Grand Committee

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Grand Committee

Wednesday, 21 July 2010.

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall)]

My Lords, before the Minister moves the first statutory instrument to be considered, I remind noble Lords that in the case of each order, the Motion before the Committee will be that the Committee consider the order in question. Motions to approve the orders will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.

Pensions Regulator (Contribution Notices) (Sum Specified following Transfer) Regulations 2010

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:46

Moved By

[Lord Freud]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pensions Regulator (Contribution Notices) (Sum Specified following Transfer) Regulations 2010.

Relevant document: 10th Report, Session 2009–10, from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to reinvigorating pensions, and a robust protection regime for company pensions is essential so that people have the confidence to save. Noble Lords will be aware that Parliament legislated, with cross-party support, for a new regime. The Pensions Act 2004 created two new bodies, the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator. These bodies are delivering improved protection for scheme members, helping to renew confidence.

These two sets of draft regulations, which the previous Government consulted on, will respectively mean that the UK Government meet a European Commission ruling and ensure that the protection regime operates effectively. The first set of draft regulations concerns the Pension Protection Fund and a state aid issue. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me if I am not able to answer some detailed questions which I am sure will emerge. BT plc has appealed to the Court of First Instance on the state aid ruling, and last Friday the High Court concluded a hearing brought by the trustee to determine the precise meaning of the scheme’s Crown guarantee. Some answers from the court are likely next week, but several key issues remain to be explored by the court after that.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Pension Protection Fund was set up in 2005 to protect members of eligible pension schemes which are mostly final salary defined benefit schemes. It does this by paying compensation to members of eligible pension schemes when the sponsoring employer has become insolvent and there are insufficient assets in the scheme. The PPF is financed through levies on eligible defined benefit schemes, residual assets of pension schemes transferring into the PPF and investment returns. The administration costs of the PPF are paid for by money provided to the board by Parliament. This money is then recovered by an administration levy from schemes eligible for the PPF. A small number of schemes do not pay the PPF pension protection levy or the PPF administration levy. These are defined benefit pension schemes with a full Crown guarantee and therefore do not require the protection of the PPF.

A Crown guarantee is a promise given by a public authority to stand behind the liabilities of a pension scheme should the scheme wind up in deficit. The precise nature of the Crown guarantee and what it protects varies, but broadly the result is the same—these are schemes whose liabilities are ultimately underpinned by the taxpayer. In some cases, the Crown guarantee covers only a particular part of the scheme, certain members or certain benefits. These are known as “partially guaranteed schemes”. Such a scheme would have to pay an administration levy only in respect of the part of the scheme that is not covered by the guarantee.

In many circumstances, Crown guarantees for pension schemes do not present a problem as the sponsoring employers are not commercial entities operating in a competitive market. In 2009, the European Commission reported on an investigation into whether the Crown guarantee for certain liabilities that BT had to the pension scheme gave rise to an incompatible state aid. The Commission decided that the non-payment of the PPF levies by the BT scheme could not be justified under EU rules because it relieved BT from charges that its competitors had to pay and was therefore an incompatible state aid. It is important that the Government do not unduly distort competition in competitive markets through state aid. Consequently, the UK Government were required to cease the incompatible state aid and ensure that the BT scheme paid the full PPF levies.

In February 2010, the previous Administration made regulations by negative resolution to remove the exemption from paying the PPF pension protection levy. This followed consultation last autumn on draft regulations. This pension protection levy is set by the board of the PPF, is intended to raise £720 million in 2010-11 and is one of the ways by which the PPF funds the compensation payable to members of schemes in the PPF. This set of regulations will complete the action and remove the exemption from the PPF administration levy where it gives rise to an incompatible state aid. This second levy funds the running costs of the PPF and is set at the much lower level of £22 million in 2010-11. These regulations are the final part of implementing the Commission's decision. The Commission's decision in respect of the BT pension scheme applies only to that scheme. However, the Commission will expect the UK Government to apply the same reasoning to schemes in a comparable legal position, and where the facts are the same. These regulations are therefore drafted in such a way.

I turn to the Pensions Regulator (Contribution Notices) (Sum Specified following Transfer) Regulations 2010. The Pensions Regulator commenced operations in April 2005. It was established as an arm’s-length body and charged with regulating workplace pension schemes. Noble Lords will be aware that Parliament gave the regulator important powers, with cross-party support, to address the risk of avoidance activity. Avoidance is an attempt by a sponsor employer deliberately to walk away from its statutory pension obligations—for example, as part of a corporate restructure—or to offload them onto the Pension Protection Fund. This activity would have serious cost implications for those schemes that will remain responsible for paying the PPF pension protection levy.

One of the regulator's main powers to address the avoidance activity is the contribution notice. This requires a cash sum to be paid to the scheme, or to the board of the Pension Protection Fund, up to the value of the sponsor employer's full statutory debt to the scheme. There are legal tests to ensure that this power is used appropriately. For example, the regulator must be of the opinion that it is reasonable to exercise its powers and it must have regard to certain factors, where relevant, when forming its decision. These factors include the avoidance of involvement of the person in the act of avoidance, and the connection or involvement which the person has or has had with the scheme.

The Pensions Act 2008 amended the contribution notice power to close a loophole. The problem was that under the 2004 Act, the regulator was prevented from issuing a notice to any scheme other than the one in relation to which the avoidance occurred. This meant that an employer could avoid a contribution notice by transferring the members to another scheme. Requiring the employer to pay funds to the original scheme would not assist those transferred members, so a contribution notice might not be justified. Parliament agreed legislation, with support from all sides of the House, to permit the regulator to direct the notice to the scheme to which the members had been transferred.

These draft regulations, which are required under the 2008 Act, simply set out how the regulator must calculate the amount to be specified in a contribution notice where members are transferred from a defined benefit to a defined contribution scheme. The 2004 Act already provides the means for calculating this amount in respect of defined benefit funding rules, and these regulations provide the means for calculating the contribution notice sum where those rules do not apply. There are important safeguards, including that decisions to use the contribution notice must be made by the regulator’s determinations panel, which is independent of the evidence-gathering part of the regulator.

In my view, there is no undue impact on business, and consultation responses supported this. These regulations will in fact provide certainty for business on how this power works. In my view, the provisions of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 and the Pensions Regulator (Contribution Notices) (Sum Specified following Transfer) Regulations 2010 are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the two sets of regulations to the Committee.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a precise and extensive explanation of these orders. Given that, as he indicated, they were promulgated under the previous Government, it will come as no surprise that we do not propose to oppose them. Notwithstanding the fact that I had command of the Pensions Act 2008, I do not propose on my account to delay the Committee much on these issues.

There are just a couple of matters in relation to the contribution notices on which I wonder if the Minister could update me. I went back and read a bit of the Hansard debate—sad person that I am—and it reminded me what a joy that episode was in my life. I recall that there were issues around the extent to which anti-avoidance measures should be written into the primary legislation to give assurances to businesses, trustees and sponsors of pension schemes, and how much should be left for a code of practice and other means to maintain flexibility to be able to ensure that new avoidance devices that came along could be properly addressed. On that issue, does the Minister’s experience to date—I accept that that experience to date has not been extensive—suggest that the balance of that approach was right? It was a matter of some debate at the time. Are there any emerging avoidance schemes of which we are aware, where we think that the anti-avoidance framework is not sufficient or does not give sufficient powers to the regulator to address those issues?

In the past there were proposals for insurance-based schemes that would, it was suggested, negate the need to pay the PPF levy because an insurance company would stand in the stead of the PPF. At the time, because the PPF was emerging and still something of a fledgling body, the previous Government were not prepared to entertain that, although there were issues about whether the benefit of an insurance contract could be a contingent asset for PPF purposes in doing the calculations. Will the Minister update me on whether there has been any further progress in those sorts of schemes and whether the current Government are minded to take a different view from the one that we took?

The levies order is pretty straightforward and we do not take issue with it, although I ask the Minister if he could give us a general update on the PPF and where it stands in the context of the current pensions framework. In the immediate past there were a number of challenges about whether the PPF would be able to withstand the thrust of new schemes that might be entering into the PPF—I think our line at the time was that there was 20 years’ worth of cash flow there, and that was the key driver. An update on that would be helpful, perhaps with an idea of the number of schemes currently covered by it.

16:00

More specifically, with regard to the BT issue, having reflected and read the paperwork, I wonder if the Minister can help me out on one point. I accept that it is not appropriate today to debate the court’s position on the detail of what the guarantee may or may not cover, but I hope he can help me out on just one issue. I was looking at the consultation on the draft regulations that covered these regulations and others, and paragraph 26 says that,

“the European Commission concluded that a UK Crown guarantee covering the pension liabilities of BT plc on the EU telecommunications market was partially incompatible under EC Treaty state aid rules. The Commission did not call into question the safeguards for BT’s employees at the time of privatisation, introduced by the guarantee. However, the Commission concluded that the partial exemption from payment of a levy to the PPF since 2005 conferred an unfair competitive advantage to BT”.

Does that leave us in a situation where, although the extent of it may be subject to some debate, the pension scheme is protected in part by a guarantee but there is a PPF levy payable, in a sense, in respect of both that part and the unprotected part? If there is effectively double coverage, how is that going to work out in practice? Presumably, the guarantee would top up in excess of the 90 per cent, but how does the Minister see that working? On what basis is the PPF levy calculated—both the admin levy, which is the particular subject, and the general levy?

Apart from one very minor other point, those are my only questions and, as I said, these will not stop us supporting the orders. Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum on the levies says:

“Schemes which have a Crown guarantee given in relation to a particular part of the scheme, certain members or certain benefits, are eligible schemes and are known as ‘partially guaranteed schemes’ and only pay an administration levy in respect of the guaranteed part”.

Is that right?

[Lord German]

My Lords, I, too, intend not to keep the Committee long. I shall raise a few further questions on both these orders, particularly on the levies order, just for explanation purposes.

I declare an interest: my daughter works for BT and is a member of its pension fund. I recognise that this set of regulations on the levy is still subject to legal actions, and those have not been exhausted. I also note, of course, that the regulations themselves apply more universally to the Crown guarantee, and those who would be affected are not exclusively in the name of that one company. Could we have some indication of the existing companies that may already be entrapped or changed by this regulation? I am particularly interested to note that there are former railway pension schemes that may be caught in this regulation, but it would be useful to know who else would be affected and whether they would be affected in both the partial and the full sense.

I recognise that these regulations affect only the administration levy and that the House has already dealt with the regulations in respect of the levy as a whole. The state aid recommendation, as expressed by the European Commission, applied only in respect of BT. I note the Government’s comments that they expect other bodies in the same field that have been caught by this change to be encompassed in the regulation. I wonder whether and how the Government are going to move with the other companies who will be affected by it, and whether they will be expected to pay a backdated administration charge, because the impact on the pension schemes is important—especially as that is a contemporary issue for occupational pension schemes. Have the Government made any assessment of the impact that these regulations and the preceding regulations that affected the whole of the levy payments will have on those schemes? Will that make a substantial difference to the benefits that they can offer within those occupational schemes?

Can my noble friend indicate how other bodies that are currently in receipt of the Crown guarantee, and which then move into a situation whereby they would not naturally receive that under the European direction that we have been given, would be affected? What tests would be applied to determine whether the regulations would kick in? Would such a test be whether they are privatised, to use an old-fashioned word, or whether they are in a competitive situation? Or do both tests apply? It is probably the case that the determination will have to be based on one or both of those tests and I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me which of those apply.

In respect of the regulations on contribution notices, there is only one area on which I should like to ask my noble friend a question—in relation to paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:

“The policy intention … is to provide a calculation which offers equivalent protection”.

Does that mean, in effect, that if there was a move from one scheme to another, the benefits that would be received by members of that pension scheme would therefore be the same? Or is there a different definition of equivalence which I perhaps do not understand?

On that basis, the Government are absolutely right to pursue both sets of regulations.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and I am glad that we were able to take the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on such a romantic trip down memory lane, although I sensed a little bitterness in his observation.

The first set of regulations addresses a fairly narrow issue relating to state aid. They are intended to address the rare situation where a reduction in the PPF levy for a pension scheme with a Crown guarantee, sponsored by a commercial entity, provides an unfair advantage. The regulations will ensure that the UK Government have complied with the European Commission’s decision and met their obligations. The second set of regulations provides the means for the regulator to calculate the amount of a contribution notice in certain cases, but only where the grounds for the use of this power have been met.

I turn to the points raised in the debate, and first to those made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. He asked whether insurance contracts can be used. They may indeed qualify as contingent assets for the purposes of calculating the PPF levy, although there have been no recent representations on this matter and no changes in the law are currently planned.

The noble Lord asked what the experience of the Act had been in practice. As he said, these are early days, but I have pleasure in assuring him that, so far, the Act, which I acknowledge he was responsible for, appears to be working well. The noble Lord asked about activity in terms of emerging avoidance schemes. There are none that the Government are currently aware of. As he will know, the department and the Pensions Regulator work together closely in order to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation and ensure that it remains robust. He also drew our attention to paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum and the phrase,

“and only pay an administration levy in respect of the non-guaranteed part”.

I have pleasure in confirming for him that he has not found a flaw in the regulations because that is exactly—

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, the copy I have before me states,

“and only pay an administration levy in respect of the guaranteed part”.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I have in front of me a piece of paper stating “the non-guaranteed part”, and it should be the non-guaranteed part. I hope that he does not have an earlier misdraft. I can assure him that the draft regulations we are considering use the term “non-guaranteed part”. If an earlier incorrect draft has been floating around and if that is in any way our responsibility, I of course apologise. But in the correct form it is “non-guaranteed part”. I have to congratulate him on his eagle-eyed spot, albeit of what would seem to be an out-of-date version.

The noble Lord asked where we stood on the levy. I have some information about that which will be handed over immediately. There are now 160 schemes in the PPF, and no doubt he will also be pleased to learn that the movement in the markets has meant that the deficit in the Purple Book has narrowed very appreciably. As of 30 June, it stood at around £21 billion.

I turn now to some of the points raised by my noble friend Lord German. He quizzed me on how this situation may affect other companies. The regulation reads rather misleadingly as if it is a very wide universe, but in practice, BT is the only commercial company operating in the marketplace where these regulations are relevant. We do not need to think about how this might affect other companies because there is only one other organisation with a partial guarantee, and that is Bradford & Bingley, which has been cleared by the European Union.

On the BT consultation, covered in paragraph 26, the guarantee to the company does not give it aid because it takes effect only at the time of insolvency. Where it does provide aid is by reducing the PPF levy while the company is extant.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but I think that was a point that I may have touched on. Is there a potential for us to end up in a situation where if in fact BT were to become insolvent and therefore could not meet its obligations—obviously there is a big “if” attached to that—the scheme would have the benefit of the guarantee and would have had the benefit of PPF protection? My question concerns how those two things sit together and on what basis the levy is computed in those circumstances.

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Lord for that smack-on-the-nose question. It is much harder to give a smack-on-the-nose answer, because we are waiting to find out the implications of the legal case. The noble Lord is asking me to pile hypothetical on hypothetical and it is not possible at this stage to give a sensible answer. We could go on piling up the hypotheticals, but it would rapidly become silly, so I crave his patience at this stage. It is simply not possible to wonder how the different levels of guarantee and PPF protection may or may not interrelate.

16:14

I turn again to my noble friend Lord German’s point about equivalent protection. The meaning there is that members get the same financial benefit from the contribution notice irrespective of the nature of the receiving scheme. My noble friend asked whether, if we were to move to a company in a similar position—as he knows, that is a pretty limited universe—that would give rise to incompatible state aid. His question about what will happen in future is another difficult hypothetical. As we learn the outcome of this potential series of court cases, anyone privatising a state asset will be able to take that into account as they devise how to provide a Crown guarantee or whether a partial guarantee is appropriate. Again, the question is too hypothetical.

I hope that I have dealt with all questions to the satisfaction of noble Lords. I thank them for their good questions: it is a pleasure to deal with them. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:17

Moved By

[Lord Freud]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that is has considered the Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) (Amendment) Regulations 2010.

Relevant document: 10th Report, Session 2009–10, from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Control of Donations and Regulation of Loans etc. (Extension of the Prescribed Period) (Northern Ireland) Order 2010

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:18

Moved By

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Control of Donations and Regulation of Loans etc. (Extension of the Prescribed Period) (Northern Ireland) Order 2010.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, the order would make a short extension to the period in which donations and loans to Northern Ireland political parties may be made confidentially. Noble Lords will be aware that political parties across the United Kingdom must report to the Electoral Commission donations and loans received above certain thresholds. Political parties in Northern Ireland also must abide by these reporting requirements. However, due to ongoing concerns about intimidation in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 made provision for details of any donations reported by Northern Ireland political parties to be held confidentially by the Electoral Commission.

The Act, however, was also clear that these confidentiality arrangements would apply only for a temporary period—referred to in the Act as the prescribed period. The prescribed period is scheduled to expire on 31 October 2010 unless an order is made to extend it for a period of up to two years. The order before us today would make such an extension to the prescribed period, but only for a period of four months. I shall briefly explain why. I understand that the previous Government had committed to a full public consultation before a decision would be taken on whether to extend the existing confidentiality arrangements or provide for increased disclosure. That consultation was delayed due to the talks at Hillsborough Castle earlier this year, and then by the general election.

There is clearly now an expectation in Northern Ireland that the current prescribed period will not be allowed to lapse without full consultation. It is important for the Government to take full account of the views of all interested parties on the issue before coming to a decision on how best to proceed. However, there is now insufficient time to conduct such a consultation and to prepare and pass any subsequent necessary legislation in advance of the current confidentiality period expiring on 31 October 2010. For this reason, I believe that a short order extending the prescribed period for donations and loans to Northern Ireland parties for a further four months is needed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Crawley]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the order so clearly. This is my first opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, to his new post. I wish him well in what I have always found an absorbing and fascinating brief on Northern Ireland matters. I make clear from the outset that we support the order, but I would like to put one or two questions to the Minister. I am of course happy for him to write to me on more detailed questions if he wishes to do so.

As I said, we support the order. This is a very important issue and it is vital that there is a proper period of consultation with the political parties and the wider community. The extension of the prescribed period enables that consultation to occur. I ask the Minister to confirm when the consultation period will start and when he anticipates being able to reach a conclusion about the way forward. Importantly, will he be meeting all the political parties during that period? Of course, we recognise that these are early days for the new ministerial team, but have the political parties in Northern Ireland expressed any views to Ministers about the best way to proceed?

We all want the system of political loans and donations to be as transparent as possible. At one time, there appeared to be an emerging consensus that the prescribed period should be allowed to lapse, to reflect the political progress that had been made in Northern Ireland over recent years. In view of the heightened threat level and increased attacks on the police, is that view changing? Perhaps the Minister would say a little more about current thinking about the threat level.

Specifically, what assessment have the Government made of the research into party and election finance carried out by the Electoral Commission and published last July? The majority of groups who took part in that survey acknowledged that the threat of intimidation remained an issue, but felt that Northern Ireland had moved on sufficiently to make the details of donors public without major repercussions. Does the Minister agree that, whatever the outcome of the consultation, there will be no justification for extending the prescribed period simply on the grounds that political donations should be regarded as a personal matter?

Can the Minister confirm whether, if the decision is taken to end the prescribed period, the reporting of loans and donations will start at the point when the period ends or at the point when the legislation originally came into operation? I am sure he will appreciate that it is important that this is made absolutely clear during the consultation as there may be a view that while confidentiality should end, those loans and donations already made in good faith and in confidence should remain protected.

As the Minister will know, loans and donations to political parties in Northern Ireland can be made by Irish citizens and a range of Irish registered organisations. Given that the confidentiality arrangements extend to them as well, how will the ending of the prescribed period affect their donations? What discussions have the Government had with Ministers in the Irish Government on this issue and what weight will the Government place on any representations that they might make? This has always been a sensitive aspect of the issue and it is important for noble Lords to understand the Minister’s approach to this specific element of the consultation.

Finally, these are complex issues and I am sure that the Minister appreciates how important it is that noble Lords have a clear understanding of how the Government are approaching this important consultation and the decisions that will flow from approval of the order today.

[Lord Trimble]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, to the first occasion on which he is to take a statutory instrument through this Committee. We are delighted to see him engaged in matters regarding Northern Ireland, and I hasten to assure him that if anything I say during the next few minutes appears in any way critical of Ministers in Northern Ireland, it does not refer to him or, indeed, to the other present incumbents of the Northern Ireland Office.

I cannot resist the temptation to refer to paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. The phrase that leaps out from that paragraph is the reference to,

“time to conduct a full consultation exercise”.

The word “exercise” is either redundant or a Freudian slip. It is quite different to say that a full consultation is to be conducted as opposed to a consultation exercise. The emphasis and meaning are quite different, and I hope that as a result of this, we will never see the word “exercise” again. I am satisfied in my own mind that the officials who wrote this meant “exercise” and not “consultation”. That observation may be more pointed than perhaps it should be, but it reflects my feelings on the matter.

I noted the references in my noble friend’s speech introducing the regulations to their genesis in the 2006 Act, and that evidently this issue was raised in the talks that took place at Hillsborough earlier this year. That underlines the highly political nature of this, not just because it refers to political parties but because it is a highly political matter. I know that the legislation simply provides another four months in which to conduct the consultation, but I feel entitled to make some comments on the underlying issue of the exemption from the publication of political donations.

This of course is advantageous to those parties which have something to hide about the nature of their finances, and there is a political party in Northern Ireland whose published finances have never been accurate or, in my view, truthful. Thus the regulations enable that party to continue to conceal some aspects of its finances. That reflects, if I may say so, what I am quite satisfied is the dominant attitude of the Northern Ireland Office—that all issues relating to Northern Ireland should proceed on the basis that the first concern is to keep Gerry happy. That has been the dominant influence on policymaking in the Northern Ireland Office for several years—more years than one would like to refer to. If that seems somewhat exaggerated, just remember this: there would not have been an agreement on Good Friday if the Northern Ireland Office had had any influence in the negotiations that week. It was its exclusion from the negotiations that generated the possibility of there being an agreement. We who took part in that will never forget the great contribution made by the then Prime Minister in coming over and excluding the Northern Ireland Office from the discussions and conducting them himself.

Regrettably, in subsequent months and years the Northern Ireland Office regained its influence over policymaking, and the bad advice and bad influences which flowed from that. At the beginning of this century, the settled attitude of the Northern Ireland Office was, as I have mentioned, reinforced by evolving the doctrine that one had to bring in the parties at the extremes, at the expense of those moderate parties that had actually made progress, in order to “cement” the situation. Of course, bringing in the extremes has not cemented the process in the way the NIO said it would. The uncertainties have remained, and they have been touched upon already.

I hope that the change of Government will produce a change of outlook and of policy. I hope too that Ministers will get control of the department and ensure that the attitude which states that “everything has to be done to please Gerry” ceases to be the case. This reinforces the point made by the noble Baroness: the consultation should be with all parties, and all parties should be equal in it. We cannot have a situation where one party is more equal than everyone else. That has to end. Until it does, the Northern Ireland Office will continue to be the unhappy place for the people of Northern Ireland that it has been for far too long.

16:31

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, before I come to the substance of the order, I want to draw attention to a process issue that I hope the Minister might clarify. On today’s Order Paper there is reference under this order to the first report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Those who read the record of today’s debate might think that it was funny that there was no reference to that report. The answer, of course, is that the excellent committee that does such wonderful work on behalf your Lordships’ House found that there was nothing in the order that needed reference. In future, should we not have some reference of that sort? Otherwise, it is quite misleading to make reference to a report that says that there is nothing to report.

I am grateful that my noble friend Lord Trimble went before me, because he speaks with a great deal more personal and practical experience of the situation in Northern Ireland than those of us whose political experience is all on this side of the Irish Sea.

We should put on record that Members in all parts of your Lordships’ House must be disappointed that it is judged necessary to bring this order forward in this format today. I and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches have pressed for the greatest possible transparency in relation to donations to political parties in all parts of the United Kingdom. The point that my noble friend has just made should in due course apply equally throughout the United Kingdom. In that context, it is important that we recognise that this is, we hope, a temporary situation that we are dealing with, and it should not continue a moment longer than necessary.

The measures that have been in place since October 2007, where political parties in Northern Ireland have had to report donations to the Electoral Commission but full publication has not been required, are clearly a step in the right direction. This, however, surely still falls far short of full transparency.

As other Members of your Lordships’ House will no doubt refer to today, we all recognise that the situation in Northern Ireland is far short of the ideal that we would all like to see there. I notice that the Independent Monitoring Commission, in its report of 26 May this year, said that dissident republican groups,

“remained highly active and dangerous. They were responsible for one murder and for numerous other incidents in which victims might have died, as the dissidents clearly intended that they should. They were involved in a wide range of other non-terrorist crime and sought to increase the capability of their organisations”.

In those circumstances, we should not underestimate the serious consequences of full publication of donations to all political parties in Northern Ireland.

There is reference in the Explanatory Memorandum to a full review and consultation, to which the noble Baroness referred. It is deeply frustrating that the previous Government were unable, for good reasons, to carry out that review as originally intended. We are now effectively faced with a fait accompli in this order.

During the passage of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill in 2006, concern was expressed by my noble friends about the ability of the Secretary of State to extend the prescribed period by order. Indeed, we tabled amendments in both Houses to remove this power from the Bill. We were anxious that this could turn into a long-term arrangement whereby the Secretary of State could just go on and on renewing this provision, with no impetus either to review the situation or to come back to Parliament with primary legislation. We recognise and support—and I am sure that all Members in this House will give credit to—the new Government in facing up to this situation.

As has already been said, priority had to be given to the devolution of policing and justice powers to Stormont in the talks at Hillsborough earlier in the year. However, we cannot allow that delay to getting on top of this problem to continue ad infinitum. The fact that the previous Government were unable to move on this should not mean that we do not now move as fast as we can. In that context, I am delighted that only a four-month delay is being talked about, rather than the possibility of a delay of up to even two years.

However, as the noble Baroness has said, it would be helpful if my noble friend indicated exactly when the full review is to take place and what sort of consultation is intended. The Explanatory Memorandum simply states that that will begin “shortly”. That is the most misused word in the parliamentary lexicon, and I hope that my noble friend will give us more advice on that.

Can my noble friend also tell us what role the Electoral Commission will have in this process, looking of course at the whole of the United Kingdom and the relevance of the order in that context? I should declare an interest as a member of the informal advisory group of parliamentarians to the commission.

It is also important to recognise that the longer-term aim must be to achieve full transparency and equality across the United Kingdom. Can my noble friend indicate what the terms of reference for the consultation will be? Will the emphasis be on securing a change in Northern Ireland to bring the arrangements closer into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, or will the objective be to maintain the status quo?

Finally, it is the Government’s clear intention to carry out a full and proper review of the legislation in the near future, and I am delighted that a relatively short period is being suggested for that. A prescribed period of four months is more acceptable in this context than the usual many, many months. I hope that the result of the consultation will be that we can move forward, because the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, and which other Members may make, are extremely important. We should be very careful that we move forward responsibly, but we should be clear about the destination that we seek to reach.

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, I, too, am very glad to have the opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, to his position at the Dispatch Box with responsibility for Northern Ireland affairs. This is a relatively uncontroversial proposal. I am glad that we are talking about only a four-month extension. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, I hope that the short period of four months indicates the seriousness of intent of the new Government, and the fact that they will not allow this matter to drift. I understand also that any new Government must take account of the difficult security situation in Northern Ireland, and that there are complexities that require a degree of consideration. However, there are reasons why the current situation is an unhappy one, and I will briefly remind the Committee of them.

One reason is that our electoral law is characterised by increasingly greater transparency. It separates Northern Ireland from the broad process of UK electoral law. However, people arrive in this Parliament from Northern Ireland in a context where the circumstances of their election are different. This could have been very dramatic after the last general election. For example, if a rainbow coalition had been formed, the role of the Northern Irish MPs who had been elected under a significantly different electoral law would have been very significant. The position of the five Sinn Fein MPs—whether or not they had come to the House—would have been particularly important and a matter of public controversy. Commentators would have said, “Hold on, these chaps were elected in a different context in which the whole financial basis of their campaign was not open to normal public scrutiny”. The Government were on thin ice on this point. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, conceded this in 2007 when he stated:

“I fully accept the point … that, come the next general election, people will be able to question legitimately from where the parties have got the money”.—[Official Report, 23/7/07; col. 636.]

The Government were well aware of this and took a calculated risk. In the extreme form that we faced, in which a Government might have been formed which was influenced by MPs who had been elected under an essentially different electoral law, the crisis did not eventuate; but it came close enough for the matter to be taken very seriously.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, hinted at another point concerning the role of Irish citizens and their ability to make donations. I understand that it is a reasonable position that the meaning of the Good Friday agreement is broadly to give a new recognition to those who consider themselves British, British and Irish or Irish. There is a certain logic to opening the door to contributions from Irish citizens; but the difficulty is that the definition of citizenship in the Irish constitution goes well beyond those who live on the island of Ireland to include a large chunk of Irish America. The Good Friday agreement does not give a new recognition, or new rights, to people who consider themselves Irish and American—but this legislation does. Again, the question that I hope the Government will take into account when they look at the matter is whether it is wise to continue with that arrangement. As I said, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, to his new position and say that this proposal is uncontroversial.

16:45

[Lord Lyell]

My Lords, I was made aware only this afternoon that this order was going to be discussed. I hope that the Committee will allow me two or three minutes to add my voice of approval to everything that has been brought forward by the Minister. I am delighted to see that at least one other chartered accountant is taking good care of the financial and other affairs of Northern Ireland. I attempted to do so in my time, but received a stern admonition from the noble Lord, Lord Bannside—with reference to Matthew’s gospel—to remember who was Caesar and who was God.

I looked at the policy notes. My noble friend Lord Trimble referred to paragraph 7.2, but I looked at paragraph 7.1. In the fifth line, noble Lords will find the magnificent words “donor intimidation”. I say to noble Lords who I think in Northern Ireland we call “of the minority community”—in Scotland, we call them left footers—that those who have received spiritual guidance from our pastors will know that donor intimidation is one method whereby funds tend to be allocated towards the church. However, since then I have had a stern rebuke from one Member of your Lordships’ House from Northern Ireland, who pointed out that many a true word might be spoken by me in jest, but there is a serious problem in Northern Ireland when certain individuals are disclosed as contributing to a political party. That, I regret, used to be the case, even before my time in Northern Ireland, which is 25 years ago.

My noble friend Lord Trimble mentioned this, but the noble Lord, Lord Bew, went far beyond the island of Ireland to America and elsewhere. How one can make the legislation, of which all of us approve, bite and be effective, if one has to seek whence come those contributions globally—perhaps even wider than America or Canada—will be appallingly difficult. I hope that the Minister will in the period of four months be able to take the first step. I am not sure what the first step will be until 1 March 2011. At least if the first step can be taken, we should no doubt get some opportunity or report before full reform of your Lordships’ House takes place, when hereditary Peers such as me may no longer be here. Then we may get some answers to the query that came to my mind. Donor intimidation can be a frightening prospect. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure me on that aspect.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, in particular for the kind words that they have said about me. I trust that I can deliver, as some say in Ireland, in my response.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, made several points. As is often the case, several noble Lords asked when the consultation is to start. In the early summer? We can say that it will be within weeks rather than months. That is the timescale. The whole consultation will last for 12 weeks. The noble Baroness asked whether Ministers will meet the parties. That may well be part of the process. When we consult, a document is produced. We ask people to come forward with ideas and say what we are consulting on. In response, people can write, but it may well also be appropriate for the political parties to meet Ministers to express their views. I am not aware of any views that have been expressed so far, but I am clearly aware of the recent problems in Northern Ireland and the bouts of violence that have occurred in the past week or so. Of course, one never knows how things are moving in that area. A consultation will take place within that 12 weeks. I hope that it will be a wonderfully peaceful 12 weeks, but if it is not, that will obviously have some bearing on how the consultation goes and what people have to say at that time.

[Baroness Crawley]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that that was the point I was making: because of the particular circumstances at present in Northern Ireland, a slightly more active consultation rather than a passive one, including all the parties, would be preferable, from a senior ministerial point of view, to just waiting for responses to come in.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I have to say that Ministers will be happy to talk. That is on the record. She said that she hoped that we would not accept that making donations to political parties was just a personal matter and no one else’s concern. That would not wash at all; such a position is not taken by anyone and, clearly, the whole basis of this legislation is to make the whole process transparent.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the situation regarding old donations and old loans made prior to a potential change. That is part of the consultation over whether there would be retrospection or whether the clock would start at a particular time. One cannot prejudge this. That issue must be part of the consultation.

She then mentioned Irish citizens. This consultation is not about changing that relationship. Reference has been made to it, but if the position is to be opened up, it will be opened up as far as Irish citizens are concerned. There is no sense that there will be a secret position for them and not for others. The rules would affect them in exactly the same way.

The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, referred to the consultation exercise. I understand exactly what he said. In plain English, the word “consultation” would do in Greetland as I suspect it would do in Northern Ireland. Perhaps “exercise” could well be deleted; “consultation” would do for me. In Northern Ireland one always has to be careful to have a policy of “steady as she goes” and do one thing at a time. The noble Lord mentioned his concerns about the position of the Northern Ireland Office, and said that he hoped that there would be a change in policy. All that I can say now is that we are talking about this order, about this period of four months and about whether or not there is publication. I do not think that I can go too far down the track in dealing with the entire work of the Northern Ireland Office. I had better leave it at that—a little at a time.

My noble friend Lord Tyler referred also to timing, which I think I have dealt with. The emphasis is on trying to open up the position. The consultation is not to ensure that the status quo in Northern Ireland continues but to open things up. It demonstrates the Government’s clear commitment to greater openness in politics. It is to find out whether donors will feel safe participating in the funding of political parties if confidentiality is removed. So we shall have to see what the consultation does indeed bring. The Electoral Commission will be fully consulted, and the commission itself certainly supports the draft order. The period of 12 weeks for the consultation is in line with government best practice, and all interested bodies will be invited to respond.

The noble Lord, Lord Bew, also talked about greater transparency. He said that he thought there could have been a crisis at the most recent general election because of the situation of the different funding regimes as far as openness is concerned. I understand and accept what he has said about that, but this is a consultation in order to ensure that that is not the case. We hope, therefore, that this can be the way forward, but consultation is consultation; we have got something to consult about and we will have to see how it goes. We cannot pre-empt the results but we do not want to have any trouble in terms of compromising the security of individuals in Northern Ireland.

I conclude by referring to the contribution from my noble friend Lord Lyell. I think that there are chartered accountants in the Box, but I do not know whether those particular resources will be used. I spotted his reference to donor intimidation and I wondered whether he might be thinking about the ways in which donations are made. I understand that rather than coins, “soft” is also an important matter. Indeed, I thought that might be what he would have used.

[Lord Lyell]

I want only briefly to interrupt the kind words that my noble friend is using about me. I happened to be in Northern Ireland on Christmas Eve. When I took out the smallest note I could find to put in the collection box at the Catholic church, the man said, “My God, that’s generous. Are you wanting change?”. With that, I thank my noble friend.

[Lord Shutt of Greetland]

Donations are made in all sorts of ways—in coins, in “soft”, by cheque and, we are told, in a few years’ time we will have to do it in yet another way, which of course will require its own tracking. However, this order is about consulting on extending the status quo for a mere four months—for good reason—in order to find out what people believe is the right way forward and to give the Government time to legislate if legislation is needed. I trust that, in those circumstances, the Committee will support the order.

Motion agreed.

Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty for Persistent Misuse of Network or Service) Order 2010

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:58

Moved By

[Baroness Wilcox]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty for Persistent Misuse of Network or Service) Order 2010.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)]

My Lords, the order before the Committee aims to strengthen both consumer protection and the regulatory regime concerning persistent misuse of an electronic communications network or service. It covers a number of misuses but focuses primarily on silent and abandoned calls. Misuse, as defined in the Communications Act 2003, is when a person uses an electronic communications network or service such that it causes another person unnecessary annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety. Examples of misuse other than from silent and abandoned calls include the misuse of automated calling systems, number scanning, misuse of a calling line identification facility, misuse for dishonest gain and misuse of allocated telephone numbers.

The order attempts to ensure that consumers are more adequately protected from misuse, especially silent and abandoned calls, and so makes the following provision: it raises from £50,000 to £2 million the maximum penalty which Ofcom can impose on anyone who persistently misuses electronic communications networks or services.

Silent and abandoned calls are usually made by marketing companies, which use a computerised calling device that dials a telephone number and automatically transfers the call to an available sales agent whenever a call is answered. If, however, no agent is available, the line is disconnected, which results in the consumer receiving an abandoned call. If no recorded information message is played, it becomes a silent call. Your Lordships will no doubt appreciate that such calls are very annoying and can cause distress, especially to vulnerable consumers. The fact that a caller’s number is often withheld only adds to people’s anxiety or frustration.

Such calls may also be generated by other organisations, whether in financial services or market research, or by companies engaged in number scanning activities, which dial a sequence of telephone numbers to find out which ones are in service; their purpose is to develop a “clean list” of numbers with commercial value.

The impact of silent calls is more than anecdotal. Research undertaken by Ofcom between December 2009 and March 2010 found that 73 per cent of respondents were very or fairly inconvenienced by silent calls. More than 5,000 consumers contacted BT’s nuisance calls bureau in the three months to June this year. In the past month alone there have been more than 12,000 callers to the bureau who listened to recorded advice about silent calls. In the first half of 2010, Ofcom received 2,500 complaints about silent calls. I am sure, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that there is indeed a need for us to take effective action to protect consumers from unwanted calls.

Last year, Ofcom asked the Government to consider raising the maximum penalty for persistent misuse from £50,000 to £2 million. Ofcom considered that the current maximum penalty was not high enough to serve as a real sanction or effective deterrent to those who persistently make silent and abandoned calls to consumers. In 2008 Ofcom dealt with a serious case, where Barclaycard was found to have made an extremely large number of silent calls over an eight-month period. Ofcom was constrained in only being able to issue the £50,000 maximum penalty.

Ofcom has other penalty powers. These include turnover-based broadcasting powers, which it used in relation to the premium rate service phone-in scandal when GMTV was fined £2 million. Ofcom's view is that although harm is difficult to quantify in relation to silent calls, in that there is no financial loss, vulnerable consumers may still suffer. In such circumstances, a £2 million maximum penalty does not seem unreasonable.

Indeed, a 12-week public consultation, which ran from 26 October 2009, found respondents overwhelmingly in favour of increasing the maximum penalty to £2 million. We believe that the proposed maximum penalty will provide a more substantial deterrent to most call centres that employ up to 400 employees. Although it is possible that larger call centres may not be fully deterred, it is likely that the adverse media attention of a £2 million penalty will deter the most persistent offenders from making silent and abandoned calls.

Ofcom will work on a case-by-case basis where enforcement is necessary, taking a firm but flexible approach towards those who make silent and abandoned calls or engage in other forms of persistent misuse. Ofcom will monitor complaints and other cases that it receives. It will work closely with the different nuisance call bureaux to identify trends in silent and abandoned call rates, as well as the organisations making such calls. Where appropriate, Ofcom will use its formal powers to require information and is committed to taking decisive action, including the use of financial penalties wherever appropriate.

One of Ofcom’s main duties is to act in the interests of consumers. Under the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom can take enforcement action when it has reasonable grounds for believing that someone has engaged in persistent misuse. Under Section 128 of the Act, it can issue a financial penalty to any organisation that it notifies, and it can notify a company whenever it has sufficient evidence to indicate that the company has not acted in accordance with its policy on silent and abandoned calls. The penalty level is assessed, taking careful account of the extent of the identified misuse, and this increased maximum penalty level will allow Ofcom to impose a more proportional penalty to better fit the seriousness of the offence. The order will ensure that consumers are better protected from silent and abandoned calls, by implementing a higher, more appropriate penalty that is more consistent with the harm that the calls generate. Additionally, the order will help to reduce the need for some consumers to purchase, at their own expense, devices that combat silent and abandoned calls. I beg to move.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

My Lords, I welcome the order, which is hardly surprising as the previous Government initiated this legislation. We have been playing this role quite often recently. I also welcome the comments of the Minister. As she indicated, the aim is to deter, by ensuring that the cost of compliance is less than that of non-compliance, at least in most cases. Automated dialling that leads to silent and abandoned calls causes anxiety and distress. Since 2007, there have been a number of cases involving large and well known companies—I will not name them all—and a high-profile case that the Minister did name in which Ofcom imposed the maximum penalty but would have gone further.

I will make a couple of points. How will companies be informed of the increase in the penalty? We hope that publicising the change will form part of the deterrent programme. I welcome Ofcom’s monitoring review and the guidance and education procedures. However, will Ofcom require companies that use this equipment to confirm in writing that their procedures have been checked and are fully compliant?

[Lord Razzall]

My Lords, I support the order introduced by the Minister. To put this into context, one thing that nobody ever says, but which is true, is that before the automatic calling system technology was developed there was a huge number of “heavy breathers” who used to dial random numbers and hope that a woman would answer. I suspect that one reason why a lot of women are distressed by the automatic calling structure is that they remember the heavy breathers. They answer the phone thinking, “Oh my God, it will be a heavy breather”. That is a significant problem, so I support anything that can be done to stop this. If the phone rings at our house in Wiltshire before 9 am, Jane always says, “Don’t answer it, it will be an automatic call”. On the rare occasions when I do answer, it is always an automatic call. They are a pest and a plague.

I apologise to my noble friend for not having raised before the issue of automatic calling by political parties during elections. I will not attack the party of the noble Lord, Lord Young, particularly now that he has had his hip done and is in a better position to defend himself. However, we all remember that during the 2005 election people were getting calls at 3 am from John Prescott, who has since become a Member of this House. I wonder whether in this context—this touches on the ambits of the Electoral Commission and of the Information Commissioner, who tends to take his predecessor’s view that his remit does not extend to this—since it looks as though we are now the best part of five years away from a general election, the Government could look at automatic calling.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

If I may—

[Lord Razzall]

I cannot sit down because my knees are bad. I apologise for staying standing; imagine that I am sitting.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

I cannot resist saying that these were not silent and abandoned calls, but maybe in this instance the recipients wished that they had been.

[Lord Razzall]

I realise that this point is not an immediate priority because it does not look as though we are going to have a general election until 2015, but perhaps the Government could take on board that the extent to which these automatic calling systems need to be brought under control for elections is an area that could be looked at. I support the order.

[Baroness Wilcox]

My Lords, I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft instrument today. I think we have all agreed that this is an important issue, and I have been interested in the questions that have arisen from it. The noble Lord, Lord Young, rightly says that during his time as Minister he did a lot of work on this, and I am really only finishing the work that he started. I am delighted to do so today.

The noble Lord asked two questions. One was how people are going to be informed of the increase in the penalty. I am told that this will be publicised by BIS and Ofcom, and that Ofcom has a statement on persistent misuse on its website, which is kept updated. I do not know if that is the best that it could do; I am always worried that decisions are taken and then not best spread in the ways that we would hope. I sometimes wonder why we do not use magazines more often; we all read magazines, books and so on, and there are many other ways of doing this rather than just electronically. It is a good question and I would like to see a better answer than this, from us and from Ofcom.

The noble Lord’s second question was about requiring companies to confirm in writing that they are fully compliant. Companies are required to abide by Ofcom’s persistent misuse guidelines, which they receive on their website. Those are the answers to both his questions, which I hope he will find partially satisfactory.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green]

The companies get the guidance, but that is not confirmation. I cannot help feeling that if Ofcom knows which companies are using this equipment, it ought to get some confirmation from them that they have current procedures that have been checked and are fully compliant. That would not necessarily mean that the answer was totally correct but at least it would force them to answer that, rather than Ofcom just assuming, because its guidance is available, that companies are aware of this. I offer that as a possible reinforcement.

[Baroness Wilcox]

I thank the noble Lord. I would like to point this out to the Information Commissioner and see if he cannot study this and come up with some better answers.

My noble friend Lord Razzall asked two questions. He reminded us all about the calls from “heavy breathers” before this technology was developed. As a woman picking up a telephone, in the days before I went ex-directory, I have heard a heavy breather on the other end.

[Lord Razzall]

I’m not surprised.

[Baroness Wilcox]

Thank you. It is a worry, though—that awful pause when there is no voice on the other end of the phone. I think particularly of women on their own at home during the day, as well as older women who may be living alone and feeling very exposed. I have a fellow feeling for that.

The noble Lord moved on to political parties. I am interested to see what answer we can even give at this stage about the use of this technology by political parties in elections. We note the point and we will raise this, too, with the Information Commissioner. This is his area, and I am sure that he will be happy to have these things raised.

These have been valuable points and we are going to take them away with us. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.16 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 21 July 2010.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Introduction: Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

15:09

Anna Mary Healy, having been created Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill, of Primrose Hill in the London Borough of Camden, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale and Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

House of Lords: Reform

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:13

Asked By

[Lord Selsdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how, in considering proposals for reform of the House of Lords, they define the present role of Members of the House of Lords.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I find that a strange Question from a noble Lord who has been in this House for 37 years. In our debate on 12 July, a number of noble Lords defined what they thought their role here was. One said that it was as a parliamentarian, another said that it was as a legislator, another said that it was to hold the Executive to account, another said that it was to influence government policy and yet another said that it was to make a nuisance of themselves. I think that that combination makes a full job for a Member of this House.

[Lord Selsdon]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but perhaps I can inform him a bit better, having been here 10 years longer than he said. My noble friend will, of course, know that the House of Lords Library and the SSRB have declared that a Member of the House of Lords does not have a role or a job to do. The only people who do are Ministers and office holders, who are remunerated. The rest of us are holders of a dignity. Could my noble friend describe to me what a working Peer is? I would like to be one but, if I have to stand upon my dignity, I am concerned that there will be nowhere to sit down when the new Peers arrive.

[Lord McNally]

First, I have checked and, yes, the noble Lord has been here for 47 years, which may explain why I am in the Ministry of Justice and not in the Treasury. This definition of dignity, which is the last refuge of—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord McNally]

I am thinking of those wishing to talk to the Inland Revenue. I go back to what I said. It is very interesting and like Attlee’s definition of an elephant: when you see a working Peer, you recognise one. I recognise a lot around this House.

[Baroness D'Souza]

Does the Minister agree that the main functions of this House—to revise legislation and to hold the Government of the day to account—would be adversely affected by the Government having an overall working majority?

[Lord McNally]

That is why I think that the present arrangements, where the Government have no overall working majority, work excellently.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

In the lead-up to the publication of the reform Bill at the end of this calendar year, will the Government consider proposals to delimit the functions of the two Chambers better to share out the burdens of parliamentary scrutiny and to enhance the effectiveness of our oversight?

[Lord McNally]

I think that that is the kind of discussion that can go on in parallel with the proposals of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the reform of this House and the work that is going on in reforming the working procedures of the other place. The activities that are going on at both ends will help to make both Chambers more efficient and better at doing their proper job of, as my noble friend said, holding the Executive to account and properly scrutinising legislation.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

Does the Minister have any special means of ensuring that, with the new arrangement, the House fulfils its historic function of keeping the Government under control and does not become a poodle of the Government, particularly if, as rumoured, there is to be a new wave of appointments that will further bolster the majority of the coalition?

[Lord McNally]

I think that the best way we can ensure that is to move quickly to reform this House. We will have that opportunity in the Bill that my right honourable friend has promised for the end of this year and the pre-legislative scrutiny that will take place next year.

[Lord Kakkar]

My Lords, is it the view of Her Majesty’s Government that your Lordships’ House is currently failing the people of our country? If it is, how best should we correct ourselves at the moment?

[Lord McNally]

On the contrary, I think that successive Governments have the scars to show that this House does a very good job. One reason why this House has survived is that it has shown an ability to bend rather than to break—to recognise the case for change. We need only look at what is happening now, long before any Bill, to see that the process of change is already carrying on—and we are all the better for it.

[Lord Tebbit]

Would my noble friend like to think about this? At the moment, we seem to be having more introductions to this House than one would find at the average dating agency, yet my noble friend seems to be—if I may put it this way—slightly less than coherent in explaining to the House what it is that these people, including us who are already here, should be doing. Should we not get a little more precision and coherence into it before we provide for a new system for bringing more people into the House?

[Lord McNally]

I am sure that when my noble friend—I could tell how easily “noble friend” tripped off his tongue—looks at Hansard tomorrow and reads my first reply today to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, he will see perfectly encapsulated the job of a working Peer. As to new Members and the size of the House, this is one of the problems that a House with no retirement age but with a need to be constantly refreshed will run into. We look forward to the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, who is looking into these matters for us.

[Lord Peston]

Does my noble friend agree—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

Does the noble Lord agree that the role and function of this House are extremely important to society as a whole, which is why reform of this Chamber is a profound constitutional issue? If so, does he further agree that the people of this country should be able to make their views known about such reform in a referendum on the issue?

[Lord McNally]

I noticed and I readily acknowledge that that was the policy put forward by the Labour Party at the last election. We will be bringing forward a Bill, which will go to pre-legislative scrutiny. I cannot imagine that somewhere along the way, as a good and effective Opposition, the Labour Party will not put down an amendment to that effect.

Roads: Illegal Motorway Advertisements

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:23

Asked By

[Lord Harrison]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of illegal motorway advertisements; and whether they will issue revised guidance to local authorities on the matter.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government have not undertaken any assessment of the number of illegal motorway advertisements. The enforcement of advertisement control is a matter for the local planning authorities, which have a range of powers to take action against advertisements displayed in contravention of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007. Guidance has been issued in CLG Circular 03/2007 which emphasises the importance of amenity and public safety in advertising control.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer and for his continuing interest in this matter, but does he agree that motorway adverts are not only illegal but often ugly, badly designed and represent a driver hazard? After all, they would not be succeeding unless they distracted the driver’s attention. In the light of that, will he renew the 2007 advice to local councils with increased vigour, and study the research by Brunel University which suggested that some 20,000 accidents and 300 deaths might be ascribed to the hazard of adverts aligning the motorways?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, in his campaigning on this matter. He is right to do so and I agree with much of what he said about these advertisements. He identifies a lack of definitive scientific research. The Highways Agency has advised me that there is no obvious pattern of accidents near these advertisements. There is no cluster effect. It is therefore difficult to give the necessary research much priority. The Highways Agency informs local authorities of any infringements and it is up to them to determine their priorities. But the noble Lord’s Question will do much to raise the profile of the issue.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

My Lords, often the signs we see on the roadside are on the sides of wagons or on trailers. When is such an advertisement legal and when is it not?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in my opinion most of these advertisements are illegal but the difficulty is one of enforcement. An advertisement on a vehicle is not subject to control under the 2007 regulations, provided the vehicle is normally used as a moving vehicle and is not used principally for the display of advertisements. When a vehicle is used principally for the display of an advertisement and is parked in one place for a prolonged period, the land can be regarded as a site for the display of an advertisement and then would require express consent from the local planning authority.

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the same hazards described by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, can occur in road signs? I am thinking in particular of the one in Lincolnshire, which directs you “To Mavis Enderby and Old Bolingbroke”, under which somebody had written, “the gift of a child”.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I am not familiar with that particular sign. The regulations we have in place are comprehensive, reasonable and effective and I pay tribute to the party opposite for the 2007 regulations.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, as the noble Earl identified, the problem is one of enforcement. How do the Government intend to ensure that we have proper enforcement in the future and, given that police forces in the country are saying they cannot face the cuts that are coming their way, how we can expect to see any improvement in enforcements? Might he suggest that, under localism, individuals should take it into their own hands to start enforcing?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it is a matter for the local authority to enforce the regulations. The problem is the exploitation of the flexibility in the regulations that allows an advertisement on a vehicle to be exempt. Farmers are leaving a trailer parked in the field for months; it is very difficult for the local authorities to prosecute but it is for them to determine their priorities.

[Lady Saltoun of Abernethy]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not the illegal advertisements that are dangerous and distracting to drivers—because a good driver pays no attention to them? Rather, it is the totally unnecessary and frivolous legal notices, which say things like “Please drive carefully” in lettering a little too small to be easily read.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lady makes an important point but we are talking about advertisements on the strategic route network.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lady, and given that motorways are covered in signs saying things like “Check your fuel”—put there at great expense—what on earth is the harm in small businesses being able to put advertisements for their products in fields on the sides of lorries? Surely at a time of recession, with a Government committed to encouraging free enterprise and reducing regulation, this cannot be a priority?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I thought someone would make this point. It is because of our comprehensive regulations that we do not have the situation seen in overseas countries, where roads are littered with advertisements. We have an effective system.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, does this comprehensive regulation cover the large number of Conservative Party posters we saw alongside motorways at the last election?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the regulations are so comprehensive that they make specific provision for advertisements connected with general elections.

Government: Office for Civil Society

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:29

Asked By

[Baroness Andrews]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the strategy and work of the Office of Civil Society, now in the Cabinet Office.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, the Office for Civil Society will support charities, social enterprises and voluntary organisations in their pivotal work, encouraging a big society and addressing disadvantage by making it easier to set up and run such organisations, easier for them to work with the state, and by getting more resources into the sector. The office will co-ordinate work across government to implement the big society and establish a number of flagship big society projects.

[Baroness Andrews]

My Lords, I am grateful for that encouraging Answer. However, does the Minister not agree that if the big society is to become a reality, the capacity of the voluntary and community services will have to be built up? At the same time as the NCVO is talking about a tidal wave of cuts, local government is cutting back on funding and contracts. Does the Minister see, as I do, a real and fundamental contradiction in that? Can he therefore assure me that the funding for the OCS programme budget will be protected so that the sector can not only continue to provide services but take up the challenge of making the big society a reality?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, there is no escaping the need to tackle the deficit, but we are in this together. Those on the Benches opposite are well aware that cuts need to be made in the deficit. But where cuts are made, they should be conducted in accordance with the principle of the compact between government and the sector. We are committed to helping the sector access a wide range of funding to increase its strength and independence. We are establishing a big society bank to lever additional social investment into the sector and reviewing ways to incentivise further philanthropy and charitable giving.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords—

[Lord Peston]

The Minister appears to be—

[Noble Lords]

This side!

[Lord Peston]

I am sorry, but the noble Lord is on the government side. Why does he not sit down?

[Noble Lords]

Order!

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The noble Lord, Lord Peston, will of course have remarked that, immediately before he stood up, we had a question from the opposition Benches. It is time for a question from a Liberal Democrat; otherwise there will be two opposition questions consecutively.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I am grateful to my noble friend. Can the Minister say whether, in seeking to get more resources into the sector, the Government will consider the forms of tax incentives to philanthropy which are pursued very successfully in the United States? Does he recognise that, in this way, the Government can assist more readily than can their newly created quango?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The big society is not a quango, it is a concept, and I think that it is very important to see it in those terms. It is utilising the resources that exist within the voluntary sector. Of course funding of voluntary organisations is very important. The Government are looking at the role of gift aid because that is an extremely important source of funds for all voluntary organisations and charities. It is under review to try to make it less burdensome on the administration of charities so that they can benefit to the full from this situation. However, I take great note of what my noble friend has said about other systems that might encourage funding for voluntary organisations.

[Lord Peston]

My Lords, I was under the impression—

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that for the third sector and charities to be effective they need to be supported by excellent social workers, excellent youth workers and other excellent professionals? Will he discuss with his colleagues whether the superb Teach First scheme might not now be spread in some form towards social work and youth work so that people who might have thought of entering the City will instead at this time of recession consider other areas and we can have the benefit of their enthusiasm and expertise?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Earl for that question, as it enables me to draw attention to the role of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, who sits on our Benches and has been appointed as a government adviser to the big society. As a social entrepreneur he was one of the founders of Teach First and Future Leaders, and his current interests include work with the Shaftesbury Partnership, a professional services network designed to ensure social impact and absolute return for kids. The professionalism which the noble Lord, Lord Wei, brings to the creation of the big society underlines the important relationship between professional support for voluntary organisations and the volunteers themselves in building up this concept.

[Lord Peston]

I apologise to the Minister because I was under the impression that the noble Lords opposite were part of the alliance and were not a separate political party. Therefore, I had no precedence when it comes to asking questions. If I may, I will now get round to asking my question. The Minister said that the big society was a concept. It is a concept which is totally meaningless to me. Following the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, will he give us a definition so that those of us who would like to follow this analysis can actually find out, apart from the extreme vulgarity of the expression, what concept the noble Lord and the Government are referring to?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope that Question Time gives me an opportunity to do so. The big society is a concept that is running throughout the Government. It is an approach to the coalition, redistributing power from the state, from the centre, to local communities, giving people the opportunity to take more control over their lives. I hope the Benches opposite will support that concept.

[The Lord Bishop of Liverpool]

My Lords, I was very pleased to be in the audience for the Prime Minister’s speech on the big society in Liverpool on Monday and I welcome the emphasis on the renewal of civil society. Many of the Ministers at that meeting referred to DCLG officials being available to community members in order to help create civil society. Can the Minister advise the House on whether these officials will be available in London or locally, because London is a long way from many of these local communities?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his personal endorsement of the scheme. There are going to be four test-bed projects spread throughout the country, in the Eden Valley in Cumbria, Liverpool, the London Borough of Sutton, and the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. DCLG officials will be there to help support the concept in these towns and the projects that are being generated there.

Prisons: Young Offenders

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:38

Asked By

[Lord Dubs]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the techniques in the HM Prison Service manual Physical Control in Care are applicable to young offenders in privately run prisons.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, Physical Control in Care was a system of restraint techniques approved for use in secure training centres in circumstances where the risks arising from young people’s behaviour could not be dealt with by any other means.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for answering the Question. Of course these young offenders can be very difficult people—otherwise they would not be detained—but does he realise that many of us were shocked that this secret manual indicated that it was permissible to inflict pain on young people, some of them as young as 12, in circumstances that led to at least one inquest saying that this represented an unjustified use of force? Would not the right course be to withdraw this document and to produce something publicly that is more humane?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, since the document was published in 2005, the Government have had a thorough review of it and are in the process of producing new guidelines on restraint and behaviour management designed to replace the existing document. The new system will be assessed by medical and other experts on the new restraint accreditation board. In the mean time, as I said, a new version of the manual is being drawn up and will take account of the changes that have taken place since 2005.

[Baroness Linklater of Butterstone]

My Lords, although the manual is going to be revised, it is currently in use, including, theoretically, on children as young as 12 who are the most damaged and difficult in our society. Is my noble friend aware that the advice given is that, in extremis, a member of staff can drive his fingers straight into the young person’s face and then quickly drive the straightened fingers of the same hand downwards into the young person’s groin area? A great deal is wrong and I hope that the Minister will agree that what is needed is proper, adequate, suitable and relevant training and not this kind of restraint.

[Lord McNally]

I can assure my noble friend that suitable, adequate and proper training is exactly what is under way. It has been suggested, particularly in the media, that some of these techniques were in general use. The techniques are for when an unarmed officer is under attack. I have looked at the manual and at some of the techniques highlighted by the media. On almost every occasion, the last line is: “The member of staff exits”. These are not techniques to inflict pain on young people; they are techniques to enable unarmed, unprotected members of staff who under attack, often by large and quite violent young people—we use the word “children” very casually—to escape from those situations.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, in view of the considerable concern that has been expressed about these techniques, which have been used even quite recently, will the Minister undertake to ensure, while the review is under way, that a report is made to Parliament of every incident that takes place?

[Lord McNally]

No, I do not think that I can do that. There are regular reports and there is a body that reviews these incidents. I share some of the concern, but we are talking about 3 per cent of young people who are put into custody. As I emphasised in response to a question the other day, this is very much a last resort. The number of people going into custody has fallen dramatically in recent years—I pay tribute to the Front Bench opposite for what it achieved—but we also have a duty of care, both to the staff who deal with these often very violent young people and to other inmates, who may themselves be the subject of attack. I have committed to visit two of the institutions, to look at them and to talk to the staff. As I said, a thorough review has taken place and a new manual will be published imminently.

[The Earl of Onslow]

My Lords, the Minister said “published”. The guidelines were not published; it took three years of freedom of information action to try to get them out. Is he really saying that,

“Application of severe pain to the thumb”,

and,

“Staff raking their shoe down a child’s shin onto their instep”,

is the behaviour of a civilised society? I was deeply shocked by this and I continue to be so. I sincerely hope that we go back to the old common-law doctrine of minimum force, as opposed to these actions, which sound like those of a pub brawl and nothing less.

[Lord McNally]

Minimum force is the guidance. The opportunity to treat young people in different ways is being explored. The institutions concerned have had the highest recommendations from Ofsted. Nobody is more enthusiastic about freedom of information than I am, but is it really in the public interest for a manual such as this to be available for distribution on the internet and for people to look at these techniques, which, as I said, are used in extremis by staff under threat of physical danger? We have approached this matter, as did the previous Administration, with due responsibility. We have taken note of what has happened since 2005 and acted on it.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:44

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, immediately after the proceedings on the Misuse of Drugs Act order, my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford will repeat a Statement entitled “Kabul Conference”.

Twenty-eight speakers have signed up for today’s debate. The debate itself is not time-limited, but it may be helpful if I indicate that, if Back-Bench contributions were kept to eight minutes, the House would be able to rise this evening at around the target rising time of 10 pm.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment No. 2) Order 2010

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:45

Moved By

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That the draft order laid before the House on 12 July be approved.

Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and 5th Report from the Merits Committee.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the Order in Council was laid before Parliament on 12 July. If it is made, it will bring a group of cathinone derivatives—so-called legal highs, which include naphthylpyrovalerone, known as naphyrone and commonly branded as NRG-1—under the control of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as class B drugs. There it will join mephedrone and other cathinone derivatives which were brought under the control of the 1971 Act as class B drugs from 16 April 2010, with cross-party agreement in the final days of the last Parliament.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs indicated in its cathinone report of 31 March that it would provide further advice on this additional group of cathinone derivatives as a priority. That is what we are dealing with today. They are familiar but sufficiently different from mephedrone and other cathinone derivatives that the ACMD needed to consider them separately. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary received the council’s report on 7 July and she was pleased to accept the council’s recommendation for control, on which this draft order is based. She did so on behalf of the Government.

The council is to be commended for using this extra time well to provide a further thorough, forward-looking piece of work. The proposed control of naphthyl analogues by a wide-ranging generic definition, as set out in the draft order, is consistent with the UK’s legislative approach to other synthetic drugs. Now that we have the council’s advice, we are asking for Parliament’s agreement to expedite control without delay and before this House rises for the Summer Recess. We need to learn the lessons from the UK’s experience on mephedrone, which became rapidly established before it was controlled in April. It is proposed that the order will come into force on the second day after the day on which it is made. That could be as early as 23 July and the legislation would therefore have an immediate impact, not least on the current music festival season, as supply and possession of these drugs would become unlawful with immediate effect.

Action to address the health risks arising from the use of existing so-called legal highs and the issue of further legal highs coming on to the market is a priority for the Government. We need to consider how we can reduce the supply and demand for new substances; our response must be wide-ranging, encompassing prevention, education, treatment and enforcement. That is at the core of our legislative response. There are those who look to subvert our laws and sell potentially harmful drugs advertising them as legal. This can lead people, especially young people, to think that these drugs are therefore safe. We need our drug laws to move faster to protect the public and to combat these unscrupulous manufacturers and suppliers.

As we set out in the coalition agreement, we will introduce a system of temporary bans on new psychoactive substances while health issues are considered by independent experts. The underlying purpose of the temporary banning power is to enable Parliament to be highly responsive to emerging new psychoactive substances and, at the same time, provide the advisory council with the time or space that it needs to formulate its full advice. Full details of the temporary banning power will be announced shortly. It is the intention to undertake legislation on this later this year.

While the temporary banning power will be a key and necessary tool in our legislative response to this changing landscape, our preferred approach to drug control will remain one which the advisory council and the Government have adopted for the past 40 years: a full assessment by the council before any controls are invoked by Parliament. The order before Parliament is an example of that process working. We need to add naphyrone, and related substances, promptly to the cathinones already controlled under our misuse of drugs legislation. This is because they are structurally similar to cathinone derivatives, such as mephedrone, which are already classified under the 1971 Act as class B drugs, and they pose similar harms to those who use them.

The advisory council commented that, consistent with the known or reported harms of the cathinones and traditional amphetamines, the predicted harmful effects of naphyrone include adverse effects on the heart and blood vessels, hyperthermia, dependence liability and psychiatric effects, including psychosis and anxiety. However, the more concerning aspect of the advisory council’s advice is that naphyrone has a high potency by comparison with other cathinones. This suggests that its use is likely to be associated with a higher risk of accidental overdose. I also emphasise that we are not aware of any legitimate use of these chemicals.

Enforcement action has been, and is being, applied to naphyrone. This included an immediate worldwide importation ban on naphyrone under the Import of Goods (Control) Order 1954 on receipt of the advisory council’s advice. The open general import licence was amended to exclude naphyrone from its scope. The UK Border Agency has been instructed to seize and destroy shipments of this, and related drugs, at the border; and we will also continue to work with other law enforcement agencies to strengthen their enforcement response to the identification and sale of illicit substances being mis-sold as legal highs.

The Serious Organised Crime Agency is actively developing approaches to identify websites offering mephedrone for sale, both at home and abroad, so that it can take action at an international level to close these down. This action will be extended in scope to include naphyrone.

Enforcement action of this sort is effective. We continue to monitor the impact of the ban on mephedrone but it has curtailed the availability of the drug, enabling enforcing authorities to take action to seize mephedrone at our borders and on our streets. Since the ban has been introduced, the UK Border Agency has made a number of detections and stopped more than 115 kilograms of chemicals that it suspects to be mephedrone from entering the UK. We also know that the legal-highs market self-regulates and withdraws banned drugs. The ban has also provided the strongest support to our public health message about the harms of mephedrone and like drugs.

Control of naphyrone also provides us with the opportunity to repeat our public message that although this drug may currently be advertised as legal—as a so-called legal high—it does not mean that it is safe or that it is necessarily legal. The advisory council’s report on naphyrone highlighted research from test purchases. Clearly, sellers are using the brand NRG-1 and masquerading it as naphyrone—and therefore legal—and marketing it as a mephedrone substitute. A branded product of this sort may, in fact, contain a number of illegal cathinones, legal stimulants or other active or inactive constituents. Any brand name that purports to be legal cannot be trusted. It does not mean that they are safe or legal. Users are putting their health at risk and could be committing a criminal offence.

We have taken a number of actions based on this information. It is now a key message for the FRANK service—which is available to users—on legal highs. Last month, the Minister for Crime Prevention—my right honourable friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—wrote to organisers of music festivals to make them aware of this information, asking them to review the measures that they put in place to ensure that their festivals are as safe an environment as possible.

The department has also called on local trading standards teams through local authority chief executives, to work in partnership with the police to deal with the sale of any legal highs, taking full account of this latest evidence, and to make appropriate referrals to the police and otherwise apply their responsibility for enforcing offences under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland will also update its enforcement guidance on new psychoactive substances.

It is intended to make two further related statutory instruments, which will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2010 will specify naphthylpyrovalerone analogues including naphyrone as drugs, which have no statutorily recognised medicinal or other legitimate use. The Misuse of Drugs (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2010 will similarly amend the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 to include these drugs. These instruments were laid on 14 July to come into force at the same time as the Order in Council, if it comes into force as proposed.

The Government will publicise the approved law changes on naphyrone and related substances through a Home Office circular and the Talk to Frank and drugs.gov.uk website. Reference to the law changes and health risks relating to the drugs will be included in future government materials for young people. I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the detailed explanation of why this order is both important and necessary. In proposing this order, the Government are continuing the policy pursued by the previous Labour Government. I commend the Minister for this and suggest that continuing the policies of the previous Government in a number of policy areas in the Home Office would also be commended as useful. Beyond that, I applaud the Pauline conversion of the minority party in the coalition to the policy set out in the Minister’s explanation. As I recall, it showed far less support when the same policy was put forward previously by the last Government.

My colleague, the Opposition spokesman in the other place, sought and gained the assurances from the Government that I would have placed before the Minister today. On that basis, it remains only for me to indicate support for this order and commend it to the House.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we discussed the last misuse of drugs order less than four months ago. Speaking on behalf of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I supported the order, so I am a little confused by what the noble Lord has just said. There were several comments about designer drugs and so-called legal highs, and that the so-called designers would always work on the next drug. Those predictions were clearly right. I am very happy to support this order, but I have a number of questions, to some extent following from the previous order so that the House can understand the success or otherwise—I hope success—of that approach.

The Minister has told us that 115 kilograms of mephedrone/cathinone derivatives have been seized. I know that it is asking her to prove a negative, but does she have any information as to how much might be getting through—the converse of that coin? What steps have been taken to publicise the dangers of legal highs? Welcome was given around the House to the steps that were being taken then, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, mentioned the use of social media, which struck me as entirely sensible in this context. She has mentioned today steps that might be taken by trading standards officers under consumer protection legislation. Naphyrone and naphthylpyrovalerone analogues apparently have no legitimate purpose in the same way as mephedrone. I do not suppose that they are any more effective as bath salts or fertilisers than mephedrone. Have trading standards officers in fact had any success in using their powers under consumer protection legislation?

16:00

I hope—and I think that I understand this correctly from what the Minister said—that enforcement will concentrate on dealers rather than on users. She mentioned the border agency and SOCA; clearly enforcement is a matter for them as well as for the police, but I think that it is entirely right to tackle dealers first and most importantly. Of course, none of this addresses the underlying issue that this is a public health matter as well as one of large-scale criminality and the illegal drugs trade. We have in this House recently debated alternatives to prison and we have heard many times of the links between drugs and crime to support drug habits. I have recently heard that sending just one in 10 drug users to residential rehabilitation instead of prison would save something of the order of £40 million a year.

I support the order and welcome debating the more permanent steps which the Government will take. They extend beyond the health issues that the Minister mentioned to matters involving the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Education and so on. Drugs are such a complicated issue that they need a very thoughtful, very broad-based approach. I am happy to support the measure.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s explanation of the order and add my support for the actions which the coalition Government are taking. It is difficult to stay abreast of the technological changes in the drug field and to restrict the spread, but I was interested to hear that an attempt will be made to intervene in websites which sell these drugs. I would be extremely grateful if the Minister would keep the House informed about what happens on that front.

It was before the Minister’s time, but some of us, many years ago, were complaining about the increasing strength of cannabis—skunk—which was being advertised widely on the internet and which many of us claimed was a cause of concern to public health. At the time our advisory council saw no evidence of increasing strength in cannabis. Subsequently it changed its mind and recognised that there was an increasing problem, but I do not think that anything has really been done about the websites which are still advertising skunk and similar cannabis items for sale. In doing something about these particular drugs, would the Government be prepared, if this order is successful, to see whether similar measures could be taken against the advertising and sale of skunk and high-potency cannabis on the internet?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the House for the support which has been given to the order. A number of extremely relevant points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, talked about the use of websites; this does concern the Government and it is a matter of public concern. It is also relevant in the terrorist context and it is a matter that we are looking at.

One of the problems with the internet, as the House will be aware, is that it is not under the unilateral control of this country; we have to get international co-operation in order to take effective action, which then involves freedom of speech legislation and so on. It is not a simple matter to take websites down—it is very important to get the co-operation of the ISPs. We are working on this on a broader front, not excluding drugs, to try to do something about websites that contain information which is clearly contrary to the public interest and which induce violence and harm in society.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee made several points with which I will try to deal. She said that she supported the order, for which I am extremely grateful, and asked a number of questions. We are taking actions very much with an eye to getting the message out to young people that these substances are harmful to them. I mentioned the FRANK line and the information available to young people on that messaging system. As I said, we have written to festival organisers to try to alert them to the fact that these substances, which are often advertised as being legal—what is more, they are not always what they are advertised as being; they may contain quite other substances—are really dangerous and will be illegal. I emphasise that we have discovered no legitimate use for this particular substance. It is designed simply to give people a high, with very great subsequent potential harm to their health.

I do not have information on whether trading standards officers have used their powers successfully. We are using the device of the temporary banning order to prevent a market for naphyrone developing in the first place so that we do not have to try to clear up a further substance which has already taken a grip on the market. This is meant to be protective and pre-emptive action to prevent greater harm occurring.

As has been spotted, effective enforcement must rightly concentrate on tackling dealers, to prevent the substance coming into the country and reaching young users. So far as we can tell, at the moment there is no great prevalence of this drug but we and our advisory council are clear that it is a very harmful substance which should not be allowed to gain a grip on the population.

I am grateful for the support the House has given the order. I am certain that it will help to ensure that the necessary controls are in place to protect the public, particularly the health of young people. We will continue to monitor trends and give the House information on how this approach is proceeding as it is a new and very necessary one in tackling synthetic drugs. We will assess the impact of the controls in the order and keep the House informed.

Motion agreed.

Kabul Conference

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

Statement

16:07

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, with permission, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows.

“Mr Speaker, with permission, I will make a Statement on the outcome of the Kabul conference and on progress in Afghanistan.

My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister today paid his respects to the four servicemen to die in Afghanistan in the past week. They died in the service of their country and the whole House will join me in expressing its gratitude to them and the British forces in Afghanistan. The past month has been a difficult one, but we should not lose sight of what has been achieved since the London conference on Afghanistan six months ago.

I would not want to minimise in any way to the House the immense challenges that we and our allies continue to face in Afghanistan, or the difficulties and dangers we continue to encounter on a daily basis. Bringing security and stability to Afghanistan remains an exceptionally demanding task for the men and women of our Armed Forces, our diplomatic service, and those involved in development. Their work is rarely less than outstanding on a daily basis. There will continue to be setbacks and discouragements, even while progress is being made. We must therefore always guard against over-optimism, but we must equally guard against listening only to bad news or failing to notice the millions of Afghans who want us to succeed.

In the past six months, our troops have consolidated their position in Helmand, taken the fight to the Taliban and trained hundreds of Afghan troops; our diplomats and aid workers have worked with Afghan colleagues to promote a more inclusive political process and intensify our work, including on education and governance; and the Government of Afghanistan have acted on their London commitments and drawn together for the first time a cross-government strategy to deliver widespread reform.

As the Prime Minister said, our objective is a stable Afghanistan able to maintain its own security and prevent al-Qaeda from returning, so that within five years we can drawdown British combat troops.

The NATO objective in Afghanistan is simple—to assist the Government of Afghanistan in exercising their authority and influence across the country, paving the way for reconstruction and effective governance. This requires the protection of the population, the provision of more effective governance at every level and the creation of an Afghan security force able to maintain security and prevent the return of Al-Qaeda. This is the strategy that UK forces are helping to implement, through their training and partnering of Afghan troops, and their efforts to create the opportunity for more effective local governance in central Helmand. General Petraeus, the newly appointed commander of ISAF, has made clear that this remains his approach.

Together with my right honourable friend the International Development Secretary, I attended the Kabul conference yesterday, following visits I made to China, Japan and Oman. Some 40 Foreign Ministers and international organisations—including the UN, NATO, the EU and the World Bank—attended, in what was an unprecedented event for Afghanistan. It was also unprecedented in the number of Muslim partners represented at such a conference. It showed the world that Afghanistan is increasingly able to run its own affairs, and was a further step in the process of transition from direct international military and civil intervention to Afghan leadership.

The conference issued a communiqué agreed among all participants, which builds on the progress made in the last six months. It establishes the Kabul process, an Afghan-led process which aims to accelerate Afghanistan’s ability to govern itself with accountable government, reduce dependence on the international community, enhance its security forces and provide better protection for the rights of all its citizens. This is a single implementation plan for the coming years. International donors including Britain have committed themselves to realign their funding behind the Kabul process. This is a significant achievement for a country as beset by conflict and poverty as Afghanistan. The Kabul process holds out the prospect of a more secure future for Afghans.

The Afghan Government made yesterday a number of important commitments: to concentrate efforts on a limited number of national programmes and projects to transform the lives of people and reinforce the relationship between state and citizens; to have Afghan security forces take the lead on security throughout the country by 2014 and to set up an Afghan NATO board to analyse whether provinces are ready to begin the transition process; to create a lean, effective and appropriately paid public service, retiring those civil servants who are unable to perform or are not needed in a renewed and revitalised civil service; to ensure that the wealth generated from the mining sector is invested to benefit future generations; to require new national development programmes to be designed with international partners to ensure the highest standards of accountability and transparency; to amend the criminal law to increase penalties for the failure to disclose assets and to take to trial Ministers and other high-ranking officials who do not comply; to strengthen the High Office of Oversight for Government Accountability and the Major Crimes Task Force in order to tackle corruption; to establish a commission to find ways to bring together the public and private sectors to stimulate accelerated economic growth; to work with parliament to strengthen its constitutionally mandated role; to improve financial management and agree a system with donors in order to allow more donor funds to be channelled through the Afghan budget.

This Afghan plan will be supported by the UK Government and by international partners. On 10 June, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced an additional £200 million in funding to promote stability and development over the next four years. My right honourable friend the International Development Secretary will set out further details on this in a Written Ministerial Statement tomorrow.

Britain will intensify and reinvigorate our development efforts, increasing the pace of work and the achievement of specific results, in line with the Government of Afghanistan’s priorities. We will work closely with the Afghans, the United States and others to accelerate the stabilisation effort in central Helmand and the 81 key districts targeted under the ISAF plan. We will work with others to ensure the successful implementation of the agreed peace and reintegration programme and help to support the forthcoming elections, and we will invest in improving the quality and effectiveness of the police. Our overall aim is speeding up the pace of transition to Afghan security leadership.

We will also support the Afghan economy and help new jobs through investment in mining, roads, power and irrigation, and by bringing community-driven development to isolated areas of the country. We will help the Government of Afghanistan to deliver vital services and to tackle corruption, providing increased support for education, including technical and vocational training, and for the administration of justice.

Our international partners have committed themselves to do their part to support the Kabul process. Afghanistan’s near neighbours will work to accelerate regional economic co-operation. An important milestone was reached in the days before the conference with the conclusion of the Afghanistan-Pakistan trade transit agreement. This much desired economic measure has taken some 40 years to achieve.

The Kabul process is a major step forward for Afghanistan and an important staging post in Afghanistan’s development. There remains more to do, notably in the areas of governance. Measures to enforce transparency, anti-corruption and accountability have slipped and need to be brought back on track as soon as possible.

We will pursue this and other issues as part of the follow-up to the conference. The Kabul process contains strengthened review mechanisms, which include a more robust Joint Co-ordination and Monitoring Board in Kabul and an overarching annual assessment, which will report to an annual Kabul ministerial conference. My department, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development will be closely involved in that process.

The Kabul conference has established a road map for more professional, functioning and mature institutions. There will be other important milestones this year, including parliamentary elections, the NATO Lisbon summit and President Obama’s review. Her Majesty’s Government will build on these steps to help to put in place the conditions for a stable, secure and increasingly prosperous Afghanistan”.

That concludes the Statement.

16:18

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Foreign Secretary’s Statement made earlier in the other place. We all join the Foreign Secretary in his words of support, gratitude and condolence offered to our Armed Forces. Their courage and fortitude, and indeed their family support, continue to be hugely valued and respected by the whole nation.

Clearly, we are looking forward to the moment when the Afghan authorities can take responsibility for their own security, and we all want to do all that we can to see support for their efforts on peace and security. We also all want to see support for their efforts to advance the provision of essential public services, including education and health, which the Minister mentioned and which must be delivered in an efficient and accountable way.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations said in Kabul that the aim has to be to stay engaged for the long term and to see the establishment of effective democratic governance. There is still a great deal to do and a long way to go if we are to see, in the timescales envisaged, a safer, better-served and well-governed Afghanistan. Does the Minister agree that we need to see, first, much better management of public finances and, secondly, a functioning justice system, better policing and procedures for dealing with alleged crimes? These are key elements in legitimising that country’s security forces, and I seek from the Minister some detail of what has been achieved since the London conference.

The Foreign Secretary’s response in the other place on security policy made no reference to the considerable investment by the European Union in, for example, policing or support for the judicial system. This is done through trust funds and through EUPOL. It is worth acknowledging that these investments are making a difference and that we are taking them into account when we discuss our engagement with matters in Afghanistan.

Can the noble Lord confirm whether the UK is encouraging the European Union to continue to support the elections due to be held in September, which again have not been mentioned? The noble Lord will, I am sure, agree that the electoral structures and institutions need to be strengthened after the last election—we saw some flawed evidence from that election—if the people of Afghanistan are to feel confident about the credibility and transparency of the election processes.

Does the Minister agree that the focus must be set on objectives, not on predetermined timetables? While we are told that we will not be there in 2015, there have been some mixed messages and inconsistencies. For example, the Foreign Secretary said that he would be surprised if the security transition took longer than 2014, while the Prime Minister confirmed 2015 and, in Washington last night, said that withdrawal would begin next year. Timetables are all well and good, but clocks are ticking away while the insurgency continues and the casualties grow.

Can the Minister give the detail of any current thinking on the likelihood of some sort of negotiation with the Taliban? Are the Government aware that the Taliban has already said that talk of withdrawal in July by the United States shows that it is on the road to victory? How does the Minister respond to these assertions from the insurgents? Also, is there a proposal to present a clear plan for the critical period between 2011 and 2015 and is not clarity really necessary—essential, in fact—in the context of the Taliban position? It is very clear that, as far as it is concerned, talks will not begin until foreign forces leave Afghanistan. There are those who intimate that unthinkable compromises will have to be made, but political settlement and reintegration got scant mention in the Foreign Secretary’s Statement.

Finally, I turn to the importance which must be attached to women’s rights in Afghanistan. We know that, last year, President Karzai signed the Shia personal status law, which forbids women from refusing sex with their husbands or leaving home without their husband’s permission. Will the Government press for stronger diplomatic efforts to support groups working with women, especially Afghan groups? The Minister will, I am sure, recognise and reiterate advances which most certainly have been made by and for women, but many experts and many women that we have spoken to doubt the depth of the cultural and institutional changes which have taken place. That is critical; you might have the advances that can be seen in terms of education and so on, but festering underneath those issues remain the cultural and institutional difficulties that women are facing daily. It was heartening to hear Hillary Clinton being absolutely determined that any future Afghan agreement ensures the rights of women in a future political system. If women are silenced or pushed to the margin of Afghan society, then peace, justice and security will clearly and obviously be seriously threatened. The,

“centrality of women’s rights … to the future of Afghanistan”,

in the words which appeared in the communiqué, is not enough; they want to hear and see more.

The women of Afghanistan want peace with justice, and I fear that even in these meetings in London and Kabul not enough understanding or attention was given to the demands that women are making. They fear that the progress they have seen will be jettisoned in favour of deals which the authorities will want to make with the fighters. They feel that their presence at the conference was symbolic and that they were not consulted. They are, justifiably, demanding guarantees of equal protection under the law and that their rights should not be compromised in any peace negotiations or agreements. In order to get what they want, some may be prepared to sacrifice the interests of Afghan women. Whatever objectives the Afghan Government may have, they must not be made at the expense of the women and children of that country. A lot needs to be done. The average life expectancy for a woman in Afghanistan is 44—the worst in the world—and one in eight dies in childbirth, which is one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world.

The Minister mentioned the Ministerial Statement tomorrow but I would appreciate more detail now or in a letter on how DfID funds will be used to deal with inequities such as access to professional training, which I know the US is focusing on, and all the other important areas of concern in relation to gender inequality. A great deal is at stake at this time for the people of Afghanistan and, indeed, for the whole region and the world. They demand strong and effective leadership from the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and the Government.

16:25

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her considerable number of very important questions. I shall do my best to answer them, taking them in the order in which she raised them.

A functioning justice system is vital—the noble Baroness is completely correct about that—and we welcome the progress which the Afghan Government have made already in crucial areas of justice reform. We are working with the Afghan Government to clarify how they intend to drive forward progress, and with the wider international community, including the European Union—which the noble Baroness rightly raised and reminded me of—to establish how best we can support justice reform in Afghanistan. This is a vital area. I leave no one in any doubt about that.

The noble Baroness said that no mention was made of the parliamentary elections. I thought that there was a mention but, if there was not, I will say now that they are coming up. I shall check the Statement in a moment—I have not had time while listening to all her questions. Obviously the elections are important and it is vital that they are conducted effectively and efficiently.

On the general question of objectives between now and 2015, there is a clear and firm commitment to work for the withdrawal of all combat troops by 2015. That was the clear statement by the Prime Minister yesterday and by other of his colleagues. Obviously after 2015 some troops will still be there for training purposes but that will be the end of the combat involvement. It seems more than reasonable—indeed it is a sensible and strategic task—to place that date. This is not a rush for the exit; it is nothing like that at all. This is a firm harness of pressure on both the Karzai Government and the Taliban underlining the fact that there will be an exact and organised timetable up to that period. It makes sense to have the firm date which has been agreed. Of course, there is a dovetailing with the plans of Mr Obama, which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister discussed with him yesterday.

The noble Baroness asked about Taliban negotiations. Our view is that there are Taliban moderates—that not all Taliban are extremists. We support any moves which President Karzai makes in making contact with them if they are people who commit to the overall framework of a unified Afghan nation and to the conduct of that nation in a civilian, non-violent and democratic way. If they are prepared to talk, we support President Karzai making contact with them.

The noble Baroness asked about the need for a firm plan. The Kabul process, which my right honourable friend has worked on in the past two days, is the transition plan. The long list of commitments that I read out in the Statement made by my right honourable friend describes the bones of the plan. Obviously one cannot work out exactly to the minute at which point different bits will be achieved, but here is a very detailed set of commitments which will be monitored.

The noble Baroness then turned to the immensely important issue of women’s rights, and she is absolutely correct to lay emphasis on this. The conference communiqué contained clear commitments on women’s rights, including implementing a national priority programme for human rights and civic responsibilities, mainstreaming gender equality across all programmes, and undertaking a human rights, legal awareness and civic education programme targeting communities across Afghanistan.

The noble Baroness is not right in saying that there were no representatives of women’s organisations at the conference. Representatives of civil society, including women’s organisations, were at the conference and presented a statement to participants on behalf of civil society organisations including women’s groups. In addition, a separate conference on women’s rights was organised by the Afghan women’s movement, which was attended by around 200 women from all 34 provinces in Afghanistan and played a key role in contributing to the civil society statement made at the conference. So, although I totally understand her concerns and priorities, I hope she will accept that the problem is at least recognised and is of course vital and central. There can be no balanced future for this nation without the role of women being fully and properly recognised in building that future.

I think that that covers most of the noble Baroness’s points. On the question of how the extra moneys will be spent, I cannot give precise details at this point, but a system has been set up to monitor them very carefully indeed. We are determined to see that there is no filtering away of these funds into corrupt practices or dubious activities. We will make absolutely sure that they are spent in effective programmes in line with what I know will be the wishes of your Lordships and indeed of the whole British people.

16:31

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. May I, on behalf of the Cross Benches, offer profound sympathies to bereaved families and, once again, pay tribute to the courage of the forces fighting in the south of the country?

I would like to ask two very brief questions. First, in view of very recent events—the killing of soldiers—what measures are being taken to prevent and/or weed out any Taliban presence in the Afghan national army? The second question, which the Minister certainly alluded to, is what new measures will now be taken as a result of the Kabul conference to ensure that aid is actually used to build and improve infrastructure in the form of transport, health and education facilities?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness both for her questions and, indeed, for the brevity of her questions.

Of the tragedies which we have seen in recent times, the appalling killing of military personnel, very tragically including three British soldiers, by a member of the Afghan forces was a horror. There have been other incidents of a similar kind, but I think that my answer has to be that there is no question of this being a general problem. It does not in any way deter us from the overriding commitment of moving forward to the transition and enabling a proper, well-trained Afghan force, and indeed Afghan police force, to take over the security of their own country. However, there has to be very careful monitoring and watching to make sure that this kind of tragedy does not occur. It is something that one just has to watch for. There can never be any guarantee that personnel will not somehow be perverted, twisted or lose control of themselves and do terrible things; but the whole system is being very carefully monitored and watched, and we hope and pray and work to ensure that it does not happen again.

As to the destinations of aid, these can be tightened up. Of course there have been criticisms that not all aid is reaching the right points. We have strengthened a number of the monitoring processes, and they will be even more strengthened as a result of the Kabul conference in order that we may continue with the infrastructure development, which has gone on apace. We should not underestimate the fantastic things that have been done in the years since the original invasion. I shall share with your Lordships one figure that quite surprised me when I looked at some of the briefing for today. The Afghan economy is growing incredibly fast—last year it grew at 22.5 per cent. We could do with that kind of growth here.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Statement and welcome the £200 million in additional funding to support stability and development. I recognise that the Afghan Government, with our support, favour a broad dialogue with the Taliban—the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, spoke at some length today about what that means—but I wonder whether we are exercising leverage with Pakistan, which is critical to the success of our mission given the role of the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency in supporting the most violent and reactionary elements of the Taliban in terms of the reconciliation. Unless the Pakistanis lean on their friends to desist from disrupting the peace and reconciliation that there is, we are not going to get very far. I notice that the Foreign Secretary sets great store by the UK-Pakistan strategic dialogue. Does that include a security dimension, and are these talks happening in that format? Finally, will the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister intends to appoint a new special envoy to Afghanistan given the departure of Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles? Surely a regional approach dealing with India, Pakistan and Afghanistan would be facilitated if we did not rely solely on the Americans and had our own sources of influence in those capitals.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to my noble friend. On her second point, William Patey, a very able ambassador, is appointed to be our man in Kabul and fulfils that role. I had the pleasure of meeting him only two or three days ago when he was here. I was enormously impressed by his experience and grasp of the complexities. This is, in effect, not quite the replacement but the development of the role that Sherard Cowper-Coles had previously. He has now completed his assignment there.

Pakistan’s role is vital—my noble friend is completely correct. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has visited Pakistan and discussed in detail with the Pakistani leadership how we can work more closely together, how we can support them, and how in particular they can achieve their twin aims: to defeat—that is a strong word—the Taliban elements on their own territories and their side of the border; and to help contain—that is perhaps not quite such a strong word—the Taliban activities on the other side of the border in the Pashtun-related areas. This dialogue is crucial. Without sensible progress on that front, there will be no stabilisation in Afghanistan. That is why we place the highest priority on a very close dialogue with our Pakistan colleagues.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

I agree with every word that the Minister said about William Patey. He is an excellent diplomat, one in whom we can have the utmost confidence. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that, on a recent occasion when we discussed this issue, he assured the House that the 2015 date was not a “deadline”. It now seems that it is a firm date. It is a bit hard to discriminate between a firm date and a deadline. The problem is the implied comfort that it gives to the Taliban.

Can the Minister tell us what action is being taken in relation to Yemen? There is a genuine fear that the Taliban are melting away in the way that Osama bin Laden has evaded all capture over recent years, however hard the allied forces have tried. The Taliban will melt away into Yemen and will simply re-emerge after 2015. What can the Minister tell us about that?

I return to the point made by my noble friend Lady Kinnock. She did not say that there were no women at the conference. She said that the women at the conference did not feel that their concerns were being taken seriously. I can understand that. There are 10 important commitments in the Statement, but there is not a single mention of women, although the noble Lord in answering the question said that the issue was immensely important. If it is immensely important, why is it not mentioned properly and prominently in the Statement?

Women had a terrible time under the Taliban. We all remember those terrible newsreels of women being shot in the football stadium. The Government have to do better on bringing women’s points more to the fore. I would suggest that, among the many able women I see on the government Benches, it might be sensible to ensure that there is an envoy on women for Afghanistan so that we can be assured that women’s rights are being properly dealt with.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness again raises a vital point and perhaps I may reassure her. The communiqué also develops and strengthens commitments made initially at the London conference in January to implement the national action plan for women and the elimination of violence against women in law. The noble Baroness probably took part in that very constructive conference. Certainly, I would be the first to recognise the valuable work done by the previous Government in creating that conference and in providing a foundation on which to build.

We welcome the Afghan Government’s continuing commitment to protect the human rights of the Afghan people, which is enshrined in the Afghan constitution and the national action plan for women. If it was not in the 10 commitments in my right honourable friend’s Statement, I will note that and see that it is pointed out in my department. It is certainly plumb in the middle of the communiqué, which is valuable.

As to what women’s organisations felt, I am sorry if I got that slightly wrong. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, was saying that they were not represented, but she did not say that; she said that they were not satisfied. I obviously cannot comment on the state of satisfaction except to say that the endeavour was there and the realisation is there, as is the central importance of women’s role in all this. Given the horrors of women’s treatment in the past and the evil viciousness with which under Taliban rule girls’ schools were closed, women were abused and so on, this issue could not be other than absolutely central to the future. I emphasise that and I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, raised it again.

On the date by which combat troops will be withdrawn, I think that I said the other day—I am always ready for correction—that it was an aspiration. Perhaps that word was a little weak, because of course it remains an objective. However, one cannot in a thousand years be sure that everything will work exactly to plan. We just do not know. I think that the Deputy Prime Minister in another place made a point about it not necessarily being crystal clear or carved in concrete or whatever. That is our plan and our intention; it is the firm Kabul process and what it leads to.

As to the Taliban melting away and the old story that the Taliban disappears by day and comes back by night, one would not want to underestimate the fact that in the next five years—five years is a long time—there will not be a free ride for the Taliban. The combat troops—our marvellous troops—will continue to fight and to carry on their operations. The American surge army is still not complete. There are another 30,000 American troops to come. The Taliban will have a very hard time. If it thinks that at the end of five years it will be intact, it will have another think coming. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness to some extent on the important points that she raised.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there will be considerable sympathy in the House that he has to face these attacks over the incredibly difficult situation that this Government have inherited? I think that a more constructive approach would be generally welcome.

I quickly make the point that the noble Lord did not answer one question asked by the noble Baroness, which was whether there is any evidence that the Taliban has gone to Yemen. Al-Qaeda certainly has. Yemen is an extremely dangerous place. However, most of the Taliban who are killed by coalition forces are dying within 20 miles of where they were born. I strongly support the suggestion that the Government should not treat the Taliban as one uniform mass of hopeless people but recognise that in many cases the Taliban represents villages, different outlooks and different tribal backgrounds. We need to see whether we can establish a sensible dialogue with those who do not wish to see their country destroyed.

Undoubtedly, one of the most disappointing things relates to the amount of money that has gone—or was meant to go—into improving the condition of the people. Much of it has been wasted and or has not been possible to spend because of the lack of security. I welcome in the Statement the idea of concentrating on a few simple objectives so that the people of Afghanistan can see ringing benefits. In that connection, if we can concentrate on safe transport on main roads—so that people can get their goods to the market—electricity and water, people in Afghanistan will be able to see some real benefit coming from the brave work and tragedies that have gone into attempts to make the country secure.

This is going to cost a lot of money. One of our complaints in NATO is the lack of active military support from a lot of NATO members. Can I take it that those NATO members will at least be prepared to make substantial cash contributions to this continuing effort?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I thank my noble friend for his wise words. He is right, of course, that part of the battle is against young men who are near the homes where they were brought up, which makes it a local battle and not a nationwide battle at all. As to driving out al-Qaeda, there is evidence that there may be some al-Qaeda training units left in Afghanistan, but they have dispersed. People ask whether, in that case, we will look at other areas where they may have gone—Yemen, Somalia and so on. We have to watch these things carefully, but it is fairly clear that al-Qaeda is more dispersed and that the comfort that it originally had, using Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban for its operations, has been significantly disrupted to the benefit of our security and that of the wider world.

We are contributing more resources and we are looking to our allies to make similar contributions—obviously, the Americans are making a substantial contribution. We think that this money can be focused on the real needs of the Afghan people, although I repeat that we should not underestimate the fact that in some areas—not all—very remarkable progress has been made in recent years. There are signs of the return of real economic growth and growing prosperity for a people who have suffered very greatly in the past.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I presume that the clearly stated NATO aim in the Statement applies also to all other countries that are at this moment helping and supporting Afghanistan. We hear quite a lot about Pakistan and its involvement but we hear little about India, yet there are reports of considerable and growing Indian influence within Afghanistan. Can the Minister tell the House whether India was represented at the Kabul conference and whether it is a signatory to the motives behind the NATO objective?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am pretty sure that India was represented at the Kabul conference, as were the other regional powers. We are concerned to see that regional co-operation is strengthened. As to the particular documents that India signed, I will have to write to the noble Lord with the details, but clearly India is a key part in this. I have absolutely no doubt that, when my right honourable friends visit India in considerable numbers the week after next, this issue will be high on the agenda.

[Lord Rowlands]

In order to help us to assess progress in the future, can the Minister tell the House in how many of the 34 provinces the Afghan Government’s writ effectively runs? When we talk about an Afghan Government, in how many of the provinces does that mean anything?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I cannot say precisely because the situation is fluid and any figure that I hazarded for the noble Lord at this moment may well be wrong. Certainly the strategy is to increase the number steadily over the next five years. As each area becomes manageable under the Afghan authorities and Afghan security forces, it will be possible for the international military forces to run down. I cannot give him a precise, mathematical figure. I shall try to find out for him and send him a note about it.

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement on the Kabul process but feel that an opportunity has been missed today. The Minister referred to the Written Statement that is to be issued, but why could we not have had a joint Statement on development and diplomacy at the same time? That would have given the Minister a better opportunity to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, on the role of women and civil society.

I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord King, and point to the corruption that has occurred in large projects, many involving American security firms and people with whom the Afghans have nothing to do. If we are to have an Afghan-led process, must we not now concentrate on the non-governmental organisations, which are not mentioned today but will be in the Written Statement from DfID? I hope that the Minister will emphasise that to his ministerial colleagues.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to the noble Earl. My department is working extremely closely with DfID and the Ministry of Defence on all these matters. This was a question of the best method of informing both the other place and your Lordships’ House. It was deemed that the Foreign Secretary should set out the overarching details today, which I have repeated, and that other of my right honourable colleagues should set out the parts that they are going to play. I have no doubt that there will be Statements beyond the one from the Secretary of State for International Development. That is the way in which information will come forward. My Statement was long enough; if I had covered other departments’ aspects, your Lordships would have become a little weary. However, I take the point. This is an overarching and coherent strategy that runs across departments here and right across the scene in Afghanistan.

The question of sub-national governance activity is very important. The task force co-ordinated by the Afghan Independent Directorate of Local Governance and UNAMA and the sub-national governance policy passed by the Afghan Government in March are being strengthened. They are important steps towards strengthening local government and district delivery. The noble Earl touches on the even more fundamental point that, although in every one of these endeavours Governments can do great things and signatories can approve government documents, it is at the sub-governmental, semi-governmental, non-governmental and voluntary level that often the real weaving together of a better future is achieved.

Finance Bill

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

First Reading

16:54

The Bill was brought from the Commons, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Women in Society

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

16:55

Moved By

[Baroness Verma]

That this House takes note of the position of women in society in the United Kingdom and overseas and the advancements that can be made for the development of women’s potential.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to introduce this debate, the expansive theme of which will ensure that women remain in the headlines and will continue to challenge the systems that still actively work against them.

I pay tribute to those present for their tireless work in ensuring that the cause of equality for women is enhanced at every opportunity. I am also honoured that we are to hear seven maiden speeches in today’s debate from such eminent Members of the House. Your Lordships’ House will be enormously enhanced by their contributions and I feel privileged that they have chosen to make their maiden speeches in this debate today.

We have made great strides in this country towards gender equality at many levels in society, thanks mostly to the struggles women have fought over the generations. Many of the myths surrounding women have been removed—whether women should vote, work and govern. Our daughters and granddaughters certainly have more choices than many of us would have had in the past. Today in the UK women make up nearly half the workforce. Girls are outperforming their male counterparts at school and graduating with better degrees. Women now contribute throughout the economy and in almost every sphere of life. Women have explored the infinity of space, pioneered cancer-beating therapies, discovered the first radio pulsars and won Olympic gold medals. They have led countries, run their own businesses and served as High Court judges. The list can go on. And often at the same time as managing this, they are managing households and caring for children and sick or elderly relatives. These are achievements we should all be proud of and celebrate. They show that, given opportunities, access, an even playing field, support and the right environment, all things are possible.

But the reason for calling this debate is that, for all the progress that has been made, too many women in this country and around the world are still not being given the chance to fulfil their potential. Too many women still have too few or no rights. Too many women are still refused choices. It is a real tribute to your Lordships’ House that so many noble Lords are taking part today because it shows the importance attached to this area. Noble Lords will share my sentiment, and that of the new coalition Government, that not only is tackling the many challenges women still face fundamental to women and to their rights, but the empowerment of women is linked to economic growth and the development, prosperity, stability and strengths of countries across the world. Women make up half the people available to any country. If they are not channelled into the economy and used as part of the decision-making process, that country will fail to maximise the real potential, value and economic strength that women bring.

As we face these economically turbulent times, we must work to ensure that the worst affected are not women. We must utilise this difficult period to maximise all our capabilities in helping the economy recover. Our first challenge is to ensure that the progress women have made does not take a step backwards during these difficult economic times. The recession affects both men and women, but the nature of women’s work means that it affects them in different ways, not least because the obvious restrictions placed on women with childcare or other care commitments make them more vulnerable in an environment where employers are making redundancies. In an era where women are now key contributors to the family income, particularly in relation to the 90 per cent of single-parent households which women head, this has serious implications for the families involved. That is why the Government have been clear that fairness must be at the heart of all our decisions, to ensure that those most in need are protected during the economic crisis. The Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities is working with colleagues across government departments to ensure that they consider the equality impact of spending reductions in line with their legal obligations under the gender duty.

For those out of work we are providing support through a voluntary employment programme that is encouraging lone parents to improve their employment opportunities, and we are stepping up our support for disadvantaged families—for example, by increasing Sure Start’s focus on the neediest of families by putting in place 4,200 new health visitors to help ensure that families have access to information and advice from the onset. We recognise the importance of early intervention and assisting families to prevent problems rather than intervening after difficulties have set in. These centres also show our plans for a big society at work. Empowering voluntary, community and neighbourhood groups can help initiate change and provide support to women and their families. It is not just about breaking down the barriers preventing women from fulfilling their potential; it is about ensuring they have greater support in all the roles they play, from parenting to employment and from caring to civic involvement.

Some of this requires debate and a legislative programme, but we must ensure that, where possible, legislation does not impose overly bureaucratic and costly processes, particularly on employers and businesses. It is vital that we work with them and not against them to develop policies which are proportionate and effective, so that we can see real changes being delivered on the ground. I am pleased that the main provisions of the Equality Act, legislation which has important simplification benefits, are to be implemented in October. We will work with all partners to ensure that it is implemented effectively.

We are also clear that Parliament cannot on its own get to the root causes of persisting gender inequality. We must find measures that ensure that all are shareholders and willing partners in this ambition. That is why our policy is to include intelligent and targeted solutions. A concerted effort must be made at changing mindsets and culture across the population, from employers to communities. As someone who has supported women who have suffered terrible abuse at the hands of men, often in cases of violence that have been justified under the pretext of tradition and culture within communities right here in the UK, I know how hard it is to change mindsets, but that has to be our ultimate goal if we are to make a real and long-lasting change to our society.

I turn to women in the workplace. It is only right that we look at what competitive global markets demand, knowing that the workplace has changed as flexible working becomes more available. We know that work patterns have greatly changed in response to the 24-hour global clock, but we cannot afford to lose sight of the other demands put predominantly on women. Even after the historic equal pay legislation of 40 years ago, a working woman can still expect to earn an average of 12.2 per cent less than a man. The situation is even worse among some ethnic-minority groups.

I shall highlight three factors which contribute to the slowness of progress towards equal pay. The first is occupational segregation. The second is the fact that women are underrepresented in senior positions; for example, of the directors of FTSE 100 companies, just 12 per cent are women. The third is the effect of women’s caring responsibilities on their working patterns. The Government’s commitment to providing affordable childcare for all parents will help, but this alone is not enough. Workplaces have to become more family friendly.

While there are many examples of excellent practice, there remain large gaps in the form of employers who do not realise the benefits of flexible working opportunities at different levels. This often leads to women working in lower-paid or part-time jobs where they may not reap the full benefits of their training or qualifications.

The current economic crisis, although difficult, may also create an opportunity for change, to rethink the way we do things, and to ensure that we draw on the widest pool of talent and meet the demands of an ever changing environment. The Government face huge economic problems. We have become indebted on an unprecedented scale. Difficult decisions will have to be made. While we have to make cuts in some sectors, we want to open up opportunities in others where there is need and demand. This will involve promoting women in key sectors. In science, for example, one in three graduates is a woman, but only 18.5 per cent of them work in the industry. This is despite the fact that the European Commission has predicted that Europe will suffer a shortfall of 20 million skilled workers in science and technology by 2030. We will work with education providers to ensure that women are able to make broader career choices, and with businesses to support them in recruitment and retention of female employees.

To help to address work-life balance, we are committed to introducing an historic extension to all employees of the right to request flexible working. To make sure that we get more women in decision-making positions, we have pledged to look at the ways in which we can promote gender equality on the boards of listed companies. Alongside all these commitments, we will be working with employers to communicate the enormous benefits that gender equality practices can bring to their organisations.

The issue of the underrepresentation of women in Parliament and senior political positions continues to pose a big challenge. The presence of women in Parliament and their contribution to debate have introduced a whole new set of perspectives to those debates. Issues such as childcare, tackling domestic violence, human trafficking, maternity and paternity leave and after-school clubs have moved up the political agenda as a result. However, Parliament and local government still lack the balance that we need to ensure fairer representation. Thankfully, all three major political parties see the need to broaden the appeal of politics and to encourage more women into the political processes.

Women still account for only 22 per cent of Members of Parliament. In looking to see how we can make further progress, we will be considering the report of the cross-party Speaker’s Conference on Parliamentary Representation as we agree our priorities. We have already followed up on one of the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference by committing to introduce extra support for disabled people who want to become Members of Parliament, councillors or other elected officials.

One of the more serious challenges that the new Government and our society face is the persistence in various forms of violence against women. More than 1 million women experience violence each year in the UK, through domestic violence, rape, trafficking, honour-based violence and other less obvious forms. We want to increase the level of support offered to victims of violence. That is why we will look to putting funding for existing rape crisis centres on a more stable and longer-term footing. We will establish new rape crisis centres where there are gaps in provision. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, today. I pay tribute to the excellent work that she has done in this area through her review. The Home Secretary recently announced that we will be responding to it shortly.

Another unacceptable form of violence against women is that of forced marriage. That is not something that just happens in far-off lands; it happens here. In 2009, the Government’s Forced Marriage Unit dealt with nearly 1,700 calls for help from women who feared for their freedom. I would like to read a short extract from one woman’s testimony. Her name is Farzana. She said:

“I was told that I had to go back to Bangladesh to learn how we behave properly. My Mum came with me and we stayed with my uncle. After a couple of weeks, I started to hear things about a marriage and soon worked out it was my own. I was terrified and one evening grabbed my Mum’s mobile and locked myself in the bathroom. I rang Sam, my best friend, in the UK and begged her to get help. My uncle broke the lock and hit me across the face. From then on, I was watched even more closely and didn’t leave the house at all”.

In the end, Farzana was saved by the Government’s Forced Marriage Unit, but many girls do not escape.

Prevention is as important as protection. During the school holidays, there is often an increase of incidents of young people being taken out of the country. It is important that teachers, police and members of the community are able to identify situations and know what signs to look out for in order to intervene confidently. Guidance issued to schools, colleges and other public bodies must be followed actively and we must not shy away from intervention because of community sensitivities. It is important that the Forced Marriage Unit, through its extensive awareness-raising and outreach programmes, will be speaking at over 80 events a year and working with schools and other organisations to tackle this issue.

Not least of the challenges that we face is that of addressing the poverty and injustice that women face around the world. Some argue that, in the current economic climate, aid should be a casualty as we look for savings in public spending. The Government do not take that view. We are committed to increasing our aid budget to 0.7 per cent by 2013 and enshrining that commitment in law. Surely it cannot be acceptable to see a world where 70 per cent of the world’s poorest are women. We must maintain our commitment to help women around the world, not only because it is right but because women hold the key to development in the world’s poorest countries. In a world where our economies are so dependent on one another, that is something that we must nurture.

However, the privilege of a ring-fenced budget does not mean that we do not have to watch where our money is going. We need to make sure that every penny reaches those who need it most. What matters are tangible results. The Muskoka initiative is a good example. Today, in the UK, the chance of dying in pregnancy and childbirth is one in 8,200. In parts of Africa, it is as high as one in seven. This is something that we can change. That is why the UK Government have made a significant contribution to this initiative, which will help to save the lives of an extra 1.4 million mothers and children over the next five years.

As well as giving our support to important projects, we must clearly be vocal about where we stand on women’s rights. If we are to improve the outcomes for those women who depend on us to be their voice, whether we witness cruelty and abuse here or know of its practice in other countries, we need to challenge those countries to respond. We must do this in partnership with our European partners, members of the Commonwealth and the UN. I am encouraged by the recent agreement to form a powerful UN agency to advocate women’s rights. Until now, there has been a fragmentation of women’s issues in the UN, with no fewer than four separate organisations. We will work closely with the new agency to ensure that it has a strong focus on achieving results and delivering value for money from the outset.

These are just some of the commitments to women that we have announced as part of the new coalition programme for change. In the forthcoming months, we will build on these commitments and outline in more detail how we will carry them forward. I, along with the Government, recognise the great depth and breadth of knowledge and experience in your Lordships’ House. We are keen to listen carefully to noble Lords’ views and advice and I look forward to their valuable contributions. I beg to move.

17:11

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate and for doing so in such a detailed, extremely informative and sensitive way. The debate gives the House the opportunity to hear about the Government’s future strategy for women, which has now been well explained to us. I pick up on one point that is fundamental to all the discussions that we are going to have, which is the question of women’s rights, whether in the UK or abroad. That has to be the basis on which we have all our discussions.

I declare an interest as chair of the Women’s National Commission, a non-departmental government body that is under review. I cannot resist the opportunity to say that I trust that the Government will appreciate and respect the value of the WNC in hearing the voices of women throughout the UK. It is a model that is envied and has been adopted by many other countries. We look forward to seeing what the future brings.

We have had many successful debates in your Lordships’ House, but I do not think that we have ever had the privilege of hearing seven maiden speeches in our debates. We sincerely look forward to hearing them all. I had a dilemma today in thinking of what to speak about. I might have known more had I heard the Minister’s speech in advance. Many subjects come to mind, but I decided to take my theme from a conference that I recently chaired—jointly organised by the health department of Birmingham City University and the National Council of Women—on vulnerability across one’s lifespan.

The conference made me recognise the large number of women who, for very differing reasons, are at some time in their lives in a vulnerable position. It also took me back to 16 and a half years ago when I made my maiden speech, standing somewhere over there, on vulnerable women in the criminal justice system. It was 25 October 1993—never to be forgotten. I asked the Library to find it for me, which it kindly did, so that I could see how much of that speech was relevant today.

One of the findings of the Runciman report, which was what we were debating that day, was that all within the justice system should be treated fairly, reasonably and without discrimination. In spite of that, the report failed to address the position of women within the system, which is primarily geared to men. Nor did it take account of the marked gender differences in the pattern of offending, often resulting in disproportional punishment. That principle has not, I am afraid to say, absolutely disappeared. As the Minister said, sometimes it is hard to change one’s mindset.

Last month, the number of women in prison in England and Wales was 4,302, which is 60 per cent up on the last decade. That sounds like a big increase, but the question has to be asked how many of those prison sentences were justified. For instance, in spite of evidence that women defendants rarely commit offences on bail, half of women entering custody each year do so on remand. These women spend an average of four to six weeks in prison and 60 per cent do not then receive a custodial sentence. Very often, these women in custody for that short period are five times more likely to have a mental health concern than women in the general population. Many self-harm, more than one-third are alcoholics, 58 per cent are on drugs, more than half have experienced domestic violence and one-third have experienced sexual abuse. There is no denying that these women have committed a crime, but do the punishment and its consequences fit that crime? Is a prison sentence always necessary?

At a meeting last month held jointly by the Women’s National Commission and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Penal Affairs, the governor of Styal women’s prison indicated that, in that prison, 107 women were on remand, 50 per cent of whom he believed would not receive a custodial sentence; 72 women were doing six months or less; 34 were doing eight days or less; eight had been sentenced for one day; and there had been one fine defaulter who had been discharged before she had even spent one night in prison. Surely something is wrong with that.

The question has to be asked whether it is right to impose those short sentences. It is, therefore, encouraging to hear the Minister for Justice, Ken Clarke, arguing the case for a more constructive approach to sentencing. However, I hope that in his deliberations he will also have a constructive approach to sentencing women. I hope, too, that he takes into account the findings of the Corston review on women in the criminal justice system who have particular vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, cannot be here to take part in the debate today.

The review was commissioned by my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland after a series of self-inflicted deaths of women prisoners in Styal prison. The review raised the issue of the appropriateness of custody at huge public cost for women who pose no risk to the public. It called for the introduction of small custodial units for serious dangerous offenders and, for most women who come before the courts, a larger network of support and supervisory centres, based on existing successful women’s centres, as alternatives to custody. I am proud to be the patron of one such centre, of which there are now 38.

At the all-party meeting, we heard many examples of the value that the centres have had to women. A woman from Wales, now aged 31, had been in and out of jail since she was 19, all in short sentences. She had been introduced to drugs in prison and needed money to feed the habit. She saw a leaflet about the women’s centre, the Women’s Turnaround Project, in Wales. With its help, she is now clear of drugs and is planning to go to college to train to do a job in which she can give something back to society. We need many more examples of that being possible.

Of course, all those centres require funding. What plans are there to retain this incredibly valuable resource to help vulnerable women to restore their lives, to prevent them from reoffending and to steer them from drugs and alcohol? I do not have the time to go into the consequences of these short-term prison sentences, with the loss of jobs, the risk of losing children and the risk of ending up homeless, adding to the growing number of vulnerable homeless women who are not only ex-prisoners but also survivors of domestic and sexual violence. A report by Crisis identified that 20 per cent of homeless women were escaping domestic violence; many of them then enter into unwanted sexual relationships to secure accommodation and basic necessities, or are housed in mixed accommodation, which, because of their experience of abuse and violence, is seen as threatening and unsafe.

Violence against women, so explicitly described by the Minister, takes many forms, whether it is domestic violence, which affects one in four women in their lifetime, sexual violence—and it is vulnerable young women, normally aged between 16 and 19, who are most likely to experience violence and sexual victimisation—or the examples given by the Minister, such as FGM and honour killings. All too often, it is those women whose voice is difficult to hear who are the subjects of such violence. In order to hear their voices, the Women’s National Commission was commissioned by the Home Office and the Department of Health to organise and facilitate 24 focus groups of particularly vulnerable women, such as women trafficked into the UK, Gypsy and Traveller women, women asylum seekers and refugee women. The results played a big part in the cross-government violence against women strategy that was introduced last year, as I am sure they will in any future proposals to eliminate violence against women.

I could go on, illustrating the incidence of women who, at some time in their lives, are vulnerable. This is an area to which we should give much more consideration, because it often affects those women from whom we hear nothing; they are hidden and unheard. It is clear that improvements can continue to be made to the lives of those vulnerable women by cross-government working on violence against women, by further implementation of the Corston report, by the valuable use of the women’s centres working within the community and by other initiatives which should be maintained and developed. I was pleased to hear the Minister’s remarks on the disadvantaged community—these women are sincerely and severely disadvantaged. I hope that we will hear more from the Minister in the future about this agenda and what the Government plan to do to help those women.

17:21

[Baroness Walmsley]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Verma for giving us another of our regular opportunities to talk about the position of women in society. She made a number of very important and welcome announcements, particularly about rape centres, forced marriages, an increase in the right to ask for flexible working and, of course, the very important commitment to international aid.

In the past we have normally been led in our discussions on women by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and I pay tribute to the indefatigable way in which she has returned us to these important matters—we have heard yet another very fine speech from her today. I, too, look forward to the galaxy of maiden speeches that we are about to hear.

I was interested in the wording of the Motion. It mentions not the role of women in society, but the position of women in society. It is a sad fact that the position of women is too often at the bottom of the ladder in employment, on the floor in the home after a violent blow from a violent partner, or on her back, either willingly or unwillingly, but without any contraception or health protection. It is these things that I wish to address today.

There is no doubt that the key to the progression of women to their rightful place in society—equal to men and full partners with them—is education in its widest sense. Education is the route out of poverty, the key to independence, self-respect and self-confidence and the best contraceptive in the world. It is tempting to think that women and girls in this country have no problem with all these things, but that is not true. We still have young girls whose aspirations are limited at an early age because of poor career guidance in the choice of subjects at school and stereotyping in work-experience placements and choice of subjects to study after school. Women are underrepresented in the higher-paid apprenticeship sectors and those which offer level 3, as well as on the boards of big corporations and everything in between, and we all know about the gender pay gap more generally. Poor aspiration appears to be a factor in unwanted teenage pregnancy, since a significant number of young mothers had disengaged from school before they became pregnant.

It is important that we recognise that boys and girls, though equal, are different. Having taught both teenage girls and teenage boys, I would say that is particularly so when the boys are stuffed with testosterone and desperate to show how manly and forceful they are and the girls are showing their feminine side. Interesting work has been done on attainment in science subjects which showed that girls taught in single-sex groups did far better than when they were in with the boys, who tended to take over all the experiments and answer all the questions put by the teacher unless that teacher was very careful. That chimes very much with my experience.

Therefore, I have a lot of sympathy with the view expressed in one of the briefings that came to us before this debate that we need to look carefully at gender-specific services where it has been proved that these work better. However, while young people are in their compulsory schooling years, we have a big opportunity, which we must not squander, to ensure that they have the right knowledge, skills and values as well as the ability to get qualifications and earn a living. Yes, it is important that boys as well as girls have high-quality sex and relationship education—after all, it takes two to tango—but it needs to be in the context of a broad and balanced PSHE curriculum which helps them develop understanding of all kinds of relationships and gain the confidence which will keep them safe in future. In other words, I am not in favour of sex and relationship education on its own. I want the curriculum review that we are about to have to embed SRE within a holistic PSHE programme based on sound principles for all pupils in all schools. No aspect of our lives is an island; all are affected by all others. Learning how to make money and then manage it is as important as contraception to prevent young women feeling that they have to have a baby before anyone will take notice of them.

In so many discussions about women, the elephant in the room is population growth. In 1950, the global population was 2 billion; it now stands at 6.5 billion and is likely—I am told—to rise to 9.2 billion by 2050. The majority of this growth will take place in the poorest countries, where parents cannot guarantee that their children will live long enough to support them in their old age, so it is hardly surprising. Women will take the strain of this growth and continue to be poor and downtrodden unless something is done. The trouble is that once a woman gets into early pregnancy, it tends to become a cycle in her family. Recently, I read a book from Plan International entitled Because I am a Girl, which relates the stories of women and girls around the world to illustrate the need for Plan’s excellent work. One story, by the author Kathy Lette, talks of a woman in Brazil who became pregnant at 12 and had three children by the time she was 16. Her three daughters also became pregnant at 12 and 14 and one had two children by the age of 15. However, the woman’s own mother had also had three children by the age of 16. They were all starving, she said, and at 10 years old she became a prostitute to earn money to buy milk for the baby and food for her siblings. She took drugs, as did her 13 year-old violent boyfriend, who acted as her pimp. Those three generations of women did not stand a chance. All had violent, abusive relationships and all demonstrated that “copulation means population”, in the words of the author. Of course, all these women were deeply poor and at terrible risk of contracting HIV and other STDs. Women must have control over their fertility. In parenthesis, it was wonderful to read this week about the discovery of a new anti-viral gel that halves HIV infections, which women will be able to use to take their sexual health literally into their own hands.

The work that Plan and other charities such as UNICEF are doing to educate girls around the world helps not only this generation but generations to come. Will the Minister say what DfID’s business plan contains to rectify the most off-track millennium development goals; that is, goals four, five and six, on child and maternal health and combating HIV/AIDS? These, along with universal primary education, are the ones which will benefit women and girls the most.

Finally, although we are debating women, we really need to be saying just as much about men. It is time that some men, in some societies, took their responsibilities more seriously. Society should have no patience with the baby-mother and absentee father concept, if it means that the mother and child are unsupported by the father. To quote one famous author, one of the biggest problems these days is men with the three Cs—cash, car and cellphone—but lacking the fourth, a condom. Family planning saves women’s lives, but it goes much wider than that, and it is time that men in all nations and all cultural groups took that to heart. When we are cutting all the things we are forced to cut, I am delighted that we will not be cutting international aid. However, I trust we will also ensure that family planning at home and abroad is not cut also. Other kinds of snips, yes, but not a snip in the budget for family planning, please.

17:31

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for introducing this debate, and offer my congratulations in advance to all those Peers who will be making their maiden speeches in this debate today. I start with a mantra we all know but too often do not implement—educating girls is development’s magic bullet. We all know this. Wherever you are in the world, if you invest in the education of girls, you will get development—by which I mean later marriage, better family spacing, smaller families, reduction in infant and maternal mortality and morbidity, involvement in and contribution to the economic and political development of the country, commitment to the education of the next generation, and a lessening of inter and intra-societal conflict.

Updated research tells us that women are better at consensus, interaction and complexities. On the whole, women are less aggressive and competitive than men. Given these facts, why do we not put all our aid into educating and promoting women?

We must be thankful that the Government have committed themselves to maintaining and even increasing overseas development aid. Furthermore, there is a strong verbal commitment to include gender parity in each and every DfID programme, and a focus on enabling women to have a choice in family spacing. It is reliably said that only 23 per cent of women in sub-Saharan Africa have access to contraception. The Government are also fierce about measuring outcomes in order to both justify the taxpayers’ contribution to aid, and to learn what works and what does not. To underline this, they are setting up an independent evaluation unit which will look at both outputs and outcomes. All this is more than acceptable.

However, in the light of the most recent announcement by the Government that aid to Afghanistan is to be increased by up to 40 per cent, I would like to give a very short example to illustrate some of the obstacles that might stand in the way of achieving laudable objectives, namely education. Here I would like to register an interest as co-founder and long-time supporter of a high school in Afghanistan, in a district of Kabul which was greatly brutalised by the Taliban, and before that by the civil war and before that by the Soviet occupation.

The school is based on the vision of a single man, called Aziz Royesh, who was himself a refugee in Pakistan during the time of the Soviet occupation. He returned at the end of 2001 and set up a school in a bomb-damaged building with no windows and a mud floor. He divided up the space with a torn sheet, to have two classrooms. He had 30 students, many of them children who provided newly returned families with their only source of income as carpet weavers. He ran three daily shifts. With the first tranche of money he did a very wise thing—he repaired a larger building in this war-torn area of Kabul and put in heating. This drew in the entire community, being the only heated space during a bitter winter. During that time, Aziz took the opportunity to provide adult literacy classes, and gradually the fear of educating daughters—remember this was in the immediate aftermath of the Taliban—began to diminish and parents agreed to send them to school. The community was involved at every stage: parents helped to build the new school, a local businessman provided a bus to bring girls from more outlying districts and others paid for the diesel for the generators. The parent-teacher association grew and grew. In the 2004 elections the school was given over to mock elections so that everyone, but especially the women, knew not only how to vote but what the elections were about.

Children I first saw nine years ago toiling as carpet weavers in the early morning have now graduated from the school following a liberal arts programme and gained entrance to the hugely competitive Kabul University. An indicator of the success of the school, which now has nearly 3,000 pupils, is that of the 16 annual scholarships offered by the prestigious Women’s University based in Bangladesh, 11 were awarded to the school, which began in a mud hut. The total cost of the school, including the countless children who are being educated both academically and vocationally, and the teacher training programme, as well as the adult education programmes, is in the region of $400,000 a year. Perhaps half of this comes from the very modest termly fees, and outside contributions make up the shortfall.

There are many private initiatives of this kind resulting from visits abroad—the right people being in the right place at the right time—and there must be several in your Lordships’ House who contribute directly to the education of girls in particular. The overheads are bypassed but, perhaps more importantly, these initiatives are built on something which already exists. Few of us in the middle of chaos and unfamiliarity believe that we can, for example, build a school for girls that will succeed beyond our expectations. No, what tends to happen is that, with luck, we stumble across some tiny initiative—something which the community has got itself sufficiently co-ordinated to achieve—above all recognising that everything starts with a leader from within the community. These are the projects that succeed and make a real difference.

Perhaps the more usual aid programme route is to assess needs from our own western perspective—whether they be clean water, primary health or whatever—and go about putting them into the society. Too many of these projects fail, and they fail because, however wonderful and however needed, they are not owned by the community, and because therefore the continuity of these projects, by which I mean their flourishing and growth, will continue only in so far as there are funds and external support.

In dealing with a society such as Afghanistan, which due to tradition, religion, tribalism, decades of war and poverty is deeply suspicious of external inputs, the problems of promoting the education of women are quadrupled. It has to start from within the community; it has to be sustained by the community; and it has to be governed and owned by the community. Perhaps here I may remind your Lordships of the contribution by my noble friend Lord Sandwich to the foreign policy debate held at the beginning of the month, in which he pointed out that, however generous and well thought through an assistance programme, you have to involve the local community to build trust. Anyone who has any familiarity with Afghanistan will, as he does, know this.

The announcement of up to 40 per cent more aid to Afghanistan at the same time as the US Congress has ordered the suspension of US aid due to corruption gives cause for concern. Will more aid promote the education of and contribution to the politics of the country by women, or could it simply add to the disillusion and corruption rife in that country, as many Afghans themselves believe will be the case?

If we were to use the considerable funds available within the DfID budget to scour the poorest and most conflict-laden parts of the world for leaders who can demonstrate a vision and a strategy to bring their communities along with them, we would achieve more than anyone thought possible with perhaps a quarter of the funds. Education is essential, as is widely recognised. What we need to do now is follow more imaginative and perhaps smaller and less expensive ways of delivering it.

I end by asking the Government to report on a much wider policy area—namely, the national action plan for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325. Can the Government confirm when they will publish their revised strategy on women, peace and security, and say what indicators and benchmarking might be included? The 10th anniversary of 1325 will be in October this year. Can the Government say what plans they might have to mark this significant milestone? Finally, what arrangements do the Government have to involve additional departments not involved in the previous plan, such as the Northern Ireland Office?

17:39

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, if it were not for the helpfulness and kindness of those who work here and of my noble friends, it would in fact be even more overwhelming to speak to your Lordships’ House than it is, but being a new boy—so many here recognise that—is easier at 13 and at 18 than at the age which I will not now refer to. It is a great pleasure and privilege to be here, not least to follow what seems to be an age-old ritual of referring a little to oneself personally although, in my view, there is much in the public world already, and rather too much for most. However, three things have motivated me throughout my political life and I hope that there will be opportunities here in your Lordships’ House to continue that work.

The first is what brought me into politics and what has kept me there: a commitment to the closer unity of Europe and my belief of Britain’s place in the European Union and the importance of the European Union within the world. It is sad that the narrowness of view has not seen this as it should be seen: as the most exciting peacetime achievement of the peoples of these ancient countries, which have so much in common and so much to do together. Secondly, there is the environment, not least the battle against climate change. Europe is of course crucial to achieving that end, but climate change is the biggest challenge to human beings that, in material terms, stands before us. Thirdly, there is a commitment to social justice. We are not going to solve the issues of climate change unless we have a more just world, for there is no reason for poor to join with rich in defending the world if the poor feel that the rich are merely going to gain for themselves the advantages which the better use of our resources will provide.

It is a pleasure, then, to be able to make one’s maiden speech in this debate, which was so fascinatingly introduced by the noble Baroness. Of course, the truth is that that understanding of social justice must lead one to recognise not only the importance of combating the extreme forms of attack on women but the natural, day-to-day damage done to women by poverty. There is the simple matter that women, even where the social mores are more advanced than some of the horrible examples that have been given, bear the burden of poverty more closely and directly in more places: women carrying water for much of the day; women working back-breaking hours in fields; women looking after children in between doing those things. That is part of what we seek to change in the battle to raise standards throughout the world.

I add my voice to those who congratulate the Government on their insistence that the one piece of spending which cannot be cut is our contribution to foreign aid. One of the saddest things about the British and their media is the attack on this objective and wholly laudable decision. I am sad that very well-paid journalists should find it possible constantly to attack this and to talk about charity beginning at home. Those who say that mean that charity should end at home and that there should not be much charity either, so it is necessary for the whole House to say that, in this, the coalition Government have set an example which other nations should follow and which should deserve the support of us all, whatever background we have.

At home, if we are to do more, we ought to recognise first how much has to be done. I declare an interest because I employ quite a number of women, while one of my problems is to employ enough men. That is because in the jobs that we do, in looking after people’s corporate responsibility, dealing with climate change and the issues of bribery and corruption—I mean avoiding rather than encouraging them—and seeking to help people throughout the world, the applicants for jobs among women are almost always significantly better in quality and experience than their male counterparts. I almost need to have a bias towards men. This seems to me to be something that we should be pleased about, because it helps us in trying to improve things in areas where we have, so far, not reached the same kind of result.

I am also pleased to speak in this debate because I come from the county that produced both the first woman doctor and the first woman mayor in Britain, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and indeed, of course, her sister Millicent Fawcett. Suffolk has had a proud part to play in the history of women, as Members of this House from Suffolk, including two diverse but very feisty ladies of crime, remind us what has been done for women from the county from which I come.

I am pleased to speak, too, because I have two daughters. I want to emphasise the points about science education. We in this House should press for universities to provide the ability for girls who have not had access to science education early on, or even had the intention and desire to do science, to catch up much more easily than they can at the moment. Some universities demand that girls should have done physics at A-level when they could perfectly well do their physics in the gap year. They have the other subjects, but not that, and the system has not helped them—and will not help them because a big change needs to take place before it will. I believe that universities should do much more to help girls with that.

I, like my brother, the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, owe a great deal to our mother. Oddly enough, when people say how much our parents would be proud of us, they always say how much our father would be proud. My mother would have been proud of us. She was one of those people who gave her life to bringing up her family and working in the parish. Like my brother, I have a wife who has taken the same view in her own way. In our advanced society, it is crucial to ensure that those women who choose—I agree that it is often a privilege that they are able to choose—that course of bringing up a family should be honoured to at least the same extent as those who have chosen differently.

I end with a simple example. Today one of my colleagues said that his wife had had a telephone call from somebody doing a survey. When she was asked what she did, she replied, “I am a housewife”. “No”, said the person on the end of the phone, “What do you really do?”. My colleague’s wife repeated that she was a housewife and in the end she was rather angry because the woman at the other end of the phone would not take that as a serious profession. I believe that one of the things that we can best do for women is that when they make the choice, we should accept it as their choice and honour them for it.

17:48

[Baroness Seccombe]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to have the privilege of thanking and congratulating my noble friend Lord Deben on that outstanding, elegant speech. He is a devout Christian, a true parliamentarian, and many in this House would find it difficult to believe that it is 40 years since he entered the other place where he held very high office.

The Gummer family is becoming quite a political dynasty. My noble friend joins his brother here, as he told us, while the other place will still hear a strong voice of yet another Gummer, his son Ben who was elected just recently as the Member for Ipswich. I know that my noble friend has special concern for the environment, Europe, climate change and, as he said, social justice. We can all look forward to a feast of other major contributions that I know my noble friend will make on these and other subjects.

Last Thursday I celebrated, with other Conservative women, the anniversary of Emmeline Pankhurst’s birth. As we did so, I mused over how far the lot of women in this country has changed in every way since the days when those brave women withstood the establishment to obtain the vote for women.

There are, of course, still issues to be resolved, but today I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I concentrate my few words on women who live in such bleak and distressing circumstances in Africa.

I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on initiating this debate and add my congratulations to the coalition Government for ring-fencing our contribution to developing countries. We in this country have a strange definition of poverty. It is all about financial differentials, and not—as I think it should be—about support for families who would otherwise face intolerable living conditions. I know I could be challenged on this view, but in this country the universal benefit system means that no one in the UK need go without support unless there are very special and unusual situations.

It is because of my fear for the millions of people in Africa that I believe we should all do our bit; so I now turn to overseas aid. It is unacceptable just to fling money at the problem and think that that will do. It will not do. We hear only too often that contributions have gone astray from where intended and instead end up in some dictator’s bank account. Financial aid requires careful research as to how and where it can be used to the greatest advantage for those who are never far from death. The money also needs careful monitoring to ensure that it is bringing much needed help to those for whom it is meant and not just squandered by those whose aims and objectives lie elsewhere.

I have been much impressed by one charity involved in aid, and I know that there are others doing equally good work along the same lines. Send a Cow works on the premise that educated women can lift themselves and their families out of poverty. In Africa, many women raise their families single-handedly. Most of them have had little formal education because their parents lacked the money to send them to school.

Education is much valued in Africa. Where children attend school, they are well turned out, alert and ready to learn and profit from all that it has to offer. Projects run by Send a Cow empower women to take control of their lives while learning a wide variety of skills which give them the knowledge they need to grow food, generate income, and so change the lives of their families and communities.

Many charities do important and necessary work worldwide, and I applaud them. However, there is something special in contributing to a smaller charity knowing that your contribution, however small, is chosen by you. For example, £40 will purchase 10 chickens, £80 will establish an orchard, £125.00 will buy a goat—and if you have a goat, you have the kids—and £250 will provide a dairy cow. All these gifts come with training, livestock and ongoing support.

A recent Send a Cow project in Uganda assessing the impact on participating women and families revealed that basic literacy is a vital ingredient in order for women to truly flourish. The project disclosed positive results with increasing food, income, production, nutrition, hygiene and sanitation all showing improvement, and with a new sense of confidence and self-esteem among the women.

I am confident that the Government’s priority is to ensure that state funds are spent on worthwhile projects only and are seen to be doing so. It is vital that all projects are carefully assessed and then closely followed and scrutinised. After all, it is too easy to allocate funds, but a careful watch on progress can make all the difference between a success or a dismal failure.

I have spent my political life promoting the role of women, but I have never been dedicated or even attracted to numbers, percentages and the feminist cause. However, I wholeheartedly believe that any society which is underrepresented by women loses out on a huge resource. Women are really good at juggling many balls at the same time and are nearly always the family managers, seeing to the family’s needs, so I have a sense of excitement and optimism for the future. I am hopeful that we can succeed in elevating just a few of those women—all too few, I fear—in developing countries who have never had the opportunities that we in this country take for granted and in many ways seem not to appreciate.

I began by referring to Emmeline Pankhurst, and I shall end by quoting one of her whimsical thoughts:

“We have to free half of the human race, the women, so that they can help to free the other half ”.

17:55

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I begin by thanking your Lordships warmly for the quality and depth of the welcome I have received. I am also most grateful to my sponsors, my noble friends Lord Young and Lady Warwick, for their kindness and their generous support. I wish to thank all the staff who have been so helpful, and for the courtesy extended to my father on the day of my introduction, it being necessary for him to use a wheelchair and his portable oxygen cylinder. It made the day so memorable for him and I extend my heartfelt personal thanks.

I was born in a small Devon village not far from Plymouth, which makes me a Plymouth Drake. As a little girl I gazed in wonder at some of the great ships moored at Devonport dockyard, so it was fitting to see the Armada exhibition in the Royal Gallery. In 1588, the English—including Sir Francis Drake—were the beneficiaries of a kind of stand-off between the Dutch and the Spanish. Unfortunately, in 2010, an almost equally belligerent contest between those countries in the World Cup was final confirmation that the English had already been sunk.

I worked for many years in the trade union movement. I was an equal opportunities commissioner on a commission which, with a small budget and talented staff, was able to punch well above its weight. For the past eight years I have been engaged in pension policy and reform, whether as a member of the Pensions Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, at the Pension Protection Fund, or in the building of the National Employment Savings Trust.

When young, I purchased a copy of the May 1909 edition of the journal Votes for Women, edited by Frederick and Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence. I reread this precious purchase recently and was reminded of the intensity of that campaign. Perhaps I may share with noble Lords an extract from that edition, which refers to the occasion of a visit in that year by Mr Winston Churchill to Manchester:

“Wherever he went he found that he could not get away from the subject of 'Votes for Women' and although the most elaborate precautions had been taken to exclude women from the great meeting in the Free Trade Hall ... when Mr Churchill raised his voice to congratulate himself on the absence of suffragettes … he was immediately interrupted by Miss F Clarkson and Miss Helen Tolson … who had been hiding [there] all night”.

Mr Churchill's arrival at the city was equally disturbed:

“All the way to the Reform Club he was pursued by a Miss Drummond in a taxi-cab, who asked him, THROUGH THE MEGAPHONE, when he intended to deal with the women's grievance”.

In preparing for this debate, I took the opportunity to read the very first maiden speech of a lady Peer. On 4 November 1958, Lady Elliot of Harwood, on the occasion of her maiden speech, remarked:

“I am very conscious that, except for Her Majesty's gracious Opening of Parliament, probably this is the first occasion in 900 years that the voice of a woman has been heard in the deliberations of this House”.

She then added wryly:

“I shall try to set a precedent and be short and to the point”.—[Official Report, 4/11/1958; col. 161.]

We have come a long way since 1909, but 10 years into the 21st century we still see substantial under-representation of women in political and public life. It is not the ability of women but the barriers they face which prevent them from contributing to their full potential and to being effectively represented. This point was recognised by Lady Elliot in that first speech. She acknowledged that she was making history but concluded insightfully that,

“we who are women may be regarded as having come here not because we are women but rather because women are now admitted”.—[Official Report, 4/11/58; col. 166.]

Women are performing strongly in education. The report of the National Equality Panel in 2010, headed by Professor Hills, confirmed that of every 100 pupils, girls have a median achievement ranked between eight and 12 places higher than the median achievement for boys. More women now have higher education qualifications than men in every age group up to the age of 44.

This performance by women, however, contrasts negatively with their wider representation in public life. In 2010, the percentage of women MPs and lady Peers had increased to a little over 20 per cent, but the figures are far fewer, as has been demonstrated, for FTSE 100 directors, editors of national newspapers, senior police officers, high court judges and a long list of so many other professions.

However, underutilising a large proportion of the country’s talent is not good for UK plc. Equality of access should not be seen exclusively as an issue of social policy; it is also a matter of economic importance. To borrow from a UK Treasury Committee report published earlier this year,

“not wasting a large proportion of talent seem more than sufficient to conclude that increased gender diversity is desirable”—

and who ever argues with the Treasury or a Treasury Committee?

There are many causes contributing to the underutilisation of women's potential, but these matters should not be solved by an over-reliance on litigation. There needs to be a collective will to address these issues. With the growing acknowledgement of the basic fairness in representing half the population and enriching decision-making by drawing on a full range of experience and expertise, countries are increasingly considering the merits of positive action on gender representation. The democratic process and business decision-making can only be enhanced by the increase in women's representation.

18:03

[Baroness Massey of Darwen]

My Lords, I should like first to congratulate my new noble friend, Lady Drake, on her wonderful maiden speech. Its wisdom and humour showed what an asset she will be to your Lordships’ House. She has worked solidly in the trade union movement and was president of the TUC from 2004 to 2005. She was deputy general secretary in the Communication Workers Union from 1996 to 2008. She has served on many councils and public bodies, including the employment tribunal, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and has worked with distinction on many pensions bodies. I could go on but noble Lords will by now have a flavour of her many abilities.

Now for something of the secret life of my noble friend Lady Drake, but do not get overexcited. She is a collector of first edition children’s books. Inspired by her art teacher at school she bought her first book with the proceeds of her Saturday job, which shows initiative. She also collects suffragette posters and has fine examples of both collections. She says that she has got used to being teased about her short stature. Let me remind noble Lords of the comment made about Hermia in “A Midsummer Night's Dream”:

“though she be but little, she is fierce."

Opposition Benches beware. I am sure that we will hear much more from my noble friend Lady Drake in your Lordships’ House, and I for one look forward to that enormously.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for introducing this debate on women so passionately and for securing such a wealth of talented speakers. I shall refer first to women as a force for change and then focus on the imperative to help women who find it difficult to fight for change due to being overwhelmed by circumstances which undermine the very structure of their lives. This theme has already been referred to and will no doubt recur during the debate. I shall speak in particular of the need to help trafficked girls and women.

Many women over the years have fought to improve women's potential. Women were not given the vote in this country, they fought for it, and fight is what women have often had to do. Women, and of course many men, have worked for change in politics, the law, social justice, the arts, health, industry, sport and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, made many other suggestions. Women have often, although not always, worked collaboratively to achieve their aims and supported each other during difficulty. That supportive nature seems to be one of the strengths of women’s activity. In working for change, women are frequently optimistic, thoughtful, empathetic, considerate and brave. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has also mentioned other qualities.

Two women poets seem to reflect this spirit. Edith Sodergran, in a poem called “Hope”, speaks of rolling up her sleeves and, before she dies, baking a cathedral. Anise Koltz says:

“Break my branches ...

The birds will still sing

In my roots”.

Those are wonderful ways of expressing both determination and optimism.

I remember, years ago, going to Greenham Common with our daughter, then aged about eight. She was quite excited at the thought of being arrested. Something from the wool around the Greenham Common barrier obviously wore off on her. At the age of 12 she was arrested when leading a protest of schoolgirls against the closure of the South London Hospital for Women.

I tell this story because many girls aged 12 around the world are faced with horrendous treatment and abuse which disables them. Two weeks ago, I met a young woman of 18 who, at the age of 12, had been trafficked for sexual purposes from Africa to London. She had not had the possibility of protest. She had not had support from anyone in her life until she escaped and found help. There are many such girls and women, and many boys too, who need to be identified and helped. Organisations which support trafficked children do amazing work but they are calling for government support. I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, will be able to meet with them to identify some of the problems. I know that she has great sympathy for those affected by this issue. Human trafficking is thought to be the third most profitable organised criminal activity in the world, behind weapons and narcotics. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the average age at which sexual exploitation starts is 12 and that it is mainly girls who suffer. Most children are trafficked from east Asia or Africa. The UK has been identified as a significant transit and destination point for trafficked children.

Earlier this year the Anti-trafficking Monitoring Group published its report Wrong Kind of Victim?, and its findings are chilling. The UK Human Trafficking Centre reported that of 527 potential victims of trafficking, 74 per cent were women or girls being trafficked for sexual exploitation. Of course, thousands of trafficked children are never identified or helped. Barnardo’s alone worked with more than 2,000 children in 2004-05.

In December 2008, the UK ratified the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. This convention is the first international treaty obliging states to adopt minimum standards to assist trafficked persons and protect their rights. The monitoring group states that the UK is not yet meeting its obligations under this convention.

With regard to child victims of trafficking, we need to look again at how trafficking might be prevented, who might best identify these children, who might best represent their interests, and the need for safe accommodation and a key worker for support. Similar conclusions have been drawn by UNICEF—I declare an interest as a board member of UNICEF UK—and the trafficking and sexual exploitation unit at the University of Bedfordshire, of which I am a patron. ECPAT, an organisation working with trafficked and sexually exploited young people, recommends a system of guardianship for child victims of trafficking to give support on legal, health, education and accommodation issues.

The young woman I spoke of earlier had escaped from the family in London who were exploiting her. She was a slave and being abused sexually and otherwise. Now aged 18, she has been living on her own in a room on the outskirts of London. She said that at Christmas that the only person she saw was her key worker who brought her some food. She has been desperately lonely, but she has survived and is now receiving education and support.

Much work needs to be done for victims of trafficking and the Government need to take a lead. The victims cannot be movers for change, at least not initially; they are too depressed and confused. There are many people in your Lordships’ House who have the best interests of children at heart, and many organisations are dedicated to serving the needs of these victims. I hope that we can follow up this debate with more discussions with the Minister to address this important issue.

18:10

[Lord Desai]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who is well known for her contribution to children’s welfare.

I start by welcoming the Government’s decision to ring-fence overseas aid at 0.7 per cent of GDP. I suggest that we should see slightly more than half of this devoted to causes which apply to women’s welfare rather than men’s. If someone can get that accounting done, I would be very pleased. It would be a good start to redirect our aid towards problems where real poverty actually bites.

I want to take up my remarks about the position of women at an even earlier stage from that about which most noble Lords have spoken. There are parts of the world in which women have difficulty being born because of female feticide, and if a baby girl is born it is very soon smothered in a variety of ways which I shall not talk about because they are too cruel to contemplate. This is done by mothers, aunts, grannies; very often it is the older women of the family who take up the task of killing the child. There are areas of India—Punjab, Haryana and much of north India—where the gender ratio is now 800 women or below to 1,000 men. The situation is extremely serious.

It has not much at all to do with poverty. Female feticide and the killing of young girls happens in prosperous states—Punjab and Haryana are among the most prosperous states in India—and very often prosperous, middle-class families resort to it. The preference for boys is so high that families are willing to go to incredible lengths. This does not happen just in India—there are families here of Indian origin who take part in abortion tourism or feticide tourism to India. Although it is illegal in India to use amniocentesis and have an abortion based on the sex of the foetus, it is practised and is very prevalent. There is a lot of tourism from here to there.

This is therefore a situation that we all have to take seriously; not only is it bad in itself that there is this killing of baby girls at an early age, it also creates enormous social problems. Some of the motivation for the profits in trafficking arises from the gender imbalance which has been concocted by the society which then imports female children to correct that gender imbalance. There are many things we can do about it; I just point out this is a very serious problem.

So much for the position of women in society. What do we do about their advancement, the second part of the proposition before us? The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, is not in her place but she has written an excellent book, which I recommend. I have entirely forgotten its title although I chaired its launch at the Nehru Centre. It is something to do with the exploitation of women which she, in her own inimitable style, advocates. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Deben, she believes it is only when women are employed in paid jobs that people will value them. It is a very sad thing to say but, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, if you say that you are a housewife—an unwaged worker— people conclude you are worth nothing because your value is measured by your income in money terms and no other. Society values paid jobs. The fact that in these paid jobs women are not paid as much as men is another problem that other noble Lords will take up.

We ought somehow to insist that one of the development strategies, not just for the third world but for us also, would be to encourage as much employment of women as possible and, now we have the technology, to employ women who can work from home. We can have flexible hours, we can have flexible locations, we can have jobs that can be done from a distance. People do not have to go to an office to work—there does not have to be a nine to five structure to a paid job.

One of the ways in which we can advance the cause of women is to think of many ways in which women can be employed from whichever location they choose to work in and whatever job they want to do, because there are a lot of jobs to be done—there is no shortage. The problem is that facilities do not exist for women to pursue the jobs they want to do.

From the amount of fuss that was made in another place when women MPs wanted a crèche, you might have thought this was the greatest crisis since William the Conqueror. If people have to work they have to have all the facilities they require; the fact that men do not require crèches is neither here nor there. We ought to build workplaces in which it is possible for women to work when they choose, how they choose, looking after their children, which sadly men will not do.

18:17

[Baroness Parminter]

I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for initiating this debate today. As a new girl, I have much to learn from her and from others in this House who have vast experiences and careers across a vast array of areas. Equally, as a new girl, I would like to thank their Lordships for the warmth of their welcome and also the staff for their unfailing courtesy and kindnesses since I took my seat on Monday.

In taking my seat I was proud to take the name of the town where my family and I live. Godalming is a town with a strong sense of community, situated in some of the loveliest countryside in the south-east of England. It has a proud history. It was the birthplace of General James Oglethorpe, the great social reformer who went on to found the American state of Georgia. It was the first town in the world to have a public electricity supply and it was the home of Gertrude Jekyll, the landscape designer, whose gardens still grace so much of our corner of Surrey today. We have a proud past and I hope to be part of an equally proud future for our town.

This debate, which focuses on gender equality, lies at the heart of what it means to have a fair society, the issue that brought me into politics in my early 20s and which has since taken me into a career in the voluntary sector and also local government. It is disappointing that, in some areas of society, women are still regarded as second-class citizens. As someone who studied theology at Oxford, and a practising Christian, I am heartened that at long last women look likely to take their rightful place in our church. Equally bold measures are required in other parts of our society. To that end, I welcome the recent remarks by my honourable friend the Equalities Minister that there will be no roll back on gender equality on our watch.

In that spirit, I shall focus on three areas where discrimination towards women still persists in our society. First, there is discrimination in politics. Men still vastly outnumber women in our democratic bodies. Part of the reason is that women are still the principal carers in many families. However, other equally demanding and high-profile jobs have been performed successfully through securing flexible work patterns. As a trustee of the think tank IPPR, I have been privileged to see at close quarters a successful model of job sharing between the two female outgoing directors, Carey Oppenheim and Lisa Harker. As we have a Government who are rightly taking a radical look at how we do politics, it might be time to look at the issue of MP job shares.

The second area of discrimination against women is in business. Companies are still choosing far more men than women for senior roles. Clearly more flexible work patterns will help, but we should not be fooled into thinking that the glass ceiling is only for women with children. It is vital that the Government keep acting to ensure that boards address this issue seriously. Further, we need to consider the aspirations of women in society. Mentoring can help and I am pleased to be a mentor to a woman in business. I hope that I can encourage her and others to take the steps forward in society that they need to undertake. Beyond government action and mentoring, we also should look to civil society because—as a former chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England your Lordships might expect me to say this—there are some areas of civil society from which business can learn.

A snapshot of ACEVO—the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations—shows that nearly half of its 1,700 members are women. Admittedly they are from smaller voluntary organisations, but those women are taking vital leadership roles in the many organisations which are the backbone of civic life in our communities. I hope it will not be too long before a number of them rise up to join the distinguished women who are leading some of our larger civic organisations, such as Dame Fiona Reynolds at the National Trust.

The third area of discrimination is in pay. The majority of people on low income are women and I therefore welcome the fact that the Budget raised the level at which income tax is to be paid. However, we should be clear that the gap in pay is not only at that level of the pay sector. Recent figures show that the highest paid female director of a FTSE 100 company received almost 10 per cent less than her highest paid male equivalent. Of course the removal of gagging clauses in City contracts may help, but it remains clear that much more needs to be done 40 years on from the adoption of the Equal Pay Act, not only in the issue of equal pay but in the equally important area of flexible working. I welcome the noble Baroness’s comments about the coalition Government’s intention to extend a historic right for all employees to request flexible working. I look forward to campaigning in this House to ensure that that is introduced as soon as possible.

In addition to speaking out, I hope, as a Member of the House, to play my part in the vital work of outreach to encourage more young women to take up their place in politics. However, I hope I have more success than I did when I accompanied my six year-old daughter to her “take your Mum to school” day recently. Despite the excellent resources from the parliamentary education department, my attempts to persuade her class of the importance of this place in civic society counted for less than whether or not the Queen brought her corgis on her regular visit to our House.

It is a great privilege to speak today and even more of an honour to listen and, it is to be hoped, to learn. In learning over the years I hope that I can play my small part in helping other women to achieve more for themselves, their families, their communities and our country.

18:24

[Baroness Stern]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her truly excellent maiden speech. She is clearly a formidable campaigner. As she told us, she is a former chief executive of the Campaign to Protect Rural England. She is also a campaigner against animal cruelty and she chaired the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals. We cannot be surprised therefore—and this I learned from the website of a local newspaper in Norfolk—that she chose to be introduced into this House in animal-free ermine. I was glad to hear that animal-free ermine is available. I am sure other noble Lords will also be glad to know this and will be grateful to the noble Baroness for sticking to her principles in this way.

She told us that she studied theology at Oxford—at Lady Margaret Hall, I believe—and it is therefore appropriate that when she joined the House she found herself sitting with the right reverend Prelates the Lord Bishops. I am sure that those who have heard her speech will be very pleased that they will be sitting with her. Her speech was clear, forceful and full of practical points about how policies on women still need to change. I am sure that we all look forward to hearing much more from her in the days and months ahead.

I put my name down for this debate in order to speak about rape, which is a sad and traumatic aspect of women’s lives. It is not much in line with the title of our debate today, which is much more about the good things that can happen in women’s lives. I wish to speak about rape because I carried out a review of how rape complainants are dealt with in England and Wales, which was published in March this year. That gave me some insights and new experiences which I welcome the opportunity to share with your Lordships’ House. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, who gave me considerable support, both personally and through her role as chair of the Women’s National Commission.

Rape, of course, is not only about women; men, too, are raped. We do not know the actual numbers any more than we do with women; we think they are no more than one in 10 of all rapes. However, men, too, are raped and the consequences for them can be very serious and long lasting.

Today, however, I shall concentrate on women. My work in preparing the report brought me into contact with some marvellous people. Not many people know—I certainly did not—that there are two specialist projects in this country, one in Liverpool and one in Bristol, which work with street prostitutes and encourage them to report to the police when they have been attacked, abused and raped by men paying for their services. Both projects work closely with the police and a number of men have been convicted for assaulting and raping women working in street prostitution. In one recent case, according to the BBC report, the prosecution told the court that the defendant would pick up the prostitutes and take them to his home, where he had transformed a bedroom into a “torture chamber”. This is particularly important work because those who attack prostitutes may well do so more than once. The costs of the projects which work with women on the street are very small but their value is very great.

I was also very impressed by the special units set up by many police forces to concentrate on rape. These units include many dedicated men and women who are specially trained to put the victim at the centre of the investigative process. In one area—Gwent in Wales—after the creation of a special unit, the number of those reporting that they had been raped went up by half. Surely we all want more people to feel confident enough to report what has happened to them to the police. I met specialist prosecutors, fiercely determined to get evidence and put together a case that would stand up in court, and I met many independent sexual violence advisers who get alongside victims and support them throughout the process and sometimes for many months afterwards. They are also marvellous people.

Where such work is in place, it is outstanding and as good as anything anywhere in the world. I have mentioned it in the hope that the Minister will ensure that there is some thought given to its cost-effectiveness and importance before the axe falls as budgets are cut. I also want to mention those who sit on juries in rape cases. As part of my review, I sat in a busy urban Crown Court for two days, watching all the rape cases that were being heard. The seriousness with which the juries seemed to be approaching the task was impressive and the outcome of jury trials is reassuring. Excellent research called Are Juries Fair?, carried out for the Ministry of Justice by Professor Cheryl Thomas and published earlier this year, concluded that they do a good job:

“Juries convict defendants more often than they acquit in all rape cases”.

I will end by commenting on two areas that I hope can be kept on the agenda of discussions about how rape is dealt with. The first is the place of the victim in the process. Sara Payne, in her report on the views of rape victims, said:

“Victims frequently expressed anger that their place in the criminal justice system is effectively as a witness in their own case. Many were disappointed that the prosecution represents the Crown, rather than the victim, in contrast to the defendant who has his own legal representation”.

In talking to victims and victims’ organisations, I, too, encountered that anger. In Ireland there is separate legal representation for complainants in rape cases for some parts of the trial. I am aware of the difficulties of importing aspects of other systems but I hope we would not close the door to these ideas and that they can be looked at further. Victims also feel that once their case seems unlikely to proceed, all the agencies lose interest in them. We need to do something about that too.

My second point is the need for a much more intelligence-based approach on the part of the police. Good policing in relation to rape is about much more than being victim-centred, important as that is. We are all aware of the gross mistakes that were made in the cases in London of John Worboys and Kirk Reid, who assaulted many women. The police missed many opportunities to arrest them. Using intelligence properly is key in investigating and prosecuting rape. I was concerned at the large amount of evidence I received that rape is particularly suffered by the very vulnerable, who are the least likely to be believed or seen as possible witnesses able to stand up in court and testify. It became clear to me that there was a group of very vulnerable, very young women who were easy to take advantage of and who may have experienced abuse from childhood, their only and whole experience of sex being that of abuse. They may even think that is the norm. As I learnt more about this whole area, I became more concerned that we have not yet got right the way to deal with this, and we need to become much more organised in trying to protect these young women.

Finally, I am most grateful for all the support I have had in preparing and launching my review and continuing to work on its outcome. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for her comments and for the positive replies I have had across government. I welcome the Government’s commitment to Rape Crisis centres and I hope we can continue to improve the treatment of victims of this particularly horrible crime.

18:35

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I speak for the first time in this noble House with some nervousness and trepidation, although I have been helped and reassured by the warm welcome that I have received from noble Lords on all sides of the House. In my first few days here, I have felt like a new boy at big school in a huge building in which I keep getting lost. Everyone around me seems to know how to get on with their job and where to go, while I am struggling to read the map that I was given and to find the Printed Paper Office. However, I have had wonderful support, advice, guidance and help from the officers and staff of this noble House. Nothing has been too much trouble for them and no question too trivial, no matter how many times I have asked it. I also thank my two sponsors, who introduced me to the House—my noble friends Lady Gould and Lady McDonagh. I was delighted that they did me the great honour of introducing me. They have both, at different times, been my boss in the Labour Party. It was my noble friend Lady Gould who first employed me at the Labour Party 20 years ago.

I was delighted that I was able to get agreement that my title would be Lord Kennedy of Southwark. It is the borough where I lived from the age of two, where I went to school and where I went on to be elected as the youngest member of Southwark Council in 1986. It is an historic borough with a rich and vibrant history. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for putting down the Motion for debate today.

In 1971, 56 per cent of women were employed. In the past 30 years, the figure has risen to 69 per cent, with the numbers of men and women at work being almost equal. However, men and women follow very different career paths. Almost half of all working women work part time and almost a quarter of women in work do admin or secretarial work, while men are more likely to be managers and senior officers or to work in skilled trades. For example, only 31 per cent of managers are women, yet women make up nearly half the workforce. Female managers are also more likely to be childless than male managers. A key reason for this is that women still carry a disproportionate amount of the burden in the home, looking after children, managing the household and maintaining social networks. Women who work often choose jobs that offer flexibility—for example, in care work, hospitality and retail.

With a significant number of women combining their working life with the responsibilities of being a mother or grandmother providing childcare support, it is no surprise that maternity and parental rights are the number one concern. Enormous progress has been made, including the introduction of paid paternity and adoption leave, the extension of paid maternity leave and the introduction and extension of the right to request flexible working to carers and parents of children up to the age of 16. Flexible-working opportunities benefit everyone—employers, employees and their families—with many employers now recognising that it makes good business sense to provide flexible-working opportunities for their staff. We must not forget that our economic recovery depends on women being able to make a significant contribution as active members of the workforce and that working mums need access to rights and support to enable them to combine their working and family lives.

Despite women’s increased participation in the labour market over recent years, they are still more likely than men to be low paid. Women are far more likely to work part time than men, with women making up over three-quarters of all part-time employees. As around two-thirds of jobs paid at the minimum wage are part time, this leads to a higher chance of women being low paid compared with men. Take the example of retail where, out of nearly 3 million people employed in the sector, 40 per cent of women work part time and yet only 17 per cent of part-time employees are male. Retail is one of the largest low-paying occupations, where the introduction of a minimum wage has made a significant difference, as millions of low-paid women workers rely on the national minimum wage to help them to maintain a decent standard of living. The Government must do all that they can to ensure that low-paid workers continue to benefit from this protection.

An additional challenge faced by women workers is often their journey to and from work. Women travel at different times from men. They are more likely to travel off peak, either early in the morning or late at night. Women are far more likely than men to use public transport. Even today, twice as many men as women hold a valid UK driving licence. Women are also far more likely than men to travel shorter distances. Where there is a family car available, men tend on the whole to be the ones who use it. Evidence clearly shows that women feel less safe and more at risk of violence and aggression than men. Of the 6 billion journeys made on public transport each year, the overwhelming majority are safe, but that does not prevent women from feeling vulnerable when using public transport. Women factor issues of personal safety into everyday decision-making in a way that men tend not to do. It is clear that safety while travelling is an issue that concerns many women, particularly low-paid workers.

I wish the coalition Government well in dealing with the issues that I have highlighted today and the many other issues that they have to tackle in the years ahead. I again thank all Members, officers and staff of this noble House for the warm, friendly and helpful way in which I have been welcomed during these past few weeks.

18:41

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, it is a privilege but also a personal pleasure to be able to follow my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark. It was not simply because he made such a sensitive and thoughtful speech, nor simply because it is so good to hear from a man on something that I know the women in this House already believe, nor even because he has a long and distinguished record in championing diversity in all its forms—indeed, in the years before it was a more popular cause. It was also a pleasure because, even before I could call him “my noble friend”, I could call him “my friend”. I have witnessed him woo, fall in love with and marry the wonderful Alicia. In June, I saw him fulfil a prediction that he made to his mother when he was eight—this Irish boy from Southwark—that one day he would be in the Lords. His mother used to work in the tea room in the other place but was here last month to witness that prediction come true.

I have had the pleasure and the privilege of working with my noble friend for many a year, in times of triumph and in times of real difficulty. In all these, I have found him to be true to his values and his beliefs, consistent, hard-working and always enormous fun, especially in times of adversity. My noble friend has been a highly successful councillor and deputy leader, but he has also been a rather less successful European parliamentary candidate. However, the European Parliament’s loss has been our gain. What your Lordships have seen today is pure Kennedy: straight, clear thinking and with his heart always in the right place. He is a great asset to the Chamber. Following his words will be difficult for me, but I know that he will now wish me well in his usual spirit of kindness and generosity.

Like other speakers, I welcome enormously this debate and the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, in opening it. Indeed, it is hard to argue with a single word of her good intentions expressed in that speech. I choose my words carefully: I say “indeed”, for it is in deeds that we will judge the Government. Her own record speaks for itself; it is her friends whom I worry about.

There are just four, not 14, women in the Cabinet. Margaret Bondfield, for Labour, was the first ever woman to sit in the Cabinet. That was back in 1929. I have to confess from this side of the House that I am slightly ashamed that only 23 women have ever sat in a Labour Cabinet. We are soon to hear a maiden speech from one of those 23, to which we look forward. While 23 is a very low number, Labour has been in government for rather fewer years than the Conservative Party, so we might look at its record. The number of Conservative women who have sat in the Cabinet is nine. A school report would say, “Must do better”. The issue is not to want to change nor to wait for change, but to work for change. We must will the end and not just want it.

If we look elsewhere, we see that the Government are sadly lacking in their will to make this happen. For the review of health and safety, the Government choose a man. For the review of the school building programme—and women know something about schools—they choose five men. To chair the review of higher education funding and student finance, they get a man. Yet it is government that must take a lead, because, left to themselves, the others will not do it. The universities have managed to get only 14 per cent of their vice-chancellors to be women. Perhaps that is the answer to the noble Lord who asked earlier why universities had not made available physics for women to make up for the year when they had not been able to do it. I am afraid that the legal profession is not much better. Sixty per cent of new recruits to City firms are women, but less than a quarter are partners. We have already heard that only 20 per cent of MPs and one in three councillors, members of public bodies or senior civil servants are women.

It is not simply in appointments that the responsibility must lie with government. As my noble friend Lady Billingham has said elsewhere in relation to her beloved tennis and the lack of good tennis players, if you do not nurture them young, they will not hold aloft the Wimbledon trophy when mature. So it is with women in public life. Unless we enable women to study and flourish and to be supported by nurseries, flexible working—we welcome the commitment made today—and good care provision not simply for their children but also for elderly relatives, today’s generation of bright young things will not occupy high office when their time comes. But what do we see from the Government? Support for children is being cut by £2 billion. There are cuts in Sure Start, maternity grants, health in pregnancy grants, child benefit and tax credits. Who do we think will be harmed by those? It is no way to produce the leaders of the future.

Women are losing out on their chance to serve, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, society also is losing out on the chance of having women as decision-makers. We cannot just want change; we cannot just wait for change; we must work for it. I applaud the sentiments expressed across the House today, but I urge all who are in positions to be able to take decisions to ensure not only that women are represented on those important bodies but also that, when the next generation of women get to play their part, society can have the benefit of all their good counsel and advice.

18:47

[Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes]

My Lords, your Lordships' House is probably unique in the world—it is a repository for so many noble Baronesses of such calibre. Some of their achievements have been so great and we have the benefit of their knowledge and experience. I think of heads of judiciary and MI5, and a former Prime Minister. All those ladies succeeded before there was any move against discrimination against women. I think not only of them, but many before them. The late Lady Frank certainly had a role in plotting the D-day advances. Others were engineers in Royal Navy vessels before the last world war. To be able to say that we have made huge strides since then is something that we can congratulate ourselves on.

In the early 1970s, I was the sponsor of two anti-discrimination Bills with my noble friend Lady Fookes. In those early days, we were concerned with educating attitudes and overcoming prejudices. That was as far as we intended to go. We were not looking for positive discrimination in favour of women. What has happened since then has been a wonderful thing for a great many women. Obviously, there is further to go.

I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Deben in his excellent maiden speech and say that, above all, we must never denigrate those women who find it fulfilling to look after their children and be good wives and mothers. It is not always an easy role. It is often lonely and very demanding. When we talk about the women who are trapped in marriages where there is violence, we must also think of those women who are trapped in unhappy but not violent marriages—those who do not have the personal capital to leave those homes and continue to look after their children without having to leave them in crèches. Those women often remain trapped for their whole lives.

Happily, because things have moved fast in the right direction, by the time their children have grown up, those women are no longer tied to those unhappy marriages. They are able—at those ages, when they never would have been able to before—to look for careers in which they can advance their own lives. It is important that we consider those women, possibly between 40 and 50. Many of them are successful. We must not forget them and we must not forget the sort of plight in which they found themselves during their early married lives.

When one hears some of the more strident, feminist demands, I think of one lady who said to me: “I had no idea there was a glass ceiling until I heard it crunching beneath my feet”. That is a wonderful attitude and something that we should all emulate. We should be careful about describing the pitfalls.

We often hear that women can have it all or cannot have it all—they cannot have a career and a home. As so many noble Baronesses in your Lordships' House have shown, you can. You are fit for purpose but you are not necessarily designed for purpose. It is much more difficult and it is a much greater achievement on the part of those women who are able to rise to these great heights.

On the point of discrimination, and I do not think it breaches the 30-year rule, I remember my noble friend Lady Thatcher saying in Cabinet that she did not care if someone was a man or woman, or if they were black, white or whatever colour. She only wanted to know that they could do the job. Those sentiments would be widely shared. When one is demanding extra seats in the Cabinet or more Members of Parliament, it is important to remember that we want people to be there because they can do the job not because they are women. That is patronising and not in the interests of the advancement of women.

What has been notable in this debate is that there has hardly been a single word from any noble Baroness or noble Lord with which I would quarrel. A lot has been said against a broad spectrum of opinions and experience. In later years, women will benefit from what has been done, what can be done and what we are trying to do, in some cases abroad, where there are horrific examples, particularly those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. It sometimes puzzles me that we talk about cases in Afghanistan and other countries of the world, but we never mention the plight of women in Saudi Arabia. That is something to which we should turn our attention.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Verma on the way in which she introduced this debate. She did not miss a single thing that I would have wished her to say. Our House and, I hope, the future of women, will have been enhanced by the attitude that she has shown and by the attitude of noble Baronesses who have spoken in this debate.

Finally, I will say a word of caution. I would be very concerned if I were running a small business and faced with employing a woman of an age at which they could have children. It would be very expensive for a small company and difficult. That is a problem that will not go away. There is also often the problem of sexual harassment in the workplace. Big companies with big names are involved and big funds of money are being brought in the way of damages. I can only say that throughout my career I never experienced such a thing. Probably, in retrospect, I am slightly offended. Nevertheless, the problem remains. Such things are in people's minds when they employ women, and they go across a number of these problems. They need to be refuted and dealt with, but they do not need to be overdone; that will not be in the interests of women. With caution, on these and other matters, I hope that we will plough on in the next 10 years in getting as far as we have got at the very least in the last 40 years.

18:57

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, I am in the difficult position of coming half way through a number of what have so far been excellent maiden speeches. I am daunted at following on from that quality. But your Lordships have been so welcoming of me and my other colleagues that some of that trepidation is removed. Like them, I pay tribute to the staff of the House who have been so helpful, generous and good humoured, particularly on the day of my introduction when the refreshment staff were excellent to my family. For them it was a day out, coming from Scotland with all the pressures that travelling down by train in the 21st century involves. I owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.

I also owe an enormous debt of gratitude to my two sponsors. In the context of today’s debate, I could not have had more appropriate sponsors. My noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale is one of our most senior foreign servants who, not just because she was a woman—in many cases in spite of the fact that she was a woman—rose to the highest levels of foreign service. Despite having known her for many years, I did not fully know the extent of her achievements until I was privileged to represent Her Majesty’s Government when she received the Order of the White Rose of Finland for what she had done to bring about peace and security to Finland as well as to this country.

I also owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Ford, my other sponsor, a very successful serial entrepreneur, who managed to pull off the unbelievable trick—for a Scotswoman—of becoming chairman of English Partnerships and is now in charge of our Olympic legacy.

My journey from the other end of the Palace of Westminster took a four and a half year detour to Australia, which in itself continues the traditions of this House. In 1956, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was the first British high commissioner to live in the aptly named Westminster House. Immediately before me it was the redoubtable noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, who is still held in great affection throughout Australia. I was succeeded by the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. I am sure your Lordships will join with me in wishing her every success in her new job as Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs for the United Nations. It is a tribute to the expertise of this House. I cannot think of a better person to carry out the job.

If someone had told me in 2005 that Australia would have a female Governor-General, a female Prime Minister and, on 15 October, that it would have not just its first saint but that that saint would be a woman as well, I would have believed that they had been—as the Aussies say—“on the grog”. I was very lucky to be in the Parliament of Australia to see Her Excellency, Quentin Bryce, the Governor-General, a human rights lawyer, take her oath of office. I know from the words of the noble Baronesses, Lady Seccombe and Lady Drake, that many members of your Lordships’ House would be delighted to know that she wore the purple of the suffragettes.

Prime Minister Gillard perhaps did not have as easy a journey as some of us, who came into politics by different routes, have had. When she was a new Member of Parliament, she was photographed in the kitchen of her Canberra flat with an empty fruit bowl in front of her. She was excoriated by the Australian press. How could she represent women when her fruit bowl was empty? My fruit bowl is always full but the fruit might be past its sell-by date. Then she became Deputy Prime Minister. One Senator was appalled at the idea of a woman, who was childless and deliberately so, being Deputy Prime Minister. He described her as “deliberately barren”. That is recorded in Hansard in the Australian Parliament. It came as quite a shock to me.

Blessed Mother Mary MacKillop, who, on 15 October, will become Australia’s first saint, set up a series of schools for deprived people, particularly deprived young women. Her feistiness and determination got her excommunicated from the Catholic Church. It was only when a bishop intervened that she was allowed back into the church. She set up her own order to allow her to carry on the education. You will see ferries in Sydney harbour dedicated to Blessed Mother Mary MacKillop.

All three women have one thing in common. Quentin Bryce’s family originally hails from Strachan in Aberdeenshire. Julia Gillard was born in the Welsh valleys, and her mother and father still have a delightful Welsh accent. Blessed Mother Mary MacKillop’s family emigrated from Roy Bridge in Inverness-shire. That, more than anything, points out the links between our two societies.

There are certain disadvantages to being away for four and a half years. I was walking down Buchanan Street in Glasgow a couple of weeks ago and two ladies, who, like me, were in their prime, were walking towards me and I happened to hear one of them say, “I thought she was dead”. I turned around in time to hear her friend say—in an accent that we in the west of Scotland know to be from Kelvinside—“Oh, no, Morag! She’s just in the House of Lords”. I assume she was rebuking Morag for the fact that her knowledge of current affairs was not good enough to notice that I was in the House of Lords.

My journey to the House of Lords came from the place from which I take my title. Coatdyke is not on the edge of a babbling brook where the haggis run free. It is on the banks of the Monklands Canal, a place of some industrial history and some great poverty. In the 1840s, of the 85 iron furnaces in Scotland, 66 of them were on a three-mile stretch from Woodside to Coatdyke. However, I took the name Coatdyke in tribute to my parents, my husband’s parents and the community that brought me up.

I am the only child of an invalid mother and bus driver father. Bus drivers work awkward shifts. There were oftentimes when I was home alone and, if I had had a “nippy sweetie”—as we call them in the west of Scotland—it is not inconceivable that social workers would have been sent to look after me. However, my neighbours, extended family and school all went the distance on my behalf.

The one thing that united everyone was that I was to get an education. Noble Lords have spoken about how education is the way out of poverty. It was for me. One of the unique aspects of the education that I had in this poor, working-class community is that I went to the only state school in the country that has managed to provide two Cabinet Ministers who have served at the same time. When John Reid is introduced in this place tomorrow as Lord Reid of Cardowan, there will be two Members of this House also from that same school.

I thank your Lordships for the welcome that I have received. I thank the noble Baroness for this very worthwhile debate. I never thought I would be here. I am glad to be.

19:08

[Baroness Uddin]

My Lords, it is a great privilege and honour to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, on her introduction, her maiden speech and her commanding performance. She comes to this House with an illustrious career not least in the Cabinet as a Secretary of State for Scotland, where it is stated that she was known as “Attila the Hen” for her campaigns. The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, referred to some people crushing their glass ceilings beneath their feet. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, sounds as though she has done that and much more. I salute and congratulate her and look forward to hearing from her again and again.

I should also like to express my delight at listening to a number of other maiden speeches, including those of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Parminter. I was intrigued by the noble Baroness’s suggestions about sharing the role of MPs. Maybe it is something that we will be able to consider in due course. I congratulate those noble Lords and look forward to hearing the remaining maiden speeches.

It is an honour to be speaking in a debate that is led by one of the first two Asian women in a British Government. It is extremely satisfying to know that five Asians, including three Muslim women, have now claimed their seats in the other place, building on Labour’s fantastic record of progressing women and an equality agenda. I warmly congratulate the Minister, who I consider a friend.

It is a fitting moment to express my joy at the entry into the Cabinet of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi. As a Muslim woman, I am proud of her achievement. In time, I pray that the presence and leadership of both noble Baronesses in mainstream political office will inspire a strong generation of women into public life.

The wide-ranging nature of the debate before us gives us a unique opportunity to pursue what I regard as the most noble of British values of seeking justice and equality for all. Sadly, half the world’s citizens cannot claim equality. Often the reality is that women suffer most in times of economic crisis, conflict and natural disaster and are most discriminated against both in the workplace and in society at large. Yet despite the barriers to entry, the restrictions and limitations, the stigmas and prohibitions, women have risen to the challenge and continue to excel in industry, medicine, science, academia and, increasingly, in public life.

Last year, a report was published by the Fawcett Society entitled Poverty Pathways: Ethnic Minority Women's Livelihoods, which found that, on average, more than 40 per cent of ethnic-minority women in the UK were living in poverty. More staggering was the recognition that this figure rose to 70 per cent in certain specifics—often Muslim communities and Muslim women. That such levels of poverty should exist in sub-Saharan Africa is a tragedy, but for such levels of poverty and disadvantage to exist here in the UK, one of the most developed nations in the world, is nothing short of an outrage. Why are women not achieving their full potential in the UK and elsewhere in the world? Many noble Lords have contributed eloquently, and I leave it at that for the moment.

Women play a pivotal role in building strong communities where everyone feels valued, yet women all over the world have had the challenge of tackling stereotypes and breaking through the moulds that have been imposed on them. To add to a long list of assertions, Muslim women, in particular, are sympathised with due to perceptions of being oppressed and weak and living in a patriarchal society, as if they were the only ones. Some women do fall into that category and fit the stereotype, but many women in the world can subscribe to that kind of experience. There are rare discussions about Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Muslim women in general with reference to their educational and social advancement, except when it refers to them in the context of forced marriage, honour killings and now the live issue of the veil. For many women, these are tragic experiences, but we must work together to ensure that Muslim women are empowered in the big society so that they can tackle those issues for themselves.

During 2008 and 2009, I chaired the government taskforce looking at ways to increase minority women's participation in public life. It was a cross-party coalition, and perhaps we provided some inspiration for Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron. I have said often that there is no shortage of talented women willing or able to take leadership roles. I spent 30 years of my life working in a professional and personal capacity with disadvantaged women and their families, and I have worked very hard to empower those whose voices were mostly unheard and to put in place mechanisms which would mitigate the harsh limitations imposed by society. Although much of these and other programmes continue to have limited impact on ordinary grass roots, economically inactive women, it is worth pointing out that in our journey with the taskforce across different parts of Britain the numbers of women willing to put themselves forward for office took us by enormous surprise. I am pleased to say that there are a number of success stories as a result of some of that work, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece. I believe that this work fundamentally shifted party-political opinions and contributed to the pressure of parties selecting their candidates.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the many male colleagues who have assisted us in our journey while in office to advance the women’s agenda. I pay tribute particularly to Sadiq Khan MP in the other place for his vision and dedication, particularly in reference to the Fabian book that he produced, entitled Fairness not Favours, which looks at the tragic inequality and disadvantages which exist for women in the workplace, especially for minority women. Despite the successes of a few, some of whom I am proud to count as my close friends here in this House, all women, regardless of their ethnicity or religion, continue to be confronted by barriers. The area of employment continues to be of concern, particularly that nearly 80 per cent of Bangladeshi and Pakistani women remain economically inactive. In the case of Bangladeshi women their lives are blighted by all the impact of the making of the financial sector but without the fulsome returns that would otherwise have been granted. Surely it is unacceptable that when they are living at the heart of the financial sector in Docklands, Bishopsgate or trendy Shoreditch, they continue not to have a stake in that success. Survey after survey suggests that more than half of Muslim women would like to be engaged in employment or training. The big society and realisation of their social capital should mean that they should also be able to take the lead and not simply have programmes handed to them. I hope the Minister will review some of the quangos and committees to ensure that its impact is real and positive.

In addition, Muslim women are largely misunderstood and misrepresented—and, with few opportunities to represent themselves, a narrow and closed-minded view of Muslim women prevails. It is important to recognise that there is no fundamental struggle between Islam and “the West”, but a complex interplay of forces relating to issues of social marginalisation and exclusion. These forces impede the right of individuals to live lives of dignity and equality, with the misappropriation of religious beliefs in some instances used to justify deprivation of basic human rights. For women—especially those from minority community and faith groups—to fulfil their individual potential and truly contribute to the community, we must provide them with sufficient educational and recreational opportunities. When all members of society feel included in their community, a real change can occur. Organisations like the Faith Regen Foundation and Jagonari Centre have worked over a decade to encourage constructive dialogue for disadvantaged women to unleash their potential. Faith Regen is about to partner women's organisations in Malaysia and Bangladesh, where women leaders are addressing the impact and advantage for women in a digital age.

We need to be determined to tackle prejudice and Islamophobia as well as the male discrimination and family pressure that women suffer when seeking employment. Despite these challenges and stereotypes, more and more women, increasingly proactive, are interested in participating in ESOL and information technology classes. This willingness is a massive opportunity to engage women's participation. Childcare cost is equally prohibitive; it is no wonder that affordable childcare remains the privilege of a wealthy few women.

Finally, I am intrigued by the big society concept. It is made and lived particularly by minority women. It is the background that developed the ghettos of the dilapidated East End of London into a plush Docklands—but it never bought empowerment of the community or decentralised or shared power for ordinary folks. Elites have never put power down. We need to examine the way in which minority women are able to participate in society and institutions, and rethink our aspirations through their prism in line with their expectation and standards. I believe that real changes are afoot in this House and the other place.

19:17

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for initiating this most important debate today. I declare an interest as the Government of Ireland’s special envoy for women, peace and security—United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. I congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches so effectively and with such eloquence today.

There can be no doubt that many statistics indicate that the position and capacity of women in the United Kingdom are being developed and enhanced. However, it cannot be said that they are being developed with sufficient rapidity. Figures from the website of the Women’s National Commission show that in 2009 just 32 per cent of public appointees were women—and we know that 80 per cent of Members of this House are men. We have heard the figure for representation of women of 22 per cent in the other House, while many similar figures indicate the low level of representation of women in political life. The United Kingdom is 50th in the list of Parliaments in its female representation and falls behind a range of other countries, from Denmark and Sweden to Timor-Leste. I declare an interest in Timor-Leste as the Irish Government’s special envoy for conflict resolution there.

We know that in the United Kingdom most recent figures show that fewer than 10 per cent of High Court judges or Court of Appeal judges are women—and how many female Supreme Court judges are there? We know that less than 16 per cent of partners in our largest law firms are women, that less than one-quarter of prison governors are women and that only 12 per cent of chief inspectors in the police were women in 2008. On that point, I was very pleased, as I acted as Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, to see the level of women coming through into the Police Service of Northern Ireland. There was an average representation of about 37 per cent in each class that I met in recent years, so a huge amount is being done, although much remains to be done.

Women clearly do not have a proportionate or equal position in the United Kingdom today. My experience tells me that the situation will change only as a consequence of a multi-faceted strategy aimed at developing women and enhancing their sense of self, their confidence and their capacity to seek opportunities and to apply for and to seek for promotion in all its forms. That has to be combined with really open and transparent appointments processes.

Despite all that has been achieved—and an awful lot has been achieved in the past 30 or 40 years—women in British society are still regarded as the lesser sex. Very often, women’s sense of their value in society has been damaged by their life experience, particularly where it has been one of poverty, marginalisation and deprivation. The Government’s big society proposal will present huge opportunities for women to take an active role in civil society and to go on from that to garner experience and capacity and so to play a role on a greater stage. Coming from a very poor background and as a student working in the Fulham legal advice centre as a volunteer, I learnt an awful lot. One can learn much from that kind of experience.

We meet here at a time of significant economic difficulty and, whatever the politics of the attempts to manage and recover from the recession, it remains a fact that we now face cuts in public funding and public services on a massive scale. It is profoundly important that we take all steps to preserve and indeed enhance the current levels of funding for those who work with women who are the subject of gender-based violence, including domestic violence. The Minister and other noble Lords have already referred to this issue, but we know that, according to the British Crime Survey, 85 per cent of victims of domestic violence are women. The Home Office estimated that in 2009 a million women were victims of domestic violence, which is the equivalent of 20,000 women a week suffering.

Much of the care, protection and refuge for these women is provided by civil society organisations such as Women’s Aid, which are very often run by women and for women. They conduct campaigns to highlight the extent and the cost of the problem. They work in hugely difficult circumstances, often with the very real threat of physical violence to the volunteers. They operate in hugely difficult financial circumstances, too. They often rely on donations and have to compete in the increasingly difficult world of public sector finance. The physical, psychological and social effects of violence against women are well documented in terms of death, injury, loss of confidence, fear, depression, poverty, et cetera. Women who are assisted and facilitated to move out of the cycle of domestic violence can rebuild their lives; they can become again functioning and contributing members of society. It is imperative, therefore, that funding is secured for these critical services.

The Motion refers to the role of women not only here in the United Kingdom but in other countries. October will mark the 10th anniversary of United Nations Resolution 1325, the first UN resolution seriously to address the problems of women in conflict. It provides for action on three fronts: the enhancement of the levels of women’s participation in politics and community life; the prevention of gender-based violence; and the development of the gender perspective in policy-making. It has been followed by three more resolutions—1880, 1888 and 1889—each of them a little more forthright and a little more demanding. However, it remains the case that, almost 10 years on, little has been done internationally to give effect to these resolutions. This has been generally acknowledged and there has been much hand-wringing, but there has been little progress in this area. The United Kingdom has the capacity to make a significant difference in this context.

There are two important issues in respect of which this Parliament and this Government can make a difference. The first is epitomised by the story of Aisha, a 13 year-old Somali girl. She was raped by three men. Her family went to the Islamist militia to report the crime. She was detained and accused of adultery. No attempt was made to apprehend the men who attacked her. She was sentenced to death by stoning. She was driven into a football stadium where a huge crowd had gathered. She begged them not to kill her. She was buried up to her neck and a truck loaded with stones arrived. Fifty men set about stoning her. After 10 minutes, she was dug up to see whether she was still alive. She was, so they buried her again and the stoning started again until she was dead. This Government must use every opportunity afforded by their international relations and their capacity as a donor to press for the abolition of the death penalty in such cases, especially as it was suffered by Aisha and so many others like her. It is not enough, as happened recently, to substitute an alternative way of killing women in such circumstances.

The second issue relates to the United Kingdom’s role in conflict zones. It is most important that the 1325 national action plan is enhanced following the recent consultation. It is a UN requirement that there is no immunity for gender-based crimes in peace negotiations, particularly where rape is used as a tool of war against the civilian population and where little girls and young women are taken as sex slaves by participants in the conflict. This is a difficult provision to give effect to, especially in countries where the warlords are marching triumphantly, acknowledging freely that they have used rape as a tool of war. There is a temptation in peacemaking to value the opportunity to make peace above the need for justice, but peace is based on justice and negotiators must be strong and not hasty in making peace. Even more important, it is essential that women are included in peace processes and that their voice is heard, even in patriarchal societies. Women suffer disproportionately in war and their voice must be heard as peace is made.

There is one female provincial governor in Afghanistan. Her name is Habiba Sarabi. She governs a minority people, hundreds of whom were murdered and thousands of whom were displaced by the Taliban. She could not be at the Kabul peace conference, as she was not invited. The Government, in the execution of their responsibilities under the resolution, should do all that they can to ensure that her voice and the voices of women like her are heard in ongoing and future negotiations. The Government have announced an additional £200 million to promote stability and development in Afghanistan. I hope that, in the process, Her Majesty’s Government will make a distinct and significant contribution for women, to enable them to participate in and stand for elections, to return to and stay safely in their homes, to educate their daughters and to feed their families. As peace is made in the world, it is in part made through developing women’s potential. That makes the world a stronger, more stable place. There are many opportunities, as identified in today’s debate. I hope that we will enhance the position of women, both nationally and internationally, as a consequence of this debate.

19:28

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness for initiating the debate and I wish her well with her programme of work in the future. I congratulate those who have made excellent maiden speeches today. I would like to pick up one of the main points that the previous speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, addressed, focusing on the topic of domestic violence within the home and within partnerships. I speak primarily about women, but this in no way understates the violence suffered by men in same-sex relationships or other intimate partnerships or the impact that violence has on the children.

As a society, we know that the cost of domestic violence is high. Violence is not only a human rights violation; it is also a public health issue. Research shows that domestic violence cost the nation £3.4 billion in 2008, but cost is just one factor. The fact remains that, despite all our best endeavours to provide refuges, to legislate to provide protection, to empower women and to educate our children about domestic abuse, women’s safety at home is still a major cause for concern.

Most female victims of domestic violence contact the police only after the 35th attack on them. During these 35 attacks, the women and children are left to deal with the impact of the violence in their homes, while the perpetrators of the violence—in the main, they are men, as has been said—continue to commit atrocities against their partner. Approximately 80 per cent of these men are outside the criminal justice system. However, a substantial number of men among them want to stop their violent, angry and abusive behaviour.

I am pleased to say that I am the patron of the Everyman Project, a charity that provides counselling to men who want to change their abusive behaviour. We also provide advice, counselling and safety planning guidance for the female or male partners of the men undergoing the counselling. The men learn to address their attitudes towards women and to cope with situations without resorting to violence. Their partners in turn learn how to plan for their own and their children’s safety. This process helps partners and family units to break out of the cycle of violence and to move forward and it complements other services available to women.

The work of the Everyman Project and of the Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse charity—especially through its multi-agency risk assessment conferences—shows that we do not need to wait for violence to reach a stage where the victim is forced to seek recourse through the criminal justice system. We can prevent violence at a fraction of the cost that it takes to deal with its impact. It costs £20,000 to support a high-risk victim of violence through key services such as the police, health, housing and associated children’s services. When all that is added together, an extraordinary amount of money is being spent annually after the event and after violence has been committed. Research indicates that it would cost less than a quarter of this sum to try to reduce violence with the aid of counselling services. The added bonus of that approach is that the violence would not reach such extremes and the women and children would be freed from the violence and its severe impact on their physical, emotional and mental health.

If we are to help to make the homes of women and children safe places in which to enjoy life, we need to reach men and women who perpetrate violence and are seeking to change their behaviour. In my opinion, we can reach these individuals only if we recognise the contribution of the voluntary sector in preventing violence in the home and make better funding available to make its services accessible to the wider community. Perpetrator programmes should not be limited to individuals who have been convicted and face imprisonment. They should not be made available after the event; we should take steps earlier, before the perpetrators are sent to prison.

I recently asked the Minister what action the Government were taking to help violent men who wanted to change their behaviour. She kindly told me that the Government were providing information to enable the Respect charity to run its phone line to offer information and advice to people who wanted to break the cycle of violence. The Government said that, in 2009, 1,234 calls had been made to the Respect line from perpetrators who wished to change their behaviour, of which 1,181 came from men—the calls came overwhelmingly from men. This may seem rather a low figure, but I argue that this is only the tip of the iceberg of those who are trying to seek assistance.

Websites offer a far more revealing insight into the numbers seeking assistance. For example, our Everyman Project runs a website. We are only a small charity but in 2009 we had 73,000 hits on our website, of which 12,000 were from regular visitors. Some 5,300 have had formal exchanges with us about their problems and the need to try to find solutions. We have also analysed their backgrounds. Interestingly, 50 per cent are from white backgrounds and 50 per cent are from mixed-race backgrounds.

However, we as a charity get not one penny piece of public money from the state. We constantly struggle, as do all other charities. I support the big society, of which we have heard so much this week, but many charities have great difficulty maintaining their existing programmes. If they are to grow in the way that the Government want, they will need assistance from the public purse. Will the Government continue to pay out the money that is currently being provided? Is there any prospect of that money being increased in the future?

The multi-agency risk-assessment conferences have been championed by the former Attorney-General, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, for a number of years and are extraordinarily successful. They bring together at local level all the participants in the highest-risk cases and all the agencies dealing with women and children who face violence. The local agencies then get together programmes for the men, who are invariably the perpetrators, and provide counselling programmes for all the parties involved. Research indicates that up to 60 per cent of domestic abuse victims have reported that, since participating in these conferences, they have suffered no further violence. There has been a remarkable saving in the costs that normally arise in the police, health and education services associated with tackling violence. For every pound spent on these conferences, we save at least £5 that would have been spent on the public services required to assist people impacted by violence.

Since 2006, we have rolled out these programmes throughout the country. Some 220 are now operating and there are plans for a rollout of a further 80. We are worried about whether that rollout will continue, let alone whether the money will continue to be provided to support the existing 220 programmes. Will the money continue to be provided to maintain this partnership? This is a partnership—the Government are not simply funding the conferences on their own; they are in partnership with the private sector and charities. A whole range of people are involved. Will the Government continue to support the existing 220 programmes? More important, from the long-term planning point of view, are the Government willing to support the rollout of the additional 80 programmes, which would provide national coverage? These conferences have made such extraordinary progress that officials from the Spanish Government have attended them to see how they operate. They are now being rolled out in Spain, with very good results. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister would answer those two major points about funding.

19:37

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, I am sure that the House shares my sense of indebtedness to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for tabling this Motion. Not only has it given us the chance to debate an important topic, it has given rise to a series of amazingly powerful, informative, deeply moving and, at times, shocking speeches. I am sure that many noble Lords shared my physical reaction to the story of the stoning of a 13 year-old girl. That will stay with me for a very long time. The debate has also given us the opportunity to hear maiden speeches from seven colleagues; we have heard five and there are two to go. It is wonderful to see the diverse backgrounds of those joining your Lordships' House. We look forward to hearing from them often. I was particularly pleased to hear the speech of my noble friend Lady Parminter. It seems like only yesterday that I introduced her to the House—it was actually the day before yesterday. She is a great friend and supporter. Therefore, it was wonderful to support her in an official capacity earlier this week. It was also good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who shares my commitment to, and love of, our home county of Suffolk. I look forward also to working with him.

I wish to address my remarks solely to the representation of women in Parliament, particularly in the other place. Many Members of this House will be aware of the statistic that at the current rate of progress it will take another two centuries before equal numbers of men and women are in the House of Commons. The notion that our granddaughters’ granddaughters’ granddaughters will still be having that debate is profoundly depressing. There has been some progress in the past decade. Certainly, measures such as all-women shortlists had the effect of bringing in a new crop of women to the House of Commons. However, it is sad that so many of those women subsequently stood down, which suggests that while there may well be a place for measures such as all-women shortlists, they are not in themselves the final answer.

Certainly in my party, we have had many debates—very many hotly debated sessions—where we have talked about whether we need some special measures to bring women into Parliament. There is an interesting fault-line between those who see it as patronising to women to introduce such measures, and those who see that this is the only way to make progress—and the fault-line is not gender; it is age. The younger women in particular are very hostile to the notion of special measures, which they see as patronising, whereas older members of the party are frankly tired of waiting for a difference to be made.

The approach we have taken in my party is to encourage people forward through mentoring. We had a certain amount of success in terms of getting women selected in “safe seats”, but sadly it was the choice of the electorate not to elect them. It is a particular issue for my party that we do not have the luxury of safe seats in order to bring in things like all-women shortlists with any confidence of improving the situation. Finding a sustainable solution requires us to think not about treating the symptoms, but to tackle the underlying causes instead. Research in my own party suggests that the lack of female representation in the Commons is to do not with discrimination, but with a combination of an insufficient number of women coming forward and a high rate of attrition among female parliamentary candidates. Put bluntly, not enough women want to do the job. Worse still, many count themselves out once they take a closer look.

The yah-boo culture of the House of Commons is off-putting to a lot of people, not just to women. It certainly put me off ever wanting to be an MP, and it is a pity that the media do not concentrate more on the other aspects of the job—constituency work, Select Committees and so on—that are not so confrontational and that I think would appeal to a broader spectrum of people, women particularly.

The way the House of Commons works in particular is also very difficult to reconcile with caring responsibilities. Even nowadays, in most families women have the brunt of caring responsibilities, whether it is caring for children or for the elderly. The general work-life juggle is inherently stacked against women for that reason. I notice very much in my party that the women coming forward for selection to Parliament are either quite young—in their early 20s—or in their late 40s and early 50s, and we are in effect counting out women over a period of perhaps two decades, at the sort of age where they feel that their responsibilities for children simply preclude them.

A Centre for Policy Studies report last year found that the vast majority of mothers with children at home would like to work. However, only 12 per cent of them want to work full-time. Westminster, with its full-time-plus—all the anti-social hours and everything else that goes with them—is effectively writing off a large section of the female population. We have always been very reluctant to reform parliamentary practices, which is something that I hope will be addressed as the Speaker’s report kicks in. I am also concerned that some of the changes that have been brought about to the expenses regime—particularly the way IPSA is running things—will actually make it more difficult for people with families to become MPs and run their lives in the way they need to.

The good news is that we do not have to reinvent the wheel—what we have to do is to look outside Westminster. Over the last decade, the right to request flexible working has quietly revolutionised the way many businesses work. Enlightened employers have embraced the benefits of retaining talented women who might otherwise have thrown in the towel. That flexibility has empowered women—and men—to be able to construct their own solutions to the career and family dilemma. It strikes me as ironic that while we have legislated to mandate flexible working in other people’s workplaces, we have failed to do it in our own.

I noted with interest the sharp intake of breath when my noble friend Lady Parminter mentioned job-sharing MPs. Well, why not? We have job-sharing chief executives, job-sharing city lawyers, job-sharing head teachers and even job-sharing high commissioners. Why could we not job-share as MPs? We have to get away from the notion that somehow we in Parliament are so different from the rest of the world that these solutions cannot be considered. It is not just about fairness, as important as fairness is; it is actually about good governance. Having a huge number of potential MPs precluded because they cannot manage these sorts of responsibilities—precluding women in that way—is bad governance. I hope that in the other place and in all our deliberations we do what we can to change that.

19:45

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

My Lords, I am honoured to deliver my maiden speech in this important debate. This House is as rich in its extraordinary history as it is in the wisdom and knowledge of its Members, and to be able to take part in its proceedings is a privilege without equal. At this point I will, as other maiden speakers have, mention the great kindness shown to those who are new both by fellow Peers and by our formidable staff. It has been overwhelming and I am profoundly grateful.

I must admit to a few nerves this evening—not perhaps for the obvious reasons, but because I realised sitting here last week quite how many of my ex-bosses are on these Benches. There is my noble friend Lord Wakeham, one of my supporters, for whom I worked not just once but twice. Then there is my noble friend Lord Tebbit, who was my first boss in politics, who is joined by my noble friends Lord Brooke, Lord Bell and Lord Saatchi and, since yesterday, my noble friend Lord Howard. So this feels almost like a job interview.

I have worked for over 20 years in roles dealing with the media, for all those noble friends. As a passionate supporter of press freedom, not just here but throughout the Commonwealth, I hope to be able to contribute to our discussions on the future of the newspaper industry and the wider creative industries. As a trustee of the Imperial War Museum, and a member of the council of the Royal College of Music, our cultural heritage is also of great importance to me. However, today is for another subject. My noble friend Lady Verma is in so many ways the embodiment of the crucial issues we are discussing. She brings such substantial experience to the work of this House, and it is a privilege to take part in the debate in her name.

I was born and brought up in Brentwood in Essex. I went to its fine school, where I learned to play four musical instruments simply in order to dodge sports lessons, and fell in love there—with Virgil and Plato, and our islands' history. I played the organ at Sunday services. I cut my political teeth and became a councillor. It is a great place for a young man to learn. Looking back on my time there I have an overpowering memory—that in all the vital parts of our community's civic fabric, the bedrock of our local civil society was the older women of our town. They ran the local charities, and organised the volunteering. They were crucial in local politics. They kept the churches open and beautiful. They raised money for local hospital services, and our remarkable hospice. They were the often undervalued treasure trove of our town's existence. It is as true now as it was then.

Across the country, older women whose children have left home, or who have recently retired, play a pivotal role in our society. A citizenship survey from the Department for Communities and Local Government published at the end of last year showed how women from 65 to 74 were the most likely to participate in formal volunteering. Another survey, from the Institute for Volunteering Research, found nearly half of all volunteers to be in their 60s, with women playing by far the biggest role in education, social welfare and heritage. It is of real importance that we recognise that today. If, as I believe we can, we are to build the big society, they will help us power it.

It is therefore right that as part of this debate we also consider ways in which we can make sure that this huge potential is fulfilled and cherished, and that means looking very carefully at the special health needs of older women. It is not lack of willingness that makes many of them less active—to the detriment of our society—but the burden of premature ill health and frailty. The citizenship survey that I mentioned identified disability and long-term illness as the major bar to volunteering.

There are many such health issues, whether it be asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or depression, from which twice as many older women suffer as men. However, I want to highlight just one, which is eminently avoidable—the blight of osteoporosis. I have seen at first hand how that dread illness—responsible, if undiagnosed early, for so many debilitating fractures—is often to blame for the lives of those working in the service of others being curtailed. As it progresses, it stops too many older women doing much of what they want to do for our society, as mobility falters, pain increases and their world shrinks. In the case of my own mother—one such lady whose kindly spirit was the catalyst for a great deal in our town’s life—osteoporosis was diagnosed too late. Complicated years later by the appalling condition of polymyalgia, which we still know too little about and which also affects far more older women than men, her potential was, to her great sadness, thwarted too early. This is true of far too many other sufferers. One in two women over the age of 50 will suffer a fracture at some point because of poor bone health. That is one in two lives lived less fully than it could be, with our civil society—the great society—diminished as a result.

It does not have to be like that. So much could be done to deal with this problem simply by ensuring the widespread operation of fracture liaison services at hospitals and groups of GP surgeries. Such services could spot this condition much earlier and allow sufferers to continue doing more for us for longer. I hope that, as part of the Government’s plans for NHS reform, osteoporosis and bone health will now be recognised as a major public health issue and that indicators on fracture prevention will be included in the Quality and Outcomes Framework of the GP contract. Such moves are long overdue.

For so many reasons, I believe that older women should, in Belloc’s phrase, be preserved as our “chiefest treasure”. It has been an honour today to have the opportunity to speak briefly about their role in our civic life and to highlight some of the things that could be done to make sure that they achieve their full potential for longer. It is a subject very dear to my heart and I hope that in future debates we shall be able to track real progress on this issue.

19:52

[Viscount Bridgeman]

My Lords, we have had six sensitive maiden speeches of remarkable quality, and we look forward with anticipation to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I am not quite sure what the collective for seven maiden speakers—unprecedented in this House—is, but I am sure that my noble friend Lord Black and my noble friend Lord Deben, who is not in his place, will forgive me if I suggest a collective of “merry maidens”.

However, it is the speech of my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood of which I am privileged to speak in appreciation. My noble friend brings to this House a long experience of the media, and his intention to contribute to discussions on the future of the newspaper industry will be of great benefit to this House. I am sure that your Lordships will wish him to convey to his colleagues in the industry the message that in their coverage of their Lordships’ proceedings there is always room for improvement.

Noble Lords will recall with admiration—and, I think, gratitude—the work that he did with my noble friend Lord Wakeham on the Press Complaints Commission at a particularly sensitive time. With his interest in museums and music, he will indeed have much to contribute to the workings of this House, and to this we look forward with much anticipation. His speech today on the role of older women was delivered with a passion and commitment which was truly impressive, addressing as it did the core of this most important debate. We are very grateful.

I now wish to speak about a very different aspect of the role of women from that raised by my noble friend in this important debate—and we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lady Verma for her outstanding leadership in initiating it. I refer to the increasingly important role of African women in the life of Africa. Women form 70 per cent of the workforce in Africa as a whole. However, despite major initiatives by the United Nations and the major donor countries—and the United Kingdom can hold its head high, particularly with the recent commitment by the coalition Government to ring-fence funding for overseas development—together with high-powered conferences, little progress has, disappointingly, been made in advancing the rights and welfare of women in Africa. The curse of malnutrition, insufficient medical aid, particularly maternity care, and of course the universal curse of HIV/AIDS, together with the custom which stretches back centuries of requiring of women both hard labour and the procreation of large families, have all placed enormous obstacles in the path of the advancement of women. We were shocked by the story which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, told us about the stoning of the Somali woman; it was particularly pertinent in the African context.

Among the majority of rural and low-income urban dwellers, women perform all domestic tasks, while for many farming and trade are also included. They are responsible for the care of children, the sick and the elderly in addition to performing essential social functions within the community. Their struggle for survival often results in environmental damage, a simple example being the collection of firewood, which contributes so much to soil erosion in many parts of Africa. In many cases, women are subject to abuse, such as female genital mutilation, and they are especially vulnerable to AIDS because of their lack of power over their sexuality and reproductive functions. As an illustration, about 50 per cent of women in Africa are married by the age of 18, and one in three women is in a polygamous marriage.

Although many countries have ratified UN agreements such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, at the same time many countries have taken very few steps in translating this into better living and working conditions. The simple fact is that in many ways Africa’s development is substantially held back by excluding the perspectives, skills and dynamism of half the population. Examples of initiatives by African women that can be seen in many countries are women-only mutual aid societies, benevolent groups in churches, co-operatives and market women’s groups.

That leads me to the main point that I want to make. Several noble Lords in this debate have spoken about the importance of education, mainly in the United Kingdom context, but in Africa it is absolutely seminal. It is all too common to find that what limited educational facilities are available are still hampered by gender discrimination and unimaginative curricula that do not take into account that the majority of girls will not go beyond primary education, and they are not geared to helping girls to obtain basic life skills. Of course, there is always the temptation for parents to give priority to their sons’ education. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, who is not in his place, mentioned this in the slightly different context of India. Mothers have many complications with their daughters—adolescent pregnancy, early marriage and the burden on girls to shoulder household labour, and, sadly, in many cases their daughters are forced into prostitution for simple economic reasons. However, there are shining exceptions. In Lesotho, for example, largely due to out-migration by the men, females account for 75 per cent of students, even in higher education.

As was put so succinctly by CamFed, an America-based charity in Africa, when you educate a girl in Africa, everything changes. She will be three times less likely to get HIV/AIDS; she will earn 25 per cent more income; and she will have a smaller, healthier family. I am talking not about the giveaway of sacks of flour, which can be siphoned off along the supply chain, but about a tangible permanent investment which can go to the next generation. An educated mother with a small family is in a much better position to fulfil her ambitions for the advancement of her children. In the challenging and often depressing problem of population in Africa, education, as was so well articulated by that charity, leads to a win-win situation.

20:00

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, I start by welcoming the Minister’s speech and her obvious commitment to equality and fairness for women throughout their lives. I have had the pleasure of speaking with her and learning from her important experience in the care sector, which I would think is in fact an industry peopled exclusively by women, so that was very relevant to the debate we are having. My brief comments will be made in the light of my role as a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The noble Baroness emphasised the very difficult times that we are living through and the necessity of spending cuts, which I do not dispute at all. In practice, however, it means that decision-makers at all levels, national and local, should look closely at the effects their financial decisions might have on women and, indeed, on other vulnerable groups before going ahead with reorganising or reducing services. Doing that should help public authorities to achieve the Government’s own commitment to,

“limit as far as possible the impact of reductions in spending on the most vulnerable in society”.

Yet a recent House of Commons Library research report assessed the distribution between women and men of the £8 billion raised by the Budget’s changes in direct taxes and benefits. It found that £5.8 billion will be paid by women and only £2.2 billion by men. I do not know whether that could be said to be fair. Also, a report from the UK Women’s Budget Group, published this June, states that low-income mothers are the managers and shock absorbers of poverty and will be the most negatively affected by the recently announced budget cuts. Women from black and minority ethnic groups, it said, will be particularly hard hit as 40 per cent of them live in poor households.

The commission has concerns that women may be harder hit by spending cuts because they use public services more intensively than men to meet their own needs and the needs associated with their caring responsibilities. We have heard today about the differential in pay and we know that women are, on average, paid 20.2 per cent less per hour than men. That gap is higher in the private sector than the public and in certain sectors of employment such as the financial services industry. Going further along the life course, female pensioners currently have lower incomes than male pensioners, so they are at greater risk of poverty and therefore more reliant on means-tested benefits.

The commission’s work on older women in particular is really limited to the workplace. Higher rates of poverty are experienced by many older women, as we know, because of a lifetime of lower pay—what the Hills report called “cumulative disadvantage”. Because of their greater longevity, there is also a greater need to access care, for while women live longer than men they experience more disability and chronic illness or disease in later life, and have a greater need to call on services such as dementia treatment or those for other chronic, and sometimes terminal, diseases. Overall, women have a greater dependence on public services, so they will be more affected by the current cuts. We need, perhaps, to take account of and drive home the message about the human rights obligations of public authorities, which can help care homes and hospitals to treat older women with dignity and respect, and to put into practice the age discrimination provisions in the Equality Act, ensuring that institutions understand how to meet their obligations and that individuals know how to enforce their rights.

I am very pleased that the Minister representing Her Majesty’s Government gave such full support to the Equality Act. It is important that when public authorities make financial decisions, they are equality-impact assessed and that the impact assessment is carried out when the policy is initiated as a central part of the policy development process. Only by doing that can we be sure that women are treated fairly and in a way that conforms to the Government’s own commitment, as stated by the Minister. I hope that she can make it clear to us that she will abide by that.

20:05

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, when I indicated that I wished to speak in today’s debate I had not anticipated making the seventh maiden speech of the day in what has been an excellent and really thoughtful debate. I have enjoyed listening to the contributions. May I add my comments to those other noble Lords making a maiden speech today who referred to the warmth of welcome from Members of your Lordships’ House? I genuinely and gratefully echo that sentiment. I have greatly appreciated the welcome, support and advice of noble Lords from across the House—especially from my supporters, my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Andrews, who really have been unfailing in their help to me. My noble friend Lord Dubs and I share an interest in and affection for Northern Ireland, where we served as Ministers at different times, while my noble friend Lady Andrews and I worked together extremely well in the Department for Communities and Local Government.

I also place on record my thanks to the attendants and staff of your Lordships’ House, who really have been extremely helpful to us new Members. They have taken pity on us when they find us walking around the corridors, trying to find a room or a desk to work from. I look forward to participating fully in the work of this House and its work as a revising Chamber.

When I was introduced to your Lordships’ House, I did so as the first Baroness of Basildon—possibly the first time that a modern new town has been recognised in this way—but I have to confess to your Lordships that I am not the first Lady Basildon. The first was created in 1895 by the great Irish writer Oscar Wilde in his play “An Ideal Husband”, which was performed first at the Haymarket Theatre. Lady Basildon was described as being of “exquisite fragility”—an attribute which I doubt has ever been used to describe me—but she showed an interest in politics, of a kind. At a political party, she informs one of the leading characters, in typical Wildean style:

“I delight in talking politics. I talk them all day long. But I can’t bear listening to them. I don’t know how the unfortunate men in the House stand these long debates”.

To that she is told that they do so “by never listening” to them. However, they did not have the advantage of listening to today’s debate, and one thing I have already learnt to appreciate in your Lordships’ House is the depth and value that we place on debate. I promise your Lordships that I shall listen more often than I shall speak.

As a child from a very ordinary working-class family, I could not have expected to have the honour of serving your Lordships’ House and the other place. My parents—my mother being from a Scottish mining family and my father from the east end of London—saw, like too many of their generation, their education ended too soon. They were therefore determined that both my sister and I would have the educational opportunities they never had, for which I remain enormously grateful, although I did not perhaps appreciate them at the time. It has also made me a great believer in the value of education and of access to education for all.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this debate because the position of women across the world and in the UK, which we are discussing, depends so much on access to education. I was encouraged both by her choice of debate and by the commitment that she showed in her comments. The first female Prime Minister in the world, Mrs Bandaranaike, took office on this day 50 years ago, in 1960, while during this month in 1928 women over 21 first gained the right to vote on the same basis as men. We are all aware of great women achieving high office in many parts of the world and of the noticeable achievements of women in politics, business, science, the arts and sport—and we all know extraordinary women who inspire us. For many ordinary women across the world life has changed little, despite the great achievements of a few.

Across the world more people than ever say that they believe in gender equality, but when difficult economic times bite, that becomes harder to sustain. There is a gap between the belief that so many articulate and the reality. A recent survey conducted for the International Herald Tribune looked at attitudes to gender across the world and examined the difference between the richer and poorer. Of the European countries the French self-identified the lowest level of gender equality, which was attributed to unequal economic participation. Professor Ibarra from an international business school identified it as being about so few women running large organisations and the business culture remaining resolutely a boys’ club.

While in most countries more than 90 per cent of people said that they supported equal rights, few thought that that had been achieved. If we are looking at the advancement potential for women we must first start with education and employment. In Egypt, for example, 60 per cent of men said that boys were more entitled to education and there was a similar gender gap in Jordan and Pakistan. A strong core in several countries believes that men have more right to a job than women. Even in the UK, 12 per cent hold that view. That is where the economic reality really bites.

Here in the UK the impact of the recent Budget on women assessed by the House of Commons Library found that of the £8.1 billion net personal tax increases or benefit cuts, an estimated 72 per cent is being paid by women and only 28 per cent by men. I hope that this is something that the coalition Government will want to look at again. It is also relevant that women in the UK are still earning 12 per cent less than men. If we are to truly develop the potential of women in society, we have to address the disproportionate impact of our own economic policies and ensure that we provide those educational opportunities and economic equality.

In this country both boys and girls have equal access to education, but across the world so many children are denied that right. Across the world 72 million children are not able to attend school and more than two-thirds are girls. There are 771 million adults world wide who are illiterate, a staggering 64 per cent of whom are women.

Good progress has been made in Afghanistan since 1996 when the Taliban made it illegal for girls to be educated. But so many schools have been destroyed and the lack of female teachers makes it an ongoing battle for so many young girls seeking to be educated. Oxfam regularly organises a campaign that encourages children in this country to understand how difficult it is for other children across the world to gain the education that they rightly take for granted. Over the years I have visited a number of schools in Basildon and Thurrock and the double impact of this campaign is that not only do the children in our schools want to help and support those in other countries, they start to value their own education in a way they had never considered before.

Tremendous advances have been made over the decades in the role and position of women in society. Our challenge now is to build on that progress and to widen the opportunities in education and employment for women and young people from all backgrounds and all countries so that they can fully realise their potential. Society as a whole will benefit from the knowledge and skills that they have.

20:13

[Lord Giddens]

First, I congratulate all those Members who have given such excellent maiden speeches today. There was a terrific cornucopia of speeches. One might say that it was a bit different from the House of Lords in the past. There is a good story about the Earl of Melrose—in case there is a current Earl of Melrose I shall have to say that this was an earlier one—who said, “I fell asleep and dreamt that I was giving a speech in the House of Lords. Then I woke up and, by God, I was”.

I congratulate, in particular, my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon on her outstanding maiden speech, delivered with great eloquence and good humour. From a part-time shop assistant in Sainsbury’s to your Lordships’ House is quite a journey. She brings a great wealth of experience to this House, and is very well known for her work on the third sector and local communities. One might say that she was a forceful advocate of the big society avant la lettre, and she is very well esteemed for her work in this area. She is quite right to place so much stress on education, which I say as an educator myself, and helping to bring about social equality. It is also important to mention her work in the area of animal rights. It is my great pleasure to welcome her to your Lordships’ House and I am sure that we all look forward to many incisive contributions from her in the future. I hope that noble Lords will join me in giving her a hearty welcome.

The oppression of women in contemporary society is as much psychosexual as it is economic. It focuses on the body, self-identity, sexuality and the swirl of emotions that surround these things, especially in young women. I think we can say that in our society many women suffer from a veritable tyranny of the body. To illustrate this theme I shall discuss the rise in eating disorders in our society, such as anorexia, bulimia, binge eating, and so on. I spoke on this topic about five years ago in a speech in commemoration of women’s day and I take this opportunity to bring what I said then up to date.

I shall say how I became interested in anorexia in particular. One day, for some reason, I bought two Sunday newspapers rather than one and each had a colour supplement. On the front of one of the colour supplements was a photograph of a young black woman who was emaciated and starving to death in Africa. On the front of the other one there was a photograph of a young white American woman who was starving to death in the United States. One of the women was starving because of lack of food—the classical origins of starvation. The other was starving to death in a society where for the first time there is far more food to go around than anybody could possibly consume. Both died but the dynamics of the cases are completely different. I therefore became interested in the history of anorexia and eating disorders.

When we look at the history of traditional cultures we find that what we call eating disorders are rare. There are examples of women who fasted to death but they normally did so for religious reasons—to get closer to God. The rise of eating disorders as a mass phenomenon—I can assure noble Lords that it is a mass phenomenon today—is relatively recent. It dates only from the late 1950s or early 1960s. What explains the massive expansion of eating disorders and the turmoil that they bring? Although about 10 per cent of anorectics are men, the large majority suffering from extreme eating disorders are women.

There are two factors to explain that. One is the rise of supermarket culture. I mentioned Sainsbury’s, but with the advent of supermarkets more generically, diet is severed from locality and becomes severed from tradition. You have to decide what to eat in relation to who to be and what kind of identity to assume. Secondly, it impacts with particular force, especially on young women, partly because of the rise of a new body image and the desirability of slimness in women, but also from something a bit more profound. There is a notion of perfectibility of the female form and a feeling that if you do not get close to that you are almost stigmatised. That is a tremendous secular change in the experience of women in contemporary societies and many other kinds of pathology stem from that.

What has happened since the first time I spoke on these issues? First, in this country the incidence of serious eating disorders has got much worse than it was even five years ago. Today, something like three times as many women suffer from serious eating disorders—not just moderate forms—as suffer from schizophrenia. It is a very significant and indeed growing issue in our society.

Secondly, you have the extension of eating disorders through the lifespan. Previously, most women who suffered from eating disorders were teenagers or early adults. However, now eating disorders extend down to a very early age, so you have young girls of six or seven obsessed with their body image and putting themselves on a rigorous diet. Anorexia and other eating disorders also extend much more through the lifespan.

Thirdly, there is an amazing expansion of eating disorders across the world. This has happened only in the past 10 or 15 years. These are diseases not of poverty but of affluence. They are to do with striving and with possibility. They are not to do directly with deprivation. If you look around the world, you find that China has had a tremendous expansion of eating disorders, almost wholly among young women. The same thing has happened in India in the urban centres and in Africa. In Africa you have the coexistence of the very two things that I found on the front of the colour supplements—classical starvation on the one hand and this very new form of deprivation, especially in the cities and the metropolitan areas, taking root.

What are the practical solutions? This is the tip of the iceberg for women. About 95 per cent of women say that at some point they have been on a diet in order to improve their body image, so we are talking about a tip of an iceberg which affects most women in some sense in our society. What can one do practically about it? First of all, one has to recognise that, although severe forms of eating problems are medical disorders requiring medical treatment, their origins are not medical or biological. They cannot be, primarily, because of the tremendous difference between the existence of this as a mass phenomenon now and its relative absence before. We are dealing with something that is social and structural; therefore the remedies have to be social and structural.

Secondly, traditional mechanisms of attacking sexism and patriarchy are relevant to eating disorders among women. For example, think of cases in the City where women quite rightly have brought legal cases pointing out that they have been discriminated against, have been assessed on the basis of appearance, and have had to face sexist remarks rather than be evaluated in terms of their capabilities. If you improve equal opportunities in those circumstances, it certainly does something. However, my third point is that it does not do a lot. This is not a traditional problem of patriarchy. This is a problem of how we live now. It therefore presumes, in my view, fairly radical intervention, which would have to be to a large degree in the advertising industry, especially in relation to advertising which is targeted at young women. In concluding, I ask the Minister whether she can imagine such radical measures being introduced and, if so, what form they might take.

20:23

[Lord Parekh]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Giddens, who has brought an unusual perspective to our debate today and showed the subtle and elusive forms that patriarchy takes in our society and how it perpetuates itself. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on her wonderful maiden speech and the very considerable insights and passions that she has brought to the subject. We look forward to her contribution in years to come.

If one looks at the question of women’s development and representation in Britain, one is struck by the fact that very considerable progress has been made in most areas and some progress in other areas. The number of women MPs, for example, has doubled between 1992 and 2009. The same thing has happened in your Lordships’ House. The number of women Ministers has risen from 18 per cent in 1992 to 30 per cent in 2005. The percentage of women in senior grades in the Civil Service has gone up from 8 per cent in 1990 to 25 per cent in 2010. In 1999, there were no women to be seen in the Lords of Appeal; today they constitute 8.3 per cent of the Lords of Appeal. In the National Health Service, the percentage of women GPs was 29 per cent in 1995 and it has gone up to 42 per cent. As for consultants, the percentage was 18 per cent in 1995 and has gone up to 27 per cent in 2009. In my own profession, in academia, the percentage of female professors has gone up from 7 per cent in 1995 to 14 per cent in 2009. The percentage of female senior lecturers and researchers has gone up from 18 per cent in 1995 to 35 per cent in 2006.

I give these figures to indicate that considerable progress has been made in some areas, but not enough in many others. I want to ask a simple question. How has this progress been possible? What factors have played an important part? I ask this so that we can concentrate on those factors, consolidate them and make sure that this trend continues.

Another point worth bearing in mind is that, in the area of gender equality as in other areas, the progress is never unilineal; it is never inexorable. It goes up to a point and then stabilises itself. That point of stability is quite important. It may not go much further but it also does not tend to go much below, either. Therefore there is a tendency for it to swing around a certain percentage.

In looking at what factors have played a part in achieving this kind of progress during the past 15 or 20 years, I have identified seven, and I want to say something briefly about each of them. The first factor is raising the level of public awareness. All these achievements have been made possible because people have been made to realise that gender inequality is wrong, that it is not natural but manmade in both senses of the term, and that it can be changed by getting people to appreciate the contingency of the inequality that exists in our society.

The second factor that has played an important part has to do with political pressure exerted constantly and relentlessly by women’s groups and others at the local level, at the level of firms, local authorities, universities and others, at the national level and at the international level in terms of all kinds of treaties and covenants. That pressure becomes quite important at another level. Very often, when women get promoted, they tend not to think very much about the constituents they have left behind. It is therefore very important that pressure continues to be exerted on those who have been able to break through the glass ceiling.

The third factor that has played an important part is leadership at the top. In each of the major organisations, it is the leadership that is the driving force. It demands results and wants to know why those results are not achieved.

The fourth factor has to do with the internal audit of the organisation and finding out what the bottlenecks are. Why in some organisations is the proportion of women not as high as it should be? It could be direct discrimination, in which case that should be eliminated. It could be indirect discrimination, in which case one needs to find out how that discrimination articulates itself. It may also have something to do with the culture of the organisation. It may be that women are simply not attracted to that particular organisation or profession or, if attracted, do not stay long. Sometimes the organisational culture is not deliberately intended to keep women out; it simply creeps up within an organisation, almost unwittingly or unthinkingly, so that it has a built-in masculine bias without wanting to exclude women. This is the point that many women MPs have made about the House of Commons: it has a certain macho culture, not because people want to keep women out but because, having been dominated by men for all those centuries, it has acquired a certain ethos or ambiance that alienates and puts off women.

The fifth factor that has played an important part in the progress is education. In the field of primary and secondary education, we have made considerable progress and women achieve more or less the same level as men. However, when it comes to higher education and professional and technological faculties, there is still a long way to go.

The sixth factor that has played an important part is conditions of work. Women often have to maintain a balance between work and family. That requires that they should have flexible hours of work and arrangements at work where children can be looked after, or state-supported nurseries. Unless those conditions of work are congenial, women will not be able to take advantage of whatever qualifications they might have.

The seventh factor that has played a part—not always in all areas, but in some—is the state-induced or state-imposed quota. That has happened in India, where a Women’s Reservation Bill is going through Parliament so that a third of the positions in it will be reserved for women. This has also happened in Norway, an example that has been cited, where 40 per cent of seats in parliament are reserved for women. I gather that in our own country, whenever John Major received a list of nominees for public bodies, he would send it back if half the people on the list were not women. That is not a state-imposed quota, but it was a government-encouraged or government-induced quota.

One needs to be very careful in going down that route. In exceptional circumstances, when no progress of any kind is made, it may become necessary to have a quota of one kind or another but, by and large, it can be counterproductive, because if one group can ask for it so can others. If one were to say that women should be entitled to 50 per cent of seats in different walks of life, one might say the same about ethnic minorities or the disabled, and the problem has no limit. The quota can also be rather rigid and mechanical, and it can work in some areas but cannot conceivably work in others—for example, for admissions to universities or when appointing people as professors. You cannot have a quota here because so much would depend on merit and lots of other considerations. Although this is not the way we want to go, I can nevertheless imagine circumstances where the problem is so acute and the willingness to change is so scarce that we might need to go along that route.

20:32

[Lord Smith of Clifton]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow one of my oldest friends, the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. I congratulate the Minister on introducing this debate, especially as, to my knowledge, it is the first time that a Conservative Peer has initiated discussion on the vital issue of gender equality. That is a most welcome sign of the era of the new politics, but we should not get too carried away. The old politics are still active.

On 2 June, in the debate on the Queen’s Speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, and I drew attention to the gross imbalance in the proportion of women executive directors of FTSE 100 companies. In winding, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, made no reference to our speeches but undertook to reply in writing to those comments that he had not addressed. Three weeks later, he sent out a batch of letters dealing with those issues with which he had not dealt but said nothing in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, or me. That silence speaks volumes.

In reply to the Oral Question put by the indefatigable noble Baroness, Lady Gould, on 15 July, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, had recourse to such lame phrases as:

“We will engage with all relevant partners in developing our programme”.—[Official Report, 15/5/10; col. 758.]

She used similar words again today. That will get us nowhere. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said, one has to have recourse to quotas in certain situations. I think that women executives on corporations and public bodies is one such situation. The Government must be much more proactive than the Minister’s language suggests.

The general position of women in the UK is dire. Mary Ann Sieghart, writing in last Monday’s Independent, forcefully described how really bad it is. On the particular issue of women on the boards of major companies and public bodies, which I have raised many times in your Lordships’ House, the position in the EU appears to be even worse than it is in the UK. On 16 July, the Guardian reported that the European Commission had given companies one year to redress the gross imbalances voluntarily before legislation would be introduced. The Guardian report stated:

“In the corporate world, men account for nearly 89% of board members in Europe’s biggest listed companies. At the very top, the disparity is even starker: only 3% of firms have a woman in charge”.

The entrenched old boys’ club mentality will take more than exhortation to be exorcised. It is noteworthy that only nine out of the 29 speakers tonight are men; it should have been nearer 14, so that we had a 50:50 balance. As I have said before, other countries have imposed legal quotas: Norway, Spain and France have taken action of this positive kind. The previous Government, despite the noble efforts of Miss Harriet Harman, did little of substance to tackle the problem. In the financial services sector, the inequalities are particularly bad. There are one or two exceptions: the chief executive of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants is a woman, as is the president of the Chartered Institute of Internal Auditors. These examples are welcome as far as they go, which is not very far. What is the record of the other professional accountancy bodies and of the big four accountancy firms?

A striking illustration of the difficulties that talented women experience came from that notable entrepreneur Dame Stephanie Shirley in her interview on “Desert Island Discs” on 23 May. She is a remarkably successful entrepreneur who set up her own computer company. She recalled that she started to prosper when she signed her letters as “Steve”, not as “Stephanie”. That says it all.

I trust that the coalition Government will pursue two objectives and I ask the Minister to comment on them in winding. The first is to follow the example of France, Norway and Spain and introduce legislation to speed up parity on company boards and public bodies in the UK. The second is to apply these strictures to themselves and to remove the overwhelming imbalance of men relative to women in their ministerial ranks. Operationalising the big society starts here.

20:38

[Baroness Rendell of Babergh]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for occasioning this debate and for choosing this subject, not just on the role of women but on women’s position in the modern world. My intention is to speak—not by any means for the first time—on the position of women trapped by a tradition that keeps them in a world closer to the medieval. Some women, perhaps the majority, have never enjoyed such freedom and never so closely approached equality with men as we do today, but that is some of us. They are in the minority, those who suffer a lifetime of discomfort, the curtailment of liberty, daily embarrassment, monthly misery and constant pain, but it is a very large minority, running into millions—perhaps as many as 10 million—for women’s genitalia are mutilated as a matter of course across sub-Saharan Africa from west to east, as well as in parts of Asia.

When on television, on the internet or in our newspapers we see pictures of starving women, women afflicted by flood and famine, refugee women with their children or women as victims of rampaging armies, do we ever think that disaster is not the only burden that they have to bear? In very many cases, they have been genitally mutilated as well. I have no space here to describe the process of the various greater and lesser types of female genital mutilation. I have done so before on many occasions.

This may be the place to explain that FGM or female circumcision, as it used to be called, is in no way analogous to male circumcision. It is never therapeutic, as male circumcision may be, and it always does harm. Very few—a tiny minority in this country— want to talk about it. Very few would be willing to give evidence against perpetrators. It is enough to say now that it is a useless procedure that serves no purpose other than to help to enslave women and to keep them in their place—that place being subservience to men.

We have as many as 200,000 women living in this country who have been mutilated. To “cut” a woman, as the procedure is known, is against the law in the many African countries where it is practised. That law is generally disregarded. FGM is against the law here. It carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment, but so far there have been no prosecutions. Silence on the subject prevails in the Somali, Sudanese and Nigerian communities, among many others. The police, who are strongly against FGM, are hampered in their efforts to bring prosecutions against circumcisers who come here to perform FGM and against parents who take their children to the Horn of Africa for it to be carried out there.

The Metropolitan Police is determined to find a way of bringing a prosecution. It knows that such success would be a huge deterrent to those planning mutilations. Sending a circumciser to prison would be the best warning possible to others but, in the absence of prosecution and conviction, the heavy penalty must itself be a deterrent and the police would prefer to deter than to punish.

In the dozen years that have passed since I first began campaigning against this practice, knowledge of it has spread widely. As well as FORWARD, the principal association opposing it, groups small and large have been started all over the United Kingdom. Most of them include in their membership women who have suffered FGM and who are therefore best able to instruct others about the pain suffered by the children on whom it is performed—some as young as four or five years old and a few babies under one year old—and many can number health professionals among their members. Hospitals increasingly incorporate African clinics where women can attend for help and treatment.

I am the patron of the London-based FGM National Clinical Group, where reversals of mutilation are routinely performed by a woman surgeon. Recently, we produced a DVD, which we have circulated across the United Kingdom, showing this reversal being performed. The procedure is carried out under the National Health Service and is available to all women who choose to have it. If it is not the perfect answer, for nothing can restore entirely what has been destroyed, it is of enormous help to women whose destiny seemed a lifetime of pain and fear.

Unfortunately, a large number of health professionals, especially those operating outside the big cities, still remain ignorant of FGM, fail to recognise it and are at a loss to know how to treat a mutilated woman in labour and childbirth. It would be of enormous help in making FGM in the United Kingdom a thing of the past if recognising it and knowing how to remedy its complications were to become part of the training for every doctor and midwife and if that training could include teaching the sensitive approach necessary when in contact with African women immigrants, who will be essentially modest and inhibited.

Women in Horn of Africa countries have a saying. It sounds antiquated to our ears—to us whose ideas of sexual relationships and women’s place in society have been so radically transformed in the past half-century—but it represents a reality to African women. It sheds a new light, or perhaps I should say a new darkness, on what most other women would see as happy occasions in their lives. I have quoted it before, but it may be illuminating to quote it again. They say that the three days of sorrow in a woman’s life are the day she is “cut”, the day she is married and the day she gives birth. There is no need to be more explicit. We have only to give it a moment’s thought to understand its dreadful meaning. I ask the Minister whether the Government’s intention is to keep these women in mind and to do all that they can to help the police and the health professionals in their efforts to end the practice of female genital mutilation.

20:45

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for enabling this debate to take place and for her comprehensive introduction. In the range of superb and powerful contributions today, we have heard seven fine maiden speeches. We are fortunate to have these additions to our Benches with their expertise and their enthusiasm. They espouse many of my own passions. While it might be invidious to single out one speech, I have to say that I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Black, spoke of osteoporosis and the health of older women. My mother suffered from osteoporosis and polymyalgia and I am a proud member of the National Osteoporosis Society.

In recent years, PCTs have worked strategically to raise awareness and to commission services that improve the health of older women—women who contribute so much to our society. Clearly, much more should and must be done, but I do not think that the radical pursuit of GP commissioning is the best way forward to ensure the continued and strategic improvement in the health of older women.

I want to focus my remarks today mainly on economic matters, as well as on a number of other issues, including carers and domestic violence. However, I begin with a quote from Aung San Suu Kyi. In citing her words, I celebrate her contribution to democracy and freedom and I lament the fact that such an inspiring, courageous leader should have to suffer for her belief in universal human rights. She said:

“The democracy process provides for political and social change without violence”.

I celebrate democracy along with all noble Lords in this Chamber.

The election a couple of months ago means we that have just experienced political change. The consequences of the election—the deficit reduction programme on which the coalition Government have embarked—mean that we are about to experience social change. This is the first debate on women in your Lordships’ House since the election. We on these Benches did not win the election and we know the consequences of that. One of the consequences about which I am concerned is the impact of the coalition’s policies on women. That includes the economic impact, the impact on their employment, the impact on the work-life balance, especially for those with children or who are carers and are holding their families together in very difficult circumstances, and the impact on women who suffer domestic violence.

As many inside and outside this Chamber have pointed out, it is women who bear the brunt of the cuts that are a consequence of the recent Budget. Yes, we all agree that there must be cuts in order to reduce the deficit—a deficit that arose because of the global economic crisis—but we do not agree that the cuts should be imposed so early and so savagely. We do not agree that they should be imposed without proper analysis of their impact. The Minister said that fairness must be at the heart of all of our decisions. I agree and I am delighted that she said it. I ask her to confirm whether a robust process for assessing the gender impact of proposals is being put in place before departments make decisions on their cuts and spending. I remind the noble Baroness of the gender equality duty, which, at this time of financial constraint, would not prevent the Government and other public authorities from making difficult and often unpopular decisions on funding and service provision. However, it would enable them to ensure that decisions are made in such a way as to minimise unfairness.

It seems from the evidence to date, including the gender audit of the Budget that was commissioned by my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper, that an analysis of the impact of the Budget on women was not made before the Chancellor made his announcements in June. The coalition tells us in its programme that,

“strong and stable families of all kinds are the bedrock of a strong and stable society”,

and that it wants to,

“make our society more family friendly”.

I welcome that, but I do not think that at present the rhetoric and the reality match. My right honourable friend’s study found that, of the £8 billion net revenue to be raised by the financial year 2014-15, nearly £6 billion will be from women. That can be neither just nor family friendly.

Support is being cut for children, which clearly has a profound impact on women, but, even if those cuts are put aside, women are being affected by cuts in things such as housing benefit, upratings to the additional pension, public sector pensions and attendance allowances, while they benefit less than men from the increases in the income tax allowances. That is without any consideration of the impact of public spending cuts. As women make up more of the public sector workforce, they will be more heavily hit by the public sector pay freeze and the projected 600,000 net public sector job losses.

Just last weekend I happened to have conversations with some women working in the public service—women who are teachers, health workers, teaching assistants, nurses and civil servants. I also spoke to some carers. All of them are worried about their jobs and the consequences for their families. In addition to their feeling of insecurity, they have already tightened the reins on their family spending, which on a larger scale will have an impact on the economic recovery. It is a real concern that the approach taken to deficit reduction is already pushing firms in the private sector, and the economy in general, back towards recession. We will all be losers if that happens, but women will bear the brunt.

Today’s debate asks us to take note of the position of women in society and speaks of the development of women’s potential. I argue that, in order for women to develop their potential, which they must if we are to have a healthy economy and a healthy society, they need security rather than insecurity and they need to be able to manage work and family life. Carers can be essential to that. We all recognise the huge contribution that carers, predominantly women, make to our society and our economy. Carers UK is absolutely clear about what the emergency Budget means for carers. It welcomes some of the plans, but it expresses clear anxiety on behalf of millions of carers and the people for whom they care. It is concerned, for example, about the switch in the system of uprating benefits, tax credits and public service pensions from the retail prices index to the consumer price index. This will hit the incomes of certain families particularly hard, including those families where disability, carers’ and means-tested benefits are the only source of income, single parents—usually women—caring for a disabled child or carers looking after a partner or an elderly parent.

Another aspect of security for women is domestic violence, a key issue for many women. I was glad that the Minister spoke in her opening speech of forced marriage and rape and I certainly welcome the establishment of more rape crisis centres. However, domestic violence goes much further than rape and forced marriage. In the UK, one in four women and one in six men will suffer from domestic abuse in their lives and 750,000 children live in violent households. Domestic violence affects women disproportionately. As my noble friend Lord Brooke said, 90 per cent of repeat victims of domestic violence are women. On average, a woman will be abused 37 times before she tells anyone about it. That is an astounding figure.

I am proud to tell the House that, while in government, my party took steps that reduced domestic violence by more than 60 per cent. I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend the shadow Attorney-General for much of that success. The multi-agency model that we developed to tackle abuse and domestic violence was and is successful. The multi-agency risk assessment conference model got results. In 60 per cent of all cases heard at MARAC, there is no further abuse. For the 120,000 women living in fear of their lives and suffering serious and sustained abuse—for those most at risk of being killed—the MARAC model offers the best ever chance of a safe life free from fear.

While these kinds of results alone ought to be enough to embed the multi-agency approach across our public services, there is a real risk in the approach being taken by the coalition that this type of specialist, intensive support will be seen to be unaffordable. This is short-term thinking, because the opposite is true. In the criminal justice system, health services, children services and police services, proper provision of MARAC nationwide will save this and future Governments well over £700 million each year and will save women from what is still the greatest cause of female morbidity—domestic violence. I would be grateful for confirmation from the Minister that the Government will continue the violence against women strategy.

On broader equality matters, noble Lords will recall the excellent debates that we had in this House on the Equality Bill, now the Equality Act. I am grateful for the contribution made by the Minister and I am immensely proud of that Act. It begins with a new duty on public bodies to reduce socio-economic inequalities—a duty that has assumed greater importance in the current economic climate. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that this duty, along with other duties, will be implemented in October. It was good to hear from the noble Baroness that the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference are being acted on.

We on this side of the House, when in government, had a record on the issue of women of which we could be proud. The minimum wage alone pulled hundreds of thousands of low-paid people, many of whom were women, out of poverty wages. We hope that the coalition will continue that approach. Naturally, I welcome the proposed extension of the right to request flexible working.

I regret that I do not have time to focus on issues regarding women in the world, but I am delighted that so many noble Lords—including new noble Lords—have referred to it and have spoken of women and development, women and human rights and women and peace and security. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to questions on these matters, especially those concerning progress towards the millennium development goals. Women throughout the world bear the burden of poverty, so the achievement of the MDGs, especially those relating to the education of girls and maternal health, will do much to alleviate that burden.

Christabel Pankhurst said:

“What we suffragettes aspire to be when we are enfranchised is ambassadors of freedom to women in other parts of the world who are not so free as we are”.

As noble Lords have said, suffragettes were brave women who fought for the vote. It was a struggle, but they achieved it and we celebrate that. Today we celebrate women’s contribution to and participation in democracy and the role of this House in our parliamentary system. We are ambassadors of freedom and we must continue in that role until there is no more stoning and no more trafficking and until women enjoy the freedom of human and democratic rights wherever they live in the world. We want the Government to support women properly in this country and through our international development work and our foreign policy. We urge the Government to continue to adopt policies that will do so and, as a responsible Opposition, we will keep the Government under scrutiny on women’s issues to ensure that they do.

20:57

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I have to respond to so many speakers and so many maiden speeches that I will ask for forgiveness in the beginning if I do not answer all the questions but write to noble Lords.

As I said in my opening remarks, the new coalition Government recognise the importance of tackling gender inequality, not only for women and their rights but for the long-term economic growth, development, stability and strength of countries across the world. We are committed to taking action to improve the lives of women and to creating an environment that works with women and not against them. We want to support women in all their roles, in whatever paths they choose or take, whether it is help for vulnerable women, supporting working women, ensuring choice for families or raising the aspirations of women, here in the UK or abroad. We will use legislation where necessary to encourage and bring about change. Above all, it is about providing choice and creating a cultural change, the kind of environment which lends itself to change organically.

On behalf of your Lordships’ House, I congratulate those noble Lords who made their maiden speeches today. I will respond to them first. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, treated this House to an excellent speech. It was no less than I expected of her, and her skills from the House of Commons have transferred over here. I am sure her contribution will ensure that the important work the House of Lords carries out reaches all the corners of our great nation, because noble Lords in this House are often missed when we are responding to important legislation from the other place.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, in his excellent and eloquent speech raised many facts that no one could disagree with and I look forward to many more thoughtful contributions from him. He has made me seriously rethink the fears women feel on public transport. Perhaps I am inclined not to be fearful since travelling on the Tube late at night has not worried me, but I can imagine that it must worry some. The noble Lord also raised flexible working. We are mindful that we need to ensure that flexible working becomes a commonality among businesses and we are working with employers to ensure that all businesses incorporate flexibility in their working practices.

My noble friend Lady Parminter raised some important issues in her maiden contribution about representation. I agree that it is important that we have better representation across all bodies. How we do that is through debate and persuasion. We cannot enforce these changes but we can constantly bring up the subjects and make sure that we have strong women to take on the roles and that we support them in doing so.

My noble friend Lord Deben, I am sure the whole House will agree, made an excellent contribution. He highlighted the important role of women and how they need to be able to choose whether to go out and be part of the workforce or to do the important job of parenting at home. He also raised the question of girls in science. We are committed to increasing the proportion of women in SET sectors and to do this we must look at the subjects girls take at school. It is vital to the economy that girls are part and parcel of the science sectors.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made an illuminating speech. I agree with her that we need to encourage and ensure that educational opportunities are available to everyone. As someone who was refused the opportunity to go to university, I have battled within my own community to ensure that those opportunities have been available to many more young girls from the sub-Asian continent. There is still a big battle to fight but it is the way forward. We must ensure not only that we get girls to go to university but that the quality of education they receive is excellent.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, spoke extensively in her excellent speech about the challenges and obstacles facing women in the workplace. As someone who has been a long-standing campaigner in this area, her contribution was poignant and highlighted how much needs to be done. I hope I conveyed to her in my opening speech the Government’s commitment to tearing down the barriers that working women face and to providing them with more flexibility and choice.

I would like to use this opportunity to raise an additional point about female entrepreneurship. It is a key example of where we must do more to tap and release the potential we have among so many women here in the UK. The Minister for Women and Equalities and the Secretary of State for Business are committed to this area, starting with a coherent and comprehensive strategy led by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, which will consider the best approach to addressing the issues and challenges facing women entrepreneurs.

My noble friend Lord Black raised in his most eloquent maiden speech the role of older women. While I shall touch on the pensions issues raised in the debate, the matters raised by him are a whole debate for another day. However, we must recognise the value of the role that older women continue to play within our communities and society. I am grateful for having been given the opportunity to underline that.

I hope that changes that we are making to the pension system, to deliver improved outcomes for women, will make a difference. I assure my noble friend that we are looking into how we can address the persistent inequalities faced by older women as we take forward a simpler system of financial support. We want to start by providing a more secure foundation from the state from which people can save for their retirement.

It is not only pensions that we have to reform when it comes to older women. Today, changes in the demographics of our society mean that older women’s caring responsibilities are stretched even further. For example, a woman in her 50s could be looking after one generation—sometimes two—above her and two below her. That is a caring role which was unthinkable in the not-too-distant past. The need to be better supported in these demanding roles is paramount. Public policy needs to reflect the changed expectations particularly of older women. Our commitment to extend the right to request flexible working to all will enable those grandparents who support their families more flexibility in the workplace. In the forthcoming months, we will look more closely at what more we can do to support them.

Families of course come in all shapes and sizes. It is vital that we take action to support families who have got into difficulties. It is important to enable parents to get back on track, help children and protect families in the neighbourhood.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, spoke about the various challenges surrounding women offenders. I hope that I am able to give her some comfort. Before doing so, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, on her far-ranging and thoughtful review of rape reporting. I hope that she was encouraged by the comments that I made earlier. The work done by many voluntary sector organisations to tackle sexual violence is fabulous. However, we work in constrained times, and I am sure that she accepts that we will have to make some difficult choices.

Around 66 per cent of women in prison have dependent children under 18. We know that children whose parents offend are three times more likely to have mental health problems or engage in anti-social behaviour than their peers. We must ensure, for the sake of their children as well as themselves, that women who offend are successfully rehabilitated, whether they serve sentences in custody or in the community, tackling issues such as drug and alcohol addiction, education, poor self-esteem and long histories of abuse. Our approach is to ensure a network of effective community provision, offering robust community options to the courts for women who do not pose a risk of harm to the community. The aim is to meet the distinct and complex needs of women, recognising that women offenders are often victims themselves. We hope that such an approach will reduce the need for custody and the numbers of mothers separated from their children as a result of their offending.

I should like briefly to respond to the comments of my noble friend Lady Walmsley on sex and relationship education. I agree with her that, in an age when opportunities for young women are greater than ever before and the methods of preventing pregnancy are safe, effective and socially accepted, it is wholly unacceptable that we have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy in Europe. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he believes that it is vital that all children have high-quality sex and relationship education in order that they are confident to make the right decisions at all stages in their lives. However, I believe that this is not just an area for schools, but one that must be approached in partnership with the family unit. Of course, careers advice and choices are key to raising aspirations.

Many noble Lords today spoke about the persistence of various forms of violence against women. The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, as always, made a most moving contribution on the practice of female genital mutilation. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, explained vividly how young girls are disappearing from our schools—whisked abroad and forced into marriages against their will. She also addressed the horrors of human trafficking—an issue of particular concern as we approach the Olympics, which will be a magnet for people traffickers.

The Home Secretary made it clear in a speech to Women’s Aid last week that the Government’s ambition is nothing less than ending all forms of violence against women and girls. We will be producing a new strategy on violence against women, which will focus not only on the criminal justice system’s response to these crimes, but will deal with those two vital elements— prevention and service provision for victims. We will also ensure that our work is joined up across government and all our key partners by working with teachers, the police and healthcare professionals, and of course the voluntary sector.

In many ways, women’s voluntary organisations are models of the big society that we wish to build. They are able to deliver services to sections of the population that government always find hard to reach. A particularly exciting development is the Prime Minister’s announcement on Monday of the creation of a Big Society Bank. This will be financed by using dormant bank and building society money. It will make available hundreds of millions of pounds of new finance to some very dynamic and knowledgeable social organisations, including those in the women’s sector. It will take us away from a situation where the previous Government were pouring money into wasteful, top-down government schemes to programmes where we make a practical difference—where we can change the lives of women who need it most.

I thank my noble friends who spoke about the plight of women in developing countries. Their contributions highlighted the pervasiveness of gender inequality in some parts of the world—where the life of a girl from the womb to adulthood can be burdened with neglect, disadvantage and exploitation. My noble friend Lady Seccombe made important points about ensuring that girls have access to education in Africa and south Asia. Let us not forget those who have been left widowed—millions of mothers, old and young, some still children themselves, who are usually among the poorest, most oppressed, violated and invisible individuals in the world. Often this group of women and young girls does not feature in any programme or plan.

Without really pursuing gender equality, the millennium development goals will not be achieved. In my opening speech, I said that while the Government have ring-fenced the aid budget, we must ensure that they fund projects that produce both value for money and visible outcomes—projects which produce meaningful results. The evidence tells us that investing in women and girls makes good economic sense and can contribute significantly to economic growth and to strengthening accountable governance. We as a Government are determined to put women at the centre of our approach to development.

As I outlined in my opening speech, the Government have just made significant contributions to the Muskoka maternal and child health initiative which will help to save an extra 1.4 million lives of mothers and children over the next five years. The cold hard facts remind us just how important this particular issue is. When a jumbo jet crashes anywhere in the world it makes the headlines. If it were to crash week in week out in the same place, not a person alive would not be talking about it. The international community would set up an inquiry and no money would be spared in making sure that it never happened again. Yet, in Nigeria, the equivalent number of women die each and every week from pregnancy-related causes, and the world stands silent. Research by DfID tells us that if a mother dies in childbirth, there is a high chance that her child will die within a few months too. In the 21st century, where we have the means and the technology to prevent maternal mortality, that is unacceptable.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, asked about the future of the Women’s National Commission. We value the work of the commission. The Government’s review of all public bodies is an opportunity to reflect on the long history of the Women’s National Commission since its inception 40 years ago and how we can build on that success. She also asked what plans we have to retain women’s centres and funding for them. Over £10 million has been provided by the Ministry of Justice until 2011 to establish voluntary sector providers to develop effective community-based alternatives to custody.

The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, asked about our plans on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. The UK tri-departmental—the FCO, DfID and MoD—action plan on Resolution 1325 provides the framework for our activity in diplomatic, defence and developmental spheres. It is currently being updated in consultation with civil society. She also asked what we will do to promote the eradication of corruption in Afghanistan. I thank her for highlighting the importance of supporting education for girls in Afghanistan and the need to work with the local community in delivering those benefits. Unless we work with local communities, we will find it very difficult for them to respond positively.

The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwin, asked whether I would be happy to meet with the organisations of which she speaks. I would be very happy to meet with them. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said that the key priority was to ensure that women were at the centre of our aid activity. I reassure him that they are. I am very pleased to be in departments where I am able to ensure that that agenda is followed positively. He also asked how we encourage more women into employment. It is about being able to raise the expectation, aspiration and ambition of women. That comes from a very early age, whether in this country or across the world. It is also about being able to change mindsets positively.

My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes has the experience and the wisdom of both Houses. I will look to talk to her about widening my knowledge of how we ensure that women who stay at home and women who go out to work are dealt equal respect in society. It is crucial that we do not undervalue or undermine the important role that mothers at home play.

I agree very much with what the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Scott, said about better representation. We have a long way to go. There is a lot of work to be done. I am sure that, with the presence of both noble Baronesses, we will be able to take that agenda forward. I continue to work in battling with the discriminations that we face within minority communities.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, raised the plight of women suffering violence. It is at the centre of our priorities. We will ensure that, whatever we do, the outcomes for women will be the focus and centre of all that we try to achieve. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, who is not in her place, raised similar issues.

I am desperately running out of time. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, raised the important issue of people wanting to rehabilitate and to come away from what they have done in the past. It is important that we support them in whatever way we can. The big society is part and parcel of that agenda. We want to empower organisations locally to bring forward that agenda.

My noble friend Lord Bridgeman talked about the importance of maternal health in African countries, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, whose reputation for raising these issues is paramount. I know that she knows that I fully support much of the work that she does. However, we are in difficult times. We will have to reassess and review and then go forward with deciding where we can support the organisations of which she speaks so highly, which will need support even more in these difficult times.

My noble friend Lord Parekh will, I am sure, be pleased to know that we are probably in agreement on at least six of the points that he raised, but there is plenty of work to be done and I look forward to his contribution in future debates.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, within the coalition we agree that there is a commitment to crack down on irresponsible marketing and advertising, especially among children’s magazines, about body image. It is a crucial debate, but one for another day—one completely dedicated to body image.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Smith will feel reassured that we will look at evidence at how to make public and private bodies better represented.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will forgive me but I have run out of time. I shall write to her because she raised many questions and it will take me a long time to respond to them.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 9.21 pm.