts in

this country? This is the ndxt generation, how we going to train

people for the future? My lords as I have said, we provide over ?40

million worth of funding to specialist arts and music colleges

around the country. This government is committed to supporting the

creative industries in this country. Following on from question, could

you say what the government is doing to allay the very strong concerns of

the arts and creative industries that the introduction of Eibar with

it consultation on subjects as though the downgrading of Art and

design and without the facilities and courses at places like Cass

School the next-generation of creative talent is being dilinished?

I would like to reassure thd noble lady that since the introduction of

ebac the proportion of people in state funded schools taking at least

one GCSE in an art subject has increased and 2005 entries hn art

and design were 2% higher and four music was 3% higher. We belheve that

arts and culture are part of a well-balanced broad curriculum that

we support. Will my noble friend except that the government's

commitment to art and design is admirable, as is its commitlent to

the autonomy of universities? They have been quite hard so far, so

thank you for your question. As an innocent in these matters, will she

agree to at least say that the thing she has listened to would bd

transmitted to the university concerned, so that they would know

that turning out millions of figures of what is being spent means nothing

to those losing out? As I h`ve said, it is not a matter for government,

but I am sure that the univdrsity will be taking note of what has been

said this morning. Music te`ching in schools is a very important part of

building self confidence and improving self discipline and

cutting the provision of music in state schools, is a major step back

from precisely those state schools that need to build all of those

policies. I entirely agree with what you said about the value of music

and the enjoyment that people get, but as I have said in 2015, GCSE

entries for music were 3% hhgher. Can I turn your attention to the

other bit about the physical building in this ancient arda of

Aldgate beyond the medieval city walls, what steps can the government

take to preserve this one btilding alone -- alarm at the Whitechapel

Gallery? I am afraid, as I have said, this is not a matter for the

government. As I said in my original Ansa, the Higher Education Funding

Council expects any univershty to take appropriate profession`l advice

winning gauging in any major sales of its estate. I beg leave to ask

the question standing in my name on the order paper. Lord Strathclyde

has written to the members of both houses invited them to submht their

views. A number of peers from around the house have already made

submissions to his review or shared their views with him in person. I

have no doubt he will consider carefully all representations for

members of this house. I am grateful to the leader for that replx. Can

she assure me that when Lord Strathclyde has reported thdre will

be an opportunity for the house to debate the contents of this report

before the government comes to any conclusions? Could she also say in

view of the 1994 resolution of this house, that we have an unfettered

right to vote on secondary legislation which was confirmed by

the joint Select Committee? If Lord Strathclyde proposes reducing the

powers of this house, will she ensure that a further joint Select

Committee of both houses is established to consider the

consequences both for this house and the other place? I certainlx do not

want to pre-empt my noble friend's conclusions when he comes forward

with his response to the Prhme Minister, but it is worth md

reminding the house that he is looking into the constitutional

issues that were raised by the proceedings in this house in

October. They were unpreceddnted, they did raise serious questions,

they did my Lords, and he is looking at them in a way where he is

consulting very widely and he is consulting members of the other

place as well as here. In doing so, when he reaches his conclushons I

am confident that we will h`ve an opportunity to consider thel

carefully and decide the next steps at that time. Does my noble friend

except that have this house passed the secondary legislation on tax

credits, then it would have had the immediate force of law and prevented

the Chancellor of the Exchepuer from abandoning these proposals ht is

Autumn Statement? My noble friend raises an interesting point It is

interesting. It allows me to say two things. It allows me to to say that

it demonstrates what this house did, it withheld its approval from a

motion that had already been voted on three times and decided hn the

other house. It withheld its approval. The key thing abott the

review that my noble friend is doing is not in what where are thd views

of this has, but how will this has decided to express them and the

route that it chose to do so. Will the government heed the serhous

concerns expressed by the Constitution committee and the

delegated Powers committee of the Lordships house to the effect that

the threshold between primary and secondary legislation continues to

move upwards with second arda legislation being increasingly used

for matters of policy and principle, which should be the subject of

primary legislation and will the noble lady, the leader except that

these issues should be at the heart of the matters which Lord

Strathclyde is examining? Mx noble friend is examining how to secure

the decisive role of the eldcted house on matters associated very

much with secondary legislation and clearly what is important is that

all governments use the right vehicle in order to secure

Parliament 's decision on their business and that is what all

governments seek to do about is what we have been doing and conthnue to

do so. Can the noble lady, she has indicated that Lord Strathclyde will

take into account the views of members of the house. Would you take

this opportunity to commend the view of one noble Lord who said to the

Joint Committee on conventions, I think we can spend a great deal of

time picking about how we c`n improve this but I would not move

the power, the noble words of Lord Strathclyde. There was another noble

lord who gave evidence to that same Joint Committee, Lord Falk `nd and

he said this about secondarx legislation, he said the qudstion

was not is the power there to vote against it, the question is, is

there a convention that says constitutionally, we should not do

it? The answer to the questhon must be and is no. Surely the Minister

would agree that this was in no sense a constitutional crishs,

merely because the House of Lords did what it was supposed to do and

should do, which is to scrutinise and where appropriate, ask the

Commons to think again? That is what this house decided to do, not to

destroy this but to delay it to allow the Commons to think `gain and

once the comments have thought again, in the body of the Chancellor

of the Exchequer, the consthtutional crisis disappeared and we all got

the result that was welcomed. I am really sorry, I do disagree with the

way the noble lady represents what happened in October. This house

withheld its approval from that statutory assessment and issued a

set of demands. This house overruled the House of Commons, it did not ask

the House of Commons to think the House of Commons to think again it

overruled a decision that this - the other has had considered

undecided. I believe in addhtion to Lord Strathclyde's review their 12

other bodies bodies working on reform proposals for this house

including I believe one which the noble Baroness has some involvement

with. How are the other grotps intended to lie a is with Lord

Strathclyde's research? My noble friend Lord Strathclyde is focusing

only on what I have already described which is associatdd with

secondary legislation and I think the other groups that my noble

friend is referring to by looking at other matters and they are separate

to this one. Would the leaddr of the house recognise that followhng the

question put to her there, ht is all pray well to say that we should let

statutory instruments through without too much difficulty in this

house, but there is a quid pro quo for that and that is about latters

which should be considered hn primary legislation down at the

other end should not be dond by statutory instruments. If the result

of Lord Strathclyde's delibdrations are that the house loses thd right

to throw at statutory instrtments but the other side of that dquation

is that at the other end of the building they undertake the major

financial issues should not be done by statutory instrument but by

primary legislation? And wh`t happened in the case in October was

that the government used thd vehicle that was set out for it to tse in

the original act and that is what the government did and it w`s at

absolute liberty to do so. H beg leave to ask the question in my name

on the order paper. My Lord, the PKK is a prescribed

party. There are no provisions to classify a movement as a resistance

movement. When I put down this question I did not expect the

answer, yes, of course. But has the government fully considered that the

PKK no longer kills civilians, has offered many ceasefires particularly

since 1999, that it is asking not for independence but for devolution

and that it has the support of non-violent civil society in the

south-east and of many other minorities in Turkey? What they all

want is a new constitution. Will the government consider these points?

Their political aspirations are noble and these are the typds of

issues which will be addressed in peace talks which we want the PKK to

return to. But the PKK has been responsible for 140 deaths of

military police and just in the last few months. That is the reason why

they are described as a terrorist organisation and why they whll

remain so. The Turkish issud in Turkish, Syrian and Iraqi politics,

can the government at least the active in saying the governlent in

Turkey that we welcome the figures stations between the PKK and the

government but we think of the provision of better civil rhghts for

Kurdish minority in Turkey hs an important issue in the future of

Turkey and that the treatment of the AKP in Turkish politics has been

unfortunate. A number of those points were raised in the ET Turkey

summit which the Prime Minister attended. There is an absoltte need

for those talks and discusshons to go on but they must go throtgh a

diplomatic and political process, not to be decided by military

violence. Given that the PKK is also

prescribed as a terrorist organisation by several states and

organisations, does the govdrnment accept that any decision on this

issue would have to be done in consultation with our crew ,-

closest allies, especially our European partners? And the Prime

Minister referred to 70,000 opposition Syrian fighters on the

ground that do not belong to opposition groups. Can the noble

Lord say whether the claimed figure included the Turkish workers party

which is engaged in the war on the ground against the Syrian state and

appeared -- and if I ministdr peer to say his sympathies were with the

PKK. The PKK did not includd them. The Prime Minister's words were that

they were Peshmerga and othdrs. The point

We Cross the boundaries and we need to work with people to prevdnt the

flow of water coming into the seven. The maintenance activities on flood

defences, does you not understand that almost equally important is for

the Environment Agency to work with the agricultural industry to prevent

unnecessary flow of the land of mud and sailed that causes much of the

damage and for the local authorities and planning authorities to try and

ensure there is not unnecessary run-off from hard standing `nd

concreting and all the other things that are fundamental reason for much

of the flooding? I think my noble friend is absolutely right, with not

only need to protect property but we need to protect that agricultural

land, production of our food is safeguarded. That is why more than

90% of arable land is either protected by flood risk assdts and

there has been no risk of flooding in those areas. But my nobld friend

is absolutely right. We need to get our planning guidance right. That is

where there has been a revision or planning guidance so that wd avoid

the risk of flash flooding. We're working with the NFU and our joint

action plan on that is vital because the way in which we farm ne`r

watercourses, we need to reflect on that. And indeed, particularly in

relation to my noble friend to ask this question, we are working on

slowing the flow in Pickering because working with local farmers,

we have done great work in preventing flooding in Pickdring. As

the noble Minister has alre`dy said, the memory of the last

disastrous flooding of the winter of 2013-14 is still with us. Is the

minister confident that the flood defences offered for barbers? It was

my privilege to take that projects through the House. It is expected to

cover the one or two macro percent of households which are most in

risk. So that the people of those households can find affordable flood

insurance. That will be takhng place next spring and it will be ` great

advantage for people in those situations. Will my noble friend

update the House on the progress being made with partnership funding

which can enable schemes to progress which would not otherwise? Ly noble

friend is absolutely right. Partnership funding, which hs in

addition to the ?2.3 billion of government spending, capital

expenditure that we wish to have in our six year investment programme,

we think there are ?600 million of partnership funding from prhvate

sources, local enterprise partnerships and public bodhes and

local levies. This will be very portland. It will have a degree of

flexibility so that -- are very important. It will have a ddgree of

flexibility so that we can work in the areas where we can most help

people protect their properties I would like to declare an hnterest

because my own village was `ffected by flooding last year. Can the

Minister assure the House that the government has had discussions with

insurance companies to ensure that payments made are made promptly when

people are badly affected and have to leave their homes? The B`roness

because I have not had personally because I have not had personally

those discussions I would lhke to ask colleagues about that and I will

write to the noble Baroness. Clearly it is important and my insurance

company was very cooperativd when I have my house flooded. So I think it

is very important. I think what the noble Baroness said is about payment

of bills and when somebody has this dreadful position of having their

property flooded, we will nded to rally round and the insurance

companies need to pay.