13/12/2017 Lords Questions

Sovereign states can become members

of the Commonwealth. Establishing a

former Observer -- former Observer

or associate status has to be agreed

by all members.

I thank you for the reply.

Interesting. The 40 UK overseas

territories, Scotland, Northern

Ireland, and Wales are all members,

supporting good governance,

democracy, the rule of law. And the

CPA is an international

organisation. So why is it none of

which appear to be represented at

the forthcoming Parliamentary Forum

at the London Commonwealth summit?

Secondly, noble Lords will know how

frequently politicians around the

world, with or without connection to

the UK, extend interest to admission

to the Commonwealth. What action is

the country taking to develop those

interests in Commonwealth membership

for our long-term benefit?

On the second question, I agree, I

think we need to identify new

members. The noble Lord will be

aware that Gambia has applied and it

is currently going through the

process for rejoining the

Commonwealth which we hope will be

in the early part of the New Year in

time for the summit. In terms of

representations of overseas

territories and the devolved

administrations, they form very much

part of our thinking. We are their

voice. Further to that as the

minister responsible for the

Commonwealth we are engaging

directly with the devolved

administrations. I'll be visiting

the different parts of the UK in

this respect. Also we are talking

directly to the overseas

territories, as well, to see how we

can engage more effectively with

them. And also perhaps involve them

in some of the other events around

the Commonwealth summit, such as the

440 which will be taking place

during the Commonwealth week.

I wonder if this is the right

approach. There are about at least

six countries who are interested in

more than associate status with the

Commonwealth. He's right that it

isn't in Britain's gift alone to

deliver that. But we are hosts for a

vast summit. And the question was

rightly asked about whether we could

invite countries as observers. Is it

not in our interest to develop the

point that the Commonwealth is

obviously a fast transmission

engine. And we should invite as many

guests as possible to observe and be

involved in some aspects, not the

full membership, of the Commonwealth

summit.

I agree with the sentiments of my

noble friend on the issue of soft

power. I'm sure he was minded of a

survey I saw last week that Britain

maintains its top position of a

global scale in terms of soft power.

I am talking directly to the

secretary-general and the

Commonwealth Secretariat as well as

other member states to pick up on

some of the very point is my noble

friend has raised. We will look to

see how we can engage more

effectively with those countries who

are indicating their desire to join

the Commonwealth family at some

future point.

One thing the Minister mentioned was

the civil society forward. I welcome

the Government's initiative in this

and the thematic approach. One thing

that concerns me is about civil

society players and making sure we

get the full attendance. Many of

them work and live in hostile

environments, particularly LGBT

communities. What steps is the

Government taking to ensure that the

civil society forum are attended by

everybody possible and those hostile

governments don't put a stop on them

attending.

That is an important issue. He will

also know that my right honourable

friend the Prime Minister and indeed

in our conversations we've talked

about the assurance of making sure

of the representation of civil

society groups and including those

from across the Commonwealth who

represent very vocally, often with

great courage, against very dire

domestic circumstances, the

important issues of LGBT rights. We

are clear, and I'm sure it's a

sentiment shared by everybody, LGBT

rights are human rights. They are

right and those voices need to be

heard. We are certainly working with

the Commonwealth Secretariat that

that right is observed and discussed

at the Commonwealth summit.

The noble Lord and Minister very

kindly recently met with me and

representatives to discuss the

possibility of a global malaria

summit next year. Given his earlier

comments about involving people in

the forum would he agree with me

that such a global summit would be

an excellent opportunity both to

engage with other countries and to

show Commonwealth leadership on an

issue of worldwide concern?

The noble lady will know that I

totally agree with her sentiments.

We've had a constructive meeting,

including with Malaria No More.

We're making sure that our intent is

reflected in the wider Commonwealth.

And she will also understand I can't

give the absolute firm commitment

this has been agreed because we are

still waiting on the responses from

all 52 member states back to the

Secretariat on the final agenda for

the summit.

Is the noble Lord the Minister aware

of the concerns in a number of

Commonwealth countries about their

position should the UK leave the EU

in terms of trade. He will know the

economic impact upon almost all

Commonwealth countries of that in

terms of tariffs both into the UK

potentially and onward into the EU.

Is he going to assure them, can he

reassure them?

I hope the noble lady has been

reassured by the efforts of my right

honourable friend the Prime Minister

in getting over that first deal

which was done with our colleagues

in the European Union. I hope that

was a real appreciation from the Lib

Dem bench there. Let's be clear that

the issue of the Commonwealth is an

important one. Our partners across

the Commonwealth are clear about

Britain's important position within

the family of the Commonwealth. In

terms of our leaving the EU, yes, we

will be leaving, but we will also

retain a new relationship with the

European Union. In terms of our

relationship with the wider

Commonwealth I've had the good

fortune in my role as Minister for

the Commonwealth to travel widely

from the Caribbean through Asia to

Australasia. All countries are very

keen to work bilaterally and

collectively through the

Commonwealth. A huge opportunity.

And I think we all look forward to

next April where we will see a new

revitalisation of the Commonwealth

family.

Can the Government ensure there is a

full discussion about the delivery

of the sustainability goals. And

perhaps take the opportunity

beforehand of publishing the full

and complete UK strategy for

delivery of the goals by 2030?

I'm sure the noble Lord is aware

that sustainability will be

discussed.

I beg you to ask the question.

England's recycling rate increased

to 44.9% in 2016. There is certainly

more to do. We're working to enable

households to recycle a single set

of materials. In England 88% of

local authorities collect all five

widely recycled Materials paper,

card, plastic, bottles, glass, and

cans. Many more now collect mixed a

rigid plastics and separate food

waste. Work is underway to

standardise materials to be

collected and recycled.

I recognise some progress is being

made and that we need long-term

objectives. However there is a poor

understanding of the rules on

recycling. Example the destructive

effect of black plastic or plastic

fruit netting, all plastic coated

coffee cups. Does the Minister

recognise that many of us who have

experience with the public sector

doubt local authorities will ever

make rapid progress that we need and

excite the population to recycle in

the way they need to do, unless we

have one simple system.

It's precisely why we have published

the report on a consistency

framework. We want better

communications with householders who

want an improvement in the

recyclability of packaging

materials. I would say there are

some good examples of what can be

done. Stroud, 40% increase, Maldon,

11% increase, in one year. Lady

Williams of Trafford, the council

she led for such a long time, now

61.3% recycling. Which is, my Lords,

the only really urban local

authority on that top list. And

that's why we are working

particularly with urban local

authorities to improve the

situation.

The noble Lord is very good at

choosing his statistics. He will

know I've drawn attention in the

past to the success of Wales who won

our second in the world for

recycling household waste. In

comparison to England that ranks 18

behind South Korea and Slovenia

amongst others. Isn't the lesson

here that the Welsh Government did

not just leave the problem to local

authorities, they provide the

leadership including mandating the

separate collections and statutory

targets for recycling which is what

made the difference. When is this

Government going to follow their

example?

I'm delighted to congratulate anyone

in the UK who does well. I'm very

pleased that Wales is doing well. I

endorse also those English

authorities and Scottish local

authorities who are seeking to

improve the situation that we all

know is a hugely important. That's

why we are working with local

authorities and industry because

this is an issue which we have

responsibility for. We have a target

of 50% by 2020. We need to achieve

that target. I am ambitious we go

beyond in future years, as well.

Greenhouse gas emissions from waste

had been falling rapidly but this

drop has flattened off notably over

the last three years. Does the noble

Lord the Minister agree with me that

eliminating food and garden waste

from landfill through better

separation of household waste is

critical and would help to drive

further emissions reductions and to

meet our carbon budgets, and indeed

the separated waste could be used

for biogas production?

This is why we do want to make

progress. I was very alarmed to hear

that 70% off food and drink waste

comes from households. In fact, £700

worth of food is thrown away each

year by a family of four. We all in

turn have to try and change some of

our behaviour. It is precisely why

we need to encourage more. 50% of

councils in England are now having

food waste collection. We are

looking for that increase. But we

also need to ensure that this 20% of

food that UK households buy and

throw away is no longer what happens

in this country.

It's one of the most successful acts

of the coalition Government, putting

5p on plastic bags, which has

reduced that problem considerably.

What is the Government's present

position on putting a charge on copy

cups? The large number of which are

not properly recycled. This would

make a huge difference in terms of

our sustainable economy for the

future and what we throw away.

He's right, we need to work very

strongly on improving our record in

recycling. That's why it's very

important the paper cup recycling

and recovery group is examining this

matter in much more detail. I think

it's really important we make

progress on this. I'm very conscious

that deaf... -- I'm very conscious

that Defra have said that we use

half the amount, but we need to

improve on that and this is where we

must do very quickly.

In the past the noble Lord the

Minister has quoted the very

different levels of recycling in

different local authorities. I

wonder if he could tell us what the

Government's thinking is on how we

can incentivise local authorities

who are not performing well to

improve what they are doing, and how

they can share best practice in

order to increase their macro level

of recycling?

My Lords, there are very good

examples of where this has gone

well, the Kent resource partnership,

for instance, increasing their

cycling, 13 local authorities with a

66 million gross benefit for Kent

taxpayers over seven years with only

7 million upfront. We need to work

harder on an extensive guidance for

local authorities on recycling, to

increase revenue from recycling

material, cutting contamination of

drive recyclables but also, my

honourable friend Terry Scott Fee

has written to the 34 local

authorities with the lowest

recycling rates and we wish to work

with them because we need to improve

the situation.

Macintosh.

My Lords, I think the

house would wish to hear from the

representative of the Green Party.

Thank you. The noble Lord Minister

clearly will understand that

incineration capacity is increasing

quite fast, but at the same time,

the residual waste stream that is

going to incinerators is less than

it ought to be to keep the

incinerator going at full capacity.

What is the Government doing to

encourage local councils not to

support incineration of materials

that could be recycled. You want to

increase recycling but your not

going to if it is all going to

incineration.

My Lords, this issue

is fairly complicated. The first

issue we have concentrated upon in

this cycle is prevention of waste

and we need to concentrate on how

much less should go into landfill,

then how much less should go into

incineration and how much we can

reuse and recycle and with

incineration, we must remember there

is some energy recovery but we

certainly need to do better in this

country on reuse and recycling and I

will perhaps want to discuss this

matter with the noble lady in

greater detail.

My Lords, I beg

leave to us to question standing

when a order paper. The Government

estimates that following the

increase from £21,000 to £25,000 in

the repayment threshold that applies

to post-2012 student loans, 30-35%

of borrowers with higher education

loans and 40-45% of borrowers with

advanced loans will repay their

student loans in full. Of those

starting courses in 2016-17, this

would equate to 135,002 160,000 with

higher education loans and up to

48,000 borrowers with advanced

learner loans, fully repaying their

loans within the 30 year payment

period.

I'm grateful to the noble

lord. What he said is the majority

of students will never pay their

loans in full. We also know that up

to 45% of the total loan outlay will

never be paid. My Lords, the poorest

students end up with the biggest

debt and last week, the National

Audit Office said that two thirds of

students considered by universities

-- considered universities do not

provide value for money and proper

independent advice is not available

to students when they make these

decisions which have such a large

financial consequence upon them. My

Lords, how can we have confidence in

the forthcoming review when the

Government resolutely defends the

present wretched system so

determinedly? My Lords, will the

noble Lord accept that the current

system is failing? We need a new

system which is fair to students.

Well, the Labour Lord raised the

number of fights but we believe the

student loan system is working well

but there is always room for

improvement. On one of his points,

we to believe that students to get

good advice before they take on

their loans and indeed, they have to

sign some papers for that, but on

some of his more major points, we

are very keen to pursue the value

for money approach and Joe Johnson

in the Other Place has made it quite

clear that universities must provide

value for money for students and can

I also say, which the house knows,

that the whole graduate student

payment system is designed with a

deliberate subsidy in place and we

are on track with a complicated

formula to achieve it.

The loans and

the loan management, personal loan

management, I think everybody would

agree, is very much down to

financial education amongst those

students undergraduates. Is the

noble Minister aware that in our

report on financial exclusion and

supported by the FCA report on

financial lives 2017, it is

identified that over 80% of all

graduates complained that they have

had little or no financial

education. Can I ask what the

Government is going to do about

this?

Well, clearly, particularly

when the office for students is up

and running from January, this is

one of the issues that we will be

looking at. It is very important

indeed that students get the best

experience at universities and are

given the best advice, so the noble

Lord makes a good point that that

side is equally important in terms

of giving them also advice on the

financing of their courses.

My

Lords, in 1947, my brother and my

husband went up to Oxford to read

law and by brother became a High

Court judge, my husband became

senior partner of his practice and

those degrees were hard-fought. They

played sport in every section and I

hope that the minister would agree

with me that was done good value for

money.

Well, yes, my noble friend is

right. Can I say that I think she is

referring to degrees which were

shorter than degrees that take place

now and this is one of the reasons

why this has was very keen to

promote the idea of accelerated

degrees, which we are consulting on,

whereby degrees are undertaken in

two years at less cost per year than

they would be in three years. My

Lords, with the Minister not agree

that at the moment, we have got a

situation where degrees have become

totally monetised? And would it not

be a good idea that we have a good,

long, hard look to have something

like a graduate tax brought him that

would remove this idea of one huge

debt hanging over those who take on

a degree? Certainly, the noble Lord

is right, a graduate tax was

considered as part of the reforms

that were considered several years

ago. We do not think this is the

right approach but we do think it is

right that the students are able to

take out loans that I am sure the

noble Lord would agree increases the

chances of having disappeared --

disadvantaged students at

university.

I know of are -- no

other Government agency that charges

the same percentage.

I'm not going

to be drawn into answering that

question, but can I say the interest

rates are very much set and I have

said before, these are being kept

under constant review and there will

be a review forthcoming on higher

education and funding.

As the

Government made any assessment on

whether there will be any material

difference in the sum is actually

repay to Her Majesty is Treasury

over the decades if the interest

rates were said at a less use your

ears level?

I'm sure they have but I

don't have those figures with me.

90% of all those borrowers who

entered repayment in April 2015

already have fully repaid all are

meeting their repayment obligations

and this is testament to the fact

that the payment at source system

working closely with HMRC is working

well.

My Lords, I beg you to and

asked the question in my name on the

order paper.

They are first of all

welcome the noble lady to her first

question at the dispatch box and the

serious fraud office will remain

independent and will continue to

undertake its own investigations and

prosecutions. The new powers would

give the National Crime Agency the

ability to task the serious fraud

office to open a serious

investigation but only with the

agreement of the Attorney General

and the Home Secretary. The serious

fraud office will be a key partner

in the National economic crime

Centre.

I am grateful to the noble

lady the Minister for that answer.

She will understand my rationale

because the Conservative manifesto

had pledged to scrap the SFO by

folding it into the National Crime

Agency, so my concern is this

announcement this week is by no way

the same policy by stealth and the

SFA will remain independent and

protected and that it can't be done

task as well as task by ministers

and it will remain independent from

a political interference.

I think I

made it clear my first answer that

it will remain independent in terms

of the manifesto. We do need to

continue to look at all options to

improve our response to tackling

economic crime but, yes, the SFA

will remain independent.

The ability

of this new body to tackle broader

economic crime would be greatly

enhanced if we could extend the

concept of corporate criminal

liability particularly to issue such

as money laundering and the

mechanism for that is failure to

prevent. Will Shipley including

failure to prevent clauses in the

sanctions and anti-money-laundering

built going now through this House?

My Lords, I am not involved in the

sanctions and money-laundering Bill,

unlike every other piece of

legislation which I do seem to be

involved in, but I will take the

noble lady's point and I think the

broader point here is there will be

a multi-agency response to differing

types of fraud and that, actually,

as a partnership, they will perhaps

do more good than a series of

isolated bodies.

Will the noble lady

confirmed that one of the most

effective British crime-fighting

agencies is the British Transport

Police and would it not be a

travesty of the Scottish Government

were allowed to incorporate the

northern part of the British

Transport Police into the chaos that

is Police Scotland?

Well, I wish I

had listened to the statutory

instrument that the noble Lord was

talking at the other day more in

depth, instead of looking at my own

notes for my own statutory

instrument but I understand

transport is devolved and therefore

it would be a matter for the

Scottish Government but I will look

into that more closely for the noble

Lord because it is not precisely my

area.

I have an interest in policing

in particular and share the

independent reference group in the

National Crime Agency but could the

noble lady explained Ross why the

National Crime Agency has been given

these particular responsibilities

and that this is not a task that has

been passed to the City of London

police, who have the lead

responsibility for fraud matters?

Necessarily suggesting the City of

London police should take on these

additional responsibilities but

could the noble lady explained

whether there is any incoherence in

Government policy in terms of these

two different agencies and

authorities and forces being given

responsibilities in the fraud area.

Isn't that going to be rather

confusing for people?

I hope I can

satisfy the noble Lord when I say

the national economic crime Centre

will be hosted by the NCA but it

will be staffed by partners from

across the law enforcement

community. For example, the NCA, the

FCA, HMRC and the City of London

police as well as the serious fraud

police office and private sectors,

so it will be a multifaceted

approach to this, rather than a

fragmented one which he suggests.

Is

the Minister aware that the Scottish

Conservative Party, in its

manifesto, expressed its opposition

to the devolution of the British

Transport Police to Scottish police

and will she therefore, with her

colleagues in Scotland, do her best

to reverse this ill judged and very

dangerous move?

Well, I am aware of

what the Scottish Conservatives are

saying. Nevertheless, the desire for

devolution in... Not only in

Scotland and Wales, has been strong

and therefore the fact that this is

edible matter is probably beyond my

remit today, but of course, the

Scottish Government have been so

strongly in favour of devolution.

Can I just point out to the noble

lady that of course transport is not

just a Scottish matter. Some

transport across the border and come

into England as well. I travel every

week down here by train does that

mean the transport police will now

be stopped at Carlisle and therefore

a new police force had to take over

thereafter?

I take the noble Lords point. I

never thought this question we get

down the line of transport, or I

would have listened more carefully

to the Noble Lord's points and

debate.

Could the noble lady tell us

what has happened to the

Government's national infrastructure

policing review which could have

impacted on transport or you could

argue infrastructure was part of the

economic system and then maybe

impacted him by the move. Where is

the national infrastructure review?

I will have to write to the Noble

Lord on that point, because we are

now down another avenue. That isn't

fraud.