Grand Committee
Pensions Bill [HL]
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes)
My Lords, although it seems highly unlikely this afternoon, I am obliged to remind your Lordships that, should there be a Division in the Chamber, we will adjourn immediately the Division bells ring and resume after 10 minutes.
Amendment 16
“Voluntary enrolment and employer contribution
After section 9(2) of the 2008 Act (duties to workers without qualifying earnings) insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that any employer to whom subsection (2) applies shall be under a duty to pay contributions in respect of the jobholder equal to or more than 3% of the amount of the jobholder’s total earnings in the relevant pay reference period.””
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, this amendment is about voluntary earnings. Who do we think NEST is for? It is basically for poorer people, mostly women, who are not able to save in conventional ways and have hitherto had no access to an occupational pension. The other two members of the Paul Johnson review team that produced the report Making Automatic Enrolment Work are very experienced people, but they come from the industry and employment side. Their report recommends that auto-enrolment begins not at the LEL of £5,204 but at the earnings threshold of just under £7,500. This means that 1 million people, mostly women, who would have been automatically enrolled will now not be. The expectation is that ET will rise potentially to £10,000, at which point 2 million people, mostly women, will not be automatically enrolled.
The report runs two arguments in favour of raising the threshold. I think that both of them are fallacious. The first argument that the report runs is that—it is, of course, true—very low earners have high replacement rates in retirement through benefits and so on, so that NEST is not necessary, unlike for higher earners, for whom state benefits by definition represent a lower replacement rate and who might therefore wish to take advantage of NEST. The second argument that the report runs—as you would expect from the industry—is that they do not want to handle such small sums. That is the basis of their argument and the Government have followed their advice.
The first of these is about replacement earnings. It is, of course, true that, if you have a low enough income from earned work, even the basic state pension backed by pension credit will come to much the same level as your wage and therefore you will have a high replacement rate. The statistics and percentages on this are all very well, but these women are still very poor. That is why their state benefits in retirement will perhaps just about equal their wage. They are still very poor, whether in work or in retirement.
A pension, however small, even if it is below the trivial commutation level, which it probably will be, gives the woman, through pension savings, a two for one to match her own—because she attracts the employer’s contribution and, to a minor degree, the tax relief, depending on where she is earning—which, perhaps for the first time, might allow her to retire with a small capital sum below the trigger commutation rate of perhaps £10,000 or £15,000, depending on how long she has saved.
I do not accept this argument. It is right that there are high replacement earnings in retirement, if you have a very low wage. However, that means that—this is the key fact behind it—both in work and in retirement you are likely be very poor indeed. This is why we need an option for NEST.
The industry’s second argument, which I also think is fallacious, although I understand it, is that employers do not want the hassle of handling small sums that, they say, would not be worth much to the employee once the means-tested benefits come into play. However, there is a profound flaw in their argument here, too.
The reason why the sums are small is that, wherever you set the auto-enrolment start line, whether it is LEL at £5,200 or ET at £7,400, the first £1,000 or £2,000 of earnings above any line that you set will by definition produce only a very modest increment in pension. That would be true whether you were on £10,000, £15,000, £20,000 or £22,000. The first £2,000 produces little additional revenue. That is why, while the argument is true that you might as well put it up to £7,500 because the difference between £5,200 and £7,500 is tiny, it is also the case for the first £2,000 of earnings above £7,500. It is true for wherever you set the threshold, so it does not apply to the figure of £5,200 as such; it applies to the fact that you have a threshold at all, which is not based on the first zero pound.
The whole of the report is fallacious, in so far as it hinges on that argument. Otherwise, if the woman is auto-enrolled at £5,200 with earnings of £7,400, her pot over 25 years, I estimate, with a levy on the £2,000 increment, will be about £10,000 greater than if she was enrolled at £7,400. But if she is enrolled at £7,400, and has earnings of £2,000 above that—say £9,400 or £9,500—she will still have the same size pot on the first £2,000 or so of income, give or take £100 or £200.
The additional pot argument, in other words, applies wherever you pitch the threshold—unless, of course, you are up in the £30,000 or £40,000 region, where by definition you have a much higher increment. Therefore, the argument that the pots are too small to be worth bothering about either is valid for wherever you set the threshold for low earners or is not valid at all. The problem is not whether it starts at the LEL of £5,200 or at the ET at £7,400; it is that it does not cover the earnings below the threshold—the first £5,200 or £7,400. Auto-enrolment on those would make the difference that matters. That is what this amendment is about.
I am pleased that the Government have agreed that, following the Johnson report, wherever a woman wishes voluntarily to enrol between the LEL of £5,200 and the ET at £7,500, the employer must contribute. As I have suggested, although that is useful, it is not enough to make a really significant difference unless it is extended to embrace the whole of the earnings from pound zero.
My amendment adduces no new principle. The Government have already agreed—unless they have changed their mind and I have not picked that up—that young people below the age of 22 can voluntarily enrol. I welcome this. The Government have also agreed—I also welcome this as a concession following the report—that low earners earning between LEL and ET can also voluntarily enrol before they hit the auto-enrolment figure of £7,500. This amendment would allow the earner voluntarily to enrol on all her earnings from pound zero, provided that she was at or above the threshold—a threshold that I would like to be the LEL for the sake of consistency.
Therefore, no new principle is involved in this amendment. It would merely bring into NEST those employees who, if they were in a standard occupational pension, would have their earnings covered from pound zero. It would merely align NEST with best practice already in occupational pension schemes—nothing new or novel. Only NEST has the LEL threshold for voluntary entry at £5,200 and ET at £7,500 for auto-entry.
What does all this mean? Take a woman on half average earnings—say £11,000 a year. Only in NEST would a third of her earnings, between £7,500 and £11,000, be automatically pensioned. If she were in an OP, her entire earnings would be automatically pensioned. I emphasise that it would be voluntary for her to make the choice as to whether she welcomes and wants this form of savings going back to pound zero, given her family circumstances.
Why is it necessary? Some 40 per cent of women at retirement may not be married; they may be cohabiting and they may or may not be financially interdependent with their partner. As a result, they need to carry their own pension. I am sure that the Minister and everyone in this Room would agree with me on that. As it stands, only a third of her income would be automatically pensioned. Should ET rise to £10,000 and she is on earnings of £11,000, almost none of her earnings—a paltry £1,000—would be pensioned unless she chose voluntarily to go back down to the LEL. Not surprisingly, this would result in the small sums which the industry finds a hassle and the employee finds disappointing and which trap employees into benefit tapers.
I will repeat the statistics that I offered at Second Reading. Under these proposals, a woman has the right to enrol voluntarily below the LEL, so a woman on £11,000 after 25 years who voluntarily saved on all her earnings could end up with a pension pot of £40,000 over 25 years. If she relied on auto-enrolment and it were to kick in with an ET of £10,000, which is what the Pensions Minister, the honourable Steve Webb, is promising us, she would retire with a pot of virtually nothing. So the difference is between £40,000 or £1,000 or £2,000.
This amendment adduces no new principle. It is about voluntary enrolment in which the employer must contribute. That principle has already been established for young people and for the gap between LEL and ET. There would be no additional small pots. On the contrary, it could well double the pots and more, to the gain of all parties concerned, and make it worth saving, which is what we all want. I beg to move.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, to my mind there are two reasons why Amendment 16, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hollis, is attractive. First, it would enable people outside the lower limit on the band of earnings who want to save to be able to. Those of us who followed the debate know that a reason for the lower limit on the band of earnings, as distinct from the earnings trigger that is now proposed, was the consideration of the persistently very low-paid workers and whether it was appropriate for them to be nudged. However, as my noble friend said, this amendment is not auto-enrolling. It allows for the active choice of the worker—an active decision of someone on low earnings for a particular job. If they choose positively to make that decision, there seems to be a good and fair reason for the employer to make a matching contribution of 3 per cent, particularly because their incomes are low. The individual would still be a worker and the 3 per cent employer contribution would also assist with the arguments about de minimis levels of contribution and the consequential impact on costs and charges.
My second reason for finding this amendment attractive is that it extends the principle that the reforms should work for women because, although women are most likely to have earnings below the qualifying band, their household income may be such that they still want to make a pension contribution. That is very important. I declare an interest because of my involvement with NEST. NEST is designed to allow someone voluntarily to contribute once they have a NEST account, although I acknowledge that there are de minimis requirements because of the need to keep costs and charges low. However, I am sure that in most instances the combination of the employer contribution and the employee contribution would go above those de minimis requirements. It could also start to address the multi-job problem where women have several mini-jobs, because individual contributions per job look low but in aggregate could be much greater. Although I fear that many women in such mini-jobs will not have the confidence to overcome the barriers of inertia and voluntarily opt in—their needs will require more systemic change, as we discussed yesterday—none the less there will be women who will want to make the active choice and who will be in circumstances where that makes economic sense and where it will assist the asset accumulation for a pension in their own name. So the proposal certainly has attractions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment. I have listened to the debate with great interest. Workers on low earnings do not qualify for automatic enrolment. They have the right to opt into pension saving but do not qualify by right to an employer contribution. The amendment seeks to ensure that these low earners receive a contribution to workplace pension saving from their employer if they choose to opt into pension saving.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, may have intended us to focus on NEST, but it is worth being aware that other schemes may have earnings thresholds in their rules. Therefore, we have looked at the issue from the perspective of low earners and contributions from pound one, irrespective of which scheme their employers choose.
Persistent low earners get a high replacement rate from the state without private pension saving, so for these individuals it is questionable whether it is beneficial to redirect money into private saving. For some very low earners who are not accruing a state pension, it may be beneficial to opt into pension saving. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave an example of women in households where there were other earnings. This was an important point brought out in the Johnson review.
During our previous deliberations, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, also brought to your Lordships’ attention the importance of adding to household saving. However, in practice, it is very hard to distinguish a clearly identifiable group of workers without qualifying earnings who would benefit from opting into pension saving. An employer contribution is an incentive to save, so it follows that for very low earners an employer contribution may be an incentive to opt in. We do not believe that it is right to encourage opting in for the very few low earners who may benefit from saving at the risk of penalising the many low earners who will not benefit from opting in. We also need to be conscious of the potential impact on employers.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I do not understand the point that the noble Lord has just made. Why would it penalise other low earners who do not opt in?
Lord Freud
I shall come to that question. There are around 1 million workers with annual earnings below £5,715. If these people were brought into pension saving, it could result in further employer contribution costs of up to £125 million.
There is another issue that makes me urge caution on this amendment, although I appreciate that its intention is laudable. We cannot legislate to discriminate unreasonably between different groups. This proposal could well involve such discrimination because those who earn less than £5,000 would have an employer contribution on their full earnings if they opted in. However, those who earn £8,000 would have a contribution on only £3,000 of their earnings and not on the full £8,000—I am rounding up these figures. If we did it for the lowest paid, we would have to do it for everyone, which would mean extending the requirement on employers to pay a contribution on the first £5,715 to everyone in pension saving. In effect, that would be the equivalent of removing the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band, which would be unaffordable.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I obviously did not make myself clear. I said that there would need to be a threshold so that the ability to cover the first pound would apply only to those who are already over the threshold of, I hope, LEL and could even be at ET. In other words, if you are earning only £4,000 there is no suggestion that that would bring you into NEST, as the Minister appeared to think the amendment suggested. If that is what the words say, I apologise because that is due to my drafting. However, I had hoped that I had made the position clear in my opening speech.
Lord Freud
I am now slightly mystified by the intention of the amendment. I understood that it allowed an opt-in at any level. Perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify the position.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
No. I apologise. It says that at the moment you are automatically enrolled at £7,500 and can opt in from £5,200 if your earnings are between those two figures. I suggest that the same opt-in right should apply to pound zero, but only if you are already at the threshold. In other words, if you are on £4,000 or £3,000, you would have no right to make a pension contribution, but if you are on anything above £5,200—certainly above £7,500—you can make contributions voluntarily not only on the band between £5,200 and £7,500 but on the band £0 to £7,500.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. My point of concern remains unchanged: if we allow that to happen for this particular group, we must expand it and allow everyone to make a pound one contribution. I therefore do not think that it changes the argument and the concern about the extra costs implied, which could be around £900 million of additional contributions—around one-quarter of the total cost—and represent an unacceptable burden on employers. It would also skew the structure of the reforms that are designed to enable a median earner with solid state entitlement to achieve a retirement income of around 45 per cent in line with the pension commission’s recommendation. The Johnson review endorsed that original recommendation. As the noble Baroness said, I am not putting any weight on the small sums argument—that is not part of this argument. On her point about the move of the threshold up to £10,000, we will debate that later. Clearly, I am sympathetic to the drive behind this proposal. The Government are always willing to consider ideas that will allow us to keep the appropriate balance and maintain our key policy intentions. However, we are unable to accept this amendment and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lady Drake on this and for the thoughtfulness of the Minister’s answer. I suspect that, possibly because of my drafting, there is a misunderstanding. I had hoped that I had made it clear in my opening speech—obviously I failed to do so—that we were talking about the situation where, if someone was required to enrol through auto-enrolment but had the voluntary right to go back to £5,200, they would also have the voluntary right to go back to pound zero. It is as simple as that. At that point, it seems to me, the Minister’s statistics of £900 million apply to the very different scenario of someone earning £2,000, £3,000 or £4,000 who could voluntarily enrol. That never was, and never has been, my argument. It has always been that those already in the system should be able to cover the first pound.
Lord Freud
I want to make this absolutely clear. Our concern here is about the discrimination that would otherwise come up. We cannot just leave pound one for one group; we would have to extend it to everyone. That is why the costs would balloon from this. It is not possible to maintain a narrow right for one group; we would have to extend it. That is one of the reasons for our concern.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am simply not persuaded by this. Is the Minister saying that because the very poorest—those earning less than, say, £5,000 a year—could not come within the system, those above the LEL should not be able to go back to zero? I think it likely that the poorest might have a couple of mini-jobs or whatever and might well not qualify because they are below the LEL. The Minister would not dream of applying that argument to the national insurance system, the whole of which is based on a lower earnings limit. You are automatically brought into the NI system, building up your entitlement to the basic state pension, but you do not start to pay your NICs until you hit the £7,500 ET. That argument is the basis of the basic state pension. I have not heard the Minister say that this is unfair because someone earning £3,000 or £4,000, who is therefore below the LEL, cannot earn their way into the national insurance system. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on this.
What the Minister is saying is impossible here, because it is unfair, is at the very basis of the national insurance system for the whole of our population. If it is good enough for NICs, it is certainly good enough for NEST. I am sorry, but I do not accept the noble Lord’s argument. In practical reality, I doubt that someone on £3,000 or £4,000 would want to save, although I suppose that it is possible, as my noble friend said, because of her household circumstances rather than her own. What I am trying to do is to make available to those people in NEST the best practice for most pension schemes. That is, you can save from pound zero once you are over the earnings threshold—the LEL. Once that happens, you then end up, by choice, with a pot that is worth having. To say that it is unfair cannot be the case unless the Minister also accepts that the whole of the national insurance system is unfair. I am sure that he would not wish to go on record as saying that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Right to apply for amalgamation of earnings from multiple sources of employment for purposes of the earnings trigger
(1) A jobholder who in any week in a tax year is employed in more than one employment and—
(a) whose earnings do not exceed the weekly earnings trigger in any individual employment or self-employment in that week; and(b) whose earnings in aggregate reach or exceed the earnings trigger in any week,shall be deemed to have earnings equivalent to or exceeding the earnings trigger for the purposes of requesting voluntary enrolment into national employee savings trusts.”
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I will be brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, noticed, very perceptively, this is a shadow repeat of the arguments on mini-jobs for the basic state pension. I do not adduce new arguments for it; it is basically a duplicate of Amendment 13. Multiple mini-jobs that, bundled together, take a woman over the LEL should be eligible not just for entry into the basic state pension, as we argued on Amendment 13. We had some encouraging but cautious—I think that was the word we agreed to use—comments from the Minister on that, which were also in the reply to NEST. The same arguments run. The DWP or HMRC will, for universal credit purposes, need the relevant information from all the employers of a woman who has mini-jobs. Just as they will deduct any or no NICs, or a proportion thereof, they could—in exactly the same way—deduct for NEST.
I accept that it will be more complicated for contributions to the state pension, since women will be credited into the BSP between the LEL and the ET. Whether her portfolio of mini-jobs took her above the LEL, or even above the ET, she would herself have to contribute finance. In a sense, this puts down a marker. It is important that we do so if we can at this stage. NEST is due to be reviewed in 2017—five and a half years from now. I accept the cautious arguments that were advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, on Tuesday that any such changes—even for the BSP, which is a simpler proposition—would have to await the introduction of universal credit in 2013. It would also be a possibility with no guarantee until the stability of the ICT system is secured and real-time information can flow in from employers.
As I say, I want to put down a marker on this for 2017, by which time both UC and NEST should be secure. We will know, I hope, that we have done this successfully with BSP by then—indeed, I hope that it will apply to BSP by 2017. I believe that, on the basis of that, we could build a similar proposition in relation to NEST. If we are serious about bringing as many women as possible into the pensions system, we should review this, certainly by 2017 at the latest. I seek the Minister’s views on this, even at this early stage. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 20 and 21 in this group, which concern the trigger. Their thrust is not dissimilar to that of the amendment moved by my noble friend, although they are perhaps less ambitious. We will shortly discuss changes to or, indeed, the deletion of the trigger, but these amendments are predicated on the trigger remaining at its current level.
Amendment 21 would give an opportunity for jobholders to bring to the attention of employers the fact that by including earnings from other employments the trigger is reached or exceeded. Therefore, if the other conditions for auto-enrolment were present, the employer would have a duty to act accordingly. I underline how modest this provision is, as it is effectively an alternative to opting in. The employer would have no auto-enrolment duty unless, among other things, the employee had qualifying earnings in respect of that particular employment. It would be of advantage only where, in respect of any particular employer, the trigger had not been reached but qualifying earnings with that employer had. As has been expressed—my noble friend Lady Drake will develop this when we discuss a subsequent group of amendments—we have concerns about the potential widening gap between the trigger and the start of the band of qualifying earnings. If that is right, being able to access contributions on that band, even though the trigger has not been met in respect of any employment, becomes more important.
Like the amendment moved by my noble friend, this amendment is in part about putting down a marker for the ambition that, at some stage in the future, the various thresholds—the trigger and the qualifying earnings—might be amalgamated with payments allocated among two or more employers, but this amendment does not seek that. However, we would be interested in the Minister’s view on the extent to which HMRC might routinely have a role in identifying where the trigger is reached for multiple earnings. In a sense, it is like the allocation of personal allowances across various notices of coding. Could that be done on a more systematic basis? The noble Lord’s work on the universal credit seems predicated on amalgamating on a real-time basis income from a range of sources, so we wonder whether there is a read-across to auto-enrolment. If there were, it would address the inertia issue that is present in the formulation of this amendment and the equivalent opt-in route.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis is, as I said, pretty much on the same page, although I understand that it is not necessary for the earnings trigger to be reached for a jobholder to opt in. The right exists if the employee has qualifying earnings, but it would not allow the employee to specify a particular scheme, be it NEST or any other scheme. I think that that would be the employer’s choice, although the Minister may be able to enlarge on that. By and large, however, we are seeking to achieve the same thing. The prize for and the challenge to the Minister is to see, consistent with confidentiality of information, whether the systems that enable some more automatic notifications in some circumstances can be deployed where the trigger is in aggregate reached but not in any one employment.
Lord Freud
My Lords, on Tuesday we discussed the possible aggregation of many jobs for credit towards the basic state pension. I admit to being indebted to the ever persuasive arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the effect of portfolios of many jobs, especially in rural communities, and her concern that as many low earners as possible should be able to qualify for auto-enrolment and an employer contribution.
I also note the wise cautions of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on Tuesday about the potential effect on employers—where aggregation is mooted—and on the labour market. As I said on Tuesday, I am sympathetic to the principle of aggregation for basic state pension purposes. I am cautious but optimistic that this could be possible in the new world of the universal credit. This is because, if Government systems can track information for universal credit, it may not be a huge leap from there to having national insurance contributions or making credits on a state pension record. However, we are now about to discuss a somewhat different issue—that of the aggregation of earnings from many jobs in relation to auto-enrolment into workplace pensions. I need to emphasise again that it is important to encourage part-time jobs and to look for a way of aggregation. However, there are greater barriers in this area than there are in the area of the state pension in terms of aggregation. That it is more complicated was stated by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in her speech.
The main and unique barrier is a need not only to aggregate earnings across employers but also to apportion pension contributions between those different employers. This is quite a problem in terms of employer burden cost and complexity, which we would need to find a way to resolve. The automatic enrolment duty falls on each employer for the people they employ. There is no sharing of the duty between employers. If a person has two jobs, each of their employers is responsible for enrolling them as the legislation is presently set up. Workers who do not earn enough to qualify for automatic enrolment clearly may opt in. Those who have the qualifying earnings have the right to employer contributions, which is ground we went over just now.
The first amendment raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, seeks to increase voluntary pensions saving for people who do not earn enough to be automatically enrolled by enabling the aggregation of the many jobs and any earnings from self-employment for a person who also works on their own account. This would allow people who earn under the automatic enrolment earnings trigger, and opt in, to have their earnings for more than one job taken into account for calculating pension contributions. This looks like a straightforward proposal. However, there are considerable practical problems that would, in practice, increase employer administration burden.
Let me turn to the two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, which seek to enable aggregation by solving one of these practical difficulties about information sharing between employers. These amendments enable earnings from separate jobs for separate employers to be added together where the person can demonstrate to the employer that they have another job with other earnings in that week or month and that they are therefore entitled to be auto-enrolled. This is a very neat amendment that shifts the burden of proof from the employer. However, it is not quite as modest as the noble Lord suggested because it does not entirely solve the issue of the employer administration burden.
It is not immediately obvious how the employer contribution could be easily calculated or divided up. No mechanism currently exists to do that. Would multi-employers share the cost of the employer contribution? If so, how would that be done? Which employer takes responsibility for paying contributions to the pension scheme? If they share the cost, how would one employer recover the cost from the other employer? If they do not share the cost, is it fair that one employer bears the entire cost and the other none of it? Overall, we cannot see how it could be done without placing a significant and unfair burden on employers. I sympathise with the intention behind these amendments in terms of those with multiple jobs, and it is certainly an issue to keep an eye on as we go forward. It clearly—and noble Lords all acknowledge this—is not feasible with our present technology; but even if it became feasible, which it very well may, moving the burden of proof on to the worker is not the way to do it.
Standing back just a little, our first priority at this point must be to ensure that employers understand, and are able successfully to implement, their duties under automatic enrolment. That is the priority. This is not the right point to contemplate introducing significant changes to those duties, and I think noble Lords today recognise that. Introducing new and significant burdens would disrupt that process. However, noble Lords have successfully put down a marker for 2017. On that basis, we do not accept the amendment and invite noble Lords to withdraw it.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I wonder whether I might make my contribution before the Opposition spokesman. First, I apologise to the Committee for having been late; my excuse is probably the best I have ever been able to tender, because I have just been attending a meeting of pension trustees.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
Well, they are, and it is the Conservative Party agents’ superannuation scheme, but I promise not to detain the Committee on that. I hope I would have given the same attention to anyone else with whom I was in a trustee relationship.
May I just make two points? I fully understand that the Minister was kind enough to quote my slight reservation in our earlier exchanges on related matters. The first is a note of concern: it would certainly be unfortunate if one employer were somehow to be delinquent because of the failure of another employer to declare, which had created excess over the qualifying limit. I just make that point; I am sure my noble friend will have it in mind.
The second point is intended to be more positive and it might help to inform trains of thought. One always has to be careful about these sorts of things, not least for data protection reasons. I happened yesterday to have gone to a completely unrelated meeting in this building about occupational health, which is an interest of mine. We were looking at the new construction workers’ smart card scheme. Of course, once there is something that is able to identify the individual with known characteristics—dates of birth, for example, or presumably one could incorporate an NI number—and that is portable, it is possible for that to be tendered, or even required to be tendered, through various places of work. It might be possible to aggregate electronically in that way. I just offer that to my noble friend as a way forward. I am pleased to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, also nodding; at least it is a thought. We always have to be careful with these things, because there will be some people on manual, some people who do not understand and minority interests and industries. But if we can possibly start working toward some sensible protocols people could use, it would be generally beneficial.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I wonder whether the Minister would allow me to intervene, because he challenged the description I gave of my amendment as being modest. He may have misunderstood the intent of part of it. All it was seeking to do initially was to say that if someone had qualifying earnings, with a particular employer, but not earnings that reached the trigger, and if there were a process of the employer being made aware that the trigger had been reached, the employer would automatically enrol and be responsible for contributions in respect of the earnings in that employment between the start of the qualifying earnings band and whatever that band reached. That would in a sense be stand alone for an employer. That gives exactly the same result as employees now have in being able to opt in, because if you have earnings above the threshold, but not at the trigger, you can simply opt in and get the employer contribution.
Along the way, the hope would be that, rather than relying on the activity of the employee—because we are always trying to deal with the inertia problem—you could somehow make it more automatic. It would be automatic, though, only in the sense of the employer being aware that the trigger had been reached. It would not require any aggregation of earnings by any employer. I instance how HMRC deals with notices of coding. If people have two or more jobs, on one basis or another the personal allowance is divvied up across their notices of coding—don’t ask me how. In a sense, an employer would be aware that other earnings may be involved. That sort of process could be a trigger for automatically alerting the employer that the trigger had been reached and simply then requiring them to deal with auto-enrolment on the earnings that the employee is being paid by that employer. My amendment would do no more than that.
Lord Freud
We are in danger of sitting here devising IT systems, which is great fun but rather time-consuming. The word “awareness” is more than modest, because making people aware in the present IT environment is a substantial requirement due to the privacy around the data concerned. It would not be possible. I come back to my earlier point: in the new world of universal credit, the way in which that information is used will change quite dramatically and things may become possible. However, this is not the way to do it. In the present context, it is practical neither technologically nor politically.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Before I decide what to do with the amendment, which will be fairly predictable, perhaps I may ask the Minister a further question—again, it may reflect my failure to understand either the briefing papers or their import. Let me give him the example of a woman in a job where she earns more than £7,500—let us say £7,600—and is automatically enrolled. What would be her situation if she had a second job which gave her £6,000 a year, taking her above the LEL but below the ET, and she might or might not wish to enrol? Alternatively, she might have a second job which paid £4,000; that is, below the LEL. Could the Minister help me on that?
Lord Freud
I shall try to answer that, but I shall keep an ear open to those behind me.
Lord Freud
As I understand the situation, for the job paying £7,600, she would clearly be auto-enrolled. For the job paying £6,000, she would not, but she could opt in—it would be treated separately. For the job paying £4,000, she could opt in if she wanted to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Even though one or two other employers were involved?
Lord Freud
The £7,600 would take her through the threshold. The additional incomes would be treated separately, because we do not aggregate. The £4,000 falls to a level at which she can make a contribution, although she would not get an employer contribution on top. That is how that would work. A thousand examples could be cited, but the basic rules remain.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Would she get an employer contribution on the £6,000?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I would be very happy for the Minister to write to me; I realise that I am throwing this example at him.
Lord Freud
Just to make it absolutely clear: the contribution is made above that trigger.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My noble friend the Minister said that she would have nothing from the employer. I suppose, to be pedantic, that that would be so unless the employer chose to make a contribution, but there would be no obligation on the employer.
Lord Freud
Yes, I can confirm that, although we are going to be giving everyone their pension soon if we carry on giving examples.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
To be clear—again, I am very happy for the noble Lord to write to me, because I realise that I have sprung this on him—I think that he is saying that, if a woman was earning £7,600, she would be automatically enrolled in NEST by her employer. If she had a second job which brought her in £6,000 and she chose to enrol, the employer would match it. So she would be running two NEST pots simultaneously.
Lord Freud
I do not need to write. I can confirm that. It does not have to be NEST. The pensions may or may not be NEST in each case.
Baroness Drake
If it was NEST, it would not be two pots; it would all go into one NEST account. But if the employer choice in each instance was a different pension scheme, by definition there would be two pots. To clarify on the previous debate, my understanding was that those earnings that came within the band—forget all other triggers—attracted an employer contribution. That is the critical thing. To get the employer contribution, the earnings must be in the band. If your earnings are below that band, you can opt in but you cannot trigger the employer contribution.
Lord Freud
That is exactly what I said, so I thank the noble Baroness, who is an expert in this area, for giving me the relief of not making a horrific solecism.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I think that where that takes us is that the woman in question would be getting information and contributions from two employers, in much the same way as would be the case if she were in mini-jobs which, if put together, would take her above the threshold. I accept the Minister’s point that at this moment in time this is a step too far for NEST to carry out. I genuinely understand that. As I say, we are putting down a marker. However, I am not sure that the size of the further step to take is as great as he originally suggested in the light of the exploration that we have had on having two streams of money going into possibly two separate NEST pots, according to whether one is default and the other is not. In order to handle that, we will need the IT on which one could build the push of my original amendment. None the less, this has been an extremely useful debate and I am grateful to the Minister, my noble friend Lady Drake and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for helping to clarify this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Turner is not here but as my amendments, which are grouped with this, would effectively achieve the same thing, perhaps the Committee might allow me to formally move on her behalf, if that is in order. I will also speak to Amendment 19 in this group, which should strictly have had attached to it a current year date of 2010-11, because without that it obviously has other ramifications. All these amendments are, to all intents and purposes, identical, although they have to be considered in the context of the review provisions of Clause 8, which my noble friend Lady Drake will deal with shortly. These amendments would reduce the trigger to the current primary threshold for national insurance purposes, so effectively this equates the trigger with the starting point of qualifying earnings. We consider this the right place to be.
The pensions commission originally recommended that individuals would be automatically enrolled when they had earned, in 2006-07 terms, £5,035, which was the national insurance primary threshold at that time. However, it also recommended that this threshold should be uprated by earnings. Indeed, that is what the legislation said. I remember that when we were debating the Bill, we as a Government tried to get a little bit of wriggle room on that uprating, and a combination of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, led by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pressed an amendment that locked us into what the legislation currently says. They were the early actions of the coalition and I still bear the scars.
One of the lessons learnt is that it is better to insert a figure in the legislation and have rules for reviewing it rather than link the threshold to a particular measure—be it the personal allowance for income tax or the primary threshold for national insurance purposes—the reason being that it can move for policy reasons in a way that does not have any particular regard to the impact on the auto-enrolment analysis. We know that the coalition Government have an ambition to move the personal tax allowance to £10,000. Should a trigger threshold or a qualifying earnings threshold be tied to that, it would have devastating consequences for auto-enrolment. It would leave 1.4 million people, three-quarters of them women, outside auto-enrolment.
Changes to national insurance—part of the coalition Government’s approach to tackling the deficit—mean that the primary threshold increases from April this year, as does the rate, to £7,200, nearly closing the gap with the personal allowance. There have, from time to time, been ambitions to align the personal allowance with the primary threshold. We hold to the view that realigning the start of qualifying earnings with the current primary threshold level, with clear caps on its uprating, is the right place to be. This holds good to the pensions commission analysis that the crucial issue was the level of replacement income in retirement—a point to which the noble Lord referred a moment ago.
In our view, the case for the trigger at £7,475 is not made. On the basis of the Johnson report, it would exclude some 600,000 people from auto-enrolment and would save only some £3 million a year in administration costs for employers. Indeed, one wonders whether it would have some impact on opt-in arrangements, which would be likely to be more costly.
This takes us back to the question of whether people on low earnings benefit from savings, although I believe that the Johnson report dealt with that very clearly. It made the point that earnings are highly dynamic and that relatively few people have low earnings throughout their lives. Also, most of those on low earnings within family units have a working partner with significant earnings and so should benefit from pension savings. There is also the risk of missing out on employer contributions and the favourable interaction with tax credits. Perhaps the noble Lord would comment on that favourable interaction in relation to universal credit.
Given the acceptance of the appropriateness of savings from the start of a band of qualifying earnings, which we can agree for the current year, the argument advanced for a higher trigger is a bit thin. Essentially, it is that it will reduce the number of small pots of pension savings—that is, those that would accrue to people earning between approximately £5,700 and £7,300—because that creates a cliff edge and does not necessarily equate with consistency of savings. In any event, NEST is geared up to deal with just that sort of situation. Therefore, the introduction of a trigger that is different from the start of the qualifying earnings band is something that we strongly oppose.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, we have had a discussion on some of the main reasons for the move in the threshold. We are understanding of that move. There are a number of reasons for it. The documentation that we have received from a number of organisations questions the rate of return on the savings of people at these levels of earnings.
We have heard mention of the replacement-to-income argument. It is almost certainly true that at these levels of earnings a lot of individuals are less prepared to save. Of course, there is also the burden of administration. I take the noble Lord’s arguments on the threshold being linked to the tax threshold. You would expect us to be committed to raising the tax threshold to £10,000. We want neither a deterrent to doing this nor a deterrent to those who are trying to improve their savings and pensions. I hope therefore that we will have a commitment to look at this each year and that it will not be related necessarily to the raising of the tax threshold, as that would take a lot of people out of the net, which is not what we are trying to do.
I accept that there is an increase in these thresholds, but I want to go back. I apologise for repeating some of the earlier arguments, but I want to make the point that there are a number of things that we need to do—or the Government need to look at—which would be helpful to people who could be vulnerable to these changes. I have mentioned the tax threshold and I hope that we will have a firm commitment on that.
Secondly, we will discuss later the pots of savings and what people will be able to do with them. If they can be brought into NEST, and if we can encourage that process, that would be a most helpful change. It would make the overall change more acceptable.
I was very supportive of the arguments on multiple earnings. It is a big issue that will grow. I am pleased that there was a commitment to 2017. We underestimate the number of women in this position and, even though we may not be able to act now, we could be saying that it is an issue that we will try to address as the new system beds in. We also want to see a degree of commitment to encouraging people to stop opting out. We will address that matter in later amendments. In the context of raising the threshold, these are a number of points that we think are important to make that acceptable. I accept that, ultimately, running through this Bill is a trade-off with the Treasury on all kinds of aspects. We must make sure that we get a good trade-off.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
Perhaps I may briefly invite my noble friend to consider one particular point about the raising of the threshold. There is no need for a commitment at this stage, although it has been implied that it will be considered. Can my noble friend give some thought to, and discuss with his Treasury colleagues, the way in which this might be introduced annually into the national consciousness? I hesitate to dangle another red herring before the Committee in the shape of the national minimum wage, on which I have some prior form. However, if we are beginning to look at the impact on labour markets of a number of items, and some of the misguided or inappropriate claims that are made, or the fact that people say, “I don’t think I can afford that anymore and I want to pull out”, it would be useful to have a national economic snapshot. Although this is strictly about the labour market and within the Minister’s remit by definition because he is legislating on it, it is part of a national economic snapshot. Some people may have noticed today in relation to the national minimum wage a suggestion with which I do not agree—that we should announce it and defer it for 12 months. I merely make the point that probably on the occasion of a Budget it would be useful to have an annual appraisal that was keyed in and could be related by the commentators to tax rates, take-home pay and so forth. It would add to clarity and transparency.
Baroness Greengross
At Second Reading, I stressed the point that one good aspect of the trigger was that it would help prevent employees and employers from making very small contributions. This is still an important point.
Lord Freud
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for leaping into the breach and allowing us to have this debate on the issue about the trigger at which an individual is automatically enrolled being reduced. We are looking at the three amendments, together with the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
The reference to the potential move to the tax threshold is a really important issue that deserves a robust debate in its own right. We have an opportunity to debate it in later amendments. Rather than pre-empting that debate—in which I will make a commitment—I turn to the specific proposals in the amendment. We have committed to alignment with next year’s tax threshold of £7,475. This is the right direction of travel. However, we also need to retain flexibility for the future in order that we continue to target the right groups at the right times. I very much take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. There are quite a few issues that have to be looked at in the context of that debate. Let me put that to one side because we will be reverting to it. I apologise for the scars that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, bears. As a result of the level of uncertainty that exists in the structure of the pension system, we look to have rather more freedom of manoeuvre than he was able to enjoy.
This Government have always supported automatic enrolment into workplace pensions. We believe that it is the step change that will make a critical difference to a boost in retirement savings. However, we also believe that the new automatic enrolment earnings trigger is a significant improvement to the breakthrough in pension reforms that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and so many other members of this and another place work so tirelessly to develop. Automatic enrolment for every individual into pension saving is not always the right thing to do. The key question is, and always has been, whether low earners would benefit from saving, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, pointed out. It makes no sense to require people to sacrifice income during their working life and redirect it into private pension saving, when that saving makes them no better off.
The nub of this issue is about getting the right people saving. We, therefore, commissioned an independent review to ensure that the scope proposed for automatic enrolment by the previous Government was right. We wanted to look again at the point at which people should be auto-enrolled to ensure that we capture the right group.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Can the Minister help me? He said that we should not encourage people to save who would be no better off as a result. That was the line he used. What does he have in mind? If his right honourable friend’s new state pension of £140 comes into play, that problem should not arise, apart from for those tenants who might be on housing benefit—who may or may not be a diminishing minority. Have I misunderstood the Minister?
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. Regrettably, she catches me at a time when I am not able to go as far as the Daily Mail, for instance, in saying what may happen as a result of discussions—which are entirely amicable—between the DWP and the Treasury in developing these proposals. Therefore, I cannot deal with her rather pointed query.
The Johnson review recommended that the personal income tax threshold of around £7,400 from this April would be the right starting point to trigger automatic enrolment. The latest announced pension and benefit rates bear this out. Persistent low earners get a higher replacement rate from the state, with means-tested benefits and the state pension, without private pension saving. This is clearly the other leg of the argument about whether it is attractive for low earners to save. From this April, the minimum annual guaranteed retirement income for a single person from the state will be around £7,140, with housing benefit on top of that. It is clear that individuals earning around this level during their working life can receive a similar income in retirement without saving. Therefore, it would be wrong to auto-enrol them. These amendments seek to introduce a lower entry point for automatic enrolment. This would mean encouraging a group to save who may receive more money in retirement from the state pension system than they earn during their working life.
There is an additional advantage to a higher earnings trigger that I would bring to your Lordships’ attention, which we believe will address a concern from pension schemes and employers. One of the persistent problems with the original design of automatic enrolment was to do with very small, low-value contributions on earnings just above the automatic enrolment point. We believe that the separation of the entry point from the contributions threshold creates a buffer against such small contributions. As a bonus, but not a driver, if we can settle on rates that employers already use, it would make the operation of payroll a great deal simpler.
We recognise that the increased automatic enrolment trigger has an impact on low earners at the point of automatic enrolment. However, we do not believe the effect is detrimental. The right people will be auto-enrolled and the lowest earners will not be. That is the right outcome. Critically, we have built in a safeguard. We support an individual’s decision to save where they feel that saving is right for them. Where someone below the threshold feels that they would benefit by saving, they can opt in to a workplace scheme. If they earn more than £5,715, they will get an employer contribution. We have just covered that ground.
I am acutely aware of the passions that the raised threshold has aroused. I am honoured to have taken part in such a robust and challenging debate. However, the automatic enrolment earnings trigger significantly improves the operation and the targeting of automatic enrolment. The new trigger ensures that the right people are encouraged to save. These amendments would encourage saving among a group of individuals, many of whom should not be saving. Therefore, we are unable to accept them and I ask noble Lords to withdraw them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question? He rested much of his argument on this amendment, as with Amendment 16, not so much on the issue of small pots as the fact that people would get a replacement income in retirement sufficient almost to match their wage. Therefore, it is not worth their saving. I raised this in terms of its relevance to the basic state pension and whether it will lift people above pension credit. All the Minister’s assumptions are based on the belief that the household he is dealing with is a single-person household.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention and that question. We have looked closely at this issue. She is absolutely right that many low earners are second earners and have partners. The trouble is that it is very hard to identify them with any precision, which makes it very difficult to encourage them to save, because many of them—we do not know which of them—would not find it beneficial.
The noble Baroness will make an argument, based on the discussions between the DWP and the Treasury, about what a single-tier pension would do to that position.
Lord Freud
She would make an argument to that effect, no doubt. However, how that would happen and its timing would be very sensitive, so it is simply not appropriate at this stage to make any presumption which would drive one into this very uncertain territory.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate on these amendments. I had intended to say at the start of these deliberations on auto-enrolment, but forgot to do so, that we obviously have a number of challenges in some areas. However, we should make it absolutely clear, as I hope we did at Second Reading, that we thoroughly support the Government’s decision to proceed with auto-enrolment and with NEST. Those are hugely important developments to the pensions landscape. Whatever our challenges might be now, they need to be seen in the context of our fundamental support on that issue.
The debate has almost conflated two issues: the it-pays-to-save issue, which the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Boswell, touched on, and the practical issues around having small pots, which the Minister relied on and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred. We need to unpick those. Perhaps I may refer noble Lords to the Johnson report in relation to the “it pays to save” argument. Page 30 states:
“This analysis raises significant questions about the validity of an annual earnings threshold of £5,035. Even at earnings substantially above this level, individuals see very high replacement rates from the State. Based on this analysis alone, we might easily argue that an earnings threshold of over £10,000 would be more appropriate to encourage the right individuals (those who actually need to save) to begin saving into a workplace pension. There are two key reasons to question such a conclusion. Firstly, earnings are not static. For many, earnings could change dramatically over their lifetime. For these people, saving for a pension whilst on relatively low income could be beneficial as it improves persistency of saving and increases income in retirement. Secondly”—
this point has already been made—
“many individuals live in a family unit. It is the circumstances of the wider family that are more important in determining whether it is appropriate for a particular individual to save”.
So on the “it pays to save” argument, the report seems to support the contention that an earnings band starting at the current primary threshold is the right place to be. It is in relation to the practicalities that the report argues the trigger. Separating the earnings threshold and the manner in which contributions are paid will help to reduce the number of small pots of pension savings, which are disproportionately costly. The smallest contribution going into a pension pot will be £130 a year.
The Minister is right: of course you can always argue that someone can opt in, but the whole purpose of auto-enrolment is to challenge the inertia which has undermined our pension system for decades; it does not really help with that pot. In any event, it picks up the point about persistency of savings. There might be small pots to start with but if people save persistently, even in respect of low income for a period, that builds up a pot which might not be insignificant. However, using arguments about practicalities and small pots seems potentially to punish the wrong people, as we are saying that some 600,000 people are not going to benefit from auto-enrolment because we do not want to handle small pots. NEST was created, in part at least, to handle that very issue. There are questions about the profitability of the pension sector and pension providers, and there is a balance to be struck in all of that.
Therefore, I very much hang on to the point that the argument for the trigger seems to be based overwhelmingly on the question of the practicalities of dealing with small pots. It does not fully address “pays to save” and the question of whom we should be encouraging to save.
Lord Freud
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord on that and make absolutely clear the arguments that we will be taking from the Johnson review. It said that you needed to look at three things: replacement rates, earnings dynamics, and family make-up and characteristics. Looking at all three of those, on balance the recommendation was for a higher threshold of roughly £7,400, the reason being that it got the right people saving. That must be the core argument, along with the practical argument relating to costs. It is very expensive to manage small pots. The economics of running a NEST operation, let alone other operations, where it is important to get costs down, is an important secondary consideration. However, the primary one is to get the right people saving. After all, this is, as I have said previously, the biggest experiment in asymmetric paternalism. Let us get it right first and fine-tune it later.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
How can the noble Lord know whether it is right if he cannot establish the family circumstances which, as my noble friend rightly said, determine whether it pays to save?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are all using the Johnson review as a basis. It recommends that higher threshold and we are following that. It is straightforward and has been well argued. It is a review that has been well accepted across the political and industrial spectrum, and that is the basis on which we are making this change.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we could go on for ever on this, although it may not be hugely productive to do so for much longer. Of course we accept that these recommendations come from the report, and there are obviously recommendations in the report which, thankfully, the Government did not pursue. However, I would hang on to the point about conflating two issues—“it pays to save” and the question of whom we should be encouraging to save in order to achieve good replacement income in retirement. As the noble Lord acknowledged earlier, the Turner commission—I should call it the pensions commission out of deference to my noble friend, who spent such a large part of her life contributing to that—still holds: a 45 per cent replacement rate, with 30 per cent coming from the state and 15 per cent coming from auto-enrolment. That band of earnings is encouraging people to save. Therefore, that seems to deal with replacement rates and “it pays to save”.
The other issue, which I accept comes from the report about the trigger, is the practical one of dealing with small pots. It is a question of where you make the judgment. We would say that excluding people from the opportunity of auto-enrolment simply because they are below that trigger, even though they are within the band of earnings that the report acknowledges should be building pension pots, is not the right thing to do. Doubtless we will return to this on Report. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 24. These amendments could be degrouped because they are alternatives. The fact that they are grouped together may have given rise to some confusion. Both these amendments touch on proposals for postponement—effectively, the opportunity to defer automatic enrolment for a worker for up to three months.
As the Johnson report recites, there have been strong and consistent calls to introduce waiting periods from employers and from many in the pensions industry. Employer groups have supported the introduction of waiting periods, principally to reduce the administrative cost of enrolling people who are with the employer only for a short period of time and to allow probationary periods to pass. They believe that waiting periods will help employers to adjust to the additional cost of the employer duties and will minimise the need for refunds. The costs associated with deferral or waiting periods have been analysed by the Johnson report and the key features are that a three-month period will involve about 500,000 fewer people being automatically enrolled. Given that, on average, people have 11 different labour-market interactions during their lifetime, that would mean individuals accumulating something like three years’ less savings than would otherwise be the case. Someone whose work pattern is a perpetual cycle of short-term, say, seasonal work could miss out to a much greater extent.
The amendments do two things. Amendment 23 just tests and basically asks why, if there is to be a waiting period, there is the magic period of three months. Why would one month not be sufficient? Perhaps more substantially, Amendment 24 is predicated on the assumption that the three-month waiting period will stay broadly in place, but it seeks to limit the time period, where the starting date of the three choices is the staging date—the date where an employer first comes into the system or where, say, a worker becomes a jobholder on reaching the age of 22. If the fundamental rationale for a waiting period is not to have to auto-enrol somebody who will leave within three months, why defer for longer than three months from when the individual is first employed? Someone reaching the age of 22 may have been employed already for three months, three years or even longer, so why defer in those circumstances? Similarly, at the staging date most employees will have been employed already for three months, and many maybe for years. I do not understand, if the fundamental rationale is to deal with the issues of short-term workers who leave and are likely to opt out, why we would operate a deferment date for people who have been around potentially for a long time.
One effect of Clause 6 seems to be to replace the existing Section 4 of the 2008 Act. From recollection, this was designed to allow some deferral for DC schemes that contributed well in excess of the minimum. This, in a sense, was a reward for being a good scheme. That seems to have disappeared and we have this blanket opportunity for deferral for everyone, whether they are paying at the minimum or are doing better than that. It would be interesting to hear an explanation as to why that particular provision, which was designed to be an incentive, is effectively removed by this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, briefly before my noble friend replies and in the spirit of the questions that are being fairly put by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, I wonder whether the Minister could give some thought to the position of people who have not changed what they are doing—they are still doing it at the same place—but whose employment status has changed. Quickly, off the top of my head, I am thinking of two sets of people. One includes those who come in as self-employed and are then taken on by the firm as employees to do substantially the same thing. Clearly, that cannot be backdated and should not be backdated from their time as self-employed persons, but they have been there. The second case, which may be even more difficult but is at least worth rehearsing, is the question of agency workers. The employer may choose to take them on from the agency and pay a take-on fee, but they are, again, doing substantially what they were doing before in the same place as before. It is clear that they are not covered by the existing provisions, but it is not entirely clear why they should not be, at least in terms of equity.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
That is a very interesting contribution and I hope that the Minister will follow it up. I want to put to the Minister a very simple but not obvious point. I understand why employers prefer a waiting period—obviously one is glad that it is not two years, as in some conventional schemes—but even with three months we must recognise that, given the figures on job turnover on page 103, with which I am sure the noble Lord is familiar, the median number of jobs that men and women have is 11. My previous research shows that the pattern of job turnover is different for men and women: men have more turnover in their earlier years and settle in their 40s or 50s, while women have a higher job turnover than most men by virtue of being much more frequently in and out of the labour market and more likely to re-enter into a different job. The report makes the point—although it does not back it up with research—that statistically there is not that great a difference between the two. It is worth pointing out that if somebody has 11 job changes, which is the median according to the report, having a three-month waiting period represents three years’ loss of pension contributions. Interestingly, 26 per cent of the population on this model have between 12 and 15 jobs in their working lifetime, which would mean, on average for them—if my sums are right—a loss of five years’ pension contributions. Furthermore, 15 per cent have 16 jobs or more—up to 23—which would be an average of something like eight years’ loss of pension contributions.
This is highly significant. Even reducing that by one month to two months would help; reducing it back to one month, as my noble friend has argued, would make a significant contribution for those who have staying power but none the less a rapid job turnover for whatever reason. It may be because of a cycle between self-employment and employment—take a hairdresser, for example, for whom the conditions of employment are often very obscure, whether you are self-employed or, even if you work in a salon, whether you are employed or not. None the less, the waiting period of three months can represent over your lifetime a significant loss of working contributions matched by the employer into your pension. For that reason, as well as others adduced so far, I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether he could make any movement in this direction.
Lord Freud
My Lords, Amendment 23 would reduce the maximum length of the waiting period from three months to one month. Amendment 24 applies an exception so that existing employees have a three-month waiting period. However, based on previous discussions with the noble Lord, our interpretation is that Amendment 24 is intended to apply an exception so that new employees would remain eligible for a three-month waiting period. I know that we are in Committee and so one can refine the intention of an amendment to make it more precise, but that is our understanding of its intention.
Clause 6 introduces the concept of an optional waiting period to the automatic enrolment process. Automatic enrolment has made numerous appearances in this place and another place. A recurring theme has been the extent of the duty placed on employers. I preface my remarks by putting this in context. We are talking about auto-enrolment for pensions—the biggest experiment in asymmetric paternalism that the world has ever seen, I think. We are trying to encourage people to save. We forget that the encouragement comes in the form of automatic enrolment. Let me say in response to both my noble friend Lord Boswell and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that if we overcomplicate this, we will not have a smooth-running system. Auto-enrolment is a means to an end. That end is for the norm to be for people in the country to save more.
The noble Baroness cited the median figure of 11 jobs over a lifetime. If that is the median, the noble Baroness is right: 33 months represents 7 per cent of the provision of a potential pension pot. However, if auto-enrolment has worked and people have started opting into pensions, by the time they are on their second, third or fourth job, they will opt in because it will have become a habit. One must look at what auto-enrolment is, rather than become overly mechanical about it, which these amendments are.
The aim here is to ease the burdens on business. This simplification measure of pulling two systems into one—to get rid of postponement and to have one system of waiting periods—has been widely welcomed by employers. A waiting period will free employers from the administrative burden of enrolling casual staff who are working for them for only a few weeks and wish to maximise their take-home pay, rather than save for a pension. I am thinking of most of Sydney in Australia when I make that remark; I think that most people in Sydney come to work in London for two years.
Lord Freud
A waiting period will also allow employers to align automatic enrolment processes with their existing processes and avoid part-period calculations of contributions. In addition, it will allow them to stagger auto-enrolment of large workforces. An employer will be able to apply a waiting period to all employees at their staging date. It will also be possible for an employer to apply a waiting period when a new employee joins the workforce or from the date when an employee becomes an eligible jobholder—for example, when they turn 22.
It is important to note that an employer will be allowed to apply a waiting period only if he gives the worker information about the waiting period within a certain deadline. This will ensure that workers are informed of their right to opt into pension saving during the waiting period. It is only right and fair that those who wish to start saving for retirement earlier are not prevented from doing so.
The waiting period is intended to ease the administrative burden and has been widely welcomed by employers. However, it means that, for those individuals who have frequent job changes, there could be a significant impact on their overall pension savings. This is particularly so, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, if they are subject to a waiting period in every post. Allowing individuals to opt in during the waiting period will address this imbalance so that no one is denied the opportunity to save. As I said, if auto-enrolment has the impact that it should have, the psychology of saving should change for many people.
Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that much of the detail is on the face of the Bill. We propose taking regulation-making powers in just two areas. First, we will specify in regulations how quickly the employer must give notice to the individual about the waiting period. Secondly, we will set out what information that notice must contain and any other accompanying information that the employer must provide. For example, workers will need to be provided with information about the right to opt in during the waiting period. It is important that we have the flexibility to set the period and to provide for additional accompanying information in regulations once we have had an in-depth consultation with our stakeholders.
As I said, a key aim of the reforms is to encourage more people to start saving for retirement. However, at the same time, we have been mindful of the costs for employers of implementing the reforms. We believe that a three-month waiting period provides the correct balance between easing employer burden and maximising individuals’ savings. This amendment introduces a variable length of waiting period depending on the circumstances. There are two main issues with such an approach. First, introducing a one-month waiting period for existing employees would remove some of the flexibility afforded to employers through waiting periods; for example, they would not be able to stagger automatic enrolment of large workforces. Secondly, we are keen to ensure that the introduction of waiting periods does not make the automatic enrolment process more complicated. We believe that a simple process is key to employers understanding and preserving their support. A two-tier waiting policy would add complexity and would be difficult for employers to understand or use. It would add to the burden on employers, which is not the intention of waiting periods.
Waiting periods were designed with employers in mind and have been welcomed. We believe that they will provide a real easement for employers, as well as ensuring that individuals’ savings are protected. I urge the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, of course I intend to withdraw the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and my noble friend Lady Hollis for their participation. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made an interesting point about recyclable employees effectively coming back in one form or another. My noble friend Lady Hollis emphasised the issue of what this could mean in terms of savings for people who are perpetually caught up in this deferral. We accept the point about some flexibility on the alignment of processes. This does not seem unreasonable. I also acknowledge that there may be some amelioration of the lost savings years; if people are perpetually caught up in this, opting in may catch on. However, we know how damaging inertia around pensions has been, so that could not be assured.
With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that he dealt with the point about the original provision in this clause, which I understood was there to be an incentive for good provision and to give people some extra leeway in their easement. This seems to have gone and, in effect, been replaced by a sort of blanket easement. Although I will not convince the Minister, I also hang on to my point that, if the fundamental easement for employers—and I understand that they would welcome this—is that it helps them with the problem and administrative costs of the coming and going of short-term employees, and if, as I accept, a three-month waiting period is needed to address that, why on earth should it be applied to somebody who has been employed for months or years who reaches the age of 22 and becomes a jobholder? There is no logic to the position. The employer will know the track record of that individual, yet they are being treated exactly the same as somebody who has just walked through the door. If the proposition is that you need a waiting period to deal with short-term employees, I still do not understand why you need to have it for people who have been employed for many years and who simply, by virtue of their age, become a jobholder.
Lord Freud
I tried to explain that. There are a few things happening here but the relevant thing is to try to allow people with large workforces to time it so that they can do things in bulk rather than having to individualise. That will allow us to get a single system running through rather than having to have separate systems. Administrative simplicity has been the guiding goal here and it is also the reason why we have abandoned the concept of postponement, which was again a slightly complicated two-tier system. We are trying to get to one tier and a great deal of administrative simplicity.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The Minister has already, and I am glad that he has, sold the pass on that by allowing voluntary enrolment for young people under 22 or for people, mostly women, earning between £5,200 and £7,500. The employer is already going to have to identify and respond to particular individuals rather than to cohorts of a labour force that may be moving tidily through the system. While we welcome the concession of voluntary enrolment, the noble Lord cannot now pray for administrative simplicity in cohorts when he has already sold the pass on voluntary enrolment.
Lord Freud
There is a great deal of difference between having a system that allows opt-in at any stage compared to a system that puts an obligation on an employer to do something at one month for some people and three months for others. There is a difference and I would not agree that any pass has been sold on this.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“4A Annual report on implementation and monitoring of section 4
(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report about the implementation and monitoring of the postponement provisions of section 4 and must lay a copy of this report before parliament.
(2) The report required under subsection (1) must, in particular, include—
(a) the numbers and categories of jobholders receiving notices that their automatic enrolment is deferred; and(b) the numbers of such jobholders who in respect of that employment do not become automatically enrolled.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment is very straightforward and simply seeks the publication of an annual monitoring report concerning the deferral provisions provided for in Clause 4. Noble Lords will have gathered from our earlier discussion that we have considerable concerns over these provisions and how they will be applied in practice, and whether their application will deter individuals from auto-enrolment. We are not prescriptive about the detail of the report or its timing but we need to be reassured that any provisions are working fairly. As I understand it, there is no requirement for all employees to be treated in the same manner under these provisions and therefore we need information about how this is working in practice. So the intent of this amendment is clear. There needs to be some process of reporting so that we can understand in practice how these provisions are working. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for this amendment. As he has pointed out, it would compel us to publish a report every year on the implementation and impacts of the waiting-period provision under Clause 6. As we have just discussed, Clause 6 introduces the concept of an optional waiting period into the automatic enrolment process. We agree that the effects of the waiting period should be monitored. We have made a commitment to fully evaluate the effects of the reforms and how they are delivered. This will include a proportionate check that the legislation is operating as expected for individuals, employers and the pension industry. As part of this, we intend to monitor employers’ use of waiting periods and the effects on workers’ savings. It is important that we retain the flexibility to design appropriate methods and processes for this evaluation in response to changing circumstances. For example, our decisions about who we survey, how and how often may change over time.
Our plans for monitoring the progress and impacts of the reforms will be set out in a detailed evaluation strategy which we plan to publish this year. We also intend to publish key findings from our evaluation. We therefore feel that there is no need to legislate specifically to ensure monitoring of the waiting period provision, and that to do so may unintentionally constrain us from adopting the most appropriate approach to evaluation in future. I therefore urge the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, to withdraw this amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I thank the noble Lord for his response. I was reflecting on how many times I have deployed exactly those same arguments in his position. I am not sure that they grow more convincing. However, I understand and am grateful for what the noble Lord said about an evaluation process. I understand that the strategy will be published later this year; we will see what sort of timeframe is attached to that. I am grateful for that and, accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord German
“Deferral period
The Secretary of State shall by regulations issue guidance to employers and jobholders explaining the rights of employees during the deferral period, including the right to opt in to the scheme during this period.”
Lord German
My Lords, I will not keep the Committee long, given that the Minister has, in his response to a previous debate, accepted this amendment in that he has said he will introduce a requirement for the correspondence that is sent to employees to include a statement of the rights of that employee under this provision. Therefore, the only argument that I wish to retain in this discussion is about whether the rights of the employee should appear as an item in the Bill, rather than simply relying on the important statement that the Minister has just made.
At the moment, the protection for this matter in the Bill relies entirely on proposed new Section 4(1)(b) in Clause 6(2), which says that,
“any prescribed requirements in relation to the notice are met”.
That is obviously as broad as you could get. However, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that those jobholders whose waiting period is being enacted are informed of the rights to which they are entitled, particularly the right to opt in to the scheme as soon as they wish. I understand that this information will be provided by regulation. I am absolutely certain that that will happen, given the Minister’s commitment. However, I have always been of the view that in any Bill, where the rights of an individual are at stake, it is important to uphold those rights in the Bill itself. That means that it should be a very simple statement. It means establishing that those rights will be communicated and that there are rights to be had. It is a very important agreement, which one should have in front of an employee at the time.
I know that we have to ensure that everyone is aware of their rights, and that it is important that what is enshrined in the Bill is communicated properly. However, we must remember that this will all be very new. It will be new for employees and new for employers. The very fact that this will be enshrined from the beginning—from the date that the Bill becomes an Act—means that it is important that a signal is sent to every employer and employee that they have rights in this matter. It is important not just to have it in the Bill but to ensure that we get it right from day one. There is a great expectation that this will happen. It will be difficult for many very small employers to adjust to the changes that are coming. What I am looking for is a form of letter, with a standard set of words, which an employer can hand to their employee and that will remove any extra bureaucratic burden.
There is no additional bureaucratic burden established by this amendment, but it gives a clue as to the preparation that will be essential. If I were a small employer, having heard about this in whatever way in the coming weeks and months, I would want to know fairly quickly what I am going to have to tell my employee If an employee can say to an employer, “What about me?”, I would want to know that there was somewhere where I could download the appropriate piece of information about rights, particularly in this respect. As we wish simply to express in the Bill the rights of the individual, I beg to move this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
This is an important amendment, not just for this but for all the other areas where we are looking at voluntary enrolment. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will reassure us on the employer making sure that the employee in the waiting period can voluntarily enrol into a NEST scheme before it becomes automatic. I hope that he will also reassure us that employees earning above the LEL, but below the automatic enrolment threshold will be made aware of their rights. That could involve quite a considerable number in jobs where, for example, very many women work part time; I am thinking of retail, where women might work two days a week and so on. I hope he can give us some reassurance as to how he is going to operate a nudge, where there is opt-in, as opposed to where there is auto-enrolment.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I express my support for the sentiments and views of the noble Lord, Lord German, in moving this amendment. I, too, noted the Minister’s comments on regulation on this matter. As we move nearer to the commencement of auto-enrolment in 2012, I am also conscious that both the Department for Work and Pensions and the pension regulator will need to prepare for a major programme of communication and guidance to workers and employers. Can the Minister assure us that sufficient funds will be made available for this scale of communication and guidance programme? As the Minister said, this is the biggest ever example of asymmetrical paternalism, and, given the constraints on public expenditure, the old phrase about not spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar, is extremely important in this instance.
I, too, agree with the noble Lord, Lord German, that, if individuals are to be given the right to opt in during the deferral period, it has to be a meaningful right, understood both by the employer and by the employee. A meaningful right to me means three things: do you know you have it; do you know how to exercise it; and do you not suffer a detriment in exercising it? That is quite important if the three-month waiting period is to have integrity for the reasons given as to why a three-month period is needed and the individuals none the less can opt in. It is quite important that guidance and culture meet those three requirements. I hope there is guidance to both the employer and the employee that makes the opt-in opportunity meaningful.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank my noble friends for this amendment, which would require us to make sure that guidance is issued to employers and jobholders explaining their rights during the waiting period under Clause 6, including their right to opt in. Let me try to describe what our plans are in this area and explain why putting it in the Bill could potentially be counterproductive. We aim to specify in regulations how quickly the employer must give a notice to the individual about the waiting period. We will also set out in regulations what information that notice must contain, and any other accompanying information the employer must provide. In particular, this will include information about the right to opt in during the waiting period.
We recognise the need to provide certainty as quickly as possible, as my noble friend Lord German pointed out. We intend to put out the draft regulations after what we call a “soft consultation” period in April. We intend in this way to inform employers of the requirements around waiting periods as soon as possible. To use the waiting period provision, employers will have to provide information to individuals about their right to opt in. It is essential that employers understand the operation of the waiting period and their obligation to provide information to affected workers. That will be done through the Pensions Regulator, who is developing clear guidance for employers explaining their duties under the reforms and including information about the waiting period. The Pensions Regulator plans to publish the guidance in the current year.
Lord German
My Lords, my amendment would simply have enabled the guidance to be provided. The Minister has described what will happen, so I shall avoid dancing on the head of a pin. However, anyone here who has been in any way involved in questioning Ministers will be wary of the words “we will bring forward regulations as soon as possible”. I remember “summer” turning into “late summer” and then “early autumn”. The seasons will just vanish. I wonder whether at some stage we might come back to a precise timetable for enacting the guidance. However, on the basis of the very detailed description of what will be provided, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord German
“Automatic enrolment date
The automatic enrolment date will be no later than a cumulative period of three months’ earnings above the threshold, whether consecutive or not.”
Lord German
My Lords, this is a relatively straightforward amendment to provide some certainty in a situation where an employee could have their auto-enrolment deferred more than once because they failed to reach the earnings threshold in one or more months in the three-month waiting period. Perhaps it might be sensible if I gave an example. A jobholder works for two months and their pay is above the threshold, but in month 3 their pay falls below the threshold. Then, when month 4 arrives and their pay perhaps goes back to being above the threshold, it is not clear whether that triggers a new three-month starting period or adds to the two months when it previously happened. Whether the waiting period begins again in month 4 or concludes is the key question here. Should the three months’ earnings be cumulative or consecutive?
This could be the case for many workers in the leisure and tourist industries where work is perhaps seasonal and in the catering trade where it is often related to the number of customers and people are called to work more or fewer hours according to the demand on their services. So a situation where people may not reach the threshold in one month but have reached it in the previous two months is not unlikely. It seems quite unfair if, as soon as they fall below, they have to start again. I remember somebody who formerly worked for me who then went off to train as a barrister and it took him many months to get his final qualification because he could not get to the number of dinners that he had to achieve in the right order. Every time he missed one, he had to start again from dinner number one. It seemed a strange mechanism and we do not want this archaic methodology in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord German, has raised an interesting point, which I hope the Minister can clarify. I assume that the situation is that, if you have got to month 3 and you do not have qualifying earnings, there is nothing at that point to trigger automatic enrolment. When you next have your qualifying earnings is presumably when you would be automatically enrolled. Certainly, if you had to start again, that would add injustice to something about which we are already not very happy.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord German for this amendment, which would restrict an employer to using one waiting period per worker and would ensure that automatic enrolment would take place once a worker’s earnings had reached the earnings threshold for three months, whether those three months were consecutive or not. Thus the single three-month waiting period could be accrued over a far longer period of time where the individual’s earnings fluctuate. I should take this opportunity to clarify for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, how it would actually work. If you had low earnings for the first two months and hit the target at the third month, you would be auto-enrolled. However, if you did not hit it in that third month, you would effectively be back to your dinner problem and have to start again. That is how it would work.
As I explained, Clause 6 introduces the concept of an optional waiting period into the automatic enrolment process. This is central to our commitment in this Bill to rebalance the administrative burdens on employers while ensuring workers’ access to pensions saving. The waiting period is designed to meet employers’ requirements by being simple and easy to understand and use. This is clearly crucial to its success. At the point at which the employer applies a waiting period, they will not be required to undertake a check on whether the worker is eligible for automatic enrolment. The employer must check eligibility at the end of the waiting period and we are keen to avoid them having to check it twice or more.
The waiting period consists of a single block of time, regardless of whether the individual’s eligibility for automatic enrolment fluctuates during that period. If the worker satisfies the automatic enrolment eligibility criteria at the end of the period, they will be enrolled into the employer’s scheme on that date. If not, the employer will monitor the worker’s status until they satisfy the eligibility criteria. At that point, the employer may apply a further waiting period if they wish. It need not be for the full three months.
We recognise my noble friend’s concern that workers with fluctuating earnings could miss out on pension saving due to the use of multiple waiting periods. While it is difficult to estimate the likelihood of this occurrence, our analysis suggests that few people are likely to have fluctuating earnings around the level that they traverse in and out of automatic enrolment eligibility. Are we, therefore, devising something very complicated for a problem that is pretty small, which is what our analysis suggests? It is also the case that, for those on sustained low earnings throughout their working life, state benefits can replace most income in retirement. Common sense suggests that it would not be rational to lever such people into private savings. It is important to remember that they will have the right to opt in at any point during the waiting period.
This amendment would add a substantial additional burden and complexity to the waiting period process and would not be easy for employers to understand and use. It would require the employer to monitor an individual’s automatic enrolment eligibility continuously throughout the waiting period and to keep a record of the period of eligibility accrued during the waiting period.
Employers requested the waiting period as an administrative easement. To make the process so burdensome would negate its value. At this stage, it is crucial that we get the reforms bedded in and that we ensure that employers find it easy to comply with these new duties. It is therefore critical that the processes are simple for employers to understand and use. In the absence of any persuasive evidence of a problem, we feel that it would not be right to introduce greater complexity and a significant burden to a process whose very purpose is to offer administrative easements to employers.
I offer noble Lords my assurance, however, that we are committed to fully evaluating the effects of the reforms and how they are delivered. As part of this, we intend to monitor employers’ use of waiting periods and the effects on workers’ savings. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord German
My Lords, I am still a little confused over the explanation. I understand fully the point about somebody hitting the relevant target in the third month. However, my question was the other way round—where someone hits the target in months one and two but does not hit it in month three. In seasonal worker terms, this could happen if someone was picked up and employed in May, perhaps worked through May, June and July and found a bad—wet or something—August, for which they could not get the money in. The important issue is simplicity but also understanding. It may be that a three-month period applies, but it was not absolutely clear from the Minister’s reply when, once you have a first waiting period, the second test would occur. What if you fail to meet the criteria that he has just described in that first three-month period? You will then need to have another piece of information made available to the employee to say, “You have not quite done it but this is the way you go next”. It seems to become far more complex if you cannot have it in some way accumulatively worked out. I will obviously withdraw the amendment. However, I hope that the Minister will come back at some stage with some further explanation of the anomaly of the people who are in the position that I have described, in which they pass the threshold in months 1 and 3 but not in month 2, yet wish to maintain their position within the company.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I wish to follow up on that point. I was somewhat surprised by the answer that the Minister gave. There is a simpler process. Somebody becomes employed; they have their three-month waiting period and, at the end of the three months, you look to see whether they have qualifying earnings and need to be auto-enrolled. If they do not, presumably they are in the same position as everyone else who has been around for a long while—you continue to monitor them at an appropriate date to see whether they have qualifying earnings or if they have reached the age of 22. It will be the same for everyone. Is that not the simpler way to do it? I do not understand why there is the need to start the cycle again, which is what the Minister said. That seems to be fundamentally wrong and not the simplest route.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I may briefly share with the Committee a slight concern that I have, which is very much subsidiary to the powerful point that the Minister has already made about the need to maintain simplicity and make the scheme doable by employers. Behind earlier remarks that I made, which I shall not rehearse, concerning agency work and self-employment, and behind the slight concerns that I have here is an anxiety about employers who are perhaps less well intentioned than those of us who were employers had hoped to be. Therefore, I stress to the Minister that it is extremely important that we monitor any devices that are used, in effect, to subvert these waiting periods. The Minister is absolutely right to introduce them to simplify the scheme but, at the same time, we need to come down very hard on people who use them as an opportunity to avoid their obligations.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their observations and repeat how the structure works. The cycle would be starting again. However, I emphasise that we think that the group involved would be extraordinarily narrow. We could overcomplicate this issue, because in practice many employers will probably just enrol those people the following month, which they are quite free to do. They can opt in. As I said, we will be monitoring this very closely. If it becomes a substantive issue and we can see some peculiar games going on, we will have to move in and sort it out, and we will do that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I should like to reinforce that. I was struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. When I was doing some pension work on things such as buy-back and so on, I was struck by the number of women in a variety of jobs who told me that their employers very deliberately capped their hours at 15 to avoid national insurance. I am afraid that I can see very small employers—whether they run a launderette, a newsagent or whatever—having people working for them for two months, laying them off for a week and then starting them in work again. They could, for possibly quite a long time, avoid automatic enrolment and therefore avoid paying a pension, which they would be reluctant to pay because they would regard it as a burden on their business. I have no idea how many small employers might abuse the system in that way, if I can put it like that, but I fear that among small employers there will be quite a strong incentive to do that. I wonder how the Minister is going not only to watch that but to remedy it.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for that point. Clearly, in all these areas there is potential for abuse. However, it is very important that we do not overcomplicate the system in case there is abuse, which in this event is likely to be rather small. If, as the noble Baroness fears, it does become an abuse, we will be monitoring it.
Lord Freud
I have given a commitment that we are going to monitor how all this works on a regular basis and I feel confident in saying that, if we find that it is a genuine problem, we will have to move in. However, it is pointless to try to pre-empt something that looks as though it is too small an issue to be concerned with.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I do not understand how the Minister can monitor the difference between the two months and the week’s lay-off, be it in the hairdresser’s shop or anywhere else, in order to restart the dinners as it were, and the non-occurrence of voluntary enrolment. I do not understand how the Minister can ensure that the person not joining the pension scheme is in the latter category and not in the first. I do not see how he will monitor it, because he will not keep the records.
Lord Freud
We have committed to monitor this situation quite widely, in particular how the waiting periods are working. It is essential to get it right. We have not developed the specification of that monitoring, but we will do so. We will watch closely that and other issues.
Baroness Drake
The three-month waiting period gives rise to concerns over bad employers. However, on the monitoring point, the Pensions Regulator has an obligation to monitor and look for non-compliance. One of the ways in which they will do so is by looking at the number of employees in a firm who have been auto-enrolled, because they will at least get a sense from the numbers involved whether there is a flashing red light over compliance. The problem is that the Pensions Regulator will focus on where the biggest risks are and look at the bigger employers first. If the compliance hazard is around small employers, there has to be discussion with the Pensions Regulator, because compliance monitoring is resource-intensive. Even if one was running the argument that the problem can be picked up in compliance monitoring, the requirement on the regulator to be risk-focused and therefore to target where they think the greatest non-compliance issues would be, or to get scale of coverage on non-compliance, could be a problem.
Lord Freud
I repeat that we are committed to looking at waiting periods and there is a general duty on the Pensions Regulator to look at compliance. If we suspect any kind of systemic abuse, our aim will be to find it in our monitoring. For example, we might look at it from the other end and survey individuals, perhaps those in the low-paid environment, who are at risk. However, this is an issue that we are alive to, and this debate has made us even more so. I therefore need to thank the noble Lord for raising it.
Lord German
My Lords, I would normally be swayed by the persuasive eloquence of my noble friend the Minister, but the more that I ponder the issue, the more it seems to me that there are routes for escape that do not err on the side of the rights of the employee. My amendment proposes a simple solution: that, in relation to the threshold, the three months of the waiting period should be cumulative. It is as simple as that. It would then be quite easy for a jobholder who believed that they should be enrolled to prove it, because the information would be there in front of them. We are going into a cycle of repetition. On this issue, I am afraid that I am not quite as convinced as I should be by the Minister’s argument—although I am convinced that he will reflect on it further, because the discussion around the Committee has raised more questions than answers.
The whole point of the auto-enrolment process is to challenge inaction, to get people saving and to make it the right thing for everyone to do, both employers and individuals. In withdrawing the amendment, I express the hope that my noble friend will reflect on the words that have been spoken around the Committee today and perhaps give us some sense of security when he comes back with any further changes that he wishes to make to the Bill at the next stage.
Lord Freud
Perhaps I could just interrupt. What I have not made adequately clear, for which I apologise, is how big this problem might be. The universe of people who earn between £7,000 and £7,475 is 140,000 people, so we are talking about very small numbers. Moreover, they would have to be fluctuating at the wrong time. We could be setting up a very complicated system to look after a very small number of people. We cannot quantify this exactly but I give an order-of figure to give noble Lords a feel for it. We are talking about between 8 million and 9 million extra people going into pensions, so this may be just too much of a burden relative to the potential number of people whom we are protecting.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister just help me on one point? I do not want to prolong this. If the complexity he suggests arises from the need to monitor cumulative earnings over a two-month or three-month period, I can accept that, but we do not need that. If we just had the proposition that somebody waits for three months and if at the end of three months they do not have qualifying earnings and are therefore not auto-enrolled, you simply roll them on to the next point that they do have qualifying earnings. You put them in the pot the same as anyone else. Is that not a simpler system than having an alternative system whereby you have to see who has been previously deferred and had a waiting period and keep the clock running on them individually? I would have thought the simpler system was not to have to take account of cumulative earnings but, once you get past that three-month period, simply to check, as you would have to for everyone, whether they have reached the age of 22 or qualifying earnings, et cetera. There is quite a lot of disquiet around this. We are not trying to be difficult. I urge the Minister to take this away because I see it as something that could be brought back on Report.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I can see when I am up against the wall. I am not completely insensitive. I will look to see whether there is some simple fix and, if there is, I will write to noble Lords. However, it would have to be very simple, because the risk/reward in terms of burden versus people who are at risk is just on the wrong side. It does not seem to add up to me.
Lord German
On that basis and in the spirit of asymmetric paternalism, I am grateful to accept the Minister’s review of this matter and his confirmation of a simple fix if one can be achieved. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes)
My Lords, this might be a convenient moment to have a short break. The Committee stands adjourned until 4.40 pm.
Baroness Drake
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 29 to 32. Please forgive me if I take a little of your Lordships’ time on this matter, because I feel strongly about it. The policy of auto-enrolment—or asymmetrical paternalism, because we should give the friend of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, his due recognition—has the broad support of all the main political parties and stakeholders. That broad support and consensus are important. However, let me capture our concerns which led to the tabling of this and the associated amendments.
The definition of the workforce who should be auto-enrolled into a workplace pension and benefit from the contingent employer compulsory contribution and the tax relief or credit is the product of both thorough analysis and the iterative process required to deliver such a widespread consensus. The definition of the workers to be covered by the new employer duty to automatically enrol, the band of qualifying earnings and the minimum contributions are all captured in legislation. The intended outcomes include the need to achieve a very wide coverage of the working population, including low-income to moderate-income earners, to facilitate them saving from a relatively early age given the long years of saving needed to achieve an adequate income in retirement, and for the design of the private pension system, as well as the state system, to work for women.
On taking office, the Government commissioned Paul Johnson and his colleagues to review the auto-enrolment policy and its provisions. I commend and thank the Government for holding to the main thrust of the policy that was enshrined in that consensus and captured by the previous Government through the Pensions Act 2008. I am sure that maintaining that position did not come without its challenges, not least, no doubt, in exchanges with the Treasury, so I would be the first to acknowledge my thanks to them for holding to the main thrust of the policy.
Our concern, however, is that Clause 8 gives to a Secretary of State too great a power to significantly change the population of workers who will be the beneficiaries of auto-enrolment—in particular, the power to raise the age requirement for a qualifying worker above the current age of 22 and the power to raise significantly the earnings threshold at which a worker would qualify for automatic enrolment.
The purpose of Amendment 28 and those associated with it—Amendments 29 to 32—is to probe why and in what circumstances the Government would wish to raise the qualifying age. It is also to limit the Secretary of State’s powers on the extent to which he or she can increase the level of the earnings threshold at which the automatic enrolment of a worker would be triggered and to require the Secretary of State to provide an impact assessment to accompany any order to increase or decrease any of the amounts that he is empowered to increase or decrease under this clause.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Amendment 33 is in this group. I was prompted to table an amendment to this clause by the TUC. It wrote to me to point out that the trigger of £7,475 at 2011 is in excess of the national insurance threshold, which at present is £5,715. It points out that that is likely to affect a number of part-time workers, mainly women. They are the majority of those earning between the NIC limit and the personal allowance. The TUC believes that if the Government were to take forward the proposals, which they have voiced, to raise the basic personal tax allowance, the numbers excluded from auto-enrolment will grow. We have all said that we are in favour of auto-enrolment, and that we want to get as many people auto-enrolled as possible because they will then get the benefit of the employer’s contribution. As the gap between the contribution and enrolment thresholds grows, there is a danger of a sort of cliff-edge and that the newly auto-enrolled may decide to opt out as they see a noticeable chunk of their earnings going in pension contributions.
There may be various other ways of dealing with it, but the gap is not a good idea. It tends to make the whole thing less simple. People are caught up in the gap and do not receive what is intended to be of benefit to them, which is auto-enrolment. I hope that the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Drake receives favourable consideration by the Government because there is a serious point to be made. I shall not press my amendment.
Lord Freud
Uprating and revaluation measures, especially for pensions, can be challenging to get right and hotly debated. The uprating arrangements for automatic enrolment are proving no exception. However, before going into those arrangements, I need to make clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that nothing in the Bill introduces a power to change the age criterion of 22. The flexible uprating power in Clause 8 applies only to the earnings trigger and thresholds. It does not apply to age criterion. We agree with her that 22 is the right age for automatic enrolment to kick in.
Lord Freud
All this is saying to me that, right now, uprating measures for entry and savings levels need to be flexible. Therefore, we want to maintain flexibility to consider a wide range of economic measures. Pensions cast long shadows. Pension law has to last for the long term. We believe it is prudent to build in maximum flexibility for all eventualities, as regrettably we do not have 20:20 foresight.
I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment and I understand the concerns about any unfettered discretion or an unrestrained dash to a £10,000 trigger. However, the primary aim here is to ensure that we target the people who should be saving, while excluding those who should not. If, at the same time, we can align with a threshold that employers are already familiar with and minimise administration burdens, so much the better.
Automatic enrolment has to be sustainable. My worst fears are that we set rules which scoop up people who cannot afford to take a hit on their pay packet. If we get the trigger wrong—if we set it too low—we risk high levels of opt-out. Once we do that, we turn people off pension saving, even if we have applied asymmetric paternalism to get them to save. To get the trigger right, we need flexibility.
Today’s debate is further ample evidence that the automatic enrolment earnings trigger is a matter of deep interest and concern to this House. For that reason, we want to ensure that the House has an ongoing opportunity to debate this issue. We recognise that including such a flexible power to amend figures that appear in primary legislation represents a very broad power, and that is why the uprating order will be subject to an affirmative resolution procedure. It will mean that this complex issue, and the exact rates set for the launch of automatic enrolment, will be the subject of a full debate to ensure complete transparency.
It would be unusual to commit to an impact assessment in the Bill, as requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. However, I make a commitment to provide an impact assessment for the next five years, up to the 2017 review and shortly afterwards. This will allow time for the reforms to bed in and for us to understand the wider landscape. Therefore, there will be full information on the uprating order as a basis on which the House can conduct the debate.
I hope that I have been able to set out the case for flexibility and the need to future-proof these provisions. I also hope that I have provided the reassurance on transparency that noble Lords are seeking with their request for an impact assessment. However, I regret that I cannot give a guarantee that the trigger for pension saving will in future be set in complete isolation from prevailing personal tax thresholds. I am afraid we are unable to accept the amendments and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Drake
I thank the Minister for his response but I am not persuaded by his arguments to feel confident. I come back to the point that I made in moving the amendment: the UK has a history of making what it feels are good incremental adjustments to the design of the pension system for short-term considerations. Inevitably, 10, 20 or 30 years downstream, there will be a sub-optimal outcome in the strategic sense, and there will then be a rush around to try to find plasters to deal with that. I worry that the ease with which the earnings threshold could be raised so significantly is a potential example of the same error being made in the future.
The Minister said that the Government wanted to retain flexibility. I do not think that I am arguing about the Government not retaining flexibility; I was seeking to put a limit on the extent of that flexibility that can be addressed through an order, because I think that the threshold for earnings is so significant. The Minister said that he had listened to employers and pension providers. That is good, because employers are very important in this new settlement. However, there are also consumers and citizens whose views and interests in this matter are equally important. These reforms represent a contract with citizens, whereby the Government are expecting them to take greater responsibility for providing for their own income in retirement, and also for removing the state from any responsibility for any earnings-related second-tier provision. It is therefore very important that the employers’ views are engaged because they are part of the tripartite delivery of this. I do not demur from that at all. Equally, the view of the citizens, or those who are able to speak for them, is also to be represented. Something as significant as the trigger for the earnings threshold will be very important for them and for the outcomes of their saving activity.
In the amendment, we were seeking to give the Government the flexibility which at least kept broadly constant the proportion of the population covered by automatic enrolment, with some degree of variation either way. But if there is to be a major change in the threshold, I do not believe that that should be done by an order—even by an affirmative order. It is of such significance to the outcomes to the pension reform programme over time and there should be a high level of awareness of the consequences. People should understand the impact and all interest groups should be involved in that decision.
The Minister referred to a possible change in the state pension system in the future. Speculating, the change will be accelerating the flat-rating of the state second pension and integrating and bringing forward the two into a replacement single state pension. Presumably that would strengthen the argument that raising the earnings trigger, other than by reference to earnings or comparable situations, should not be raised significantly.
I remain concerned because the arguments deployed by the Government for wanting to retain the level of flexibility that will allow them to raise the earnings trigger so high are not very persuasive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
“Transfer to national employment savings trust
In section 16 of the 2008 Act (qualifying schemes) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must make regulations to enable transfers of qualifying pension schemes into a national employment savings trust.””
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
This amendment tries to deal with the problem of stranded pension pots. The wording is inadequate and rather than reading,
“transfers of qualifying pension schemes”,
it should read,
“transfer of individual entitlement into the national employment savings trust”.
What the amendment seeks to do is to provide some protection for individuals who have a number of small pension pots. We are aware that NEST is meant to supply a gap in the market for those companies and individuals unable to find pension provision elsewhere. Inevitably, small saving pots will be left in a variety of different schemes which will be a problem, not only for the employees but also for the employers. So in the interest of simplification, every attempt should be made to encourage some consolidation of these pension pots and we would like to see the Secretary of State making regulations to that effect so that these transfers can easily happen. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond)
I must tell your Lordships that there is a printing error in Amendment 34A. After “repayable” it should read “by cash considered” and not “but cash considered”.
Amendment 34A (to Amendment 34)
Lord Boswell of Aynho
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I rise to move my sub-amendment, to use European parlance, as corrected by the noble Baroness’s perceptive intervention, and to speak to my noble friend Lord Stoneham’s substantive amendment and around the parallel thoughts of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on this matter. My amendment is slightly different in character, but all these amendments are about essentially the same problem. I quote, with approval, the words of the Minister only this afternoon, which I jotted down for greater accuracy:
“It is very expensive to manage small pots”.
That is exactly what the problem is about. There are a number of complexities in the consequences of this. It is expensive for employees and employers, or pension administrators. It is extremely expensive for the Inland Revenue and gives rise to lots of often misleading tax codes, which overlap and never seem to get synchronised and sorted out. It causes difficulties for taxpayer compliance and taxpayer understanding when these bits and pieces come in from sources that are probably long forgotten and do not add up to very much.
On Second Reading I quoted examples. I will be a little more pointed than I was then. They were actually my wife’s two pots of about £20 per annum and about £30 per annum. Goodness knows what the administrative cost of carrying that burden is. I am pleased to see the Minister chuckling. As I recall the situation, my wife had already consolidated a number of pension entitlements and had one go at this. She had some entitlement under the teacher pension scheme but no actual pension and she had had that out. You cannot consolidate more than once. I may have got that wrong, such is the complexity of this. In other words, there was nothing that she could really do about them. The proposals, as I understand it from my noble friend and the noble Baroness, are basically that NEST should be an optional repository to handle them. I can understand that the Minister may be a little diffident about taking it all in while he is getting this extremely imaginative scheme under way, but there is at least the potential for a default mechanism to take this over. Were my energies not to have faded, I would have sub-amended my noble friend’s Amendment 34 to read “may make regulations” rather than “must make regulations”, but let us not debate that at this hour. The idea would then be that NEST would be a place where these could be sorted out.
An alternative approach would be to enable people to have a slightly more relaxed view about taking these in cash, which is what my sub-amendment in effect proposes. One always has a whiff that the Inland Revenue has a certain concern here. I am quite sure that some elaborate scheme could be devised of tax avoidance where people could have hundreds of miniature pots and somehow take it all out in cash with the full benefit of the accrued tax reliefs, ending up with a fortune. Perhaps this has never happened, but I am quite sure that the Inland Revenue would be there alert to make sure that it did not.
I also feel, in relation to the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the thinking behind it, that it is not absolutely essential that this should be done by NEST. It could be that, if the rules were made more flexible, existing administrators could take this on. I am pleased to hear her acknowledging that. I do not wish to create an unnecessary controversy in the Committee, but I have a feeling that the words “any willing provider” might even be considered. If, for example, in a case such as that of my wife, where there was an entirely trivial and ridiculous entitlement that could have been bolted on to her existing private pension arrangements, somebody could say, “This is the value of the scheme; will you take it over?”, and pay it possibly as an agent—I am not concerned with the legal basis of this—I think that we would be making some progress.
I feel strongly about two things. The debate in this Committee has rightly focused on mini-jobs. We are now talking about mini-pensions, which are often, but not always—and it is not contingent on income or anything else—a by-product of mini-jobs, and good luck to people. They may in certain cases, though not in the case of the lady whom I mentioned, be quite central or disproportionately important to the income or the top-up of income of the individuals involved. We should be moving towards a system that is less complicated, more flexible and less obsessed with the possibility of theoretical minor difficulties with tax. We should somehow cut through the legal thickets and deliver something that is cheaper, easier to understand and worth having in the hands of the beneficiaries who have properly earned it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I have high hopes for the thrust behind these amendments, given that all sides of the Committee today share a similar take on the problem. I know that the Minister shares this view and I hope that he can give us some positive indications of ways forward. I am particularly happy to follow the noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord Boswell, on this.
We discussed earlier the question of the number of job changes and we know that, as I said, the median number of job changes is around 11—25 to 26 per cent will have between 11 and 15 job changes and others will have even more than that. That means, depending on the rules of individual schemes and how long people are required to work before they can join a scheme—it could be two years or up to two years, or your contributions could be returned to you and you might decide to hold them in a pot—that it is likely that low-paid employees and some not necessarily low-paid employees, but people who have moved a lot in their first five, 10 or 15 years of earning, will build up some pension entitlement in five of those jobs. At, say, £11,000—half women’s average earnings—with a fairly conventional DC scheme, which I know applies in a lot of the charitable or voluntary world, a five plus five would mean that such a woman would have something between £1,000 and £1,200 a year in her pot for each year in her job. That could mean that she had five or six pots of anywhere between £1,000 and £3,000, depending on the rules of the scheme. The question then is what happens to those pots.
I am cross with myself because I missed a trick and I should have put it down as an amendment, because one way to approach this, obviously, is to follow in a slightly larger form the thrust of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, which is to raise the trivial commutation limit, which at the moment is £18,000— 1 per cent of the lifetime savings allowance. A trivial commutation limit of, say, £25,000 or £30,000 would pick up quite a lot of these very small pots without having to hassle about whether they were at or above a certain level. Of course, some providers—some banks and so on—will allow you to bring together five or six small pots and consolidate them, because they are then worth handling.
In addition, the Government propose in due course to remove annuitisation at the age of 75. However, the Treasury—bless it—has insisted on a quite absurd de minimis figure of £20,000 income. That is quite unnecessary; it merely needs to be about £8,000. Of course, if the new state pension comes into play at £140, you will not need any de minimis for failing to annuitise, because it will float you off all public funds, apart from housing benefit. Therefore, with, I hope, the new state pension of £140, not only would NEST be safe but so would all other small savings schemes. You would not then need things such as trivial commutation rules because the choice would be left entirely to the individual. We would be kicking out a lot of silly mess and tangles that have been imposed by the Treasury, which is more concerned to avoid £1 being lost through manipulation of the tax system than it is to encourage £10 being gathered into the savings system. I consider that to be really rather sad. I am sorry that I missed that point, but we will come back to the trivial commutation issue later if it seems worth doing so.
If the person in question cannot trivially commute and she is handling pots of, say, £3,000 each, she will be getting somewhere between £1 and £4 a week from each of those small pots. The Pensions Advisory Service—I should declare an interest as a board member of TPAS—has been very concerned about what noble Lords have called “orphan assets”. At the moment, a poor woman can use these small pots altogether, but she may end up with, say, £20,000 or £25,000 in her NEST pot, have three, four or five other pots of £3,000, £2,000 or £1,000 and lose all those small pots, which are above the trivial commutation figure, are too small to be annuitised and cannot be bundled together. She would effectively lose a third of her lifetime savings, even though she is on a very low income. No one would regard that as decent. Therefore, I think that she should be able to bundle or consolidate her various pots. For this purpose, I am talking about NEST but I am perfectly happy for it to be any willing provider. The important thing is that she can access all her savings.
What would be the advantage of my proposal? It is very simple. First, above all, the person in question retains the full value of all her savings, rather than possibly losing some of them. Secondly, it represents simplicity for her in retirement, as she could be handling just one flow of pension income rather than multiple flows of small pots. Thirdly, there is a sort of best-value option going on here—a version of the open-market option. In this Bill we have not yet talked about disinvestment strategies, but I suspect that she would get a better return on disinvestment were she to purchase an annuity if all these small pots were bundled together and consolidated into one scheme, rather than if she were trying to play around with various small pots to avoid losing them.
In my amendment, I stipulate that the transfer should be able to take place the year before retirement simply to recognise the concerns—they may be exaggerated but they certainly exist—among some pension funds that existing scheme providers will not want a wholesale flood of money from their schemes under management going earlier into NEST, possibly because NEST will appear so much more attractive in terms of the reduced fees that will be charged and therefore the amount that will be available for accumulation. I do not mind that, but they might, and therefore it may be a price that has to be paid.
Given the support around the Committee today, given that I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the issue that has been raised and given that we have produced two or three different ways in which we can approach this problem, I hope that we will get a sympathetic hearing from the Minister.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, given the hour, I rise briefly to say that we have put our names to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis because we support the thrust of it. We certainly also support the thrust of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, as amended by that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. This issue seems to have been around for a long time. The Minister may well push that back at us and ask why we did not do something about it, and that would be a good question.
If I have any caveat at all in relation to NEST, it is one that the Minister himself may have. That there should be no transfers into NEST was part of the consensus, although the consensus has been a little disturbed by the Bill, so that does not preclude this being opened up. It changes systems and the costs as well, but those are second-order issues in relation to the substantive matter that has been raised. The time is now right to deal with that.
Lord Flight
My Lords, I support these amendments but express a caveat about something that could lead to the wrong decisions. It may be wrong for people who have relatively small entitlements from defined benefit schemes to take transfer values and move them into a money purchase pot such as NEST, even though small amounts of money are involved, because transfer values have been getting relatively mean under the changed rules. I have always thought that NEST itself could have a problem. Managing large amounts of money in an optimum manner is quite a difficult thing to do. Therefore, although I am sure that NEST will be run relatively safely and sensibly, it will have to be run on a blue-chip investment basis. Therefore, it is likely to underperform some other funds. However, the principle of allowing consolidation and people to take the cash out if it is peanuts has to be right.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I support the notion behind these amendments. At Second Reading I drew attention to the possibility of people arriving at retirement with lots of little pension pots and not knowing what they would be entitled to. That sometimes happens now; people phone up and say, “Am I in your pension scheme? I just don’t know”. They reach retirement and, if they have been working for around 40 years, they do not know what they have. It seems sensible to have some mechanism whereby one’s pension entitlement is, as it were, collected as a cumulative amount of money. People would then know that they have access to this cumulative amount and the pension that is generated from it. In this sort of system we have the opportunity to do something like that. It would be a very good idea and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hollis on what she has come up with in Amendment 35. The noble Lords, Lord Stoneham and Lord German, certainly had something similar in mind with Amendment 34. The notion is a good one, whichever amendment is acceptable to the Government.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I must start by declaring an interest. I think I have one of these infuriating little stranded pensions. It is the most annoying thing. You look at the file, look at the headline and close the file because dealing with it is unendurable. I am far too polite to complain to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for not doing anything about it. If I thought about it I would resent him deeply every time I looked at the file.
I take the opportunity to let the Committee know, through these amendments, what we are doing to consider how transfers across the industry, particularly of small pension pots, can be made easier. The Making Automatic Enrolment Work review, carried out last summer, recognised that facilitating transfers was critical to the success of the workplace pension reforms. It believed, however, that the issues went beyond NEST. When automatic enrolment becomes the norm, there is a much higher risk that pension savings, particularly for lower earners and people who move jobs frequently, will become fragmented in several small pots—a point made so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, just now.
The Government are already acting on the recommendation of the review to consider how transfers across the industry can be made easier. The DWP is working alongside the Treasury, HMRC, the Financial Services Authority, the Pensions Regulator, employers and pension providers to understand better the burdens employers and schemes face when administering small pots, and to identify any barriers facing members.
In addition, the DWP recently published—on 31 January—a call for evidence on the regulatory differences between occupational and workplace personal pension schemes. We are seeking to address existing rules which could impact on the success of the reforms, such as rules on early scheme leavers and disclosure. The call for evidence is likely to consider actions better to manage small pension pots. This call for evidence closes on 18 April. Our response will be released later this year after we have considered stakeholder views and evidence of burdens and costs.
Her Majesty’s Treasury recently held a call for evidence on early access. This reflects the Government’s commitment to consider ways to boost individual saving and to foster a culture of personal responsibility over financial choices, particularly in encouraging saving for retirement. The document sets out the available evidence on early access to pension savings, some potential models for early access and the potential benefits and risks, and sought further evidence from interested parties. It included a specific question on ways to improve the transfer process and on whether there is a case for introducing further flexibility in the trivial commutation rules. The call for evidence closed on 25 February. HMT is currently considering the responses and will publish its findings in due course. So, across all three of these areas, we are seeking to identify options to improve transfers so that individuals can get the most out of their savings.
I appreciate the interest that noble Lords have indicated in the overall issue of transfers, which is much wider than the restrictions that are currently placed on NEST. The restrictions on transfers into NEST are intended to focus the scheme on its target market, particularly as the reforms are staged in, enabling its administrative processes to be simple, leading to lower running costs and creating safeguards against levelling down. NEST can already accept certain transfers in—for example, where a member with less than two years’ service has the right to a cash transfer. This allows jobholders who move from an employer not using NEST to one offering NEST to transfer their cash transfer sum into NEST. The Pensions Act 2008 commits the Secretary of State to review the effect of NEST transfer restrictions in 2017. But we are doing work now, before 2017, that will bring together evidence and analysis from a broad base.
As I know noble Lords appreciate, there is no straightforward solution and the outcome of any quick fix may not provide the universal remedy for individuals and pension schemes that we might hope for. Aggregating small pots by transferring them into another pension scheme is not necessarily a good thing to do for individuals, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, just pointed out, as it will depend on the merits—the risk, charges and growth—of the fund they are transferring into compared to those of the fund they are transferring from. It is not necessarily a good thing for pension schemes either, which, though they would no longer need to pay for the maintenance of a potentially smaller pot, would need to pay to transfer the fund out. Hence, the work we are already doing to see what measures we can sensibly take to minimise industry burdens while delivering the best possible protection of individuals’ retirement outcomes. We want to ensure that any solution will stand the test of time and meet the needs of all pension schemes and their members.
I do not want to prejudge the outcome of our considerations, but I can see the merit in a number of your Lordships’ arguments, including that of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, that we should take into account giving the individual a choice, where they have very small pension funds, to take the cash. It is, of course, the very smallest pots that cause the biggest problems, as even if transfers can be facilitated, the frictional administrative costs have a proportionally higher impact. The noble Lord talked about sums of £20 and £30—I shudder to think of the proportion of administrative costs involved in doing anything with them.
Our ambition is that NEST will complement rather than replace existing good-quality pension provision. Changing the provisions now to allow NEST to accept transfers in during the critical implementation period could undermine that aim. By 2017 the reforms will have been fully implemented. We will have more evidence on the effect of the reforms as a whole, including the impact of NEST on the market. While I appreciate the principle behind these amendments, I urge the Committee to bear with us while we get to the heart of this difficult and complex matter. On that basis, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
That is helpful and I understand the issues associated with it, but can the Minister give us some guidance on the timescale? This is a problem now, as my noble friend said. Women, in particular, are low-income savers and have small pots which they are losing. They are being stolen from them with nobody being a thief but with women certainly being the victims. Given that this Bill is still going through this House and will then go on to the other place, presumably once it has finished the Welfare Reform Bill, the noble Lord has until June or July or some time like that before the Pensions Bill completes its passage through both Houses. Can he come up with some proposal by the summer in which we can corral these small pots so that they are not lost permanently to those who can least afford to lose them?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am pleased to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. She will see by the amount of work that we are undertaking and its complexity that getting a comprehensive review is not going to be possible in a matter of months. We are clearly talking about a matter of years to lock this situation down. I refer back in politest possible way to what the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said. This has been a problem for a very long time and it is very complicated, involving a lot of different systems and structures of pension provision. We need a holistic solution. We have the work in train. We will get there but it will not be a matter of months, I regret.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, it would be very simple, at least as an interim stage, to build on what the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, was talking about and either have a cap on the size of individual funds that can be taken as cash or to raise the trivial commutation limit under specified circumstances. That would be very simple and would not get in the way of further more fundamental and wide-reaching reforms, of which I understand some of the bigger complexities—particularly between DB and DC schemes, although obviously DB tends to be confined to the public sector. But the noble Lord could make some interim arrangements which would not preclude an intelligent, sensible and decent wider response in the future. At the moment real people are losing real money who can ill afford to do so.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I accept the point that the noble Baroness makes that people lose money because of this. They have been losing money for many years. This problem has not suddenly emerged. Regrettably, because of the amount of work now under way, it would be premature for me to give any time indication about whether one could envisage some certain quick fixes that would go along with an overall strategy. It just depends. Noble Lords will understand that I am simply not in a position to say that we could apply some quick fixes along way. They may be possible but I certainly cannot indicate that that will be the case or the timing of it. I would love to be able to announce a wonderful transformation so that with one bound we broke free. But I can assure noble Lords that there is a major process in train to get a holistic solution to the issues of savings and these pots, and we are moving at a rapid speed to get that done.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I never mind saying this, but the Minister has given us an almost entirely satisfactory response. I can understand the noble Baroness’s desire to get on with this, so perhaps I might counsel the Minister to look at two interim approaches in parallel. First, if he could do anything along the lines of my amendment, it would help. Secondly, we should try to avoid these schemes accumulating further. If he can stop the rot and prevent any more of these little pots being created from now on or fairly soon, it would be very helpful. However, I fully understand, not least because of the comments made by my noble friend Lord Flight, that these are complicated matters. I suspect that we will have only one go at this—it probably will not be in the Pensions Bill with which we are now dealing—and we need to get it right. All power to the Minister’s arm on the overall concept, but I hope that he will remember at the same time to look either at whether existing arrangements and payments can be smoothed or at stopping the rot by preventing any additional schemes being created. However, in the spirit of what has been a very constructive debate, I beg leave to withdraw my sub-amendment.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
My Lords, I am grateful for the generous support that my Amendment 34 has been given and for the very generous response of my noble friend. Two points stood out: first, everybody recognises that facilitating transfers is critical and that it should go beyond NEST; and, secondly, we should look at the principle of early access. In that spirit, I am very pleased to withdraw my amendment.
“Voluntary and additional voluntary contributions into NESTs
After section 15A of the 2008 Act (as inserted by section (Transfers-in before decumulation)) insert—“15B Voluntary and additional voluntary contributions into NESTs
(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide that a jobholder who in a preceding tax year or years after the commencement of NESTs has not paid contributions up to the maximum employee contribution limit for the year or years in question may at any time pay voluntary contributions up to the total of the maximum employee contribution limit for each of those years.
(2) The jobholder shall not be entitled to require the employer to pay the employer’s contribution on voluntary contributions paid under subsection (1).
(3) The jobholder may exercise the right to pay additional voluntary contributions equal to the total amount of the contributions which would have been paid by the employer if the contributions in subsection (1) had not been voluntary.
(4) Voluntary contributions shall attract tax relief at the applicable rate.
(5) For the purposes of this section, rounding-up under section 9 above shall apply.””
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I think that many of us would like the annual cap of £4,200 on contributions to NEST to be removed. However, I again understand the industry’s worries about losing funds under management from the better-off. I accept that a person would have to be a reasonably high earner to hit that cap of £4,200 each and every year. The amendment would simply allow the making-up of missing years—I am rather keen on making up missing years whether in the basic state pension or in NEST. The person concerned may have enjoyed a small legacy, perhaps on the death of a parent and the sale of the parent’s home. They may have had a small lottery or premium bond win. He or she may have traded down their home to somewhere smaller while in their fifties and have thought that it made very good sense to add some of the modest equity available to their pension fund as a form of saving. They may have divorced and received from it a modest financial settlement of a few thousand pounds or so, some of which they would like to put in their pension to make up for the years that they missed. I make it clear that there is no suggestion of there being any parallel employer contribution; the amendment would simply allow an employee, if they wished, to add to their pension pot. The money would not come from any other savings, nor would it be a transfer. It would be, so to speak, new money. Although I doubt that it would occur very often, being able to add to their pension pot in this way would still offer women in particular, whose financial and, frankly, personal and private lives are highly unpredictable, some extra flexibility in the way in which they build their NEST pension. I beg to move.
Lord German
My Lords, I want to say a brief word about Amendment 38, which is in the group. Clearly, the Johnson review looked at this issue and having weighed up both sides of the argument, recommended that the Government should proceed to legislate. The words of the recommendation were quite ambiguous. It said:
“We are therefore recommending that the Government legislate for the removal of the contributions cap in 2017”.
One could read that as recommending legislating in 2017 for removal of the contribution cap, or as recommending legislating now. Actually, the text of the Johnson review does use the word “now”—in other words, it should be part of this Bill—but because neither the Minister nor the Government are on record yet as saying why they have not chosen to follow that advice, it would be very helpful if this amendment could be probed in that manner.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, perhaps I may comment briefly. I can see the thrust of my noble friend’s amendment. I remember that, when we debated the cap, we debated whether there should be an additional lifetime element as well. I think that, at one stage, we debated whether there could be a two or three-year period when one carried forward the unused amount. My recollection is that, other than the annual cap, which is as it now is, all that fell by the wayside, but the Minister may be able to update us on it.
It seems a good idea to me to be able to use the headroom in respect of unused bits, although I do not think there is anything that precludes someone who is, or might become, a member of NEST making a voluntary contribution up to the limit. The limit is not, as I understand it, an employee and an employer limit; there is a limit in respect of contributions for an individual. Certainly, for the reasons that my noble friend advances, if there were opportunities to use some headroom to get more into NEST, that would be good, so far as the removal of the cap supports the thrust of that. Again, given the consensus that was there and the existence of the cap, everything that has the potential to disturb that in the interim makes life a bit more difficult, although it would be good if it could go at the earliest opportunity.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and my noble friends for bringing the important issue of the NEST contribution limit to the attention of the Committee. I shall deal with the amendments in the order they were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has raised, through Amendment 36, a vital point about the ability of NEST members to make contributions to their retirement pots that exceed the minimum contributions required by automatic enrolment. NEST has been designed to provide a low-cost, portable pension scheme for low to moderate earners. We want to encourage people, where possible, to save more than the minimum. The NEST order and rules already allow a member to make contributions up to the annual contribution limit in the financial year in which the contributions are made, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, pointed out.
The current limit is already set at such a level that it enables median earners to contribute as much as twice the minimum contribution requirement in a tax year. Allowing NEST members to make use of unused annual contribution limits in subsequent years would undermine the purpose of the annual contribution limit. This limit was designed to ensure that NEST does not adversely impact on existing good-quality pension provision. While I understand the principle behind this amendment, we should not forget the purpose of NEST. This is to enable millions of people to participate in pension saving from which they are currently excluded because they do not have access to suitable workplace pension provision. Filling this supply gap requires NEST to be both low-cost and as straightforward a scheme as possible. Adding to the complexity of administering NEST through complex arrangements for calculating the maximum annual contribution would undermine those aims.
Moving on to Amendment 37, the noble Baroness raises another important point, about how the annual contribution limit should be calculated. The limit, alongside the transfer restrictions, is designed to focus NEST on its target market of low to moderate earners. This is to ensure that NEST will complement existing good-quality pension provision, not replace it.
The baseline contribution limit was set at £3,600 in 2005 terms, following wide consultation on the proposals in the White Paper, Personal Accounts: A New Way to Save. Responses on the appropriate level for an annual contribution limit were based on analysis of several factors, in particular, the potential impact on existing schemes and the ability of individuals to save flexibly for their retirement. In line with the provisions in the scheme order, NEST Corporation has adjusted the contribution limit for 2011-12, prior to scheme launch, to £4,200. The current method of setting the annual contribution limit strikes the right balance. It ensures that NEST focuses on its target market of those excluded from pension savings as a result of market failure, while providing for a level of contributions that is sufficient to allow employers and individuals to contribute more than the minimum required.
I turn to Amendment 38, tabled by my noble friends Lord Stoneham and Lord German. This puts forward the recommendation from the Making Automatic Enrolment Work review that the Government legislate now to remove NEST’s annual contribution limit from 2017. That review recognised the importance of the NEST contribution limit during the introduction of the reforms. It acknowledged that there was broad consensus behind the reforms, and that NEST’s role was to fill the supply gap that those in the existing industry currently find difficult to serve. The review saw the contribution cap as a key lever in ensuring two things: that NEST remains focused on this target market as the reforms are staged; and that during this important period it does not adversely impact existing good-quality pension provision. However, the review team considered that once the reforms were fully implemented it may be appropriate to remove the cap. This is both to ease the administrative burden on NEST and to avoid any unintended message that there was somehow a maximum appropriate level of pension saving.
Great minds think alike. Section 74 of the Pensions Act 2008 already requires the Secretary of State to appoint a person to review the effect of the annual contribution limit in 2017. By this time, the reforms will have been fully implemented and we will have more evidence on the effect of the reforms as a whole, including the impact of NEST on the marketplace. I am not saying that the review team was wrong. I am saying that, given that it saw 2017 as the right time to remove the cap—by then we will have much more evidence of the impact of NEST in the real world—2017 is also a more sensible time to consider changing or removing the NEST annual contribution limit. Since this can be achieved by secondary legislation, there is no need to legislate now. I understand the principles behind these amendments. However, now is not the time and, given the scope individuals already have to make additional contributions and our intention to review the contribution limit in 2017, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I can well understand why pension providers are—let me put it politely—apprehensive about the competition offered by NEST in terms of fees and charges and, therefore, want to protect the funds under their management. I accept the noble Lord’s argument that the bigger issue of getting rid of the cap altogether may have to wait until 2017, although I am disappointed about that. What I do not understand is why there should be any threat to existing alternative providers for people who are in NEST and who, two or three years down the line, find that they have missing contributions, possibly by virtue of maternity leave or whatever. I cannot see how that situation—making good the shortfalls of previous years—is in any sense a threat to any other provider. Because they are in NEST, they will not be in any other provider’s scheme. NEST is not, therefore, in any sense, competition to them.
I support the second of these amendments, although I understand the challenge that it might represent. However, the first amendment would simply make good the headspace in back payments, and I do not see why that would represent a challenge or a problem of any sort. Given that people occasionally get modest sums of money, it would seem to be consistent with our wish to encourage people to think about their retirement and to be able to make that money available for NEST. I do not know whether the Minister has anything further to add; he may feel that he has said all he is going to say on this.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Baroness for giving way and for giving me the opportunity to clarify matters. This is simply about administration, simplicity and cost. As you start to introduce these kinds of rules going backwards and forwards on what people can contribute, it gets very complicated and you start to build in the kind of complexity that we are all complaining about. Stranded pots are just one area generated by the complexity in the system. Therefore, the rationale here is: keep it simple.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, given the time, I do not think that there is any point in my pursuing this matter further. However, if not during the course of this Bill, perhaps subsequently we will come back to this bundle of issues, because it clearly has to be addressed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord German
“Deferred charges
The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide guidance on the level of deferred pension member charges.”
Lord German
My Lords, this amendment relates to deferred charges, and it deals with the part of the benchmarking of quality of schemes into which jobholders will be automatically enrolled.
As we have discussed on many occasions, a major segment of the workforce for whom auto-enrolment is aimed are likely to be frequent movers between jobs or, indeed, those holding multiple jobs during the year. One practice that is current in some personal pension schemes is increasing charges when people change jobs. An example of that might be where the current employee who is an active member of a pension scheme is actively contributing to a pension scheme, paying perhaps about 0.5 per cent in management charges. However, a former employee—that is, a deferred member of a scheme—is charged 1.5 per cent, which is much more than NEST will charge. Interestingly, the pension companies operating in this manner describe this as an “active member discount”, but the consumer association Which? describes it, more appropriately, as a “deferred member charge”.
These charges clearly penalise people who regularly switch employers, and it is particularly appropriate for many of the employees for whom auto-enrolment is targeted. Therefore, the concern here is that there should be a set of guidance, instructions or regulations to ensure that, in assessing the quality of schemes which may be alternatives to NEST, these issues are benchmarked appropriately.
Alongside this, there are concerns relating to the FSA proposals to allow employers to negotiate a consultancy charge with their advisers and then deduct those charges from the employee’s pension pot. The general purpose and thrust of the amendment is to guard against excessive charges and to ensure that the Government benchmark the sort of quality that they want in schemes which are to operate alongside NEST in the open market. I beg to move.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord German, and I am pleased that he has tabled this amendment, as it allows us to debate a matter which is of increasing concern to consumer groups, such as Which?.
There is a real issue of how the Secretary of State exercises his powers under the 2008 Act in terms of setting qualifying standards. Here, we are seeing two tensions coming into play. With higher levels of scheme membership, which automatic enrolment will bring, increasingly employers will not want to retain former employees—the leavers—in their trust-based DC schemes. They will prefer to transfer them out or default them into some form of personal pension. That is not necessarily an irrational position for an employer to take but the former employee—the leaver, the deferred member, the not-contributing-to-that-pot member—will move away from the preferential charges structure that their employer may have negotiated into a personal pension scheme with a much higher level of charge.
Where the employer workplace pension is delivered by a contract-based provider, both the employer and the contract provider may have an interest, for different reasons, in defaulting a departing employee or leaver into a personal pension which will very likely have higher charges, the employer motivated by not wanting to be responsible for a former employee and the insurance company because it does not want to maintain the lower charges for a non-contributing former employee. As the noble Lord, Lord German, has said, we have already seen instances of insurance companies offering active-member discounts, which, like Which?, I always say can be described as inactive-member premiums in terms of the charges raised. I know that this is something preoccupying the National Association of Pension Funds because it wants to set a quality mark and it knows that this is a particular problem.
In a world of auto-enrolment with an average of 11 job changes over a lifetime and the prospect not only of the difficulty of achieving a transfer but sometimes the costs involved in transferring and consolidating pension pots, there will over time be an increasing number of individuals who will have pension pots into which they are not actively contributing. It is this status of not actively contributing to the pension pot which leaves people vulnerable to the high or higher charges and the consequent returns on their pension contributions.
Therefore, whether the Secretary of State uses the opportunity of an amendment such as the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord German, or the powers reserved to him in the 2008 Act, he will need to think about what he chooses to do to control the vulnerability of workers to escalating charges on pension pots where they are not actively contributing because they have changed their employer. I am confident that that problem is not going to go away. Which? is seized of it, as is the NAPF, and it is something that the Secretary of State is going to have to address. It is not just a case of looking at the charges when somebody is actively contributing and accruing; there is the question of what is happening to the charges when people are no longer actively contributing into that pot because they have gone to another employer and may be saving into another scheme. It is a growing and important issue, and certainly consumer bodies are very alert to it.
Lord Freud
My Lords, my noble friend Lord German has tabled an amendment to give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations to issue guidance on the level of charges made by defined contribution pension schemes to deferred members. These deferred member charges, as he called them, are called “active member discounts” by the industry. Effectively, they offer lower charges to active members as an incentive, and perhaps a reward, for continuing loyalty.
The DWP has done some robust research on defined contribution schemes sold in the 2008-09 financial year. That showed that—somewhat to our surprise—charges typically do not exceed 1 per cent across the market, including trust-based and contract-based schemes. Where different rates were applied to active and deferred members, this tended to be in the form of even lower rates for active members, which begins to suggest that a true discount is emerging for active members, rather than a penalty for deferred members. It may be that consumer groups are saying that, as the pressure on charging comes down, the gains are taken by active members rather than deferred members. That might be one way in which we would like to look at it.
Baroness Drake
Even though the evidence that the Minister refers to shows that he is referring to 1 per cent, on a base load contribution of 8 per cent we aspire to charges of the order of 0.3 per cent and 0.4 per cent. A charge of 1 per cent is not a statement of success. We are trying to deal with two things. The inactive or non-contributing member should not suffer a disproportionate penalty, which they would not suffer in NEST. Equally, at the same time, charges should be brought down overall. I would not be very content if we were willing to settle on something of the order of 1 per cent. One would hope that, with mass auto-enrolment, the market generally would move to 0.3 per cent. If not, perhaps the provider should not be in the market providing products.
Lord Freud
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her market insight here. I choose my words carefully. It is clear that the capping has had an effect on charges. We are concerned that the pressure on charges should be maintained. That is why we have committed to monitoring levels of charging in the marketplace as automatic enrolment is introduced. We will publish guidance on default investment options in automatic enrolment schemes later in the spring. This sets out guidance for suitable charging structures. The guidance encourages appropriate charges, which match members’ interests, and protects individuals from charges that are excessive in relation to the product they are paying for.
Let us not forget, as the noble Baroness has just pointed out, that we are introducing a major change to the pensions landscape. NEST is being set up to offer low-cost pension provision to individuals on low to moderate earnings. We expect this, as does the noble Baroness, to act as a benchmark across the pensions industry, as well as to help millions of low to moderate earners to save. We are also looking seriously at how transfers can be facilitated across the industry so that savers can shop around for better charge rates more easily. As I described in my response to a previous amendment, HMT recently held a call for evidence on early access, including a specific question on ways to improve the transfer process. The DWP, as I have already described, has recently published a call for evidence on the regulatory differences between occupational and workplace personal pension schemes. In this, we are seeking solutions to address existing rules that could impact on the success of the reforms. Those include rules on early scheme-leavers and disclosure.
We are actively seeking to identify ways to facilitate the best possible deal for savers across the areas of charging and transfers. Therefore, I do not believe that regulations to make guidance are necessary at this time. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord German
I am grateful for the statement that the Minister has just made. Apart from the actions that he has described, I should be interested to know how in future you can actively promote to the companies and individuals concerned the sort of changes that the Government wish to see. I do not suggest that the DWP should set up its own confused.com-type of operation, but it may well be that we need some form of open process by which both employers and employees can see the benefits of different levels of charging by the different companies and whether there is transparency in the operation. I welcome the Minister’s statement on that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
“Continued saving following employment lasting less than two years
The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide support for continuing savings towards a pension for persons with qualified pension schemes relating to periods of employment of less than 2 years.”
Lord Stoneham of Droxford
In the interests of brevity as time is short, I am very happy to speak to Amendments 40 and 41, which are grouped separately.
Amendment 40 is related to the previous amendment, which concerned small pension pots. We want to ensure that small contributors to pensions over short periods are given due protection. We want to see that individuals do not lose out where they have less than two years’ service, particularly losing the employer’s contribution if withdrawn. We should like to see some ongoing discussion and review of how the position of these savers and pensioners can be protected. However, I accept that the transfer of pension capital is critical to this.
Amendment 41 is a probing amendment. It goes back to the discussion that we had on the past couple of amendments on the whole issue of the costs of pension schemes. We remain concerned that there are still no incentives for employers to be responsible for minimising the costs of the occupational pension schemes in which they are involved. We accept that progress has been made on this but we also accept that the Turner commission originally recommended more action on this point. We would like to make sure that, as the scheme is developed, there is an ongoing commitment to review whether the employer’s contribution should be net of the costs of the schemes. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in relation to Amendment 40, from the earlier response that we got from the Minister in relation to small pots and all the activity that is going on there, I presume that the sort of protection that the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, is looking for will be encompassed within that whole exercise. Accordingly, I should be interested to see the outcome of that in due course. Unless I am misunderstanding this, that is where it would be dealt with.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Stoneham for these two amendments, which concern the same issue—that of protection. Amendment 40 seeks to give us the powers to make arrangements to support short-term workers to build their pension savings. It is particularly those individuals who will receive a refund when they leave an occupational scheme within two years who will lose that opportunity. Clearly, the refund can be a default action, although they can choose to transfer the whole pension pot to another scheme if that is appropriate. Clearly, there is a very legitimate concern here that the default refund may mean that some individuals do not build up any kind of decent pot over time.
These are the areas that we are considering through the call for evidence on regulatory differences between different types of pension schemes, so I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that our activity here addresses this issue. It is a very complex area and there are many considerations on both sides that we need to take into account before making a decision or changing legislation. The issues are the trade-offs between helping employers and schemes and increasing pension savings. We cannot, for example, limit short-service refunds without considering appropriate processes to help occupational schemes to manage additional small pension pots. Therefore, everything connects to everything else. As I have already described, we issued a call for evidence on 31 January to initiate a debate on possible solutions. The response will come this summer.
Amendment 41 would ensure that employers take into account pension charges when calculating their employer contributions. I assure noble Lords that we are not complacent on this issue. We fully appreciate the impact that charges can have on an individual’s pension pot, particularly given the beta returns that we are currently seeing. We are taking steps to ensure that such charges do not have a disproportionate impact on members’ savings. We will publish guidance on default investment options on automatic enrolment schemes later in the spring. That will cover suitable charging structures, as I said. The guidance will encourage appropriate charges which, first, match members’ interests, and, secondly, protect individuals from charges that are excessive in relation to the product that they are paying for.
Baroness Drake
I am conscious of the time and do not want to hold anybody up, so I shall try to be brief. I understand the issues that the Minister is trying to address, but I repeat that low levels of charges—for example, 0.5 per cent or below—are fundamental to the success of this asymmetric paternalist product. Somehow accommodating business models for suppliers whose charges hover around 1 per cent will not deliver the necessary strategic outcomes.
Lord Freud
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that if the research shows that charging levels are creeping up, we have the power under the Pensions Act 2008 to regulate to set a charge cap for qualifying schemes and auto-enrolment schemes. NEST will offer low-cost provision to individuals on low to moderate earnings. As the noble Baroness knows better than anyone else in the world, the annual management charge will be 0.3 per cent. If the contribution charge is taken into account, the overall annual charge is the equivalent of about 0.5 per cent. That will provide a clear benchmark for pension providers.
Given the safeguards that will be in place, and in light of the assurances that I have been able to give on Amendment 40, I urge my noble friends Lord Stoneham and Lord German not to press their amendments.
House of Lords
Apprenticeships: Network Rail
Lord Bradshaw
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what encouragement they are giving to Network Rail and other large organisations to increase the number of apprenticeships on offer.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, Network Rail has a direct funding contract with the Skills Funding Agency, as can any company with 5,000 or more staff. The Skills Funding Agency encourages and supports these large organisations, enabling them to increase the number of apprenticeship places they offer and address their wider skills needs.
Lord Bradshaw
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that it is urgently necessary to increase the status of apprentices in our country? Does she further agree that professional institutions, be they in engineering or nursing, by adopting a graduate-only approach to membership of those institutions, are making it very unattractive for people to pursue apprenticeships? The way of entering used to be apprenticeship, further education, practical experience and then fellowship.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, I agree with pretty well everything my noble friend has just said. Apprenticeships should provide a pathway into the nursing profession as they always did. The Government are working with professional bodies and have made it clear that they expect apprenticeships to be a line into any professional standards and to be suitable recognised by the relevant professional body.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the excellent scheme that Network Rail operates in its training and apprenticeships but, bearing in mind that the Government are proposing much longer passenger franchises and that there is also a large number of contractors and suppliers in the industry, will she ensure that the apprenticeship schemes that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was talking about can be extended to other parts of the industry?
Baroness Wilcox
Yes, my Lords, I can. Already more than 200 forms of apprenticeships are being extended across the country. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, whose knowledge of his industry is so good, will know that we are working very hard to extend exactly what he has asked for.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, can I draw my noble friend’s attention to the success of the National Skills Academy for Nuclear, in which I declare an interest as its honorary president? It has successfully built up a programme of training for all levels of staff, including large numbers of apprentices, for which it has secured the support of a large part of the industry and its supply chain. This is something that might be an exemplar to other similar organisations.
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It came as a surprise to me that we now go from hairdressing to nuclear decommissioning as apprenticeships in this country, which is very worthy.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is a desperate shortage of civil engineers in this country. I believe that in the core team of civil engineers on the Crossrail project there is not a single member under the age of 60. In looking at these schemes, will she give some priority to civil engineering because the need is serious and desperate?
Baroness Wilcox
I am sorry to hear my noble friend’s news that all those people are over the age of 50. I shall look into this when I get back. I cannot imagine—
Baroness Wilcox
Was it 60? Good heavens. I shall look into this when I get back. We must be missing out somewhere.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet
My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise the importance of apprenticeships across big organisations, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has said—not only Network Rail—and where the Government’s funding is focused. Will she ensure that the quality of those apprenticeships is maintained and not in any way diluted to ensure that the speed of getting people through does not in any way denigrate the apprenticeship qualification?
Baroness Wilcox
The noble Baroness makes a good point. We are aware of it and we are monitoring it carefully.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, will my noble friend undertake to ensure that her department works closely with the Department for Education in considering the recommendations trailed in the press today from the excellent Professor Alison Wolf in relation to vocational education? Will she look in particular at the package of incentives which may be necessary to deliver high quality apprenticeships for young people over and above some of the perhaps less well founded quasi vocational qualifications?
Baroness Wilcox
My noble friend is referring of course to Professor Wolf’s review, which was commissioned by this Government. It raises a number of interesting points. We are considering her recommendations and will issue a response in the near future.
Lord Sugar
Will the noble Baroness allow me to go off the rails for one moment and generalise on apprenticeships overall? The coalition Government have announced that they will provide 75,000 new places between now and 2014-15, which seem to be focused on adults. There does not seem to be any other kind of provision for 16 to 18 year-olds. But more to the point—
Lord Sugar
The question is coming. I have been asking my colleagues here why I seem to attract heckling. More to the point, the Government have decided to axe Train to Gain, which provided 575,000 jobs, and the future jobs fund, which provided 100,000 jobs to people who were out of work for more than a year. My question is—
Lord Sugar
If we bundle all these into some form of initiative for providing work for the young and those who are out of work, what is the net reduction in initiatives that has resulted from their cuts?
Baroness Wilcox
My Lords, the number of new apprentices in this past year is 279,000 of whom quite a few are very young. As the noble Lord knows, we have a very special pay arrangement which was set up by his Government to ensure that we attract youngsters. I am so delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, has asked a question because it has given me the opportunity to say once again how marvellous his programme is for attracting apprentices into business, but that the aggressive tone he uses on the programme might not be attracting people into nursing and the quieter causes that we still so very much need in this country, including the youngsters to whom he is referring.
Railways: Light Rail Vehicles
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Rail Value for Money Study by Sir Roy McNulty is considering the use of light rail vehicles to provide low-cost passenger train operations on lower-traffic routes.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the Rail Value for Money Study is considering a range of options, a number of which might encourage more use of light rail vehicles.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the noble Earl for that fairly short Answer. I am sure he will be aware that a light rail vehicle called the Parry People Mover has been operating in Stourbridge at probably 99 per cent reliability all the way through the winter, which is much better than most other trains. Will he encourage this company and others to continue to develop these light railways, which use low-weight, low-emission vehicles that are much more reliable? They can be used on many branch lines and other places, and costs could be reduced. They are an alternative to the welcome announcement made two days ago about the intercity express programme, where I understand that the procurement costs for that particular train were £30 million for the department.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the Parry People Mover vehicle. We will encourage such developments. My officials in the department work closely with Mr Parry and they are working hard to resolve some of the technical difficulties.
Lord Bradshaw
My Lords, it took two to three years for the department to approve one vehicle which, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, has proved very satisfactory in service. Will the noble Earl ensure that, in the future, his department and the safety authorities get a move on and get something done?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, my noble friend has rightly raised an issue about the time taken for approval. However, I have to say that Mr Parry is a bit of a pioneer. The vehicle comprises some very new and pioneering technology so there are a lot of issues to be resolved.
Lord Kinnock
May I remind the Minister that Mr Parry has been pioneering this technology for at least 30 years? Many congratulations are owed to him on his persistence as well as his genius. Could I add to the various qualities of the Parry People Mover which have been listed by other noble Lords the fact that it is entirely made in Britain? That distinguishes it from many other forms of transport.
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord is quite right, but I have to say that the Parry People Mover is not a perfect vehicle. It has some technical issues, particularly with ride quality. However, I know that Mr Parry is working on those issues.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
Will the Minister give us an assurance that, in considering passenger travel, the strength of the rails will not be reduced so that they cannot take freight as well? We are trying to remove as much freight as possible from the roads on to rail. I am thinking especially of routes such as the Conwy Valley line where it is essential that the rail link is sufficiently strong to carry freight.
Earl Attlee
My noble friend has made an important and interesting point. However, one of the advantages of a light rail scheme is that the maintenance load on the track is considerably reduced because of the lower axle loads of the light rail vehicles.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, given the number of places in the country where a light rail solution to transport needs would be most welcome, does the noble Earl accept that the issue of ride quality is fairly marginal, given that we are talking about the short distances to be covered? I hope that he will show some enthusiasm for making progress in this respect and not wait on the report of the McNulty study.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I should like to make it quite clear that, personally, I am very enthusiastic about light rail vehicles. One of the advantages of the Parry People Mover is that it is extremely energy-efficient. But I also have to point out that Network Rail had to undertake improvements to the line to achieve an acceptable ride quality for passengers.
Lord Dubs
The Minister will be aware that a number of branch lines were closed many years ago under the Beeching programme and other stupid cuts. Does he think that the light rail vehicle might be a way of reopening such lines on an economic basis? I mention, for example, the line that runs from Penrith to Keswick in the Lake District.
Earl Attlee
I do not know about that particular line but the noble Lord makes the extremely good point that there will be opportunities to use light rail on old, disused lines.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, does the Minister recall that the last time the railways got enthusiastic about getting cheap and cheerful, lighter vehicles to try to reduce costs, we ended up with a generation of pacers about 30 years ago. Whatever happens with this project, the technology certainly has to be a great deal better than that.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am aware of the pacer vehicles and I agree with much of what my noble friend says.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, would Mr Parry not do well to reflect on what happened to the light rail plant in Workington, which was closed effectively in the 1980s due to reductions in public expenditure?
Israel and Palestine
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they and the Middle East Quartet have made of the effects of recent civil unrest in Arab countries on any resumption of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, at a time of great regional uncertainty, the quick resumption of negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians is more vital, not less. We need to show that legitimate aspirations for statehood can be met through negotiations. The entire international community, led by the Middle East quartet, should now support the 1967 borders as the basis for resumed negotiations. The result should be two states, with Jerusalem as the future capital of both, and a fair settlement for refugees.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is this not exactly the right time when the Netanyahu Government could now display some wisdom by responding to the EU part of the quartet’s suggestions for a freeze on settlements and the immediate resumption of talks with the Palestinian Authority, to lead to a solution equitable to both new states?
Lord Howell of Guildford
My noble friend is quite right that now ought to be exactly the right time. It ought to be very much more the time than was the case even a few weeks ago. However, we have to face the reality that obviously the Israeli Government feel extremely nervous and uncertain about what is to happen in Egypt, while we are urging more decisive action and firm decisions. Still, that does not deter us at all from pushing very hard on this central issue.
Lord Wright of Richmond
One month ago, today on 3 February and later on 11 February, I asked in this House whether the Government would upgrade the status of the Palestinian general delegation in London. Does the Minister agree, when I ask that question again, that it would in fact be a small but important signal of the Government’s support for a Palestinian state as the result of a two-state solution?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I agree it is a very important matter, worth considering, but I am afraid my answer at the moment to the noble Lord is that we are still looking at it—in a positive light and in light of the need to upgrade the negotiations and get momentum behind them—but we have not reached a decision yet.
Lord Anderson of Swansea
Does the Minister agree that whatever the effect of the unrest, the fundamental fact remains that it is the United States that will have the key role, if it so chooses, in the peace process and, further, that our own potential role is hampered by the fact that many Israeli politicians and military people stand the danger of being arrested in this country if they were to come? What are the prospects for Clause 151 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which at least would allow the DPP to interpose his judgment, rather than that of a magistrate, before a private prosecution takes place?
Lord Howell of Guildford
As the noble Lord knows, the Government intend to amend the law so that a private individual cannot obtain an arrest warrant under universal jurisdiction without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. We are quite pleased with progress—the legislation passed through Second Reading in early December and we expect the Bill to have Royal Assent before July. The problem has been recognised and action is being taken.
Lord Janner of Braunstone
Does the noble Lord agree that the recent civil unrest and changes in the region provide a unique opportunity for both Israel and the Palestinians? Does he agree that, if they are finally joined by other democratic nations in a fully negotiated settlement, that would be best for all the people in the region?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I strongly agree and I am very pleased to hear the noble Lord, whose views I greatly respect and who has stood up often as a somewhat lone voice in public affairs in these matters, say what he has just said. It is an extremely valuable contribution.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
Does the Minister agree that the civil unrest referred to in the Question was started in Tunisia by an unemployed guy being refused a licence to sell vegetables and that the people in countries with unrest at the moment are more concerned with their civil and economic rights than with the Israel-Palestine issue?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is right to say that the effects of civil unrest are rippling through the entire region, both north Africa and the Levant, and even touching the Gulf states. These are very important matters, but I do not think that he would disagree that one problem is the continuous poison, as it were, of the Israeli-Palestine dispute and that, if that could be settled, we would at least be on the way forward.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Does the Minister agree that the greatest risk to the Government of Israel would be a vacuum in the peace process at a time of great ferment in its Arab neighbours, who may be pushed by such a vacuum in a more radical direction, which would make the search for peace more difficult? Does he not feel that the best contribution that could be made in the near future is for either the quartet or the United States to put some ideas on the table and seek to engage both parties in a discussion of those ideas?
Lord Howell of Guildford
That is exactly what we would like to do and are seeking to do. The noble Lord, with his experience, has just reaffirmed my earlier point that, although this is what we must now do, the pressures are pressing the opposite way inside Israel, where there is increasing nervousness at the uncertainty and the difficulties afflicting their neighbours. We are dealing with a tricky situation, in which the persuasion we need to get Israel and Palestine negotiating on a new and sensible basis is working one way—and we are pushing—but Israeli fears are working the other way.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Will the noble Lord accept from me that his reply to the Question is 100 per cent right, and I support it? What is rather more strange is that I support the noble Lord, Lord Wright. Is it not imperative that the Government should come to a conclusion about the issue he raised forthwith? We should not simply accept that the situation should go on indefinitely.
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord is clearly in a supportive mood this morning and I am grateful to him for that. He is right to say that recognition of the Palestinian representation here is an important issue. We will seek to come to an early conclusion and I take note of his concern that we should do so.
Baroness Tonge
Does the Minister agree that this would be a good time to agree with the signatories of the letter in the Guardian this morning that all arms sales from this country to Middle Eastern states, including Israel, should be suspended?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Not necessarily. The reality we all have to face is that there are plenty of arms in the world and these arms can be obtained from anywhere, in various forms. We control very carefully our exports of arms, in a very tightly regulated way, and we do not believe that merely creating substantial unemployment here and damaging our well regulated industry, paving the way for less regulation and possibly worse and more dangerous arms in many countries in the Middle East, would help one iota towards peace and stability in the area.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
Does the Minister agree that in fact we have two sets of circumstances here? On the one hand, there is the sustained and absolute refusal of Israel to stop building settlements in the Occupied Territories—no matter who asks, including the United States—and that makes the possibility of a viable and contiguous Palestinian state less likely. Combined with that, as a result of the unrest we have the possibility, no matter what the root causes are, of elections that may well lead to the establishment of Governments in the Arab countries with a mandate against the Middle East peace process based on a two-state solution. That toxic combination makes the issue very urgent now. Does the Minister believe that there is a very short window of opportunity for the resumption of these negotiations?
Lord Howell of Guildford
I agree strongly with the noble Baroness’s analysis. The dangers are very great from all these developments. We have said several times in these exchanges that it does not take a genius to see that the Israeli Government are much more worried by the uncertainty, and therefore pushing them toward negotiation is going to be tougher still. However, there is a little window for us to push to try to achieve something, and we are going to do so very hard indeed.
Health: Care and Compassion?
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they plan to take in response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report Care and Compassion?.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, the department has asked the Care Quality Commission to conduct a series of unannounced inspections on NHS trusts, and will report on its findings. The department wrote to NHS chairs on 15 February to raise awareness of this report and to ask them to assure themselves that their own organisations were up to standard. Similarly, the chief nursing officer also raised the report findings at her February meeting with strategic health authority directors of nursing.
Lord Touhig
I thank the Minister for his Answer, which is very helpful. We in this country are blessed with a National Health Service staffed by very dedicated and committed people but, as this report highlights, there are instances of neglect and a lack of care for the elderly. The best way to prevent cases like the 10 listed here happening again is to ensure that everyone in the National Health Service, if possible, reads the report. It is available online at www.ombudsman.org.uk, but can the Government find ways to help to distribute the report so that everyone working in the health service can read it?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I understand and applaud the noble Lord’s reason for making that suggestion. I will overlook the issue of cost, but I am not sure that his idea would necessarily have the desired impact. What is needed here is for local leaders to take charge. That is why the chief executive wrote to every chairman and chairwoman in the NHS asking them to share the report with every member of their board, so that they can examine the services in their particular organisation and assure themselves that these situations are not happening on their watch. Nevertheless, I am certain that boards around the country will wish to take heed of the noble Lord’s suggestion.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
Does the Minister recall the number of legitimate complaints that were made during the period of office of the previous Government about bad treatment within the health service? Nothing was done with urgency. Will he recognise that when there are legitimate complaints, delay causes deaths and great suffering? When there are such complaints, they should be dealt with speedily and deeply.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will recognise the contribution that my noble friend has made to raising awareness of these very troubling issues, and I pay tribute to her. She is right, which is why our proposals for the NHS place a great deal of emphasis on strengthening accountability at every link in the chain, so that the complaints that she has referred to are dealt with speedily and someone is held accountable for what has happened.
Baroness Emerton
My Lords, will the Minister please say whether it is the Government’s intention to respond to the previous Prime Minister’s commission on nursing, which reported in March 2010? There were 21 commissioners, and I declare an interest as one of them. The report made 20 recommendations, 17 of which relate directly to the ombudsman’s report and, if implemented, would go some way to curing some of the types of incidents that were reported. There is a great need on the part of both the employers and the employees, and it was good to hear the Minister say that a letter has gone to the employers. Would it be possible to have an answer to the commission so that we could see the implementation of some of these recommendations? I am ashamed to be named a nurse when such dreadful care and lack of supervision have been identified. We have a responsibility here. I ask the Minister to look at the supervision of untrained staff and the regulation of assistant nurses.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I will look and see where we are on a formal reply to the commission’s report. Again, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her work in leading the nursing profession. She is absolutely right that strong nursing leadership at every level, from ward to board, is essential to ensure high-quality care. Ward managers make a critical difference, matrons provide strong leadership on wards and all nurses, I believe, must aspire to continuous quality improvement. That is why we expect directors of nursing to review this report with a view to addressing any areas of improvement in their own organisations.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, we warmly welcome this report and the actions that the Government are going to take upon it. However, how will a fully competitive market in healthcare ensure that older people are looked after properly, with care and compassion?
Earl Howe
Perhaps I may elaborate on an answer I gave earlier about our reform proposals, which have at their heart the strengthening of accountability. There will be accountability: for outcomes, through the outcomes framework, to ensure that NHS providers focus first and foremost on quality; through GP commissioning, which will bring commissioning closer to patients and ensure that it is clinically informed; and in strengthened local accountability, not only through the health and well-being boards in local authorities but via the public, through Health Watch, which will ensure that the NHS focuses on what is important to patients and citizens.
Charities Bill [HL]
Business of the House
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the debate on the motion in the name of Baroness Gould of Potternewton set down for today shall be limited to four and a half hours and that in the name of Lord Clark of Windermere to one hour.
Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No.2) Regulations 2011
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strathclyde
That the draft orders and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.
Postal Services Bill
Baroness Wilcox
Postal Services Bill
Baroness Wilcox
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Postal Services Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 and 10, Schedule 2, Clauses 11 to 37, Schedule 3, Clauses 38 to 41, Schedule 4, Clauses 42 to 50, Schedule 5, Clause 51, Schedule 6, Clause 52, Schedule 7, Clause 53, Schedule 8, Clauses 54 to 64, Schedule 9, Clauses 65 to 71, Schedules 10 and 11, Clauses 72 to 89, Schedule 12, Clauses 90 and 91.
International Women's Day
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
To call attention to the global and domestic challenges for women in the centenary year of International Women’s Day; and to move for papers.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure once again to open the debate to commemorate International Women’s Day to look at the global and domestic challenges that women face in this centenary year. I thank all who are taking part. The number of speakers today shows that there is an understanding that these debates are about issues as they affect women and, as a consequence, society as a whole. I look forward, as I am sure we all do, to the six maiden speakers who will contribute to this debate. Over the next week, International Women’s Day will be celebrated by women around the world, portraying the stories of ordinary women struggling for equality, for their rights and for the ability to participate fully in society—politically, socially and economically. The day also gives us the opportunity to celebrate the advances made and to identify the achievements that still have to be made.
Empowering women and girls is the most effective way of enabling women to participate fully in society, and has been the motivation behind the many declarations made and conventions and conferences held, which have provided a series of mechanisms and instruments to promote and embed gender equality. In 1979, the adoption by the United Nations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women—CEDAW—committed all member states who signed up to it, including the UK, to end discrimination in all their actions and in their legal and benefit systems, and to ensure equality and equal opportunities between women and men. That should be the blueprint for all our actions.
The world conference of 1995 in Beijing, after much controversy and opposition, led to the important declaration that women’s rights are human rights. The aims of the millennium development goals are to reduce poverty, to promote gender equality, universal primary education and a reduction in maternal mortality in developing countries. However, at the current rate of progress, none of these will be achieved.
In spite of all the commitments made and conventions signed up to by the nations of the world, discrimination remains entrenched and pervasive. Too many women continue to be subject to violence, exploitation and intimidation, to be the innocent victims of war, to have no control over their own fertility and health and to have no income or assets. They continue to represent the majority of the world’s poor, earning just 10 per cent of the world’s income, even though they work two-thirds of the world's working hours.
In sub-Saharan Africa, women represent between 70 and 75 per cent of the agricultural workforce but own just 1 per cent of the land, and still too many Governments deny women the right even to own land. Poverty and the hidden costs of education deny many girls the possibility of going to school, creating a situation in which in Nigeria, for instance, 4 million girls have no access to primary education. Nor should we forget that globally nearly 20 per cent of women die from HIV/AIDS and nearly 15 per cent from poor maternal services, and large numbers of women do not have access to contraception. It is all too easy to put to the back of our minds that one woman dies every minute from complications resulting from pregnancy and childbirth, having been denied good or any maternity care: 350,000 deaths each year. Maternal health is a human right and no woman should die through neglect when giving birth.
DfID's new framework for improving reproductive, maternal and newborn health in the developing world is to be welcomed. We await the details and the level of expenditure so that these aspirations can be put into practice. All these deaths are preventable with the provision of good maternity services and the right for women to have control of their own fertility.
Human rights and equality are two sides of the same coin and should underpin all decisions and actions taken by Governments and public bodies, promoting the dignity and value of each individual and groups of people. However, too many Governments around the world condone or ignore the extent of women's poverty, the extent of violence against women, and the extent of the subjugation.
That is a very gloomy picture, but there is hope on the horizon. After nearly four years of negotiations, the UN member states voted unanimously last July to establish for the first time a mechanism for effectively monitoring all agencies and country programmes as they affect women and girls: UN Women. They will have the task of ensuring that Governments across the world's developed and developing nations meet their commitments to CEDAW, to delivering gender equality goals, and to all aspects of women’s rights.
More than two-thirds of activists working on women's projects across the world say that ending violence against women must be the top priority for the new agency, and that it must look to seeing a full implementation of Resolution 1325 and to reducing the number of women who are the victims of war; 75 per cent of rapists in the DRC are armed fighters. To succeed, however, this new agency needs the political and financial support of the international community. So far, that support is limited. UN Women is already suffering from a $300 million shortfall in funding. We have to make sure that this is not yet another example of a commitment that is forgotten before the ink on the paper is dry.
The previous UK Government played a big part in establishing the new agency. I fully accept that this Government are committed to its future, which leads me to ask whether the UK is a leading donor and, if so, can the Minister indicate the level of funding that we are contributing? A key aspect of the agency’s work will be to encourage countries to develop strategies to increase the number of women involved in public and political life. Political decision-making remains largely the territory of men. It is one of the most striking examples of inequality between men and women, with just 19 per cent of the world’s parliamentary seats being held by women. Women’s engagement in pubic decision-making at local, national and international levels is a matter of democratic justice and a means of ensuring better government accountability to women and more focus on issues of concern to women. If we accept that that is so, it is certainly not acceptable that the UK is ranked 52 in the international league tables on women's access to political power, with a meagre 22 per cent women's representation.
Lack of women's representation and participation has been attributed to several factors and constraints. Some of the constraints include political structures that inhibit women's participation and some that relate to family and other responsibilities. To understand the reasons fully we have to be prepared to look at the traditional arrangements of political parties and government structures and, if necessary, remove obstacles to women's participation. We have to think beyond mere numbers and be much more forceful in demonstrating the impact of women's contribution. I still find too many people asking why we should be concerned and why there should be more women in decision-making and leadership positions. However, for women to be able to influence decisions that affect their lives and those of their families, they have to be directly involved. I say with the greatest respect to our male politicians that I doubt whether we would have seen the great advances that have been made in the strategies tackling violence against women if pressure had not been exerted by female politicians.
Just as the time was ripe for a review of women on boards, perhaps the time is right for a detailed analysis of why women are in such a minority across the whole field of decision-making, focusing particularly on women's place in the political arena. Gender equality is a crucial component of social progress and economic growth. Nevertheless, women in the UK continue to be disadvantaged across a range of economic activity. They experience a full-time pay gap of 15.5 per cent, 64 per cent of low-paid workers are women and women's average personal pensions are only 62 per cent of the average for men. What is disturbing is that there seems to be little prospect of improvement—rather, the opposite.
As a result of the deficit reduction measures, women face a triple jeopardy—cuts in jobs, cuts in services and benefits, and filling the gaps where services will no longer reach. Women are without doubt the biggest casualties of the cuts. Women's jobs will be more heavily hit, with 300,000 jobs likely to go in the public sector and 50,000 jobs in the NHS, the majority of which will be women’s jobs. We are already seeing big cuts in the support paid to mothers—including cuts in childcare, with the expected closure of 250 Sure Start centres, which will affect 60,000 families; and cuts in social care services for children, the disabled and the elderly. These all make it harder for women to combine work and family life. At a time when they are most needed, many support services such as refuges, domestic violence projects and women-only organisations are at risk of closure or have already had to close down because of decisions that are being taken that appear to misinterpret statutory equality duties. These services are vital to help women flee violence and rebuild their lives.
The determination of women’s economic independence has always been an important criterion in establishing women's equality. That will be seriously undermined by the cuts in tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit, the restriction of the Sure Start maternity grant to the first child only and the proposed introduction of a universal benefit to be paid to the main earner, who in the majority of cases will almost certainly be the man in the household. It is more than 30 years since women successfully campaigned for the concept of moving benefits from the wallet to the purse, with child benefit replacing the then family allowance, for the first time giving money to a mother in her own right. I would hate to see that principle disappear, and I hope that consideration can be given to how we can make sure that that does not happen.
We have to have a vision of a society in which women and men enjoy equality at work, at home and in public. We need a vision of a society in which gender equality is based on the belief that a just and democratic society results from men and women having the same opportunities, rights and obligations in all areas of life. In spite of the advancements that still have to be made, over the past century the world has for many women has been transformed, and gains are continuing to be made. That reminded me of a quote from a great male champion of women’s empowerment, Nelson Mandela, who said:
“When the water starts boiling it is foolish to turn off the heat”.
We all have a responsibility to make sure that the water continues to boil.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, as usual, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, has hit the nail right on the head with her eloquence and sense of occasion.
In recent years, and at my age, I can certainly report on and register the many global and domestic changes that have taken place in the lives of women, not only in this country but in many parts of the world. As I watch my television, I can only wish that women’s influence could have been used to prevent the terrible events resulting in so much innocent suffering for so many people today.
I was indeed lucky in 1979 to have represented this country as a member of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. At that time, the commission was nearly half way through the United Nations Decade for Women. I do not believe that the commission achieved a great deal, but it was an invaluable experience for us as we gained a woman friend in almost every country in the world. Some of those friendships were with me for life.
Many are the tales I could tell about the mid-decade conference held in Copenhagen. The British delegation, under the leadership of Lady Young, was incredibly lucky to benefit from our wonderful British ambassador, Dame Anne Warburton. Some time after, Dame Anne tied in with my Cambridge life when she became the splendid president of Lucy Cavendish College. I am very proud of the fact that I am an honorary fellow of Lucy Cavendish. That college, for mature women students only, is most superbly represented in this House by a past president, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. My memory goes back to a time when Lucy Cavendish was far too small to be recognised as a college. It was a perfect example of the courage and insight of a small but brave group of women whose efforts resulted in the full recognition of the need for such a place. Today, Lucy Cavendish College stands proudly as part of Cambridge University.
In this world of politics and committees, one is able to observe, and occasionally venture to suggest, a new or different idea—but not very often to succeed. For instance, I still vehemently wish that brothels could, in this country as in others, be legalised. If this ever happened, it would be very important for health reasons, and could aid crime prevention. I also very much hate burkas, but that is for another day. Parliament is a showcase of successful women. I think of the pleasure it gives me to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and at the same time, my sometime bosses, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chalker and Lady Bottomley—and, after all, even if she is younger than me, I am the baby of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher.
Perhaps I may end by paying humble tribute to the many, many women who never hit the headlines but who through their efforts broaden our horizons every day.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
My Lords, perhaps I may say what a privilege it is to follow my noble friend Lady Gould and the noble Baroness, the great Lady Trumpington. Much has changed in the past hundred years. The fact that so many women can participate and are participating in this debate in our House is a matter of note and of huge celebration. It is also significant, if we just look around the Chamber, that those women come from different cultures, religions and ethnicities, and all add their voices to the richness that we now have in this House. We are going to be delighted to hear seven maiden speeches today, all from women of real distinction who have each made a significant contribution to our country and our lives.
Much has changed, but much of that change has started with the creation of a legal framework which enables the rights that people have to be enforced in such a way that they can be honoured in the countries where they are promulgated. To do that, your Lordships will not be surprised to hear me say, we need lawyers. We need good female lawyers. As the House will know, I had the privilege of being the first woman to be appointed as Attorney-General in the 700-year history of that great office. With my honourable friend Vera Baird, we became the first all-female law officers team, and I have the privilege of being in the first all-female shadow law officers team, with my honourable friend Catherine McKinnell. I would like to tell your Lordships that that was because of our own innate and unique ability, but I fear that that is not the case.
It is very easy to forget that, until 1919, women were not allowed to practise law. I would like to remind your Lordships that 1922 was the first year when women started to practise, and in 1913 the Law Society refused to allow four women to be admitted. When the case went before the Court of Appeal in a very famous—I should say infamous—case of Bebb v The Law Society, the court upheld the Law Society’s decision to refuse admission. I would invite the House to remember the name of Mr Justice Joyce, because he found that women were not persons within the meaning of the Solicitors Act 1843. Therefore, it was not until 1919, when the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act was passed, that women could practise law. Indeed, Maud Crofts, who was involved in that famous Court of Appeal case, having studied, attended lectures, sat exams, and graduated with first-class honours from Girton College, Cambridge, was refused a degree by the University of Cambridge because of her gender. Perhaps it is not surprising that it has taken us 700 years to have the first, somewhat limited Attorney-General who happens to be a woman.
Since that time much has changed. Sixty per cent of those now being admitted to the Law Society as solicitors are women, but 23 per cent of the partners are not. Women have made a huge contribution to the creation of law. The House will have heard me speak on so many occasions on the issue of domestic violence, to which one in four women in our country is subjected. Two or three women die every day as a result. We made changes by working together across the House. Noble Lords will know that a 63 per cent reduction in domestic violence has been possible between 2003 and 2010, and that we have reduced the economic cost by £7.5 billion. Women and women’s voices have helped to make that difference.
I know that I have only limited time, but I want to say to the House that without women raising their voices with the great men that we see in this Chamber and elsewhere, change will not be possible. The framework needs to change, because there is much for us yet to do.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for this debate. She will not be surprised if I start with my perennial gripe. As I look around me, I see no woman on the Bishops’ Benches. I trust that that anomaly will be resolved before long.
I shall concentrate on two areas. The first is about women in prison. At any one time there are around 4,200 women in prison, representing around 5 per cent of the total prison population. Most are not serious offenders. In 2009, 61 per cent of imprisoned women received sentences of six months or less; 37 per cent had no previous convictions, which is more than double the figure for male prisoners; 63 per cent are in prison for non-violent offences; and around a quarter of the women imprisoned each year are jailed for shoplifting.
Women in prison typically have a wide range of serious welfare problems. They are five times more likely to have a mental health problem than women in the general population, with 78 per cent showing signs of psychological disturbance when they enter prison. That compares with a figure of 15 per cent for the general population. Seventy-five per cent have used illegal drugs in the six months before entering prison, and 58 per cent have used drugs every day during those six months. Thirty-seven per cent have previously attempted suicide. More than half of imprisoned women have suffered domestic violence, and one in three has experienced sexual abuse.
It would be far preferable for most of these highly vulnerable women to receive supervision in the community combined with help to address the problems connected with their offending. That was a strong message of the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, of vulnerable women in the criminal justice system. Her report states:
“Community solutions for non-violent women offenders should be the norm”.
It also recommends:
“There must be a strong consistent message right from the top of government, with full reasons given, in support of its stated policy that prison is not the right place for women offenders who pose no risk to the public”.
One of the results of that report was the establishment of a network of women’s community projects with funding from the Ministry of Justice. It is important that these projects are run by voluntary organisations in partnership with the probation service. They operate as one-stop-shop centres providing a range of services and have proved highly effective in keeping women out of custody by providing the support and help that they need to avoid reoffending. More than 2,000 women have been referred to the projects since they were established.
I understand that 11th hour discussions are taking place on the possibility of some continuing central government funding, but these projects are still unclear about whether any further central funding will be available to them after the end of this month. I would be grateful if the Minister could make an early statement on the amount of central government funding being made available for the continuation of these essential projects, the duration of that funding and the number of women’s centres that will receive it.
The second aspect of my contribution relates to women and equality. It is here that I refer to the one body that has been assigned with this task, the Equality and Human Rights Commission—the EHRC. Key issues need tackling if we are to achieve true equality in Britain. The time is short, so let me pose some key questions.
What plans does the EHRC have to take enforcement action following startling revelations of extreme pay gaps, including a gap in annual basic pay between women and men of 39 per cent? This gender pay gap rises to 47 per cent for annual total earnings when performance-related pay, bonuses and overtime are taken into account. Secondly, women in some of the UK's leading finance companies receive around 80 per cent less in performance-related pay than male colleagues. We must ask why. Thirdly, what action is the EHRC taking following the Speaker’s Conference on political representation, particularly on the lack of ethnic minority women in local and national politics? What action is the EHRC taking with regard to broadcasters following the successful age discrimination case taken by Miriam O'Reilly against the BBC? Does the EHRC plan to look again at the fact that the equality duties do not apply to employees of the BBC and Channel 4? Could we be told if the EHRC has been constantly blocked from taking legal action? The EHRC is at the heart of the equality debate and we need some clear answers to these important questions.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton
My Lords, I very much welcome this debate and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for securing it. It allows me an opportunity to depart from my usual area of expertise and experience and indulge my passion for gender equality and human rights. Yes, I was a passionate campaigner for women's liberation, long before I was a freedom fighter for disabled people!
I want to highlight the work of women seafarers and the global domestic challenges that they face. The lives of seafarers are not easy. They work, often far from home, in a harsh and often hostile environment. For most of the time they are out of sight and out of mind from the rest of us. We benefit from the fact that more than 90 per cent of world trade still depends on their skills and expertise. If we think about seafarers at all, it is almost only to curse their incompetence following an oil spill or when our ferry is delayed.
Seafarers are almost unique in that they must live and work together within the confined space of a ship, often for months at a time. Imagine arriving for today's debate and staying in this House for the next six months and not seeing your families or friends until September. Goodness me—it puts overnight sittings into perspective!
For women, living and working on board ship requires dedication, tolerance and self-belief. Often they will be the only female on board. Despite these obstacles, there are some remarkable women seafarers. I pay tribute to and celebrate Captain Inger Klein Olsen, who was recently appointed master of the cruise liner “Queen Victoria”. She is the first female captain in the 170-year history of Cunard. I hope that her example will serve as a role model to other women seafarers. Unfortunately, for every tale of such success, there is one of sadness. Last year, 19 year-old cadet Akhona Geveza was lost overboard from the container ship “Safmarine Kariba”. Her body was recovered four hours after she had reported being raped by a ship's officer. Although this was a UK-registered ship, not a single Brit was serving on board and there has been no investigation by the authorities here. The seafarers' union, Nautilus International, has called for a full investigation into the death of Cadet Geveza. Surely that is the least that we should do in response to the tragic death of this young woman.
Many women are employed on cruise ships. While there are good employers, tales of bullying and sexual harassment continue to taint the reputation of the cruise industry. Women from developing countries often secure employment only after making payments to dubious agencies. These women are exploited even before they have set foot on board.
Such problems can be effectively tackled only at an intergovernmental level. Seafarers, especially women seafarers, need protection and support from their Governments. Therefore, I was concerned by DfID's announcement on Tuesday that it will stop voluntary core funding to the International Labour Organisation. The ILO has a vital strategic role in protecting seafarers' rights and in getting Governments and the shipping industry to adopt the policies of equality and protection from abuse and exploitation that we all take for granted. The ILO is an organisation that the shipping industry cannot ignore. I hope that the Government will ensure that its vital role in working towards equality for women seafarers is protected. For, while the experience of Captain Olsen demonstrates amazing progress, the global and domestic challenges facing women seafarers remain substantial.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells
My Lords, I welcome the debate today and congratulate the noble Baroness on her instigation of the celebration. I am all too conscious as I read the list of firsts for women in public life that although the first woman priest to be ordained was listed, neither the first woman dean nor archdeacon was mentioned—an indication no doubt of the present glass ceiling, which has already been referred to, that prevents a woman from sitting on these Benches. I trust that the General Synod of 2012 will rectify that matter.
The UN Secretary-General has said that,
“equality for women and girls is not only a basic human right, it is a social and economic imperative”.
I have had the privilege over many years of working alongside and witnessing the struggle for human rights among women and by women. The first reconciliation group that I attended along the so-called Peace Wall in Belfast was the initiative of women. In Bangalore in India a street community that proudly declared itself “Now a People” in the local language was providing basic healthcare, education opportunities and welfare through its partnership with the seminary. Those are two small yet significant and hopeful signs that have brought further recognition of women's rights and a measure of social and economic well-being.
However, significant challenges still remain. During a number of visits to Zimbabwe, I frequently met women and girls engaged in the struggle to maintain dignity, autonomy over their own lives and a hope for a better future. One group of sixth-form young women shared with me their dreams. “I want to be a doctor”, said one. “I want to be a pilot”, said another. “I want to build the planes she flies”, said a third. “Bishop”, the head teacher said to me later that morning, “Most of these girls will be dead before they are 30. If AIDS, domestic violence or hunger does not get them, they have a one in 10 chance of surviving into their 40s”.
This is a profoundly serious issue. Sometimes it is illustrated only by the gift of filmmakers and other artists. I draw your Lordships attention to a remarkable film, “Buddha Collapsed out of Shame”, in which the producer tells the story of a young girl living in the ruins of the Buddhas blown up in Afghanistan some years ago. The little girl wants to go to school. She needs a notebook and a pencil. To get it, she must sell eggs. She is jostled in the market and drops four of the six eggs and has enough to purchase only the notebook. Determined not to be denied her schooling, she steals her mother's forbidden lipstick to use as a marker. On her way home from her first—indeed, only—day at school, the local boys of her age accost her, discover her lipstick, accuse her in adult language of being a whore and place her in a pit to stone her. The genius of the director lies in his capacity to keep the viewer guessing whether that is some ghastly contemporary Lord of the Flies game or whether it is for real. Of course, it is for real—all too real for all too many women and girls. Children mimic adults.
Governments rightly take credit for progress in peacemaking and human rights, and the development of education and health programmes, but rarely, if ever, is progress made without previous grassroots activity on behalf of—and, frequently, by—those most affected. Grassroots or community activity is the basis of genuine change. Welcome though the Government's intention to target the poorest of nations is, which will result in saving more than 50,000 women's lives in pregnancy and childbirth, it is regrettable that aid to Burundi, Niger and Lesotho has been withdrawn, while that to India, which is now a burgeoning economy, has not.
It would be tragic if work in our country to secure the well-being of women and girls facing domestic violence, discrimination due to single parenthood or the removal of educational opportunity were cut without due regard for the consequences, particularly in this highly significant centenary year for women.
Baroness Heyhoe Flint
My Lords, I am trembling at the batting crease, waiting to face the Opposition’s fast bowling, but am relieved that the traditions of this honourable House mean that interruptions are not considered cricket.
With great pride, I have moved from Lord's NW8 to the Lords SW1, and I thank everyone for an incredibly warm welcome—from the doorkeeper is to the highest officeholders among your Lordships. I also thank very much my two calming supporters, my noble friends Lord Coe and the Minister, Lady Verma. I know the doorkeepers by the football teams that they support. I must declare an interest as a former director and now a vice-president of Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club. Sadly, no doorkeeper is a Wolves fan, but on the Floor of this Chamber, I can reveal two Wolves supporters: the Lord Speaker—who perhaps is in the changing room now—and my very kind mentor, my noble friend Lady Perry, both of whom, like me, are former pupils of Wolverhampton Girls’ High School, where cricket was our main summer team sport. What a very strong batting line-up, you might say.
My father was director of physical education for Wolverhampton and my mother taught gymnastics at local schools. With that sporting background, I again declare an interest. Not only do I understand the LBW law in cricket, I actually understand the offside rule in football.
Our debate today presents an opportunity to emphasise the challenges that women have to face in gaining acceptance and recognition in the world of sport: in participation, funding, media coverage and representation at board level. My challenges in sport began at the age of seven with garden cricket with my brother and his friends. I was not allowed to bat for three years—“Girls don't play cricket”. When I eventually got to bat, the boys could not get me out for three days so, in the middle of June, they decided that it was the football season.
The challenges were out there for me at an early age, and the challenges are out there nowadays for most young girls who want to get involved. As Peter Evans, Midlands regional development manager for baseball, softball and modern pentathlon—what a mixture—has written, it may seem simplistic, but if you provide an activity for girls with good-quality coaching and proper clothing that combines a cool image and a fun environment, they will thrive and commit themselves wholeheartedly. It is sport that will help to tackle issues such as obesity, self-esteem and prejudice.
The image and profile of females in sport could be helped enormously if more women were represented on the boards of sports governing bodies—providing, of course, they merit such an appointment and are not merely the statutory women. The 2010 Commission on the Future of Women’s Sport, ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, found that only one in five members of national governing bodies are women. One quarter of sport governing bodies have no women on the board at all yet, ironically, almost half the staff of 44 out of 47 Sport England-funded NGBs are female.
The business case is unarguable. The presence of suitably qualified women will provide a balance of skills and perspective. The England and Wales Cricket Board, if I dare mention cricket on a day like today after what happened to the English team in Bangalore yesterday—I hope there are some happy Irish people in the House today—is a shining example of an NGB which offers recognition, given that two out of 10 of the board’s non-executive members are women.
The MCC at Lord’s—the home of cricket—which is a private members club with a public responsibility for cricket, admitted women as members in 1998 after a mere 211 years. I was there at Lord’s to hear of the victorious result. One very sad, senior MCC member saw me, looked me straight in the eyes and said, “My life will never be the same”. I certainly would not advocate a quota system. I do not believe legislation is the route: no breaking of the glass ceiling—more a level playing field.
Greater media coverage for women in sport will assist development and improve sponsorship opportunities. When I was an active journalist—last century—I tried to get a better profile for the England women’s cricket team and, as a result of that, because he read about us in the Daily Telegraph, Sir Jack Hayward sponsored the England women’s cricket team for five years and developed the first women’s world cup cricket, two years before the men’s.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for giving me the opportunity to speak to this Motion. It may only be by persistent persuasion that women will overcome the problems that I have highlighted, but in challenging economic times we need companies, charities and philanthropists to invest in the potential of women in sport who, after all, are 50 per cent of their market.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, it is with great pleasure and pride that I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, in the batting order. I congratulate her on her sparkling maiden speech and welcome her to your Lordships’ House.
She and I met years ago on a cricket pitch—Lancashire v Warwickshire—and I have admired her sporting achievements for years. She is involved not only in international cricket but in international hockey, and she is a keen golfer and squash player. She is vice-president of Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club, a board member of the England and Wales Cricket Board—one of the first two women—and was elected to the MCC general committee in 2004, the first women in the 217 years of the club’s history. She has been and still is involved with many charities, and was an outstanding president of the Lady Taverner, which raises money for disabled children to do sport and in which I declare an interest as a member of that organisation. She was the first female TV presenter. She has won the Guild of Professional Toastmasters award for after-dinner speaking. She has trodden for years where women have not been accepted. How appropriate for this debate today.
Let me turn to her cricket. She captained England when women played for the first time at Lord's in 1976. At the Oval that year she scored 179 against the Australians. She has 30 test centuries. Of the great cricketers elevated to your Lordship's House, their averages were as follow: Lord Hawke seven, Lord Constantine 19, Lord Harris 29, Lord Sheppard 37, Lord Cowdrey 44 and the noble Baroness 46. Resolute in defence, aggressive as a bat, she is a remarkable woman and a great friend who will bring a great deal of humour and common sense to your Lordship's House and will be a real asset in so many ways.
Turning to the global and domestic challenges for women, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Gould on yet again leading this debate. I will focus on some of those women who are truly challenged—those who have no voice to speak for themselves. Women suffer in wars they have not created, where they suffer violence and rape. Women are trafficked both in this country and abroad and are rendered powerless and degraded. Women suffer torture and genital mutilation. It is trafficked women I shall focus on today, and I shall ask the Minister to update the House on government policy on trafficking and on what progress has been made on the signing of the European directive.
Let me start with a case study which typifies the horror and shame of trafficking. Take the young woman from Romania trafficked at the age of 17. She was given a fake passport and promised a job cleaning in hotels. She was forced into prostitution, sometimes being obliged to have sex with men 12 times a day. The relationships were often violent. Her earnings were kept by the trafficking ring. She was arrested for prostitution, and then taken into custody where she was safe. Eventually the trafficking team was arrested and given the longest sentence for trafficking in UK history. Sadly, some women are never found once they are trafficked. It is reckoned that up to one in seven sex workers in Europe may have been forced into it through trafficking and that 84 per cent of victims of trafficking in Europe are trafficked for sexual exploitation. Some European estimates suggest that between 1990 and 1998 more than a massive 253,000 women and girls were trafficked for the sex industry in the then 12 European Union countries. Sexual exploitation is not the only exploitation. Domestic servitude is also a reason for trafficking.
The joint project between the European Women's Lobby and the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women recommends that the focus should be not only on the victims of trafficking but on the responsibility of those who buy women into prostitution and on taking specific action on women's human rights. They call for Governments to address the political will to create measures against trafficking and sexual exploitation and to implement effective sanctions, so I am eager to know what we in the UK propose. Trafficking of helpless victims should be treated as a serious criminal offence. Criminal gangs must be sought and punished. I ask the Minister how far the Government accept this and what will be done.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I rise to speak for the first time in some trepidation and in awe of the excellence of the debate and the many unwritten conventions by which this House regulates itself. The welcome I have received from noble Lords and from the attendants, doorkeepers, officers and staff of this House has been generous and supportive, and I thank those who helped my family on the day of my introduction. I particularly want to thank everyone involved in the briefing and induction process for new Peers. It makes this new girl feel that any ignorance is hers alone.
I have a particular interest in education through my time as a Cambridgeshire county councillor with the education portfolio, then as the skills champion and deputy chair at the East of England Development Agency, and my 20 years working in higher education, including as senior bursar of Lucy Cavendish College under the presidency of my noble friend Lady Perry, who was referred to by my noble friend Lady Trumpington.
This debate honours the centenary of International Women's Day, and I start by marking the contribution of my cousin, the late Lady Stocks of Kensington and Chelsea. I remember from the early 1960s this doughty—and, to be frank, to an 8 year-old, scary—lady whose debates at Sunday lunch were always impressive. At an early age, she showed me that women could do anything they set their mind to. Unusually for a primary school girl, I understood the importance of Cross-Benchers and the role of Life Peers.
I was later shocked to discover—children often fail to understand that their elders were once young—that this eminent Peer of the realm had started her own career as a rebel. One hundred years ago she was a suffragette marching to Parliament to demand that women should be given the vote. She dedicated her life to the education of women and she showed me, in the words of John Stuart Mill, that women must,
“stir up the zeal of women themselves”.
I suspect that she also helped to create the rebel in me, occasionally to the amusement of my much-loved late father, Tim Brinton, formerly of another place.
Globally, women still bear a disproportionate burden of the world’s poverty. A UNIFEM report last year said:
“Statistics indicate that women are more likely than men to be poor and at risk of hunger because of the systematic discrimination they face in education, health care, employment and … control of assets”.
I would like to focus on a smaller group of women. Those with disability are known to be further stigmatised and experience even greater poverty, less education and worse health than their non-disabled peers. I will give just one example. In rural Tanzania, as many as one in 10 pregnant women develop obstetric fistula after an extended labour. Tragically, 90 per cent of these women lose their babies and are then confined to home with the debilitating results—uncontrolled leaks and resulting health and hygiene problems. Women find themselves outcasts in their own community. Obstetric fistula can be treated by a simple, free hospital operation and rehabilitation in Tanzania, but it was difficult for the health professionals to identify women who needed help because they were invisible. Without treatment, the women became disabled and unable to take any part in their society, all for the want of transport to hospital.
As a result of lateral thinking and using modern technology, Comprehensive Community Based Rehabilitation Tanzania, an NGO that works with CBM UK, the disability charity of which I am a trustee, developed a scheme called M-PESA with the phone company Vodacom. Regional representatives locate women with obstetric fistula and alert the NGO, which transfers money via a text message on a mobile phone to pay for a woman’s bus fare to the hospital. This really is a case of “for the want of a nail the kingdom was lost”, or, to turn it positive for this project in Tanzania, “for the want of a bus fare, a woman’s life is returned to her, and her family”. Projects such this, funded either by private or public funding, lie at the heart of the best in world development, and I am encouraged that maternal health is one of the key objectives of this week’s DfID review. However, I hope that the guidance is not drawn so tightly that low-cost projects like this, which are truly life changing, are excluded in future because a bus fare might not count as maternal health.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for instigating this debate, and I look forward to many more. I am humbled that I am able to play a small part as a servant of this House and look forward to contributing in future.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak in today’s debate on a very important subject, but first I am delighted to pay tribute to and to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to your Lordships’ House, and I thank her for her wonderful contribution today. Her experience through her work in the media, business, education and the public sector will be a great asset to this House. I am also delighted to learn that we share a love of football—but in my case it is Middlesbrough, so I say that in the loosest sense of the word—and swimming, but perhaps sadly not her love of cooking. It was wonderful to hear her passion and warmth in promoting the rights of disabled women, which is also close to my heart. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that we look forward to the noble Baroness’s future contributions.
I raise the particular issue of disabled women’s participation in society, especially in sport and physical activity. Through research from the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation, for which I chair its commission on the future of women’s sport, we know that the drop-out rate for non-disabled women in sport is around the crucial age of 16. If we could only encourage British girls to take part in just two hours of physical activity every week, they would be less likely to be teenage mothers or involved in abusive relationships and would be more likely to stay in education. Who would not want that for any young woman?
However, we know that it is considerably more difficult for disabled women to achieve inclusion in sport. A recent report from the Office for National Statistics looked at social participation across a range of themes, including a European barometer of public opinion. The biggest barrier for anyone wanting to participate in physical activity is time. How many of us in your Lordships’ House today could say that? The second biggest barrier to participation is being disabled. I am very lucky in that I can say that in my life I have rarely experienced discrimination due to being a woman, but if discrimination were a top trumps game, disability would receive nearly maximum points. When I was pregnant with my daughter, I was told several times by a variety of people, including a nurse and a doctor, that people like me should not have children.
I have in my work with the Laureus Sport for Good Foundation, of which I am trustee, seen this even more starkly around the world. The charity uses sport as a tool for social change across a range of countries and projects. In the past couple of years I have been fortunate to visit projects in India, Rwanda, Israel and Palestine, and have seen the issues that face disabled women internationally.
On a recent visit to the image project in Rajasthan, I spoke to girls who had polio. It is a great worry that girls aged 14 and 15 are living with this condition. They had been abandoned, ignored and abused just because they were disabled. They were living in a school that doubled as a children’s home for many of them. So many girls were living there that they were sleeping 20 to a five-bedded room. They were sleeping on the floors in the corridors and the teachers had to sleep on the roof because there was nowhere else for them. The teachers experienced discrimination because they were working with disabled children and they found it difficult to live in their own communities because of the work that they were trying to do.
Sport and physical activity played a crucial role in helping all these young women adapt to their impairment, to feel valued and to get access to education. It also gave them an opportunity to contribute to local society. It gave them skills that enabled them to have a job and to be able to change the way in which the local environment thought about them. Because where they lived was so inaccessible and they had few wheelchairs, they needed to be introduced to physical activity so that they could be strong enough to live their everyday lives. One of the most dramatic and upsetting things that I have ever seen was the girls having to crawl along the corridors between their bedrooms, study rooms and the kitchen because they did not have enough wheelchairs. They had to share the wheelchairs and take turns to use them. When visitors came they were brought out in stages because they could not all come to meet me together. For someone who takes the use of a wheelchair completely and utterly for granted, that was a devastating experience.
When I spoke to the girls, their aspirations were simple. They want to be treated like non-disabled women in their local community. The dream of full inclusion and equality, and to have the same rights as a man, was a step too far. When I asked one of the girls whether they believed that they could achieve that, they looked at me and said, “No, not in my lifetime”. Whenever the battle for true inclusion for women perhaps gives the impression that we are close to the finish line, this is a stark reminder that there is still a long way to go. Today, I ask what steps we can take to ensure that disabled women receive more support, whether through international aid or other sources, to ensure that they have a chance to succeed. I know that we can all do more to make this better.
Lord Sugar
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to join the debate, and my reasoning will possibly become evident later. Over the past 40 years, I have had the good fortune to employ a number of women in senior executive positions, and I have to say that I have found women in business to be very focused, determined and ambitious. Indeed, in top management positions, they seem to place little importance on building ego and simply get on with the job in hand in a very efficient manner.
About two years ago, I was asked to give an interview to two lady journalists from the Daily Telegraph. The interview was supposed to be about entrepreneurs, enterprise, young people and all that stuff, but it came to an abrupt halt when they brought up the subject of women in work, pregnancy and childcare regulations. I have found that a bit of sensitivity arises when someone like me speaks out on these matters. It tends to spark off in some people a kind of knee-jerk reaction and they do not seem to hear or want to hear what I am saying. Regrettably, what was reported in that newspaper did not reflect my sentiments, so I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gould for tabling this debate as I will be able to air the point I wish to make—and this time I have Hansard to fall back on for the record.
My point, very simply, is that I believe that employment regulations for women, whereby the prospective employer is not able to inquire about the interviewee’s status regarding children, childcare, or indeed their intention of becoming a parent are counterproductive. And I think that some women may agree with me on this. As things stand, regardless of the current laws and regulations, interviewers are forced to play out some kind of psychological charade. They know their obligations under the law, but effectively in some cases they make up their mind in advance about the prospect of employing the person sitting in front of them.
I say that, when being interviewed, women should be forthcoming by declaring their status regarding children and childcare so as to pre-empt any “unaskable” questions in the mind of the interviewer, and then to focus on the most important thing: explaining what skills they can bring to the company and why they should be employed. I, for one, would be very impressed with a person who settled the matter at the outset, telling me how they are going to organise their life in order to do their job, but more importantly, how they are going to get on with the job in hand and what they are going to bring to the party. Such people would jump up in my estimation.
As I have already said, I have had the pleasure of employing many women in executive positions over the years. The managing director of my French operation had three children—in fact, she had one of her children while she was employed by me. She controlled that market much better than I could ever have done. The same could be said for the lady who ran my Hong Kong branch, a job she did so well that I seconded her to the UK to head up my manufacturing operations worldwide. Additionally, those noble Lords who are familiar with the television programme with which I am associated will know that for the last two years running, a woman has won, one of whom is now on maternity leave. She has done a very good job and, of course, the position is open for her when she returns. Perhaps I may also add that my assistant on the programme, Karren Brady—the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe-Flint, will appreciate this—has spent the whole of her working life in football at the highest level. She was the youngest ever woman to be a public company director and has openly managed her life around her children without ever feeling the need to keep it a secret. I could not finish without mentioning Margaret Mountford, of course—my noble friend Lady Scotland will appreciate this—who, trust me, is a person.
Sometimes the law can be foolish and counterproductive. I urge women going after jobs to be bold and upfront during the interview process. Let me leave noble Lords with this final thought: while I have been talking and referring to the “interviewer”, the person most probably imprinted in noble Lords’ minds is a man. This should not be assumed. I have to say that the scepticism—the charade that I spoke of earlier—is played out equally by both genders.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
My Lords, I start my maiden speech today by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, on once again securing this important debate. I am conscious that there are many eminent pioneers both in this Chamber and outside who have led the way by campaigning on these important issues. In my own party, for example, I mention my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon, who introduced last year’s debate on the same subject. My noble friends Lady Morris of Bolton, Lady Ritchie of Brompton and the Minister have all been active for many years in championing the cause of women, and particularly women in Parliament. I would also like to thank the staff of your Lordships’ House. It is well known that it is not the Government, the Opposition or the Whips who can tell you what is happening. If you really want to know what is going on, you have to ask a Doorkeeper.
I most enthusiastically thank my supporters. My noble friend Lady Shephard of Northwold was in 1992 appointed the first Minister with special responsibility for women’s issues; she has encouraged me and many other women. It is also, of course, a very special pleasure to thank my noble kinsman Lord Jenkin of Roding for his support and advice; the most pertinent, which I hope to follow today, is to speak “loudly, slowly and clearly”.
However, I have two other noble kinsmen who are both relevant to today’s debate. My great-grandfather, Sir Willoughby Dickinson, Liberal MP for St Pancras North, was an early and prominent supporter of women’s suffrage. He was incensed that his sister, an eminent doctor, did not have the vote. He first introduced a women’s suffrage Bill in the other place in 1907. In a speech, he said:
“I regard this question of the women’s franchise as part of the movement of civilisation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/12; col. 720.]
In the early part of the last century, women’s suffrage was not a universally popular cause, and his support for it did his career in the Liberal Party no good. On 10 January 1918, he wrote about the events in this place on that day:
“The House of Lords has passed the women’s suffrage clauses by 134 to 69, so this job of mine is finished”.
Although the struggle for women’s votes was finally won, the battle for women MPs had only just begun.
My great-grandfather later became a Labour Peer, Lord Dickinson of Painswick, and with great pride he watched his daughter, my grandmother, take her seat in 1937 as the MP for Hemel Hempstead. That same grandmother, Joan Davidson, who later sat in this House as Baroness Northchurch of Chiswick, was the only Conservative woman MP returned to Parliament after the 1945 election.
Although I stood as a candidate in 1987, my own active involvement with the issue of women in Parliament began in 2005. After the general election of that year, a mere 9 per cent of the Parliamentary Conservative Party were women. More and more Conservatives were at last starting to realise that this was not just an issue of representation, it was one of credibility—the credibility not just of the Conservative Party but of politics as a whole. Together with a small group, I co-founded Women2Win, a pressure group of Conservatives to get more women elected to Parliament. Women2win is still active and support is growing. Today, 22 per cent of MPs are women, a greater percentage than ever before, but still stuck towards the bottom of the international league table. I am especially proud, of course, of the 49 Conservative women MPs elected last May, up from 17 in the previous Parliament.
I must point out that none of this would even have started without the support of men, men like Brooks Newmark and David Cameron. But it was my own husband who pointed out something crucial right at the beginning. He said that women never make much progress until we succeed in persuading men that things have to change. Well, we still have some persuading to do. At this point, I should make it very clear that I am against positive discrimination; I want only the very best to represent us in the House of Commons. However, we still have to be vigilant to ensure that there is no discrimination against women candidates. In last year’s debate, my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market rightly drew attention to the fact that fewer women apply for the job than men. That has certainly always been the case, but we now have a greater critical mass and we have momentum. With so many more role models on both sides of both Houses, I believe that more women will come forward to be considered. It is crucial that these women, whatever their party allegiance, are supported and mentored. They need to know exactly what they are in for, and this is an area in which women in this House can also play a part.
Finally, on a more personal note, I end by paying tribute to a group still mainly made up of women, even in 2011. This is a group that does not receive universal sympathy. They are largely unsung, but never invisible. They are always relied upon, but rarely recognised; a group of people who put up with much, but without fuss. They do not merely keep the political show on the road, in fact, if it was not for them, it would never get out of the garage. I know all this because I have been a member of this group—the spouse of a Member of Parliament—for the past 20 years. As we celebrate the 100th International Women’s Day, I salute this band of few heroes but many more heroines.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for this debate today. It is my good fortune to be able to congratulate Anne, the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, on her moving maiden speech. She has done much to help women in politics and she is going to make a great contribution to this House. You might wonder why I am so convinced of this. When I entered the House 30 years ago, her grandmother, Lady Davidson—she was always known as Lady Davidson, and to many of us as Mimi, although her title was Baroness Northchurch—was an active Member. She told me one day at tea in the Peers’ Dining Room that, when she became a Peer, which was quite a long time earlier, the Dining Room was full of small tables. She said that Members needed to be able to talk to one another, and it is because of her intervention that the Long Table exists today. I am convinced that this practice of Members taking the next seat, irrespective of party, provides a unique means of communication and discussion and makes a significant contribution to the work that we do. I had always imagined that it was an age-old tradition, but no, it was all due to Lady Davidson.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, has special historic connections with this House: three of her grandparents were Peers, and her Uncle Andrew, Lord Davidson, was a Deputy Chief Whip. Other well known and much loved kinsmen were her first cousin Richard, Lord Acton, and Davina, Baroness Darcy de Knayth. Of course we all know her kinsman the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, as a valued Member of the House.
Women2win is well known and successful and carries on the idea that Lesley Abdela started 30 years ago with the 300 Group, for which I was one of the shadow people before it was set up. There was a cruise to Denmark on which ever so many women came to learn how they could become MPs—and I hope that some of them made it. Women2win is taking a very progressive view on this. Each generation of women benefits from the efforts of those before them and faces the new challenges that continue to arise.
I intend to remind some of the Members of the House of a few of the achievements of women here, and also of the support that these women have given and continue to give to others. Women could not become Members of this House until after the Life Peerages Act 1958. Harold Macmillan created four women peers in that year: Lady Elliot, aunt of the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne; Lady Ravensdale and Lady Swanborough, whom I never knew; and Lady Wootton, who is always listed as the first woman life Peer. She was probably the first to take her seat. She and Lady Elliot were still active Members of the House when I was introduced, and very forceful characters they were too.
Other notable people included Lady Hornsby-Smith, who wrote to every newspaper that referred to Peeresses and blew their heads off, saying that we were women Peers; and Lady Vickers—1974, of the blue rinse—who told us that trousers were only acceptable on Fridays, as that was considered a day when you could go to the country. Lady Wootton sat regularly on the Woolsack until about the age of 90 and died in 1988. The present longest-serving Member of this House is the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who took his seat in 1945. Women, of course, were not allowed then. The longest-serving woman Peer, since 1970, is the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, was given her peerage in 1972, and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkender, in 1974.
Some women Peers have faced great personal tragedies, such as the assassination of their husbands in the cases of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, Lady Airey of Abingdon and Lady Ewart-Biggs; and recently, there was the very tragic killing of the husband of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.
In 1981, I was in a list of 15 with four women; Lady Ewart-Biggs, Lady Lane-Fox and the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, were the other three. Lady Lane-Fox has a special respiratory unit named after her at St Thomas' Hospital. She had not been expected to live from the age of five, but she was one of the first Peers to use an electric buggy in the House. I think that she may have had polio, and she had severe breathing problems. She made a great contribution to the Lords and society.
Beryl, the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, was an aeronautical engineer, and hugely successful in helping women into science and engineering. She was also chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I have been assured that I can have an extra second or two because I was congratulating a maiden speaker. The 1981 list was published in April and was the first political list for many years. I was described in the press as “the most unlikely Peer”, and a more sensational newspaper headed the piece: “Fair Dinkum Dame Edna's made it!”.
It is only thanks to your Lordships passing the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, on the last day of the last Parliament, that I am still in this place, as faulty legislation in 2006 failed to confirm the right of members of the Commonwealth to sit in the House of Lords. I am most grateful for the support from all sides of the House, and I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who I see is in his place.
We have had many remarkable women Members, so many of whom have made interesting and unique contributions. Dora Gaitskell always sat with a hat on, and no matter how often people suggested that she take it off, she would just pull it tighter on her head. Lady Castle refused to wear her tricorn hat for her introduction, and of course no one wears a hat for introduction now.
There have been women Leaders of the House of Lords—first Lady Young, and four more since: the noble Baronesses, Lady Jay, Lady Amos and Lady Ashton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who is in the Chamber today. The first woman Chief Whip, for Labour, was Lady Llewelyn-Davies, and since then we have had the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Anelay. I know that there is no time to say more now. However, we have set a great example. We continue to work for, and hope to benefit, the women of the next generation. We should all bear that in mind and continue this work.
Baroness King of Bow
My Lords, I have often gazed down from the Public Gallery in some wonderment at this golden Chamber, and so it is with much humility, gratitude and a little surprise that I rise from these red Benches to speak. It is customary to thank the staff of the House and I genuinely want to do this, as in all the years that I have worked here they have always assisted me and, more remarkably still, never once arrested me—long may their indulgence continue.
I also thank my two supporters: my noble friend Lady Kinnock and my noble friend Lord Alli, of Norbury. Their support over many years has been so extraordinary to me on a personal level that it has provoked a reaction in me that borders on the devotional, so I will just leave it at that.
Another noble friend whom I would like to mention is the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. His is a story of rags to riches. From a poor working class family in the north of England, the noble Lord left school at 14, joined the Royal Marines at 17 and was wounded in the preparations for D-day. His membership of the Co-operative Party remarkably propelled him to become Prime Minister at the age of 21, pipping Pitt The Younger by three years. He was Prime Minister of the Tyneside Youth Parliament, before being demoted to be MP for Enfield. When I was studying A-level politics, I discovered that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was my mum’s cousin. Given that I could not get into the Parliament and my class wanted to come and visit, I nagged him to show us around the place, and I have been hanging around ever since.
It is 14 years since I gave a maiden speech in Parliament and, not wishing to sound like a scratched record, I had genuinely hoped to break new ground and move beyond the limited territory of equalities issues. No such luck. Although this debate has been characterised by genuinely enlightened contributions on both sides, I have to be honest and say that we have been having these debates for so long, I sometimes find them claustrophobic, as though I was trapped inside a box—a small box. A small box with a tick on it. But I should not complain. I am great at ticking boxes. I tick loads of them. My dad is black, my mum is Jewish, my grandparents were Scottish, Irish, Hungarian, African-American and native American Indian—there are more ticks on my census form than on my mum’s German shepherd dog. I have tick-borne disease, but all these ticks make me think one thing—tick-tock.
At the current rate of progress, it will take 200 years to achieve an equal number of women in this Parliament. Come on, boys and girls, I know we don’t go in for revolution, but 200 years? This timeframe is, frankly, lazy. What happened to our work ethic? How long do we have to wait? How many speeches do we have to make? How many clauses do we have to debate? Although the previous Labour Government did what all Labour Governments have done and introduced groundbreaking equalities legislation for women, ethnic minorities, disabled people, gay people, older people, religious groups—basically, everyone—I am still shocked at how much ground is left to break.
Maybe that is because I grew up in a country where the head of state and the Prime Minister were both women and it was an article of faith to me that, in this country, unlike so much of the world, women no longer faced an uphill struggle. The facts presented in this debate prove that I was a misguided young woman. I thought that promoting equality was a matter of us tying up a few loose ends, not actually questioning the whole system. But since I have spent most of my adult life working inside a parliamentary rabbit hole, I realise that we must question the system. I have concluded that Britain is a wonderful country; and I prefer British politics to virtually all others. But having worked within the system all my life, I can say with clear-eyed conviction that our system needs radical repair. Our system is needlessly failing not just women—although they face the brunt of the problems at the moment—but failing children and men as well.
Repair is required in three principal areas. First, recognise that the equalities debate is for everyone, not just those of us with tick-borne disease. For example, all men in Britain today who desperately want to see their children more than they do, would benefit from greater gender equality at work and around childcare responsibilities. If the average man understood what gender equality meant for him, the average man would be a feminist.
Secondly, a gender analysis is the most effective way to reduce the harshest inequality of all: the inequality between those who are nurtured from birth, on the one hand, and those who are effectively abandoned, whose lives are thrown away before they reach the age of three.
Thirdly, the most effective way to improve outcomes in our system is to implement an old wives’ tale and listen to what our grandmothers said. They said that prevention is better than cure. This was the theme of my wonderfully ill-fated London mayoral campaign last year, the failure of which, thankfully, allowed me to wash up on these noble red Benches. I am ashamed to say that, at the time when I was harping on about early intervention, I had not read what I think is one of the most important contributions that any two Back-Benchers have made—they are men, but never mind; I shall give them credit. Graham Allen and Iain Duncan Smith’s report on early intervention is genuinely groundbreaking and I commend it to everyone.
Given the time limitations, I have discarded half my speech, but I want to tell your Lordships one last anecdote about a social worker that I heard of during the mayoral campaign last summer. The social worker was talking about Baby P, the 17 month-old boy whose 50 injuries included a broken back, broken ribs, his teeth kicked out, the tips of his fingers sliced off, his nails ripped out and so forth. The social worker noted that our entire country was united in an outpouring of grief and rage at the suffering of that poor soul. How different their responses would be, said the social worker, had Baby P survived. If Baby P had survived his horrific childhood of constant abuse, all the research indicates that, as an adult, unless he received intensive and expensive help, he would almost certainly have become a sex abuser, wife beater and paedophile. The whole country would have been united in an outpouring of rage against this monster and demanded that he be hanged by the neck. We need to reflect on the madness inherent not just in this system’s responses but in society’s responses to the ills around us.
I conclude by mentioning the fantastic EQUALS campaign, spearheaded by Annie Lennox—and why is it that we politicians have to rely on pop stars so often? That campaign pointed out that there is no doubt that women’s rights have come a long way since 1911, but women still only hold 19 per cent of the world’s parliamentary seats, only 9 per cent of the world’s leaders are women, women perform 66 per cent of the world’s work, produce over 50 per cent of the world’s food and yet only earn 10 per cent of the world’s income and own less than 1 per cent of the world’s property.
This House is renowned as a place of reflection. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for securing this debate, and on the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day, I hope that we can stop ticking boxes, start to think outside the box and secure gender equality for all.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be the first of your noble Lordships to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady King, very warmly on her superb, engaging, entertaining, splendid maiden speech. Knowing a little about her illustrious career before joining your Lordships’ House, I knew that we could expect a speech reflecting the passionate commitment of the noble Baroness to fundamental values and passionate advocacy for justice, equality, poverty reduction and human rights. These passions were reflected, inter alia, in her membership of the International Development Select Committee in another place from 1997 to 2001 and her membership of many aid and advocacy organisations, including Oxfam, Amnesty International and UNICEF.
It is said that it was at Haverstock comprehensive school that Oona King first showed political ambition, telling her careers teacher that she wanted to become Prime Minister. Apparently, she was advised to become a librarian instead. I am sure we are all delighted that she stuck to her guns and pursued a political career. Her maiden speech in another place was acclaimed as,
“a truly first-class maiden speech”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/7/97; col. 173.]
I am sure the House will agree that the noble Baroness has achieved a repeat performance, treating us to another truly first-class maiden speech here today. We greatly look forward to benefiting from her passion, commitment and experience on many further occasions.
I now join all other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, on this very timely debate, providing an opportunity to highlight some of the challenges confronting women today, as well as some of the initiatives, especially those undertaken by women, to address them. I will focus on challenges confronting women in just one part of the world, women who are largely off the radar screen of international awareness; those who live in the regions in Burma which I visited last week, the Shan, Karen and Karenni states. Their challenges and their suffering are replicated in many other parts of the world, especially areas affected by war and the aftermath of conflict.
The ethnic nationals of Burma, including the Shan, Karen, Karenni, Chin, Rohingya and Kachin peoples, comprise 40 per cent of the total population. Last week colleagues from Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust and I met the Shan leadership and were informed that the situation for the Shan people remains dire, as also for their Karen and Karenni neighbours. Military offensives by the brutal ruling military junta, the Orwellian-named State Peace and Development Council, continue unabated and have forced hundreds of thousands of civilians to flee from their homes into hiding or exile. Women are especially vulnerable, particularly those who are pregnant or caring for young children or the elderly, as they suffer the acute deprivations of life in hiding in the jungle. Unable to build shelters or light fires for fear of being seen by SPDC soldiers, they are constantly wet in the rainy season and suffer from severe cold at night. They live in constant fear of capture and abuse. A 17-year-old girl from Central Shan State told us:
“SPDC military troops would often come to my village. One day they caught my father, beat him and forced him to work for them as a porter. My dad never came home again. My mother was pregnant. We were forced to leave the village and my mum only lived for five days, then she died. I was on my own”.
I have recorded literally hundreds of such tragic stories, but in this centenary year of International Women’s Day, it is important also to appreciate responses by women with initiatives to alleviate suffering and to remedy root causes.
One example of such a response is the excellent organisation SWAN, the Shan Women’s Action Network, which undertakes advocacy and provides aid. For example, SWAN published Licence to Rape, a well researched document that exposed the SPDC’s policy of the use of rape as a weapon of war. SWAN has established several programmes to provide help for women, including crisis support and maternal and child health programmes. We visited some of its programmes, which we are privileged to support, and we are always deeply impressed by the dedication, courage and professionalism of the very committed women who give their lives—and indeed often risk their lives—to help women suffering in so many ways from the inhuman policies of the Burmese military junta.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development on the recent reviews. In so doing, I express appreciation of DfID’s funding for SWAN and the retention of Burma as a country that DfID will continue to support. Will DfID also continue to support cross-border aid for displaced people suffering inside Burma? The previous reassurance on this issue gave great comfort to the thousands of people suffering inside that tragic land, and such help is still greatly needed as SPDC offensives continue and even more civilians will be driven from their villages to become exiles in their own land or to flee into in foreign lands.
This example of the challenges for women in Burma today is just one illustration of the perennial and continuing problems for many women in so many conflict zones in today’s world. The inspirational work of SWAN is just one example of the many responses by women for women that it is appropriate to acknowledge and celebrate in this centenary year of International Women’s Day.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I feel doubly fortunate to be able to make my maiden speech in this debate to mark 100 years of International Women’s Day, first because it was introduced by my mentor, my noble friend Lady Gould, and secondly because I have been proud to call myself a feminist for some 40 of those 100 years. I was also fortunate to have as my supporters two formidable women, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. I am grateful to them, to noble Lords from all sides of the House and to all the staff for their warm welcome and helpfulness.
I doubt whether many noble Lords have heard of Burtersett. It is a small village in beautiful Wensleydale where my grandparents lived during my childhood and which, as a keen walker, I still visit regularly. In taking this title, I wanted to acknowledge the county of my birth and my mother’s side of my family.
However, today I also want to remember my father who I know, as a refugee from Nazi Germany, would have been particularly proud to see me here. In remembering him, it saddens and angers me how we as a society often treat many of today’s seekers of asylum. Female asylum seekers are a group of women who are particularly challenged in both a global and a domestic context. The Joint Committee on Human Rights suggested that the treatment of asylum seekers often,
“falls below the … common law of humanity and of international human rights”.
The committee also expressed particular concern with regard to pregnant women. The national equality panel, of which I was a member, drew attention last year to,
“significant levels of hardship and even destitution “.
among asylum seekers, revealed by small studies but hidden by larger income surveys.
I want to use the rest of my speech to draw attention to another example of hidden poverty—that of women within families. Although domestically and globally women tend to bear the main brunt of poverty, this is often overlooked in our very proper concern with child poverty. Yet female and child poverty are closely linked, not least because women still typically manage poverty and, in trying to protect their children from its full impact, they act as poverty’s shock-absorbers.
I hope that I will not alarm noble Lords unduly when I say that I was once nearly thrown out of your Lordships’ House when sitting below the Bar. I was working for the Child Poverty Action Group, an organisation that I am now proud to serve as honorary president. The occasion was the consideration of a Social Security Act, and I squealed with joy when it was announced that the Government were withdrawing their proposal to pay family credit through the pay packet. The reason why we campaigned so strongly on that issue, with support from women of all political parties and none, was that the evidence indicated that, if money for children was transferred from the woman’s purse to the man’s wallet, it would be less likely to be spent on the children. Moreover, such a transfer would deprive mothers of an important independent source of income over which they had independent control. Unfortunately, this is a battle that we seem to have to fight periodically, as successive Governments overlook the importance of how income is shared within families. It is an issue that we face yet again with the proposed universal credit, as my noble friend Lady Gould has warned.
A number of research studies show that low-income women are more likely to go without basics than men living in the same households. Just the other week, I helped to launch the publication of a study of black and minority ethnic maternal poverty for Oxfam and the Angelou Centre in Newcastle. The study reveals considerable deprivation and, in a few cases, what the researcher calls “economic violence”, in which the woman has so little access to money that her freedom is severely curtailed. Other research illuminates how the stress created by poverty can undermine mothers’ ability to provide the kind of parenting that they want to. This can get overlooked in policy debates, which sometimes give the impression of blaming poor parents.
I have had the privilege, as both an academic and campaigner, to be able to draw attention to the reality of women’s poverty over the years. A colleague in the department of social sciences at Loughborough University reminded me of our responsibility to speak truth to power. I hope that I will fulfil that responsibility on behalf of women who are in fact better placed to speak that truth—and, with support, are more than able to do so—but who do not have access to power. As one such woman, involved with ATD Fourth World, said:
“We are powerless … not taken seriously, our voice not respected. I want to be heard, respected, my experience valued, not derided. Our voice can raise awareness of poverty and break the barriers down”.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, once again the whole House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for securing today’s debate and for giving us the opportunity for a cornucopia of maiden speeches from six quite remarkable women.
It is a real privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, in what I am sure the House will agree was a thoughtful and forceful maiden speech, a combination that is often difficult achieve. The noble Baroness came to your Lordships’ House in January. It is interesting that, like many of us, she has taken a title that reflects her pride in her origins. She comes to us as emeritus professor of social policy at Loughborough University after a career as a campaigner and an academic, which strikes me as a dangerous combination for the government Front Bench.
The noble Baroness’s links for many years with the Child Poverty Action Group, including eight years as director, have continued and she is now the honorary president. She is currently involved in two studies on poverty and social exclusion. Her whole career as an academic and her writings have focused very much on the areas of poverty, the social security system, citizenship and social justice. It is a body of work that I know she has brought to bear in a political context, and she has contributed much to Labour Party thinking in these areas over the years. Her work on feminism and equality is renowned and has made today a singularly appropriate day for her to make her maiden speech. I am sure that she will continue to make many valuable contributions to your Lordships’ House over the coming years.
I wish to say a few words about one particular aspect of recent events in the Middle East, which have made us all hold our breath from time to time. We have seen many striking images involving women and girls taking their place, marching and protesting side by side with the men. In these countries where the public sphere is so often dominated by men, this could be a real game-changer. There is a Facebook page called “Women of Egypt”, which has shown that is it not only not the preserve of men but not the preserve of middle-class women either. The photographs show a wonderful variety: grandmothers and young girls, veiled women and those with bare heads. On International Women’s Day, it is appropriate to reflect on how the role of women in the creation of these, we hope, new democracies in the Middle East and north Africa can be developed and enhanced. This is no small challenge in countries where women’s representation in national Parliaments is less than 10 per cent and where formal participation in the workforce, even now, is less than 30 per cent. There is institutionalised disadvantage and cultural prejudice. We cannot take it for granted that gender equality is an inevitable consequence of a move to a more democratic state.
As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, said, we need a legal underpinning for what is happening. One key component is for these changing countries to make special provision in their new constitutions to enshrine the rights of women. In Tunisia, women are present on each of the commissions which have been established to oversee the transition. By contrast, in Egypt, there are no women on the constitutional committee. That is in a country where the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights reported in 2008 that 83 per cent of women have been subjected to some form of sexual harassment, so no one need think that the disappearance of one man in a regime will change the culture overnight. We need them to get the constitution right as part of that building block.
It is very instructive to look at South Africa, where there were equal numbers of men and women on the constitutional committee and where women are acknowledged to have played a key role in dismantling the apartheid regime, particularly in ensuring that the consultative and inclusive processes involved women. That meant that sufficient focus was given to human security—to access to food and water, health, education, and personal safety.
There is much that we can do. I have been interested to read about the work of Lesley Abdela, whom the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, mentioned previously in another context. Lesley Abdela has worked in post-conflict regions across the world. When she was working in Iraq, she helped to develop an approach on phrases that can be used in constitutions to guarantee the rights of women. Those can be translated quickly into Egyptian Arabic and into other languages and can play an important part. I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is on top of this and following it through, and there is of course a role for the EU and the UN.
The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has a good track record in this regard. Five years ago, it helped to set up the Network of Arab Liberals, with HQs in Cairo and Casablanca. Several of my colleagues have made visits financed by the programme and Network of Arab Liberals members have been invited to party conferences. I know that these links which have been established between Liberal International and the Arab world are just one example of a whole network which already exists and which can be mobilised to move this region into the new phase of its history. We must all use the connections that we have to ensure dialogue, with women talking to women and young people talking to young people. We have an opportunity now to develop and nurture these new-born democratic structures. We must not let it slip by.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I, too, join in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for her ability in securing this debate, which gives us this welcome opportunity to comment—alas, all too briefly—on the global and domestic challenges women still face today.
On the UK front, I shall comment only on women on boards. It really is shaming that although it is almost 100 years since women had the right to vote and 40 years since the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, the percentage of women on the boards of the FTSE 100 companies remains as low as 12.5 per cent. If no further decisive action is taken, it has been estimated that it will take another 70 years to achieve gender balance on those boards. Although some of us might have preferred compulsory targets right now, the report by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, requiring these companies to set and publish 25 per cent targets for the percentage of women to be on their boards by 2015 clearly makes economic as well as equal opportunity sense as a next step.
Today, there are more women than men enrolled in universities in this country, and importantly, women in their 20s out-earn their male peers even if, as we all know—and we all know the reasons why—women still face a powerful glass ceiling as they move up that ladder. Yet, as a recent McKinsey report has found, companies with more women on their boards vastly outperform their rivals, with a 42 per cent higher return on sales and a 66 per cent higher return on invested capital. At least the Davies report contains a clear message that legislation will indeed follow if this voluntary approach fails, so let us congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and keep a close eye on what the Government intend to do about it.
Education on the same basis for male and female children is crucial to maximise the contribution women make for their own, their children’s and their country's benefit. In the UK, that has been the situation—with some uneven areas, of course—for many years. At the global level, particularly in developing countries, sadly the picture is very different, yet we all know it is in our interests to invest in girls and women’s education there too. Certainly, we can all be proud of the wide-ranging international aid work done in many areas of social need by organisations such as Save the Children, UNICEF and PLAN International.
Particularly important for its focus on girls’ education is the quite excellent report by PLAN International’s “Because I am a girl” programme, which highlights the role that girls and women can play in economic growth and the missed opportunities of failing to invest in their futures. PLAN’s report showed that countries with the lowest number of girls in education lie at the bottom of the human development tables. Further, it found that an extra year of education increases a girl’s income by 10 to 20 per cent and is a significant step on the road to breaking the cycle of poverty. With education, girls have a chance of a better life for themselves and for their children and one which will lead to a more prosperous community, a better workplace and a wealthier nation.
I am glad to say, too, that DfID's approach under the previous Government to this whole area has been encouraging and I gather it continues to be so under the coalition. Your Lordships will have seen the two major reviews from the department, published this week. In his covering letter, Andrew Mitchell, the coalition’s International Development Secretary, commits the Government to securing schooling for 11 million children in developing countries over the next four years. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this is a firm commitment because, if achieved, DfID will certainly deserve our congratulations.
If that phrase “Education, education, education”, which we remember, is an acknowledged No. 1 priority for future generations of both sexes one other, equally vital, issue must be tackled for women and girls if they are to achieve equality and human rights. The UN Security Council’s Resolution 1325, aimed at fighting gender-based violence and conflict, among other issues, has apparently been much discussed this past week at the meeting in New York of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Although some progress is recognised, only 24 out of 195 countries worldwide have adopted a national action plan for women, peace and security. To put it bluntly, until it is no longer acceptable anywhere in the world for an army, whether a nation's official army or any rebel military group, to regard rape and violence against women and children as one of the spoils—indeed, the rewards—of war, we shall not achieve Resolution 1325 or all the objectives that we are fighting for.
Lord Black of Brentwood
My Lords, we have this afternoon heard many eloquent and passionate contributions about the challenges facing women at home and across the globe. It is a privilege to be able to join in. This is an issue to which I am delighted the Commonwealth will also be turning in a few weeks, when the theme for this year’s Commonwealth Day on 14 March is “Women as agents of change”. That title is spot on, particularly in the developing countries that I shall talk about. Women are so often drivers of societal change that investing in their advancement in education, healthcare and equal opportunities is one vital key to the acceleration of economic and cultural progress in the developing world.
The other agent of change is, of course, the free press. Here I declare an interest as chairman of the Commonwealth Press Union Media Trust and a director of the Telegraph Media Group. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, in introducing this debate, was quite right to point out the issues of involving women in the decision-making process. That is nowhere more true than in the media. One of the most significant ways in which we can seek to ensure the continuing advancement of women is to see to it that their voice is properly and effectively heard in newspapers and magazines, and in the broadcast media, for that voice is the engine of progress. That means getting more women into journalism in developing countries. The more women reporters there are, who have direct experience of improving the position of women, the louder and clearer the message of how to foster lasting change will be heard, even in countries where there is still a great deal of repression. That change will embrace so many crucial issues including poverty, domestic violence and HIV/AIDS. I say to my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint that it might even cover the coverage of sportswomen in the media.
Over the past few years there has been welcome progress in this area. India has started to promote women into senior positions in the media and Sri Lanka has had several women editors both in the past and, indeed, today. Pakistan is almost unique, particularly for an Islamic country, in that at one time or another almost every major newspaper has been edited by a woman. In many African countries, women are increasingly involved in positions of influence, particularly in the broadcast media. Let us celebrate that.
However, there is still a great deal more to do. While the average percentage of women journalists worldwide is estimated at 38 per cent, it is as low as 6 per cent in places such as Togo or Sri Lanka—despite the fact that there have been many women editors in the latter—and only just above 20 per cent in much of sub-Saharan Africa. In some countries, being a woman journalist brings real peril. In February of this year, Rwandan editor Agnes Nkusi was sentenced to 17 years in prison, and her reporter Saidath Mukakibibi to seven, while their newspaper Your Voice was closed for six months, for criticising the president. These two courageous women are just the most recent examples of women journalists who have spoken out against brutal regimes and, undoubtedly because of their sex, suffered unduly and disproportionately harsh reprisals in an attempt to discredit them.
No wonder that in so many developing countries with traditional societies journalism is seen as too risky a career for young women, many of whom are actively discouraged by their families from taking up the trade. To counteract this, some forward-thinking media organisations, such as the Deccan Herald Group in India and Wijeya Newspapers Ltd in Sri Lanka, are increasingly implementing measures to alleviate these cultural concerns, including organising transport to and from offices, providing chaperones for women reporters interviewing men, and providing security in war zones.
On top of that, there needs to be substantial ongoing investment, in financial as well as cultural terms, in encouraging women into the media, ensuring that they are adequately trained, and enabling them to engage with their peers on issues not just of general concern but specifically those that impact on the health, welfare and prosperity of women. As we mark International Women’s Day, let us celebrate the progress that has been made in this area, understand the real scale of the challenges ahead, and determine to redouble our efforts to ensure that the voice of women in journalism is heard ever more loudly.
Baroness Morgan of Ely
My Lords, I feel very privileged, not just to be present here as a new Member, but also because I shall have the honour of speaking for more then three minutes, which is more than I ever had in my 15 years serving in the European Parliament. Nevertheless, I will keep my contribution brief because I am keen to be back in Wales tonight to vote for further powers in the Welsh Assembly referendum.
As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day, I would like to start by remembering Viscountess Rhondda. She was a Welsh suffragette who burnt a postbox to draw attention to her cause. She was imprisoned and went on hunger strike; she was such a nuisance, though, that they let her out in four days. She was never allowed to take up her seat in the House of Lords, as she would have been had she been a man. There are other feisty women from Wales like Jemima Nicholas, who repelled the French invasion of Fishguard, but I am glad to see this tradition of feisty Welsh females is alive and kicking in the House of Lords.
Despite this, my noble friend Lady Kinnock and I were only the sixth and seventh women in the history of Wales to be elected to full-time public office in 1994. It is great to be back together again, and I thank her and my noble friend Lady Royall for being my supporters. I thank noble Lords and staff for the warm welcome that I have been given since entering the House. It was particularly lovely to be greeted this morning by a Welsh-speaking policeman on my way in. It is a very different experience from entering the European Parliament as the youngest Member in 1994. In fact, I was just about to hit my mid-life crisis. I am happy to say that, on coming here, it suddenly abated.
We have come a long way in 100 years. Personally, hitherto, I think that I have probably benefitted career-wise from being a woman, but I recognise that that is exceptional. I, along with other women, have a responsibility to help others who have struggled because of their gender.
Women’s representation in politics in Wales has changed dramatically since 1994, but it took the establishment of the Assembly and the introduction of a gender-equal selection method by the Labour Party to go from probably the worst representation in the world to one of the best. We had more women in the Cabinet than we had men. That was absolutely unique in the world. Much thanks for this achievement must be given to my noble friend Lady Gale, who worked tirelessly as the general secretary of the Labour Party. She gained recognition and the accolade of Welsh Woman of the Year for her great work in this area. I thank her for tutoring me not just through my entrance into this place, but through the past 15 years. Recent political selections, however, for Westminster and the Assembly have demonstrated that unless we keep the foot on the pedal we will revert to the previous trend.
Economically and educationally, women are more powerful than ever. The Economist has stated that over past decades women have contributed more to the expansion of the world economy than technology or emerging markets. This fact is generally ignored. Now, however, we are experiencing the most severe recession since the great depression, with dire consequences for women across the globe. There is a real danger that we will see a pushback on the gains that we have seen in recent decades.
The European Commission, in its 2009 report on inequality, stated that the economic slowdown was likely to affect women more than men. In the past, women’s concentration in the public sector has helped protect women from the initial impact of a recession. Not this time. Almost half the women who work in Merseyside are employed in the NHS, schools or the caring professions. In Greater Manchester, the figure is two out of five. Cuts to children’s services are likely to make life very difficult for many women.
How was the recession caused? Literally, it was a manmade disaster. Women need to be included in formulating the response. So far, there is not much sign of that. All 27 out of 27 central bank governors of the EU are men.
These great upheavals, however, offer us opportunities. We can learn lessons from elsewhere. If you look at what has happened in Iceland, for example, you can see that this has fuelled the transformation in the way that the economy is driven. It has turned the key levers of finance over to women. It has a female Prime Minister. A woman heads up two of the major banks there. In Iceland, risk awareness, profit with principles, emotional capital and sustainable growth are not fashionable buzzwords, but are accepted as a part of good business.
We have come a long way since Viscountess Rhondda took her stance. Of course, we can go further, but let us not let the centenary pass without recognising the immense strides that have been taken in the past century. I thank my noble friend Lady Gould for introducing this debate, and I look forward to making many more contributions in this House.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead
My Lords, I offer warm praise for the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely—that is, Ely in Cardiff. We were fellow Labour Members of the European Parliament for 15 years, as she has said. She is, and will remain, a deeply cherished and admired friend. In 1994, when we both became MEPs, she was, as she said, the youngest Member. I never ceased to be impressed by the way that she juggled travelling to and from Brussels and Strasbourg with caring for two young and delightful children. Her fine maiden speech has shown her qualities of energy and passion for justice and she is a formidable feminist. She is forthright, feisty and steeped in politics. Her father was a very political vicar in Cardiff. She grew up in Ely, often sharing the vicarage with needy members of her father’s flock. Today she has shown that energy and passion, which I have grown to love, and her determination to continue to fight for justice, which I know will be valued by us all on all sides of the House.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, not just for initiating the debate but for her unrelenting and unwavering support and fight for the rights of women. In 1911, women and men celebrated the first International Women’s Day. At that time, life expectancy for women in Britain was 55. They did not have the right to vote and certainly my grandmothers lived a life of toil and drudgery with little education or healthcare.
Gender discrimination is pervasive and pernicious and to varying degrees women and girls simply do not enjoy equal access to resources, opportunities and political power in any region of our world. Women are disproportionately affected by poverty and violence and make up most of the world’s poor and illiterate people. The millennium development goal targets will not be met in any of the countries where the needs and status of women are a low priority. Does the Minister agree that gender equity, given the multiplier effect it has on the MDGs, is the most important linkage that we need to address?
I have met many wonderful women across the world who courageously oppose discrimination and tyranny and who face terrible reprisals for their pains. Surely no history, religion or cultural tradition can justify any tolerance of the injustice and inequality that millions of women face. We see what Hillary Clinton has called a “pandemic of violence” against women. Mass rape is routinely used as a weapon of war and far too often impunity prevails. I have met and talked to women in Darfur who have been raped and abused as they collected firewood outside their camps, and to women in the eastern Congo who have been raped on their way home from market. What does one say to such tortured, impoverished and war-weary women who know that they have no judicial redress and that they will live with that stigma for the rest of their lives? The women that I met in the Congo had been brutally raped and left for dead. Dr Mukwege operates in the Panzi hospital on something like 3,500 women a year who have been raped. On his lapel he wears a badge which says, “Don’t stand idly by”. I will never forget those women or, most of all, the concern that they showed not for themselves but for what had happened to their missing children.
In south Sudan last week the all-party parliamentary group met parliamentarians, including a number of women, who looked forward to a future which guaranteed a secular state with a strong commitment to equal treatment and positive measures to ensure the selection and election of women. However, that new country will face enormous challenges and expectations are high. In south Sudan a 15 year-old girl has a higher chance of dying in childbirth than she does of finishing primary school. We visited the hospital in Juba where the major cause of death in childbirth is haemorrhaging. Many women die but there is no blood bank in that hospital with which to save them. In the north we met women in Khartoum who told us about a retrenchment of fundamentalist views and an even greater imposition of draconian laws driven by a religious ideology intent on oppressing women. Will the Government urgently respond to these concerns? These are surely strong reasons why we need the United Nations women’s agency to be up and running. It is simply not acceptable for the Government to postpone making a firm funding pledge until the board meeting in June when UN Women will present its first annual plan. How is UN Women meant to prepare, hire staff and open regional offices when it has no predictable funding from donors such as the UK in this transitional period? Equity for women is clearly a matter of justice but we should confirm today that it is also a political, economic and social imperative.
Lord Shutt of Greetland
My Lords, I fear that I need to remind noble Lords and noble Baronesses that this is a timed debate and that we will run into difficulty if speakers take longer than their allotted time. That will eat into the time that the Minister has to respond to so many splendid speeches, so I hope that speakers will be succinct.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
My Lords, after hearing so many truly inspiring maiden speeches and many terrifically moving speeches, I want to look inwards a little into what this House, and the women in it, can do given the increased number of talented female Peers who have entered the House. It falls on our shoulders to ensure that no subjects debated in this House should be regarded as “boys’ subjects”. On 12 November last year, this House debated the defence and security review. That debate had a similar number of speakers to today’s debate—some 40—but less than a handful of women spoke. However, almost nothing will affect our sisters throughout the world more than our attitude to war and conflict. Not even our attitude to trade and aid is more influential than how we choose to deploy our military strength, or, indeed, whether we choose to develop or deploy it at all. That should be a burning issue for debate among us women as women throughout the world directly suffer the consequences of our action or lack of action.
I was extremely pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, say that we should not let everything remain the same and that things have changed far too slowly. I suggest that we have been far too slow to change our attitude to war and conflict. The arms trade treaty that was published in draft in February offers a tremendous opportunity to effect world change. I hope that the UK’s contribution to that treaty will continue to be as energetic as it should be. However, the draft contains no direct reference to the effect of arms and small arms, particularly on women. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, spoke movingly about the effect of conflict on women in places such as the DRC. That treaty would be strengthened with that sort of reference.
Many of these problems can be solved by women themselves. They have the knowledge to do so, but the problem, as many speakers have said, is political representation—19 per cent representation across the world is not nearly good enough. No matter what approach we take to other issues, it will only ever be a sticking plaster to cover those problems until women themselves are in a position of power in their Governments to solve them.
I, too, commend the work of Lesley Abdela, who was mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Scott of Needham Market. Lesley Abdela has worked her whole life to improve women’s political position throughout the world. Even now, she is working on the Egyptian issue. She should certainly be in this House, but that would take her away from her front-line job; perhaps it is lucky for the women of the world that she is not here.
Lastly, I shall comment on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s mWomen initiative, which is putting mobile phone technology into the hands of women. An all-woman technology delegation has gone this very week to Liberia and Sierra Leone to promote putting technology into the hands of women to enable them to communicate better. It is a particularly useful initiative, because communication is the first step on the road to political power.
Lord Patel
My Lords, many of you will have heard of HeLa cells, but perhaps not. HeLa cell lines are human cancer cell lines that were first grown in 1951 and which, 60 years later, are still growing in laboratories worldwide. They have been and still are used for research into finding cures for diseases. Research using HeLa cells has led to the development of vaccines for polio and the treatment of cervical cancer, to name only two areas. The cells are also used to treat diseases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, leukaemia and many others. Some 18,000 patents have been registered using modified HeLa cell lines, and have provided industry with hundreds of billions of dollars of revenue. Several Nobel prizes have been awarded to scientists who used HeLa cells for research. Each and every one of us has benefited from cures for and the prevention of disease as a result of research on HeLa cells.
HeLa cells are so called because they were originally obtained from Henrietta Lacks—without her consent. She died at the age of 31 from an aggressive form of cervical cancer in Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore. She was a black woman descended from slaves. She was born in poverty, lived in poverty, was uneducated and, being black in the southern USA, was treated as an inferior human being. A few months before her death, she attended Johns Hopkins Hospital because she felt a growth and was suffering pain. The doctor who saw her took two specimen samples of tissue from her growth—one was for pathology diagnosis, the second he passed to a scientist carrying out research in growing human cells outside the body. Most cells obtained from other tissue samples died after a few days, but not Henrietta Lacks’ cells. Their number doubled within 24 hours and kept doubling, even in subsets, every 24 hours. They have been doing that ever since for the past 60 years. Tons of HeLa cells have been grown in laboratories worldwide over the past 60 years. Henrietta Lacks was recognised last year by a tombstone near where she might have been buried—no one knows exactly where she is buried.
It is time for humanity to pay back the debt to Henrietta Lacks. How? Every two minutes in the world a woman dies of cervical cancer. More than 500,000 women develop cervical cancer every year, the majority in countries in Africa and Asia. To a majority of young girls in the world, a cervical cancer vaccine to prevent that disease is not available because it is too costly for those countries to buy and set up programmes such as those we have here. There is an opportunity for us to do so today, and the Minister, without any cost to the UK Government, could launch a UN fund to which we should all contribute—including the industry, which has made billions of dollars in revenue. We should launch a global Henrietta Lack fund to treat women with cervical cancer and prevent it developing.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I echo the congratulations given to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, on securing this debate. It is a real privilege to participate in it with so many distinguished noble Baronesses. I confess that until recently I did not know that there was such a thing as International Women’s Day. When I found out about it, I was a bit disappointed, because to my mind every day is women’s day. If it is not, it should be.
Women are different from men, and I state the obvious because we as women are underselling that fact as our USP. In the recent report by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, about women on boards, the most interesting aspect, which did not get enough attention when the report was published, was not that more women should be on boards but that having more experienced and successful women on boards is important to business. The answer, it seems, is that more of us equals more commercial success.
I will not repeat the evidence in that report, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, referred, but it showed that we women bring not just equal ability but something different to the table. When we get on to those boards, or arrive anywhere, what is it about us that makes a difference? The noble Lord, Lord Sugar, perhaps gave us a clue when he talked about his experience of women executives being more focused and lacking in ego in the way that they made their contributions to his organisations. Perhaps we will never have a clear answer to the question, and the simple fact that we make a positive impact might be reason enough.
However, something is getting in the way of us achieving the access that we need to make a difference in more of those major corporations—a difference that would be in everyone’s interest. There is recent evidence from research taken among women managers already working in big organisations that low self-confidence is creating a barrier to their chances of reaching the boardroom. However, the same cannot be said for all women. Indeed, increasing numbers of younger women in particular are aspiring to run their own businesses.
It seems that when we can control the criteria that determine our success, little gets in our way. I do not think that we as women need more self-confidence in our ability, we just need to be more confident that the choices we make and the priorities we have as women reinforce what makes us different, and therefore valuable. We also need more confidence that those who control the channels of opportunity, especially in big business, want successful and able women from all backgrounds to put themselves forward.
Finally, I will mention a small group of women in Nottingham who I know well. So that they know I am talking about them, because they tell me that they are following my progress, I shall share with noble Lords the name they jokingly give themselves. They call themselves the riff-raff girls. Between them they have won battles with cancer, and they have coped with widowhood, some of them at a young age when they still had young families, with the loss of close family members in tragic circumstances, some of them including their children, and with the other kinds of everyday trials and tribulations that ordinary women with modest incomes face and cope with all the time. What makes these ladies so special—and I stress the word “ladies”, as these women, most of whom are pensioners, are most certainly not riff-raff—is their zest and joy for life. These women face challenges every day, but they never let that get in the way of having an honest good time. I would like to dedicate my speech in this debate about women to those very special ladies.
Baroness Crawley
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton for instigating this centennial debate and for all her work on behalf of women over many decades, including her expert chairing of the Women’s National Commission, which I, too, had the privilege to chair between 1999 and 2002 before handing over to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser.
It is a very great shame that, as we celebrate 100 years of International Women’s Day, we also acknowledge the demise, in the past few months, of the Women’s National Commission, a body that has represented the entire women’s voluntary sector since the Wilson Government, and through all Governments until now. I have to say to the Minister, who I know takes her brief very seriously, that abolishing the WNC will be seen as short-sighted, not only in the years to come but now, with the Government’s current promotion of concepts such as the big society, which we know can work only if it is organised and driven by women.
In the course of 100 years, women’s lives in this country have changed out of all recognition. Hugely improved health and education systems, universal suffrage, access to family planning, and some control over economic independence through entry to the labour market, all add up to incredible progress. Yet before we become too self-congratulatory, we have only to look at the hard facts in any area of UK life to pull us up short. In the political arena, for instance, we see that, since women gained the vote, there have only ever been 32 female Cabinet Ministers—32, my Lords, in 82 years. I am proud that 21 of those were Labour Cabinet Ministers, and that former Cabinet Ministers are taking part in this debate, but the shortness of the list is derisory, spanning as it does two centuries.
In the world of work, women are still vulnerable, despite many advances. The present speed and scale of public sector cuts is not helping that vulnerability. The recent labour force survey finds that the cuts will lead to hundreds of thousands of job losses for women, as my noble friend Lady Morgan has said, because women form 53 per cent of the jobs in public sector services that have not been protected from the cuts. These are all held by women. It is clear that, despite the coalition’s expectation that,
“all sections of society who are able to contribute to deficit reduction should do so”,
women are bearing the brunt of the present cuts.
Finally, I briefly mention the world of the boardroom, as mentioned by several others this morning. I very much welcome the report of my noble friend Lord Davies of Abersoch, Women on Boards. It is a vital contribution to the debate on achieving more women in decision-making roles in our economy. Since the crash of 2008, a much wider pool of executive talent is needed more urgently than ever. As my noble friend points out, only 12.5 per cent of directors of FTSE 100 companies are presently women. This is not a statistic of which any of us can be proud. Does the Minister agree that companies and CEOs will take the problem of a lack of diversity on company boards seriously only if the spectre of legislation casts its shadow over them? Would she also give the House some idea of how the Government intend to respond to my noble friend’s 10 recommendations, especially as boards and chairmen are being asked to announce their goals in response to his report within the next six months?
This has so far been a positive, expert, useful and sparkling debate, with wonderful maiden speeches. If we ask ourselves how women have fared in the past 100 years, the reply of Mao Tse-Tung, when he was asked what the lessons of the French Revolution were, would suffice: “It is too soon to tell”.
Lord Loomba
My Lords, I am delighted that your Lordships’ House is debating the global and domestic challenges of women to mark this year’s International Women’s Day. I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould.
I will focus on widows around the world who are poor, illiterate, unable to find work, and disadvantaged. In 2008, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, widely known as Chatham House, conducted a survey on widows. It found that discrimination against widows is widespread, and a global problem, as they are treated worse than the general female population.
I declare my interest as the founder and chairman trustee of the Loomba Foundation, a UN-accredited global charity that has raised awareness of the plight of widows around the world since 1997, when it was established in the UK. Last year, we commissioned a comprehensive research study on widows, which revealed that there are over 245 million widows, and 500 million children, who suffer in silence. One hundred million widows live in poverty, struggling to survive, and 1.5 million children of widows will die before they reach their fifth birthday. It also revealed that widowed women experience targeted murder, rape, prostitution, forced marriage, property theft, eviction, social isolation, and physical and psychological abuse. Children of widows face horrors such as child marriage, illiteracy, loss of schooling, forced labour, human trafficking, homelessness and rape.
Without a doubt, it is a huge problem that has not been adequately addressed by the UN or any nation so far. Unfortunately, the number of widows is increasing in the world, mainly through poverty, HIV/AIDS and conflict. We can see that the conflict in Libya will sadly leave many women as widows. In Afghanistan, due to the war, there are more than 2 million widows in a country with a population of just 26.6 million. Afghan widows are often displaced from their homes by their in-laws.
I am happy to say that, through our tireless campaign, last year the United Nations declared 23 June as International Widows Day, which was initially launched by the Loomba Foundation here at the House of Lords in 2005. The UN-recognised International Widows Day is an effective platform for national Governments, NGOs, corporates and individuals to focus on to highlight the plight of impoverished widows throughout the world. It is, indeed, the commencement of a journey to restore widows’ rights and dignity, and to empower them, that will also enable the UN to meet the millennium development goals on extreme poverty, healthcare, education, equality and empowerment. For too long, widows have been neglected and sidelined in the policy-making process. They must be at the heart of this process.
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, not just for opening the debate in such a splendid way but for bringing it to the Floor of your Lordships’ House today. She mentioned the 1990 UN Conference on Women, which I was very privileged to attend as government co-chairman of the Women’s National Commission. It is worth reflecting that although that was just 16 years ago, much of the debate at that time was around the fate of the girl child, recognising that in some parts of the world simply to be born female was almost an automatic death sentence. We might feel 16 years later that we have moved on, and in many ways we have. Looking at the Government’s programme on UK aid over the next four years, which other contributors have mentioned today, it is very encouraging to see that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has the theme of the needs of girls and women going through that document and statement. Others have mentioned individual parts of it—the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, mentioned it in her remarks. I was pleased to see that the Government intend to focus on issues such as the number of women whose lives are lost, some at a very early age through pregnancy and childbirth.
We have been fortunate in this country in successive Secretaries of State at DfID who have grasped the agenda and kept the focus. The Government have set priorities for women’s health, for example. Women need to be assisted to become more economically able through programmes that sometimes seem to us in the West rather small steps, such as allowing and enabling women to set up very small-scale businesses through which they can sell some of what they produce to get them out of the downward cycle that ultimately for many leads to ill health for them and their families, and all too often death. These are big issues. In some ways they make the needs that we try to fight for as women in this country almost insignificant when we are still talking of so many millions of people, particularly women and children, for whom every day is a battle for life or death in one way or another.
Having set that down as my opening remarks, I will move on to some domestic agendas. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that coming out of the UN Conference on Women was something that we described back in 1995 as the mainstreaming of issues for women through government departments. I would like her to take that on board. I am sad that the Government have decided that the Women’s National Commission should be abolished, and I hope that they will reflect on that. I also hope that my noble friend will take back to the Government what has happened to the the need that was identified in 1995 to look at every policy that a Government produce and ask how it impacts on women. To benchmark women is not an expensive exercise; it does not need a big budget, just a change of practice. All government departments would benefit from reintroducing that and making sure that it works.
Having represented a very rural seat—sadly no longer there—in the heart of God’s own county, Devon, for many years, I am familiar with the needs of women in rural communities. Many of the issues that I hope will be at the top of the Government’s priority list domestically are domestic violence and the difficulties of women, particularly in remote rural areas where they do not take their part in society even now, as many of us are able to do. Rural isolation is a big problem for many, particularly women. If you live in a very remote farmhouse that is accessible only by private transport and you are the victim of domestic violence, it is difficult to get out of the house and seek help, even if you are strong enough to do that. I hope that the Government will take on board the need to identify those women in their locations and that they will benchmark that in the way in which they have given priority to overseas aid.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Gould for this debate today. She really is an inspiration to us all.
I want to speak about the global challenge faced by one woman in particular. She is one of the most remarkable people it has been my privilege to meet. Her name is Sarah de Carvalho and she is the key founder of Happy Child International, an organisation that was established in 1993 to help street children in Brazil. Its aim is to rescue, restore and reintegrate these children into their families and society and to save them from dangerous and violent street life, especially child prostitution.
Sarah began her work by establishing a mission in Belo Horizonte, which is in the south of Brazil. After 18 years of operations, this mission is now completely self-funding and has a local team of 60 staff. The mission has so far rescued more than 8,000 street children. The model of Belo Horizonte is now being replicated in Recife in north-east Brazil where girls as young as 10 are engaging in prostitution for the price of a meal—approximately £1.50 in our terms. Many of their clients are from Europe, and political recognition of this fact is needed to really tackle the global problem of child prostitution, which sadly is on the rise.
I witnessed the phenomenon of child prostitution when I visited north-east Brazil a few years ago. The sight of these young vulnerable children being used by their pimps to entice men who had arrived on the rich tourist cruise ships is one that I have never forgotten. This memory is just one of the reasons why I have become the proud patron of Happy Child International. Currently there are no projects to help the young girls who inevitably have their babies in the street. That is why the plans for the Recife mission include a maternity unit.
Another major reason why I am patron of Happy Child International is Sarah herself. I said earlier that Sarah is remarkable, which is a great understatement. She is totally dedicated to her work raising money for her projects to house homeless girls and teach them how to form proper relationships with other human beings. She works with individuals and organisations to do this. Sarah and her team have brought hope and happiness to children who have had little other happiness in their young lives. It is more than 200 years since slavery was abolished in the UK, yet children are still enslaved in Brazil to enforced prostitution, violent gangs and abuse by adults. Happy Child International believes that there are 12 major evils facing a Brazilian street child: violence, poverty, prostitution, fear, criminal gangs, abuse, drugs, exploitation, abandonment, loneliness, despair, and finally death.
Despite efforts of the Lula Government and the current Government, Brazil still contains far too many street children. In the run-up to two important future events in Brazil—the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympic Games in 2016—the prospect of more young girls becoming prostitutes is high. That is why Happy Child International is determined to continue its work in Recife. It is also planning to open a third city mission in Africa, which links in with the fact that most of the Brazilian street children today are the descendents of African slaves, mainly from Angola and Mozambique.
About the future, Sarah says:
“Our work in Brazil and Africa over the years ahead will be tough and the challenges many, but nothing compares with seeing a life transformed from the hopelessness of the streets to a life of stability, love and opportunity”.
On International Women’s Day, let us celebrate this woman and this organisation, which are making a difference in a difficult world.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate and thank the noble Baroness for securing it, as it celebrates the victories and challenges that women have faced and are facing across the globe. I congratulate all noble Baronesses on their excellent maiden speeches, which highlight the great contribution that women have made to society.
Over 100 years ago, here in Britain, women fought and died to get the vote, to get their voices heard. In 1955, my dear friend and mentor Lady Lothian, who was fondly known as Tony, co-created the Women of the Year Lunch, to celebrate women's professional achievements. I was proud to be chair of the lunch for five years, and I am pleased to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, now presides over the lunch.
In the 1960s, the feminist, bra-burning, women's lib movement set the scene and signalled the beginning of real change towards equality. Huge advances were made; hard-working women such as my mother and many others made sacrifices for their daughters in order for them to succeed. We are all aware that it has taken longer for some individuals and organisations to embrace change. Nevertheless, real change has been made, and many women have crossed that invisible barrier. They are educated, influential and powerful in many areas of society. But we all know that there are still many women yet to make that quantum leap. Some are facing numerous challenges—of abuse of every kind, trying to keep their families together, watching their sons dying from gun and knife crime and wars. But many have not given up hope; they are fighting back; they are survivors and nurturers. Some have set up projects to change young people's attitudes, and are succeeding.
Despite all this progress, here we are in the 21st century, on the eve of the centenary of International Women's Day, witnessing an avalanche of imagery and media promotion of highly sexualised behaviour by women. Children and young people are being influenced so strongly to believe that fame, riches and happiness can be achieved by using sex as a commodity. We all know that the sexual exploitation of women is ageless but, in recent times, the globalisation of the media—and that includes the internet—has led to an explosion of the sexual objectification of women. Women are being encouraged, paid and enticed to portray themselves in more and more explicit sexual ways, and the media are all too happy to give them the platform to do so. There are even websites where young girls advertise for sugar daddies. I am sad to say women have been commercialised and used both to objectify women and to make money.
Of course, many of the organisations which employ women in this way are owned and run by men. The odd thing is that many of the women involved will argue that they are liberated and free to choose what they do. But I believe there is a strong element of powerful persuasion at work which makes many women consider that this path is the only way in which to become successful, especially nowadays in the pop music industry, where some of the performances and videos are so sexually explicit. Recent studies have shown that many young girls are so heavily influenced by the success of glamour models, footballers’ wives, pop singers and talent show singers that they aspire to join their ranks rather than follow a career in teaching, law, medicine, science or technology. They just want to be rich and famous. Of course, the reality is that glamour, fame and fortune, social gratification and success are rarely the reward.
My main worry is that, while all this is happening, children and young people are soaking up the imagery and accepting the messages and culture they portray as the norm. In the era in which we now live, children and young people are losing their innocence far too early as they are exposed relentlessly to this sex-object culture. I am sure that the valiant women who over the decades fought and sacrificed to win equality and recognition for women's place in society would be appalled by the way in which many women in the 21st century allow themselves to be exploited, degraded and manipulated.
I believe we have opened a Pandora’s box. Things have been taken to the extreme and, sadly, I have no answer as to how we can reverse the trend in the sexual objectification of women, and how to protect our children against its influence. But I do know that the global and domestic challenge is for women to join together and lead the fight against it, and to put frameworks in place to address the problem—to go all-out to promote positive role models, and for women to stop allowing themselves to be exploited by the culture of sexualisation for the sake of their daughters and their granddaughters. If they do not, where will it end?
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I, too, must start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for initiating this debate, and by congratulating all six of today’s maiden speakers for treating us to such inspiring and interesting maiden speeches.
I want to raise two questions about women and the United Nations. The first concerns Security Council Resolution 1325, about the role of women in peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction. This is an issue that I have raised in your Lordships' House before, because I have been concerned that the Government have not been doing all that they could do to help to implement the resolution—for example, by nominating sufficient well qualified women for specialist posts. I am pleased that the Government have published the national action plan on implementing the resolution, but several NGOs, not least the United Nations Association of the UK, still have concerns. One of these is the perceived lack of senior-level leadership behind the plan. Can the Minister reassure the House on that point? The second concern is about cross-departmental co-ordination, which is an obvious need. What mechanisms will be used to achieve this? Thirdly, can the Minister say what funding has been specifically allocated to backing the action plan?
The question of funding also lies at the heart of the second issue I want to raise—the resourcing of the new agency, UN Women, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould and Lady Kinnock, have mentioned. Leading NGOs, including UNA-UK and Voluntary Service Overseas, have called on the Government to clarify their position as a supporter of this new agency and to commit the resources which will allow it to fulfil its purpose. I strongly associate myself with these requests and ask the Minister to make it a matter of urgency to clear up this uncertainty over the financial viability of UN Women. The agency has, after all, only just been launched and provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the UN to improve the livelihoods of women around the world.
Despite the advances and advantages of life in the 21st century for all of us in this Chamber, globally 1,000 women still die each day in pregnancy or childbirth. Violence against women accounts for more deaths among women between 15 and 44 than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined. In Peru alone, a country with which I am proud to be associated on behalf of VSO’s projects on access to justice for victims of domestic violence, an astonishing 50 per cent of women and girls have been subject to violence during their lifetime—the majority of them when they were aged between 10 and 17. Only five months ago, there was a powerful joint statement by the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Development Secretary, declaring an expectation that the new agency, UN Women, would be,
“a beacon for strong, positive leadership to promote women's rights across the whole UN system”.
But we cannot expect only other Governments to provide UN Women with resources to fulfil that purpose. The sad truth is that it is already facing a shortfall of $300 million. Its target budget of $500 million is in any case only a fraction of the more than $3 billion allocated to UNICEF, and VSO for one has calculated that a more realistic budget would be at least $1 billion a year. Even that would still account for just 4 per cent of all UN spending.
I share VSO's view that the emphasis the coalition Government have placed on women and girls as target groups in development policy is to be warmly welcomed. But will the Minister today undertake to respond positively to the Godmothers campaign being spearheaded by VSO to secure an annual core funding commitment of £21 million from the UK Government to the new UN Women agency? That would represent just 0.2 per cent of the UK's overseas aid budget, so it cannot be dismissed as just an extravagant demand in times of financial restraint. It would show the kind of leadership that could help leverage similar commitments from other major donors.
Baroness Seccombe
My Lords, in this centenary year, it gives me the greatest pleasure to congratulate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for instigating this annual debate. She contributes on women's issues whenever she gets the opportunity and shares her passion and wide knowledge with the House.
It is always good to take stock once a year and see where the country has come from and where we hope to be going in the years ahead. I wish to honour again Emmeline Pankhurst and her brave army of suffragettes who endured so much in their efforts to ensure universal suffrage and for the first time entitle women to cast their votes in the ballot box. I went as a five year-old with my grandmother to the polling station and was left outside as I was not allowed in. She told me with great force that I must always use my vote because she had had to wait so many years before she had had the opportunity. As a result, I have treasured that right and always pass the message on whenever I am on the doorstep.
Over the years, women's role in society has changed out of all recognition, with women now holding high office in every sphere of society and public life. That has been accomplished in spite of expectations that it can be done while mothers juggle all the responsibilities of bringing up a family. I marvel at the dexterity of so many energetic young women as they appear to manage it all and still look a million dollars. I wonder, however, if too much is expected. Some may thrive on their hectic lives, but for some, the pull of motherhood at home with young children can put an enormous strain on the rest of the family. There should be much more flexibility so that, particularly with children under school age, mothers can enjoy those few cherished years before children fly away. I am always sceptical about the phrase “Yes, you can have it all”. Giving birth is a precious gift that only women have and rearing children should be regarded as an important qualification for future employment. Skills are acquired along the way so it is not surprising that a large number of women start their own businesses and nearly always make a huge success at them. I am sure that such women would have much to add to the boardroom.
Quotas are anathema. They are so patronising and demeaning to women, who should be appointed because they have the talent and skills required by a company rather than just because they are women. Each generation has its thrusters. I support them wholeheartedly and we need them to carry on the thrust forward. I hope that we will always be compassionate: a society where family life will be respected so that everyone flourishes and not one where everyone is in a straitjacket and expected to fit into a narrow uniformity. This country flourishes on its diversity and it is our responsibility to ensure that it remains so.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend on opening the debate, which she has done for more years than I care to remember. She commands such respect and affection that the other Labour Peers appointed with her, all two of us, have always supported her in this debate on International Women's Day.
In the early days, we discussed challenges such as the barriers to women in the caring professions, now reinvented as the big society. As others have reminded us, today we have a report on the barriers that women face on getting onto the boards of the FTSE 100 companies. That illustrates the progress made in our expectations of women, but also confirms that many barriers remain. But is that all that women really need or want in the world of business? Surely, it is also important that women should be where the action is, playing their part as executives in a business rather than as the token directors on the board.
The boards of our major companies are important in today's world, but tomorrow's world of business is rapidly emerging. Surely that is where we want our best brains and those special skills that women bring—skills about which my noble friend Lord Sugar and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, spoke. New business models are springing up everywhere in finance and in searching and using the internet. There are new business models incorporating climate change, new science, and the so-called experience economy. I hope that the Minister agrees with me that that is where women must be to play their full roles.
Other speakers have shown that in today's world there are special dangers for women. When women joined the armed services they were not expected to fight on the front line, but in today's conflict who knows where the front line is? As a result, we are slowly learning of the extra bravery shown by women in our Armed Forces.
As others have said, sexual violence itself has become a tool of war. Women reporters must also show this extra bravery. The noble Lord, Lord Black, told us how women reporters encounter special abuse, especially when things are in turmoil. Among all the excitement, who noticed that a woman CBS reporter was sexually assaulted in Cairo? You cannot just leave this to men. It is equally important to report the impact of revolution and change on the lives of women as on the lives of men.
As my noble friend Lady Gould said, the Labour Government recognised the special dangers and barriers that women face because of their gender. Do the new Government recognise and acknowledge these barriers, and will they continue the good work of the previous Government?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, first, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lady Gould for initiating this debate and for her tireless work for women over many years.
The theme of this year's Commission on the Status of Women that is currently taking place at the UN is:
“Access and participation of women and girls to education, training, science and technology, including for the promotion of women's equal access to full employment and decent work”.
That seems like a good starting point for today's debate in terms of how the UK is measuring up to those goals.
Overall, the past decade has been a great success story for girls in education. They do better than boys at basic standards of literacy and numeracy at age 11 and are leaving boys behind in terms of their attainment at GCSE and A-levels. In addition, in 2008-09, for the first time, more than 50 per cent of young women entered higher education, compared to only 40 per cent of young men. However, behind those statistics are some major causes for concern, because, in the UK, women continue to be underrepresented on courses for physical science, technologies, mathematical and computer science and engineering. In fact, in some areas, we are going backwards. For example, five years ago, 24 per cent of computer science students were women, whereas now the figure is only 19 per cent. Meanwhile, women increasingly dominate more traditional female subjects such as teacher training, where they now make up 76 per cent of students and where 85 per cent of primary school teachers are now female, and nursing and nutrition, where women make up 82 per cent of students. Women are also overrepresented in arts and humanities degrees.
I have talked a lot about students, but these same issues run throughout the education system. A recent report for the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which looked at the career aspirations of 14 to 18 year-olds, found that the top three jobs that girls believe that they would be working in were teaching, childcare and beauty. At a time when we have much to celebrate about women's success in education, there are also considerable concerns about the subject choices that they make and the consequences for their future careers. Of course, there are numerous reasons why girls make those choices. Parental aspiration and peer pressure clearly play a role, as do the media and celebrity portrayals, but in terms of practical politics, there are things that the Government could be doing now to open up new opportunities for girls at school. I have time for just a few examples.
First, there is evidence that career and subject advice in schools continues to stereotype pupil choices and needs to broaden the offer, both academically and vocationally. Secondly, more needs to be done to encourage young men to become primary school teachers. That could help develop alternative role models and perhaps facilitate better teaching of science and technology at that early age. Thirdly, a programme to raise the educational attainment of working-class girls should be introduced to help to break the cycle of early motherhood, low parental skills, low family income and high unemployment. Fourthly, the Government should rethink their plans to abolish coursework and re-emphasise exams at GCSE level, as that will disadvantage girls and measure a very narrow set of skills. Finally, the Government should reassess their priorities for funding higher education to ensure that our arts, humanities and social sciences retain their rightful place in the spectrum of courses on offer and at which, currently, women excel.
The Commission on the Status of Women has set us a challenge. It is an issue on which the UK should be leading the world. Let us hope that we can continue to make progress in broadening opportunities for women and not have to look back at the past 20 years as a high point of women's educational achievement.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for securing this important debate and giving us an opportunity to contribute. I also congratulate all the women who made such excellent maiden speeches today.
Last Saturday, I was a guest at an event organised by the Association of Turkish Women in the UK, an umbrella organisation. It was a fundraising event for Mor Çati—it means “purple roof”—a shelter for women fleeing domestic violence in Istanbul. It receives no government funding and relies on volunteers. Violence against women and girls is shockingly universal and one of the most widespread human rights violations around the world. It is widespread in rich and poor countries. In Turkey, as in other parts of the world, in the past few years the protection of women has improved from a legal perspective. However, it is in practice, through education and enforcement, that we really need change.
Some say that countries such as Turkey, seen as a patriarchal society where domestic violence is seen as a way to maintain power in relationships both in public and at home, have higher incidence of violence against women. Although the issue of violence against women has received relatively more government and public attention in recent years, many Turkish women still do not have the courage to express their need for help. The Mor Çati Kadin Siginagi Vafki, the Purple Roof Women's Shelter Foundation, established in 1990 in Istanbul, was the first women's organisation in Turkey involved in the protection and support of women experiencing domestic violence.
The year of 1987 holds special importance for the women's movement in Turkey. For the first time, a group of feminists organised a resistance campaign following a judge's comment, in turning down a woman's claim for divorce, that:
“a little ‘whip’ on the back or on the belly is of no harm to women”.
As your Lordships can imagine, this caused widespread anger and demonstrations, and was a catalyst for bringing women together to organise and campaign under the banner of, “There is no legal violence”. A solidarity network was created with the support of doctors and lawyers. In January 1989, a telephone helpline was created offering legal and practical support for victims of violence. Eventually, the Mor Çati refuge was established. There is consensus that crimes of so-called honour emanate from cultural and not religious roots, and they can be found worldwide, mainly in patriarchal societies or communities. Honour, for men, is connected with women's behaviour because they are seen as the property of the family and of the community. When women violate those standards, that is deemed a direct blow to the man's sense of identity.
In 1990, together with a small group of Turkish, Turkish Cypriot and Kurdish women, I set up the first domestic violence project for women from those communities in London. It was in the aftermath of a number of high-profile cases where women were attacked, and in a few cases killed, by their husbands. One woman was stabbed to death in the street in Hackney outside her house when her husband was let out on bail after attacking her. She was not told that he was going to be released. That cost her her life.
It was a struggle, and no exaggeration to say that we were subjected to threats and intimidation from men from those communities, who were threatened by our work. I was accused of working to separate women from their husbands, but we persevered. We secured premises and funding. Today, Imece, the Turkish-speaking women's project in Islington, which is still going strong, remains one of my proudest achievements. It has helped thousands of women and has saved many lives.
Much has improved in the intervening years in increased public awareness, zero tolerance and prevention—letting women know that they can get help. In London a few years ago, I was moved by the case where a Kurdish father was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for murdering his 15 year-old daughter, Tulay, because she fell in love with a man. In passing sentence, the judge told the court:
“He killed his own daughter because he believed that she had shamed him, his conviction today shows that the true shame was, and always will be his to bear”.
Her body has never been found.
My grandmothers had marriages arranged for them at the age of 14. They had no schooling. My mother went to school until she was 12, and she was the first girl in her family to go to school. She had an arranged marriage when she arrived in the UK. For me, just one generation later, to be here in your Lordships' House, is considered astonishing.
I pay tribute to the generations who have gone before me, who made it possible and make the sacrifices. They gave me a passion to fight for equality and social justice. Ending violence against women is one of the five priority areas that UN Women will be focusing on, and for the millennium development goals. We must not take our foot off that accelerator.
Baroness Ritchie of Brompton
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for initiating this important debate, and congratulate all the women who today have made their maiden speeches.
One area has been an ongoing issue throughout history and continues to have a huge impact on the lives of many women. I refer to rape of women during conflict. According to Amnesty International, rape is now used as a deliberate military strategy. Figures for the number of rape victims are never accurate, as many women feel too ashamed to report rape, but the Alliance for Direct Action against Rape in Conflict and Crises has estimated that a minimum of 2 million women in conflict zones were subjected to rape between 1990 and 2006.
In 2010 the UN estimated that there have been 11,000 rapes of women and men and girls and boys in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The UN’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict, looking into this issue in east Congo where both government and rebel troops use sexual violence as a military strategy, reports one victim saying to her, “A dead rat is worth more than the body of a woman”.
Last week for the first time a military court in east Congo, investigating a case of mass rape, sentenced a senior commanding officer to 20 years in prison, finding him guilty of crimes against humanity for sending his troops in to rape, loot and brutalise the population of Fizi on New Year’s Day. Unusually, 49 women appeared to testify and eight other soldiers were also sentenced. This is a start, but we have much more to do.
The UK is a member of the UN Security Council. We can take a lead on ensuring that all perpetrators of war rape are brought to justice as war criminals. UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, which has already been referred to, addressed for the first time the disproportionate and unique impact of armed conflict on women. It emphasises that rape is a war crime and all states need to prosecute those responsible, regardless of amnesties. Resolution 1820 on sexual violence in conflicts recalls the inclusion of rape and sexual violence offences in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and stresses that all member states should comply with their obligations to prosecute persons responsible for such acts. Despite these resolutions, a recent report, Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War, led by the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, found that,
“the elaborate framework of international and national and political legislative instruments are stumbling at the point of implementation and falling short of their promise to protect women”.
Will the Minister urge the Government to push for urgent action through the UN to ensure that all perpetrators of sexual violence are brought to justice?
We can also help to strengthen the justice systems of fragile states through training, diplomatic measures and post-conflict reconstruction of judicial and military institutions and law enforcement. I welcome the latest trials in east Congo, but we need to develop ways of supporting victims and witnesses through international advocacy and a witness protection fund to support many more women who need our help.
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and thank my noble friend, Lady Gould, for introducing it and the manner in which she did so.
We should be considering, it seems to me, how far we have come and how much we owe to previous generations of women. The last century saw really major advances in women’s rights. At the beginning, women did not have the vote, they had only very limited access to higher education—women were felt not to need education—and had few career opportunities. If women had jobs, those would be of low status and low paid and women were expected to leave those jobs if they got married. Equal pay was a far-off dream. Women did not have control over their own bodies and there was limited access to birth control centres, which were only available if one was married or about to be married. Abortion was an impossibility, leading to a growth in back-street abortionists with the resultant damage to women’s health and even lives.
A great deal has changed. Access to work and basic rights at work have meant that women have achieved a degree of independence they did not have before. They no longer have to stay in relationships that are unsatisfactory. It has become possible to have a career and to have children, as maternity leave and childcare have become available. Of course many improvements could still be made, but this should not detract from the gratitude we should feel to previous generations of women who achieved so much.
The media in this country have done a great deal to bring politics and politicians into disrepute through emphasis on the misdemeanours of a few. This has resulted in some younger people turning away from politics and political involvement. That is wrong. Previous generations of women achieved what they did through organisation: they became involved in politics; they joined unions; they came out on strike for equal pay; they became politicised and campaigned for changes in the law to deal with discrimination. They were successful in securing legislation which outlawed discrimination against women in a whole range of activities. The campaigns still continue, of course, and there are now signs, I am glad to say, that younger people are participating.
Such campaigning is becoming essential, since the times we are now facing are going to be particularly difficult for women. The Prime Minister is now in favour of something called the “big society”, but what does it mean? It is apparently about getting people involved and working together in communities, and a great deal of support is promised to voluntary bodies. However, the biggest group of voluntary organisations is the trade union movement, which is not mentioned. Trade unions exist to fight for the rights of their members, who are ordinary working people, but the coalition Government appear to threaten a number of these rights. This is apparent from recently issued proposals dealing with the rights of employees.
Cuts in public services will mean cuts in job opportunities. Some 65 per cent of the jobs in the public sector are held by women. Welfare benefits, including benefits of particular concern to women, are also to be cut, along with child support, tax credits and perhaps housing benefit. Women, particularly low-paid women, tend to be more reliant on public services. Social care for the elderly may be affected as local authorities seek to cut back on expenditure. Carers are mostly women. It is all very well to talk about volunteering, but not if this is intended to take the place of public sector services in which women have been employed. Are they to work for nothing as volunteers in public service work for which they should be paid? How are they to live? Are they to live on benefits, which are now being reformed—or should I say reduced?
These so-called reforms may well cancel many of the advances made in the last century. There is every indication that the present generation of young women will not be content to be hassled out of the workforce and back into a traditional, home-based environment. They will do what previous generations have done—organise and insist on their rights.
One can scarcely talk about women’s rights without a passing reference to the amazing events occurring in the Arab world. This is a region that has been notorious for its neglect of basic human rights, particularly of women. At our meetings we have often lamented the appalling oppression of women in countries where extremist religious views have dominated. It was wonderful to see, therefore, TV films of protesters in Egypt and Tunisia where women appeared to be playing a role in the struggle for freedom and democracy. We have yet to see what eventually happens in the region. The dominant demand is for democracy, but there can be no democracy if women’s human rights are denied. The women we saw on TV clearly recognised this, and we must all wish them well.
Baroness Afshar
My Lords, I would like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for yet again initiating this debate. I had the great pleasure of serving under her leadership when she was the chair of the Women’s National Commission when I was a commissioner, which I must say was a wonderful experience.
I congratulate our new noble Baronesses, who are clearly good feminists and fantastic additions. In particular, I would like to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady King, who was once one of my students. I am basking in the reflected glory of her excellent speech.
I would also like to declare an interest. I am the honorary president of the Muslim Women’s Network, which only exists thanks to the great care and support given to it by the Women’s National Commission. Our network spent two years helping a very disparate group of Muslim women to get together to find ways of becoming an organisation which is now working effectively right through the UK, and it is a matter of great regret that other organisations such as ours will not find their feet because there is no WNC to help them.
I want to speak about the experiences of Muslim women in this country and, in particular, about the problem that the hijab or niqab—the covering—has been seen as an emblem of subordination that has been used to identify Muslim women as a category as submissive, as if women were forced to cover because some bloke told them to do so. As a third-generation Muslim feminist, I can assure your Lordships that I am not likely ever to cover, because my grandmother fought against the veil. However, I feel that it is right for women to choose how they dress and to be respected for the way that they dress. To reply to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, many Muslim women cover in order not to be the object of the gaze or to be assessed as pretty, ugly, naked or dressed. It is a way for them—I am talking about young women born and raised in this country—to make a public statement about denying the right of all women to be sex objects. They do not want it. This ought to be giving respect to that rather than otherising a particular category of women because of their dress code.
This otherisation also, I might say, hides a vibrant conversation going on among Muslim women about their Islamic rights and entitlements. That debate is raging not only across the internet; I have supervised three British-born girls who were initially non-Muslim—I did not convert any of them—who looked at the question of Islam and feminism. There are now three theses on the subject at the University of York, among many others. The importance of recognising and understanding Muslim women’s contribution to changing Islamic law has been ignored and not understood because of the label that is given to Muslims who cover.
To help Muslim women in this country, I shall ask the Minister something that I have asked about before in this House. Would it be possible to ban the arrival of concubines from other parts of the world as wives of men who are already married to Muslim British citizens in this country? The second wife has no status but is a threat to the first wife. Secondly, is it possible that all Islamic marriages should be registered and recognised as civil marriages, so that if the marriage fails women have a comeback in law to defend their position and their children? Such registration would also protect those who are vulnerable to unilateral divorce because divorce would be subject to the courts.
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, like every other noble Lord today, I thank my noble friend Lady Gould for introducing this debate. Four and a half hours are a tribute to how seriously we all take it. I also congratulate the six new Members of our House who have made their maiden speeches today. They made a phenomenal contribution and will add to the great expertise that exists in your Lordships' House.
I shall talk about an organisation called Women for Women International. I have a sort of interest to declare in that my wife Hannah sits on its international board. There is a remarkable woman called Zainab Salbi. She is Iraqi, and when she was 15 years old, because her father was a pilot for Saddam Hussein, her mother was able to get her out of the country and she went to the United States to go to university. When all the trouble started in Bosnia in 1994, she went to see what was happening there. She was so aghast at what was happening and, in particular, at the plight of women in that country that she set up this organisation.
Today, Women for Women International specialises in post-conflict zones and the issues of women in particular. Various countries are now part of the Women for Women group: Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda. Each country has been subject to great ravaging and terrible consequences, particularly for women. It is those women that Women for Women International seeks to help. It works on an interesting basis in that women, in particular, in the West, and some men, are assigned a sister in these countries. They make a donation of £20 a month and are asked to write letters to their sister to tell her that she is recognised and that there is somebody in the West who cares about what is happening. To date, there are 275,000 such sisters around the world who are receiving money and £53 million has been received by the charity.
What happens to these sisters? These women are trained and taught about their human rights, but most of all they are taught how to run a small business and how to generate income. When that happens, they become self-sufficient and can provide for their families. Women for Women also gives microloans which have been tremendously successful. Ninety-eight per cent of these microloans have been repaid. Last May, my wife and I went to Bosnia and Kosovo, which was a harrowing experience. Those conflicts may have ended 15 and 10 years ago, but to the people who are living there, it is as if they ended yesterday. We saw terrible issues which are the result of ethnic cleansing, rape and murder. Women there, particularly Muslim women, who have no confidence in themselves, are now in business. They are rearing chickens or growing mushrooms or tomatoes. The best thing we saw there was the beekeepers of Kosovo. One woman had been trained to raise bees in hives. She started off with three hives that were given to her and now has 10. She has a business and is generating €5,000 or €6,000 a year and is now training 10 other people to do the same. It was a marvellous example of how this system works. You could see the hope that these women were getting in those still terrible circumstances.
Next week, on 8 March, it will be the 100th anniversary of International Women’s Day. Women for Women International around the world will be linking hands across bridges from our own Millennium Bridge in London to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Brooklyn Bridge in New York and other bridges around the world.
I end with particular thanks to someone who is not in her place but who is very dear to all our hearts: our Lord Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. She has been gracious enough to host several receptions for Women for Women International in the River Room. They have been tremendous successes, and I know she does that for lots of other charities. I am sure that every Member of this House will thank her for what she does.
Lord Bates
My Lords, like everyone in this debate, I rise to say how indebted we are to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for securing this opportunity to talk about these important matters. It has been a particularly good debate because of the contributions and the maiden speeches. Having six noble Baronesses giving maiden speeches in a debate on International Women’s Day must be a triple-word score in politics, although the fact that it still has to be done in the House of Lords is perhaps a limitation that shows that we still have a little way to go.
My contribution is on conflict. I was moved to speak in this debate while attending a NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting last week. We got a briefing on events in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It was a horrific presentation. The presenter made a point which got me thinking and motivated as regards this area. He said that it is now more dangerous to be a women than to be a soldier in modern conflict. That is a profound statement, which should make us take note. The days in which gallant knights galloped off to a lonely field to settle their differences “like men”—whatever that meant—are clearly gone. Conflict in the modern era has put civilians in the front line and no macho talk about smart weapons can disguise the brutal reality. While combatants may wear armour, drive around in protected vehicles, carry weapons and empty their payloads from 10,000 feet, women and children on the ground are unprotected in their homes, schools and marketplaces. Increasingly, we are seeing how they are being used as tools of warfare, a point to which my noble friend Lady Ritchie powerfully alluded. Women are in the front line, yet their voice and presence are insufficiently felt.
My argument is not to introduce a quota approach to encourage tokenism, but to say that women and mothers are the prime victims of modern warfare and that their voice desperately needs to be heard—not for the sake of women, but for the sake of humanity. Balance in international relations means that women must push for peace more vigorously. All too often men seem to be incapable of resisting the urge for war. We need more women in the military, not to change the decor but to change the debate. As men, we need to hear the powerful voice of women.
I am in politics and I suggest that we all are because we abhor violence and want to create a free, safe and just society in which to raise our children where the rule of law operates and there is the democratic operation of government agencies. We need that voice to be heard more than ever and to be heard where it counts. This is not a criticism of men about opportunities for women. It is a call to women to take up their responsibilities in public duty in order to influence the debate at the highest echelons of the military and in politics.
We are talking today about International Women’s Day. It was of course pre-dated by Mother’s Day, which is an even more important date in the calendar. Today, we think of Mother’s Day in terms of chocolates, cards and flowers, but it had a very serious purpose when it was first proposed by Julia Ward Howe, who we remember as the great American poet who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic. She came out of the horrors of the American Civil War and called for a congress of mothers to unite in the international community. She wrote the Mother’s Day Proclamation. I believe that the sentiments in it are even more relevant today than they were then, for the reasons which I have stated. I will close with those words:
“Arise, then, women of this day! Arise all women who have hearts …
Say firmly … Our husbands will not come to us, reeking
with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons will not be
taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach
them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another
country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs …
The sword of murder is not the balance of justice.
Blood does not wipe out dishonour, nor violence indicate possession …
Arise then women of this day”.
Baroness Prosser
At that point, I arise. I join all others in thanking my noble friend Lady Gould for placing this debate on our agenda for today and remembering that it is the 100th anniversary, which makes it even more important than it has been in any other year. I shall return to a subject that has been mentioned once or twice already.
The new UN Women agency came into life on 1 January. It was launched on 24 February by Michelle Bachelet, who was previously the President of Chile and is now the head of the agency. In her speech, she outlined in broad terms some of the areas of work for which the agency will take responsibility. She said:
“In addition to our role of mobilizing, coordinating and leveraging the efforts of others, UN Women will focus on five areas … Expanding women’s voice, leadership and participation … Ending violence against women … Strengthening women’s full participation in conflict resolution and peace processes … Enhancing women’s economic empowerment; and … Ensuring gender priorities are reflected in national plans and budgets, including capacity to support CEDAW reporting. I am determined that UN Women will offer a new dynamic to the global dialogue on gender equality, and bring new energy, drawing on multiple talents, and bringing together men and women from different countries and communities in a shared endeavour”.
When I read that, it sounded to me a bit like the global big society.
On 10 January in this House, I asked a Question which sought to elicit from Her Majesty’s Government their plans to provide financial support for the new agency. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who is in her seat, was nice in her response and very positive, but she did not mention anything about what sort of money could be expected.
Prior to my Question in January, in November 2010 in another place, a Question was asked about the possible expenditure and commitment to the new agency. The Minister in the other place replied that a decision would be made when the review of overseas aid expenditure was completed. That review was completed and published this week and we still have no word on the future funding of UN Women. In February, again in another place, the Minister advised that they were waiting now for the strategy to be agreed. While the UK is part of the executive council and that debate, I am confused as to why there continues to be a delay on announcing what our commitment will be.
Along with others, I welcome the Government’s publication, UK Aid: Changing Lives, Delivering Results. There is much in it that demonstrates a good commitment and it makes many worthy statements. For example, it says:
“We will … Help immunise more than 55 million children against preventable diseases … Save the lives of at least 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth and 250,000 newborn babies … Enable at least ten million more women to use modern methods of family planning by 2015”.
These are laudable statements which are agreed by all, but they cross over the commitments we have already agreed and signed up to under the millennium development goals, so there is nothing new about them.
My argument is that demonstrating a strong and good commitment to the umbrella agency of UN Women and bringing a global and overarching approach to our work is much more likely to achieve the goals stated both in UK Aid and outlined in the millennium development goals. So what is the Government’s financial commitment to UN Women going to be? The international community has recognised that there is a need for an annual budget of $500 million. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has already mentioned that that budget is currently $300 million short. The United Kingdom has traditionally given £21 million per annum to UNICEF, and I would argue, along with others, that that ought to be our contribution to UN Women.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for securing this important debate. International Women’s Day gives us an opportunity to draw attention to the achievements made by women, often through adversity. The last 100 years is filled with numerous examples of the contributions to world history made by remarkable women such as the suffragettes, led by Emmeline Pankhurst. Rosa Parks’s actions played a symbolic role in the American civil rights movement. Following her brave act, a chain of events culminated in the United States electing a President of African origin in the 21st century.
I welcome the launch of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. I am confident that this new body will improve results and efficiency when dealing with this important issue. The United Nations theme for International Women’s Day this year is equal access to education. As a former visiting lecturer, I value the importance of education in giving people greater opportunities. Although there has been an increase in the number of girls who are entering tertiary education as a whole, this improvement is not reflected in poorer regions such as, for example, sub-Saharan Africa. Women have historically been deprived of chances to gain access to and further their education, and this has contributed to inequality in the workplace.
Individuals should always be employed and promoted on merit, but in spite of the large number of talented and able women across industries, very few senior positions are filled by them as a comparative ratio to men. Despite this worrying trend in commerce, women have made impressive strides both on the global political stage and in their own countries. As an employer, I have always believed in promoting staff on merit. The gender of the person is not material. I read the report of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, with interest and would appreciate it if my noble friend the Minister would respond to it.
On average, women account for close to 18 per cent of the seats across all chambers of parliament in democracies around the world. Women hold 22 per cent of the seats in Latin American and Caribbean legislatures alone. Notable progress has also been made in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in Rwanda where women account for 56 per cent of the Members in the lower Chamber. This is particularly impressive for a nation that was ravaged by war in the not-so-distant past and reflects the fact that women continue to play a pivotal role in upholding peace in formerly unstable regions.
Although this debate is a cause for celebration, I feel it is pertinent to draw attention to two particularly harrowing cases. The story of Asia Bibi, a Pakistani Christian who has been sentenced to death for blasphemy, has resulted in the death of a Pakistani politician who spoke in her defence. Most noble Lords have probably seen the picture of Aisha, an 18 year-old Afghan girl whose nose and ears were cut off by her husband. These cases serve as a reminder that women are still facing oppression in certain parts of the world. In regard to the blasphemy laws in Pakistan under which Asia Bibi was prosecuted, it is my view that the conviction was totally wrong as Islam regards Muslims, Jews and Christians as people of the book.
Under Islam, women were given certain rights over 1,400 years ago, including the right to own properties and control their earnings. Islam has also given women the right to inheritance; they have a right to choose their husband and no one can impose a decision on them against their will. They can also apply for a divorce in the event of a matrimonial breakdown.
I chair the Conservative Muslim Forum, which is an active organisation. We have established a women’s group, as we believe in the empowerment of women, and it looks at various issues concerning Muslim women in the country. It is important that a woman is educated and given every opportunity to succeed: an educated woman will play an active role in the advancement and the well-being of her children and her family as a whole.
I care about issues relating to women. I have spoken in your Lordships’ House, and elsewhere, on matters concerning women that include their maternal health, education, human trafficking, domestic violence and rape as a weapon of war.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde
My Lords, as the last Back-Bench speaker in this debate, I too thank my noble friend Lady Gould not just for this debate today but for her dogged determination, year on year, to make sure that we have this debate. I well remember the first one, when we were tolerated in a supper-break debate lasting one hour and had to scurry round trying to get speakers, with not one man in the Chamber. We have come a long way and owe due credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, for the work that she has done in that regard.
Perhaps the biggest compliment and thanks that she could be paid is to have six maiden speeches in the Chamber today—all feisty speeches—and we all look forward to the participation of those new Members in many debates across a very diverse area in this House. With 44 speakers on one topic, you would have thought there would have been repetition. However, I have sat through the whole debate and there has been no repetition, because we are not just talking about women but society as it is, both domestically and internationally. There is no area that covers women that does not trespass on society as a whole, whether it is children, men or whatever it may be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, mentioned that because this is the centenary year, we should commemorate the work that has been done for us by those women who had a much more difficult ride than we have had in getting the women’s case across. I agree with that very much. I have been looking around London as a non-Londoner this week, as I have been travelling to and fro, and I have been absolutely astonished at the lack of visual demonstration of the achievements of women in the streets. You can walk up Whitehall and see many statues and commemorations—one of my favourites is the one with the ladies’ coats and hats on the hooks, gone off to help in the Second World War but coming back into society—but there is a distinct lack of statues that commemorate the work of women.
We have our debates in this Chamber, but what happens outside also counts. A few years ago in this debate, I talked about a statue for Sylvia Pankhurst—an extremely controversial character—on which I do not think we will get unanimity. She did a lot for women, not just in fighting for the vote with her mother and her sister, but in the whole area of women’s emancipation, particularly in the East End of London in regard to education and women’s control over their own bodies. I am working with a group to reinvigorate that campaign for a statue for Sylvia and hope that this time next year, when we have our debate again, I will be able to report progress on that. I was extremely disappointed to hear that one of the remarks from within this House—although not from Members of this House, I do not think; at least I hope not—was, “Really, how could we have a statue out there to Sylvia Pankhurst so near the House, when she was never a Member and never had much to do with it?”. She arrived in what is now our car park at the front from Holloway prison, where she was on a starvation strike, to come and talk; she skipped in through the passages to the then Prime Minister to talk about how we could get the vote for women. The vote for women was an extremely powerful measure in this country and we want it for all women. I hope we have some success in that area.
The Speaker has inaugurated a series of schools outreach programmes. I have been into seven sixth-forms in October and November last year. I was uplifted by the approach of young girls and how they see their lives, but I was also very depressed in some of the schools. In all our talk about emancipation, we have to work hard to make sure that the next generations coming up are not forgotten. For some of them, their aspirations and their confidence in themselves have not moved on one iota from when I was a young woman, when I was scared stiff to stand up and speak for myself and think what I could have for the future. The outreach programme is very important; I have learned from it that perhaps things in some areas need a lot of work. We must continue to strive to lift the vision of young women to make sure that they have confidence in themselves to play a full part in society.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and a very fine way to celebrate the centenary of International Women’s Day, to mark the huge achievements to date and discuss the old and new challenges that remain. Six formidable maiden speeches have enhanced our debate and it is clear that the six noble Baronesses are going to add a huge amount to debates in this Chamber; their knowledge and expertise will be invaluable as we scrutinise and revise legislation. We have also had two young women at the Table today, which must, I think, be a milestone in this House and we all celebrate that.
I pay tribute, like so many here today, to my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton for yet again taking this important initiative. This debate, now an annual event, is always a pleasure because it brings together women, and some men, from all of our Benches to discuss issues that have an impact on women’s lives in this country and the wider world. There is much that we agree on and I pay tribute to the fine women that we have in this Chamber and their achievements and also to the women who came before us in this House. I used to work for Lady Castle, but I also think of Lady David, Lady Darcy de Knayth and Lady Carnegy of Lour, to name but a few, all of whom I really revered and of whom I was very fond.
I am delighted that there has been a focus on international issues. It is women who drive development on the ground; it is women and girls who so often do the hard work in the fields, in social enterprises, using micro-loans, in situations where there is conflict, often in fragile states and, of course, in nurturing families, sometimes in desperate or violent situations. It is all too often the women of this world who suffer. The many statistics we have heard today are stark. The fact that women earn just 10 per cent of the world’s income and work two-thirds of the hours is just one of them. The human stories and the human misery about which we have heard are even more stark. I could weep and they make me even more resolute to act, not just for our girls and young women, as we have just heard from my noble friend Lady Dean, but for women all over the world.
Like many noble Lords, I received an excellent briefing from VSO entitled The Godmothers: Keeping UN Women on Track. I have a very high regard for the work of VSO and I hope to do a placement with them in the Whitsun Recess, treading in the footsteps of many noble Lords and Baronesses who have seen first-hand their work in the field and the impact that gender inequality has on the lives and livelihoods of women, from poor health outcomes to lack of access to income-generating opportunities. Women are too often held back simply because they are women. That is why, like so many other noble Lords, I believe that the UN women’s agency is important, working globally to empower women to improve their lives and addressing the underlying causes of gender inequality. It has a huge task and I know it is one that the Government support. That is why they continue to target women and girls in development policy.
Like my noble friends, I am concerned, however, about funding and I applaud the Godmothers campaign led by VSO calling on the Government to commit £21 million in annual core funding—just 0.2 per cent of the UK overseas aid budget—to UN Women. We look to the UN to assist women in conflict throughout the world. At the UN on 19 June 2008 seven of the 20 nations were represented by women when the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1820 and demanded the immediate and complete halt of sexual violence against civilians in conflict zones. It was a very important moment, under the presidency of the then US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice. So it is not just the technical ability and expertise which women bring, it is also the emotional intelligence that can contextualise and give voice to the aspiration of women across the globe.
On all sides of this Chamber we are involved in various aspects of civil society. We all applaud volunteering and we celebrate the work of our charities. On these Benches, however, we believe that the Government are an indispensable partner for the voluntary sector and the bedrock of a strong society. In government we had a proud record of supporting the third sector, and throughout this House we welcome people who want to volunteer. Platform 51, for example, which we used to know as the YWCA, does a great job of volunteering both within its own services and with other organisations, supporting girls and women to make positive changes in the world around them and encouraging them to give back to society.
Mr Cameron has said that he wants to make it easier for people to volunteer, and that is great, but we must not forget that people need to earn a living. They cannot do jobs for free unless they are wealthy or retired, or unless via endless juggling of family commitments they can find a few hours a week. Traditionally, of course, it is women who are at the forefront of the voluntary sector, and it is they who are now suffering disproportionately from the painful cuts that are being inflicted on the charitable sector—or the “big society”, as the Government like to call it.
Not only is the big society being asked to step in to pick up the pieces when services are cut, but the scale and speed of the cuts are severely affecting the voluntary and community sectors themselves. They are confronting two enormous problems, and it is often women who are desperately trying to find solutions. Concern has been expressed by the heads of charities, the CEO of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and countless non-political people up and down the country. The NCVO has set up a brilliant website so that people are aware of the problems in their local areas, and it is chilling to see the number of cuts that have been made since the site went live on 24 January.
I know that the Minister will say that the cuts are being made because of the deficit left by my Government, a Government of whom I am extremely proud and who did a huge amount for women. I must refute those arguments before she makes them. We agree that there is a large deficit and it must be dealt with. That is why we had, and have, a plan to halve the deficit in four years. However, the Government had a choice about how to deal with the deficit and they have chosen to cut it too far and too fast. They have chosen to hit local government with bigger cuts than other government departments, and they have chosen to front-load so that the heaviest cuts fall in the first year rather than being spread evenly over four years. This is having a profound effect on women who work and volunteer in charities, who work in public services and who benefit from services.
As noble Lords will know, I come from the Forest of Dean in the south-west where there are many rural areas. Women in rural areas, as well as in urban areas, are being hit by a huge cut in bus services, by cuts in respite care if they are carers or being cared for, by cuts in luncheon and other clubs if they are elderly, by cuts in youth centres and services if they are young, by cuts in the EMA if they are teenagers, by cuts in Sure Starts if they are young mums and by cuts in libraries, including mobile libraries, which are so important for women living in isolated areas.
Women and men in rural areas are also being hit very hard by the rise in fuel prices. From these Benches we call upon the Chancellor to reverse the VAT rise on fuel that has added nearly 3p to the cost of a litre of petrol. That would profoundly help women and men all over the country, especially those in rural areas.
Many noble Lords have raised the issue of domestic violence, and I note that the excellent charity Women’s Aid has warned that government cutbacks could be catastrophic for victims of domestic abuse in the UK. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, for her practical and excellent work. Noble Lords all around this Chamber are concerned about domestic violence and I ask the Minister, who I know shares these concerns, to do her utmost to ensure that emergency safety accommodation places and support for victims of domestic abuse are protected from the cuts. The Government cannot hide behind the fact that they are providing the money to local authorities; those authorities are having to make dreadful cuts, and it is often women who are living in very violent situations who suffer.
Next week on International Women’s Day I am having lunch here with an extraordinary woman and her children. She was attacked by her husband with an axe when she was asleep and, among other injuries, she lost an eye. She has benefited greatly from the support of many charities, including the Castle Gate Family Trust at Gloucester prison, of which I am proud to be the patron. Many of those charities are now struggling to survive despite the fact that this amazing woman, having been a beneficiary, is now working with them, which is absolutely terrific.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, rightly spoke of the situation in Egypt and the evolving situation in the Middle East, as did many other Peers. Like others, I note that there is not one single woman on the constitutional committee in Egypt and I very much hope that our Government, the EU and the UN will do their utmost to try to ensure that where there is democracy-building in the Middle East and new institutions being built there are women, and to encourage these new, emerging democracies to ensure that women are on those terribly important bodies.
Finally, I mention the very welcome report by my noble friend Lord Davies of Abersoch. He was a champion for women on boards when he was in government and was tasked by this Government to do further research and write a report. I know that some people—including the Fawcett Society, for which I have huge respect—will be disappointed that he did not recommend a quota system but if headhunters and company chairmen fail in their task to recruit a proper proportion of women on to boards, there must in time be legislation and quotas. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will not hesitate to legislate, if necessary?
We know from all the research and evidence that having more women on boards is not just a matter of addressing an unacceptable inequality. It is about enabling boards to achieve better outcomes for their companies and for wider society. I agree with my noble friend Lady Gould that just as the time was right for this report on women in the boardrooms, perhaps we should now be doing more work and taking more action on the participation of women in the whole field of decision-making at all levels. Women must have access to power and participate in decision-making if the necessary changes in our global society are to be made.
Today, in addition to celebrating the achievements we have made and discussing the challenges here and in the wider world, we have had a superb lesson in social history. I will certainly remember the name of Mr Justice Joyce: I might even stick pins in him from time to time. Despite political and policy differences around the Chamber, we are united in our pursuit of a vision of society in which men and women have the same opportunities, rights and obligations wherever they may live. This is our responsibility. To realise that vision, we have to raise our voices, as my noble friend said. That is what we are doing today and what we can and must continue to do.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, it is an enormous honour to respond on behalf of the Government to what has been an absolutely magnificent debate—a treasure trove of priceless experience, commitment and vision. All noble Lords’ contributions have ensured that the marking of the centenary year of International Women’s Day has rightly highlighted and focused the continued need to mark this day with both celebration and a need to remain proactive for positive change. I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, for securing the debate, a responsibility she has taken for quite some time. Over the years, she has worked tirelessly to ensure that the cause of equality for women is enhanced at every opportunity. We pay tribute to her and to all men and women who share our common vision.
We are particularly privileged that several noble Lords chose this debate to make their maiden speeches: the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Heyhoe-Flint, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, Lady King of Bow, Lady Morgan of Ely and Lady Lister of Burtersett. Their contributions were moving and insightful and I have no doubt that this House will be enormously enriched by their experience and wisdom.
Like my noble friend Lady Brinton, I see myself as a bit of a rebel. Sometimes it is better to shake loose the shackles found among our cultures, more so in some cultures. DfID supports the excellent work that she mentioned in Tanzania. My noble friend Lady Heyhoe-Flint and I share the love of cricket, she as an excellent player and I as an avid spectator. It is crucial to raise the profile of women in sport—that is a must—and to see increased diversity on sporting bodies. My noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington said, absolutely rightly, that there must be more women in political life. I congratulate her on all the work that she has done through women2win. I completely agree that unless men are signed up to this, we will make slow progress.
I am sure that I share the frustration of the noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, but I am not as pessimistic. We are making slow progress, but it is progress. Unless we persist with the equality agenda, nothing changes. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that we have prioritised the NHS, schools and early years provision. I understand completely her concerns. We are extending free early years education and care for children from the age of two through to four. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, eloquently spoke of the need to tackle poverty at home. It was right to raise the need for a cultural shift. To make a difference in society we need to make those cultural shifts—particularly me, I am afraid; I see it so often in the BME community. Along with her, I am a true Midlander. I have come across some feisty women from the Midlands who have made some incredible societal changes.
We have heard so eloquently in many of the contributions today of the great progress women have made in this country over the past 100 years. However, as every noble Lord has acknowledged, even as we reflect on the hope of our history we must also face squarely the reality of our present, a reality still marked by unfairness and hardship for too many women in this country and across the world. Yet women’s strength, skills and wisdom are humankind’s most untapped resource. The challenge for us, and what this debate has addressed so effectively, is how we can overcome the barriers women continue to face to ensure that this rich resource can be effectively tapped in ways that benefit us all. I am proud to be part of a Government wholeheartedly committed to that cause. We are unwavering in our dedication to build a society where no one is held back because of who they are, or where they come from. I can say that with personal conviction. I will battle always to ensure that equal opportunity becomes a norm.
In December last year, we published the first ever cross-government equality strategy, setting out our new approach of how we will, right across government, take action to tackle inequality. It is an approach aimed at changing culture, attitudes and tackling the causes of inequality, because we recognise that this is the only change that lasts.
Although it will be impossible to articulate responses to all the contributions that we have heard today, I will try to cover many of the themes of this debate through this speech and the notes I have made as I listened carefully to all contributions. I pledge to write to noble Lords about any questions that I am unable to answer today.
I begin by focusing on the international perspective. Many noble Members have drawn attention to the plight and immense challenges that women face worldwide. Last week, I attended the 55th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. All the other Ministers I spoke to, from EU and Commonwealth partners and elsewhere, shared our conviction that promoting gender equality is vital for meeting all the millennium development goals. Indeed, experience tells us that when women have the power to make their own choices, the chains of poverty can be broken and families can grow stronger. Yet women remain, in many parts of the globe, deprived of the most basic of human rights.
I share in the joy of noble Lords that UN Women—the single, new and powerful agency working for gender equality and the empowerment of women—was launched last week. The new agency will play a fundamental role in eroding the vast inequalities of opportunity that women face across the world. I attended the launch and was able to set out the UK’s high ambitions and congratulate the executive director, Michelle Bachelet, who I think will provide excellent leadership.
I assure noble Lords that the Government will continue in our efforts to make certain that real action is delivered for women, and that the agency is managed in a way which will command the confidence of the financial contributors whose support it needs. To this end we will announce core funding for the agency once its strategic plan outlining key priorities, a clear results framework and strategy for delivering results is available in June. In the mean time, we are in close contact with UN Women and are offering transitional funding and any other support the agency may need to ensure that it gets off to the strongest possible start.
For our part, the UK Government have committed to reaching 0.7 per cent of GNI in aid from 2013—a pledge we will enshrine in law. We have pledged to put women and girls at the front and centre of our development work. On Tuesday this week, following a review of Britain’s aid programme, the Secretary of State for International Development announced plans to provide 50 million people, many of them girls and women, with the means to help them work their way out of poverty. For example, economic empowerment of girls and women will be our priority. By 2015, we will create 150,000 new jobs for women in South Africa and 83,000 new jobs for women in Zimbabwe. In Pakistan, we will provide 897,000 women with microfinance. Central to these plans is our commitment to give women greater choice and access to family planning and safer births. We have announced that the UK will save the lives of at least 50,000 women in pregnancy and childbirth by 2015 and enable at least 10 million more women to access modern family planning. We are further ensuring that efforts to retain girls through primary schools and into secondary school are integrated in all our education programmes in developing countries. By 2015, the UK will be supporting 11 million children, many of them girls, to go to school in the poorest countries. We will make sure that at least 700,000 girls are supported through lower primary school.
I feel it is important to touch on where I see the role of women in recent events in the Middle East, as we have heard in all the news reports very little on that. History tells us that the active participation of women in conflict resolution is indispensable to the struggle against dictatorship and tyranny. We are closely co-ordinating with the UN, EU and leading international NGOs in the Middle East to prepare for a possible humanitarian response. Our partners all have clear gender and equality policies which will ensure that the rights of women are protected, and that their participation is an integral part of conflict resolution processes.
However, as this debate has so effectively highlighted, while we focus on helping women and girls abroad, we must not take our eyes off the ball at home. Many noble Lords have also put forward their concerns about the degree to which we will be able to make genuine progress for women in these challenging financial times. I do not believe in sugar-coating the situation we are in. We inherited a financial and economic situation of great seriousness as a result of dangerous debts and a deficit that is simply not sustainable. Cleaning up this mess requires making incredibly tough decisions and we take no pleasure in doing so, but they are decisions that I believe any Government working in the national interest would have to take. However, we have been very clear that we must do it in a way that protects the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, as the Prime Minister has consistently said. This includes women and their families, who we know greatly depend on public services. That is why, for example, we are lifting 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax, the majority of whom are women. It is why we are protecting the lowest-paid public sector workers—the majority of whom are women—from the public sector pay freeze and increasing child tax credits for the poorest families, protecting against rises in child poverty.
However, we are not just about giving our people a Government who are more affordable. We are in government to lay the foundations of a fairer and stronger society. At a time when women are on the verge of making up half the UK workforce, we are working hard to address the obstacles they continue to face at work. Within weeks of coming to power, we asked the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, to look into ways of improving female representation on the boards of listed companies. As many of you will know, his report, which the Government have welcomed, was published last month. We will engage with business when considering his recommendations. Likewise, we encourage regulators, investors and executive search firms to take forward those recommendations that fall to them.
We have committed to extending the right to request flexible working to all employees—our aim being to make flexible working practices a normal, everyday part of the modern workplace. We will also promote a system of flexible parental leave that will help both parents strike an appropriate balance between their childcare responsibilities and their careers. We want to give parents the option to choose what works best for them and we will launch a consultation on this shortly.
The Government are also of the firm belief that if you do the same work as a man, you ought to be paid the same wage as a man. So we are working to promote equal pay through using transparency. For example, through the Equality Act 2010, we have stopped pay secrecy clauses being used to hide unfair behaviour in paying men and women differently. We are also currently in the process of developing a voluntary approach to pay reporting, aimed at private and voluntary sector organisations that employ 150 people or more. We will be consulting shortly on whether stronger measures are necessary in cases where there has been shown to be gender pay discrimination.
Let me turn to an issue that has been a persistent cause of concern—violence against women. The Government’s ambition is no less than to end violence against women and girls in all its grotesque forms. Achieving this will be no easy task and will require more than the piecemeal initiatives that we have seen thus far, which is why we have pledged to implement across government a more integrated strategy on violence against women, which we will be publishing shortly. We have already taken considerable measures to provide women’s services with a more secure future for them to continue their vital work in this area. While we expect local areas to continue to provide the majority of funding to these services, we want to lead by example. Therefore, in January of this year, we announced that a total of up to £3.5 million per year for three years will be spent on supporting rape crisis services. We are further committing an extra £28 million of Home Office funding for specialist services over the next four years. For the first time, the strategy will bring together work to tackle violence against women in the UK with details of the international approach to tackle this global problem. This includes the appointment of Home Office Minister Lynne Featherstone as the overseas champion to lead on the UK’s international work.
However, the truth is that we will not be able to make true progress on gender equality if we do not have more women in decision-making roles. The Home Secretary will be talking to the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that the issue of women’s representation in the House of Commons is considered when we look at our constitutional reform agenda. In the mean time, we have set a new aspiration that by the end of the Parliament at least half of all new appointees made to the boards of public bodies will be women. Last month we also published our proposals for increasing access to elected office by disabled people. Disabled people, many of whom are women, are dismally under-represented in both Chambers. Under our plans, disabled people will have access to a fund to help them overcome the barriers they face, which is just one part of a planned £1 million package aimed at improving their access. We are currently consulting on our proposals, and we hope to launch the scheme later in the year.
However, it is not just on elected positions where we are focusing our work. We want to work more closely with women and women’s organisations to help inform government policy making, which is why we made the decision to bring the core functions of the Women’s National Commission within the Government Equalities Office and within government. I know that many noble Lords here today have been very closely involved with the WNC. I want to say to them that the work and commitment of its former chairs and commissioners have been invaluable and much appreciated. However, to achieve our goals, we must do so in partnership with men. I pay tribute to all of those men who have shared our common goals and who help and support women to fulfil their full potential, including noble Lords who have participated in this debate. We want advice to be closer to Ministers and to provide real influence on decisions that the Government take. More importantly, we want there to be real democratic accountability for that advice. That accountability can reside only with elected politicians. We will shortly be launching a consultation which will set out the details of our new approach.
I will now attempt to address some of the issues raised by noble Lords today. Noble Lords will have to forgive me as my own scribbles are usually very unreadable, so I am afraid I have some from the Box, but I will start off by responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. I absolutely agree with her. It is crucial that we do all that we can through our work, here in the House and outside, to ensure that young girls and women today feel that they can fully participate in our decision-making processes. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and I share so many common areas. Both of us are desperate to ensure that the equality agenda is never let onto the backburner. The noble Baroness made a point about my mentioning the financial crisis. I had to do so because unfortunately it is what we have inherited. It is a backdrop that we do not particularly feel very comfortable with but we are having to deal with the crisis. I hope that noble Lords around the Chamber will agree that, unless we come to this together, this crisis will not be resolved quickly or easily.
I should like to say a word about the impressive record of my noble friend Lady Trumpington during World War II at Bletchley Park. When I entered this House, I was absolutely daunted to speak to my noble friend, but I have found, in the four and a half years I have been here, that my noble friend has provided me with great insight and skill on how to deal with difficult customers. My noble friends Lady Ritchie and Lord Bates, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and others, spoke about rape in conflict areas, and about Resolution 1325. The UK has intensified its efforts to secure improvements for women affected by conflict. In December we worked closely with our partners at the Security Council to agree a strengthened accountability mechanism to combat sexual violence in armed conflict. The UK’s action plan, which was jointly delivered on Resolution 1325 by the FCO, MoD, and DfID, will be monitored jointly. As I said, I find it difficult to read my writing.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Gould of Potternewton and Lady Royall of Blaisdon, talked about the casualties of the cuts. I have dealt with that within my speech, but we have protected healthcare and have put in additional resources to give social care extra money to ensure that the beneficiaries predominantly will be women. On the question about progress and the remaining challenges and problems facing particular groups, particularly the poor and the disabled, in response to the noble Baronesses, Lady Gould, Lady Scotland, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, Lady Heyhoe-Flint, Lady Jenkin, Lady Gardner, Lady Morgan of Ely, and Lady Benjamin, an overarching theme has emerged from today’s debate, in particular that noble Lords have stipulated that, although progress has been made, there is an awful lot that we have to do to get better representation in business, public and political life. To that end, I hope to reassure noble Lords that this Government are fully committed to ensuring that we stay on course as best we can. I am sure that we will be held to account at this Dispatch Box if we do not.
The noble Lord, Lord Sugar, the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe of Idlicote, Lady Heyhoe-Flint, Lady Crawley, and my noble friend Lord Sheikh, raised the theme of women in business and on boards. I think that I mentioned and outlined it in my presentation. I have been told that I have two minutes so I shall skip.
On DfID spending, we are proud to say that we have supported what was an agreement in all three main political parties to make sure that 0.7 per cent is enshrined in law. We are determined to keep women and girls at the heart of all the work that we do internationally and at home. Some of the questions asked through the bilateral and multilateral reviews were because we genuinely want to focus on programmes that are working well and want to make sure that we strengthen those programmes. We hope to give other donor countries a blueprint to work from.
I have been told that I have to sit down, so I shall say this quickly. I have pledged to write to noble Lords whose questions I have not answered. In conclusion, it has been an extremely informative and well supported debate. This is one of the most enjoyable debates we have and it is one to which noble Lords always contribute so well.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
My Lords, I reiterate the Minister’s last point. It is one of the most enjoyable debates that we have annually. I seriously thank everyone who has participated. It has been so stimulating, knowledgeable and absolutely inspiring. I, too, offer my congratulations to the six maiden speakers. Their speeches were varied and powerful, and we certainly look forward to hearing some more. I also congratulate the Minister who so competently tackled her daunting task. It gets more and more difficult as each year passes and the number of subjects discussed widens.
The range of knowledge in this Chamber is phenomenal, whether it is about women seafarers—that was a new debate that we had not had before but I should be interested in having more discussions—business, boards, politics or sport. It is fascinating how many women are football supporters, including myself. Perhaps we should start to compete with the men who somehow think that it is their subject. We heard about trafficking, violence against women, poverty, education and the vagaries of our political predecessors and women campaigners. We commemorated some remarkable women and organisations. Many speeches highlighted the position of women and girls, disabled women and women journalists in the developing world and the issues of rape in conflict and conflict resolution. I could go on as I am sure that I have missed out an awful lot of subjects.
I always hope that after these debates those who have not been in the Chamber will read the report of them. It is valuable for them and for all of us to follow through the points raised today. There is no question that we are united across the Chamber to further and better the rights of women. How we do it may vary but the aim of us all is there. It only remains for me to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
News Corporation/BSkyB Merger
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, with leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. The Statement is as follows.
“I would like to make a Statement about News Corporation’s proposed acquisition of BSkyB. I would like to start by thanking both the OFT and Ofcom for their detailed, thorough and independent analysis, which has been produced to a very challenging timescale. My decision today relates to the issue of plurality of news provision, and not competition or market power issues, which were ruled on by the EU Commission on 21 December 2010.
Earlier this morning, I announced that the independent media regulator, Ofcom, had advised me that undertakings in lieu offered by News Corporation would address the plurality concerns that it had identified in its report to me of 31 December 2010. I also announced that the OFT considered the undertakings to be practical and financially viable for up to 10 years. In light of this independent advice, I am proposing to accept such undertakings, instead of referring the matter to the Competition Commission.
As the Enterprise Act 2002 requires, I have today published these undertakings for public consultation. For the sake of transparency, I have also published all the advice that I have received from Ofcom and the OFT, together with correspondence between myself and News Corporation, and a timeline of the process that I have followed, including details of all the meetings I have held. I hope that honourable Members will have time to study these undertakings during the formal consultation that will start today. However, it may help if I outline the main points.
The undertakings would ensure that Sky News is spun-off as an independent public limited company. The shares in that company would be distributed among the existing shareholders of BSkyB in line with their existing shareholdings. News Corporation would therefore retain a 39.1 per cent stake in the new company, although it will not be allowed to increase this shareholding for 10 years without the permission of the Secretary of State. In other words, even if the proposed News Corp/Sky merger goes ahead, News Corp’s shareholding in Sky News will remain the same as at present.
The new company would have a 10-year carriage agreement and a seven-year renewable brand-licensing agreement with the newly merged News Corp/Sky so as to ensure its financial viability. Unlike the board to which Sky News currently reports, the chairman would be required to be an independent director. Unlike at present, the board would have a corporate governance and editorial committee to ensure compliance with the principles of editorial independence and integrity in news reporting. For the first time, the requirement for the company to adhere to Ofcom’s broadcasting code would be enshrined in the new company’s articles of association. In short, the editorial independence of Sky News would be better protected than it would have been, not only if Sky News had formed part of the buyout of Sky shares, but even than it is right now.
The principles of the arrangements are clear and set out in the proposed undertakings. There are still some detailed provisions of carriage, brand licensing and certain operational agreements that will need to be finalised, and the terms ensure that such agreements will need to be approved by me. In deciding whether or not to approve them, I will again take the advice of Ofcom and the OFT, as appropriate. The merger cannot, of course, go ahead until I have been satisfied on all these matters.
I also want to draw the House’s attention to the issue of the long-term sustainability of these undertakings. The OFT has said that the undertakings are likely to be practically and financially viable in the short and medium term, but expressed concerns about whether the undertakings would be viable over the longer term. It stated, however, that the appropriate timeframe in this market was for me to decide, with Ofcom’s advice.
Ofcom has considered the impact of a 10-year carriage agreement in the context of the media industry and has expressed the view that in a rapidly changing media and technological environment, a carriage agreement of 10 years is a long-term measure. I agree with its independent view of that given the difficulties of predicting with any certainty how the plurality issues will develop over a longer timeframe. However, I will of course only reach a final conclusion on this and other aspects of the undertakings after the consultation is complete.
Consequently, on the basis of the independent advice I have received, I have concluded that a referral to the Competition Commission would not be merited at this stage, and instead propose to consult on the undertakings in lieu, the final version of which has also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on my department’s website.
In line with the legislation, I am opening a consultation period during which time all interested parties will be able to express their views on the undertakings. Once I have considered representations, I will reach a decision on whether I still believe that the undertakings should be accepted in lieu of a referral. If, after consultation, I am still of the view that the undertakings address the concerns about media plurality, I will accept them and not refer this merger to the Competition Commission.
I would add that, quite separately to my consideration of this merger, I have carefully noted Ofcom’s point that there is a potential weakness in the current public interest test with respect to media plurality, namely that it can only be applied when there is a commercial transaction to consider. This wider question is one that I intend to consider in the context of the forthcoming review of communications regulation that I announced earlier this year.
Throughout this process I have been very aware of the potential controversy surrounding this merger. Nothing is more precious to me than the free and independent press for which this country is famous the world over. In order to reassure the public about the way that this decision has been taken, I have sought and published independent advice at every step of the way, even when not required to do so by law. After careful consideration, I have followed that independent advice.
The result is that, if this deal goes ahead, Sky News will be able to continue its high-quality output with greater protections for its operational and editorial independence than exist today. For those who have concerns about the plurality of news provision, I hope that this will be a welcome step forward. As such, I commend this Statement to the House”.
That concludes the Statement.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement. For those of us who have been watching the progress of the referral to Ofcom with some interest, it does not come as a great surprise that we have received a Statement of this nature today. A cynic might say that it would be very surprising if the Christmas social engagements between the Camerons and the Murdoch clan, and the subsequent lobbying, did not have an outcome such as this, although I know that the noble Baroness will have no knowledge of that and I do not expect her to comment.
In November last year we had an excellent debate on the case for maintaining a broad plurality of media ownership tabled by my noble friend Lord Puttnam, who regrettably cannot be with us today. What was noticeable about that debate was the degree of well informed consensus around the Chamber that the proposed News Corp takeover of BSkyB would not serve the public interest. Indeed, I was struck by the passion of noble Lords’ belief in the principle of media plurality as a central issue of our democracy—so much so that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, made it clear that, for the Liberal Democrats, upholding the principle was,
“a significant marker for our involvement in the coalition”—[Official Report, 4/11/10; col. 1784.]
I hope to hear him reaffirming that fact this afternoon.
In preparing for the Statement, I have reread the debate and the many concerns expressed, and have tried to measure them against the package that we have before us to see whether we can be reassured that they have been addressed. Unfortunately, many of the earlier doubts remain, and I hope that the noble Baroness can reassure us on some of them today. For example, even if we take Sky News out of the equation, does not the BSkyB takeover still represent a concentration of media power on a scale that would not be allowed anywhere else in the developed world—not even in the US? On the basis that News Corp’s share of the national press circulation is estimated to increase to more than 40 per cent by 2014, what are the implications for cross-media dominance in the years to come?
A major concern not answered by this deal is that the strength of BSkyB's financial dominance will allow it to bundle or cross-subsidise its newspaper output, potentially driving competitors out of the market. What steps does the department intend to take to ensure that that cannot happen? That is even more of a pressing issue with the development of internet news and pay-to-view tablet initiatives, in which Murdoch is taking the lead. Surely that underlines the fact that a plurality of news outlets is no longer just about the big TV news broadcasters and that the offering of Sky News as a token sacrifice does not address the real issue of concentration of media power.
There is another reason why sacrificing Sky News might not be the answer. The views of citizens and their access to information are shaped more widely than just by watching news programmes. The nature of entertainment and cultural output matters just as much, as does whether the programmes on offer have, for example, a concentration of American rather than UK origin. Those things matter in shaping how we see our world.
In our previous debate, several noble Lords spoke of Rupert Murdoch as an honourable man, and I have no reason to doubt that, but where might this decision and the promises made lead us in future? How can we stop BSkyB falling into others’ hands in years to come? The spectre of Russian oligarchs, or worse, cannot be discounted. How can we be sure that the deal today will be watertight and stand the test of time?
These decisions, once taken, are virtually impossible to reverse. Surely the sensible thing to do is to err on the side of caution. Will the Minister comment on whether the decision could in due course be reversed if it is subsequently shown not to be in the public interest?
In addition to those questions of principle regarding the deal, we have some specific questions about the detail of Sky News governance. For example, who will appoint the Sky News board and chair? What steps would News Corp have to take if it wanted to change its shareholdings or governance arrangements? Are there any constraints on who might buy the remaining shares in Sky News? Finally, what is to stop News Corp in setting up a rival news station to Sky—let us give it a name picked at random, Fox News—and thereby let Sky decline in its impact and status over time?
The Minister set out today the short period of consultation which will follow this announcement. We, too, plan to study the undertakings carefully and consult widely before coming to a view on whether this package is in the public interest. We will listen to the views of the regulator and to the other media organisations which may be affected by the decision. At the end of the day, our decision will be made by applying the public interest test in the knowledge that to get this decision wrong could have wide implications for our democracy for many years to come.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for those questions, and I will try to answer most of them.
Given our debate in the House initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, to which I replied, the Opposition's stance is no surprise, as it was clearly set out then. The noble Baroness started by voicing doubts about competition. This matter was settled by the EU Commission on 21 December.
On bundling, there is absolutely nothing new. If Mr Murdoch had wanted to bundle he could have bundled a long time ago. He would have had an opportunity before to bundle the 39 per cent control that he has, plus the Times and other newspapers, and obviously is not interested in bundling.
On the control of ownership, the basis of the undertakings is that News Corporation will not have control of Sky News; it will have only 39.1 per cent of the shares. The majority of the board, however, including the chairman, will now be independent. Should News Corporation wish to acquire more shares in Sky News following the merger, it would have to get the Secretary of State’s consent to this for a period of 10 years following the merger.
The noble Baroness quite rightly raised questions about future financial worries. The 10-year carriage agreement and the brand-licensing agreement underpin the undertakings and will ensure the viability of Sky News. Both those agreements must be agreed by the Secretary of State, so their terms will be subject to additional scrutiny.
The Secretary of State has made clear throughout his dealings on this that he has been committed to a fair, thorough and open process. I hope that the Statement has made clear that he has not reached a final decision and will not do so until after the consultation period when all parties have had the chance to contribute.
If any questions or points of detail remain that I have not answered, I will, of course, write to the noble Baroness and put a copy of the answer in the Library with all the other documents. I am grateful for the interest that noble Lords on the Back Benches will show on this matter, and I look forward to answering any of their questions.
Lord Fowler
My Lords, is not the trouble with Mr Murdoch’s assurances that, frankly, we have been down that road before, and not very happily in the case of the Times newspapers, so will need to study those assurances with very great care?
As I understand it, the new company will be loss-making, will have a 40 per cent News Corporation shareholding, and will rely for two-thirds of its income upon News Corporation.
Who from outside does the Minister believe will be investing in this new company, and will she confirm that the undertakings that Mr Murdoch has given do not prevent him eventually taking back control of Sky News? Lastly, does she agree that this further concentration of powers—as the noble Baroness from the opposition Front Bench was saying—on advertising and cross-subsidy will pose a danger to many other media companies in this country? Is that really in the public interest?
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, I am very pleased that my noble friend, Lord Fowler, asks these questions. It gives me an opportunity to inform your Lordships’ House further, following the Statement.
I clarify yet again that this is not a final decision. The Secretary of State has announced that he is proposing to accept the undertakings offered by News Corporation. There will now be a consultation period, which will close on 21 March, after which the Secretary of State will decide whether to approve the merger. Ofcom’s report on the proposed merger stated, and the Secretary of State agreed, that:
“We consider that the revised proposed undertakings would address the plurality concerns identified in our report of 31 December 2010”.
On the question of who outside might bid for the shares, I am afraid I have absolutely no idea. No one has told me anything about who might buy. The figure quoted by the Secretary of State was that 65 per cent of Sky News’ income will come from Sky. We have no idea about the rest. The concentration of power will be less because the new Sky News will not have a Murdoch as chairman or on the board. The chairman and the board will be independently chosen.
Lord Borrie
I shall not repeat the excellent points made from the Front Bench by my noble friend Lady Jones, but I shall follow some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, said. In particular, great emphasis has been put in the Statement on the independence of Sky News and of the chairman and the directors. Who is going to appoint them? Will the Murdoch family surely not want some say in how the independent chairman and directors are appointed? I would welcome an answer on that.
Bearing in mind some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, not only do we all recall, I am sure, the failure of the so-called independent directors of the Times, who were a somewhat useless set of people, but I remember, and I am sure many of us will, the so-called independent directors of the Observer, who were set up to put some kind of limit on the unreasonable power of the late Mr Tiny Rowland. The independent board is very much emphasised in this Statement, but I have not yet understood how it will be achieved, particularly if you have, as the Murdoch family will have, a 39.1 per cent share. Is the Murdoch family going to take no responsibility and want no power over the appointment of the independent directors?
Finally, how long is the arrangement to last? I understand the viability point about the 10 years. Perhaps I ought to have declared that some time ago I headed up the Office of Fair Trading for many years. I notice that it has usefully expressed some concern about the feasibility and viability of this arrangement and about whether it can last. We must all be concerned, as my noble friend Lady Jones indicated, about who may purchase. It might be some other undesirable person or group of persons whose viability and concern one would want to check.
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, makes very valid points. He knows about independence and Ofcom from having been chairman of the OFT. We either have to believe in this country that we have independent appointments or we do not. The way in which this country is run means that many bodies have independent board members and independent chairmen; it is not government and the Murdoch family. Paragraph 3.3 of the paper states that the new chairman will be independent.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned 10 years. The Office of Fair Trading stated that the Sky News company, which was not part of News Corporation, will be viable for at least 10 years. That is a long time in this market, and I remind the noble Lord that it is difficult to predict with certainty what the media world and plurality will be like in that time.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, alas, I fear that there is quite a lot of scepticism on the part of a number of your Lordships and concern about plurality. I accept that an independent chairman will be an improvement, but, by way of helping to reassure myself, I ask about the guarantee for 10 years that this sum—I believe it is 65 per cent—will be provided for the needs of this independent organisation. Will it be available every year or will it be a lump sum? If it is provided on a yearly basis, my concern is whether any condition might be attached—perhaps a delay in paying the sum. Might there be a way in which that could happen?
Baroness Rawlings
Understandably, there is a certain amount of scepticism about some of the details. As I say, this is not a final decision; we are still consulting. The point about plurality came clearly from Ofcom. Its conclusion was that,
“we consider that the revised proposed undertakings would address the plurality concerns identified in our report of 31 December 2010”.
At the moment, I cannot give the noble Baroness the details of how the money will be given.
Lord Razzall
My Lords, as the noble Baroness indicated, when we debated this issue in November, with the possible exception of my noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber there was an overwhelming feeling that this merger should not be allowed to go through. Having read the Ofcom letter and having listened to the Statement, my overall concern, which was expressed from the other Benches, is that nowhere in the Statement or in the Ofcom letter is the question addressed of the overall media power that this organisation will have following the BSkyB merger. That seems to be a huge lacuna in the Statement and the Ofcom letter, which is dealt with simply by reference to the fact that the European Union competition authorities have looked at this issue and have passed it, and that therefore we do not need to worry about it. Looking at the faces and nods around this House, it is something that we should worry about. However, as the noble Baroness has rightly said, these undertakings are now going out to consultation, and the devil, as always, will be in the detail.
Various noble Lords have indicated their suspicion about independent directors. I noticed the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, grinning at the comment about the independent directors of the Times. I am not sure which way he was grinning, but he was certainly grinning.
Lord Rees-Mogg
I am not an independent director of the Times and have no business connection with the Times other than writing a column.
Lord Razzall
I understood that. Perhaps I should move on swiftly. There clearly is suspicion about the role of independent directors. Various people have mentioned the Times and the Observer, but even going back to the takeover of the News Chronicle by the Daily Mail, the record was rather poor. Undoubtedly, these undertakings will be looked at with huge scepticism.
Apart from being very light on the issue of overall media power, both the Statement and the letter from Ofcom are extremely light on how the new Sky News will be financed. My question for the noble Baroness is: is it intended that all the money will be put up by News Corporation for the next seven to 10 years? If so, will we have satisfactory undertakings that, despite the fact that it is retaining only 40 per cent of the business, it will continue—
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, this is an abuse of our procedure. Would the Whips step in to sort it out?
Lord Razzall
My question is whether the financial obligations to fund Sky News will be absolutely guaranteed in the light of future technological developments in the industry.
Baroness Rawlings
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Razzall started off by asking about the merger and how the House had expressed a contrary view. The whole point of debate is that people should be allowed to express whatever view they wish. What we are looking at now are the reports from Ofcom and others on how to advise the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is now putting the issue out to further consultation. The overall power of News Corp will actually be lessened because it will no longer control Sky News. It is to be a separate body and thus more independent.
On financial robustness, the 10-year carriage agreement and the brand licensing agreement that underpin these undertakings will ensure that Sky News will be financially viable. Both those agreements must eventually be underpinned by the Secretary of State, so their terms will be subject to additional scrutiny.
Lord Kinnock
My Lords, my personal affection and respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, make me accept from her that this is not a final decision. May I put it to her that if it does not bear close similarity to the final decision when it is made, noble Lords across the House are prepared to be utterly astounded with delight and shocked to their roots? Can I also put it to her that what she has told us this afternoon means that Sky News will by owned by the people and interests who own BSkyB, including 39 per cent by Murdoch interests? Does that not make the same mockery of independence that is evident elsewhere in the Murdoch empire, including the Wall Street Journal and our own Times in this country? Is it not clear that the Secretary of State has accepted this arrangement as a quid pro quo for allowing Mr Murdoch to take complete ownership of BSKyB, and is it not evident that this is a handsome pay-off for the support given by News International to the Conservative Party during the election?
Baroness Rawlings
I cannot say anything about the final decision that the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, has asked for. This is still open to consultation until a certain date, and it will be very interesting. The Secretary of State will then look at it all. There will be independent shareholdings. The Murdoch press will own 39 per cent, but the rest will be open to the public. It is a little unfair of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, to criticise the Secretary of State. He has made this absolutely clear right from the beginning. Everything is published and available in the Library—papers of every meeting are available for scrutiny by anyone who wants to do so. If people have been worried about anything at any stage, he has always seen them. So I think he is being a little tough.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I have a brief question to ask my noble friend. As I understand it, the situation is that the shareholding is limited to 39.1 per cent at the point of entry into this system, but we hear that the Secretary of State will have to give permission if further shares are to be brought in. Can my noble friend tell us on what grounds that permission would be given, because that is a very important factor?
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lord Elton is absolutely right to say that it is 39.1 per cent, but I cannot give him any further details about further permissions because they are not in my briefing.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I should like to follow up the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. What pressures can be exerted by BSkyB for an accelerated reduction in the subsidy paid to Sky News over the coming years, thereby reducing the quality of news output by Sky News?
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asks me about the subsidy to Sky News. I am not aware of any subsidy to Sky News as yet; and, if there is a subsidy, I am sure it will be published for everyone to see.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
My Lords, can I press the Minister on a concern of mine, which is about retaining the quality of journalism on Sky News? Is the Minister satisfied that there are sufficient guarantees that News Corp will continue to fund Sky News properly, particularly considering the relentless forward march of new technology, which will necessitate considerable investment over future years? Just as a final thought, I have a feeling that the Telegraph must be thinking that it scored an own goal today.
Baroness Rawlings
My noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter is worried about continuing openness. News Corporation shares in Sky News will be unchanged as a result of the merger, and the independence of Sky News will actually be increased. It has an independent board and a new independent chairman, and we hope that they will keep the high quality.
Lord Prescott
My Lords, this Statement, frankly, is largely about the price of shares and ownership of BSkyB, and little to do with democracy in our society. Is the Minister aware that the investigation into the Murdoch press on phone hacking has now been extended to the Sunday Times. The argument that it was simply one paper and one rogue reporter is no longer true—a number of papers owned by the Murdoch press and a number of their employees have been involved in withholding evidence and illegal practices. Is she happy to extend a major part of our television services to the Murdoch press? Will she consider extending the consultation period until the criminal inquiries have been completed?
Baroness Rawlings
The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, brought this up in our debate on my noble friend Lord Fowler’s Question the other day. He raises a very serious point about the hacking, but I cannot address that at this moment in the debate.
Forestry Commission
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clark of Windermere
To call attention to Her Majesty’s Government’s plans to dispose of the Forestry Commission estate; and to move for papers.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, I spent a great deal of my political life being involved in forestry, and I made my maiden speech in the other place 41 years ago on the subject. I introduced the Private Member’s Bill that required the Forestry Commission to move from simply producing timber to multipurpose forestry, and I served for eight years as chair of the Forestry Commission. Given that, I was not exactly happy with the Government’s proposals, which I regarded as ill judged, to sell off the Forestry Commission estate. However, I was thrilled and amazed by the response of the British people. I did not expect them to share the appreciation of trees and woodland as fully as I did. The fact that over half a million individuals have signed a petition against the Government’s proposal—the petition is still there; lapsed, but growing each day—was symptomatic of the feeling of the British people. I was quite frankly staggered that I ended up addressing meetings of thousands of people, deep in our forests, who were objecting to the Government’s proposals.
However, that is in the past. The Government, thankfully, saw the light, and they retreated. We are all grateful for that retreat, because it gives us an opportunity now, in a calmer atmosphere, to debate the long-term future of a long-term business. As the House knows, we are talking about an industry that thinks in terms of decades, as a minimum, and occasionally in terms of centuries. It is right to take stock and see where we are.
Over a number of years, we in Britain have had a healthy partnership between the public sector and the private sector in forestry. Twenty per cent is owned by the state and the remainder by the private sector. I think that this is about the right balance, and both sectors receive support from the public finances. This balance is right because the state can do some things more easily than the private sector can. On access, for example, I remind noble Lords that the Forestry Commission estate is the largest single provider of countryside access, with 40 million day visitors per year. I remind the House that under the CROW Act almost all the freehold land is legally open for access on foot, and that on almost all the land there is de facto access on cycles for mountain biking and general recreation. Access is given wherever possible for horses as well. This is much easier to provide where the land is being supported by the general public through taxation than it might be for a private owner. I concede that straightaway, and it is one of my arguments for why we need to retain a sizeable public sector ownership of our forestry.
The issue is not only access. In terms of biodiversity, 26 per cent of the forestry estate is designated as SSSI; and of those sites, 98 per cent are designated as either favourable or at an advanced stage of recovery. Forty-five per cent of the estate is within national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. There are constraints on the production of timber, yet the Forestry Commission estate still produces 60 per cent of all the timber produced from woods and forests in this country. In addition to that, there is the storage of CO2 as well.
As for timber supply, although I have long argued for multi purpose forestry, it is also still very important to produce timber. What has not come out in debate on the Government’s proposal to sell off the Forestry Commission is how opposed most of the big users of timber were to it. Modern timber-using industry needs a high level of capital investment and, usually, a great deal of labour. It is imperative that those users of timber are guaranteed a supply 365 days a year, every year. The private sector, quite understandably, will not give those guarantees of supply. When timber prices fall—and it is a highly volatile market—the private sector simply withdraws timber from the market. That makes sense to the private timber owner but not to the timber user in a highly capital-intensive, labour-intensive industry.
I accept that one cannot stand still. As chair of the commission, I was for ever pushing the commission to see if we could find better ways of meeting more public benefits and of doing so in a better way. That was an obligation that I felt we had to the taxpayer and to our customers as wood users. I was pleased, for example, to persuade Parliament to agree to a regulatory reform order that allowed the Forestry Commission, as a government department, to do all sorts of adventurous initiatives. We were allowed to form joint ventures with the private sector, and we have done so with effect. There is much more opportunity for us to continue with that as we progress. While I am open about the way in which we go forward and how we manage and utilise our assets in the state sector, I hope that the Government will be as open as they look ahead with their proposals.
We were all pleased—certainly on this side of the House, along with the overwhelming majority of the British people, including 82 per cent of the Government’s own supporters—that the Secretary of State announced on 17 February that they were dropping their wilder proposals to sell off 85 per cent of the Forestry Commission estate. That was a vast amount, but there still remains the question of the 15 per cent. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance about that 15 per cent today. Is it still the Government’s firm intention, after they receive the report from the committee of experts, to sell off that 15 per cent? Before the Government throw back at me the fact that we did that I should say, yes, we did. It makes sense to reshape your estate. But we sold about 2 per cent of the forest estate, a net sale, over 13 years. The Government are proposing to sell 15 per cent over four years. The effect will be dramatic in many parts of the country and it is clearly not what the British people wish.
I say this to the Minister. The Government may feel that the protests and the protesters have gone away, but they have not—they are still there. The forests campaign network is having regular meetings because it wants to hold the Government to account on this issue, and it does not want the sale of the forestry estate asset.
I shall conclude my remarks by asking the Minister a number of straightforward questions. The Government intend to set up the panel of experts, which we appreciate will be widely drawn. Will he give us an assurance that it will meet in public, that its records will be public and that its members will be drawn from throughout the regions of the country?
On an organisational matter, the Forestry Commission is currently being pressurised by Defra to reorganise its administrative structure. This would encompass huge areas, stretching from the north-east of England right through to the east coast. I firmly believed that the way forward for the Forestry Commission was to move to regional and local bases. I thought that the Government shared that idea, with the big society. Will the Minister look at this and suggest to Defra that it work with the Forestry Commission so that the reorganisation is put on hold until we have the report?
Defra has also put proposals to the Forestry Commission that it should come up with a new vision. I have seen a copy of that vision and, frankly, it is disturbing. It mentions all sorts of proposals for the commission that I agree with, but at no stage does it mention any role for the Forestry Commission estate. Will the Minister have a word with his Defra officials on that issue?
This is a very short and rushed debate, in time allocated to the Opposition. There is sufficient interest in this topic within this House, where there is a great deal of knowledge, and I ask the Government to give us some time in government time so that the House can debate this issue and play its part in the forestry debate.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I respectfully remind noble Lords that Back-Bench contributions in this debate are limited to two minutes and that those two minutes are already up when it says two minutes on the clock. If any noble Lord exceeds that, he risks restricting my noble friend’s ability to respond to your Lordships.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, those who expect a rational debate on this, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark, has mentioned, will be totally disappointed that we are limited to two minutes, which was the decision of the Labour Party. The recent debate on forestry has neither been measured nor rational, which is in large part due to the Forestry Commission itself.
I ask my noble friend Lord Henley to justify the role of the Forestry Commission today. It is funded by the taxpayer and has always made a loss. With its huge inbuilt advantages, it competes with the private sector for land in the production and sale of trees and timber yet, at the same time, it totally controls what the private sector can do, often through its overbureaucratic and costly regulations. The private sector must have an approved management plan to plant and manage woodlands in order to obtain grants from the Forestry Commission, which are often delayed. That only adds insult to injury for the private sector.
I recall that when we privatised water my late friend Nicholas Ridley, Lord Ridley of Liddesdale, made the bold decision to break up the river management authority organisation and separate the regulator from the producer. I hope that my noble friend will be equally bold in looking at the Forestry Commission. Who, for instance, would support the idea that the Bank of England should not only be the Bank of England but should run high street banks? Why is the Forestry Commission any different? It is not. It is acknowledged by everybody that we need to plant more trees in the UK but there is no way that those trees will be planted by the private sector unless it can be assured that it can produce managed, sustainable woodland at a profitable price. With the present structure of the Forestry Commission, that will not happen.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for securing this debate and declare an interest as the past president of the Ramblers. I was so delighted to hear the news, here in this House, on Monday 28 February that Clauses 17 to 19 and Schedule 7 had been withdrawn. Thank goodness that common sense prevailed. Now we can see the wood from the trees as we make future plans, because I am sure that the Minister will agree that the issue of access to woodlands was at the heart of those clauses.
We all know that access to the Forestry Commission estate facilitates not just walking but social interaction, play, relaxation, discovery and enjoyment among all backgrounds. Therefore, it is key that this access is maintained. As an avid walker, I can vouch for the fact that walking has been proven to improve moods. It has also been shown that it reduces the risk of certain cancers and strokes, and that it reduces diabetes and so on. By cutting off access to one of England’s most loved places to walk, we cut off a key way of exercising those benefits.
Walking in a group can be a tonic. It is a sociable activity that can help improve mental health and overcome feelings of isolation. The Ramblers’ research has found that this benefit is valued by participants in group walks. Believe it or not, walking a mile burns around the same amount of calories as running a mile—although, of course, it takes longer—and can be so wonderfully enjoyable. Improving public spaces and promoting walking as an active means of transport will help to reduce health inequalities as well as combating climate change.
It has been proven that walkers in the English countryside spend over £6 billion a year, generating income of over £2 billion and supporting a quarter of a million full-time jobs. I hope that my noble friend will keep all these thoughts in mind when the Government are making any future plans that affect our heritage and, most of all, the well-being of generations to come. Let us all make access a priority. Then, if we go down to the woods today, or tomorrow, we will not be in for a big surprise.
Lord May of Oxford
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clark, for creating this all-too-short debate. Secondly, I declare some interests: I was an independent member of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee from its beginning and for several years; and, more generally, I have a significant and international engagement in research in conservation biology. It is against that background that I make just one substantial point.
The UK is formally committed not just to preserving biological diversity of plants, animals and ecosystems in the UK but also, going further, to restoring the lamentable and well documented declines and losses seen over the past century. This necessarily requires co-ordinated overview of actions which would be greatly impeded under the suggested free-for-all of privatising the Forestry Commission estate.
The Government’s plans are in this sense, to a degree, incompatible with commitments that successive previous Governments have given. Furthermore—and, admittedly, more speculatively—it is quite likely that the proposed privatisation will lead to significant deforestation as land is cleared for property development or agriculture, which could cut against our commitments under climate change legislation.
In short, I am of the strong opinion that this is a thoroughly bad idea.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the future of the state forests is clearly of great importance. I acknowledge the long-standing commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Clark, to it. I would be the first to recognise, as a countryman, that forests and woodlands are much loved and treasured by our nation. I am proud to be wearing the Red Squirrel Survival Trust tie, a species dependent on forestry.
Regrettably, the Government appeared not to be explicit enough to reassure so many that the enhancement of the state-owned forests was always the first priority in any transfer of ownership. Following the recent appointment of a group to assess the regulations governing forestry and woodland management, I would expect people who have practical knowledge of the countryside, and the timber industry in particular, to be fully represented. I hope that all of us can unite in co-ordinated and rigorous action to counter the all-too-many alarming diseases among tree species.
I also draw attention to the substantial amount of woodland which is managed privately. Of course, there is no ideological opposition to private ownership, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark, has said. Under the previous Administration, 25,000 acres of Forestry Commission land was sold. There are many examples of flourishing private woodland. There are also many examples of England’s community projects, and these are a continuing success. There are other public organisations which also manage woodland. Epping Forest, for instance, managed by the Corporation of London, provides a much cherished environment close to the capital.
One of the most important issues that should have come out of the last few months of debate is the position of the Forestry Commission as both the industry regulator and a major operator in that industry. This must at least be a matter for scrutiny. The unique arrangement of the Forestry Commission being the main commercial operator in the field and also regulator of its competitors presents a clear conflict of interest.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool
My Lords, the future of forests can be summarised by the ABC of accessibility, biodiversity and conservation. Whatever plans emerge in the future, the public clearly want accessibility to be a priority. Biodiversity has recently received more attention from the Forestry Commission, but there are those who believe—and I share this view—that more needs to be done to take us beyond the monocultural forest of conifers and spruces.
The Secretary of State has emerged as a champion of biodiversity at the recent international conference in Japan. She needs to ensure greater biodiversity in our forests. We lecture the world about the evil effects of deforestation. Therefore, we should set an example to the forest nations and adopt the highest principles and standards of conservation and sustainability.
The Liverpool poet Gerard Manley Hopkins, in an evocative poem, “Binsey Poplars”, laments:
“O if we but knew what we do
When we delve or hew—
Hack and rack the growing green!”.
I commend the poem to all who aspire to manage our forests accessibly, biodiversely and—if I may say so—conservatively.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, that is a splendid poem.
Like the majority of the people of this country I think that the Forestry Commission does an excellent job in the management, stewardship and protection of our forests, and like the majority of people in this country I want the public forests remaining in public ownership to remain in public ownership.
I say to the noble Earl that the Forestry Commission had absolutely nothing to do with the recent public debate about forests. It was not allowed to say anything. I think that it should have been able to speak out. I am very pleased that the Government are responsible for appointing the independent panel. I wish to ask some further questions to the many that have been asked. Will the panel travel round the country, taking views from people on the forests in which they live or about which they care, because forests are about not just woods and trees but communities as well? I live in a very strong community.
My next question concerning a conflict of interest has already been raised. I am somewhat perplexed about this because in 1992 the Conservative Government created the authority and enterprise sides of the Forestry Commission. Those are clearly demarcated with different offices and staff. In my view there is no conflict of interest but I would like further clarification from the Minister on that.
As we know, a consultation on jobs is going on with the unions. I hope that that will cease until we know exactly what the outcome of the independent panel will be. How many jobs are in dispute and are the subject of consultation? Might those jobs be got rid of speedily? The Secretary of State has said that she wants the Forestry Commission to do more in terms of biodiversity and access. Therefore, it would be foolish to have even fewer people working for the Forestry Commission.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, this is a bit like Punch and Judy—up you come, down you go, that’s the way to do it. However, it is absolutely clear that the debate that we have had over the past few months has been narrow, divisive and based on ill judged proposals. That is not the way to do it, but thanks to the sensible government decision that has been taken we now have a real opportunity to have a broad-ranging, inclusive, constructive debate about the future of forests and woodlands in this country. However, it all depends on the panel of experts, how it is set up, who is on it and their terms of reference. It has to be broadly based and I am confident that that will happen. Its terms of reference must be as wide as possible, not just about the future of the forestry estate but about the work of the forestry commissioners and the Forestry Commission in the widest sense, including the future of woodlands and forests in this country.
My honourable friend Roger Williams pointed out in the House of Commons debate yesterday that 80 per cent of the woods and forests in this country are private, of which 40 per cent are not managed properly or not even managed at all. That must be the basis of the whole debate but it must not under any circumstances be based on an assumption of disposal. We have to start with a clean sheet. As regards the terms of the panel’s operation, it must be able to look outwards to the knowledge, expertise and wishes of the people. It must be open and involve people throughout the country and do as much of its work as possible in public. I hope that it will hold a series of constructive seminars around the country in which people can take part. We have a real opportunity now to get away from the oppositional debate that we have had towards an inclusive project aimed at building a consensus for the future—not just for the next four, five or 10 years, but one in which the Forestry Commission, the forestry commissioners and our woods and forests can go ahead on a basis of 50 years, because trees take quite a long time to grow.
Lord Grantchester
I shall celebrate two important forests that are in my area, namely Delamere and Cannock Chase, both not far from where I declare my interests as a farmer, although the farm does not have any appreciable woodland.
Delamere and Cannock Chase consist of 2,500 hectares of forest, wetlands, heathland and grassland including internationally important bogs and sites of special scientific interest. They are multipurpose forests with a high degree of public recreational use, providing an impressive network of walking, cycling and horse riding trails, and attracting around 1.25 million visitors per year. In addition, they host popular attractions—for example, outdoor concerts, one of which drew 15,000 people to Delamere over three nights and helped boost the visitor economy, because all the local accommodation was booked up. Another example is provided by Go Ape, which provides adventure activities that employ seven seasonal staff and remits surpluses of around £50,000 to the Forestry Commission.
Attention should now turn towards management and getting the best use out of what we have. It cannot happen without resources; and the 30p per annum that each of us contributes to maintaining the PFE represents tremendously good value for money. The proposed cut to 17p per annum per person and approximately 500 redundancies will not only impact on management but affect many local communities.
The best starting point for the newly announced expert panel should be to dust off the comprehensive public consultation carried out by the previous Administration. Here will be found ideas to reinforce the priorities of the Forestry Commission, provide social benefits to urban populations, and make a bigger contribution to the UK’s climate change strategy.
The nation’s trees are under attack from pests and diseases—red band needle blight, sudden oak death, bleeding canker of horse chestnut and pine lappet moth. Research into these threats is woefully underfunded. Forest activity needs to be energised, not debilitated.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer and woodland owner. It is clear that our woodlands are important to the people of the UK. In some areas, the timber they produce can be a vital part of the rural economy. The income forests provide from shooting is also important in some areas. Equally, as regards climate change, CO2 is locked up in timber, and if that timber goes into, say, housebuilding, it remains locked up. Also, wood that is used to create heat or energy is carbon-neutral. Woodland also hosts numerous species of flora and fauna. Woodland is an important part of our landscape and cultural heritage. Finally, woodlands, because they contain all these benefits, are a vital resource for access, and thus the spiritual and physical health of our nation.
However, the real problem is that whatever use they are put to, woodlands require expensive management. Of all the benefits that they bring, only timber and possibly sporting income are capable of paying for that management. The situation in the private sector—some 80 per cent of woodland cover—is even worse. The employment of woodland workers is not an allowable business expense. It is the fiscal equivalent of employing a butler. It is true that one can possibly get a tax-free income after a tree has grown for 50 years or so—or rather one’s children can, which is not perhaps such an inspiring motive—but when woodland is managed for public benefit, we are entering the realms of charitable giving. The trouble is that in forestry, the tax system does not recognise expenses incurred in producing marketable or non-marketable goods
The point is that we desperately need better and more focused management of our woodlands to provide all the outcomes that we clearly value. Please can the new panel of inquiry look carefully at how we can better encourage proper woodland management? That is the key to successful and multipurpose forestry in this country.
Lord Eden of Winton
My Lords, it is great that thanks to the brave decision of the Secretary of State, the forestry debate can now focus much more on management than on ownership. I follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on that very point.
About 50 years ago, I wrote a report for the Council of Europe on national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest. In the process of gleaning evidence for that report, it was borne in on me how vitally important it is to be sensitive to the requirements of the forest when considering their management. Forests and woodlands vary in type and size. One size does not fit all. Therefore, management has to be acutely aware of their individual and specialist needs.
That leads me to comment with a word of caution about the recent emphasis, which has been made in some of our exchanges, on public access and recreation. If that is overdone, it will destroy the very thing that we all want to preserve. It is incredible what damage can be done by walking or trampling feet, whether human or horse, and even more if it is done in the name of motorsport or motorcycles. This is not what forests are designed for. They are primarily designed for biodiversity, for the production of timber, and as we now understand, for the valuable role they play in relation to climate change. So I hope that we will be careful how we use our forests, and recognise that the greatest benefit is in experiencing the wonderful quiet, the silence, and the beauty. Let us preserve that.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I begin by expressing my admiration to noble Lords all around the House for managing to make so many telling points within the rigorous confines of a two-minute deadline. I am fortunate in that I have slightly longer, but I none the less share the frustration that noble Lords feel in having to deal with such important issues in such a short time.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere very much on initiating this debate, and on his starring role in recent forestry campaigns, which have been so happily successful. My noble friend, through his previous work as chair of the Forestry Commission, and also throughout his long parliamentary career, has been an unmatched champion for our countryside, for the rural economies of our country, and for the natural environment.
As I was not able to be in the House on Monday when the Public Bodies Bill was debated, I take this opportunity to give my thanks to the Government for removing the forestry provisions from that legislation and to express my delight at the dramatic turnaround in their approach to their forestry policy. The Government’s original proposals, as we know, unleashed a tidal wave of public concern. Like others, I pay tribute to the various campaigns which immediately got under way. I recognise in particular the national petition organised by 38 Degrees, which was so astoundingly effective, but I recognise equally the local and regional campaigns up and down the country, which had such an important influence on Members of Parliament, and indeed on public representatives throughout our country. The campaigns attracted celebrity support as well, and support from people of different walks of life. My noble friend Lord Clark said that he was, in a way, astonished at the scale of the reaction, yet there were reminders during the campaigns of how long the history of public support for our forests is. Some looked back, for example, to the campaigns by Octavia Hill and John Stuart Mill in the 19th century to save Epping Forest.
Certainly, if this was the big society in action, it was very impressive, although ironically for the Government, who see the big society as their cherished idea, in this case it was the big society standing up to and opposing what the Government were doing. The public certainly showed that they were passionate about the future of our forests, and many noble Lords have expressed passion for our forests in the debates that we have had in this House. In considering the Public Bodies Bill and in the debate today, various forests around the country have been mentioned: the Forest of Dean, the forests in the Lake District, and the forests of Delamere and Cannock Chase, which my noble friend Lord Grantchester mentioned. I share that passion for my local forests and woods in the north-east of England—Chopwell woods, Hamsterley forest and, a bit to my surprise, Kielder, which is a very large forest, described by the Minister as containing serried ranks of conifers. I remember being dismayed in the past at some of the very large ugly plantations in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Huge changes have occurred in forestry policy over the years, thanks in no small measure to the work done by my noble friend Lord Clark at the Forestry Commission and by the commitment of the previous Government to make forests an amenity for all our citizens, as well as being important in terms of timber production. That has been seen in Kielder, as elsewhere, with the many sites of special scientific interest and habitats for endangered ospreys and the red squirrel. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, on wearing his red squirrel tie. I do not know whether he has headscarves or other items that might be more suitable for women supporters of red squirrels, but certainly the cause of the red squirrel is one that is dear to the hearts of many of us in this House. It reminds us of one of the most important aspects of this debate which is the promotion of biodiversity. Indeed, that point has been made tellingly in some of the briefings sent to us by outside organisations, particularly the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds which speaks effectively on the importance of biodiversity. I commend the succinctness of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool in saying that our watchwords should be accessibility, biodiversity and conservation. These are important watchwords when it comes to how to approach this debate.
I took the Minister to task at an earlier stage for his categorisation of forests and the categories of forest that Defra came up with in its original proposals. It is wrong to try to oversimplify whether forests are commercial, heritage, mixed, or whatever. I believe strongly that each forest has to be looked at on its own merits and that we have to look at them not only for what they mean for timber production but for nature conservation and wildlife, public access and amenities, and for what they contribute to the rural and regional economies in terms of tourism, timber production and related issues. All forests should be considered in that way and I hope that the Government will now accept that as the way forward.
While I disagreed with Ministers’ oversimplification of forest categories, I agreed with the point that he and his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, made in our debate on the Public Bodies Bill. It is a challenge to reconcile the valid different interests which seek to use our forests, whether ramblers, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, sports interests, wildlife interests, general tourism, and so on. They all need to be reconciled within our overall international environmental commitments.
A number of issues were raised to which I hope the Minister will respond. My noble friend Lord Clark mentioned the issue of the 15 per cent and I hope that the Minister will respond to that. On Monday, concern was expressed that repeated sales at 15 per cent could result in the serious whittling away of the public forest estate. In response the Minister mentioned that a substantial public forestry estate would be retained. In order to reassure people, particularly given the extent of public concern, a definition of what constitutes substantial will need to be given, so I hope that the Minister will respond to that.
Questions have been asked about the composition of the panel and how it will operate. I echo those concerns that it should operate in public and be as inclusive as possible. That has to be the message that results and one of the lessons learnt from the experience of the past two months. My noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon mentioned concern about jobs. We are concerned about cuts in expenditure in terms of managing our forests in all our interests.
I have to conclude, and time is frustratingly short, but we owe it to the public who have shown such strong feelings on this matter to come back to these issues many times and to be vigilant in the months ahead. In the mean time I look forward to the Minister’s reply and his answer to the points that have been made so tellingly today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I start with a brief comment on the length of the debate. We are limited to one hour, but that is, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said, entirely a matter for the Opposition. A request was put in that this debate could be held on some other occasion in what is referred to as “government time”. I am not so sure that there is such a thing as government time in this House, but I am sure that the usual channels will discuss this in due course.
I go back to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool when talking about his ABC of accessibility, biodiversity and conservation. Those three are very important, but we should add others. The first and most important one to remember is that the public forest estate, which covers some 18 per cent of English woodland, is there to produce timber. That was what it was set up for back in 1918, 1919 or whenever. Timber is its primary role, but it has the other duties of accessibility, biodiversity and conservation as well. It also has a very important role against climate change as a storer of carbon, as my noble friend Lord Eden mentioned. That, again, is a role that we should remember.
To return to the question of accessibility raised by the right reverend Prelate, one should underline—and I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, for doing so—that there are competing demands in the whole accessibility question. This point came up in our debate on Monday on these matters, when the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised the question of motorsports. The noble Lord is a former Member for a Birmingham seat, so he has a great interest in motorsports, which make use of the public forest estate—it is very important to them. Within accessibility, we have competing demands from those who want to work, those who want to ride and those who want to drive, whether in motor or horse-drawn vehicles. All of those compete with each other and cannot use the land at the same time, and all of them compete in biodiversity and conservation. All these things cannot go together, so very difficult decisions have to be made. That is something that we will take into account in any decision.
A lot has been said in the previous six months about the future of the public forest estate, but a lot of that has been based, dare I say it, on speculation rather than fact. I say that having listened to some of the speeches today, in particular to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Clark. Although he never seeks to mislead the House, he talked about selling off the entire forestry estate, which was never set out by us. What we set out in our consultation document, which has since been withdrawn, was very different indeed. It might have helped if the noble Lord had read that and studied it in detail. I refer back to the same point made by the noble Lord, Lord May, who was one of the signatories of that great letter that we received—or which came to the papers. I think the noble Lord will find that he signed that letter before our consultation document came out that has since been withdrawn. As my right honourable friend announced on 17 February—so we have now moved on—we have ended that consultation on the public forest estate and withdrawn the forestry clauses from the Public Bodies Bill. So we can now have a rational debate, and I hope that it will not be based on misinformation, or whatever.
I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark, put it, that the past few months have demonstrated just how much people care about the forests of England and the rest of the country. The noble Lord referred to half a million people responding to these things and signing petitions. It is probably worth reminding him that much the same happened on the subject of hunting under the previous Government. I am not sure that the previous Government took much notice of that, but I seem to remember that the previous Prime Minister, when he wrote his memoirs, recognised that that might have been one of his great mistakes. Half a million here, half a million there—pretty soon we are talking about big numbers.
As the noble Lord said, we are now setting up an independent panel on forestry that will consider the whole future direction of policy for England's woods and forests. I can assure the House that it will seek to consult and advise broadly. It will go out and discuss these matters with as many people as possible. It will want to engage with as many people as possible who have already come in and consulted our department. I do not want to go into all the details of who will be on the panel because I discussed that the other day, but I will mention again that, first and most importantly, it will be independent. Secondly, it will have an independent chairman and I hope that fairly shortly—whatever that might mean—we will be able to announce the chairman of that panel and advise both Houses who will be the other members.
The other point I wish to make, again as I stressed on Monday, is that although we want to keep that panel fairly small and ensure that as many interests are represented as possible, we hope that all those on the panel are there for their own individual expertise and knowledge, and not as representatives. We do not want them there as delegates of particular bodies, but to provide their expertise and knowledge. We hope that they will cover as wide a range as possible. Because it is independent, we hope that the panel will go out and discuss with as many different bodies as possible their concerns and views. It will be open to that panel, being independent, to set up its own sub-committees to bring in other people. As I made clear on Monday, we have already had a large number of different people coming into the department to say they would like to be on the panel or that they would like X or Y to be on it. It is a matter for us to appoint that panel, but it is then for the panel to look at these things carefully.
Until we consider the panel's advice, as my right honourable friend made clear, we have suspended the planned sale of 15 per cent of the public forest estates. Some sales have gone ahead since we came into government last year—they were sales that had already been agreed by the previous Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and others know full well. No decisions on the ones that we have suspended will be made until we have heard the views of the panel.
I want to make it quite clear that we have been perfectly free to sell a certain amount of forestry land. It has always been sold. The previous Administration, as I made clear and I reminded the noble Lord, Lord Clark, sold some 25,000 acres over the course of their time in office. I should remind the House that they sold it without any safeguards at all other than those that were available under the CROW Act. We will make sure that what we sell in future, should we sell anything post the panel's advice, will have appropriate protections where necessary.
The 1967 Act allows that. The Act requires the Secretary of State to maintain a considerable land bank for the use of forestry. Currently, the Secretary of State owns some 258,000 hectares—approximately 550,000 or 600,000 acres—making her the largest landowner in England. That is a pretty large forestry estate. Under the Act, she is obliged to maintain what is described as a large land bank that is a substantial part of the forestry resources in England.
We know that forestry resources in England under the current arrangement amount to approximately 18 per cent of what there is. At what point the land bank would cease to be “considerable”, having sold off 15 per cent, would obviously be a matter for interpretation of the Act. Lawyers would describe what that amounted to as a question of fact and degree. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Clark, about that. No doubt in due course we can debate what the appropriate amount would be. Our judgment of the Act is that with the sale of 15 per cent of the estate, the Secretary of State would continue to own a considerable land bank. I remind the House that all sales have been suspended as we await the outcome of the panel.
On the Forestry Commission itself, I particularly note what my noble friend Lord Caithness said about its possible conflict of roles—the fact that it is, as it were, like the Bank of England also running a high street bank. There are conflicts. The panel will also consider the role of the commission in supporting and enhancing the delivery of forestry policy. I state for the record that the Forestry Commission, under the noble Lord, Lord Clark, and others, has done a valuable job since it was created in 1919. I appreciate that the noble Lord was not involved then; a whole host of different commissioners and chairmen have done that job.
We also accept that in the Forestry Commission we have a wealth of professional knowledge and experience of forestry matters. We all hold it in high regard, and it will be important in facing the challenges of forestry diseases. The noble Lord and others will remember that only the other day we dealt with the question of sudden oak disease—more properly called Phytophthora ramorum—and the dangers that it is creating in the forestry estate, both public and private. We welcome all the expertise that we have in the Forestry Commission but also in other Defra bodies, such as Fera, and all the work that they are doing to deal with those challenges.
On the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, I also accept that the Forestry Commission is facing challenges, as are all other parts of government and all other parts of what I might refer to as the Defra family, as a result of the cuts that we have had to make as a result of the position that we inherited from the party opposite when we came into government. There is no point the noble Baroness shaking her head, because she knows that if her party had still been in government, it would be having to make reductions in public expenditure to deal with the deficit that we face.
The Forestry Commission is in the middle of a serious retrenchment, but we still think that it can do its job. It is in the middle of a period of major staff consultation as a result of the spending review. In that consultation, it will discuss matters with the trade unions, deal with their responses and formulate the next steps, which will then be presented to staff. Until the outcome of that consultation is known, I cannot give any more detailed information.
I return to the panel and what it will be discussing, because that is important. A number of subjects have been raised in the course of today's debate, but the panel might want to consider other matters. We want to consider the challenge of increasing our woodland cover. We all know how small our woodland cover is and how little it has increased over the past 10 or so years—despite the fact that it was increasing before that—and how large the woodland cover in some of our fellow European countries is.
We also want to consider our ancient woodlands; I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord May, and my noble kinsman Lord Eden said about their importance and the importance of biodiversity. We also want to consider how access and recreation opportunities can be provided, but I remind the House how important it is that we look at the competing demands of access and recreation against biodiversity and timber production. All those matters must be considered appropriate.
I end by reassuring the House that the Government are committed to a sustainable future for our woods and forests. Now is the time and opportunity to look at how to do this and to tap into the obvious enthusiasm that we have discovered and which the noble Lord, Lord Clark, mentioned, and the love of our forests, which many have expressed. I look forward to seeing the views of the independent panel in due course.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, this has been a first-class debate that just emphasises the need for a further, longer, debate. I have been so impressed by noble Lords for the way in which, in such a short period, they have been able to make their cases so clearly and succinctly, and I am full of admiration. I thank the Minister and every Member who has contributed for their efforts and time. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No.2) Bill
Clothing Industry: Ethical and Sustainable Fashion
(13 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Young of Hornsey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support and promote the ethical and sustainable fashion and clothing industry.
Baroness Young of Hornsey
My Lords, I am delighted to open this debate this afternoon, especially with such a wide-ranging group of illustrious speakers. The timing could hardly have been better, following the earlier debate on the challenges that women face—challenges which include exploitative labour in the clothing supply chain. It also comes hot on the heels of London Fashion Week, where the British Fashion Council promoted Aesthetica, the ethical fashion showcase and forum. Also, importantly, it takes place during Fairtrade Fortnight.
I have several interests to declare. I am an ambassador for the Ethical Fashion Forum and for Made-By, which works with major fashion brands wishing to develop their ethical and sustainable standards. I have received briefings by the Fairtrade Foundation—which sent me this scarf to wear this afternoon—the Centre for Sustainable Fashion, Made-By, RITE, PETA, Anti-Slavery International and various individuals. I am setting up an APPG on Ethics and Sustainability in Fashion, and hosting an event on the subject on 16 March. The CSF and Made-By have generously agreed to provide creative and secretariat input to the group.
There are too many individuals to thank for their help on this subject, but I want to give particular recognition to Jocelyn Whipple, Lucy Siegle, Livia Firth and Orsola de Castro for their generous support and encouragement. I was pretty ignorant at the beginning of this journey in the early days, and they have educated me enormously. I would also like to thank Defra officials and the Library for a very comprehensive and hugely helpful briefing pack.
Fashion and clothing are sometimes seen as frivolous, or only of minority interest. This was brought home to me when I started asking noble Lords to join the APPG. As I frequently pointed out, however, many of your Lordships could be considered the ultimate ethical fashionistas—wearing beautifully cut, high-quality tailored suits, timeless in style and lasting several years. This is the antithesis of fast, disposable fashion, which makes it more likely to be sustainable and less likely to contribute to the 30 per cent of textile-based landfill. Perhaps more seriously, many noble Lords have an interest in human rights, forced labour practices, environmental issues, international development, organic farming, corporate responsibility, animal welfare—et cetera, et cetera—and can make substantial, well-informed contributions on this subject as it touches on all these areas.
Creating and making, selling and buying fashion and clothing clearly are not marginal activities. The BFC estimated that in 2009 the UK fashion industry directly contributed £20.9 billion to the UK economy. There are some 815,000 jobs directly arising from it.
Fashion carries social and cultural meaning, and thus how we feel about clothes is subjective and prone to change. This has always been the case, but we seem to have reached a moment where the renewal of the self—the demonstration of our sense of belonging—is achieved through overconsumption of clothing, the costs of which include damaging agricultural practices; resource-intensive fibre, fabric and garment manufacturing; and the exploitation of garment workers and passive consumers who follow trends prescribed by the industry, and who are ill informed about, and distanced from, the creative and labour practices attached to their clothes.
Government can make very useful interventions. The sustainable clothing action plan, a Defra initiative from the previous Government, was a key development bringing together well known high-street brands to improve the sustainability performance of clothing across the supply chain. I am glad to hear that that is to continue. DfID’s responsible and accountable garments sector—RAGS—challenge fund works with the private sector and civil society to adopt ethical approaches to production in developing economies.
In what I believe is the first debate focused on the subject of ethical and sustainable fashion and clothing, I want to ask the Government several questions. The first, a question which arose from several of the discussions that I have had with various organisations, is on tax breaks for green fashion businesses. It is quite costly to convert goods to organic, Fairtrade or recycled products. A tax holiday or some form of rebate would encourage more new and innovative companies to enter these sectors. Sir Harold Tillman, chair of the British Fashion Council and owner of Jaeger and Aquascutum, has said that incentivising eco-friendly design would make sense for businesses and consumers across the fashion sector. He asks why, if UK citizens can get tax breaks on energy-efficient cars and other sustainable products, they cannot wear their values with pride and get tax breaks on ethical fashion. I ask the same question.
There is another point: the power of government procurement processes. The Government are among the largest non-retail purchasers of clothes and textiles in the country and spend £691 million on wearing apparel alone. With other textile-related expenditure, the Government spend a total of £1.186 billion a year on these items. However, ethical specifications for clothes are not a core requirement in public procurement. Current standards only suggest that government procurers can award extra points in the bidding process for ethical production principles. This does not incentivise bidders to meet higher ethical standards to win government contracts. Sir Philip Green’s review of government procurement in October 2010 neglected the potential that greater centralised purchasing could have on driving up ethical standards. Do the Government have a strategy for using their potential to lead by example and to embed ethical and sustainable principles in their procurement processes?
All political parties are committed to setting up the supermarkets adjudicator to investigate where supermarkets are using their purchasing power to treat suppliers unfairly. There are clearly many similarities between the food and fashion retail sectors, and many of the practices that lead to unfair treatment will be common to both. As they have for the food retail sector, will the Government commit at least to investigate the extent of these practices, and their impact on ethical clothing production, to establish whether the remit of the supermarkets adjudicator should be extended to cover fashion retailers as well?
Cotton is a recurring motif throughout this subject. Cotton growing is acknowledged as an opportunity for income generation, particularly for farmers from developing counties. But there are two key issues that need to be addressed. The first is that DfID should recognise the developmental and environmental benefits of organic cotton production and fund projects to develop this sector. Secondly, and very importantly, unfair subsidies from the EU and the USA create problems for producers in developing countries. Rich countries, including the US and those in the EU, have subsidised their cotton farmers by $47 billion in the past 10 years. West African cotton farmers, who are among the poorest in the world, are forced to try to compete on a global market against this subsidised cotton. The Fairtrade Foundation is campaigning and its supporters are lobbying the UK Government and the EU to drop their subsidies and to isolate the US on this unfair practice. Defra has already indicated its opposition to trade-distorting cotton subsidies. How does the department intend to demonstrate that it is seeking to influence directly the EU Commission’s proposals on the future of cotton subsidies, or has it begun to build the necessary coalition among member states and MEPs to end this subsidy?
On the other hand, we have the absolutely deplorable situation in Uzbekistan where the Government force children from the age of 11 to harvest cotton from September to November every year. In January 2011, the Council of the European Union announced that it had agreed changes to the EU-Uzbekistan Partnership and Co-operation Agreement protocol with Uzbekistan to extend the provisions of this PCA to the trade in textiles. These have yet to be approved by the European Parliament. This is an opportunity to call on the Parliament at the very least to ensure that the provisions of this agreement are conditional on Uzbekistan ending this practice. I note that the honourable Member for St Austell and Newquay has tabled an Early Day Motion on this subject.
The recently formed Sustainable Apparel Coalition will work to lead the clothing industry towards developing improved sustainable strategies. I hope that such initiatives will also help consumers to make informed choices on what they buy. There are no easy ways to address the issue of product traceability due to its complexity, but I would ask the Government what plans they have to help the consumer who wishes to make ethical choices by working with the industry to improve traceability throughout the supply chain.
Through diligent campaigning, PETA—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—has helped to ensure that items of regimental apparel have been replaced by synthetic material. There remains the issue of the Queen’s Guards caps. I understand that they are still made from the pelt of Canadian bears which are treated cruelly in order to produce this material. Following a meeting last year, there has been some progress, and there is now an agreement to develop more refined samples to test with the regiments that wear the ceremonial caps. That process seems slow and an update would be helpful.
Finally, for those of us who have occasion to wear ceremonial robes, I understand that the fur trimmings have been switched from ermine to rabbit. But that is still fur. I know that although many Members of your Lordships’ House—like the overwhelming majority of Britons: 95 per cent, according to one poll—would not dream of wearing fur coats or any other fur garments, some may not question wearing those wonderful red robes with the fur attached. A representative from Parliament has informed PETA that Peers can choose new robes, manufactured by Ede & Ravenscroft, which contain only synthetic fur, therefore making it very easy to make the humane decision to wear a guaranteed cruelty-free faux fur robe.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness not only on securing this debate but on the work that she has done in support of ethical clothing over many years. She is absolutely right to support ethical clothing. Ethical consumerism and sustainability in the textile industry is something that we should all support. As she indicated, it is an issue which gets support from some of the big players in the industry—for example, Levi Strauss; the Government, with their sustainable clothing map; and ethical retailers such as Marks & Spencer. But that support is often expressed more in word than in deed. In addition, although the support is passionate, it is also fragmented and unco-ordinated.
The reason is that this idea has many powerful forces and interests ranged against it. Thanks to the Government’s failure to give us any kind of hope for growth, the consumer of fashion has to grapple with increased VAT, higher fuel and food prices and concerns about employment, with little hope of the return to better times. Indeed, earlier this week the Governor of the Bank of England told a committee in the other place that the good times may never return. These conditions mean that price, speed, turnover and competition must take priority in the fashion industry. Rectitude and reputation take a back seat; and thanks to the attitude of our rescued banks, so does planning and investment for the longer term.
What is to be done? First, the Government have to get their act together and produce an overall green strategy for industry, a strategy that all can support. Until now, we have had only warm words. Environmentally friendly clothing and its disposal must be part of that strategy, and so must sustainable clothing. In Britain we have all the ingredients for this: textile design, textile technology and environmental technology. We even have fabrics that purify the air around them. All this needs is to be brought together as part of our green business strategy. Perhaps it could be part of the platform of the Technology Strategy Board, perhaps as one of the new technology and innovation centres. After all, with increased transport costs, rising raw material prices and rising wages in Asia, some manufacturing is coming back to other parts of the European Union, so why not here, where there is very high consumption? Less disposable and more sustainable clothing has the makings of a stable industry which can produce many jobs.
The talent is here. The Minister does not have to go far to see it on display every summer at the Treasury, where environmentally friendly textiles are enthusiastically exhibited. For the past dozen years, the Textile Institute, of which I have the honour of being a past president, has organised an exhibition of the work of the best students from our leading colleges. All the buyers come because they like the idea of going to the Treasury, or perhaps the attraction is that they get to have a cup of tea on your Lordships’ Terrace with me. But our best students are certainly learning about green and sustainable fashion, so why is it not part of the broader curriculum? As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, suggested, possibly the most environmentally friendly clothing with the least waste is made here—it is made to measure. And what about Government procurement, as the noble Baroness suggested?
Changing our perceptions and our culture is difficult. What we can all do, including the Government, is recognise the need for change and recognise the social, economic, scientific and commercial pressures that make that change necessary, and to acknowledge it and make it part of our overall vision for a sustainable and green future. Ranged against this is a growing scepticism about climate change. Recently I returned from a visit to the United States, and unfortunately that scepticism is particularly apparent there. But you never know. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her cause may get lucky. My local FE college runs an excellent catering course. For many years it was hard to fill, but then a celebrity chef came along. Now even the enlarged course is oversubscribed. So I would say to the noble Baroness: keep plugging away, because the future is on your side. To the Minister I would say: help make it happen, and make it happen here.
Lord Addington
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on bringing this subject before us. When we talk about the clothing industry and fashion, it is something where Britain has a considerable history. Indeed, the authority of this House is the Mace that rests upon the Woolsack. We have been dealing in textiles for just about as long as there has been an organised Britain, and we started the industrial revolution with wool until cotton took over. We have a history of great production lines. However, we also set the pattern whereby every time you want to industrialise or get into something, you go into textiles. As the noble Baroness pointed out, that textile is usually cotton.
As we look at the stance taken towards industrialisation, we can see that it mirrors what we went through: bad labour conditions, overexploitation and no environmental consideration. The first time we polluted our rivers, we did it with dyes on a mass scale. Mining might have challenged that, but streams in the north of England that turned different colours as dyes were used is definitely something that can be traced back to the textile industry. It goes back to when we produced virtually all the textiles in the world, so we have a great deal of experience of what happens.
We also know, thanks to the work of many people who are involved in this, that taking your workers and driving them into the ground is not the best way to get the best out of them. Sir Robert Peel, the father of the Prime Minister of that name, brought in the first Act about the treatment of workers and their hours and conditions. This might be an odd thing to ask a Conservative Minister, but are this current Government going to help in setting up organised labour and encouraging how this can be done to get the best out of the labour force, and how to make things not so exploitative yet more efficient? This is probably something that comes through in much of what the noble Baroness said. I think I got quite a lot of the same briefing—she handled it very well and I will not repeat it. If we are going to make sure that the workers in these overseas industries are better treated, making sure that the textiles and the product we consume here are valued is a good first step—making sure that you invest in these people to get a better return. The technology needed to enter this industry tends to be at the lower end. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has said there are higher-tech solutions, but the entrance level—which I believe is mostly what the noble Baroness was talking about—tends to be fairly low-tech, or yesterday’s tech. Can the Government tell us what they are doing to encourage those employers and those states that are involved to represent and cherish these people?
I got a great deal of ribbing in my party when it was heard that I had to talk about fashion, although not primarily from those who are here, it has to be said. Fashion is a driver of consumption in this country. When we talk about ethical fashion, we are talking about getting away from throwaway fashion; or, if we are going to throw it away, about how we recycle. Relying on landfill, as has been pointed out before, is a ridiculous state of affairs when you have to export it all around the world, with huge costs in transport. How are we going to get out of that? For instance, are we going to encourage, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has suggested, more home-produced textiles, which will basically mean wool? This is something for which the Government must encourage research and development. Our universities, which now have a slightly more secure financial situation, might well have to take this on. Will the Government tell us exactly how much support is going into that? Fashion itself has a moral responsibility to make sure that it encourages not merely consumption but consumption done on a civilised basis—that is, one in which you are encouraging people who are being treated well to produce it, and one where there is not abuse and throwing away.
That is far too many questions for a speech of under five minutes, but I encourage the noble Lord to answer this in the sprit in which this subject has been raised today—as an all encompassing global industry, in which we are players.
Lord Sheikh
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for securing this debate and for an excellent speech. The noble Baroness is an expert on cultural matters who has enjoyed a successful career in both the arts and academia.
Promoting ethics in fashion is one of the biggest challenges facing the industry. Due to our own success and leadership in this field, I thought it best to begin my contribution with a few words on the British fashion industry. London is one of the key fashion capitals in the world. According to the British Fashion Council, designers and retailers spent approximately £13 million on shows during London Fashion Week last year. The fashion industry makes a contribution of £21 billion to the British economy, which makes it the country's 15th largest sector.
Garments are said to account for 5 per cent of consumer expenditure in Britain. It has been estimated that Britain spends £46 billion per year on imported clothing. The civil unrest in north Africa, Egypt in particular, has slowed the supply of textile products to the UK, thus affecting a number of leading British retailers, including Marks & Spencer and Debenhams. These recent events can perhaps serve as a catalyst for retailers to look for more suppliers based in Britain. This will have the added benefit of boosting the UK textile manufacturing base. Clothing companies have warned that the price of garments will increase due to the rising cost of cotton, which has risen by 150 per cent since the beginning of 2010.
With our prestige in this industry comes social responsibility. Ethical fashion practices will broaden opportunities and improve the standard of living for millions of citizens in the developing world. The low cost of producing garments overseas is to be welcomed, but should not be at the expense of decent working conditions. I wholeheartedly support the important work of the Ethical Fashion forum in seeking to improve working conditions in the fashion industry. One of the key aims of the Forum is poverty reduction. This is a subject that is very close to my heart. The global fashion industry is said to generate profits of $1 trillion each year. However, the working conditions and salaries of those who contribute to the success of the industry are a huge cause for concern. Many who work in the fashion industry are on frightfully low wages.
One of the greatest successes of the Ethical Fashion Forum has been its work to promote market access in the developing world. We should do everything to support individuals in the developing world to export their unique prints, such as batik and kente, to a wider global audience. In India, the forum supports a fair trade initiative that employs 800 women, all of whom are shareholders in the company. This project also provides access to schooling for more than 1,000 local children and supports healthcare provision. The forum also supports initiatives in Kenya and Uganda. I have a personal affinity with these nations, as I was born in Kenya and spent my childhood in Uganda. The EFF supports the Crochet Sisters initiative, which helps impoverished women in Kenya by providing them with food, shelter, training and schooling. The forum supports 500 refugee women in Uganda to sell the jewellery that they make at minimal cost from recycled materials.
Many of the forum’s initiatives have an educational element. This is particularly encouraging as education has been repeatedly proven to be one of the main factors in improving the fortunes of poor people. I also welcome the efforts of the Ethical Trading Initiative to promote good labour standards for workers as declared by the International Labour Organisation. Members of the initiative adopt a code of conduct relating to decent wages and working conditions that they expect their suppliers to honour.
The number of reputable companies selling garments made by exploited workers is nothing short of a disgrace. One of the most memorable cases of exploitation to be disclosed in the fashion industry was the revelation that Levi Strauss was using Chinese prisoners to manufacture its goods in Saipan. Although this came to light almost 20 years ago, cases of exploitation are still prevalent today.
As someone who cares about humanitarian issues, I feel strongly about the exploitation of children in certain countries where children are employed to work in clothing and other industries in unhealthy conditions for a pittance. The challenges facing companies as a result of the current economic climate must not be used as an excuse to exploit vulnerable workers in the retail industry. We live in an increasingly globalised market where businesses are forced to compete for an increased number of exports.
Increased competition coupled with the demands of the fashion industry has led to a sharp rise in subcontracting. This practice allows manufacturers to make substantial savings. A key factor in successfully ending the exploitation of workers is those workers being made aware of their rights. Quite often, many workers in the developing world have experienced only poor conditions, to the extent that they do not even realise that they are victims of exploitation. The efforts of groups such as Women Working Worldwide, an organisation that seeks to ensure that workers in international supply chains are informed of their rights, are crucial to achieving this aim. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform your Lordships’ House about any plans that Her Majesty’s Government have to support such measures.
The politics of delivering ethical standards in the fashion industry are complex and rife with accusations of hypocrisy. Certain impoverished nations like Haiti have received vast amounts of cheap clothing from generous western countries—in Haiti’s case, following its devastating earthquake. However, this generosity has had the adverse effect of competing with the native clothing industry. Even with the best of intentions, it is important that developed nations are mindful of creating instances like that in Haiti.
We have a moral duty to work towards achieving ethical standards in the global fashion industry. The majority of workers in this sector are females. Therefore, success here will have a positive impact on many supranational programmes, including, most importantly, reaching our targets under the millennium development goals
I end by saying that I was recently a member of the parliamentary delegation to Sri Lanka, where we were taken to a factory belonging to Brandix, which makes garments for Marks & Spencer. The factory was eco-friendly, the working conditions were excellent and the staff were very well paid. Such a factory is a role model for others to emulate.
Lord Sugar
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for bringing this debate to the House, but I will quickly follow that with an apology. I have perhaps not interpreted the topic in exactly the way she wanted it to be debated today. Many of the speakers so far have followed the course of ethics, child labour and all that type of stuff, which of course are serious issues. I, however, have picked the fashion side of the question, to try to address something more positive and to see how we can move forward in this country in trying to promote some resurgence in that industry.
I would add that child labour is not new. As a point of comfort, I would say that most of the retailers in this country are now fully aware that they should not support suppliers of anything, be it textiles or electronic goods, if it is produced in a factory that employs child labour. I know that in my own factories and with subcontractors abroad, to be perfectly blunt and frank about it, this was something that we never considered; we just asked the factory to make stuff for us, and it was only when the issue was brought to our attention that we sent our own inspectors there to ensure that they were compliant and did not use child labour. I feel that most sensible companies in this country comply with that, so personally I am not too bothered any more.
I shall now get on to something that might bore your Lordships a little, because it is off the noble Baroness’s topic. It goes like this. I was brought up in Hackney, an area that was a hive of activity for the garment industry. Indeed, my father, mother and siblings all worked in garment factories. My father was a tailor and my mother worked as something called a felling hand, which might mean something to your Lordships, while my elder brother and sisters were machinists. These types of jobs supported many families in the East End of London back in the 1950s and 1960s but, sadly, we have seen the complete migration of the textile industry to areas such as the Far East and other continents.
Over the years, the technology required to produce various fabrics has greatly advanced, allowing flexibility and speedy delivery for garment manufacturers. Regretfully, those responsible for the production of raw materials seem to have focused on the low labour-cost territories of the world. I assume that the sensible fabric manufacturers do not use child labour and do not exploit slavery or all of that stuff.
The retail trade as we know it today seems to rely solely on cheap imports. Compared with the past, when a young woman’s decision to buy a dress took perhaps a couple of weeks to build up to, bearing in mind the large financial commitment, by today’s standards the price of clothing has tumbled—so much so that a dress that once represented a week’s wages now costs the equivalent of a round of drinks on a Saturday night. Because of that, demand has gone up tremendously, which in turn has created an appetite for more and more designs, so there is now a continuous flow of new products through the stores. I believe this has created, in effect, a kind of “buy weekly” mentality whereby the old traditional autumn, winter and spring collections seem to have gone by the wayside, particularly with the low-cost stuff.
As a result, it is fair to say that we have lost the manufacturing industry for high-volume production in this country. We seriously need to recognise this fact. What can we do to re-engage in that very lucrative market? I believe that the secret lies with encouraging young people who are fashion-orientated to be trained so that they are allowed to express their artistic talent in a way that translates into locally produced finished product.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to Sir Philip Green. I think the point being made was that his report emphasised pushing prices down, which perhaps implies that we would be going to low-cost manufacturing areas. On the other side of the coin—this is similar to the involvement of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with her colleges—Sir Philip Green founded his fashion retail academy in 2006. That currently houses 550 students, and while he has done a tremendous job in achieving some results, such as passing 65 per cent of his students through to full-time work placements, most of those places are on the retail side or in the buying department. A very small proportion has gone into actual manufacturing.
I therefore suggest that the Government start to fund what I would call incubator factories. There are so many empty buildings and premises in this country. The Government could assist in kitting out those factories with a central core of machinery and facilities so that around the periphery of the factory floor there could be many silos where young designers can come in and do their bit, exploiting the facilities in the factory without having to invest themselves. That facility would also provide employment for those who can gain skills. Not that we are all going to be fashion designers, but there is a need for pattern cutters, for example, and for machinists. Where will they learn how to do that and get their experience? Only on the factory floor, if they are helping in those peripheral factories.
I remind noble Lords that the backbone of the country’s economy is made up of SMEs that employ from two to 10 people. That is an amazing statistic, as I am sure most of us would wrongly assume that the giant companies and the ones that employ most of the working population. Picture a scenario in which a young designer is able to run a workshop—one of those silos that I suggested—and employ, say, five people including assemblers and a salesperson. There is a good market to sell to independent retailers, specialist shops or market stalls, if you like, not to mention online. One does not have to produce in the thousands to start a business. From those small acorns, mighty oak trees might grow.
One such example is a young man I came across a few years ago. He was an alteration hand working in the menswear department of a department store. Encouraged by me, he took the leap to start his own business and make men’s suits. I made sure that I was wearing one of his suits today. With my help and several referrals, he is now in a fair way of business and employs five people.
Realistically, not every young person is blessed with the brain to become an accountant, doctor or lawyer. It is those forgotten young people, who perhaps do not excel academically but do have a talent for fashion and design, who we could offer a future to. This country is known for producing some great fashion designers. The Government need to engage with people like Sir Phillip Green and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and try to fund these incubator factories that I have suggested.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on instituting this debate on a subject that is both unusual and highly topical, and for giving your Lordships' House the opportunity to examine matters that are so relevant in the present century.
Like my noble friend Lord Sugar, I will perhaps refer to fashion itself as much as the working conditions and environmental issues. Ask anyone who likes fashion, keeping up with trends and finding flattering and elegant design on all or any price level, and they will react to the term “ethical fashion” by describing the kind of clothes worn by the Bohemians of the 1960s and 1970s: hippy fashion, trailing skirts, dangling beads, frayed hems. This is still worn, particularly at pop festivals, but modern ethical fashion has left it behind.
That this hippy style might evolve and be transmuted into desirable and much sought after clothing would have been inconceivable to wearers of cheesecloth in 1970. That a designer of the stature of Stella McCartney might be producing haute couture and only producing it would have looked like a mistake on her part, not the total success it has proved. She is famous for taking a stand against cruelty to animals, using no fur or even leather, and now, thanks to determination and hard work, she is known as a chic designer label who happens to be green, but not principally as a green designer. She says herself that her customers like her clothes, how they look and fit, and see their being sustainable as an added bonus.
However, Stella McCartney is, in anyone's estimation, a maker of designer clothes on the highest level. What of the manufacture of cheaper clothes? It is well known that many outlets in the UK have as their sources factories in countries where conditions are squalid, hours are long and pay is as low as it can get. This ensures that a dress can cost £10 and a T-shirt £2. Human nature being what it is, it is hard to see how buyers can be turned from the desire for very cheap clothes simply on the grounds that some part of the world is being turned into a desert, or some group of people they have never seen is being deprived of health.
According to the Business of Fashion’s comment and analysis section, the demand for cheap cashmere from the growing Gobi desert has created an environmental disaster, while increasing herds of goats graze away every bit of green that is left. But if the demand for cashmere slows down, what becomes of the goatherds who tend their animals? Do they lose their jobs and their ability to support their families?
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has referred to cotton production. Cotton provides much of the world’s fabrics, but growing it and treating the fabric that is its end product uses chemicals that harm the environment and are dangerous to the farmers who produce it. Hazardous chemicals used in the textile industry are lead, nickel, chromium IV, aryl amines, phthalates and formaldehyde. Cotton farmers face other problems. We are in Fairtrade Fortnight, and the Fairtrade Foundation is campaigning and lobbying the Government and the European Union to drop the subsidies paid to cotton farmers in European Union countries and the United States. While the price of cotton has dropped by 75 per cent, largely through western subsidies, west African cotton farmers are forced to compete globally against this subsidised cotton and as a result are unable to make a living and are leaving the industry in droves.
Her Majesty’s Government are among the largest non-retail buyers of clothes and textiles in this country. They should therefore lead by example, but ethical standards are not a principal requirement for government purchasing. This is regulated largely by the buying standards for textiles that exclude local government and the NHS. Does the Minister agree that a better system is required so that the Government can accurately assess the cost of buying ethically sourced textiles and make decisions based on this?
Other retailers have recognised that purchasers want to wear their clothes with a clear conscience. A few years ago, the deriding and insulting in the street of women wearing fur coats resulted if not in a ban than in considerably reducing the number of fur coats that were worn and brought about a rise in the fashion for wearing faux fur. This kind of treatment is not to be recommended; there are other more civilised and appropriately ethical ways of changing people’s minds, and other retailers have recognised that purchasers want to wear their clothes with a clear conscience.
A company based in London is Wall of Notting Hill. It has the same ethical principles as Stella McCartney but its clothes are far more modestly priced and are accountable and sustainable in the best possible ways. Certainly, it uses fur and it uses alpaca from Peru but it uses only the hides of animals that have died a natural death. Wall, by its nature, is unlikely to bid for a government contract but it sets an example that could be a standard for companies bidding to win government contracts. Wall has strong connections with Peru, where many of its products and the people who work for it come from. It inspects the factories that are the centres of production not just once but regularly so that no one has the opportunity to make things look good for a one-off visit. Perhaps the most admirable of its ventures is to take children off the streets of Lima—poor children with no apparent future—and put them on a two-year course to learn to use knitting machines, for much of their clothing is knitted. When the course is finished, Wall supplies each child with a knitting machine so that after training they may continue with what has become a useful career. This contrasts with the exploitation of child workers in other countries who are subjected to violence, abuse and very poor pay.
The group of women who constitute the Andean Collection also have strong connections with South America. Though the company is based in New York, they travel twice a year for extended stays with the workers of Ecuador, who share in the profits of the company as part owners. They pay for the education of artisans’ children and require them as teenagers to assist in the family’s business, thus breaking the cycle of poverty.
At present, the industry suffers from unreasonable deadlines imposed by retailers, contracts with suppliers that are never written down, variations in terms and conditions after delivery, even to a reduction in price, and unreasonable penalties imposed on suppliers for defective products. Does the Minister agree that a change is needed here and that the Government’s encouragement of other textile and clothing firms in the UK to follow the example set by the few retailers who work on ethical principles is much needed? Are not these green and humanitarian issues that everyone who cares about their fellow men and women and animals, as well as looking good and keeping warm, should support? It would be good to know that they care about those issues as much as they care about our forests.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
My Lords, I join all those who have spoken in congratulating my noble friend—because she is my friend—Lady Young of Hornsey on securing this debate at, as she said, an extraordinarily timely moment; and on her tremendous vigour in seizing this issue and in getting the all-party group going, which is a good and helpful way to bring these issues to the attention of a lot more people. As part of declaring my interests, I am delighted to say that I have joined that group, and I hope that many other noble Lords and Members of the other place will do so in due course.
I should declare another interest in that my son is a member of the small but extremely effective team that makes up the Centre for Sustainable Fashion at the London College of Fashion, which has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am indebted to him and his colleague Dr Kate Fletcher for useful briefing for this debate. As a result of taking on that briefing, I may, rather like my noble friend Lord Sugar, go slightly off-piste in terms of the way that this debate might have been expected to develop. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me.
The fashion industry divides opinion. For those involved in it, it is all consuming and endlessly fascinating. For others, it represents some of the most repellent aspects of a vain, consumerist culture. Personally, I confess to being more fascinated than repelled. I love clothes and I love fashion. What has not yet been said in this debate is that we have to recognise that fashion is part of the entertainment industry, at least to some extent. There is a lot of fun in fashion, and that is what attracts people to it. I particularly love the imagination and creativity of designers, and I admire the artistry of the photographers and stylists through whose eyes we understand their work. Frankly, most of us never get on to the front row, or even the back row, of a catwalk show in fashion week. It is therefore a tremendous pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about these matters in this House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has framed her topic carefully. It refers to the,
“ethical and sustainable fashion and clothing industry”.
Another thing that has not quite been teased out—and I am not going to try to—is the definition of the difference between fashion and clothes; but there is something there that is quite interesting. I want to concentrate on “sustainable” and “clothing”, but in a slightly different way—in perhaps a micro, rather than a macro, way. I want to talk about the old fashioned concept of “make do and mend”—perhaps appropriately in these straitened times.
We have already heard that most of the clothes available today on the high street are made far away in China, Asia or eastern Europe by people who we will probably never meet, working in conditions we would prefer not to think about, for wages that would barely buy us a cup of coffee. These clothes are, as a consequence, absurdly cheap—as we have heard—which allows them to be regarded as disposable. The human, economic and environmental consequences of our overconsumption have been graphically spelt out by other speakers. However, this is a fairly recent phenomenon. Other speakers have touched on how different it was when they were growing up. Certainly, when I was growing up, clothes were relatively much more expensive and there was much less choice.
If you go back a bit further into the 19th century and beyond, the picture is even more starkly different. Clothes had to be made by hand, either by the person who was going to wear them or, for the better off, by a professional tailor or seamstress in the community. Making clothes was hard work. They had to last and they were often therefore reinvented by the addition of small embellishments, such as lace or ribbons, remade to suit changed shape or fashion, or passed on to others. How do I know this? It is not from serious study, but from reading novels—not, I regret, the novels of my noble friend Lady Rendell, but mostly the novels of the 19th century. If you take any of the great writers of that period—Dickens, Trollope, George Eliot, Wilkie Collins, and who remembers The Moonstone and the vital importance of a handmade nightgown to the plot of that novel?—you will find it all there in the detail of those novels. Most women and some men, until two or three generations ago, whatever social class they belonged to, would have had some skill in sewing, knitting, perhaps even lace-making or embroidery, and most importantly in repairing clothes. Such simple domestic accomplishments became unfashionable, I think largely from the point at which women began to seek a wider role in public life. Of course I do not regret that, but it had this consequence, among many others.
Now these skills have become the preserve of specialists. In the theatre, for example, where I have spent most of my professional life, clothes—costumes—are hugely important, both to the people who wear them and to the audiences who look at them. Many, especially in large classical theatre or opera companies, are tailor-made for individual performers, and require not only exceptional skill in cutting and making— comparable to that in fashion houses—but often the application of detailed research into style, fabric and decoration. They must also be made to withstand the rigours of whatever a performance may demand. Consequently, each piece costs a lot to produce and has to be maintained carefully throughout its life, which can be long. Many costumes, once their initial use is fulfilled, go into store, and in time reappear having been refurbished and changed in a completely different production.
This is sustainability in action. We have to ask, in a world of austerity and diminishing resources, whether we should not be learning again to value the ability to make things last, not just as a rare specialism, but as a normal part of everyone’s personal toolkit. Dr Fletcher of the London College of Fashion, to whom I referred earlier, points out that today the extreme cheapness of new clothes has pretty much consigned repair to history, overtaken by a new philosophy of “discard and repurchase”, about which we have heard a great deal this evening. The commercial imperative behind this, from the point of view of the industry, is pretty obvious. She also observes that the fact that most of us lack the practical skills nowadays to repair things ourselves must be partly to do with a general undervaluing of manual skills-based education, compared with academic subjects. It is timely to remember this on the day that the Wolf report is produced. We are not talking about it today, but I note it.
Furthermore, if we want to have our clothes repaired or altered professionally, it is increasingly difficult to find people able to do it. Even when we do, I fear that we are reluctant to pay properly for their services, thus making it hard for small businesses, to which my noble friend Lord Sugar referred—there are lots of them in this industry—to survive. When the Minister replies, I wonder whether he would consider the following questions; they are small but not entirely insignificant, I hope. First, how can the Government help to underline, through our education system and beyond, the importance of having basic skills necessary to get the maximum use from everything we consume? Secondly, what help can the Government give, perhaps through reductions in VAT or other tax breaks, to small businesses such as clothing repair services, aiming at this kind of sustainability?
The fashion industry is highly influential, particularly on young people. If it began to move away from its focus on cheapness and disposability, and started to construct some messages about the importance of conserving, reusing and repairing—it would be very difficult for it, I entirely understand—then the generation that needs to hear might begin to listen. There are some signs that this is about to happen. I hope that they will grow.
Baroness Quin
I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, on initiating this debate, and on speaking to it in such a knowledgeable and informative way. I know that she has had a long involvement with this issue through the London College and elsewhere, and has also raised these issues on previous occasions in this House. Indeed, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh reminded us, she has also been involved in raising the issue in both Houses through the establishment of the all-party group, to which I wish much success.
The noble Baroness raised a wide number of issues, and the debate has been widened even further by subsequent contributions to look at the fashion and clothing industry more generally, as did my noble friends Lord Sugar and Lady Rendell. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, spoke on the history of the industry, which, as he reminded us, has been very important in the past and from which lessons had to be learnt. Indeed, we had some literary allusions from my noble friend Lady McIntosh. The debate has been wide-ranging and there are many points to which the Minister will wish to respond.
When I first saw the title of the debate I was somewhat surprised that it was considered a Defra responsibility, although I understand why it is, for the purposes of this debate. It very much arises from the Defra sustainable clothing action plan launched three to four years ago under the previous Government. In that respect, I pay tribute to my noble friend and colleague Lord Hunt of Kings Heath who took a keen interest in these issues when he was a Minister. He helped launch the initiative at the London College, where his catwalk performance was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, as being very much appreciated. That conveys an interesting spectacle to most of us who had not thought of my noble friend as being a catwalk performer. None the less, I know that he was very committed to the action plan within Defra and to the initiatives taken by the noble Baroness. I know that he would like me to pay tribute to the staff in Defra who are working on the road map and who I know he felt were very enthusiastic about the work that they were doing.
Although I recognise the valuable role that Defra can play in this issue, this is a classic case of co-ordination being necessary across various government departments. Many of the issues raised today relate to government departments other than Defra, such as the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The Department for International Development is relevant in terms of some of the important issues in development, as are departments dealing with education and training, and universities—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—and so is the Treasury when it comes to tax incentives or fiscal measures. What co-ordinating mechanisms exist at present for looking at the ethical clothing and fashion industry? Is there a committee that has representation from the appropriate departments? How would it support Defra in taking forward the clothing action plan and the initiatives that have already been taken?
Have there been any changes to the road map since the previous Government published their progress report in February 2010? I was trying to find out about it from the Defra website and ran out of time before the debate, but I was a little puzzled that there is still reference to the old Defra website. Somehow the new and old websites have not been consolidated into one departmental statement even though we are 10 months on from the election and the change of government. It is a bit confusing for those seeking information about this issue.
When she referred to these issues previously, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about the role of small businesses in ethical fashion and clothing. She was concerned at the time, a couple of years ago, about the economic climate adversely affecting small businesses in particular. What contact has the department had with small businesses in the sector to confront some of the challenges that they face in what is even perhaps a more difficult economic situation?
The noble Baroness also mentioned procurement, a point that was echoed by one or two other speakers. I would be interested to know whether, with regard to Defra, the Government were considering widening the applicability of government buying standards to include the NHS, perhaps, or other parts of government that are not currently included. Is consideration being given to this?
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of what we have been calling the supermarket ombudsman—now called adjudicator. The main inspiration behind this was the perceived weakness of farmers and agricultural producers in negotiating with supermarkets. It was an interesting point as to whether there was a role for the adjudicator in the textile and clothing industry, particularly given that so many supermarkets these days are quite substantial sellers of clothing. Again, I would be interested in the Government’s reaction to that.
A number of issues raised would probably come more within the area of responsibility of the Foreign Office or DfID than Defra. None the less, they are important to raise during the debate. The noble Baroness referred to the alarming reports about the cotton industry and the employment of very young people in Uzbekistan. I read those reports and found them very troubling indeed, and wondered what representations might have been made about this, or if any positive progress has been made. This is of interest not only to Members of this House and to the public but to companies. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lord Sugar that companies these days are concerned about the standards of production of the goods that they are dealing with and the conditions in which people in those producing industries are employed. That is also reflected by the fact that quite a large number of retailers were willing to sign up to the clothing action plan. We hope that that number can increase in future. Those issues are important, and I hope that the Government will be able to respond.
If we can make further progress on this issue, this can be a win for the environment and for responsible producers and manufacturers as well as for trade and social justice. They are very important issues and, once again, I thank the noble Baroness very warmly for raising them in this House today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I start by answering one question from the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, on the Defra website. I am not sure exactly what her concerns are, but I will look at that very carefully and get back to her in due course. I offer my congratulations to all other speakers in this debate, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on introducing it on this subject. Like my noble friend Lord Addington, I faced a certain amount of ribaldry about the fact that I would have to answer such a debate. I do not think—unlike the description given of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin—that I am the sort of person that one would see on the catwalk, and no one would expect to. But when I saw my noble friend the Chief Whip today, decked out in leather and quite a lot of bling—I do not know if other noble Lords saw her—I thought that it might be more appropriate for her to respond to the debate, but she was not prepared to take on that role, and there we are.
There is a lot that I want to say and quite a number of points that I want to address that the noble Baroness and others have raised. I start by offering my congratulations on the work that she has done in trying to put together again an all-party group—I cannot remember if it is a new all-party group or whether it is resurrecting the old one—on this subject. I wish her well on that. I understand that she is hoping to have the first meeting of that group on 16 March—that is what I was advised. That is the day before the next meeting that we have on the sustainable clothing road map, which is right and proper. I hope that those two things can go ahead consecutively on those dates. I offer her my best wishes.
I will run through very quickly some of the noble Baroness’s questions before I get to the main part of my speech. She asked about tax breaks for ethical, green fashion businesses. Noble Lords will know that I will not comment on that because it is more than my job's worth to comment on anything to do with Her Majesty's Treasury, but no doubt it will be passed on to colleagues. She also talked about the important role in terms of government procurement. I was reminded about that when I looked at the obituaries today, which announced the sad death of the last remaining son of the late Monty Burton of Burton the tailors. In that obituary, I was reminded that Burton the tailors provided a third of all uniforms for the British Army during the war and a large number of the demob suits afterwards. Therefore, one is reminded of the importance of the Government as a purchaser in this field. The Government feel that they have an important role to make sure that they get their exemplary action over to others. In Defra, I hope that we can lead that and encourage other government departments to behave in the right way.
The noble Baroness also asked about the supermarket adjudicator. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, commented on it. Again, this is not something that we plan to extend to clothes, but no doubt we will look at the idea that she has put forward in due course. Initial plans for a supermarket adjudicator are related to food, but it is a perfectly valid point and one that should be looked at.
Finally and this again was raised by others, the noble Baroness talked about the problems of cotton and the CAP and the fairly appalling distortions in that. She and others will know that we are in the middle of the process of renegotiating the CAP. Dare I say it, we cannot make any promises about what we will achieve as a result of attempts to reform the CAP, but Her Majesty's Government will be pushing very hard on it and we recognise that there are some fairly major distortions in there, particularly in relation to the production of cotton in Portugal, Spain and, to a much lesser extent, Greece. That is certainly something that Her Majesty's Government should be aware of and will push for.
Economically, the clothing and fashion industry is an important component of national and global economies, as all noble Lords made clear. Textile supply chains are long and complicated. They involve actors from the agricultural, chemical fibre, textile, and apparel industries, the retail and services sector, and—thinking particularly of part of my own department—waste recovery and treatment operations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, historically we had a major textile manufacturing base. As the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, reminded us, 90 per cent of the UK’s clothing is now imported. We have seen a major migration of our textile industry abroad. However, I remind the noble Lord that we still have a considerable clothing manufacturing business even if 90 per cent has gone abroad, and a lot of that is in SMEs and involved in what we might refer to as ethical and sustainable fashion. I note again what he had to say about his ideas, which should be looked at. Those businesses are ones that we should continue to encourage and support.
Our consumption of clothes and textiles and so forth can have positive economic effects on not only our own country's economy but, as was made clear by a number of speakers, a great many developing countries. But alongside those positive effects, there are a wide range of environmental and ethical implications.
Alongside those positive effects, there is a wide range of environmental and ethical implications. Environmentally, we must consider the impact of fibre production all the way through the process, whether the water or the fertiliser—I have been given a figure for the amount of fertiliser used throughout the world on cotton; about 25 per cent of all pesticides go into that. I will correct that figure if I have got it wrong.
We also have to consider the greenhouse gas emissions when fossil fuels are processed into synthetic fibres. As the fibres are made into fabrics, there may be hazardous waste. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, mentioned the cotton and dyeing industry and the effluents from the dye and finishes.
As noble Lords have reminded us, ethical issues are associated with access to markets, trade terms for producer markets—that is why I wanted to mention the CAP—and concerns about labour conditions in clothing factories, sweatshop conditions and child labour issues.
Once we have bought clothes, there are the significant factors of water, detergents, greenhouse gas emissions associated with washing and drying them, and the waste produced at the end of life. Waste issues are close to my department. They have hit the headlines recently. Concerns about the impact of fast fashion are well founded. I was given an interesting statistic earlier. We buy about 2 million tonnes of clothing a year and discard about 1 million tonnes. It seems to me that our wardrobes are growing at an unsustainable rate, but I ask all noble Lords and Ladies to look at their wardrobes to see what is happening. Where are the clothes going?
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, rightly referred to the sustainable clothing road map, which was established in 2007. It is a concerted effort by the whole clothing supply chain to understand and address its environmental and ethical impact. The road map provides a platform for sharing evidence and industry best practice to help catalyse change throughout the sector. From the evidence, the road map has prioritised certain hotspot areas where business can act to reduce the environmental and ethical impact of its clothing. The road map has produced an action plan under which more than 40 organisations, throughout the lifespan of clothing manufacture, retail and disposal, have committed themselves to specific actions to reduce their impact. A large number of big high street names are involved—Nike, Tesco, Adidas. I add that it involves not just big retail but people such as the Salvation Army, the Textile Recycling Association and Oxfam, because they have a role in disposal—reuse—which comes very high up in our waste hierarchy, because it is obviously far better to reuse or recycle clothes than to send them to landfill.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who I think asked about education, that the Salvation Army is committed to the educative process of encouraging people to think of recycling and re-use and, as she put it, repair of clothing rather than throwing it out. People of my father's generation were even taught how to darn socks. I have never learnt that art and, I fear, now tend to throw out socks, but a different generation did different things. Within Defra, we have funded evidence projects on emerging fibres, reuse and recycling of clothes, clothes cleaning and the public understanding of sustainable clothing, and we will do more where appropriate.
I am now getting warning signs from my colleagues, but I should talk a little about what other government departments are doing, because DfID did considerable work when it recently launched its RAGS programme—that is the responsible and accountable garment sector challenge fund, which is a £3 million fund which supports projects aimed at improving the conditions of vulnerable workers in the ready-made garment production industries overseas. The fund is aimed at workers in low-income countries that supply the United Kingdom market such as India, Bangladesh, and a certain number of countries in Africa.
I can also mention the ethical trading initiative, supported by DfID, which drives practical action on better working conditions in the supply chains of its companies. It has brought businesses, trade unions and non-governmental organisations together to tackle poor working conditions. Some 60 companies in the United Kingdom are now members making progress in this initiative.
I could go on; there is much that I would like to say if the time were available. I am trying to assure you that we are doing our bit and that we will continue to work in all these funds. I look forward to the next meeting, on 17 March, on the sustainable clothing road map, and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will be involved in that.
Lord Haskel
Before the Minister sits down, could he tell us what percentage of clothing—
