Grand Committee
Welfare Reform Bill
(13 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I have given notice that I intend to oppose that this clause stand part of the Bill in order to be able to return briefly, I hope, to a subject that we have touched on before. Because of its significance, I want to clarify certain points.
Specifically, does this clause introduce a change? Is it a widening of the definition of work-related activity? If it is not, one might ask why the provision is in the Bill at all. We see merit in work placements and work experience but we are trying to understand the boundaries between them and work itself. This is important, as it is being made available and could be mandated for those in the WRAG—those found not fit for work. Are those in the WRAG currently involved in work placements and work experience? If so, what safeguards are being introduced? In particular, what guidance is given to providers in the work programme about all this, and what monitoring is undertaken? Is access-to-work funding available for work experience and work placements as for work? If not, how does that help disabled people move closer to the labour market?
I shall tag one further question on to this debate. It has been reported in the press—I know that the noble Lord is reluctant to comment on press reports—that somebody who has been in the work programme for two years and has not been in employment will come off and go into some form of community service arrangement. Are we likely to see any amendments come forward in this Bill that touch on this issue, or will that be dealt with in regulations, or is it pure speculation that we can ignore?
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, I invite the Minister to comment on the way that I construe the clause, which is that it is facilitative and increases flexibility, which seems to me very welcome. Adding to the list of questions given to him by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, could he also say a little about the employment status of people in this situation and, for example, their insurance and other measures of cover? I am more conscious of the situation in relation to children at school. There are sensitivities. It is important that they are got right, but the principle is a good one.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I have a quick question for the Minister. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for giving us the opportunity for this short debate. I wanted to ask the Minister about mentors for these individuals—what one finds, for instance, in the National Grid programme for young offenders, which has been so successful in rehabilitating young offenders. A key factor in that is the use of mentors in the workplace.
In the Youth Justice Board they are finding a great deal of success, again by using mentors in tandem with accommodation charities, and so on. In the past, the mentoring work of YoungMinds has identified that long-term relationships with a mentor have positive outcomes for young people. One of the very effective charities working with children in schools, Volunteer Reading Help, has volunteers who commit to at least a year’s work with the children.
Given the importance of mentoring, and my sense from discussions on apprenticeships that not much thought has been given to developing and training those individuals in the workplace who provided mentoring for apprentices, I would be interested to hear from the Minister now, or perhaps to have a note from him later, about how they intend to develop mentors for individuals caught by this clause in the future.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, these are all clearly very relevant questions, but I would like to ask the Minister whether he construes “work experience” or “work placement” in the same way as he does “work preparation requirements” in proposed new Section 11(3)(c) in Clause 56?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, this summer we increased conditionality for ESA claimants in the work-related activity group with the introduction of the work-related activity regulations. For the first time, those who are able to prepare for a return to work will be required to do so, where it is reasonable.
This measure is another aspect of work-related activity, and thus those groups—such as support group claimants, lone parents with children under the age of five and those with caring responsibilities—who are not required to undertake work-related activity will not be required to do work experience or work placements.
Noble Lords asked, in relation to Clause 16, whether this measure extends the definition of work-related activity, which is one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. The Bill seeks to clarify what may be included by way of work-related activity, rather than extend its meaning. Work-related activity is already defined in the Welfare Reform Act 2007 as,
“activity which makes it more likely that the person will obtain or remain in work or be able to do so”,
and Clause 54 makes expressly clear that this may include work experience or a work placement.
However, an adviser will only place a claimant on a work experience placement if he judges that it will help support the claimant back to work, and if it is suitable. If a claimant feels that the requirements placed upon them are unreasonable, they can request that the adviser reconsider whether an activity is appropriate. Claimants are also able to follow a rigorous complaints procedure if they do not think that they are receiving a satisfactory service. I hope that that explains what the formal protections are to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
The focus of work experience and work placements will be on learning new skills and gaining valuable experience to get a flavour of the workplace environment. They will provide claimants who may have a limited work history with the opportunity to increase their confidence and employability. The precise nature of such placements will depend on what is deemed suitable for the individual, bearing in mind their physical and mental capabilities, and ensuring that necessary adjustments are made.
Placements would normally be short term, but there is currently no set duration, and this will normally be agreed between the adviser and the customer. Work experience and placements must be appropriate to the individual’s circumstances and need not be full-time. For instance, if a person’s health condition means that their mobility and pain levels improve over the course of the day, an adviser might find them a placement for two or three hours in the afternoon. This is quite different from the more challenging demands of paid work, which would normally be a longer-term and less flexible commitment with higher expectations placed on the worker.
The requirement to undertake work experience or work placements will be used flexibly by advisers as part of a range of work-related activities. It is not intended that such placements would necessarily replace other aspects of work preparation. It may be one of a number of work-related activities required of an individual which, in combination, best support a claimant to move closer to the labour market.
In response to concerns that work experience may be used to judge whether an individual is in fact capable of work, this is not the case. A claimant cannot be found capable of work unless they are found capable following a work capability assessment. This new measure will therefore not affect anyone’s underlying entitlement to benefit.
On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on access to work, the answer is that it is not available to claimants undertaking work-related activity. For claimants participating in sector-based work academies, funding will be available to help with reasonable adjustments during their participation in that provision. For work experience arranged through alternative sources, reasonable adjustments will be made where necessary to ensure that claimants are able to undertake any work experience or work placement in a safe environment which meets the needs of the claimant. Where necessary, Jobcentre Plus could assist employers with reasonable adjustments, using the flexible fund which is available to an adviser.
I shall clarify the issue of job outcomes for work programme providers. Work programme providers will not be paid for work placements and, therefore, there is no incentive for the provider to encourage a claimant to undertake long-term unpaid work experience, which I think is the underlying concern that the noble Lord has in raising this point. Payment arises for work placement providers only if a sustained, paid, full job outcome is achieved. Furthermore, sustainment payments also ensure that it is not profitable for providers to encourage claimants to undertake unreasonable work-related activity with the aim of making them enter the labour market before they are ready, as that is unlikely to lead to a positive long-term job outcome. I hope that I have described a series of formal protections but also an incentive structure that means that this is not going to lead to any abuse or, if it did, that it would be smack against the financial incentives that we have set up.
In response to my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale’s question on substitute Section 11(3)(c) in Clause 56, I can confirm that the definition of “work preparation” will be the same and will include work experience or a work placement in both clauses.
I owe the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, an answer on mentors. I wish to express our interest in mentors. I am absolutely with him on the importance of mentoring, and as he may or may not know, I have developed my own project with CSV, called Grandmentors, where we test how older, retired people can support youngsters making the transition to adulthood, along precisely that thinking. That project, which I think is one of the very few formal projects with research around it, tries to establish the real economic value to the country of mentoring. I have put my own wallet behind it. I look forward to reporting to him when I have some decent findings.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am comforted that my concern was not so much about what providers might be up to as about whether work and work experience generally might be almost a way round the WCA for those who are otherwise in the WRAG. I think that the Minister has given us enough comfort on the key distinctions between work experience and work placements, although I note that he said that they do not necessarily need to be full time and that normally paid work would be more onerous. I accept the generality of what he says and that gives me the comfort that I was seeking. I am not sure whether he dealt with the question of employment rights, which is an interesting one, and presumably part of the distinction between work and work placements, but that is satisfactory for my purposes.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to Gingerbread for a briefing on this issue. It has asked us to raise this matter, which I believe has considerable merit.
Clause 57 proposes to extend further the numbers of single parents required to seek work. From early 2012, single parents not in paid work and whose youngest child is aged five or over will no longer be entitled to claim income support. Instead, single parents will be required to claim jobseeker’s allowance or another benefit. On JSA, single parents receive the same amount of money each week as they do on income support, but face a substantial increase in conditionality and risk a payment sanction if they fail to demonstrate that they are actively seeking and available for work.
This latest proposal is estimated to affect 100,000 single parents currently receiving income support who have a youngest child aged five or over. It is understood that the Government anticipate this will save something like £50 million in 2012-13 by removing entitlement to income support from this group of single parents. However, I wonder if there is any revision to that sum, given the state of the labour market and the difficulties that are confronted by people seeking work.
We have an opportunity to introduce a delay to the proposed change and instead align it with the planned introduction of universal credit from 2013. This can be achieved by simply removing this clause from the Bill, which is what this amendment seeks to do, and would mean that single parents with a youngest child aged five would continue to receive income support until universal credit is implemented. At this point, single parents, along with responsible carers and couple families, will be subject to work search and work availability requirements, as outlined in Clause 22; that is, “all work-related requirements”.
Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 57 is an extension of the lone parent obligation policy which we brought forward when in government. The LPO restricts entitlement to income support for single parents according to the age of their youngest child. The reforms have sought to move more and more single parents from income support to JSA. Implementation began in November 2008 and first affected parents whose youngest child was aged 12 and over in October 2009; parents with children aged 10 and 11 were also transferred to JSA. In October 2010, single parents with children aged seven, eight and nine switched into JSA. In previous years, single parents have been given clear advance notice of six months in order to prepare for the switch from income support to JSA. However, we have not yet passed this piece of legislation and this will be implemented in April 2012, which is certainly in the near term.
Some 57 per cent of single parents are in paid employment and many more want work as a means of increased income and financial independence. Those are key motivators, along with personal independence, the opportunity for social interaction and to set a good example for their children. Indeed, 42 per cent of single parents say that having almost any job is better than being unemployed and on benefits. Critically, single parents require jobs that allow them to be there for their children when necessary. With only one parent to do the school run, care for children when they are ill and support them with their schoolwork, jobs with flexible working patterns are absolutely vital, as is access to affordable, high-quality childcare. We have discussed that on a number of previous occasions. Flexibility does not just mean part time but can include job share, compressed hours in term time and annualised hours. However, employment opportunities that provide the degree of flexibility that single parents need are few and far between, particularly in difficult economic times.
The particular reasons for delay are as follows. On 7 October this year the Government announced an extension of childcare support to those working under 16 hours to be implemented as part of universal credit from October 2013. Currently, through working tax credits, as we are aware, single parents working 16 hours or more a week can access support of 70 per cent of their childcare costs up to £175 per week for one child and up to £300 per week for two or more children. This provides vital support to working parents on low to middle incomes and makes all the difference as to whether they can make work pay. However, it has always been a challenge for those with caring responsibilities or those who have been out of work for some time to make the leap from no work to 16 or more hours a week. So the further investment to provide childcare support at the same level for those working under 16 hours a week from 2013 onwards is welcome. This support will be of particular benefit to single parents of five and six year-olds who move on to JSA from income support after a period of time looking after their child. That is why it makes no sense to push 100,000 single parents into this position 18 months before the new childcare support is available.
In addition to the logic of delaying the switch from income support to JSA to enable single parents to access the new childcare support that will be available under universal credit, I suggest that there is a broader rationale in aligning this change with the overall implementation of universal credit. The transition from the current benefits and tax credits system to unified universal credit will require a huge administrative change in order to transition all existing claimants on to the new system. When resources are stretched, it would therefore be both needlessly disruptive to single parents and an unnecessary cost to the state to put the same group of claimants through two substantial administrative processes within a relatively short period of time—ending entitlement to income support in early 2012 and then a migration on to universal credit for existing claimants from April 2014.
It is also important to note that the Bill we are considering introduces changes that will affect the job search requirements of lead carers in couples families which will be implemented from 2013 as part of universal credit. From this point on, nominated lead carers in joint couple claims will be required to seek work when the youngest child reaches the age of five and be subject to increased conditionality accordingly. There is therefore no clear rationale for why single parents should be subject to identical changes in advance of nominated lead carers in a joint claim.
According to the Office for National Statistics, in the three months from June to August 2011, unemployment rose to 2.57 million, an increase of 114,000. The fall in the number of people employed was 178,000 and has been particularly driven by the loss of part-time jobs, down by 175,000. Single parents rely heavily on part-time work as this allows them to juggle their caring responsibilities with work. The total number of people claiming JSA is 1.6 million, of which 124,000 are single parents. The total number of single parents claiming JSA increased by 48,000 over the 12 months from August 2010. Unemployment is at a 17-year high and job creation in the private sector has so far failed to plug the rising tide of redundancies and job losses in the public sector. Overall, the picture is bleak, with markedly fewer family-friendly jobs available and increasing numbers of single parents trapped on jobseeker’s allowance, so moving an additional 100,000 single parents from income support to JSA when their youngest child reaches five is a blunt instrument in the current economic climate.
Increased conditionality and tougher sanctions only serve to add unwarranted pressure on single parents when suitable employment opportunities remain sparse, childcare costs continue to rise faster than earnings and single parents are not able to take advantage of new childcare support that will be introduced from 2013. Single parents will struggle to find work that is sustainable and that fits around their caring responsibilities when faced with increased conditionality, limited access to support for childcare costs, limited opportunities to access training and further education, low growth and a stagnant job market. I oppose the clause standing part.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I had not planned to speak but I support the opposition to the clause standing part. It seems eminently sensible that we should postpone this provision. I am prompted to speak by a rash of e-mails that I received today from people who clearly feel strongly about it, although I shall read from only one of the e-mails. However, I am ambivalent about the issue of lone parents and paid work. On the one hand I was a member of the Commission on Social Justice which, to a lot of criticism, recommended that lone parents with children aged 12 and over, I think, should become part of the workforce. One of the reasons for that, as my noble friend said, is the importance of paid work to women as a source of independent income and so forth. On the other hand, it also worries me that much new policy underestimates the importance and value of care work and the time and energy it takes. So, as I say, I am ambivalent. However, I think that lowering the age to five is perhaps going too far. It is putting a lot of strain on lone parents in terms of the competing responsibilities that we are placing on them. That is very much reflected in the rash of e-mails that I received today. I shall read out from one. I do not necessarily agree with everything in it but it reflects what people are feeling. This e-mail is in fact not from someone directly affected but from a grandmother who would have been affected had this rule applied earlier. She says:
“I have been informed that you are discussing legislation which will force mothers who are [on] welfare to look for a ‘job’ when the youngest is five years of age. I am a grandmother now but raised three children on welfare following marriage breakdown. It was not a lot of money but I had control of it”—
an issue that I have been raising in other contexts—
“and was able to survive and care for all my children. I did try going out to work but it was almost impossible to cope first of all with having time with them. Keeping tabs on where they were every day of the week was a nightmare. When I lived on welfare they knew they could come home after school bring their friends with them home if they wanted. Much safer for everyone. The proposal that children have to be out of their home from leaving for school in the morning until I get home later in the evening”—
I myself would not put it this strongly—
“is nothing less than child abuse—adults are exhausted after doing such hours”.
I think that we should be conscious of that point on exhaustion. We are asking an awful lot of lone parents. She continues:
“How are children supposed to develop with any feelings of confidence and security if they are constantly shunted around from pillar to post, treated as if they are an encumbrance, rather than being valued by the society”.
I shall not read any more. However, there is a feeling that we are devaluing the work of caring for young children whether it is done by mothers or fathers. This opposition to the clause standing part would allow us to pause and think again about whether this is the right way to go, particularly in the current labour conditions, and whether it would not be better to wait until universal credit is introduced and the childcare changes referred to by my noble friend are made. I hope that the Minister might be willing to pause and reflect on this matter.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I, too, oppose Clause 57. I have not got a great deal to say on it. I agree very much with what the noble Baroness has just said. We have had debates about this on various Bills in the past, but you cannot discuss this without also considering what arrangements are made for child support. It is all very well to get women back into the workforce, and many women would like to go back into the workforce as soon as they feel that their children are able to be looked after, but you cannot look at one thing without also looking at child support, and I am not certain that this Bill in any way makes sufficient arrangements with regard to child support. Leaving out Clause 57 will give us time to think again. There is quite obviously a difference between seven and five. It gives a little more time to think about it in the way that the noble Baroness has just indicated.
The Earl of Listowel
I am reminded of an article recently published on the BBC website reporting on a survey about children reading with their parents. It reported that:
“For the majority (71%) reading with their child is one of the highlights of their day. But the poll of over 1,000 parents found 18% felt too stressed to do so. Two-fifths (41%) said that a child's tiredness stopped reading together being fun, while 30% cited their own tiredness as a problem. More than a third (36%) of the 1,011 survey participants said they were too tired to spend longer reading”.
Teachers were also surveyed:
“Nearly three-quarters of those surveyed (72%) attributed developed language skills and more advanced reading levels to those children who regularly enjoyed a shared book time with parents at home”.
The evidence is very clear that the home environment is the key experience for children in getting the best outcomes for their education, so we need to think about parents not having the energy after a long day’s work to spend that important time, particularly, perhaps, at the ages of five, six and seven, reading with their child.
I refer to an e-mail sent to me today by a primary school teacher. She wrote:
“Commuting up to ninety minutes a day would mean that I would have to leave my son in childcare and school from 7.30 am to 6.30 pm everyday … I am a primary school teacher in London and I see the affects of long term childcare on children. Some only see their parents for an hour each day or only at weekends!”.
The last time I worked with children—in a summer play scheme five years ago—what was particularly striking was that there were children who arrived early at the play scheme for breakfast and there were those who stayed until the end. These children in particular seemed a bit tired, a bit down and flat, so I can understand the concern that as the Government are implementing this, the adviser should very much keep in mind not only whether the parent is working but whether the parent will have a long commute there and back and the child will have a very long day at school, starting early and finishing late. Advisers should keep this in mind when they are considering whether a person has to take a job.
I am sorry to take so long, but to round up, I share the concerns. If there is anything that can be done to mitigate the impact on lone parents with children of this age, I would welcome it. There is a real question about the quality of childcare available. Research has shown that parents have traded quality off against affordability. They have understandably been so desperate to find childcare that the pressure to raise standards has not been as high as it might have been. In the current economic climate, with the great need for childcare, the Government have understandably been lowering the requirements for the education and training of managers of children’s centres, for instance. There is this constant pressure: we need more childcare places, so there is pressure to lower standards. One should listen very carefully to parents who say to their adviser, “I don’t have faith in the childcare in my locality”. One needs to give that weight, particularly in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, where the Childcare Act 2006 does not apply and they have not necessarily got the push on greater provision that we would want. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance on these points, and I look forward to his reply.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I had not intended to speak but, listening to the debate, I think that the opposition expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, would provide the necessary time to reconsider the effects that the Bill will have in this respect. I also agree with my noble friend that the business about child support is a problem. Quite apart from the cost, the quality has come under quite a lot of doubt recently. The major point that I want to make is about stress on parents. I invite your Lordships to think about how stressed all of you have been by the extensive amount of work we have all had to consider recently, and bear that in mind when you come to consider whether or not to support this amendment.
Lord Freud
My Lords, with regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on how we could take it slightly easier, I regret that I cannot apply it to myself because my children have gone way past that age, although they do not seem to be any less stressful.
Our policies for lone parents are based on the key principle that work is the surest and most sustainable route out of poverty. In June last year we announced our intention to align the age at which lone parents could reasonably be expected to work with the time their youngest child enters school. Current legislation, yet to come into force, provides that income support must be made available to lone parents with a child under the age of seven. This clause lowers that age to five so that lone parents with children aged five or over will no longer be entitled to income support solely on grounds of lone parenthood. We would effect this change through regulations, and implement it drawing largely on the experience of having progressively lowered the age from 16. Support for these lone parents will be available through jobseeker’s allowance or employment and support allowance if they meet the relevant conditions of entitlement, or through income support if they qualify on grounds other than lone parenthood, most notably if they are carers.
We want to encourage lone parents to enter work but not at the expense of the crucial role they play as parents. We intend to carry forward the current safeguard that allows those with children aged 12 or under to restrict their availability for work to school hours. It is worth reminding noble Lords of the powerful impact that this policy has. When the age was brought down to 12, 16 per cent of lone parents leaving income support went straight into work and 56 per cent went on to JSA, many of whom will have subsequently gone in to work. We estimate that bringing the age down to five could lead to an extra 20,000 to 25,000 lone parents in work. Children in workless lone parent households are almost three times more likely to be in relative poverty than those where the lone parent works part-time, and five times more likely to be living in relative poverty than children of lone parents working full-time.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about flexible work. The Government are keen to promote flexible working and have a strong commitment to greater family-friendly working practices. We have committed in the coalition agreement to consult on extending the right to request flexible working to all employees. The public consultation process ended recently and we intend to respond to the comments by the end of the year. We understand that stimulating real culture change to make flexible working practices the norm across the whole labour market requires more than just regulatory change on the right to request. There also needs to be help for employers to operate in a more flexible way and demonstration of the benefits it can bring to them and their employees. The Government have a role in leading culture change. This is why we are working with business leaders and employers to promote the business case for flexible working and ensure that employers know where to go to find support to implement practices in their organisation.
This clause also amends Section 8 of the Welfare Reform Act 2009, which relates to the possibility of requiring work-related activity from certain lone parents with children aged under seven. Section 8 as it stands would require regulations in this respect to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This clause lowers that age from seven to five, in alignment with the lowering of the age for withdrawal of income support on grounds of lone parenthood alone. The key question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, was whether it is right to make this change now rather than waiting for the introduction of universal credit. Introducing this change before introducing universal credit will help more lone parents into work, with knock-on reductions on child poverty.
A recent evaluation of lone parents’ experiences of moving into work also found that working had had a number of positive effects on their children, both direct and indirect. These range from children having the opportunity to go on school trips because of extra family income to observing the good example of a working parent and greater independence, both financially for the parent, once in work, and for the child, in terms of their role in the household. Help with childcare costs is currently available through tax credits and the flexibilities in JSA mean that childcare responsibilities are taken into account. There are a range of flexibilities available: lone parents with a child aged under 13 can restrict their job search and availability to their child's school hours, while lone parents will not be sanctioned for failing to meet requirements if they had good reason for the failure. Access to appropriate childcare will be taken into account before a decision is made.
On the state of the economy, we have to bear in mind that even in difficult times—which I accept that we are in—Jobcentre Plus holds an average of 275,000 unfilled vacancies at any one time, around a quarter of which are part-time opportunities. Clearly those figures are a snapshot which hides the number of new job opportunities that come up all the time. On average, about 10,000 new vacancies are reported to Jobcentre Plus alone every working day, while many more come up through other recruitment channels. It is not worth getting into a huge debate about the meaning of these figures but, as noble Lords understand, much of our approach to the work programme is aimed at trying to help the people who have not managed to get a job reasonably early back into the market. As the numbers of unemployed get bigger, one factor we are looking at is the average length of time that people are unemployed. As I say, there are flows all the time and many lone parents have excellent opportunities to find a job. Even in difficult times, there are still jobs going. On that basis, I commend Clause 57 to the Committee.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I want to check with him about the question of school hours. Does that really mean “school hours”, and will the adviser take into account that the person will have to travel for an hour or an hour and a half to get to work, and back again at the end of the day, so that it will go over school hours? Does it also mean that if a job requires someone to work in the school holidays as well, that will be seen as an inappropriate job for that person? I would guess that it clearly means that, but I would appreciate a response to my first question.
Lord Freud
On working in school hours, it is quite clear that the working includes the travelling time. It is incorporated in that and it is clear in the legislation. To refer back to the noble Lord’s earlier reading of the e-mail, I could not resist making the point that we still remain grateful to the Egyptians for inventing papyrus. Maybe in another couple of years we will have dumped it.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on the second part of the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Would someone be required to work during the school holidays? I shall let the officials think about that while I pose a couple of other questions. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord say that the Government appreciate that there are two objectives here: the care of children and the importance of work. He has explained the figures and the research the Government have done into the impact of work. Can he share with us their research into the impact on children of parents working at the point at which they have to make the transition into school?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I cannot bring to mind a particular piece of research on that question, but I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, probably went into this in great detail when she was working on her piece of research for the CSJ. If I can find something which pinpoints that particular question, I will certainly give the noble Baroness the reference. But the general point I sought to make is that a range of research in this area shows the great benefits for families of working, and if I can give a particular answer to her question, I will.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I suspect that that was research done for the department by Millar and Ridge. It absolutely did show positives, but it also revealed some of the strains placed on mothers and on children. If I remember rightly—I have to admit that my memory for research is waning—in some cases mothers moved out of work again because of those strains. The research showed both sides of the issue.
Lord Freud
Let us not debate research none of us can remember. I will have a look at this and if I can provide anything more solid, I will do so. On the point about school holidays, under the regulations, if a lone parent had to leave a job because no appropriate childcare was available in the holidays, that would be taken into account for good reason. Technically it is good cause, but it would become good reason.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I am so sorry, but in that case I need to clarify this. As I understood it, the question posed by the noble Earl was not whether someone would be sanctioned for being unable to get suitable childcare, but whether they would be allowed only to choose to take a job that enabled them to stay at home with their children during the holidays. The summer holidays last a long time and children might never see their lone parent during working hours. I think the point that the noble Earl was trying to clarify is this: if I am a lone parent and the only job I can find is one that requires me to work during the school holidays and I do not take it, is that good reason?
Lord Freud
I think it would be good reason. As I have just said, if someone cannot find appropriate childcare in the holidays—
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I am so sorry, but I must be expressing myself badly. I am assuming that childcare is available during the holidays, but if for reasons due to my own strange peccadilloes I want to spend the holidays with my child and the only job available is one that would require me to work all year round—during school hours in term time is fair enough, but also during school hours in the holidays—in those circumstances would I as a lone parent have to take that job, even if it meant that my child would have to spend the whole of the school holidays in childcare? Would the noble Lord clarify that point?
Lord Freud
Yes, my Lords, the picture the noble Baroness draws is correct. If a job is available and there is appropriate childcare, the lone parent would be obliged to take that job.
Baroness Sherlock
I thank the noble Lord for that clarification, if not for the answer, which I am very disappointed with. I accept that the noble Lord does not have research on the question of transition available to him at the moment. I just want to lodge a concern that the point of transition for children either moving into school at all or moving from junior to secondary school is difficult, and there is research out there to support that. The research looks at the impact in later life if those transition points are not well handled. I would be grateful, before we get to Report, if the noble Lord would give some thought to whether he could give us some comfort that the Government would want to give a clear policy steer that they would expect their advisers to look kindly on lone parents who, for good reason, want to support their children during the key transition point into school. I have one final question. If a five year-old were not in school—I will not go into it; there may be reasons why a five year-old may not yet have started school—would that lone parent still be required to go out to work?
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, before the Minister replies, can I say that I am very disappointed to hear that lone parents with a child of six or seven who cannot find a job except one that occupies them during the school holidays as well, will be obliged to take a job under the new arrangement. That was not my understanding from my reading on this and it seems very disappointing that that is the situation. I would appreciate if the Minister would double check to be very clear on this particular matter. If he has done so, and he is clear on it, then in that case I suppose I will have to read Hansard again.
The other matter is about transitions in school. A point that is always emphasised to me is that the transitions into primary school and from primary into secondary school are key to the success of a child’s education. We need to ensure that we do not do anything to make those transitions more difficult. If there is research there that we can identify, maybe the Minister might be able to help with that, or perhaps he could undertake to look very carefully at this particular area. It would be helpful if he could see whether there is any adverse impact caused by the changes in terms of the transitions of children into primary school.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, could I also ask a question, which is to turn the comments and questions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, around the other way? If a lone parent has found a job as a dinner lady, precisely because her hours fit those of her young children, and she is therefore not being paid and not working over the holiday periods, is she at all exposed to the issue of work conditionality?
The second issue is on transition. Again, speaking from personal experience—and we all brought our children through school—many children sail through and love that first year of school. However, many children who suddenly go into what they regard as “big school” can find it very stressful. They revert to bed-wetting, have disturbed nights, are fearful, actually hide under the table when the school bus comes, and so on. In those situations, the lone parent needs to be on hand and available to go into the school if necessary, to collect the child from the school, during that first year of settling down. Most of us can talk from personal experience in that respect. The noble Lord would be very wise to listen to the point about transition—whether it is for one year, or ideally for two years, before the full conditionality comes in.
Lord Freud
My Lords, on the first question on whether the child happens not to be in school on their fifth birthday, there will be a small number of lone parents that we are aware of whose youngest child is aged five but who has not yet started school. We are therefore going to expand the existing flexibilities within jobseeker’s allowance to support these lone parents through the short period of time until their child enters school or reaches compulsory school age, whichever comes sooner.
On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the dinner lady—people who are employed through the school year—where the dinner lady is presumably on a contract through the process then clearly she has a job and would escape conditionality in holiday periods because she would be working in a long-term job. As one gets to short term fillings-in I expect that it becomes a bit more detailed and dependent on particular circumstances. The broad position, however, would be that they would be within the job for that period.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Thank you, I am very grateful for that. If I understand the Minister rightly, that means that through the period of the school holidays, for example, the dinner lady will go up the ladder—or down, whichever way you want to put it—to increase the amount of universal credit during that period, to compensate her for lack of income, and it would then be readjusted when she goes back to being a dinner lady in the school term.
Lord Freud
Yes, the noble Baroness is way ahead of us, as usual, as we structure how we do the universal credit. We are currently looking at that very closely in terms of how we do it. We have not settled this, but my view is to look at it in fairly cash-in-the-month terms, as she is implying. That is where I would come from as we started to devise it. However, I cannot give a commitment or go further than say how we would do that. I am not keen to elaborate averaging-out processes because I think that gets overcomplicated.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am very grateful to hear that. In order to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s, could the noble Lord confirm that a dinner lady, or someone in that position, would not be subjected to in-work conditionality rules? The fact that there is a contract means that they are still in work. I may have misunderstood.
Lord Freud
Let me just try to pin down the point on transitions and whether people should be in work. There is little evidence relating to the effects of maternal employment on children's cognitive and behavioural outcomes in the UK, but what there is suggests that there are few negative effects of maternal employment once the child is aged over 18 months. If I can find some more research, I shall get it to noble Lord post-haste.
Baroness Sherlock
I will not trade research, but I think it would be helpful to come back to this on Report. I just want to put down a marker that some of the research around the impact of maternal work centres around two things. The two outstanding issues are, first, the quality of substitute care and how you control that in evaluating the impact on child development; and, secondly, the degree to which the mother wishes to work, which has always been a significant issue. There has been some work suggesting that if the mother wants to work, the effect on the mother can be positive, and that that is communicated to the child and, if that is not the situation, the opposite is communicated. Until now our regime has not required lone parents or partners to go out to work against their wishes in those circumstances. Obviously it is a little harder to do. Perhaps in his research the noble Lord might look at what might be the nearest parallel to that. Perhaps we should have a coffee and discuss research at a later date.
Lord Freud
The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, makes is an incredibly complicated and central one because people’s way of thinking about themselves is shaped by many things, not least by the expectations that others and the state have on them. We are trying to develop a really complicated socio-psychological set of impacts with the system. There is not an easy answer. We are trying to make people want to work because that is the expectation and that is the norm. That is what we are trying to achieve with our reforms.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I understand that. The fact is that the noble Lord is not trying to make people want to work but telling them that they have to work. The evidence may be complicated. For me, the point of the objective is simple. I do not think that the state should be substituting its judgment for that of a parent of a young child as to when it is better to go out to work. That should be left to the parent.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Perhaps I could reinforce a point. We know from all the research, going beyond Jane Millar right back to the American research, that a lone parent who goes out to work and retains that work, if it is sustainable, benefits from the lift out of poverty. I entirely accept that that is important for the family as well as for role models. However, that is possible if and only if she has childcare that she trusts. Very often that childcare is from a family member, who is often a grandparent. The grandparent can address the problems of the child in the transition period and so on. Yet time and again we are doing nothing to recognise the role that grandparents may play and instead we are going to impose in-work conditionality on them, taking them out of the caring function that they would voluntarily and willingly embrace for everyone’s benefit. We will expect two generations to work and for the child to be somewhere out there.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thought that this started off as a relatively straightforward debate, but I am delighted that it has expanded into a huge philosophical debate which is very important. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken at least in support of the opposition to the clause. I think that some would go quite a bit further but there are important issues around childcare, the time spent with children, the propensity of the mother to want to work and the quality of substitute childcare. In one way or another, each of those has been touched on by noble Lords. I think that it was the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who expressed the view that she was not totally signed up to the concept of lone parents in work when their children are as young as five, and I acknowledge that.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is by way of a serious probe to understand the Government’s plans and their progress on supporting individuals with drug and alcohol dependency. Clause 59 essentially removes the regime set out in the Welfare Reform Act 2009. Those involved in considering that legislation will recall that it ended up in a considerably better place than where it started. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who is not in her place, should be able to claim considerable credit for encouraging the Government of the day to move from where they were to where they ended up.
The thrust of those provisions involves requiring claimants in the JSA regime to take part in a substance-related assessment where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they have a drug dependency which affects their prospects of obtaining or remaining in work. The jobseeker’s agreement is suspended if the individual engages in a voluntary rehabilitation plan. Such a rehabilitation plan could involve submitting to treatment, possibly at a specified institution. In the event of somebody failing to engage in such a plan, a mandatory plan could be imposed, but the legislation is very clear that such a plan cannot require a person to submit to medical or surgical treatment. A similar regime is provided for in the legislation for people in the work-related activity group but not, of course, the support group. Perhaps the Minister can remind us what, if any, regulations to introduce these measures were eventually promulgated—none, I suspect.
The information pack provided with this Bill states:
“It is considered that provisions from the Welfare Reform Act 2009 are too narrowly focused, impractical and expensive. In December 2010 the Government published a Drugs Strategy outlining first steps to ensuring the benefit system supports effective engagement with recovery services, which is considered to be more successful than coercion. For these, existing powers can be utilised”.
Perhaps the Minister can set out for us how the first steps are progressing.
On the Government’s drugs strategy, page 23 says:
“The first step is to ensure that the benefit system supports engagement with recovery services. We will offer claimants who are dependent on drugs or alcohol a choice between rigorous enforcement of the normal conditions and sanctions where they are not engaged in structured recovery activity, or appropriately tailored conditionality for those that are. Over the longer term, we will explore building appropriate incentives into the universal credit system to encourage and reward treatment take-up. In practice, this means that those not in treatment will neither be specifically targeted with, nor excused from sanctions by virtue of their dependence, but will be expected to comply with the full requirements of the benefits regime or face the consequences. Where people are taking steps to address their dependence, they will be supported, and the requirements placed upon them will be appropriate to their personal circumstances and will provide them with the necessary time and space to focus on their recovery”.
Clearly, the availability of support services will be key to this approach. Perhaps the Minister can give us an assessment of what is currently provided and available. The provisions that are being removed from existing legislation contain powers to extend the application to alcohol. Perhaps the Minister can say what the Government have in mind for those with an alcohol dependency; what services are available and what assessment has been undertaken.
The 2010 drugs strategy also says:
“We will also look at amending legislation to make it clear that where someone is attending residential rehabilitation and would be eligible for out-of-work benefits, they will be deemed to have a reduced capability for employment and will therefore be automatically entitled to Employment and Support Allowance”.
Is this still the plan and where is the legislation that provides for that? Presumably entitlement would cease after 365 days, maybe earlier if the claimant has a partner with modest income or capital. Whatever the limitations of the 2009 legislation, it provided a range of protections for individuals: a substance-related assessment could only be conducted by an approved person; relief from certain tests if the claimant provided a permissible sample, but not an intimate sample; an absolute bar on having to submit to medical or surgical treatment; protections concerning supply of information; and protection in criminal proceedings in respect of information provided about drug use. How will these issues be addressed in the new arrangements?
I should also be clear that we share a common goal of supporting people to live a drug-free life. An opportunity to get and sustain a job is an integral part of helping to achieve this, but we are entitled to know and have on the record what the Government plan in this regard.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I will add a few more words on the 2010 drugs strategy. I very much welcome its view that the benefits system should support effective engagement with recovery services. It considers that this is more successful than coercion—a view that I strongly hold. As my noble friend said, the strategy covers all drug problems, including the severe misuse of alcohol. About 400,000 benefit claimants—about 8 per cent of all working-age claimants—are dependent on drugs or alcohol. I welcome the strategy of increasing the number of such claimants who engage with treatment and rehabilitation and go on to find employment.
I will ask a little more about the plan, quoted by my noble friend Lord McKenzie, about the choice between vigorous enforcement of the normal conditions and sanctions where claimants are not engaged in structured recovery activity, and appropriate tailored conditionality for those who are. How will that conditionality be decided?
My bigger question is: how can such claimants engage in structured recovery activity when the result of government cuts is that there are ever fewer agencies offering structured day programmes or any other form of treatment? I declare an interest as a trustee of Camden-based CASA. The noble Lord must pass it every day on his way back home. For 27 years CASA has provided in Camden a range of services for alcohol and drug misusers and their families.
Our dual diagnosis service for those with mental health and alcohol misuse problems has been ended. Our families service has been curtailed. Our older persons service has been halved. Our back to employment service has been closed. This month we had to shut our Camden day service centre in Fortess Road, which was well known, and sell the building. Many of our staff were made redundant and our premises were closed. That is the impact of the cuts on local government and other potential funders. My question to the Minister is not about the intention behind this, but about where people will get the services and the help that they need to be able to respond to the strategy. Furthermore, with the Government's withdrawal of 100 per cent of its grant to the National Agency on Alcohol Misuse—Alcohol Concern, as it is known—which I set up at the Government’s behest and with government money in 1984, who will help set up, co-ordinate and make known such services to the claimants who need them?
I would also like the Minister to tell us how those for whom structured recovery activities are appropriate will be identified. Also, how is structured recovery activity to be defined? I have been trying for 27 years to define it for our clients and have failed. I do not mean that as a joke: it is very difficult because it is a highly personalised service. I would be interested to know the Government's definition of structured recovery activity. We also know that the drug co-ordinators who were responsible for building the relationship between Jobcentre Plus and external agencies in the drugs field, such as treatment and probation services, have now been abolished. Who is expected to co-ordinate the work of Jobcentre Plus with the providers of these services in their local community?
The impact assessment for the drugs strategy states that:
“Employment support will be funded on an outcomes basis, using benefit savings freed up when people engaged with recovery services move into employment or full-time education”.
The assessment suggests that this funding provision will be delivered via the work programme. Will the Minister tell us what proportion of work programme providers are offering support with drug and alcohol issues, and how many people have accessed the support? Furthermore, as I hear that St Mungo’s and other voluntary agencies are receiving none of the anticipated referrals from the work programme, can the Minister outline where such services are being provided and where participants are being signposted to?
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, at the last Conservative Party conference the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith talked about 1 million children in this country being born into families where the parents are either substance misusers or misusing alcohol, so clearly it is key that we address this problem from the point of view of the welfare of children. Perhaps this is a good time to offer my congratulations to the Government’s drug treatment agencies and the UK Border Agency on the reduction in the use of class A drugs in recent years. However, it is still a very significant problem, while of course alcohol figures strongly in incidents of domestic violence, which is terrible for children to experience. So I hope that the Minister can give a strong assurance in his reply that robust mechanisms will be in place to offer help to job applicants who are suffering from these issues because a lot of the current provision is being cut back due to the recession. Particularly, how is capacity in the voluntary sector being harnessed in order to make the best use of those resources? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Freud
My Lords, Clause 59 repeals provisions introduced by Section 11 of and Schedule 3 to the Welfare Reform Act 2009. These provisions would have applied to claimants of jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance where their dependence on alcohol or drugs affects their prospects of finding or remaining in work. The regulation-making powers inserted by Schedule 3 to the 2009 Act could have been used to require JSA claimants to undertake a range of activities, including answering questions about whether they are dependent on or at risk of misusing drugs, and attending drug-related assessments or drugs interviews that would involve testing unless the claimant agreed to provide a sample that could be tested. Claimants could then enter a voluntary rehabilitation plan which might involve treatment. If claimants did not agree to enter the voluntary rehabilitation plan they could be required to enter a mandatory rehabilitation plan. Although a mandatory rehabilitation plan would not require a claimant to undergo treatment it could, for example, require the claimant to attend an educational programme or take part in interviews and assessments. These provisions also extended to alcohol dependency. Equivalent provisions were introduced for ESA claimants who are members of the work-related activity group. The mandatory requirements would have been enforced by using regulation-making powers to sanction a claimant’s benefit if they failed to comply.
These provisions, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested, have never been commenced. The previous Government produced draft regulations for a pilot scheme to run for two years from October 2010. Those regulations were considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee in March 2010. The committee’s report, published in May last year, raised significant concerns. It recommended that the pilot scheme should not go ahead as drafted. The committee considered that the pilots were unlikely to be effective, contained a number of significant flaws and would not produce robust results. Having listened to SSAC’s concerns and having undertaken their own work on drugs, in December last year the Government published their drugs strategy, Reducing demand, restricting supply, building recovery. The strategy recognises that work is a key contributor to sustained recovery from addiction, but we also recognise that the previous Government’s approach of mandating drug testing and assessments, and requiring claimants to undertake a rehabilitation plan on pain of losing benefit, is not the right one. We say it is not the right approach in particular for the following three reasons.
First, it mandates claimants to do something, such as being tested for drugs, that is not directly about helping people to approach the labour market. That does not mean that entering treatment is not the right approach to help many claimants who are substance dependent to address their barriers to work, but—and this leads to my second reason—claimants enter treatment for a series of complex reasons, and whether or not they succeed also depends on a series of complex reasons. Forcing claimants to answer, for example, questions about possible drug use, requiring them to attend substance-related assessments about drug use and insisting that claimants enter a mandatory rehabilitation plan if they decline to enter treatment voluntarily would be asking them to do something a large proportion of them would not want to do. If we took the approach of the previous Government, we would create a high risk of those claimants immediately failing these requirements and having to be sanctioned.
Perhaps I could pick a trick that the Opposition have enjoyed using on me on occasion. I am aware that there may have been some differences within the previous Government regarding their attitude to this legislation. I am enjoying watching on the faces of some of the people opposite a similar smile to the one that I sometimes have to use.
Finally, we consider that the previous Government’s approach towards substance or alcohol-dependent claimants would be one that all the evidence from treatment providers and agencies who are experts in this area, as well as SSAC which consulted with those organisations, say would not succeed.
On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about our alcohol strategy and what service will be available, the Department of Health will be publishing a new alcohol strategy early next year which will set out what services we plan to have available.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord when is “early next year”. I know that he likes dates. I had understood that it was going to be by the end of this year, but he is bringing us fresh news, if it is to be early next year.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I like to be able to flesh out these adverbs—no, they are not adverbs. My grammar is slightly frail. The answer is that I cannot be any more specific. If that is news, I am not in a position to provide any more definition.
Clause 59 removes Section 11 and Schedule 3 from the 2009 Act, and also removes the provisions which Schedule 3 inserted into the Jobseekers Act 1995 and the Welfare Reform Act 2007. We know that the vast majority of people with substance dependency issues eventually want to break free of their addiction. The National Treatment Agency reports that, last year, more than 200,000 people in England entered treatment. That represents about two-thirds of all those with dependency issues. In 2010-11, 27,969 adults left treatment in England free of dependency, which is an increase of 150 per cent compared with 2005-06. Waiting times continue to reduce—96 per cent get into treatment within three weeks of referral. In England, we spend more than £400 million on drug treatment and this budget has not been cut. We want to build on that. We believe that the right approach is to offer support and encouragement for those who want to tackle their substance addiction. We are therefore ensuring that our advisers have the confidence to engage in the often difficult conversations with those who they believe have dependency problems, that they understand the issues that addicts face and that they work in partnership with local treatment agencies to improve referral rates. By encouraging closer working between Jobcentre advisers and treatment service providers we will increase the number of people moving into sustained recovery.
If claimants decide to take up the treatment opportunities available to them, we will look to ensure that they have the opportunity to focus on that treatment and make it succeed. This is not being soft on addicts. The choice to tackle addiction is not an easy one, as anyone who has tried will confirm. Claimants who decline the offer of treatment will be expected to comply with their ordinary full labour-market conditions as a requirement for continuing to be entitled to their benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about universal credit. We are clear that the imposition of work-related requirements under universal credit must not conflict with an individual’s treatment regime. We want to maximise every individual’s chances of an early move into work. For those with substance dependency, the first logical step will often to be to confront their addition, and we do not want simultaneously to impose labour market requirements that make it challenging or even impossible to complete treatment. This will be our guiding principle under universal credit and we will make sure that this can be achieved. The structure of universal credit legislation makes this relatively straightforward. We have considerable flexibility in the powers we are taking in the Bill to ensure that we can tailor work-related requirements to fit with the circumstances and capability of an individual. We will be considering how best this can be done as we develop regulations.
The provisions inserted by the Welfare Reform Act 2009 are inappropriate and likely to have unintended adverse consequences for substance or alcohol-dependent claimants, their communities and the public purse. The provisions have not been commenced and do not reflect this Government’s direction of travel in dealing with the very difficult question of drug and alcohol addiction, nor do they take account of the introduction of universal credit, which will replace both the income-related strands of JSA and ESA in due course. Hence we seek to repeal them. I beg to move that Clause 59 stand part of the Bill.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister. I should say that the purpose of raising this issue was not to mourn the passing of Schedule 3 but to understand where the Government were heading in its place. Perhaps the noble Lord dealt with it by saying that this can be accomplished by regulations, but the strategy says that those who are undertaking residential treatment would be deemed as not having been in the work-related activity group or its equivalent in universal credit. Would he say that the Bill provides the necessary flexibility to achieve that or is something else expected to deal with that?
Perhaps the Minister could also say something about the protections, which was one of the important features of the 2009 Act, that if somebody declares that they have a drug dependency—effectively owning up to something that could be a criminal offence—what safeguards does the noble Lord have in the current arrangements that would provide protections for individuals in those circumstances, assuming that the noble Lord believes that those protections should be there?
Lord Freud
To take the first question, we already have amended the regulations. We did that from 28 March 2011, amending the regulations relating to employment and support allowance. It is clear that those in residential rehabilitation for alcohol or drugs should be automatically treated as having limited capability for work while they are in residential rehabilitation, and this will help them have access to benefit at a time when they are focusing on their treatment.
On the matter of the protections, I am going to have to offer to write to the noble Lord. That is a pretty complicated matter. When we are not doing the things for which the protections were incorporated, it is difficult to understand where we might need some protections. I will have a think about that and write to the noble Lord.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for that and I think that this deals satisfactorily with the purpose of the probe.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
My Lords, this is purely a minor technical amendment to remove references to specific maximum amounts of weekly benefit payable for successive accidents and prescribed diseases for persons under the age of 18. The present amounts specified as subject to uprating have changed since the Bill was introduced. The figures currently specified in Clause 64 were correct on the Bill’s introduction but have since been amended by the uprating order—and it is likely that they will change again before the provision comes into force. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the amendment, which will remove the significance of the age of 18 in industrial injuries benefits legislation. It will mean that all existing and new claims by persons under 18 will be paid at normal industrial injuries disability benefit rates. That is a very welcome move. I have no problem with the government amendment permitting the maximum amount to be specified in regulations rather than in the Bill. However, I will pose a couple of questions.
First, will the Minister put on record that the Government are not intending to reduce the maximum amount payable under this provision? Secondly, will he say whether, assuming the amounts will be in regulations, the regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? Young workers who have suffered industrial injury may constitute a small group, but they are vulnerable and it would be useful to know whether the House will have an opportunity to debate the matter.
Thirdly, will the Minister let the Committee know whether payments made under the scheme will count as benefits under the proposed benefit cap? Our understanding is that they will be so included. Obviously, we will debate the benefit cap when we get to Clause 93. However, it seems that to include these payments, which are compensation for injuries at work, within a calculation of the total support that a family could receive from the state, would be somewhat unfair. It would mean that for a young person living with their family, any such support would be taken away from the total family entitlement, which would effectively turn the benefit into a means-tested benefit.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I will pick up on those points. I am grateful that the noble Baroness said that she welcomed the amendment. Clearly, the main thrust of it is to simplify. In this case she will have been delighted to see that we levelled up rather than anything else. It is always nice to be able to give money away occasionally. I confirm that we are not intending to reduce the maximum amount, which will be specified in the uprating order. We are working on the precise treatment of different elements—I apologise for the technical terms—and looking at the interplay between different benefits. We will treat some as the equivalent of earnings, some as the equivalent of benefit, which will knock out the right to universal credit, and some benefits will be disallowed. Clearly, that will be specified in the regulations. We can discuss that entire area when we look at the whole range of benefits. The principle is that generally, where something is the equivalent of state support, one does not want to double up state support. Sorry, I should clarify. When I said that it is in the uprating order, that is subject to affirmative procedure, so it will be affirmative.
Lord Freud
Lord Freud
“( ) In section 176(1) of that Act (Parliamentary control), after paragraph (aa) there is inserted—
“(ab) the first regulations made by virtue of section 130A(5) or (6);”.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, noble Lords of a certain age and with long memories—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who unfortunately cannot be in his place this afternoon, but who has very kindly said that I can tell the Committee that he is in sympathy with what I am about to say—will appreciate the irony of me rising to defend the Social Fund.
Back in the mid-1980s, when I was at the Child Poverty Action Group, I was trying to convince your Lordships’ House to reject the introduction of the discretionary Social Fund in place of single payments made as a right to help people with one-off needs they were unable to meet out of their weekly benefit. Although I am defending the Social Fund today, I am not claiming that it does not need reform. Clearly there is a consensus that there are problems. However, nothing the Government have said has convinced me and many of those closer to the ground than I am that Clause 69 is the solution to those problems.
The clause abolishes discretionary community care grants and crisis loans. In their place, local authorities in England will have the power, but not the duty, to provide assistance using money transferred from the DWP without ring-fencing. The devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales will decide their own arrangements. I will focus my remarks on England, but I hope that other noble Lords will be able to provide a perspective for the other nations. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has apologised as unfortunately he has had to return to Wales this afternoon.
The Social Fund provides vital cash assistance. It is, in effect, the ultimate safety net. CCGs are intended to help vulnerable adults establish themselves or remain in the community. As well as their emphasis on helping people live independently in the community, they are also available to people on benefit who face exceptional pressure, such as family breakdown and long-term illness. Interest-free crisis loans are normally payable when an applicant can show that they are the only way to avoid serious damage or risk to health and safety, although the qualifying conditions have been tightened up recently. According to research by Crisis, 94 per cent of housing advisers working in private rented sector access schemes which help vulnerable people into private accommodation say that crisis loans and CCGs are vital or important to their work.
Local authorities are not being asked to administer a locally provided social fund. The discretionary Social Fund is being abolished. There will be no requirement on local authorities to provide cash assistance or, indeed, any assistance. All the signs are that most local authorities will provide any help in kind, rather than in cash. This has raised fears of stigmatisation, lack of choice and the undermining of financial independence. Moreover, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Maria Miller, told the Public Bill Committee in the other place that the new service may not necessarily be an application-based service.
If I were writing the Minister’s brief, I would cite the recent Communities and Local Government Committee report, Localisation issues in welfare reform, which supports the proposal to devolve responsibility for the discretionary Social Fund, so I will get in first and point out that the report also acknowledges that there is legitimate debate about whether localisation will in itself be an adequate remedy for the long-standing problems of the Social Fund. It expresses some reservations to which I will return in relation to the amendments before us.
Having read the oral evidence and some of the written evidence to the CLG Committee, it does not seem to me that the main conclusions of the report reflect the balance of that evidence, and I have to say that I place more store on the views of, for example, Citizens Advice and the Social Fund Commissioner than those of the committee itself. The commissioner warns that:
“With over 150 local authorities in England, there is a high risk that a scheme providing unbounded discretion in each of those areas could result in geographical inequities that do not correlate with local needs … in the absence of any guidelines or criteria that set parameters for local discretion, it will be difficult to achieve some broad consistency of purpose and approach”.
In other words, localisation could aggravate rather than address one of the Social Fund’s current problems. The commissioner concluded that:
“There must continue to be a safety net for poor and vulnerable people because their needs will not disappear”.
As I will argue in a moment, without a ring-fenced budget, there can be no assurance that there will continue to be any sort of safety net.
Alan Barton, the social policy officer for Citizens Advice, in his oral evidence disputed the DWP’s characterisation of CCGs as delivering a social care package. He explained that:
“To a large extent, we are talking about items with which people furnish their properties”.
Many of those needing such items will not be in touch with local authorities. An analysis of 500 applications to the discretionary Social Fund by the Social Fund Commissioner found that:
“A significant number of vulnerable people trying to create or re-establish or remain in a secure home, who have ‘slipped through the net’ and receive no support”,
from other support services. With regard to crisis loans, Mr Barton acknowledged that,
“schemes for second-hand furniture, white goods, food banks and credit unions … are helpful to low-income people”,
but added that,
“we see considerable numbers who are in desperate need of cash to buy food and top up their electricity or gas cards when they do not have any light or heating in the house. It seems that there will be no provision for them under the new arrangements. They will have to go to charities that are already under huge pressure; credit unions, which are very patchy and charge quite high interest rates; high-cost lenders—a survey that we did with our advisers showed that 67% of them had seen people go to high-cost lenders when they had not got money from the social fund—or I suppose they might just go hungry or cold”.
That is the view of Citizens Advice.
Growing numbers are already turning to food banks. As Shelter argues, food banks should be seen as a last resort and,
“not become an established part of the welfare state. Shelter’s services staff observe that where clients have resorted to food banks many feel embarrassed and demeaned”.
Family Action, which together with a wide range of charities is supporting these amendments, warns that charities such as it will not be able to cope. It fears that in the worst case scenario, there will be greater resort to loan sharks—a fear that I have already expressed with regard to the move to monthly payments.
One of the main arguments put forward to justify this change is that local authorities are better placed to provide this kind of help. In his oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the Secretary of State painted a picture of a,
“person sitting or standing in front of a local authority”.
That is contrasted with the remote decision-making under the present scheme. However, there is no guarantee that a transfer to local authorities will necessarily mean localised face-to-face decision making. Some authorities might choose to contract out any service, and there is nothing to stop them processing claims remotely or by phone. I am advised by Family Action that Westminster council recently announced that its emergency response team, covering social services activity involving children’s and adult social services, emergency repairs, homelessness and emergency lifeline calls will be moving to Dingwall in Scotland. As Family Action observed, it is unclear how staff based 850 miles away could be expected to deliver a more local service. This clause is about the abolition of the discretionary Social Fund, not its better targeting, as has been claimed. I believe that the case for localisation has not been made convincingly, and on this basis, I oppose that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my colleague, who, like me, at the time, was fulminating against the introduction of the Social Fund as a wicked Tory trick. I remember the debates very well. I was standing shoulder to shoulder with her at the time. In view of the experience since 1986, the Social Fund migrated into a place that met the need much better than I expected. There is a little vignette here which I hope I can convince the Minister to go away and think a little more about because the Social Fund replaced single payments. Single payments were a rock-solid, embedded system in the social security system and it was fully appealable, all the way through to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal and, indeed, to commissioners in 1986. One of the reasons why the noble Baroness and I were so aghast at the proposal was that the initial 1986 White Paper suggested that there should be no appeal of any kind on the grounds that these were discretionary payments, so how could you have rules for them?
That was all fine until the Council of Tribunals—these are big legal cheeses—produced a report and, for the purposes of the further elucidation of the Committee, I have obtained a copy of it. It is a special report of the Council of Tribunals when, in 1986, it waded into the argument. I shall quote two sentences about the importance of independent review of any social security decisions. The council was responding to the White Paper and said that,
“the people most affected by this proposal are among the most vulnerable in society. Very good reasons are needed before abolition of the right to an independent appeal in such circumstances, an appeal which has existed for over 50 years”—
in 1986. It continued:
“It would probably be the most substantial abolition of a right to appeal to an independent tribunal since the Council of Tribunals was set up by Parliament in 1958, following the Franks report. It is for these reasons that we are so critical of the proposal. In our last Annual Report we described it as highly retrograde”.
That was an interesting intervention at the time. What did the Government of the day do? They took it back and thought about it carefully and a man called Mr Tony Newton, who was the Minister of State, had second thoughts and went away and produced amendments, which the Commons accepted. They were then sent back to the Lords and the Lords capped the sensible amendments that had been introduced by the then Mr Tony Newton by introducing the Social Fund Commissioner. The Office of the Social Fund Commissioner was set up at that stage and has been extremely successful, much more successful than some of us thought at the time. It filled a need, and that need is greater now than it was then. My point about the vignette is that it is possible for Ministers of State to listen to what has been said to them about the need for independent scrutiny and review, to go away and reflect and to come back with some better ideas.
I cannot resist this Tony Newton quote. After a good deal of prodding in the ribs by many of us, he said that there should be,
“some clearly established machinery that was separate from and outside the normal management chain of . . . the social security system . . . to provide the kind of confidence that hon. Members”—
he was in the Commons at the time—
“felt was necessary to show that an element of independence was being applied”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/5/86; col. 43.]
He did the business and it was sorted. It was the House of Lords that put the final touches to it in a way that made the system work. That is a lesson that we should bear in mind this afternoon. The noble Baroness has set the scene very well, and I concur with everything she said, which is why I have put my name to these amendments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, there has always been a tension within social security, as David Donnison spelled out many years ago when we had what was then called supplementary benefit, between standard, national, no-postcode-lottery funding and payments, and the need for discretion. The Social Fund as it has become has that element of discretion and flexibility, which is why it would be madness to go to a call centre and think that you can do the thing that most requires discretion by telephone. I entirely sympathise with the Government’s wish to move away from that procedure.
My noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, have eloquently explained the need for the Social Fund. I do not want to rehearse that, although if I had my way I would treble the money going into it because of its value to people. Indeed, the people who need it are not there because of financial mismanagement, let alone scrounging. They are there for the most part because of absolute, desperate, grinding poverty, having come out of care, prison or a refuge. They are the ones we seek to help.
Instead, I want to talk about something more mundane: the process proposed for the handling of Social Fund moneys, particularly community care grants, in future. Where that money is going to a local authority that is a single-tier unitary authority, I have no reason to think that it will not be able to get its act together because housing, social services and advice services are integrated on one level. However, it will be catastrophic for the shire counties where there are two-tier structures. I shall explain.
I come from Norfolk, a county which is about 60 miles by about 40 miles. When I was a county councillor representing Norwich I was closing schools that I had never visited and putting yellow lines on roads I did not drive on, and we called it “local government”. I have to say that the Jobcentre in my district had more local knowledge than most county councillors had outside their immediate patch. Under this proposal the money will go to a county council that has no local experience or knowledge. I do not in any way mean to criticise social workers who are doing a heroic job, but the council has none of the local knowledge at councillor or policy-shaping level that is required.
A second problem is that in a county council like Norfolk, there are a number of rural districts within which there may be small pockets of acute rural deprivation—even though they may contain thatched cottages covered with roses—but there is also the deprivation of Great Yarmouth, King’s Lynn, Thetford and some of the poorest estates in the eastern region, in Norwich. If the county council decides to go on a format allocation, it may send money to rural districts that do not need it as their pockets of rural deprivation have been resolved because those people have voted with their feet—I know this to be the case—and have come into the nearest urban city area. I have known good social workers give them the bus fare to do so, and quite right too; I would do the same in their situation. So the first problem with sending the money over to the county council is that they do not have local knowledge, but the second problem is that there is a huge variety of circumstance in an area as large as Norfolk, and I have no confidence that that will be recognised in the use of that money by the county council.
The third issue is what we call ring-fencing. If I were a county councillor with this money and I was seriously worried, as most county councillors are in good faith and decency, about child abuse protection, I would regard this as a fund to plunder. I would regard other priorities as being of more urgent need. I am therefore not in any sense confident that that money will be spent where it should be.
For several reasons, I want to see instead, and I hope that this will happen, the money in two-tier authorities going to the local district council. First, the local district council should have much more intimate knowledge of its locality and local needs. If localism means anything, it does not mean distributing down to a county council, half of whose councillors have never visited the village or the area where the deprivation is concentrated. You might just as well have the money coming from London or indeed from Scotland. It has to go down to the local district council.
Secondly, over and beyond local knowledge, if we cannot have ring-fencing—I hope we do, but I will come back to that—then at least it should be integrated with the fact that it is those same lower-tier authorities, the housing authorities, that are going to be responsible for the discretionary housing allowance and for the development of this absurd structure of individualised council tax benefits. Okay, it is an absurd and foolish system but it looks as though we may be stuck with it for a while until better sense prevails and we can reintegrate council tax benefit into universal credit. This means, though, that district councils on the ground have to have the staff, the resources, the local knowledge and the detailed experience of those same client groups for discretionary housing awards and for council tax benefit. They should ally to that the grants and some of the loans of the Social Fund because often they are dealing with the same client group, and often for the same purpose.
We have heard that a high proportion of community grants are spent in securing rent access to the private rented sector. It means that discretionary housing allowance—two funds, in future on two tiers—will be doing the same thing for a local community. This is absurd. If we cannot have a ring-fenced fund, then at least the money should go to a district council which can see the best way of meeting the needs of young people coming out of care or of ex-offenders. It may be that more money should go into discretionary housing and less should go elsewhere, but you can meet the service in different ways. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that you then need to make sure that there is an effective reporting and monitoring regime so that local authorities at the district level are accountable for how they have spent the money. There is more than one way to meet a need, and that is why I am not always supportive of ring-fencing. Local authorities can often meet a need in a better and more effective way—you only have to see the difference between residential care and domiciliary services to realise that there is not just one way—but they have to have retrospective, so to speak, supervision and control by virtue of inspection and monitoring.
I am hoping that the Minister will respond positively to this and say that when dealing with two-tier authorities, the shire counties, where the document says that the money is going to the upper tier, he will give a commitment, as far as he can, that there will be a letter of guidance requiring county councils to distribute and allocate funds based on previous expenditure levels in the district council. Otherwise some rural districts may pocket the money to keep their council tax down while the urban areas that receive people from the rural districts who have voted with their feet will have an even heavier burden to bear on reduced funding. In addition, meeting need should be recognised as a part of a district council’s repertoire. If there is to be an assumption that a local connection should be required, I accept the need for special care, particularly for battered women. Actually, in practice that is the least of our problems because in my experience nearly all local authorities have a very decent arrangement of trading homes so that women coming out of a violent relationship can move on from a hostel to a half-way house and then into a permanent home in a different authority. That works pretty well on the ground, but there are many other groups that, if they can, rural authorities will encourage into urban areas so that their responsibilities are negated. I hope that in that case the money will follow the client. If it does, I have no problem with that at all.
When the Minister deals with the big policy issues raised by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I ask him also to comment on the process point and at least give some of us some comfort that this will simply not be exploited, manipulated and abused in good faith by upper-tier authorities to do things that, because of their lack of local knowledge, they regard as more important than this and, as a result, strengthen the capacity of lower-tier authorities which are going to be dealing with discretionary housing allowance and council tax benefit. They will have an additional resource in order to meet the local need that they are best placed to address.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the call by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, to introduce ring-fencing or at least to allow ring-fencing for some time while we go through this huge transition with the introduction of this Bill. I do so for a number of reasons. Listening to the debate I am again reminded of the speech made by the right honourable Iain Duncan Smith at the Conservative Party Conference this year. He highlighted the great amount of debt that this country carries and, in particular, the debt of unsecured loans that people have taken upon themselves. Will the Minister say whether he is concerned that individuals who currently benefit from the Social Fund might turn to loan sharks or take out unsecured loans and expose themselves and their families to risk and threat because there is nowhere else where they can get the support they need?
I have been meeting chief executives, and indeed I recently met a deputy chief executive of a metropolitan authority. After spending the evening with him, what really struck me was the immense burden that he carried. He had to make choices with limited resources. I asked him whether he found himself having to cut back in the areas of child protection and child and family social workers. He said that he and his colleagues were definitely not taking money out of those pots. Then, on meeting a group of chief executives and directors of children’s services in the Palace of Westminster to discuss children’s centres, again we heard that the money was definitely not being taken out of children’s centres and they were really trying to support those as far as possible.
My point is that there are so many calls on the limited resources of chief executives and directors of children’s services in local authorities. The risk is that this money, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has said, will be diverted into other very important provision, but that those families who need this ultimate safety net will lose out under the new arrangements. I look for an assurance from the Minister that this will not be the case. I should say that Barnardo’s, which has so much experience in this area has raised these concerns with me. One should also pay tribute to the Conservative Administration that set this up in the first place and the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, because from what I have heard, it has made a very positive impact on the lives of some of our most vulnerable citizens and families.
The issue of accountability, of how this money is spent, has been aired and needs to be addressed. Should there be minimum standards that local authorities have to meet before they are allowed to use this money as they see fit? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I have very little to add to what has been said by a number of speakers this afternoon because they have covered the ground extensively. I was particularly interested in Amendment 86ZZZD because it refers to,
“financial support for applicants fleeing domestic violence”.
We shall shortly be considering domestic violence in another context, that of legal aid, which has some reference to domestic violence. The important thing about this in the local government context is that domestic violence frequently takes place within a family environment. Therefore, the individual against whom it is practised has to find some way of getting out. I am interested that this amendment refers to “applicants fleeing domestic violence”. Very often these women and girls simply have nowhere to go. Therefore, this amendment places a responsibility on local authorities, if money is made available, to provide the necessary financial support for people fleeing domestic violence.
That is very important in the current situation. I have recently attended other meetings in that connection. It appears that probably about one in four women has suffered from domestic violence at one time or another. Very often, of course, it is practised in families against very young people, very young girls. It is very important that there should be some authority and resources given to enable this to be dealt with. It is dealt with quite adequately in this amendment and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville
My Lords, this is an unexpected, generic intervention. Although the Committee seems to be making real progress, I reassure my noble friend the Whip that I shall be brief. It relates to a period even earlier than 1986 and to a different and extreme subject, but there is a moral to what I am going to say, to which I gather Her Majesty’s Government in the Commons is responsive.
Twenty-eight years ago I became the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Higher Education. I inherited quite considerable cuts to the higher education budget and I decided that my time as Parliamentary Under-Secretary was going to be spent going round the country, available to any higher education institution that chose to invite me, and I would be St Sebastian responding to their observations about the cuts. I had two and a half years of pure joy because they made it extremely attractive to me to come and gave me a marvellous experience of seeing what they were up to. The experience of St Sebastian was cheap at the price.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I hesitate to lower the tone after that marvellous exposition by St Sebastian—by the noble Lord. Perhaps the Minister will answer some questions for me. I have been reading the very large and very helpful response to the consultation exercise that the department kindly provided. I wonder whether he would help me with the sums. His Treasury and City background might help me to understand this. I am grateful for the briefing from Family Action and I take that briefing very seriously. I noticed that it had been giving out grants to people in need since 1869—even longer than the Social Fund—so it has some knowledge whereof it speaks. When organisations like that warn that things are about to get very bad, we need to listen, because they know what they are talking about.
Perhaps the Minister could help me to understand. I gather that in terms of crisis loans, during 2010-11, £152.9 million will be disbursed, and it is intended that from 2013-14 that will be replaced by the amount of £36 million, which will be transferred to local authorities. I am assuming that cannot literally be a cut of £160 million, or 76 per cent. I presume that there is a gross and net issue here. Perhaps he would help me to understand the effect of that transition.
Secondly, will the Minister tell us what work the department has done in estimating the impact of this recession, or other recessions, on demand going forward? Perhaps he could help us by looking at what happened previously. I note that the briefing from the Government in response to the consultation denies that the recession or youth unemployment had any part to play in the increased demand, although the fact that it started in 2008-09 would seem to imply a coincidence because that was around the same time as GDP began to go downwards. I wonder whether he could help us to understand that as well.
Thirdly, perhaps he could help me to understand how the new system will respond to changes? For example, how flexible can it be to changes in the profile of need in a particular local authority area? For example, if another of his policies such as the benefit cap were to have the unfortunate consequence of causing significant numbers of poor people to move from one area to another—I am not suggesting that it will, this is just for the sake of argument—how would that be affected by a local authority in that circumstance, or a circumstance like that?
I have one final question. Does he have any concerns about the consequences of what seems to me to be a move between what is currently annually managed expenditure to something that effectively becomes—albeit indirectly—a form of DEL? The only reason I ask is because one reason why something like this is part of the social security system is because it responds—and is managed and funded by central government to respond—to the changing profile of the labour market and the people in need because of changes in circumstances. How will government finances handle that in future?
Lord German
My Lords, I shall add some further questions about process. I shall not to go over the same ground that we have just covered, but I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and to my noble friend Lord Kirkwood for the historical background. This morning I started reading a report by her colleague, the Assembly Member for Cardiff West, on this very issue and on Labour's history in it in the past few years. In his report on this issue, the pride of place in the new Labour era goes directly to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, with a major quote about the need for reform of the system. He then traces the whole history of the Labour Party's involvement and engagement with the Social Fund during the previous Government, and ends with a quote from the last document which we have, the DWP document of March 2010, which says that,
“the Social Fund has remained largely unchanged in the two decades since its introduction”,
that the existing scheme was “passive”, doing,
“little to help people build up personal financial management skills”,
and that it was “short-term”, “complex”, and presented a series of “delivery challenges” if the system were to,
“provide better value for money for the tax payer”.
I have no idea whether that is an accurate recording but he took his starting point from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and his end point is that there is a problem which has not been dealt with, so reform is obviously essential.
The second piece of quite interesting information which I took from this document is on the report of the Calman commission. I do not want to appear like a cracked record here but I shall refer to an amendment in a moment. It is not clear to me which country we are talking about and whether “national” means England. However, one issue considered by the Calman commission, which was of course set up by the three parties represented around the centre of this Committee, was to recommend to the Government that the discretionary elements of the Social Fund should be devolved. The previous Government, in their response, said “We'll think about it”. I presume that the thinking has now moved on, which is why this issue may well be before us in terms of devolution. In a moment, I want to trace what I think is going to happen in Scotland and Wales because, although there is not yet a clear picture, there is a sense of direction in Scotland, and one beginning to emerge in Wales, as to what will happen.
First, Calman treated this as not being part of the major social security network. He regarded it as a different animal. Another quote which I liked, because I had the greatest respect for this Labour politician, is when the late Donald Dewar said that the Social Fund was,
“flawed in concept and arbitrary in its impact”.
Reform was therefore essential, but that essential reform is still on the table. What is likely to happen in Scotland is that its Government, as I thought, are likely to add an element of their own funding to this sort of money and to create their own scheme, so that there will be a different scheme in Scotland, administered by I do not know whom—possibly by the third sector—and managed on a whole-Scotland basis. The argument that is developing in Wales is very similar: there will be a possibility of an all-Wales scheme, delivered by and responsible to the National Assembly for Wales.
In that context, we therefore have to be clear that most of the questions and discussion which we have had so far are about what happens in England. I respect that and it is very important, because that is probably where there is now the greatest area of concern about how it will all work. I am sure that in Amendment 86ZZZEB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, proposed new subsection (5A)(a) and (b) refer to England, and that the word “national” in “uniform national appeals process” in new subsection (5A)(c) again refers to England.
We have this problem because we refer to nations. We have a National Assembly for Wales. That means that Wales is a nation. I am not certain how we refer to England at the moment. Presumably that is what the amendment needs. There has to be concern about how this will be delivered. It is appropriate to leave the structure and nature of the business to Governments in Scotland and Wales for them to shape in a way that is appropriate to them because they will have the legislative and financial competence. Of course, this Parliament will have no competence in that matter because the formula will be moved on through a structure that will eventually end up in the Barnett formula. It is important perhaps to look at models that we can share across the United Kingdom. The one for England is not yet absolutely clear.
Before I leave the issue of Scotland and Wales, I ask the Minister whether there has been any mention in Scotland and Wales of the use of the legislative consent motion. That is the device by which a devolved Administration can either ask for or accept permission to legislate, or give the permission to this Parliament. It works in both directions. I wonder whether that has happened. There is still some concern about the nature of what the Administrations want to do.
I will not repeat the arguments on the ring-fencing issue, but in England it is also the case that where you have accountability for funds that emanate from Parliament, there must be some accountability to Parliament. I will start by asking the Minister about the issue of the accounting officer. If discretionary funds are moved in the way that is described, am I right in believing that the accounting officer for those funds will be the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Work and Pensions? We should remember that by definition this is the person whom Parliament may call to account for the stewardship of the resources within their control. How on earth will the Permanent Secretary of the DWP account for money that has been spent without any ring-fencing or contract of any sort by local authorities throughout England? I would be grateful for an answer to that.
The Bill has no lines of accountability across departments. I would like to know what the line of accountability across departments is. If the Permanent Secretary of the Department for Communities and Local Government were the accounting officer, would they be the accounting officer for some parts of the fund, with the DWP Permanent Secretary having responsibility for others? What are the lines of accountability across departments? Or will accountability be split between various departments? In other words, who should Parliament call to account for these moneys.
The second issue is about reporting back. We have heard about ring-fencing going in one direction. If there is to be an accounting officer and Parliament is to call them to account for those moneys, what will be the reporting back mechanism from local authorities in England to the accounting officer in whichever department it is? If that is not described, clearly we will lose the sense of being able to account for public money. I certainly worry about that.
I have asked a range of questions that need to be answered. I start from the premise that I have worked from this wonderful document. I will give a reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on this matter. It seems to me that we started with a problem many years ago and ended up with a problem that is still there. We need to find an answer but in so doing we need to ensure that we have covered all the possible corners that may be preventing us getting to the most appropriate solution.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, many years ago when my noble friend Lord Brooke was my temporary boss in Northern Ireland, never in a million years did I expect that he would ever be described, or indeed would describe himself, as St Sebastian. The reason I mention that is that I knew that when he became Secretary of State, he had moderately recently been a Treasury Minister. My job in Northern Ireland, inter alia, was to look after the Social Fund in the then 32 Northern Ireland social security offices. It quickly became apparent that the calls on the Social Fund in any particular office at any particular time were extremely erratic. I asked my civil servants if London would object if I moved money around the system in order to try to balance it up. Of course the following year I had to do it again because of that erraticism.
It is all very well expecting the Social Fund, which is expatriated to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales as a whole, to operate well with ring-fencing, but I find it absolutely impossible to believe that ring-fencing can ever apply when it is expatriated to local authorities in England for the simple reason that one local authority will build up a certain amount while another will be permanently in deficit. That is not going to help the people whom the Social Fund is intended to help in the first place.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have added our names to Amendments 86ZZZB, 86ZZZC and 86ZZZD and we support the other amendments in this group. We have our own amendment, Amendment 86ZZZEB, and I should say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that I am happy to accept his amendments to my amendment. Perhaps we can go through the Lobby together when the opportunity arises.
The Social Fund, particularly the discretionary component, helps some of the most disadvantaged and marginalised individuals in the country. We have been given a lot of historical perspective on this, but my brief says that the fund has its origins in the exceptional needs payments scheme introduced by the Labour Government in 1948. However, some may go back a bit further. We should recognise that the fund as it operates today is not perfect. Indeed, a number of noble Lords have made that point. When we were in Government, we paved the way for change and consulted on it. The case we made was the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord German, which was that the system was short-term, passive and complex. Its role was as a sticking plaster to deal with short-term crises and did not address the longer-term challenges which individuals face, particularly those of financial and social exclusion.
That said, we should never lose sight of the importance of a safety net for those who are in desperate need. We have all received powerful testimony from a range of organisations to the difference that a crisis loan or a community care grant can make when individuals with acute needs are faced with very difficult circumstances. It helps the poorest and the most vulnerable people in our society and we know how an early intervention can prevent a slide into even more desperate circumstances.
The case has been made by others, particularly in a very powerful presentation by my noble friend Lady Lister, as to why we should continue to support this. I would like to comment on some of the other contributions. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that the great mistake he made was to confront Derek Hatton with a Socialist Worker under his arm. It should have been Militant, and then he might have got a better reception. So far as ring-fencing is concerned, I recall one party conference when a certain Dennis Skinner was speaking from the platform. He addressed the mayor who had come to open the conference and suggested that he should melt down his chain and put it into the housing revenue account, so there are precedents as well.
One of the difficulties I have with the government proposals is in trying to understand precisely their vision of what should result from this process. On page 25 of Local support to replace Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans for living expenses in England, the Government’s response to the call for evidence, they say:
“There is no expectation or desire from central government that the new service will mirror the current Social Fund scheme in whole or in part”.
If that is right, what is the Government’s vision? What are they seeking to achieve? My blood ran cold when I turned to page 27—this was the point made by my noble friend Lady Lister—where it says:
“One of the design issues raised by a large number of respondents is whether provision should be in the form of cash payments or goods and services, including for example food parcels and both new and re-conditioned household items”.
The next paragraph says:
“The need to offer recipients choice or control over the item they received was not generally considered a requirement and by a number of respondents it was thought to be undesirable. There was a strong sense that if there is a genuine need recipients will accept the support that is offered”.
What sort of country are we living in where we have those sorts of rules? It is “take it or leave it”, living off the scraps from the supermarket when they clear the shelves at night.
My noble friend Lady Sherlock pressed on a range of points concerning funding. I shall address Appendix C of the document I just referred to. Bandied around somewhere in the text is a figure of £178 million, but this annexe says it gives us,
“National-level data from the latest available financial year and 2005-6”.
The year then was 2009-10, so it was not as up to date as my noble friend. It says:
“We have indicated our intention and already taken action to manage the current levels of demand and spend for Crisis Loans back towards 2005-06 levels. 2005-06 data should therefore be regarded as more representative of the levels of demand and spend at the point of transition to the new local provision”.
The gross spend on crisis loans in 2009-10 was £67 million, but what was it in 2005-6? It was £20 million. Is that what the Government are about now, trying to scale back from even the 2009-10 figures to just £20 million in allocating moneys to start this process? It is an absolute disgrace if that is the proposition, and this is supposedly not meant to be about saving money.
Notwithstanding that, the information we have had is that the Government are cutting back on some of these arrangements. Crisis loans for items only following a disaster and crisis loans for living expenses have been cut back from 75 per cent to 60 per cent, supposedly aligning with the hardship payment rate under JSA. Crisis loans for living expenses are limited to three in a rolling 12-month period. There is already a process under way to cut back on this spend before we get into the new arrangements. I would like to understand the rationale and the justification for that.
I thoroughly and wholeheartedly support the proposition concerning ring-fencing. What we are talking about is money that goes into local authority budgets, ring-fenced for a specific purpose. The Government have made great play of reducing ring-fencing on local authorities—as we did in Government to a certain extent—but as a technique and as a means of ensuring that the money that goes through to local authorities is spent on that endeavour, it is well tried and tested. There is not a problem in doing it. Indeed, one of the experiences we need to reflect on is what happened to the “Supporting People” programme. That programme was originally ring-fenced. It was then un-ring-fenced, I think with the support of the CLG Select Committee, but at least in those circumstances local authorities were required to continue to report centrally about how that allocation had been dealt with. It was not rigid but at least there was a reporting requirement. I do not know, but perhaps the Minister can tell us, whether any such arrangements are proposed so far as the Social Fund is concerned.
My noble friend Lady Hollis was absolutely right to identify the issues that will arise under two-tier authorities. She suggested that one way of dealing with this would be to have a mandatory allocation to districts, but that raises the whole question of who people will engage with at the local level to get the support they need. Most of their needs will be related to housing, which is at the district level, but some may be related to adult services, which are the functions of a county council. Where people go and what the process will be is entirely unclear.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, supported the issues around ring-fencing. He made the point, as did other noble Lords, about the pressure that is on local authorities at this time. They have had dramatic cuts made to their budgets and some of those cuts have been front-end loaded. In some respects, they have had greater responsibilities imposed on them under the Localism Bill. Indeed, what are hard-pressed councils to do when such extraordinary pressures are placed on them? They must try to make decent decisions so as to protect and support their communities. This is another example of the Government, in the guise of localism, pushing down on local authorities and giving them the supposed problem that they are not prepared to face up to and deal with themselves.
My noble friend Lady Turner centred her speech on issues around domestic violence. I wholeheartedly agree with her, and that is why the amendment should be supported.
The greatest difficulty with all this is being able to see what the Government’s vision is. Local authorities are innovative and many of them will work very hard to protect in every way they can the vulnerable citizens in their communities, and indeed those from outside their communities. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made the point about connections. If local authorities put in place a focus on people with local connections, it will particularly disadvantage those whom the Social Fund is designed to help—the people who are settling back into a community and perhaps do not yet have a fixed abode. They may be rough sleepers or—I think this is the expression—they sofa-surf, which is when they kip down for the night on friends’ sofas here, there and everywhere. Helping those people means that a barrier cannot be put on some localised connection. I would support all the amendments which seek to avoid that.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was absolutely right to say that we need consistency of approach and transparency in all this. In part, that is what our amendment seeks to do: it would establish that there should be mechanisms to make sure that we get consistency. As I say, that has to be on an England basis because separate and well funded schemes will operate in Scotland and Wales. That is fine, and we should be happy with that. One of the other challenges here is that these changes are being introduced at a time when there is a whole maelstrom of change going on around localism, welfare reform, our health and social care provisions, and what legal aid support people can receive. In the midst of all that, these changes are being brought forward. They will affect the most vulnerable people in our society, and if we have a duty as Members of Parliament and certainly as members of a Government, above all we should look to protect them. These provisions simply do not do that.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the current discretionary Social Fund is clearly in need of reform, as several noble Lords agreed today. From 2006 to 2011, the number of crisis loan awards tripled. The evidence does not suggest, however, that this increase reflected an underlying increase in genuine need, as it was largely independent of the recession. Analysis of the increased demand showed that it was driven by young single people on jobseeker’s allowance, many of them still living at home, rather than reflecting a more general trend across all benefit client groups. Strong action has already been taken to get spending under control, and demand has already reduced markedly.
Analysis of the current community care grants scheme shows that the remote operation of a highly discretionary scheme may not deliver the best use of a limited resource. The scheme is often poorly targeted due to the lack of integration with the wider social care agenda. Local authorities and the devolved Administrations are better placed to determine and support the needs of local vulnerable people than the current centralised system.
Clause 69 paves the way for reform of the discretionary Social Fund. Community care grants and crisis loans for general living expenses will be replaced by new local provision designed and delivered by local authorities in England and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales. Budgeting loans and crisis loans for alignment to benefit or wages will be replaced by a national system of advances of benefit through the payments-on-account provisions set out in Clause 98. So the majority of the discretionary element of the Social Fund money will still be administered at national level because it is closely aligned to the ongoing benefit system: that is the most efficient way to do it. That discretionary loan fund pot at national level, which revolves, is currently standing, I believe, at £1.2 billion. I compare that with the £178 million going locally which is divided into grants, currently at £141 million, and general living expenses at £36 million. That does not add up to the full £178 million because there is another £1 million of transition funding.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Will the Minister explain where the figure of £36 million comes from? The 2009-10 figure for crisis loans for general living expenses is £67 million. The Minister is clearly one year on from that, but has the figure halved over that period?
Lord Freud
If the noble Lord looks at page 11 of the government response document, it shows that the tripling was clearly driven by a phone-based service. As I said, we are getting that more under control. The 10-year average spend is £30 million, and clearly we are aiming to get back down to more sensible levels through this method, as I said.
Baroness Sherlock
The Minister obviously has access to in-year figures, which we do not. If he were to project forward from the most recent figures that he has, what would he expect the spend to be?
Lord Freud
At the end of this year, we are expecting it to come down to £60 million.
Lord Freud
There is a downward trajectory, and the measures that we are putting into effect do not reflect that full amount. The full amount is £60 million, but the underlying figure is coming down by more than that if you annualise the latest set of figures.
Baroness Sherlock
I am very grateful to the Minister. I just wanted to be sure that I had understood, for the record, that he is proposing to halve the amount being spent on crisis loans for general expenditure as a result of this change. I thank him very much for that clarity.
Lord Freud
I will make it absolutely clear that this is not a halving on an annualised basis when one considers the decline in trend. I would like that on the record as well.
I will take the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the risk of high-cost lenders, or loan sharks as she referred to them. We recognise the danger that illegal and high-cost lenders pose to vulnerable people, who can become very dangerously indebted if they are driven to use such services. We are committed to continuing to provide an interest-free lending facility for those who are least likely to be able to access mainstream credit. We call the process “budgeting advances”. That is a national provision of payment on account that will replace Social Fund budgeting loans. The budgeting advance will be paid to those vulnerable people least likely to access mainstream lending, to help ensure that they are not driven to use illegal lenders. That process, when we put it into the universal credit, will have a much different feel to the paper-driven process that we have today. The two systems of budgeting advances will run in parallel while we introduce the universal credit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I note the Minister’s figures—which startled me—about what he thinks will happen to the crisis loan for general living expenses. Given that those are loans, does he expect there to be any virement? In other words, will the budgeting loans, the alignment process and the rise to 1,500 and so on meet some of the suppressed demand that will, in future, exist for crisis loans?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am not sure that I got the point of the question. Would the noble Baroness repeat it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Yes, by all means. Crisis loans are for general living expenses. There is therefore a close connection between them and general budgeting loans, which also deal with those expenses—unlike community care grants, which are in a different category altogether, and which can be completely ring-fenced. Do the Government expect any virement between the two funding headings? The depressed figure that was responded to by my noble friend Lady Sherlock, which appears to suggest that about £60 million was coming down to £30 million, would none the less be offset by an appropriate increase in the budgeting loans that he is talking about as payment on account.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the straightforward answer is that currently we are not seeing that alignment, based on the measures that we are taking.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, perhaps I, too, may ask a question on the crisis loan budget. As I understand it, at present, if there were a disaster, people could get help from crisis loans. If there were a disaster, for example a flood—and more and more flooding is taking place—would local authorities get additional money to help out, or would they have to use the money that has already been transferred from the DWP, which may already have been spent on other things for that ring-fencing? Will there be provision to help people in the case of disasters?
Lord Freud
In the case of disasters, other measures would be introduced. This will not be a core methodology to deal with particular localised disasters.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
At present, people can turn to discretionary crisis loans in such cases. I would feel more reassured if the Minister could tell us what that provision would be.
Lord Freud
I will have to fall back on offering to write on that particular matter. I do not know exactly how we finance local disasters. In practice, the Social Fund has not been much used in that area. However, I will have to write on how funding for local disasters works.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Perhaps I may give the noble Lord an example. It may not be as extensive as flooding, but a not untypical example is a gas explosion in a high-rise block of flats that results in 80 or 100 families having to be rehoused and needing financial support to buy furniture and this, that and the other. Is it expected that that will come from this provision or will there be additional allocations?
Lord Freud
The obligations of the local authorities are centred on housing provision. There are a number of duties around what local authorities have to do to rehouse people according to their homelessness obligations. That is where some of the crises would be dealt with. Local authorities could look to provide the support using some of the Social Fund money that they have available. In practice it will be a more efficient use of money because we will have a one-stop shop for that kind of problem in the housing area.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
My Lords, would it not also be reasonable, in cases of very substantial disasters extending perhaps beyond the compass of a single block of flats—although that would be a serious local tragedy—to look at the Bellwin scheme, which as I understand it is designed to deal not with the initial tranche of costs but with the substantial extra costs that local authorities will face if they are confronted by a major natural or physical disaster?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
The noble Lord is absolutely right. That was deployed in relation to the flooding in Cumbria.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I raise this to ask not so much about housing but about people's white goods and furniture that may have been destroyed for whatever reason. My understanding is that, at present, they can turn to discretionary crisis loans in such cases.
Lord Freud
As I say, that is not a major use of the fund. Clearly, the local authority with its housing obligations is very well placed to manage that on a holistic basis. In the case of that example, there would be a better and more efficient use of funding than we have today.
The amendments in this group seek to place constraints on the changes to the discretionary Social Fund that would undermine the much-needed reforms and prevent the needs of vulnerable people being addressed in an effective way. In line with our commitment to localism, and to allow local authorities to make the best decisions for their respective areas based on their more detailed knowledge of local concerns and requirements, we do not propose to ring-fence the funding given to local authorities in England and in the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales. Local authorities have entered very positively into discussions with us and have come forward with interesting and innovative ideas on how support can be delivered. For example, one large rural authority is considering using some funding to pay the delivery fees charged by an existing provider to deliver free goods to the vulnerable people they need to reach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked whether the funding would go to the upper or lower tier. The funding will be allocated to upper-tier local authorities in order to provide the greatest possible flexibility to local areas. From our discussions with local authorities, we know that a range of delivery models is being considered. Some of these models will result in funding being devolved to lower-tier services such as housing. Decisions about the ultimate funding route for each area will be determined by a range of local factors, including the location and the nature of existing services and how these align with areas of deprivation and need, and the level of funding that will be devolved. In less deprived areas it may not be necessary or practical to operate a number of services.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I simply do not understand that answer. It will go to upper-tier authorities: then what?
Lord Freud
As I was trying to explain, the upper-tier authorities will then design their services in different ways. Some will decide that the most efficient thing to do is to give it to a group of lower-tier authorities; some will do it themselves; some will devolve it to the housing operations within lower tiers. What I am trying to say is that there will be various responses.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
So it would be entirely up to the county council as to how they distribute this money, if they distribute it at all, and whether they actually use it for the services that are proposed.
Lord Freud
My Lords, on the argument between the upper and lower tiers, yes. I will come back to the issue around ring-fencing, where there has been some pretty powerful argumentation. That is what Amendment 86ZZZB seeks to ring-fence. At one level, that will restrict such innovative thinking. Ring-fencing could also prevent pooling of funding streams and ultimately limit the ability of each local authority to devise schemes that best address the specific needs in their respective areas.
We have had some excellent contributions. I think the best one—no, that was invidious—very enjoyable one was from my noble friend Lord Brooke with his reminiscences of Degsy Hatton. It is quite clear that we need to make sure, if we are putting money out for vulnerable people, that it goes to vulnerable people and is not diverted elsewhere. We are localising this funding for sound reasons, because the closer to the ground you can get with this funding the better it is likely to be spent. Local authorities clearly already have duties to provide assistance to vulnerable people.
There is clearly a great weight of feeling in this Committee, very well expressed—brilliantly expressed in many cases—and I will take those thoughts away, reflect on them and come back with an answer about where those reflections have gone. Reflection can be a fairly external matter. However, we will be setting out the purpose of the funding in a settlement letter from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Clearly, at one level at least, that provides sufficient clarity on the purpose of the funding for local authorities. Picking up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on cash for emergencies, that cash is meant for emergencies. Of course, with local disasters, there comes a point when they are overwhelmed but I shall reply in writing on that.
Amendment 86ZZZD would require local authorities to provide victims of domestic violence with financial support. Local authorities, along with other specialist support services, often already provide more tailored support than the current community care grant scheme offers. Where an individual requires household items, it may be better to offer furnished accommodation in such circumstances. Local authorities will have the appropriate support services on the ground and be in the best position to assess what type and level of support is required. On top of this, they already have a duty to provide support and accommodation to anyone made homeless as a result of domestic violence, and this complements a wide range of assistance which is also available at local level.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, that is a district council function, not a county council one. When half the local authorities in England are split between two tiers, it really is not going to work like that.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness is very concerned about this issue and it may be that there is a breakdown in some particular circumstances. But there is a duty on authorities to meet these duties. In my reflections, I will look at this because it may be connected with how we might find a solution to the more general concerns.
Lord Boswell of Aynho
Would the Minister also consider having talks with the Local Government Association, possibly in conjunction with his ministerial colleagues, about at least reaching some form of understanding or issuing guidance that might be given to the superior local authorities in dealing with their constituent districts? That would bring in some sensible rules of engagement or criteria for assessment of adequate performance.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am just pausing while I think about the reflection process. Can I ask my noble friend to leave the reflective process as open as possible? I do not want to be over-circumscribed in how we reflect.
It is also worth noting that even under the current system, community care grants do not support those in the process of fleeing domestic violence. Under the current scheme, victims of domestic violence must have already fled the family home to qualify for support from the discretionary Social Fund to set up home.
I turn now to Amendment 86ZZZE which requires the Secretary of State to,
“conduct a review into the impact ”
of these reforms, and to commence,
“one year from the coming into force of this Act”,
and that there should be subsequent annual reviews which should be published. Eligibility for an award under the current scheme depends on an extensive range of factors so that identifying those who would previously have been eligible is not a simple matter. This would therefore place an almost impossible task on the Secretary of State. Comparing the recipients of support from the existing scheme with those under a wide range of new local support seems to miss the point that the driver for these reforms is better targeting. We would expect certain under-represented groups such as pensioners to be better served by a more local approach. Local authorities will want to consider ways of monitoring and reporting on their activities to provide transparency to those they serve.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, if the Government are successful in their desire to open up the scheme more to pensioners, it will mean that less money will be available for non-pensioners. What are the Government’s thoughts on that?
Lord Freud
Well, my Lords, local authorities will have to provide support for vulnerable people in their areas. They have a difficult balancing act to perform, particularly in the difficult economic circumstances we are in. Exactly how they spend the money is, in the context of the ring-fencing question, something for them.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry if I am being a little dense here. When the Minister says that local authorities will have to provide support, if there is no statutory duty to do so, what validity will this have? What power would central government have to make sure that local government provide support if they place no statutory duty to do so in the legislation?
Lord Freud
Local authorities have a number of duties under which they are bound, and those are the duties to which I am referring. Let me continue.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Could we ask the Minister to provide us with a list of the duties and the statutory references to them so that we have them on the record? We will then be able to see clearly what is covered and what is not.
Lord Freud
I would be highly delighted to provide that list of duties. The new national provision of payments on account will be monitored by the department to ensure that it is working effectively and efficiently. We are confident that the combination of this national provision and the new local provision will be a better way of providing support to those who need it most.
Amendment 86ZZZEB seeks to standardise the delivery by local authorities of the new provision and appeals, and introduce an independent tier of review for local authority decisions. This would defeat the purpose of our proposed reforms by, in effect, requiring local authorities to administer a national scheme. It is not clear whether this is intended to cover only English local authorities or to extend the responsibility to local authorities in Scotland and Wales. The whole reason for devolving assistance to the local level in England is to enable decisions to be made at the most appropriate level to effectively identify and target those in greatest need. It will be the responsibility of local authorities in England to decide on appropriate arrangements for internal review. As already discussed, local authorities are answerable for the services they provide and have a range of duties towards vulnerable people that they are required to meet, which I will list.
Lord Freud
Picking up on the powerful point made by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood on the Independent Review Service, that service review’s decision is made on whether to award discretionary Social Fund payment. These decisions must have been subject to an internal Jobcentre Plus review before being passed to the Independent Review Service. The reforms to the discretionary Social Fund will mean that the Independent Review Service’s workload will diminish and eventually come to an end. It would not be appropriate or feasible to have a national review scheme to deal with the diversity of new provision delivered by local authorities and the Welsh and Scottish Governments. Local authorities will set up their own internal review mechanisms if they think it appropriate to do so. In addition, the Local Government Ombudsman is fair and impartial, and is available to people dissatisfied with decisions made by their local authority.
Amendment 86ZZZF would delay the introduction of new systems until universal credit is fully rolled out and has achieved prescribed performance targets. This would delay the benefits of a more localised approach to the discretionary support. Performance standards are already in place for the current benefit regime, for which the Secretary of State is accountable, and this will continue to be the case for universal credit. The business plan for 2011-15 confirms that the department will continue to publish a range of indicators on the performance of delivery businesses, including claims processing, customer and employer satisfaction and labour market services. With these measures already in place, we do not see the need for regulations to set out the performance targets or standards for universal credit which the amendment would require.
On the question raised by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood on cuts-driven reform, the White Paper on universal credit gave the commitment that this was not a cost-cutting measure and that costs would be funded. The initial funding allocation is fixed for the rest of the spending review period and future allocations will take account of changes in need.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Will the noble Lord also circulate to us in a letter what the future funding allocations will be by subheading, including that held centrally and that going out to local authorities over the rest of the spending review period?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I hesitate to commit to that. If it is available at a reasonable price, I will do it but I will not if it is not.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry but the noble Lord has just given a commitment that this is not a fixed money measure and that funding will continue at a certain level until the end of the CSR, so he must know what those figures are.
Lord Freud
Yes, my Lords, the figure is £178 million per year, which I think is in the documentation, until the end of the spending review.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
But we also need to see the breakdown within those headings.
Lord Freud
Could the noble Baroness make it clear what breakdown she means? I think she meant by area.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I think there are two issues. First, what is the total pot for the rest of the spending review? I think the noble Lord has confirmed that that is £178 million—fixed or to be uprated by inflation?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
So it is declining in real terms. The second issue is how it is allocated among local authorities. Will it be done as part of the general revenue support grant, so that it gets mixed up with all the other things, or will it be dealt with separately?
Lord Freud
I understand that it is fixed for two years, which takes us to the end of this spending review.
I turn now to a number of questions raised by my noble friend Lord German, who asked about the devolution aspects. The Scottish Government have consulted on the approach that they might take to deliver the new local provision. They considered local as well as Scotland-wide approaches and they now have to decide whether the local approach, in line with the English approach, or the centralised approach is best. If the Scottish Government decide to go down the centralised route, that would be an interesting test case of whether devolving down to the local level, to populations of between 12,000 in the City of London and 1.4 million in Kent, or centralised to cover 5.2 million people across Scotland, is the best way to administer this sort of discretionary support. Clearly, we have taken the view that the closer to the populations served, the better.
If the Scottish Government choose to divert funding from other sources to top up the funding they receive from the UK Government, that is their choice, but they will have to tell the Scottish people from where the money has been diverted. My noble friend asked about legislative consent motions, but those are not necessarily for Social Fund reform. On the accounting officer question, for the national payments on account provisions that will clearly be the DWP Permanent Secretary. I shall come back to him on the devolved moneys.
I hope that I have adequately explained why these amendments are necessary. I shall reflect on the points that have been made so powerfully. Meanwhile, I would urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I thank the Minister for his full response. Unless I missed it, I do not think he dealt with one amendment, but I shall come to that. I thank noble Lords for their very helpful contributions to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, gave a cautionary tale of what happened in the 1980s. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, but the Minister’s response that local authorities will set up an internal review mechanism if they think it is appropriate is not the kind of positive response that, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in his former incarnation made when similar points were being made about going from single payments to the Social Fund. Perhaps on his behalf I could say that I am disappointed with that response.
A number of noble Lords made the point about the money that would be available in the future. One thing that we have not talked about is that, at present, the crisis loans bit of it has money recycling, but money will not be recycling because there will not be any loans. Presumably, that will also mean, not just that it is not going up with inflation, but that there is no money coming back into the system. Again, that will make less money available for local authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made a very powerful point when he read out the principles that the Social Fund Commissioner set out and then compared and contrasted them, in good student essay style, with what the Government produced. My noble friend Lord McKenzie made another good point when he asked where the vision was for what the Government want to achieve. I am no clearer about that vision. We have talked about the importance of local decisions. The noble Lord reiterated the point about decision-making at local level but did not address the point that it is possible that these decisions will not be made at local level. If Westminster can send its emergency decision-making up to Scotland, what guarantee do we have that decision-making on “daughter of Social Fund” will be taken locally? If that is the vision and purpose, perhaps the Government need to make it clear and set down that those decisions must be made locally—otherwise we might not have localism at all. We need more reassurance on that.
The noble Lord, Lord German, made some important points about accountability. The Minister responded but did not explain what the reporting-back mechanism will be. Accounting officers may be accountable to the Permanent Secretary at the DWP, but how will they be accountable if there are no reporting-back mechanisms and no requirement to report on how the money is being used? Again, a bottom line must be written into this.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord said that he will reflect on some of these issues, particularly ring-fencing. He said that he would like the reflection process to be as open as possible—so no ring-fencing around that reflection process. He made a very important statement, which will be on the record. He said that the Government would have to make sure that money will go to vulnerable people and will not be diverted elsewhere. I am pleased by that because we are clearly in agreement. However, I am not clear how we can achieve it without ring-fencing. If on reflection he could come back and satisfy the Committee that this can be achieved without ring-fencing, I am sure that we would all be very happy and impressed. However, I find it very difficult to see how it can be achieved without some form of ring-fencing. I remain to be surprised and impressed.
On domestic violence, the noble Lord made the point that someone must already have left home in order to get help from the Social Fund. I understand that, but does he not accept that some women will be afraid to leave their home if they are not sure that there will be help for them when they take their children into the great unknown? At present at least they know that there is a very good chance that they will get help from the Social Fund. There is a real danger here.
Lord Freud
I will make this absolutely clear. Where one gets help from in those circumstances is the responsibility of local authorities under their homelessness obligations. The Social Fund plays a part way down the track. It was not the solution to that problem, so nothing is changing in that area. I would like noble Lords to understand that that is not an issue that arises from this change.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I thank the noble Lord for that, but that is certainly not how Women’s Aid sees it. It talks about it being a lifeline, and this lifeline is being taken away. Obviously the housing itself is the most important thing, but for a house to be a home it needs furnishings and the worry is that those furnishings will not be there for people. Perhaps in his reflections he can come back with better reassurance about that than at present.
I do not think the noble Lord has said anything about local connections. If he did, I apologise. The point was made that there should be no form of local connection test. Did the Minister say anything about that? I quoted from the other place, where the Secretary of State answered this by saying there will be a moral duty on local authorities to meet needs, but there are a lot of people who are going to be leaving institutional care. I refer not just to people fleeing domestic violence; they could be ex-prisoners or members of the Armed Forces. There are all sorts of reasons why someone might not have what is recognised as a bona fide local connection. The worry is that they could be left high and dry and we could be back into a kind of Poor Law situation where people are pushed around as they try to find somebody who will help them. Perhaps the Minister could say something about that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
In that case, I look forward to this letter. I particularly look forward to the list of statutory duties and whether it will put flesh on that moral duty to provide a safety net that the Secretary of State talked about. I am not aware that local authorities have that statutory duty, but I look forward to seeing it when the Minister’s little list appears.
I acknowledge the fact that the Minister has accepted the spirit of the amendment on ring-fencing with his very strong statement about what must not happen. I look forward to the outcome of this reflective process and I hope that it will go some way—all the way, actually—to meeting the Committee’s concerns. We have had a very strong statement from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about his bottom line on this, which I am sure is ringing in the Minister’s ears, much more than anything I have said would ring in his ears. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we gave notice of our intention to oppose the Question that Clause 74 stand part of the Bill, but we have had discussions along the way which, for the time being, we find satisfactory, so we shall not oppose the Question.
House of Lords
Cluster Munitions
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Elton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consider that Article 21 of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, incorporated in the Oslo Treaty of 2008, debars states party to that convention from promoting the adoption by other states of another convention containing weaker restrictions on the use of such weapons.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is fully committed to the Convention on Cluster Munitions and our Article 21 commitments. We will not sign up to anything that would undermine it or dilute our obligations under it. We believe that engaging in negotiations for a protocol on cluster munitions in the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is consistent with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 21 of the convention. These are negotiations within the framework of an international humanitarian law treaty, which are aiming at establishing restrictions on a significant number of cluster munitions, which would have a notable humanitarian effect.
Lord Elton
My Lords, Article 21 actually requires us to promote the norms established by the Oslo treaty and the CCM. The norms in the CCW convention that we are now discussing are significantly lower and permit the use, for instance, of the M85 weapon, which formed a considerable part of the saturation bombing of the Lebanon by Israel in 2006, when 4 million sub-units were used. Can my noble friend not see that the United Nations kitemark on a convention of this sort, which permits the use of many sorts of these child-killing weapons, will lead the rest of the world to think that the use of these weapons is respectable? This is not promoting the norms that we have undertaken to promote.
Lord Howell of Guildford
A lot of what my noble friend says is very wise. I emphasise that our consistent aim has been to ensure that any protocol on cluster munitions which emerges from the CCW parties is complementary to and does not contradict the rights and obligations of state parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions. I see the concern of my noble friend. The Government are anxious to take account of the worries and views of noble Lords and of Parliament generally. I repeat that we will not sign up to anything that would undermine the gold standard, as it were, of the existing convention. I give my noble friend that reassurance. A lot will depend on the negotiations and how they come out. Our position will be determined by that, not by any undermining of the kind which the noble Lord fears.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, notwithstanding the changes that we agreed the other day, would the Minister spare me having to thank him for that Answer, which I am afraid increases concern rather than decreases it? Will he not recognise that there is a very strong body of opinion in this House and in the House of Commons, which was brought to the attention of the Minister responsible for disarmament the other day, about the negotiations in Geneva for a protocol whose sole purpose is to ban some antique cluster munitions that are not very relevant to today’s world and which, if it is agreed, will have the effect of legitimising the modern cluster munitions weapons, including those referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that were used to such disastrous effect in the Lebanon? Will he not recognise that these feelings are strong and well founded? Will he not agree that it would be completely wrong—politically, not just legally—for this country either to support or to subscribe to any convention that makes that distinction and has the effect of legitimising these appalling modern weapons?
Lord Howell of Guildford
The noble Lord made a number of points. The antique cluster weapons are of course often the nastiest, particularly if they are used, so banning them is no bad thing. As for the negotiation over the protocol, obviously we will take into account the points that the noble Lord has made. However, perhaps he should take into account the point that 85 to 90 per cent of all cluster weapons are with non-Oslo state parties and so are left out of the present commitment, to which we ourselves are totally committed. If his advice is that we should ignore that situation, that sounds to me like a direct attack on a humanitarian benefit that we might achieve. I wonder if he would not like to reconsider his position.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
My Lords, what is the mechanism for the adoption of the convention? Is it a majority vote by the Security Council? Do we have a veto?
Lord Howell of Guildford
We have already adopted the convention and it is a question of getting more countries to sign up to it. Alas, there are a number of important countries—the United States, Russia and China, for a start—that have not done so. That is the mechanism on the existing convention. If any protocol emerges from this, and that is a very large if—it depends on the force of our stance and our commitment not to sign anything that would undermine the convention—that would have to be approved by the United Nations and would have to receive signatories in the same way.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, will my noble friend give the House an assurance that, where competing international treaties or protocols are being negotiated, the United Kingdom will always strive, particularly in the context of arms sales, for the higher ethical standards in the spirit of our disarmament obligations that we have maintained for well over 60 years?
Lord Howell of Guildford
Clearly, we will give primacy to the gold standard, as I call it, of this convention. If it reassures my noble friend, I confess that we are disappointed with the progress of negotiations so far. We will continue to press the world’s major users and producers to give up more, be more transparent and be more explicit in their commitment to working towards a world free of cluster munitions, which is the aim of all of us.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, the point raised by the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Hannay, is that in the current approach there is a risk of legitimising the use of modern cluster weapons. Could the Minister respond to that point?
Lord Howell of Guildford
First, let me say that the previous Government made excellent progress on this. The noble Lord may remember that when I was sitting in his place we supported that, and some brave and bold decisions were taken that we were all very pleased with. The risk is there in the negotiation, but it is a risk that we are determined to avoid. We do not want to legitimise lower standards or undermine or dilute the Convention on Cluster Munitions in any way. That is the approach that we will use in our negotiations. I cannot go into our detailed stance because that would not be very helpful at this stage, but the noble Lord is right that there are risks in this matter, and we are determined to avoid them.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon
My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of us doubt that modern cluster weapons are less nasty than the antique ones? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will not in future sign up to any convention that permits the use of modern cluster weapons?
Lord Howell of Guildford
As I said, we will not sign up to any convention that in any way dilutes or undermines obligations. I made the observation on antique weapons merely because it is a minimalist better-than-nothing point that banning antique weapons would be a start. Obviously, we would like to see a total ban, but we have to face the fact that 85 to 90 per cent of cluster munition countries and manufacturers are left out of the present convention. We must battle on to better things, but we cannot achieve it all overnight.
Education: Qualifications
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what studies they have carried out on the trends in numbers of students studying for A-levels and other further education qualifications.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Hill of Oareford)
My Lords, my department publishes an annual study showing the number of 16 to 17 year-olds studying A and AS-levels and other qualifications. At the end of 2010, a record 600,000 16 to 17 year-olds were in full-time education studying A and AS-levels. A further 413,000 were in full-time education studying vocational qualifications. Record funding of over £7.5 billion is going into 16 to 19 funding this year and the Government are committed to raising the participation age to 17 from 2013, and to 18 from 2015.
Baroness Quin
Has the Minister seen the recent study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which seems to imply that education cuts are specifically affecting the 16 to 19 year-old sector? Does he agree that with the scrapping of the educational maintenance allowance, the cuts in education and the deterrent effect of tuition fees, against the background of rapidly rising youth unemployment, 16 to 19 year-olds are facing a very difficult situation? Action may be urgently needed across government to give this vital section of our population increased educational and work opportunities for the future.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I obviously agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, about the importance of extending educational opportunity for that age group. That is why we are committed to raising the participation age and why we have put record funding into the 16 to 19 year-old group generally. As we have debated before, we have prioritised, at a time when we have less money than we would like, funding for pre-16s. All the evidence shows that academic achievement up to the age of 16 is the strongest determinant of subsequent success, both educationally and in job terms. We have done that, but I agree with the noble Baroness that 16 to 19 year- olds are important and we are looking across government at our participation strategy to address some of the concerns that she fairly raises.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, what are the most recent trends, identified by the comparative European and international studies in which the UK participates, into how many students aged 16 and over are studying a modern foreign language?
Lord Hill of Oareford
Given that the noble Baroness is asking that question, I suspect that the answer may well be that other countries are doing more in terms of modern foreign languages than our own country. I share her concern: we want to redress the balance. As she knows, we are keen, through things like the English baccalaureate, to encourage take-up of modern foreign languages in our schools. In time, that should work its way up through the education system.
Baroness Walmsley
What can the Government do to help schools access the technology they need for e-learning and distance learning through which they can access the specialist teachers that they cannot employ in their own schools? That would help students to widen the range of subject areas that they could take at A-level. Obviously, modern foreign languages could be a case in point.
Lord Hill of Oareford
I agree with my noble friend about the importance of technology and the way that it opens up all sorts of opportunities that were not there before, perhaps particularly for children in rural areas. We need to look at that and make sure that its potential is fully realised.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn
My Lords, the noble Lord has given us a figure for A-levels. The Question goes on to ask about other, equivalent “further education qualifications”. Can he give us any idea of how many pupils are taking the international baccalaureate?
Lord Hill of Oareford
I do not have the precise figures but I will be happy to write to the noble Lord with them. I know of his interest in the subject; we have discussed this before. It is, as he knows, a relatively small number but I am glad to say that I think it is increasing slowly in the maintained sector as well as the independent sector. I will do my best to get up-to-date figures and write to the noble Lord with them.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, what work are the Government doing to monitor trends in the number of students who go on from A-levels or other pathways of learning to apply to university? In particular, what steps are they taking to monitor whether the changed funding arrangements are deterring numbers from lower socioeconomic groups from making such applications?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, we are developing destination measures, which should help us to get a better picture than we currently have of what happens to children after they leave school, whether they go into further or higher education or into jobs. It is important to know what the destinations are, so we are working on those measures, which will help us. As to monitoring the effect of some of the changes that we have had to make—for example, over the educational maintenance allowance, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin—we will keep it under review to see what impact it has.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the scrapping of the educational maintenance allowance is widely held to be a major culprit in the recent drop in the number of students attending FE colleges? Is he aware of the wide disquiet that exists about the operation of the replacement for the EMA, and will the Government consider reversing the decision if the number of students in FE colleges continues to drop?
Lord Hill of Oareford
My Lords, as I have said, we are keen to keep the effect of the changes that we have made under review. As the noble Baroness will know, we were driven to make those changes because the proportion of children in receipt of EMA—46 per cent of them—meant that it did not feel like a targeted approach. We wanted to target the money that we have more closely on those children who need it most, which is what lies behind the redirection and the creation of the new bursary fund. The noble Baroness referred to the impact on FE colleges. I know that a survey was carried out by the Association of Colleges to look into that. That survey, which looked at around half of all colleges, found that the number where enrolment had increased was the same as the number where it had decreased. The overall fall was only 0.1 per cent, which, given that there was a fall of 40,000 in the age cohort generally, does not feel like a significant change. However, we must keep it under review and we certainly will.
Legislation
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the volume of primary and secondary legislation being introduced in Parliament.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)
My Lords, like every Government before us, this Government intend to enact the legislative programme set out in the Queen’s Speech. The number of pages in primary legislation enacted so far in this Session is less than in other comparable Sessions.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that somewhat spare Answer. However, will the Government give serious consideration to the establishment of a commission of wise people, properly resourced, to look into the now profound and multi-faceted problem of increasing—and increasingly complex—legislation, which has dire effects in terms of citizen disaffection, bureaucracy and failed implementation?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend says, and he is right; legislation is more difficult and complicated, in large part because we live in a more difficult and complicated world. You just have to look at the growth in technology and the subsequent substantial increase in regulation and secondary legislation. There is more legislation from Europe; there are active judges and so forth. However, I wonder whether my noble friend’s solution is necessarily the right one. You could not get much more collective wisdom than is present in your Lordships’ House, where every piece of legislation is discussed and debated very thoroughly.
Lord Williamson of Horton
Does the noble Lord agree that this epidemic of legislative obesity has produced on average 3,165 pages of government Acts each year for the past three years, compared with 1,325 pages a year under the Attlee Government in 1945 to 1947, when really important legislation was being enacted? This extends to secondary legislation; in the last yearly statistics—we are right up to date—there were 10,662 pages of statutory instruments, of which admittedly 8.5 per cent were made under the European Communities Act but 95.1 per cent were our national legislative mountain. Does the Minister agree that is extremely difficult for ordinary citizens to comprehend what is being enacted in their name?
Lord Strathclyde
I am not going to quarrel with the noble Lord’s figures or, indeed, his conclusion; increasingly people have difficulty in catching up with the changes that are made regularly in legislation. Unless we get this right, there is a danger that at some time in our lives we will all become law-breakers solely out of ignorance. We keep these things under review and we wish to have legislation which is clear and simple and easy to understand. I know that this House will support our efforts.
Lord Haskel
The Leader of the House says there are fewer pages enacted. Is this because the legislation is poorly drafted and requires a lot of work by your Lordships?
Lord Strathclyde
No, my Lords, of course not. What is true, however, is that certainly in this Parliament there are more and more amendments being put down by your Lordships. Your Lordships are incredibly active in wishing to see changes or even putting down probing amendments, and that means that we have spent far longer on legislation than we have done in previous Sessions, particularly on Committees of the whole House. That is not necessarily a bad thing but it is also true that your Lordships need to have a little bit of self-denying ordinance so that we do more than just delay the programme of government.
Lord Howe of Aberavon
My Lords, my noble friend should not feel unduly exposed in this because the problem is of great antiquity. Does he know that Tacitus said in silver Rome that whereas formerly we suffered from crimes, today we suffer from laws. Dean Swift began trying to find a solution when he said that in Brobdingnag:
“No laws of that country must exceed in words the number of letters in their alphabet; but few of them extend even to that length. They are expressed in the most plain and simple terms, so that people are not mercurial enough to discover above one interpretation”.
In Brobdingnag, of course, to write a comment upon any law was a capital crime.
Seriously, does the noble Lord recall that under the guidance of Lord Hailsham, for example, and his predecessor, Reginald Manningham-Buller, within the Cabinet structure there was severe constant scrutiny of the very problem with which the House is now concerned? It does need to be taken seriously.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, only in this House could we go from Prime Minister Attlee’s Government to Tacitus, to Swift, and then to today’s Cabinet. My right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal, Sir George Young, and I—and others—yield to no one in our desire to try to make legislation shorter, clearer and better. It is not an easy task—and it is a serious task, as my noble and learned friend pointed out—but I also know that in this House there is a desire to achieve these aims.
Lord McNally
I think that it is the turn of the Cross Benches—the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar.
Baroness Prashar
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is desirable to have an automatic review of legislation after three to five years, to measure its effectiveness?
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, the previous Government instituted a process of post-legislative scrutiny that we have taken up, and it kicks in after three to five years, when the Government publish a memorandum. Increasingly in future Sessions of Parliament, we will see more work being done to measure the effectiveness of legislation that this Parliament has passed.
Environment: Cockle Beds
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their approach to tackling problems resulting from illegal fishing on the cockle beds of the Ribble estuary.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, the management of local fisheries, including cockling on the Ribble estuary, has been devolved to the North Western Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority and, as such, the conservation authority leads in managing the situation in co-operation with all interested parties, including enforcement agencies. In the light of recent events, North Western IFCA has closed the cockle fisheries for safety reasons. It is now a criminal offence to take or remove cockles in the Ribble, and the Government welcome and support this action.
Lord Greaves
My Lords, it is nearly 800 years since Magna Carta gave people the right to pick cockles from the shores of England. However, is it not now time that there was a better regime, in view of the chaos when the cockle beds were recently opened in the Ribble estuary near Lytham St Annes? Hundreds of people converged on the cockle beds, dozens had to be rescued and there was general chaos—and it was discovered that many people did not have permits. What will the Government do to help IFCA and other local agencies to protect the interests of the legitimate fishermen in that area who pick cockles so that they have a safe, reliable and environmentally sustainable business, which is being put at risk by what is going on?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
As my noble friend will know, the situation is that North Western IFCA took the decision, in the light of the safety requirements, to protect lives. The Morecambe fishery is closed; the Ribble estuary fishery has just been reopened; and the price of cockles, at £700 a tonne, has encouraged a lot of people who do not have permits to go cockling. However, IFCA recognises the effect that the by-law will have on legitimate fishermen and is urgently looking into possible management measures that it could introduce to ensure a safe fishery and to operate it as soon as possible. The Government support IFCA in this endeavour.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for raising this important issue. The House remembers the Morecambe Bay tragedy, which involved cockle picking. In the aftermath of that, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority was established, which has since made great progress in rooting out modern-day slavery and supporting a competitive industry. Can the Minister therefore reassure the House that the Government remain committed to a properly resourced Gangmasters Licensing Authority that will not be merged into a larger enforcement body?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
We are indeed entirely supportive of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which plays a very important role in preventing the exploitation of workers. In this instance, the authority has not been particularly involved—there is no evidence of gangs working the fishery—but I am pleased to give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is deep confusion in the north-west of England, in Cumbria and around Morecambe Bay, about the present situation? Although, rightly, most attention has been paid to the saving of human lives, the natural environment is very fragile. Can the Minister assure us that Defra is monitoring that situation to ensure that irreparable damage is not done to the cockle beds and to other related species?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the noble Lord has clear local knowledge of the area. He will know that the Morecambe cockle fisheries are closed in order to encourage restocking. The Government, Natural England and the IFCA itself are very conscious of the need to preserve a proper balanced ecology, and that is exactly the reason for the closure of the Morecambe cockle fishery.
Lord Storey
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is right to remind us of the tragedy in Morecambe Bay, where 23 Chinese workers lost their lives. Does the Minister agree that IFCA needs to be robust in checking permits, that wherever possible permits should be issued to local fishermen, because that is their livelihood, and that where there is illegal fishing we should again be robust in arresting those people?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I thank my noble friend Lord Storey, who also has local knowledge of the area. The principles he espouses are ones which I personally would endorse, but this is of course a matter for the local IFCA, as the issuing of permits is in the hands of the North Western IFCA.
Lord Campbell-Savours
What testing is organised by the Environment Agency to test for contamination of the cockle beds by sewage outfalls from south Cumbria and the Morecambe Bay area?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am not sure exactly what the procedures on that are, but I will certainly write to the noble Lord. Healthy food is obviously important, and shellfish infection can be very dangerous. The Government are mindful of that. I cannot tell the House the exact procedures at present, but I will write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
NHS: Hinchingbrooke Hospital
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what profit margin the contract between the Department of Health and Circle Health Ltd specifies for the running of Hinchingbrooke Hospital announced today.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, we do not know Circle's profit margin. I can, however, explain the basis on which Circle will be paid. Circle will effectively receive a success fee for bringing the trust into surplus and keeping it there. If Circle does not make the trust operate at a surplus, it will not receive any fee and it will lose money on the transaction. Circle will receive all surpluses up to the first £2 million of any year's surplus, and then a share of surpluses of more than £2 million to keep it incentivised to generate the further surpluses that the trust will retain.
Baroness Thornton
I thank the noble Earl for that comprehensive explanation of taxpayers’ money. The issues I want to address are ones of transparency in process and criteria. Will the Minister provide details—I do not expect them this morning—of the meetings and minutes of meetings between Ministers, civil servants and Circle Health Ltd, and meetings with Mark Simmonds, MP, who is a paid adviser to Circle and a former member of the Conservative Front Bench? How will the Department of Health know whether this is a good deal? I can see how we will know whether Circle has made a profit or not. What is the objective here? Will a clinical as well as a financial audit be built in, and will those results be made public? In other words, how will the taxpayer know whether this is a good deal?
Earl Howe
I will, of course, write to the noble Baroness with detailed answers to the first part of her question, which would take too long for me to answer now. I can say that this is a transfer of risk to the private sector. That is why it is a good deal. It is also a good deal in another sense, because patients will still have a hospital in Hinchingbrooke. This is a hospital that in common parlance could be described as a financial and clinical basket case. No NHS bidders were willing to take it on. When the previous Administration left office, only independent sector operators were in the frame to do so. We therefore knew at the last election that there would be an independent sector solution. I think that it is a win-win situation all round. It is good news for Hinchingbrooke patients, and I understand that under normal Freedom of Information Act rules the contract involved will be made available, subject to commercially confidential details being redacted.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, will the Minister please tell the House who was consulted in making this decision and what sort of support was found among the local community and hospital staff?
Earl Howe
My Lords, there was extensive consultation, but the important point for my noble friend to understand is that this was a locally led process. Ministers—and, for that matter, civil servants in the department—were not involved in the decision process. The decision was made by the strategic health authority board and the recommendation then came to Ministers. However, I can tell my noble friend that support for this decision has been very widespread, not least among the medical community in the area.
Lord Laming
My Lords, will this hospital continue to provide the same range of facilities as it does now? I understand that it does not provide A&E, for example, but will it be given the freedom to reduce the range of services in the future or will it have to carry on with the same services that it provides now?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as part of the franchise, Circle is committed to maintaining the current level of services, including accident and emergency and maternity services, as long as commissioners continue to purchase them for local patients—a commitment made following a consultation in 2007. Any proposals for a significant change to the services provided at the hospital will be subject to public consultation, as with any NHS hospital.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
My Lords, am I correct in deducing from what my noble friend has said that the choice was either no easy future for this hospital or the course that is now being adopted?
Earl Howe
My Lords, so serious were the problems of Hinchingbrooke, both clinically and financially, that frankly the alternative to a franchising solution might have been closure of the hospital. I think that Ministers in the previous Administration reached that conclusion. It is one of the largest accumulated deficits that we have ever seen in any hospital. The problems facing Hinchingbrooke are therefore very significant.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, given the number of trusts that are in financial difficulties, can the Minister indicate whether he anticipates any further moves of this kind? If so, what processes would the department wish to see in place to ensure both value for money for the taxpayer and the highest possible clinical standards after any such transfer of responsibility?
Earl Howe
My Lords, we do not envisage any other solution of this kind in any other trust. Of course, close monitoring will be necessary, and the contract with Circle is very clear in this instance—it has to perform according to the specification. As I said earlier, if it does not turn the hospital around, the financial risk up to £5 million of deficit, cumulatively, lies with it. I believe that this is extremely advantageous for the taxpayer. On the clinical side, of course the CQC will be extremely concerned to ensure that quality of care is not just turned round but significantly improved.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, can the Minister tell us how often Circle is reporting to the CQC on the clinical outcomes, given that there have been clinical problems at this hospital, how often it is reporting on the financial turnaround and to whom it is reporting?
Lord Avebury
My Lords, if it is this easy for a private company to make the necessary economies to put this hospital back on course without compromising patient care, as was claimed by the spokesman on the “Today” programme this morning, can the noble Lord say why—a question that was not answered on that programme—the NHS could not make those economies itself?
Earl Howe
The previous Government tried very hard to put an NHS solution in place. As I mentioned, by the time they left office no NHS provider was willing to step in and say that it was capable of turning Hinchingbrooke around—the problems were that serious. Given that situation, an independent sector solution was the only one on the table.
Lord Haskel
I do not want to sound like a penny-pinching accountant, but exactly how do you work out profit on a hospital? How do you work out a surplus? What about capital expenditure? What about depreciation? What about all these other things that are involved? Have all these things been worked out?
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
My Lords, the Minister referred to an accumulated deficit. What is that deficit at this point? Will the contract require the new providers to ensure that that accumulated deficit is, over the years, paid off, or is it to be written off at the point at which the new provider takes over?
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein
I understood the chief executive officer of Circle Health Ltd to say on television this morning that his organisation was a social enterprise on the Waitrose model. My understanding of Waitrose is that all employees are partners and that profits are either paid back to the partners or reinvested in the company. Is that the situation with Circle Health Ltd?
Business of the House
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the debate on the Motion in the name of Lord Elton set down for today shall be limited to 1½ hours and that in the name of Lord Selkirk of Douglas to 3½ hours.
Parliamentary Constituencies and Assembly Electoral Regions (Wales) (Amendment) Order 2011
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McNally
That the draft order and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.
Transparency
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Elton
That this House takes note of Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to transparency.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name. I have to point out to your receding Lordships that, had things been different on Tuesday, I would now be moving a Motion for Papers and nobody outside this Chamber would have had any idea what on earth I meant. Now, following acceptance of Proposal 8 of the Leader’s Group on working practices, I am simply drawing your Lordships’ attention to something, and the rest of the world can understand what we are doing. Your Lordships are therefore already taking part in a miniscule footnote to a small sub-paragraph of history: a micromove in the direction of transparency; a tiny part of a much larger tide. Incidentally, the very next day, the House agreed the proposal from the Privileges and Conduct Committee to amend the code so as to remind Members that its underlying purpose is to provide openness and accountability.
Openness and accountability are not the same, and neither on its own produces the other. In an admirable report to the Cabinet Office on privacy and transparency, Kieron O’Hara points out that the,
“transparency philosophy contains two separate and independent agendas”.
He calls them,
“the accountability agenda … and the information agenda”.
The first, the accountability agenda, is gradually providing the means by which formal internal systems of maintaining accountability are supplemented by informal external means. This means that, as well as Permanent Secretaries breathing down the necks of Deputy Secretaries, the public are increasingly looking over the shoulders of both. The language in both cases is strictly figurative.
The wealth of information now available to the public —by the “public”, I mean principally the electorate—makes them increasingly able to judge the performance not only of the government machine but of Ministers who are driving it. So the coalition Government’s early commitment to what I regard as a breathtaking acceleration in the move towards transparency and openness in government was courageous. It was consciously courageous. They said:
“The Government believes that we need to throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account”.
They claimed that, by so doing, they would also secure,
“significant economic benefits by enabling businesses and non-profit organisations to build innovative applications and websites”.
The economic benefits of this appear to be part of the second O’Hara agenda. I shall allow that to distract me from the intricate, fascinating and sometimes opaque subject of central government transparency to which I am sure my noble friend will do ample justice in her reply. Some of us were a bit doubtful whether what emerged from the mill of transparency would lend itself readily to the sort of process, or have the sort of effect, that the Government expected. Sceptics remained doubtful when, at the Centre for Public Scrutiny conference a year ago, my noble friend Lady Hanham said that,
“releasing the data in its rawest state”—
your Lordships should note “rawest state”—
“will enable businesses and non-profit organisations to build innovative applications and websites which will make the data easier to understand”.
Did not the Treasury have to hold seminars for financial journalists on how to understand and interpret COINS before and after the publication of those data? Government, it seemed, was to produce data much as a mill produces flour—it would be for others to turn it into bread and cake.
We waited—really not very long at all—and they did. What is more, they made them easier to use as well as easier to understand. To take a small example: the Department for Transport’s parking database was not citizen-friendly material when it was published, but, today, if you put Transport Direct into your web search engine, you can find the nearest car park wherever you are on this island. That is useful not just if you are a holidaymaker; it saves time and therefore money if you are a retailer trying to find somewhere where customers arriving by car can park and get to your shop and spend money there. The same website has brought in data from other sources, both public and private, with a view to making it a tool to plan every aspect of a journey by road or rail, by public or private transport.
That example is outside the accountability agenda, so let me turn to one that falls within it. I quote the Prime Minister, who wrote in the Telegraph on 7 July that,
“five years ago, it was made far easier for the public to access, understand and use data on survival rates following heart surgery. And guess what happened? Those survival rates rose dramatically”.
In that case, transparency easily outperformed formal internal systems of maintaining accountability. Death rates for some procedures fell by 20 per cent or more. That is a figure to remember. The NHS extended publication of outcomes as a result to more areas of surgery and, today, it estimates that we avoid 1,000 deaths every year by doing so and acting on it. Opening the professionals up to the public also opens them up to each other. In any trade or profession, this identifies best practice and spurs emulation. Spread across the medical disciplines alone, results such as this can bring enormous benefits not only to patients but to the Exchequer and, eventually, to our own pockets and purses. Spread across the whole spectrum, not just of central and local government activity but across amenable private enterprises as well, they may well achieve the savings and the growth, predicted at £90 billion by some, expected of them.
Transparency can be a double-edged weapon. The protection of confidentiality disappears as completely as a net curtain disappears when the light is turned on in the room behind it. However, confidentiality is often both desirable and necessary. The patient who wants to know why his operation went wrong and who would benefit enormously if the outcome of all similar operations could be aggregated and published on a database is the same patient who very much does not want his personal details to appear on a public website. There are difficulties here, not just in deciding where the border between confidentiality and transparency should lie, but in retaining the confidentiality of anything that it is decided should remain behind it. Data on huge numbers of those operations can be aggregated and anonymised, but anonymising processes can be reverse engineered, and techniques for this keep evolving, because there is a market for the sort of personal information that we wish to keep private. All data sets are subject to this potential risk. Getting it wrong could have pretty dreadful results. I would be grateful if my noble friend could tell us what response the Government are giving to the 14 recommendations of the O’Hara report on this subject—perhaps not individually, as it would take too long, but in general.
From Monday’s debate on Amendment 20 to the Health and Social Care Bill, the Minister will be aware of the anxiety in this House over the balance between benefit and risk when it comes to imposing, for instance, a duty of candour on hospitals. There are major transparency issues also in the Localism Bill, which is also before the House. The public should take comfort from the energy and thoroughness with which this House examines these changes before deciding whether or not to accept them, and in what form. Had there been fewer people getting up at Question Time, I would have drawn attention to that when we had the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, a few moments ago.
I spoke of the coalition’s early commitment to a breathtaking acceleration of this move to transparency. That was no exaggeration. In 2010, 2,500 government data sets were made available. This year, the number is already 7,500. That is a 200 per cent increase. I understand that this country now has more government data accessible to the public than any other country in the world except the United States of America, and they keep ahead of us only because they have a vast surface area and they count all the maps as data sets.
The move to transparency is an international phenomenon. A very important aspect, and one in which Great Britain has taken the lead, is the introduction to transparency in the giving of overseas aid—transparency not only at our end of the transaction, but at the recipient’s end as well. To get transparency at the recipient’s end is the present aim and is only just beginning. The International Aid Transparency Initiative —IATI—was launched in 2008 and started by establishing a common format of published accounting for aid programmes. In January this year we became the first country to publish DfID’s aid information entirely in this form. At the next meeting of IATI, in Busan at the end of this month, will Her Majesty’s Government be pressing other Governments to join the eight organisations now publishing in this format?
Next Tuesday, the first international aid transparency index will be published. We should be among the top three of the 58 donor countries included. We now want to establish the same procedures in recipient countries as we have here, a move which has been recommended by Transparency International among others. To that end, will the Government exert themselves to secure from the EU early legislation to make it mandatory for oil, gas and mining companies to publish in common form all payments they make to foreign Governments, disaggregated by project as well as country? Like Tearfund, I believe that there should also be a requirement to publish production volumes, pre-tax profits, employee numbers and labour costs. The people of countries from which immensely valuable commodities such as oil, copper, diamonds and so on are extracted by foreign or international corporations are often exceedingly poor. By these means we can, for the first time, bring to them the benefits that transparency is already beginning to bring us. When that happens, I will gladly seek once again to draw your Lordships’ attention to Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to transparency.
I have touched only the surface of the subject. I look forward to your Lordships contributions, especially that of the noble Lord, Lord Gold. I beg to move.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I would like to remind your Lordships that all Back-Bench contributions are limited to eight minutes and that when the clock shows eight minutes, time is up.
Lord Prescott
I welcome the contribution that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I will pursue the topic in a different way, but will take up his opening remarks on accountability. He wanted to look at how Ministers are driving such a policy and will judge them on that. I want to address my remarks to that point on transparency. We can all agree that basic legislation has been passed by all Governments to move in this direction. Indeed, my own Government, in which I was in the Cabinet, introduced the Freedom of Information Act, which was probably the most important piece of the legislation to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred. Alongside that, there are other factors, such as the register of interests and the register of lobbyists—all these things play an important part in transparency and accountability. There is general agreement on that.
The one difference between this Government and my own of course is that we were able to pass legislation; this Government have been in office only 18 months, so we have to give time to see their legislative framework. We know already that the commitment to the register of lobbyists has not yet come about, although there is some talk that they may introduce that. We will wait and see. In all these matters, I am particularly concerned whether those who are driving this policy in this Cabinet are actually doing what they believe. The Prime Minister has said he wants to see a revolution in transparency. Why did he find it so difficult to tell us how much taxpayers’ money he spent on a kitchen and bathroom? I do not deny him that, but it is about transparency over taxpayers’ money. When he has his regular meetings with the Murdoch operation—not a company known for transparency—a meal becomes a private meal and we are not entitled to know what was discussed. That seems to set some of the tone.
Looking at other members of the Cabinet who are leading and driving this policy, the Secretary of State for Education, Mr Gove, had to admit that he was using private e-mails to avoid having to report under freedom of information rules. He was a Cabinet Minister, avoiding saying what he was doing. The Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Fox, has now gone but he certainly was not showing a great deal of transparency in his actions in pursuing a separate foreign policy. The latest example is the big argument between the Home Secretary and a senior civil servant—three inquiries are under way but there is a great big argument about transparency. That indicates there is not a great deal of commitment to be open in the information being made available about the action of those Cabinet Ministers.
The one I want to address my attention to is Mr Pickles —the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He almost makes himself the champion of disclosure of information, but, as we know, quite recently he had a meal in the Savoy Hotel with Bell Pottinger and some other people involved with planning. He said, “Oh, I don’t have to declare that”—and he did not. He did not declare it in the register of interests, he fended off the Ministerial Code and he also declared in those cases that it was a private affair, as did the Prime Minister, Mr Cameron. We have found a new argument for non-disclosure—provided it is private, you do not have to disclose it. More important is what is discussed and said—that is what transparency is about. It undermines the credibility of those who say they believe in greater transparency. Bearing in mind that he makes this point about spending on a private meal, Mr Pickles has also gone out of his way to make clear that I was apparently spending money—something that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, also made a great deal of comment about—on a meal that I had in a casino in Australia. The Government at that time, in 2004, were looking at casinos as part of regeneration, and we insisted that we paid the bill. We used the government credit card. By the way, despite what the press implied, I have no credit card from the Government. I understood that Ministers did not have credit cards. It is the accountability officer who is in charge of those matters.
Nevertheless, a great deal of play was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, by Mr Shapps, the Housing Minister, and by Mr Pickles—all three of them party officials, either head of their party, vice-chairman or previous chairman. It seems to me that they are politically motivated people. Years ago I was accused of that and fought a Labour Government who claimed that I was politically motivated. I put my hand up; I was proud to be that. These three people should ask themselves whether they were not acting in a political way in making their statements about that matter. That is my concern, and I want to justify it by making this point.
All the headlines of the Tory press, working with the Tory Ministers, made the point that Prescott was gambling. I have never gambled in my life, except in politics; I have done a lot of that but I have not put money on things. The implication was that I was spending taxpayers’ money. That was a lie, untrue, although the words were carefully used. I could have taken action, but it was my department. It was as if I was handling my department’s expenditure card. My question is: what is the Government’s position on these expenditures? Currently it is not necessary to reveal information for sums below £500, only above £500. With the help of the Library, I have found that in recent announcements by the Cabinet Office and the Departments of Energy, of Health and of Justice, when asked whether they had a record of expenditures below £500, they all said, “No, because it is too expensive to find that kind of information”. Furthermore, they said that they cannot go as far back as 2007-08. Yet this department goes back to 2004 and 2006. If you consider every bit of expenditure, of course it is not too expensive.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, looked at that information, but it actually said that I spent that money in a restaurant. I admit that the department did spend money in the casino. However, if she is concerned about waste, as she often claims, why did she not investigate the figures to see that £2,000 was spent on that credit card for watches? Why the hell would anyone want to spend that sum buying four watches on a government credit card? Why did that not arise and cause concern? Apparently it did not. In those circumstances, why was it not investigated? The Government gave their own answer in July, saying that the evidence was that the cards were cloned. Why were they so eager to bring attention to me when they knew that the cards had been cloned? To me, that seems a pretty political operation. Given the evidence of cloning, why did they not carry out an investigation? Why did they not look into those circumstances? That is what concerns me. Other departments have said that they cannot go below £500, yet this department could go right back to 2004, with all the expense necessary to do it, and, when asked why it did not fully investigate, it said that it was too expensive. Then why did it go back to 2004? I will be answerable for whatever I have done, but it is the political motivation that worries me about these things.
It is quite right to look at expenditure and it is proper for Ministers and Members of Parliament to be accountable. However, if it is politically oriented, and if other departments are not following the same criteria as that department, and if they do not investigate the obvious problems, which they admitted probably came from cloned cards, please forgive me if I think it is political.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, will tell us whether she did investigate properly. I have asked the Cabinet Minister to do a proper investigation. Only if there is honesty can we have proper transparency. At the moment, it looks to be more politically motivated, and that is what concerns me. It has all the smell of hypocrisy. So let us be a bit more honest about it.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for securing this extremely important debate and I look forward with great interest to hearing my noble friend Lord Gold’s maiden speech.
Transparency and accountability are vital when companies are in receipt of public funding. The creative industries receive public funds in the form of grants: theatres, museums and art galleries receive funds from the Arts Council, and investment in films comes from the BFI. The commercial broadcasters obtain their revenue on the basis of lucrative licences awarded by Ofcom. Therefore, it is reasonable that the public should be entitled to expect these organisations to be accountable and transparent in all areas, including their equality and diversity policies, and to expect the funders and regulators to enforce this transparency on their behalf.
Unfortunately, they have fallen short on this. The Arts Council requires equality monitoring of the funding recipients but keeps the results secret, as does Ofcom of the companies which have been granted licences. Both merely publish sector-wide summaries. Before the BFI took over, the UK Film Council required equality monitoring of applicants for funding but did not require or collect data for productions when they went ahead. All that means that the public cannot find out what progress has been made in our creative industries regarding diversity and equality.
All major political parties recognise that the influence of broadcasting on society is so great that it should have higher standards with regard to equality and transparency, and be held to greater account. There is separate legislation covering the BBC and all parties in government have ensured that the BBC continues to have a strong equality and diversity remit. Previous Governments also ensured that the same practice applied to commercial broadcasting. The Broadcasting Act 1990, which established the Independent Television Commission to regulate commercial terrestrial television, includes Clause 38 which states:
“Any Channel 3 licence or licence to provide Channel 4 or Channel 5 shall include conditions requiring the licence holder … to make arrangements for promoting, in relation to employment … equality of opportunity between men and women and … persons of different racial groups”.
This clause was expanded to include disability in the subsequent Broadcasting Act 1996.
The ITC included in every licence a contractual obligation to carry out equality monitoring of staff and management, and this data was published annually. The public was able to see how well the licence holders were reflecting the diversity of the audiences they served and allowed those broadcasters who were making good progress to be congratulated.
The Communications Act 2003 extended this clause across cable, satellite and radio, and provided transparency and accountability on equality and diversity across commercial broadcasting. But in 2005, Ofcom, the successor to the ITC, decided that it would no longer enforce this clause. It chose instead to encourage “a climate of compliance” and concluded that allowing the public to see the licence holders’ equality monitoring data might discourage broadcasters from sending it in. This move clearly set back diversity and equality in commercial broadcasting. The 2009 report on equal opportunities published by Ofcom showed that the employment of women and people from culturally diverse backgrounds fell and that 16 companies had no information on whether any of their workforces had a disability.
There have been suggestions that the Equality Act 2010 on its own is sufficient to cover the broadcasters and that Ofcom should have no role with regard to promoting equality among the licence holders it regulates. But the Equality Act places no greater responsibilities on broadcasters than any other industry in the private sector and will not ensure the level of transparency that is absolutely essential in our extremely influential broadcasting sector.
The coalition Government have made clear that equality in employment is a priority. They have said:
“We need concerted government action to tear down these barriers and … build a fairer society”.
It also set out several clear commitments to transparency, such as:
“We will create a new ‘right to data’ so that government-held datasets can be requested and used by the public, and then published on a regular basis”.
The Secretary of State, Jeremy Hunt, has made statements in favour of transparency and accountability for what is spent on behalf of taxpayers.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron, said:
“For too long those in power made decisions behind closed doors, released information behind a veil of jargon and denied people the power to hold them to account. This coalition is driving a wrecking ball through that culture—and it’s called transparency”.
The Government’s commitment to equality and transparency should mean that all public bodies, including regulatory bodies, should be doing all that they can to promote equality and diversity, rather than taking the view that it is not their responsibility.
I believe a simple amendment to Section 27 of the Communications Act, to clarify what steps the regulator should take to promote equality of opportunity in employment by those providing broadcasting services, would demonstrate how well the mainstream media is succeeding in reflecting diversity and equality. For several years, the broadcasters have sent this data in for each qualifying licence, so this is not an additional proposal. This approach costs virtually nothing and will permit the greater accountability and transparency that has been lacking for the last six years. I urge the Government to take note of this suggestion. It will send a positive signal to young people from diverse cultures, who often feel excluded, that the coalition Government understand the additional pressures that they face, and are determined to insure that their voices are heard in the public sphere.
I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the Government will ensure that organisations which receive public funding, or are in receipt of licences, are made to publish data fully demonstrating their commitment to transparency and accountability in the areas of equality and diversity.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield
My Lords, I add my welcome for this morning’s debate, which is on a theme of daily importance to the relationship between the state and the citizen. I, too, keenly look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gold. I shall concentrate on a specific, though crucial, element of the question before us: access to public records—the paper exhaust trail left by successive Governments. I shall focus in particular on those contents of the state’s archives deemed too sensitive to be released until at least 30 years have elapsed since pens were put to paper, minutes taken, memoranda composed and the typewriters, in those days past, rattled into action.
I must first declare an interest, as president of the Friends of the National Archives and professor of contemporary British history at Queen Mary, University of London.
A key aspect of the coalition’s transparency agenda that deserves an unqualified welcome and the hosannas of a grateful historical profession is the announcement, on 7 January 2011 by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that from January 2013 a 20-year rule for record release will replace the old 30-year rule created by the Public Records Act 1967 and brought into force in January 1972. The plan is that each year, starting January 2013, two years’ worth of archive will be opened at Kew until the 10-year gap between the old and the new rules has been closed. I am confident that this fresh documentary flow will fructify quickly in the form first of undergraduate, masters’ and PhD theses, and then in a fascinating new wave of well sourced books of contemporary British history which will swell through the bookshops.
Why am I so confident? Because this is exactly what has happened over the 19 years since the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, then Minister for Open Government in the Cabinet Office, announced what contemporary British historians came to call the Waldegrave initiative. The noble Lord instructed departmental record offices across Whitehall to re-review those files of interest to scholars which had been held back longer than the 30-year norm to see if they could now be released. The staff of the Whitehall records community and the National Archives rose magnificently to the task. When counting the yield finished in 1998, 96,000 files had been re-reviewed and declassified. I am sure that the total now must be double that.
The Waldegrave product amounted to a new currency with which historians could trade. Much of it embraced once ultra-sensitive Cold War material dealing with nuclear weapons policies, programmes and release procedures, civil and home defence, intelligence and security and transition-to-war planning. To open the World War III war books that had been declassified was to peer into Armageddon.
A stream of richly documented theses and well sourced books has resulted from the Waldegrave initiative. Of course, the documents by themselves are not enough—they never are. Whatever the policy area that gave them birth, their contents must always be blended with the personalities and backgrounds of those who wrote and read them, and the context of the times in which those readers and writers lived and breathed. The files must be revisited, too, with a sympathetic awareness of the hopes that lit the minds of their creators and the fears that darkened them. The historian must always avoid what Edward Thompson once called the “enormous condescension of posterity”. One goes back to the archives to understand the minds behind those memoranda, not to sneer at them.
The old files are an indispensible part of national transparency—our theme this morning. They are a very special phenomenon, a kind of frozen history. The scholar needs to apply a touch of the cryogenicist’s craft to them: you warm up the cold papers a little bit until their limbs begin to twitch; the files then start to breathe a bit—then you can begin to talk to them, ask them questions, bring them to life for yourself and your readers.
The time may well have come, as Whitehall cranks itself up to implement the new 20-year rule, to set in train what might be called “Waldegrave II”—to set in motion another trawl for files, which it was felt in the 1990s were too hot to be released, to see if they can now be transferred to the National Archives for public inspection. If the Government in these times of fiscal constraint were to mount such an initiative, building on the great success story associated with the name of the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave of North Hill, it would not only receive another loud hosanna of gratitude from the historical community but add lustre to the coalition’s transparency policy.
Still more might that policy be burnished if the Government accepted the Pilling report on official histories, which urged that new histories should be commissioned when funds allow, and the associated Hamilton report on the better marketing of official histories, once that is produced.
Catch-up history is a retrospective form of delayed freedom of information. A confident democracy such as ours should uncover its state paper trail as fully and swiftly as it can, warts and all. Such good practice is an antidote to conspiracy theory and the hijacking of our recent past for the purposes of crude political partisanship. The pursuit of such a policy of transparency is one of those rare activities that result in unalloyed benefit to scholars, the reading public and the quality and integrity of the state that enables it to happen.
Lord Gold
My Lords, I begin by thanking your Lordships for the warm and generous welcome that I have received since entering the House in February. I would particularly like to thank all the officers and staff here who have assisted me greatly, not least by helping me to find my way around. As I regularly get lost, I fear that their help will be required for some time yet. I also wish to thank my supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, for their guidance on the day of my admission.
Following my admission, I decided that before making my maiden speech I would fully familiarise myself with the work of the House and perhaps pick up some debating tips from noble and experienced Members. That was my first mistake. That is not to say I did not receive tips—I received many. But as I sat listening to debates, I realised what a task lay ahead of me. The quality of debate, the thoroughness of preparation, the skill of delivery, the humour from many noble Members—the passion, as we have seen from the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, this morning—all made me reflect upon my own skills, or lack of them, in this area. My second mistake was not to realise that the longer I delayed, the greater would be my trepidation at the thought of speaking here for the very first time.
My first appearance in this Chamber was not in February this year. In fact, twice before, I appeared as solicitor to counsel who, wearing a long-tailed wig, silk stockings and buckled shoes, addressed the Law Lords from the Bar of the House, trying not to be distracted by Members of your Lordships' House who just wandered in from time to time to see what was going on. It never crossed my mind then that one day I would have the great privilege and honour to be permitted to cross the Bar and take my seat here.
I was not the first member of my old law firm, Herbert Smith, to be made a Peer. In fact there are now three former partners and one former articled clerk in the House. My noble friend Lord Hart of Chilton sits on the Benches opposite. My noble and learned friend Lord Collins of Mapesbury, will take his seat on the Cross Benches when he returns from the Supreme Court, and my noble friend Lady Shackleton of Belgravia—she is the former articled clerk and she has done quite well since leaving Herbert Smith—sits with me on this side of the House.
The firm has not yet managed to recruit anyone to the Liberal Democrat Benches or, indeed, to the Bishops' ranks, although for some reason there was a steady flow of solicitors who, perhaps having seen the error of their ways, left the law to become clergymen, so perhaps there is still a chance.
On 31 August last year, as part of its plea bargain with the US Department of Justice, I was appointed for three years as corporate monitor of BAE Systems plc to ensure that the company was operating in a compliant and lawful way. In taking up this role I followed in the footsteps of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who had been appointed to undertake an inquiry into the way in which the company conducted its business. The noble and learned Lord made 23 recommendations for improvement and change and I have been monitoring the company's progress in advancing these recommendations. I am pleased to say that, with just a few minor exceptions, where work continues all recommendations are now in place.
I mention this work not just to inform but more particularly because it has brought very much into focus the importance of transparency when conducting business, particularly international business, both as to the manner in which that business is conducted and in relation to a company's dealings with its customers. Competition is fierce and, regrettably, sometimes our British businessmen find themselves competing against others, operating to a different code of conduct, who seek to gain market advantage by unfair means and are sometimes assisted in that through a lack of transparency in the way in which other countries operate.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has stated that this Government are committed to extending transparency to every part of public life. If I may respectfully say so, that is a commendable, if somewhat ambitious, objective. In his letter dated 7 July this year, the Prime Minister wrote:
“We recognise that transparency and open data can be a powerful tool to help reform public services, foster innovation and empower citizens. We also understand that transparency can be a significant driver of economic activity … with open data increasingly enabling the creation of valuable new services and applications”.
I fully agree with that view. Greater transparency results in Governments being more accountable. If we know how money is spent, we are better able to improve controls on spending and reduce costs. More particularly, companies will have a better opportunity to compete if they have access to public sector contract and procurement data that enable them to make informed decisions.
While there remains a considerable way to go before this society is truly transparent, this aspiration is one by which we here in the United Kingdom can provide a lead to the way in which other countries should operate.
With the passing of the Bribery Act 2010 this country is already leading the way in setting a benchmark for honest trading and dealing and, pleasingly, some countries appear to be emulating our example. I know from my work with BAE Systems that there are many international customers who have truly welcomed this approach to open and honest business. Many countries are raising their standards and demonstrating that they will award contracts to the business that truly deserves to win on merit, not as a reward for bribes or other improper behaviour.
I regret to say that there are some who feel that the Bribery Act goes too far and that for British industry to compete internationally it must be permitted to bend the rules a little, as allegedly happens elsewhere. Nevertheless, I hope and believe that this negative view will be proved wrong. If international companies stand firm against corruption, there will be progress even in those countries where corruption is thought to be rife.
So, just as the Prime Minister sets out what he and the Government want to achieve here, I respectfully suggest that we should be seeking to encourage our international friends to follow our lead and embrace transparency in the way in which they conduct public life. In this country we have many innovative and ambitious businesses ready to compete internationally and able to take advantage of such a change of attitude. Working together, major companies and this Government can achieve a great deal in this area. We should aim to create a new international code of conduct for trade that encourages transparency and outlaws corruption. The assistance that this will provide to British industry and businesses seeking to undertake international trade will be substantial.
Lord Wills
My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gold, in his maiden speech. He comes to this House with a most distinguished career in the law and his speech today demonstrated to all noble Lords what an asset he will be to our debates. I understand that when he stepped down as senior partner at Herbert Smith, the law firm that he mentioned, a note was circulated to staff saying that,
“he has brought his own special type of magic to everything he has done since he walked through the doors of Herbert Smith”.
I am sure that all noble Lords who have heard his speech today will be looking forward to seeing more of that magic in this House.
I join previous speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on securing this debate on such an important issue. Transparency is crucial in the securing the accountability that is fundamental for the health of a democracy. I also congratulate the noble Lord on what to my ears sounded like a most cogent case for transparency. I declare my interest as a member of the advisory council of Transparency International UK.
I start my substantive remarks by congratulating the Government and the responsible Minister, Mr Francis Maude, on their commitment to transparency through the open data programme. That was started by the previous Government, and was a particular project of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. I am sorry that in an otherwise compelling speech the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did not acknowledge that fact. On this point, I was also sorry that such a distinguished historian as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, in congratulating the Government on bringing in the 20-year rule, somehow omitted to mention that that rule was legislated for by the previous Government. Airbrushing history in this way is the opposite of transparency.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield
My Lords, I take the noble Lord’s stricture on the chin. He is absolutely right, it was an omission, but it was inadvertence rather than malice.
Lord Wills
I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting the historical record straight.
I congratulate the Government on the way in which they have taken on the open data programme with real determination and vigour. I was going to rehearse some of the merits of it but the noble Lord, Lord Elton, did it far better than I could. This promises significant immediate constitutional benefits in transferring power to citizens and less immediate but potential longer-term benefits in improving value for money in delivering public services through greater engagement of users. It will also encourage innovative developments by not-for-profit organisations and businesses. Again, the noble Lord set out just how quickly people can take advantage of all the opportunities opened up by this programme. Confidence in the ability of the programme to deliver results must be increased by the setting up of the Public Sector Transparency Board and its distinguished and experienced membership, some of whom I had the privilege of working with when I was a Minister with an interest in this area in the previous Government.
While the Government should be given credit for their achievements in this area, elsewhere their commitment to transparency is not quite so clear. We have already heard from my noble friend Lord Prescott on one aspect of this, but I want to focus on the Freedom of Information Act. When I raised this issue in your Lordships’ House, the responsible Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, responded to my criticism by accusing me of rewriting history because:
“There has been an absolute tsunami of transparency. My right honourable friend Francis Maude has been frightening the life out of Whitehall and his ministerial colleagues by the way he has been forcing through transparency”.—[Official Report, 10/10/11; col. 1455.]
That is perhaps not the most fortunate choice of image for those of us who believe in the benefits of transparency but, more importantly, his response wrongly conflates the work on open data and on freedom of information. They are not the same. There is one critical distinction between them: the open data initiative, for all its considerable merits, is a top-down programme. The Government decide what data sets to release. In contrast, the Freedom of Information Act allows the citizen to decide what information they want to have, and then there is an established process that decides what should be released and what withheld.
Those are twin approaches to securing greater transparency and they ought to be complementary. However, there is an asymmetry in the Government's approach, with enthusiastic progress being made on open data while freedom of information has more or less stood still so far—in fact, in some key areas it is actually going backwards. We are a year and a half into the lifetime of this Government and so far they have done virtually nothing to extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act beyond the actions already set in train by the previous Government.
I have been criticising the Government about this for many months so, after all these criticisms, I was delighted to see just this week that an exchange in the other place suggested that the Government are at last consulting on extending the Freedom of Information Act to other organisations. I hope that those consultations will be followed by action in the near future, and another 18 months or so will not be allowed to pass before anything happens.
On its own this lack of progress to date would be disappointing, but what is worse is that two landmark Bills brought forward by this Government, both referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, actively restrict the scope of the right of the citizen to secure information under the Freedom of Information Act. The Localism Bill envisages that a growing proportion of local authorities' functions will be carried out for them by other bodies under contract. As it stands, that will significantly weaken the right of the citizen to make freedom of information requests about those functions. I tried to help the Government to remedy what I hoped was an unintended consequence of their legislation by submitting amendments both in Committee and on Report, but all were rejected out of hand. As a result, far from increasing transparency as the coalition agreement promised, the Localism Bill decreases it.
That is not all. Under the Health and Social Care Bill, NHS work will be performed in future either by NHS bodies or by independent providers. Although the independent providers will not be directly subject to the Freedom of Information Act, they will be subject to a contractual obligation to co-operate with the commissioning bodies in answering freedom of information requests. So far, so good. However, the disclosure clause applies to information held on the commissioning body’s behalf,
“for the purposes of this Agreement”,
and the standard NHS contract goes nowhere near covering the full range of information currently available under the Freedom of Information Act from public authorities. It appears, for example, that any request for the provider’s correspondence with suppliers whose products have proved to be substandard are likely to be met with the response that this is held for the provider’s purposes, not the commissioning body’s, and therefore is not subject to disclosure.
It gets still worse. The shredding offence in Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act applies when an authority or a member of the authority’s staff deliberately destroys, amends or conceals a record after it has been requested in order to prevent its disclosure, but if a contractor shreds a record in order to avoid having to pass it on to the commissioning body to answer an FOI request, the contractor commits no offence. Again, if a public authority claims that it does not hold requested information, the Information Commissioner can investigate whether this claim is true; but if a contractor claims that it does not hold particular information, there is no mechanism for validating that claim. The contractor would not be subject to the commissioner’s jurisdiction. In fairness to the Government, they have not ruled out addressing these issues; they have simply pushed them into the long grass, beyond post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act, and there is no guarantee at all that even then they will take action.
In the mean time, which may stretch on for years, citizens will be denied access to information that they currently have about areas of potentially great concern to them, covering all the range of local authority services and what could turn out to be matters of life and death in the NHS.
In conclusion, the report card on this Government’s commitment to transparency and information is mixed. Where they remain in control of the data released to the people they serve, the commitment should be applauded. However, where the citizen is more in control, then this Government have been pedalling backwards in crucial areas. Sadly and regrettably, this tarnishes their record.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Elton for moving this Motion. As he has said, the Government are committed to open government and transparency. The Prime Minister has set out a series of transparency commitments to be delivered within our key public services, including health, education, criminal justice, transport and government financial information. The open data consultation closed on 27 October and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something of the responses received and of the White Paper which will follow.
My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the report on privacy and transparency produced for the Cabinet Office by Kieron O'Hara. He stated that privacy is extremely important to transparency, but that they are compatible only as long as the former is carefully protected and considered at every stage. He came up with 14 recommendations, but there are still questions that I pose to the Minister. When does public interest outweigh privacy? Who makes these decisions? What happens when data held are out of date or incorrect? How will this be rectified?
Here in the House of Lords we have, through Written Questions, Oral Questions, debates and our Select Committees, opportunities to hold the Government to account. If we feel that the explanations given are inadequate, we can rephrase the question. Sometimes, however, the answer will be that the information requested is not held centrally or could only be answered at a disproportionate cost. Again, who decides? I hope that this Government's programme for transparency will ensure that this type of response will not be overused.
Personally, I have grave reservations about the way we use computer systems to achieve our goals and particularly the way in which we cede supremacy to them. I give an example: Defra's single farm payment system has been a nightmare since inception. For many farmers and parliamentarians, transparency in dealing with the Rural Payments Agency has been totally absent. Farmers have been heavily penalised for simple, explicable errors in their returns, while the computer systems have proved incompatible, partial or downright wrong. More than once, I and others have had to refer fairly simple solutions to these problems right to the top. Similar problems exist in other departments, and news items over the past 10 days or so have referred to both HMRC and the MoD, for example.
I ask the Minister what operating guidelines are given to government departments and to other arm’s-length bodies to make their work more transparent. Does she feel the present guidelines are adequate and if not, when will the situation be rectified? Clearly there will be other sections of Government where restrictions must remain. I think of our security services and the work of the police force, which could be compromised if unsuitable material came into the public domain. However, this does not mean that nothing needs to be improved. There are aspects which could be made better. The way in which CRB checks are applied needs to be carefully reviewed to ensure that those cleared for working with young children and older members of our community are not thereby freed from all normal scrutiny.
Although nobody else has mentioned it, I cannot be alone in wondering whether we have moved too far in the use of tick-box forms to replace observations and questioning of behaviour. It is very hard to obtain a sensible response when computer data indicate that all is well. Even when examination of those data confirms that there is a problem, it seems to be more normal to tweak the system than retrain or replace the person responsible. Will the Minister confirm that transparency will not remove the normal sanctions for inefficiency?
It is crucial that greater transparency works everywhere as it has already done successfully in some areas. My noble friend Lord Elton referred to the help and development that has come from sharing information in the medical system. Perhaps I, more than most, have reason to be grateful for all those who helped me. It is just a year ago since I had a triple heart bypass. Six years ago, British heart surgeons decided to publish data on how successfully they treated patients. They compared their results and methods to increase the quality and effectiveness of their work. Survival rates have improved by as much as 50 per cent. Sharing of expertise has brought huge benefits.
If greater transparency improves outcomes and helps people to find the right doctor, the right school for their children or benefits them in their daily life, it surely must be welcomed. Open data should bring greater choice. They must hold public service to account and, as we heard earlier, could help to stimulate innovation and enterprise through the sharing of knowledge. However, they could also be irrelevant, out of date, inaccurate, intrusive and an opportunity missed. I hope that this will prove not to be the case.
Might I also make a plea for those who live in rural areas? For all of us who live in urban areas, access to computers and information is readily available, but I remind the House again that there are huge swathes of this country where that access is just impossible at this stage. I hope the Minister will pass this plea on to other colleagues within those departments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for opening this debate. I echo his comments about the modest contribution that your Lordships’ House can make to this. I also refer him to the decision in the last Parliament in the other place to establish Public Bill Committee procedures for legislation. The open evidence sessions that take place before a Bill is considered in Committee and gone through amendment by amendment is a welcome introduction.
I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Gold, to your Lordships’ House. He made an excellent maiden speech and his point about transparency in international business affairs was important. It echoed the point of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about transparency in international aid. By definition, more transparency in international affairs will lead to better governance and perhaps more democratic processes. There are some signs of that. Perhaps in what has come to be known as the Middle East spring, there is an indication that greater transparency can have a beneficial effect.
The previous Government, of which I was a member, committed themselves to transparency and like my noble friend Lord Prescott I am proud of the freedom of information legislation. As far as transparency and good governance are concerned, the House of Commons Committee report of 2008-09 on good governance made the point that transparency is a vital prerequisite for any stem of ethical regulation and is the best way of ensuring that office holders have the broader public interest in mind when they spend public money or perform other public duties.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to transparency. However, it is one thing to say that you are committed to transparency; the question is, do you actually do transparency? I have to say that this is open to question. For example, in the case of the Public Bodies Act, which has closed down many public bodies and brought functions back into central departments, transparency is being lost. We are moving from public bodies with open board meetings, where a lot of information comes into the public domain, back into government departments. Transparency will be lost. Nowhere is this more evident than in the ludicrous proposal to abolish the Youth Justice Board. The idea that the protection of young people in our prisons is best done by officials, rather than by a board that brought focus, accountability and transparency, is to be very much regretted.
I was very interested in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, relating to diversity and equality in the Arts Council and Ofcom. She asked the Government whether they would agree to an amendment to the Communications Act. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, will be able to be positive on that point. I also hope that she will accept the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, to establish a new project—the second Waldegrave project or the first Warsi project. It seems well worth having a further trawl through the papers that were not released under the 30-year rule. I am glad that the noble Lord acknowledged the previous Government’s efforts in relation to the 20-year rule. I reckon that means that the ministerial office of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was covered by the 30-year rule but this means a speed-up. I am sure he will be delighted that all his actions will come into the public domain very soon.
My noble friend Lord Wills made a very important point on the Freedom of Information Act. The Government have been slow to make further progress with FoI legislation. We are now told that there is a consultation. I should like the noble Baroness to say when she expects improvements and reforms to be made. I hope we will not go into a two or three-year consultation period before any change is made. I hope the Minister will answer my noble friend on the issue to do with the Localism Act and awarding contracts to other bodies. If we are moving to a situation in which, essentially, local authorities become enabling authorities but cease to run many services themselves, it is essential that the bodies to which they contract are fully covered by FoI legislation.
It is the same in relation to the Health and Social Care Bill. I will come to the decision announced today about Hinchingbrooke. It is clear that we are moving into a situation where many more private sector providers will be providing services to the NHS in the future. It is also clear, as my noble friend said, that the current Bill does not allow much information about that to come into the public domain. I am sure that my noble friend will table an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill; I certainly hope so. It is not good enough to say that we will simply wait to see how the legislation pans out. By the way, I can tell the Government that I know how the legislation will pan out: it will not pan out very well for the NHS or its patients.
On the NHS, I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the outcome information that came from the initiative taken by heart surgeons, led by Sir Bruce Keogh, who is now medical director at the Department of Health. There is no doubt that it had a hugely positive impact in improving the outcome of coronary care services. What concerns me about that is how few other specialists in the health service have followed that example. We need to ask some of the other specialties why they have not followed the example of their cardiac colleagues.
I welcome the Government’s intention to institute a duty of candour on the NHS. I am the chair of an NHS foundation trust that has just opened its board meetings to the public. It is invigorating and means that real issues about staffing and quality are out there. I welcome that; it leads to a much improved relationship with our public and, incidentally, our staff. However, I come back to the issue raised today by my noble friend Lady Thornton. Why did the noble Earl, Lord Howe, not answer her Question about contact between ministerial circles and the company involved in the Hinchingbrooke contract? It was a straight question. If this Government were really transparent we would get an answer.
My noble friend Lord Prescott mentioned the personal e-mail addresses used by Mr Gove, the Education Secretary, and his staff, bypassing FoI rules. What about Dr Fox and the grey area over ministerial meetings with lobbyists? What about the delay in setting up a register of lobbyists? Clearly, my noble friend Lord Prescott has identified this problem of a redefinition of private activities by Ministers to get around the rules. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to respond to the points that my noble friend put to her.
In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for securing this debate, I do not know whether he is happy with how it has turned out. It has certainly been very interesting. We welcome the Government’s commitment to transparency. However, I fear that their message to other parts of the public sector is, essentially, “You be transparent but we as Ministers will exclude quite a lot of our activities from the public domain”. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to respond to that.
Baroness Warsi
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Elton for tabling this debate, which has proved to be wide-ranging. I also thank the other noble Lords who have made contributions today, raising important points, challenges and even kind plaudits. This is a timely debate because we are at an important milestone in our journey towards transparency and open data. I will briefly remind noble Lords of the background to this agenda and then give a quick round-up of progress to date. I will then deal with some of the specific points raised in the debate and cast a forward look towards the Government’s ambitions for transparency, which will be set out in a White Paper to be published in the spring.
In opposition we developed plans for a more open way of doing government. We envisaged a time when people knew that they could easily and quickly find out: which parts of government and which initiatives cost what, whether on a regional or national basis; who in government, whether a civil servant or a special adviser, did what and what they were being paid; which government contracts were coming up, and so on. We had a vision that people could choose public service provision using the same customer feedback techniques that so many of us are now used to when, for example, researching hotel options or flights on TripAdvisor, or shopping on Amazon.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave the example of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery, which reported that mortality in coronary surgery had fallen by a fifth over five years. The professional body attributed this result to the public reporting of outcomes. We are not just talking about cost accountability; we are talking about data that save lives through the spread and adoption of best practice. As I said, it is a journey. Open data are the means and open government is the end.
Since the election we have ensured that we progress on this journey at great speed. In May of last year, just two weeks into the coalition Government, the Prime Minister sent a letter to all Secretaries of State, setting out the Government’s specific commitments on transparency. Much of the data that we released initially were about Whitehall, Westminster, people and money. However, important though this is, the example of cardio surgery shows vividly that there is more to open data and transparency than accountability. Following the success of the previous year’s data releases, on 7 July 2011 the Prime Minister publicly set out a second series of further open data commitments, targeting key public services, including health, education, criminal justice, transport and more detailed government financial information.
Today we have an astonishing amount of data on data.gov.uk, with over 7,500 data sets, more than any other comparable transparency service in the world. Much of this is big, complex and not necessarily accessible to the public. In many cases it is used by the professionals, whether that is the surgeons I described earlier or local authority commissioners, NHS managers, school authorities or welfare services.
We are also seeing data being repackaged and released for citizens to use. For example, FixMyStreet helps users to find the right telephone number or form to report local problems, ranging from dog fouling to broken street lights to pot holes. Since its launch, FixMyStreet has received more than 90,000 citizen reports. The website police.uk allows users to use offences reported in their locality by entering a street name or a postcode. It includes a range of offences such as theft, shoplifting and criminal damage and has received more than 430 million hits since its launch. By May of next year this website will show what has happened after a crime has been reported to the police and you will be able to track that crime’s progress through the courts.
We can also use public data to build economic value, stimulating innovation and enterprise in the UK’s knowledge economy. A growing market place has already sprung up in the health sector as a result of open data and transparency. Companies such as Dr Foster and CHKS are at the front of this growing industry with an estimated total value of around £50 million per annum. Estimates of the total potential growth contribution of open data-based markets vary from about £16 billion per annum to about £90 billion per annum.
The Chancellor’s and Business Secretary’s growth review on 29 November will contain a series of commitments to liberate new data to support enterprise and growth in sectors as diverse as life sciences and digital technologies. In addition, a public data corporation will bring together data from government bodies such as HM Land Registry, the Met Office and Ordnance Survey into one organisation, providing easily accessible public information as well as driving further efficiency in the delivery of public services.
I will now respond to some of the specific issues raised by noble Lords in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised the issue of the recommendations of the O’Hara report and the outcome of the open data and public data corporation consultations. These issues are being seriously considered and are broadly welcomed by the Government. We are positive about the specific recommendations and we will respond in a White Paper, which is due to be published in spring.
In relation to international aid, the Government believe that greater aid transparency is essential to efforts to improve results from development to co- operation worldwide. The Secretary of State will be seeking agreement by donors to implement the aid information standard developed under the UK-led International Aid Transparency Initiative.
A question was raised in relation to EU-level action to improve transparency in the extractive sector to match the standards being set in the UK. The Government are supportive of that.
My noble friend Lady Benjamin raised an extremely valid point. It is amazing to see how shining a light on the decisions that people make can have a positive impact on behaviour, including behaviour around the employment and engagement of people from diverse backgrounds. I will write to her in relation to the specific amendment that she proposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, raised yet more benefits of a drive towards transparency and data release. I will ensure that his comments are seriously considered.
I welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Gold and congratulate him on a both humorous and thought-provoking maiden speech. His work for the Conservative Party is hugely appreciated; he brings much wisdom, calmness and sound judgment to his role as chairman of the Conservative Party disciplinary committee.
I am sure that my noble friend listened carefully to the substance and style of this morning’s contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Prescott. I am disappointed that the noble Lord feels that disclosure has been somewhat political; the public have a right to know and the Government are committed to openness. He raised a specific question about the level of £500, which was established as a minimum requirement for departments to release information. DCLG, in line with its past releases, chose to release information on transactions lower than £500. The point that the noble Lord made about the casino dinner was released in response to a Parliamentary Question to DCLG, which was answered factually. Sir Gus O’Donnell has received a letter from the noble Lord, and DCLG will respond directly to him in the next couple of days.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is encouraged by the Government’s consultation on extending the Freedom of Information Act. The Government have introduced provisions in the Protection of Freedoms Bill to extend the Freedom of Information Act to companies wholly owned by multiple public authorities, whereas currently the Act applies only to companies wholly owned by a single public authority. This will bring more than 100 more bodies within the scope of the Act. We are not stopping there. We are currently consulting on the possible inclusion of more than 200 bodies within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, on the basis that they provide functions of a public nature—these include harbour authorities, exam boards, the Local Government Group and the NHS Confederation, to name but a few.
Lord Wills
Before the Minister leaves that point, can she answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Hunt about when the Government will take action on the consultation that she has just mentioned?
Baroness Warsi
The Government’s recent open data consultation consulted on an extension to the types of organisations to which the open data policy could apply. The Freedom of Information Act will also be subject to post-legislative scrutiny to see how it is working in practice. Further policy in this area will be developed. At this stage I do not have a specific timeframe, but I can write to the noble Lord once I have further information.
My noble friend Lady Byford asked some important questions about how what we are trying to achieve appears to be hindered by how we achieve it. The Government are committed to achieving the very benefits that she highlights and will give serious consideration to the challenges she raised, which could stand in the way of those benefits. She also raised an important point in relation to privacy, and I can assure the noble Baroness that we will not extend transparency at the expense of privacy. Personal data will be handled in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, raised some important points about politicians. All politicians, all of us who are in the public sphere, must be committed to the very basis and essence of this agenda; otherwise, we will be accused of hypocrisy, not just by each other across these Benches but by the public. I can assure him that all those in this Government are committed to that very basis of transparency and openness. Our goal is for participation and engagement—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am glad she said what she said, but does she accept that if Ministers redefine some of their meetings as private that is not being transparent?
Baroness Warsi
I completely take the point that the noble Lord makes. I repeat that we all bear the responsibility to make sure that what we say is what we do. I hear what he says, and indeed comments made by other noble Lords, and I will make sure that they are heard by all of us who are in this Government.
Our goal is for participation and engagement from an engaged society that knows it has a role to play in shaping the world in which we live. This is what open government means. Noble Lords may remind me that this is not a new idea, but what makes it a timely one is the increasing focus on how society works and how public services are actually delivered. What makes it achievable is the continuing democratisation of technology, with almost 80 per cent of households now having access to the internet. The fact that some households do not have internet access was raised in this morning’s debate and I will take that back.
Providing easily accessible data allows people to choose what services are right for them, localities to determine what their communities need and the public sector monopoly on provision to be opened up. This is a sea change in the relationship between the state and the individual. We are moving from a “We give, you get” approach to public services, to an “I choose when and where” approach.
This Government have every intention of putting into practice the ambitions they stake out on the global platform of OGP. We have an obligation to continue to lead this agenda and to use our successes to bring others with us. I hope that I have whetted noble Lords’ appetites in relation to our joint chair of the OGP, for the role we have to play in the growth review later this month, for the White Paper due in the spring and for what I think is an exciting and fast-developing agenda.
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his earlier remarks and for giving us the opportunity to discuss the range of possibilities that our transparency agenda offers to all of us.
Lord Elton
My Lords, I understand from the Table that the change in the nature of the Motion does not deprive me of the opportunity of replying briefly to the debate. I should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Gold, on a most interesting and excellent maiden speech, in which he confirmed Herbert Smith’s reputation as a formidable nursery of nobility and brought to our attention the importance of transparency in commercial, as well as national, transactions.
I will not pick up all the points everyone made, but I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I readily accept that I should have been more courteous in accepting the efforts of the previous Government, but I remind him that what I actually said was not that the present Government invented transparency but that they started an acceleration of the movement—a breathtaking acceleration. I was careful to give 2008 as the date of clarity being brought to the surgical procedures to which I referred. I acknowledge that this movement is not new, but it is very much better and stronger.
Three specific points were raised that are worth following: the possibility of Waldegrave II; the need to look again at Section 27 of the Communications Act; and the importance of accessibility to transparent information if some of our citizens are not to be disenfranchised.
The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, made a forceful contribution, in which his expression was shared between his voice and his hands—the latter not always as courteous as his voice. However, his point was taken on board by my Front Bench, I am sure.
I conclude by saying that the purpose of this debate was to draw attention to the Government’s commitment to this breathtaking acceleration in transparency, and to point out that it has effects that spread through the whole polity and economy of this country. It raises highly sensitive issues of privacy, which have been discussed and raises the question that was central to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Prescott: what actually is private? As I said at the outset, drawing the line is very tricky and technical, and it is important that it should be drawn impartially.
In their present initiative, the British Government are world leaders, as we have already seen. They are extending the benefits of transparency to disadvantaged countries in the world, which is entirely admirable. In the process, the Government are releasing an enormous possible gain for our economy—up to £90 billion, we are told. I therefore congratulate my noble friend Lady Warsi and the right honourable Francis Maude for the part that they have played in pushing forward this initiative.
Remembrance Day
(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
That this House takes note, on the eve of Remembrance Day, of the debt which our nation owes to all those who have sacrificed their lives in defence of the realm.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, it is a great privilege to begin this debate on the eve of Remembrance Day. We are here to recognise the debt that our nation owes to all those who have sacrificed their lives in the defence of the realm. In the Royal Gallery there is a Book of Remembrance in honour of Peers and servants of the House, and of their next of kin, who died in action with the British armed services in two world wars. I am proud that the names of my mother’s oldest brother and of my father’s youngest brother are inscribed on its pages. The former lost his life in action as a Grenadier Guards officer just before Dunkirk, and the latter, who was a squadron leader, was hit by anti-aircraft fire when bringing back photographs of enemy military installations, just before the American liberation of southern France.
We honour the supreme sacrifice made by so many servicemen and women on behalf of their country, and we owe it to them that their actions should continue to give inspiration to future generations. No one understood this better, I believe, than President Abraham Lincoln when, after the Battle of Gettysburg on 19 November 1863, he appealed to his war-torn country never to forget the sacrifices made in pursuit of a great cause. He said:
“It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain”.
He went on to emphasise the noble objective for which they had died, which was,
“that this nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that Government of freedom; and that Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the Earth”.
The same sentiments should surely resonate with us. We too have to rededicate ourselves to ensure that those in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth who have made the supreme sacrifice, did not die in vain. We too have to make certain that their unfinished work in sustaining the cause of freedom and promoting justice is continued.
Speaking for those who died in the First World War, a Canadian surgeon, Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae in his poem, “In Flanders Fields”, gave the same message:
“To you from failing hands we throw
The torch: be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep
Though poppies grow
In Flanders Fields”
We have wider responsibilities too. If we put ourselves in the shoes of a young soldier in the front line going in to battle, he would expect us to look after his wife and family if he does not return or is seriously wounded. Therefore, I would like to repeat my support for the Government’s action in enshrining the principles of the military covenant into law and their promise to inform Parliament annually on what is being done to meet the requirements and special circumstances of servicemen and women. I strongly support the plan that the report should cover issues such as housing, health and education.
I believe that we have to keep in mind not only the sacrifice made by those who gave their lives in defence of the realm but the practical needs of those who have been bereaved in two world wars, in the Falklands and much more recently as a result of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This year is the 40th anniversary of the War Widows Association, and I welcome the Minister's recent assurance that opportunities for wives to visit graves will be continued, and I hope that he will respond constructively to their other concerns. It is a tragic fact that 16,000 members of the armed services have lost their lives serving since the end of the Second World War. They are commemorated at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire; and those who fell in two world wars are commemorated on many thousands of war memorials throughout the United Kingdom.
I say to the Minister how strongly I deplore the appalling actions of those who vandalise such monuments because they wish to sell plaques and statues to unscrupulous scrap metal dealers, to be melted down. This desecration has to be stopped. I hope that the Minister will consult urgently with other departments and the British Transport Police to establish what concerted action should be taken to prevent those shameful crimes.
When we honour the dead, we must not at the same time forget the many who return home wounded. Those who do not return would expect nothing less. Here, I pay tribute to the surgeons in the hospital at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan, which I had the opportunity to visit with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I also praise the work of the dedicated doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals at Headley Court, who fit new limbs and boost morale with such impressive results. Many of the wounded are suffering terrible injuries, and we must continue to improve the accessibility of support for them and their families. The charity with which I am involved, the Scottish Veterans’ Garden City Association, is dedicated to providing purpose-built homes for ex-servicemen and women who are disabled. The present total is 612, and more are planned.
Remembrance can take many forms. I have always been moved by the true story of an eight year-old girl in the south of England during the Battle of Britain. She saw an RAF fighter pilot in his parachute being machine-gunned by a Messerschmitt 109 as he drifted towards the earth over Ashford in Kent. She felt that that had been a terrible price he had had to pay for protecting her. Many years later, Jean Liddicoat, as she had become, was a grandmother living in Staplehurst. Her grandson questions her about the Battle of Britain, which he is studying in school. She answers him, and he says to her that in the cemetery next door is the grave of an unknown airman which has been left neglected and forgotten. She goes to see it and, sure enough, on the headstone are the words,
“An airman of the 1939-1945 War … Known unto God”.
Jean tidies up the grave and makes it look beautiful. Then she starts making inquiries. After eight years of investigating, she discovered that on 5 September 1940, during the Battle of Britain, eight RAF pilots were killed, but only six were identified. She therefore knew that the unknown airman must be one of two men. She also discovered that he had in his possession at the moment that the Spitfire plunged into the ground a half-hunter silver pocket watch. Its mechanism had stopped at the moment of impact. What was more, the unknown airman’s sister, Margaret, who was approaching 92 years of age, had come forward and identified the watch as being exactly the same as the one given to her brother.
Jean Liddicoat, to whom I spoke this morning, now knew who the airman was, and she found out as much as she could about him. His name was Freddie Rushmer, and he was a flight commander of a squadron which had more confirmed victories in the Battle of Britain than any other in both the RAF and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. On the day on which he did not return from his mission, there was absolutely no time to go searching for a fallen comrade in the war being waged for Britain's very existence.
Freddie Rushmer had never had a funeral service, so one was arranged at All Saints Church in Staplehurst. RAF officers from No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron and representing the present Tornado squadrons attended, but did not expect a large congregation nearly 60 years after the Battle of Britain. When they arrived, they found to their astonishment that the church was full to overflowing with local residents—some were standing outside. Whoever the unknown airman was and whatever he did, they wanted to remember the man whom they believed had died to safeguard their freedoms, who had died for them.
As I said, remembrance can take many forms: a little boy proudly marching on Remembrance Sunday, wearing the medals of the father he has lost; a family seeking out one cross among thousands in a distant war cemetery; and the people of what is now Royal Wootton Bassett choosing their spontaneous way of paying their respects as the fallen were brought home through their town.
Those who died in defence of the realm did not all do so on great battlefields. Many men and women showed the same levels of courage and commitment in secret, and often in darkness, far behind enemy lines. In these days of equality between men and women, we remember not only the women who wore uniforms but those who were parachuted into enemy-occupied Europe in the Second World War on difficult and dangerous missions. The Special Operations Executive had 55 women agents, 13 of whom died in action or in concentration camps. There is a memorial to all SOE agents just across the river from our Chamber, with a bronze sculpture of Violette Szabo. Her face and expression depict her enormous bravery and determination. She was captured, tortured and killed in Ravensbrück concentration camp, but she told them nothing. Later, the very young daughter she left behind grew up to write a most moving account of her mother's heroism. Underneath the memorial are the words:
“Their names are carved with pride”.
On the wider role of women and warfare, the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, campaigned for the magnificent memorial in Whitehall which was unveiled by Her Majesty the Queen. The noble Baroness said then:
“This monument is dedicated to all the women who served our country and the cause of freedom in uniform and on the home front”.
The words of Prime Minister Winston Churchill, spoken on the BBC on 14 July 1940, were prophetic and applied to countless victims as well as to those who had the opportunity to fight. He said:
“There are vast numbers, not only in this Island but in every land, who will render faithful service in this war, but whose names will never be known, whose deeds will never be recorded. This is a War of the Unknown Warriors”.
The debt of gratitude which we owe to all those who sacrificed their lives is inestimable. It places a great responsibility on us to carry on their unfinished work and, as President John F Kennedy, put it, to create and sustain the rule of law, where the powerful work for justice, where minority rights are protected and where peace will be preserved.
Finally, I commend the wise, farsighted and enlightened words of the Royal British Legion, which tells us that the poppy and Remembrance Day have come to represent,
“war, peace, hope and sacrifice but with a stubborn sense of regeneration”.
I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, both on securing this very timely debate and on the eloquent and moving speech to which we have just had the privilege of listening. It is both heartening and humbling to see how seriously we as a nation continue to take Remembrance Day. When I was younger, there were serious discussions about whether events around 11 November should come to an end as the memory of the Second World War faded from most people's lives, but this weekend millions of people all over the country will be either taking part in or watching services of remembrance. It is right that that should be so, and it is very appropriate that we should have this debate.
I have no financial interest to declare in this debate, but I remind the House that I am the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary War Heritage Group. I shall speak about two matters. The first is one to which the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, referred, which is the desecration of war memorials by scrap metal thieves. The second subject, if I have time, concerns preparations to commemorate the centenary in 2014 of the outbreak of World War I. Both those matters have been the subject of Oral Questions which I have asked recently in your Lordships' House.
I start with the subject of metal theft, and endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, said. The situation is now almost out of control. The increase in the world price of scrap metal, particularly copper, has made it a lucrative crime. It is also one that it is easy to get away with, mainly because of the inadequacies of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. The absence of a proper licensing system for dealers, the use of cash to settle transactions and the imposition of absurdly low penalties for breaches of the law have all combined to produce the present epidemic of crime.
I shall resist the temptation today to speak at length about the disruption to train services caused by cable theft on the railways, the damage to churches as a result of the stealing of lead from church roofs or the attack on public services in the electricity and telecommunications industry, but I want to say something about the desecration of war memorials. At Prime Minister’s Question Time last week, Mr Cameron described it as,
“an absolutely sickening and disgusting crime”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/11; col. 918.]
In an article in the Daily Telegraph on Monday this week, the Mayor of London wrote about how the plaques on a war memorial in Sidcup commemorating the deaths of 342 in both world wars, including that of Lieutenant George Cairns, who won the Victoria Cross in an act of extraordinary bravery in the Burma campaign in 1944, had been, in Boris Johnson’s words,
“brutally jemmied off and sold for scrap”.
Your Lordships may recall that in the exchanges on my Oral Question on 3 October, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, whom I am delighted to see in his place, spoke about the theft, just a week before, of 14 brass memorial plaques from Carshalton war memorial. There are countless other examples all over the country.
Following my Question, I have received scores of letters and e-mails all asking for the law to be changed. My response to that on 19 October was to introduce a Private Member’s Bill to amend the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House long enough to know that the chances of seeing a Private Member’s Bill through to enactment are pretty remote unless it has already been passed in the other place or the Government take it over. I am therefore, as an insurance, pursuing an alternative route with the help of the Public Bill Office. I hope to be able to announce something soon in the hope that I shall be able to count on the Government’s support for what comes forward. I am looking with some intensity at the government Chief Whip as I say this.
The other matter that I wish to raise today and that is also directly relevant to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, is the question of how we commemorate the centenary in 2014 of the outbreak of World War I. This has been concerning the All-Party Parliamentary War Heritage Group for some considerable time. Following my Question on 22 March to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, I was invited by Professor Hew Strachan to a seminar on preparations for 2014 at All Souls College, Oxford. It was attended by the DCMS and MoD Ministers, Ed Vaizey and Andrew Robathan, plus a large number of representatives from France, Flanders, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa and India, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the Imperial War Museum.
From listening to those discussions, it was very clear that other Governments are far more advanced with their planning than are ours. The Government of Flanders, in particular, has an amazing programme planned for 2014 and beyond. They are investing €15 million in 44 infrastructure projects, including the renovation of the In Flanders Fields Museum in Ieper, the expansion of the Memorial Museum in Passchendaele, and the construction of a museum garden and the opening of war sites in Zonnebeke. They are also spending a further €5 million on events such as music festivals and exhibitions. Initiatives that they are planning here in Britain include the creation of a peace garden at the Guards Museum in Birdcage Walk, with earth taken from Passchendaele, and an exchange programme for young people.
I cannot speak too highly of the Flanders Government’s commitment to war heritage and to what is now rightly called “peace tourism”. Already they welcome 350,000 visitors a year to Flanders, most of them from Britain and the Commonwealth. Thousands participate each evening in the Last Post ceremony at the Menin Gate in Ieper. Now, as 2014 approaches, they are looking to do much, much more, and I think we should thank them for that.
At the all-party group meeting to which I referred, it became increasingly evident that we in Britain were in danger of being left behind as other countries pressed ahead with their arrangements. The group asked me to write to the Prime Minister expressing concern at the apparent lack of preparedness here and saying that we need a government policy and a clear political lead, with a decision on which government department is to lead on the issue. I received an encouraging reply from Mr Cameron on 18 August, which said that, while there were no detailed plans yet, discussions were “ongoing across Whitehall”. Mr Cameron said that he understood our concerns that it is not yet clear where departmental responsibility for organising events across the UK will lie.
Happily, on 2 November—just last Wednesday— No. 10 made the very welcome announcement that Dr Andrew Murrison MP has been appointed as the Prime Minister’s special representative and co-ordinator for the commemorations to mark the centenary of World War I. This is good news. I shall be meeting Dr Murrison next Tuesday, and he will be addressing a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary War Heritage Group on 6 December. I need hardly say that all Members of your Lordships’ House and of the other place will be very welcome to attend.
I should be grateful if, when the Minister replies to this debate, he could say a little more about what Dr Murrison’s role will be. We really wish him well. We want to work with him and we want to make quite sure that we catch up with what other Governments are doing so that we commemorate this very important centenary in the right way. It will start in 2014 and will undoubtedly run for the four years through to 2018.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, first, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas on securing this debate, on his excellent opening contribution and, as we all know, on his very deep commitment to our Armed Forces.
I was privileged and proud last year to attend the festival of remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall as a guest of the Royal British Legion—something that I have always wanted to do. I was similarly privileged and proud in the early 1980s, when I was a junior Defence Minister, to have an official position at the Cenotaph.
As a constituency Member of Parliament for 13 years, I used to regard remembrance weekend as something very special. My constituency in north-east Lancashire—Nelson and Colne, which later became Pendle—was a very patriotic area and one of substantial recruitment. I always used to attend the legion concert, as well as service parades in the morning and afternoon. When one attended some of the smaller community services, it was very sad and distressing to see the names of so many individuals from one family who had lost their lives, particularly in the Great War—the ghastly, pointless First World War. My own great-uncle, who served in the Liverpool Scottish Regiment, was killed on 3 July 1917 aged 23 and is buried in the Brandhoek Military Cemetery in Belgium. What concerned me during those 13 years was the decline, as I saw it, in the numbers attending the individual memorial services. Indeed, I suggested to our local authority that perhaps we should have one major constituency service in the morning, allowing the smaller events to take place in the afternoon.
However, in recent years we have seen a substantial sea-change in the attitude of the public to our Armed Forces following, I think it is fair to say, a realisation that our troops whom we initially sent into Afghanistan were ill equipped and substantially underresourced. The media got behind our forces and, of course, considerable improvements have been made to their kit. Now, the kit is probably the envy of the world in many respects.
As has been referred to, the Government enshrined the military covenant in law during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill. I think it would be fair to say that the combination of a sympathetic and sensible Minister and pressure from a number of noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords improved the Bill during its passage. Of course, reference has been made to the very impressive turnout as coffins pass through Royal Wootton Bassett, and yesterday’s roll call of deaths brings home to us the current losses. In my judgment, it would be interesting to see whether there is any carry-across or manifestation of increased support for our Armed Forces in poppy sales and in attendance at remembrance parades, as well as continuing support for service charities.
There are around 100,000 war memorials in this country, of which perhaps 1,200 or so are listed. The spate of thefts has been referred to today and previously by my noble friend and colleague Lord Tope. Could the Minister tell us whether there are any laws at the present time that govern damage or desecration to our war memorials? If not, should we not consider their introduction?
In today’s paper, there is an indication that the funding for our very impressive National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire is going to be cut by a quarter. I visited it a couple of years ago, and it is hugely impressive. I realise, of course, that economies have to be made in defence spending, but do we really have to reduce the funding for such an impressive national memorial?
Turning to the matter of the young, does the Minister know whether the British Legion visits schools on a regular basis? Are poppies made available in schools? Should this not be rather more encouraged? I have previously suggested that schools should adopt their local war memorials for the dual advantage of both cleanliness and preservation. It would also make our youngsters more aware of the sacrifices that have been made.
Sadly, some who have given their lives have not been properly acknowledged and treated. It is surely a scandal that it has taken until next year, 2012—some 70 years after the ending of the Second World War—to erect a memorial to the 55,573 brave members of Bomber Command who were killed in action.
I also pay tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for all the work that it does, which I have seen throughout the world, and to the memorials of many communities overseas. On my visit to Normandy earlier this year to visit the landing beaches, I saw the way so many memorials in small French communities are maintained, with full acknowledgement of the particular regiments that liberated those communities.
Sadly, there is no sign of the world becoming any less violent and there will inevitably be casualties in the future. For our forces, we must provide the best possible medical care, make generous provision for dependants—I know that my noble friend Lord Loomba will refer to war widows in particular in his speech—and always ensure that those who make the supreme sacrifice on our behalf have a decent funeral and an appropriate memorial.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, my younger son is 10 years old and I remember that when I turned 10, my father, the late Lieutenant-General Bilimoria, went to war, fulfilling any young officer’s dream: to command his battalion—the Second Fifth Ghurkha Rifles Frontier Force—in battle. He took part in the Indian Army’s liberation of Bangladesh. I remember reading in the papers every day a list of casualties and the sacrifices made, and dreading seeing my father’s name. Watching my mother enduring the anxiety was awful. My father’s battalion sadly lost several of its members in action. As we speak today, the Second Fifth Ghurkhas are celebrating their 125th anniversary on their Raising Day, and the whole regimental family is together in India.
When I say regimental family, that is what the army family is; it is the serving troops and their families, but also the ex-servicemen and their families and the widows like my mother and their descendents. At every one of these reunions, we always remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice. My father’s battalion won three Victoria Crosses during the Second World War: one was posthumous, awarded to Subedar Netra Bahadur, and the other two were awarded to Havalder Gaje Ghale and Naik Agan Singh Rai. I was privileged to have been brought up from childhood with Agan Singh Rai and Gaje Ghale, and in fact Agan Singh Rai was my father’s subedar major—his regimental sergeant-major—when my father commanded his battalion.
I congratulate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, for this debate and his inspirational speech. We as a nation are tremendous in the way we remember the sacrifices made by our service men and women over the years. As a public, we show this support and remembrance year after year through Remembrance Sunday and a multitude of services that go on in every corner of the country, the Royal British Legion’s poppy appeal and the millions of poppies worn. Thank God that FIFA was finally made to see sense after its nonsensical banning of the wearing of poppies, which it saw as a political statement. It never has been and it never will be. This is about remembrance, appreciation and gratitude, and particularly about making sure that future generations never forget and are inspired by the noble sacrifices made.
Yesterday, my six year-old daughter took part in a Remembrance Day service at her school, which included a minute’s silence. She brought home the poppy that she had made and showed it to me with pride. We have the wonderful memorial gates commemorating the service of 5 million volunteers who served in the First and Second World Wars from South Asia, Africa and the Caribbean. I was proud to be the chairman of the commemoration committee for six years, and these gates exist thanks to the drive and commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who no doubt will speak about this inspirational living memorial.
The public spirit and support for the Armed Forces are probably at an all-time high in modern times, with Royal Wootton Bassett, the hugely successful newly-founded charity Help for Heroes initiative, the work of the Army Benevolent Fund—the soldiers’ charity—and the amazing warmth and respect shown to the Chelsea Pensioners of the Royal Hospital of Chelsea, where I am proud to be a commissioner.
We never needed to be told about a big society. The British public have been practising this instinctively for years. I was really happy to read the report of the task force of the military covenant a year ago, which made so many excellent suggestions.
This debate is also about the Armed Forces covenant, which states:
“An Enduring Covenant Between The People of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government—and—All those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown And their Families”.
We are told that the Armed Forces community includes regular personnel, reservists, veterans, the immediate families of those categories of individuals, and the immediate families of service personnel and veterans who have died. The level of support has been categorised into four areas.
The first is to give recognition and gratitude, which I think we do. I am grateful to the Government for establishing a Chief of the Defence Staff commendation scheme. The second level is to take positive measures to support disadvantage. This is because our service men and women have such an unsettled way of life, and it worries me that initiatives such as the boarding school scheme for officers’ children are under threat. Could the Minister confirm this? It is disappointing to see that the formal ID card for veterans and service families has been rejected, with “value for money” being the reason why the scheme is not being supported. Could the Minister confirm this? The Armed Forces’ housing—particularly the Army’s—is on the whole below standard. Is there any way the Minister could confirm whether these long-term housing contracts are going to be renewed before 2021? Could the rent that has been set at below-market rates be looked at?
The third level of support is the financial package. Here, there is no question about it: the Armed Forces get paid a pittance compared with what we expect them to do. The Army doctrine publication tells us:
“All British soldiers share the legal right and duty to fight and, if necessary, kill, according to their orders, and an unlimited liability to give their lives in doing so. This is the unique nature of soldiering”.
Do we genuinely, hand on heart, feel that we are correctly compensating them when the salary for a private is only £17,265 at the low end, and the new entrant rate is £13,895?
The fourth level is special treatment. We keep hearing about the Armed Forces covenant meaning that the Armed Forces community should get fair treatment. I think the term “fair” is inappropriate; they need to get special treatment always. This is where we fall short of countries such as the United States in the way they look after their veterans and their special hospitals. In India, all retired soldiers and their families are entitled to free medical care from armed forces hospitals for life. This is special treatment, which is so well-deserved.
The Armed Forces are all about esprit de corps and morale. Where morale is concerned, we have had issues. There has to be mutual trust and respect between the Armed Forces, the Government and the Ministry of Defence. I am sorry to say that this mutual trust, particularly between the MoD and the Armed Forces, is breaking down. I have spoken about huge issues of morale across the services. The Government rushed through the SDSR last year with resulting cuts. On the one hand, our forces are stretched, just having completed Iraq; the Afghanistan operations are now 10 years on; and we have to deal with situations such as Libya at the drop of a hat. Our noble service personnel feel that they are out there in these conditions knowing that their jobs are not secure and seeing their comrades being made redundant. They know that the public are on their side but feel let down in many ways by the MoD and the Government. What is more, we are made to look a laughing stock in our short-sightedness. Almost a year ago, in our debate on the SDSR, I said in my speech:
“nobody predicted 9/11 and nobody predicted the Falklands War; they both happened. Sadly, no one knows what is going to happen next. We have to be prepared for the unexpected”.—[Official Report, 12/11/10; col. 404.]
What happened just a couple of months later? The Arab spring and then Libya. We as a country had decided by then to do away with our aircraft carriers, our Harriers and our Nimrods, and we could have done with all of them in the Libyan operations.
The SDSR was all about means and not ends. We in Britain are a major player on the world stage with our hard power and our soft power, and we will be required to intervene again. Once again, it could be “known unknowns” such as in the Iran situation, or it could be “unknown unknowns”, in the way the Arab spring happened overnight. With the eurozone crisis, Chancellor Merkel has already said that if the euro falls, there will be war in Europe.
We may have stayed out of the euro—and thank God we did—but we are a key integral player on the world stage and we will not be able to stay out of any forthcoming conflict. We have an Army now of fewer than 100,000. This is so short-sighted. We strive for peace, but, unfortunately, as the noble Lord, Lord Lee, said, conflict is inevitable whether we like it or not. The defence of our realm is the Government’s No. 1 priority, and that rests entirely on the amazing sacrifices made by our Armed Forces. Last month, I chaired an event as president of the UK India Business Council on east and north-east India. It was attended by a senior Minister from Nagaland, where of course the famous Kohima epitaph reads:
“When You Go Home
Tell Them Of Us And Say
‘For Your Tomorrow,
We Gave Our Today’”.
We as a nation will never forget. We will always be inspired and we will always be grateful.
The Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich
My Lords, I would very much like to affirm from these Benches our support for what is expressed in the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk. I, too, congratulate him on the way in which he introduced the debate. From these Benches, we are particularly conscious of all that is implied about the debt that we owe to the fallen, because the Church of England and the other churches and faith groups of this country are hugely involved in the services and acts of remembrance that will take place over the next few days.
I started in ministry in the Church of England 35 years ago. As an assistant curate in a parish in the north-east of England, I very well remember my first Remembrance Sunday service. It was an important occasion, but not one that was attended by exceptional numbers. In the second year, I remember, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, experienced, someone remarking that probably by the turn of the century we would not be holding such acts of remembrance. Clearly, it was not a person with the gift of prophecy.
Over these past 35 years, I have watched these acts of remembrance grow hugely. There was a significant time when the various important anniversaries of the Second World War—the 50 years after the beginning and end—were marked that you suddenly began to notice the change. However, the involvement of this country in recent conflicts has meant that those who assemble are now from across the age range. Acts of remembrance frequently take place at public war memorials, but they nearly always involve members of the clergy of all denominations leading acts of remembrance. As well as that, there are war memorials in churches throughout the land, and other services of remembrance will take place within those churches.
This keeping alive of an understanding of the debt we owe to people who have given their lives is something that the churches have been very diligent about. In recent times I have noticed that people are attempting to find ways to make sure that this is not just an exercise in history but to help people to understand more the nature of the human cost. I have seen a number of churches within my diocese where people have carefully researched the names on the war memorials from the First World War and the Second World War, have traced the stories of families and the people involved, and compiled booklets with details of them. Often, these are even accompanied by photographs. Of course, this sort of thing can usually be done only in small rural communities where memories are long and families are frequently still in the area and where there are not huge numbers of names on the war memorial, but it is interesting that these activities have come about in recent years.
As other noble Lords have already remarked, we are within three years of the centenary of the start of the First World War. I, too, was appalled by the acts of vandalism to war memorials involving the theft of metal plaques, but it is also the case that some of these memorials are not now in the best of condition, as time has inevitably caused deterioration. Is the Minister aware of any plans to survey the condition of those memorials during the next couple of years, so that they can be in as good a condition as possible for that significant centenary?
Part of acknowledging the debt to those who have given their lives is by continuing our responsibility for those who have survived the wars of recent years and who need support and for those who have given service in our Armed Forces. To that end, I, too, welcome the attention that this House gave to the military covenant in the Armed Forces Bill. It is vital to find ways whereby the military covenant has real meaning within the country and is more widely understood, without turning it into legal contract.
However, there is still some way to go to instil confidence within serving personnel that there really is going to be some form of change. I am privileged from time to time to be invited to visit various military units within my diocese, and there are quite a number. I did one such visit just last month. It included meeting a unit which is about to return to Afghanistan for another tour of duty early next year. It is a large establishment and it gave me the chance to meet people who had varying lengths of service. While I constantly found that the sense of pride in their unit and their professionalism were highly evident, it was noticeable that, when discussing what the military covenant might mean, there was some scepticism. Usually, this came about because personnel who have served in Afghanistan and met our American allies are well aware of very different arrangements within the United States for the care and support of veterans.
That having been said, they certainly welcomed the fact that efforts were being made to make sure that the military covenant was becoming more prominent. However, I guess that the quality of the first report on the covenant will have a great bearing on how the members of our Armed Forces react to it and the effect that it will have on their morale. I hope that it will demonstrate that all these matters are being taken extremely seriously.
It was very noticeable last week, and, indeed, this week, how many members of the current Armed Forces are on the streets selling poppies. I think that that is a demonstration of the current members of our Armed Forces understanding very well the debt that is owed to the past and their presence helped enormously in encouraging people in their support. My experience is that this support for members of our Armed Forces is strong whatever the public feeling might be about the particular campaigns that were or are being waged. This Sunday, I expect to be in Bury St Edmunds for the main act of remembrance followed by a service. Not only will our own Armed Forces be present but those of America, because there are two United States Air Force bases within Suffolk. Part of the value of these acts of remembrance is that the reality of what we are remembering is very much before us with current young members of the services present. It helps to make the cost of conflict not seem remote and consequently an understanding of the extent of our debt becomes that much greater.
I believe that an acknowledgement of our debt is widely supported in our nation. I welcome this debate, showing the support of this House for acknowledgement of that debt.
Lord King of Bridgwater
My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to follow the right reverend Prelate. It is extremely appropriate that he has taken part in this debate, because the church has such a part to play in the services of remembrance that we shall recognise on Sunday and on the other occasions associated with Remembrance Day. I join him in congratulating my noble friend Lord Selkirk on what I thought was an outstanding introduction to this debate. It set absolutely the tone that was needed.
I think that everybody in this House shares those experiences. I became a Member of Parliament in 1970. One stood on Remembrance Day at the war memorial in King Square in Bridgwater. Year after year, exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, one sensed a diminution of interest. A few survivors from the First World War were still there. I remember meeting Mr Harry Patch, who was the last survivor of the lot. Gradually, they faded away. Then the survivors of World War Two started to look pretty old as well. My noble friend Lady Trumpington is one of the survivors in this House of those who gave great service to their nation in the Second World War.
As we stood there, these memories moved on. And then, gradually, events came in. There was a feeling that this was an old ceremony to do with those wars. Korea had not made much impact, but then we had the Falklands and Northern Ireland. Then the message came round: “Shouldn’t some names be added to these memorials?” One particular moment stands out for me. I remember standing in King Square in Bridgwater and then going into St Mary’s church. Then, as I came out of St Mary’s at the end of the service, one of my policemen gave me a message, telling me that my private secretary wanted to speak to me from Northern Ireland, to tell me that there had been a bomb at the Remembrance Day service at Enniskillen, and that a number of people had been killed or seriously injured. The shock of the desecration of that occasion went round the world. It was in fact enormously damaging to the reputation of the IRA and any latent sympathy it may have had, as well as to any Irish freedom movement there may have been in the United States, among other places.
This was coupled, as some may remember, with the extraordinary generosity of spirit of Mr Gordon Wilson, whose daughter was killed on that occasion. I remember standing in the shower in Admiralty House early the next morning, listening to him on the “Today” programme, before I had to make a Statement in the House. I remember the extraordinary way in which he was able, with that generosity of spirit, to speak as he did after losing his daughter in that tragic event.
I shall also never forget, and many noble Lords may remember, the extraordinary service we had two weeks later. The British Legion at Enniskillen were determined that they would still have their service, and British Legion standard bearers from all round the country were determined that they would attend that service as well. Rank upon rank of standard bearers gathered in the square in Enniskillen. I managed to persuade—she did not need much persuasion because she understood entirely—the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to come with me to that service. The solidarity, right across parties, and right across the divisions that might otherwise exist in Northern Ireland, had an enormous impact on me.
After that, we moved on to the first Gulf War, and then more recently the Afghanistan campaign and the second Gulf War in Iraq. What one noticed in those early Remembrance Day services and parades was that very few servicemen standing there had any medals. Now you look at them and see the impact of more recent years and their activities. I am going to take part and help to conduct a service on Sunday in our local parish church with a very good friend of mine, a retired brigadier who served in the Parachute Regiment—a man who is very well known to the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. His son is serving in the Parachute Regiment, and is coming up for his third tour, I think, of Afghanistan. One realises the commitment and involvement that we now have.
What has really come across so clearly now is that, as it is said, war is the failure of politicians and rulers. Having had some responsibility in that area, I agree with that entirely. Take, for example, the Second World War: I am sure that Hitler did not actually think that England, in the end, would fight for Poland. President Galtieri thought he could grab the Falklands without any conflict and that Britain would think that it was too difficult to do anything about it. Mistakes by politicians, rulers and leaders lead us into those situations. Saddam Hussein was quite convinced, I think, that nobody would really mind about a silly place like Kuwait, which had caused a lot of trouble for some of its neighbours, and that nobody would rally to the cause of freedom, independence and freedom from aggression.
It is against that background that one has noticed how the mood has changed. In the early part of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot of people had reservations about the wisdom of those events. That in some part rubbed off on our Armed Forces, which were not held in sufficient respect—it was felt that they were involved in something that we should perhaps not be doing. Then, however, whether because of Help for Heroes, or because of a recognition of the suffering and the casualties—the fatal casualties, but particularly the appalling physical injuries that many were suffering—the British nation rallied. Whatever the views were about the rightness of those particular campaigns, there was absolutely no question about the support of the nation for those who were loyally undertaking their duty in the Armed Forces of the Crown.
It is against that background that I look at this occasion today and look at what our responsibilities are. I support the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. He raised the issue of housing. It is our duty now to remember those who have made the sacrifice. It is also our duty to remember their families and the suffering that they have and to see that the many organisations and charitable organisations, such as the British Legion, SSAFA and others that seek to help in this area, are supported. We also have a duty to those who have come back with quite appalling injuries. The wonders of modern medicine have now made possible their survival, but they are left with major challenges. This may all be lumped together in the military covenant. We have responsibilities to those who survive, to those who are injured and to their families at this time.
We need our Armed Forces. We face major challenges at the present time. If wars are the failures of politicians, the sad truth is that they will make mistakes again. It is against that background that we need to ensure, as a duty to those who have served and have made the ultimately sacrifice, that their survivors and their successors are properly equipped and properly maintained to continue the sacred task of defending our nation’s interests.
Lord Parekh
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for securing this debate and introducing it in a most moving and inspirational manner. We are debating,
“the debt which our nation owes to all those who have sacrificed their lives in defence of the realm”.
This subject raises two questions. First, does the nation really owe a debt to those who have sacrificed their lives in defence of the realm? Secondly, how should that debt be repaid? I shall take these two questions in turn.
The first question looks simple, and its answer appears self-evident: of course we do. This is the assumption made in almost all the speeches that have been made so far. This is also the assumption which underlies the report of the task force on the military covenant, and the review by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, of the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme.
Imagine how somebody might argue against this. In the standard neoliberal fashion, it might be argued that, unless the Armed Force are conscripted—in which case, of course, a different moral logic applies—they are volunteers. They know what they are doing when they join the Armed Forces. They accept a job for which they are paid. It is a contract of employment that is voluntarily entered into, and is no different from any other. If people therefore lose their lives or limbs it is part of their contract, and the nation owes no debt. This is a standard neoliberal argument made in the 18th and 19th centuries, and is also to be found in many current writings by neoliberals.
It might also be argued that sacrifice of lives and limbs is not unique to the Armed Forces. The police, miners and firemen all risk their lives: why should we single out the Armed Forces? When we do, are we treating them in some privileged manner which is founded on emotions or romantic glorification of war rather than on solid rational grounds? I suggest that there are solid rational grounds for privileging the Armed Forces, and these are fourfold.
First, they are the only group who explicitly commit themselves to the sacrifice of their lives. Unlike firemen and miners, or even the police, they are not employed to do other things which incidentally might involve loss of lives; rather, willingness to risk the loss of life is the very raison d’être of the job.
Secondly, the Armed Forces incur loss or temporary surrender of basic democratic and civil freedoms that no other occupation shares. Members of the Armed Forces may not join a trade union, they may not openly dissent from or criticise the Government and they may not question operational decisions made by their superiors. The standard democratic freedom that every other employee enjoys is denied to members of the Armed Forces.
Thirdly, the Armed Forces act on behalf of the nation in a way that no other occupation does. They swear their loyalty to the nation, place their well-being in the nation’s charge and render the most essential service of preserving the integrity of the country.
Finally, the fourth reason why there is good moral logic in privileging the Armed Forces over other occupations is that very high—indeed higher—professional ethics is required of them. Greater mutual loyalty is required of them; greater courage and bravery as well as a greater willingness to risk their lives for the sake of their comrades. They are also expected to show greater commitment to the collective ethos and to subordinate their personal security to the security of the country at large.
My answer to the first question is that yes, of course, there is every reason to argue that the nation owes a debt to the Armed Forces. That raises the next question: what form should the repayment of that debt take? Since the Armed Forces have offered to risk and lay down their lives on behalf of and in the interests of the country, the country obviously incurs several obligations. I want to mention three, only one of which has been heavily emphasised in the debate so far.
First, the nation has an obligation to remember them with gratitude, and honour their memory in appropriate ways. No financial compensation can adequately measure up to the way of remembering and cherishing people and fulfilling the dreams that their sadly truncated lives have not been able to realise. We remember, honour and cherish their memories by constructing memorials, national Remembrance Day and telling stories about their deeds in our text-books. In telling those stories and constructing memorials, we not only redeem the tragic dimension of their death but build bonds of unity among our own people. It is worth remembering that Remembrance Day is only common to five or six out of 185 countries. India has no remembrance day. France does not. Germany—for obvious reasons—does not. Even in the United States, it appears in a very unusual form. It might be worth looking not only at the history of Remembrance Day—is it a response to the Crimean War or the First World War?—but at the changes it has undergone over the years and why it is, in some sense, relatively unique to our country.
The second obligation we have is to look after the dependants of those who have died and to attend to the needs of those who have suffered grave injuries and disabilities. This calls for generous compensation schemes, pensions, rehabilitation, integration into normal life and other forms of support. The task force on the military covenant and the Boyce report make excellent suggestions and I wholeheartedly endorse them.
However, there is a third obligation, which is in danger of being neglected. The nation incurs a profound obligation to ensure that the wars in which the Armed Forces are engaged and in which they may have to sacrifice their lives are fully justified, either in terms of the interests of the country or in the wider interests of humanity at large. Since the Armed Forces are expected to obey the civilian authorities and are politically neutral, the civil authorities that decide for them often have a tendency to take them for granted and to think that the military machine can be deployed for any purposes that their masters choose. Wars are therefore declared sometimes without much forethought, because they distract attention from domestic problems or because they are politically convenient and give the halo of glory to otherwise mediocre politicians. It is precisely because the Armed Forces are expected to be uncritically loyal that the Government must think 10 times before sending them to an almost certain death. Iraq and Afghanistan do not meet this test, as I have argued before your Lordships in the past; nor, I think, did Suez or Vietnam. It becomes morally hypocritical to send young people with promising lives to ill conceived deaths and to compensate them with offers of payments, as if a promising life is worth a lump sum of so much money.
Every death is a tragedy. It should be an occasion for critical national self-reflection on how to improve the way in which we take momentous decisions involving war. The Armed Forces trust the nation to value their lives and to demand sacrifices only when they are fully justified. The nation must prove itself worthy of the trust that the Armed Forces put in it.
Lord Walker of Aldringham
My Lords, I, too, thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, on giving us this opportunity to reflect on the eve of our remembrance commemorations. It is gratifying, too, to behold the degree of regard in which our society holds our Armed Forces across the country and which so powerfully helps to sustain our men and women when they are serving overseas. However, that regard—as the noble Lord, Lord King, has already said—cannot be taken for granted. In the 1990s, we saw that our people were less willing to make sacrifices on behalf of our Armed Forces. The funds raised for our people after the war in the Falkland Islands amounted to more than £25 million; the funds raised for the last Iraq war were less than 2 per cent of that. The involvement in Iraq, clearly, was the reason for that unpopularity, but it seemed at that stage that the British affinity between the people of the nation and our Armed Forces was at a low-ish point.
That gave rise to clarion calls from all sorts of people —not least the Chiefs of Staff—raising the profile of the issue. They raised the issues, as we have heard, about equipment, medical treatment, accommodation, medals, education, pay and allowances, and homecoming parades. That was not only to bring pressure to bear on the Government but to bring to the notice of our society as a whole that they needed to help make this new covenant manifest.
Your Lordships will know that our society has changed dramatically over the last 50 years. We have been able to live in peace and go about our daily business without much concern for our own safety or that of our families, even though of course there have been some pretty appalling terrorist incidents. As a society, we have very little understanding of the horrors of war. At the same time, we are increasingly affluent, middle class and liberal, with high expectations of rewards and gains. We exhibit increasing educational standards but a lower level of physical fitness. We seek greater variety and choice and have an interest in leisure risk but not real risk. We have changing organisational structures, increasing public accountability and transparency, and fluctuating economies. We are a litigious society and seek compensation at every turn. We demand flexibility in a high-tech world and often give minority groups more face time than the silent majority. The trouble is that our enemies—the terrorists, the dictators and the ethnic cleansers—are not suffering from mid-life crises and taking court action. They are out there, and if anything, they are consistent.
Those 16,000 names on the national memorial at Alrewas, listing those who have died in service since the end of the Second World War, bear witness of the extent to which we as a nation have used our Armed Forces in that time. It is not just those who make the sacrifice, as we have already heard. All who serve on operations put their lives at risk, whether they die or whether they are injured. Countless numbers have been wounded, while many others have been psychologically damaged, which comes out only later in their lives. Behind every one of those names on the war memorial there are wives, husbands, partners, parents, children and colleagues who loved them and who live with the pain and consequences of their loss every day.
How are we doing as a society, looking after this thing called a covenant? Are we playing our several parts? The charities, in my view, are doing well, although their window of opportunity may close as we pull out of Afghanistan and come off the headlines. The services-related charities have managed to hold up well in terms of donations from the public, and I pay tribute to Help for Heroes for the way in which it helped raise the profile of the services’ needs to their current level.
Our people are doing well, too, from small groups of determined men and women undertaking amazing physical feats to the generosity of individual donations on the one hand, through the warmness of the welcomes received at homecoming parades to the compassion and respect demonstrated at events such as those held at Royal Wootton Bassett on the other. I feel genuinely that the majority of our citizens recognise the price that has been paid, and continues to be paid, by our soldiers to enable them to enjoy the freedoms that they have.
One area in which I do not think we are doing as well is in the Government's implementation of the covenant, although I recognise that much work has gone into it. We must remember that this is a contract under which, in return for the sacrifice made by those in the forces, the Government will ensure they are equipped properly, trained, given the best possible care if they become casualties, and are treated fairly.
Although I believe there are several areas in which we are failing to meet this fundamental requirement for fairness, I will mention only three. Before I identify them, I should remind your Lordships of what our service men and women do for all of us. I spent some time last week talking to one of the brigade commanders, who was, in the distant past, my military assistant. I asked him how he was finding it there. He replied, “I follow the policy of reverse vertigo”. I said, “What is that?”. He said, “I dare not look up. If I look down, it is fine; when I look up, it is not”. Although I talked about a changing society earlier, perhaps the one constant that we would all recognise is the soldier himself. He is a remarkable individual who never ceases to amaze all of us with his achievements. Henry Kissinger once said that the Brits are the only people left on earth who love to fight. Well, we have certainly kept our eye in, and we should be thankful for it.
These are young men and women called upon to put the needs of the nation before their own and who, as we have already heard, forgo some of the rights enjoyed by those outside the Armed Forces. We ask them to operate along the roughest edges of humanity while observing the civilised norms of the society from which they are drawn. That is not an easy task. They face an unprecedented degree of public scrutiny and analysis. Of course, they still live in a hard, frightening and dangerous world. The miracles of modern transport do not absolve them from moving great distances on their feet carrying heavy loads. Snazzy new kit does not stop the bullet from killing them or the bomb from maiming them. The state of their digestion is a matter of public interest. The days are still hot and the nights dark and cold. While there may come a time when technology transforms the world, we are not there yet. So it is down to these young men and women, in their fragile human form, to defend our freedoms. We must not forget that they find themselves in these circumstances because of the decisions taken by our political masters.
I will now speak about the three areas in which I believe we are failing them and which it would be perfectly possible to put right and affordable even in the current economic climate, given due priority. First, as I have said before, I do not believe that the third sector should be exploited to fund men and women who are still serving in the forces. That is the irrefutable responsibility of the Government. Charitable money is desperately needed to support those who have left the services. Every pound that the charities commit to those in service denies help to deserving veterans and their families elsewhere.
Secondly, as others have said far more eloquently than I, there is a compelling case for the retention of the chief coroner. We owe this much to all bereaved families, whether in the services or not. For those who have lost a soldier son, father, mother or daughter in some far-off and unimaginable war, the ramifications of not retaining such a post are extreme.
Thirdly, in no way is it morally defensible to make compulsorily redundant those who have so recently fought for their country. We are not talking about a situation of demobilisation after a major war, as the circumstances are entirely different; nor are we talking about large numbers. As it is likely that the majority of the redundancies from the Armed Forces following the SDSR will be voluntary, we are probably talking about a few thousand being made compulsorily redundant. It is difficult to imagine how these people will feel, having volunteered to fight for their country and having been sent to do so, often several times. Having survived life-threatening battles with their enemies, they return home, keen to remain in service, only to find that an ungrateful Government are kicking them out. This is not the way to show that the nation values such people.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I draw the noble and gallant Lord’s attention to the time.
Lord Walker of Aldringham
I will finish by saying that the Prime Minister has said that the military covenant has been put at the heart of our national life. Because the principles of the covenant are now part of the law of our land, we have not only an opportunity at this time of remembrance to put these matters right but, I believe, a duty to do so.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde
My Lords, I believe that this House is hugely indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for securing this debate and for the quite outstanding way in which he introduced it—emotional but also factual.
I declare an interest as vice-president of the War Widows’ Association, which held a service in Westminster Abbey this morning, supported yet again, as it has been year on year, by the Duke of Edinburgh attending and laying a memorial in the abbey. The members of the association are quite elderly, some of them very elderly, but they were joined today by widows who are very young and have young families. That is a result of the operations with which we in Britain have been faced.
Remembrance and debt are met in a number of ways. We meet them this weekend as a nation in the services that we hold. However, there are a number of other ways. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission, year on year, is meeting the debt that we owe to those who have sacrificed their lives. Some years ago I was asked to carry out a review for the commission when it was having industrial relations problems. It affected me very strongly when we visited war graves in different parts of Europe—including France and Italy—and saw, row after row after row, the graves of soldiers who were 18, 19 or 20 years-old. A whole nation of young people had sacrificed their lives for us. We cannot forget that and we must continue to meet the debt that we owe to them and their families.
The military covenant, on which I congratulate the Government, is another way of meeting our debt to those who have sacrificed their lives, those whom they left behind and those who will come after them as well. If the Armed Forces are anything, they are a family; a family of young men and women working, serving their nation together and acting as a family looking after each other in the bad times as well as the good times.
Another way that various Governments have sought to meet the debt that we owe is through the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body. The debate that we are having today is, in many ways, very sombre and respectful, but it is also looking backwards. I think we have to look forwards because you cannot wheel out debt and remembrance once a year every November and come back to it the following November. It is as ongoing as the service that our young men and women give to this nation when they sign up, knowing that they may have to pay the ultimate price—indeed, so many of them have paid it and continue to do so. There has only been one year since the end of the Second World War when our service people have not been somewhere in the world on operations in the name of this country. The role that the Armed Forces Pay Review Body carries out is part of the commitment that we give to our young service men and women. It is independent, and it carries out its work, I would suggest, in a very fair way. I was honoured and privileged to be the chairman of the review body.
The problem that we have with the Armed Forces is that decisions that we reach today impact on their lives year on year, not only when they are in the service but when they are out of it and when they retire. I am looking at the overall terms and conditions under which we recognise part of their contribution—it can only be part of it. I was appointed chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in 1997. I came to it following two or three successive years when their annual pay award had been staged. Noble Lords might think that is rather mercenary in this debate. It is not, because the cutback in the pay that they had under the then Tory Government meant that at the end of their service their pension was going to be affected every single year until they died. That has a major impact on the pensions of Armed Forces personnel. If they are lucky, they leave the service in their 50s and that is the point at which their pension is based. They come out at a time when it is quite often difficult for them to get another job. Even if the economy is buoyant, they are at an age where, in this so-called ageless society, age is a factor. The pension impact is very important.
Last year, I was not only shocked but appalled to learn of two contradictory statements from the Government about the measures that we are taking as a nation, although I accept that we have to take some others. Initially, the Armed Forces were not going to be involved in the public sector pensions review. Subsequently, we were told that they would be. That decision, particularly if there is a move from RPI to CPI for pensions, will have a significant impact on armed services personnel. It does not meet the covenant that we have reached with our personnel.
Not only that, but this year any member of the Armed Forces earning more than £21,000 per annum received no pay award, which means that we have young lads and women in Afghanistan risking their lives being told that they will not get a pay award. It does not impact on them individually but on their families. Most of those personnel will have young families on whom the impact is substantial. Accommodation has been mentioned. It has been, and still is, an ongoing sore not only in this Government but in the previous Labour Government.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that we each have eight minutes in which to speak. Pensions and pay are two important factors, which impact on our service men and women. In the past year, we have seen a breach of what is referred to as “family harmony” in the Army, but not in the other two services, of just over 10 per cent. That cannot be helpful.
In conclusion, I shall quote paragraph 120 of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body 2011 report. It states:
“We are seriously concerned about the cumulative impact of the overall changes in prospect. Inflation is higher than was expected when the pay freeze was announced, allowances have been cut, and the change in pensions indexation reduces the value of the pension more than other public sector groups. Taken together, these changes pose considerable risks to morale and potentially to recruitment and retention”.
In replying, will the Minister give a commitment to urge the Government to lift the pay freeze and to make sure that we honour the commitment we give to our Armed Forces personnel in regard to their pensions?
Lord Loomba
My Lords, I wear my poppy with pride, as do many in your Lordships’ House. This weekend, the entire country will observe Remembrance Day and there will be silence for those who gave their lives in the two world wars. Therefore, today’s debate on the eve of Remembrance Day is very important. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, on securing this debate.
It is imperative not only to remember those who sacrificed their own lives to allow us to live in a world of democracy but to teach current and forthcoming generations about this tribulation. Generations have grown up in a country and they do not know its past. They remain unaware that the basic human rights that they expect today are as a result of those who have lost their lives fighting for our rights. History must never be forgotten in case it repeats itself. It should be enshrined for all of us, and we should always remember, that the fruits we enjoy today are products of the selflessness of the millions who gave their lives.
Key issues such as human rights, justice, education and poverty are all deeply connected to our democratic values. However, we must always take the time to remember that the democracy on which our judicial system is reliant today came at the cost of people in other countries. Let us not forget that people from India, the West Indies and Africa, and Gurkhas from Nepal, fought with us and for us in both world wars. At that time there was no Commonwealth; there were only colonies. Soldiers came from all corners of the world. From India alone, more than 1 million soldiers lost their lives.
Unfortunately, war and conflict are not only deeply rooted in the world’s history but are ongoing in our present. The Rwanda and Burundi war literally wiped out hundreds of thousands of people. The international armed conflict in Bosnia took the lives of more than 2 million people, thus making it the most devastating conflict in Europe since the end of World War II. The Democratic Congo Republic, as with events in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, paid a heavy price in efforts to remove dictatorships.
The war in Afghanistan has created more than 2 million widows in a country with a population of only 30 million. After 30 years of civil war, Afghanistan has one of the highest percentages of widows in the world. A very high percentage of these widows are young, illiterate and have children to support. Providing for their children is a daily struggle, and they are forced into begging and prostitution. With the death of their husband diminishing their economic security, they are placed at the lowest level of society and their human rights are eroded.
The children of widows are invariably forced into the workplace at an early age to help support their mothers. These working children are denied their right to an education. Many are forced to beg like their mothers or to work in factories where child labour abuse is common practice. In some cases, girls are forced into marriage at a young age so that they are no longer a burden on their mothers.
War has an ugly face. Ultimately, people pay a heavy price which cannot be measured in terms of consequences such as poverty, hunger, famine and disease. There are no victors in any war.
I declare my interest as a founder chairman trustee of my charity, the Loomba Foundation, which has been working for more than a decade to raise awareness of the plight of widows around the world who have lost their husbands through conflict. There are more than 245 million widows and 500 million children—one section of the world’s population—who suffer in silence due to their loss. More than 100 million widows live in poverty and struggle to survive, and are often soft targets for murder, rape, prostitution, forced marriage, property theft, eviction and social isolation, as well as physical and emotional abuse. Their children do a lot worse. Statistics show that about 1.5 million children of widows worldwide do not live past their fifth birthday.
The Loomba Foundation is proud that last year the United Nations declared 23 June as International Widows Day, which was initially established by the foundation in 2005. I should like to ask the Minister if the British Government would support International Widows Day and pay our debts to war widows.
It is clear that wars are very destructive. We owe it to those who lost their lives fighting for our rights that their memories are not lost, and we should work towards a future that is not riddled with war and conflict but is a united world. Remembrance Day is an event that should have a perpetual place in our history because there is nothing more worthy than giving one’s life to preserve the values that we hold.
Baroness Fookes
My Lords, my noble friend has spoken very eloquently of the plight of widows worldwide. My own focus, I confess, has been much narrower, as president of the War Widows’ Association of Great Britain, a post I am very proud and privileged to occupy.
This morning, I went to the opening of the Field of Remembrance outside Westminster Abbey. That brought home the poignancy of loss. All those plots organised by different organisations, with little crosses stuck in—each representing one lost life. I planted two crosses on behalf of two of my organisation’s members, too frail now in their 80s to come and do this themselves. It was a humbling experience.
During my time as president, I have heard innumerable stories of the difficulties that have faced the widows, who are very often extremely young with young children. They suffer all the emotional havoc that comes from losing a husband or a partner and all the difficulties of bringing up children on one’s own, probably with very little money. That was certainly the experience of many of the women in the Second World War to whom I have spoken.
We have to look long term. I agree that we cannot simply have a November remembrance service and then forget it the rest of the time. It is like those who go to church on Sunday then behave abominably for the next six days. We need to get away from that syndrome completely.
I served on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for 10 years. Like others have mentioned, the sight of all those rows of graves is very intimidating, although they are beautifully kept. One of the great joys of serving on the Commission was seeing how it kept the standards going under all kinds of difficulties, such as modern wars, the encroachment of cities into the former countryside, earthquakes, floods—you name it, all kinds of things which would interfere with the good upkeep of this as a remembrance. The Commission does a wonderful job and it was a wonderful post which I greatly enjoyed occupying.
I thoroughly applaud one of the things it did during my time there. It started to put up plaques showing the historical context in which one was viewing the graves. That was important, as it explains to succeeding generations, for whom this is history, what the graves are doing there. To have some context, I think, is extremely important and fits in with all the other ways in which we can teach young people in succeeding generations about what occurred and how important it is to remember. So I applaud all those who try to make it alive and real for youngsters. I hope very much that the various bodies who are involved in charitable work in any way whatever try to take the message into schools, where people will perhaps understand more readily what is involved in war.
There are also those who are not of the armed services as such, but whom I think we ought to remember. I think of the merchant seamen who often risked their lives in the most appalling conditions to help save this country from starvation and to bring us munitions. Think of the nurses who were operating in terrible conditions with awful wounds to see to, and who themselves were under pressure. This very morning I was standing next to a lady representing nurses and midwives. It suddenly came home to me very much that we owe a great debt to all those who are not from the armed services as such, but whose work is absolutely invaluable in dealing with the whole war effort.
We of course have an immense responsibility, as others have indicated already, towards those who survive war but with great difficulty. I think particularly of those whose minds are shattered by war as well as their limbs. I believe that organisations such as Combat Stress do a great deal of work. We are also much more aware of the long-term difficulties that can be experienced. This is something that I hope the Government will take on board because the symptoms very often do not show themselves immediately. Therefore we need to look long term, as we do for physical injuries. Many people now survive who simply would not have done so but for very advanced medical techniques. I suspect this is a worry that we are going to have for 50 years and more. It is very easy to forget about once the main dangers are over so we need to have a long-term commitment, I think that this is extremely important.
For the last part of my contribution, I should like to consider a rather sore point, touched upon by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker—the issue of the chief coroner. My noble friend the Minister will recall that when we were in opposition, we worked together in order to ensure that such a post existed. There is a certain irony, shall we say, in the present position. I want to believe that we can manage without him and that the kind of work that we expected him to do can be done by other people. But I have a very real worry that if his duties are distributed among others, then it will be nobody’s job. We need a person in this role. If we cannot have a chief coroner, which I would still like, then we need at least a person of repute and sufficient seniority to carry weight. I think that is extremely important and I urge that upon my noble friend. He will recall that one of the reasons why I and those involved in the services wanted this measure, was that military inquests are of a different order from normal inquests. They require a degree of sophistication and an understanding of military facts and ethos. That was developed slowly and painfully for the families of those who had died, but then we had a few coroners with that expertise. I did not want to see that lost, and that was the view of many others involved. Therefore it was felt essential to have a chief coroner with direct responsibility for the training of all coroners, particularly those needing expertise in military inquests.
I continue to think that that is the case. I am hoping for a crumb or two of comfort from my noble friend on this issue. I live in hopes. I think I see a shaking of the head in front of me. Oh, it is a nodding. I will wait eagerly to see what my noble friend says at the conclusion of this debate. I also thank my noble friend Lord Selkirk for giving us this wonderful opportunity to pay tribute, on behalf of the nation, for the wonderful service rendered by our Armed Forces.
Baroness Flather
I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, as well. It is an opportunity for all of us to express our feelings about this occasion. It is a wonderful thing to be able to do that, we very rarely get a chance. My only sadness was that he did not mention the Indians—more than 4 million of them—who served with the British in two world wars. Since we are remembering people, and thinking of those people who were there with the British in two world wars, we might have thought of the Indians because they were crucial.
I should declare an interest. I am an Indian. I wanted to tell noble Lords about something that happened to me when I was a mayor in 1986. During my mayoral year, I was at the wreath-laying ceremony on Remembrance Day and afterwards somebody asked me, “Does Remembrance Sunday mean anything to you?”. I was very shocked by that. It was the first time that a seed was planted that made me think that people have to be informed of what the Indian role was in the two world wars.
Not only that—my father was a student here during the Great War, and Gandhiji said to the Indian students, “By all means help the war effort but don’t kill people”. So my father became a stretcher-bearer and spent the Great War in Mesopotamia. He never talked about it; my brothers, who were older, tried to ask him questions, but he never wanted to talk about it. I think he had such an appalling time that he did not want to recall it, as many prisoners of war did not. But in view of that, it was even more awful to be asked such a question.
Gandhiji also said, in the Second World War—and this has sometimes not been put across correctly—that we must help the British win the war, because then we will get our freedom. He said that if the British did not win the war, we would not know where we would be. So he actually encouraged Indians to volunteer in the Armed Services during the Second World War.
In the first year there were something like 1.5 million Indians. In fact, it was very interesting because India had a standing army of 150,000. When the British expeditionary force went to France it was outnumbered; it was when the Indian standing army started to come across and join the British that things started to change in France. So it is quite strange to know that India had a standing army of 150,000, and they were sent over as soon as possible to fight in France. Also, there were Indians in Palestine in the First World War.
In the Second World War, Indians were much more important. There were 2.6 million to 2.8 million Indians—there are no clear figures—who volunteered. There are very few veterans left now, but I have spoken to them and they said that when officers came to recruit to the villages, they said, “Join the armed services and you will get your freedom”. This was a great draw for them to join. Some people think that the Indians joined the armed services because of poverty. I am sure that was a factor, but I am pleased to say that it was not the only factor. Their contribution in the Second World War was absolutely crucial. North Africa was the first turning point of the war, and there were huge numbers of Indians there. In fact, we have a German friend whose uncle was posted to north Africa; the uncle told this little boy, “Don’t worry about me—I’m only going to fight the inferior races”. It is interesting to have this handed down from his uncle to him to us. This is how it was—we were considered the inferior races, but we did not do so badly after all. It was a great and important turning point.
The Burma campaign speaks for itself, as 1,250,000 were got together by Field Marshal Slim of whom two-thirds were Indians. I really hope that these things will not be forgotten totally, at least in your Lordships' House, because you care about these matters.
Because of all these things that people did not remember or know, as these memories get older and older, I really wanted to see a memorial to the Indians—but also to the Africans and West Indians. It should really pull at the heartstrings, the fact that West Indians—Jamaicans—were at the Somme. They came all the way to die at the Somme; not only that, but it took them six months to get permission to join the British Army and serve. These are things that we should know about, because the whole immigration after the war is rooted in the war. People forget to connect it. Who came here first? It was the people who had served in the Air Force and the Army.
There were two tyre factories in Southall and, as ever, the managers could not get any British workers. So they went back to the villages where their men had come from in the Punjab and recruited there specifically to work in those tyre factories. It is from that the migration to Southall started—and Southall, as noble Lords know, was full of Sikh people.
Sadly, I do not know whether most of your Lordships have seen the memorial. I hope they have. It is on Constitution Hill, not far from here. The names of the winners of the Victoria Cross and the George Cross are in the pavilion next to the memorial. I hope that people go and look at it and do not just pass through it, as they often do. The sad thing for me has been that we have never had a Prime Minister or a senior Cabinet Minister or anybody come to that memorial. The Queen inaugurated it but, even on that occasion, nobody from the then Government of any seniority came. It is quite interesting that when the Australian memorial was inaugurated, the Prime Minister went. One begins to wonder whether it is a question of kith and kin after all. We all remember the Anzacs and all the dominions, but do we remember the former colonies, which gave a great contribution? I am not sure that we remember them in the same way.
I also just mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, is the only person who has helped and supported us. She honoured us with a dinner, at which we raised quite a lot of money, and she has been twice to the memorial at the ceremony. But nobody else of any note has yet been there, and I invite all of you to visit.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, every year we cherish a number of bank holidays, whether Christmas, Easter, St George's Day or May Day. They all have different meanings for people and, for some, little meaning at all. They are viewed with varying degrees of importance. However, I believe that there is no one day more significant for us in Britain than Remembrance Day, an annual event for which we do not have a public holiday.
The emphasis on recognising the debt we owe to the fallen, like shifting sands, is moving from a focus on the world wars to more recent conflicts. The Wootton Bassett corteges are tangible evidence of the increased poignancy and recognition in the public consciousness of this.
I therefore thank my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas for securing this debate. It is timely to allow us to reflect this year on the mostly positive news to highlight how we recognise the debt owed to the fallen, but also on seeking to look after—better—those who have been left behind and those who continue to serve. It provides an opportunity today to corral and re-emphasise some key points that have arisen from related debates during this year.
By tradition, a Sunday in November provides a formal period of reflective ceremony for families and friends to remember those they knew so intimately who gave their lives for their country. More tangibly, for those directly affected, it is a time also perhaps for a grim but dignified reflection of their changed lives—on family life which might have been, with absent fathers never bringing up children and wives having to cope with overwhelming challenges. More indirectly, we pause and think of those we never knew, from all conflict zones going back several decades, represented by countless names written in bold black letters, hewn in stone on memorials in the UK and around the world.
In June 2011 the War Widows Association marked the 40th anniversary of its foundation, as has already been mentioned. A moving service held in London allowed those present to honour the fallen and their spouses, and reflect on their bereavements, which have happened not just in the heat of war zones but too often from tragic incidents such as friendly fire or accidents in service. It was also an opportunity, collectively, for the war widows, of whom there are over 30,000 in the UK, to quietly reflect on their successes, including the fight over many years for a pension 100 per cent free of tax.
A debate on the subject of the war widows that same day last June highlighted the need for further improvements to their care and welfare. This included the need for a change to data protection laws, still outstanding, to make it easier for the Ministry of Defence to transfer war widows’ personal information directly to the association. Current registered numbers are low, at just over 3,000 people. The debate further highlighted the need to protect fully a widow's pension. There remains a legacy issue affecting potentially over 4,000 people. If the death of a spouse fell between 1973 and 2005, after which the Armed Forces pension scheme came into force, and the widow subsequently remarries or co-habits, her pension is withdrawn.
Above all, 2011 has seen the contrast between the war in Afghanistan and civilian life at home highlighted in sharp relief. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has already mentioned, the Armed Forces covenant, presented this May and enshrined in the Bill, emphasised the need to have a closer bond between the services, communities and local authorities. It served to reaffirm the commitment between the state and the services concerning the defence of the realm, including the sobering point that those serving in the forces must be prepared to fight unquestioningly, and if necessary be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. As written in the Army doctrine document, this is founded on the highest principles of personal and collective commitment, and grounded in those key values of integrity, discipline, selflessness, outstanding training and unquestioning authority.
In return to those serving, to servicemen and their families, the state commits to deliver on a number of important social, welfare and health principles, with quality benchmarks to include equipment for fighting, family support, housing, education for children and recognition, to name just a few. In stark contrast with these principles, the riots that this country suffered from earlier this year demonstrated the moral and social bankruptcy seen in some parts of our society. People, mainly young, beyond the control of their parents or authority, were wantonly stealing goods from shops because they were tempting and available, all gained under a cloak of protest at government policy. To echo the words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, I find it quite extraordinary that soldiers, some of whom may have come from the same cities and not dissimilar backgrounds to the rioters, have continued to serve in highly dangerous conditions against this background at home but remaining as professional, as focused and as brave as ever. It adds further weight to the debt owed not just to the fallen but to the seriously wounded and to those continuing to place themselves in danger. It is also a testament to the highest quality of selection, training and discipline within our UK Armed Forces. There is progress in tackling these legacy challenges at home—which were partly responsible for the riots—and I applaud the Government for taking strong action in working to effect societal change, including the increase of personal responsibility and the reduction of welfare dependency.
Education also has a role in helping us to understand the debt; my noble friend Lady Fookes has already spoken about this. The sacrifices made are more easily understood in society and in communities and passed down through the generations if history is given a greater priority in schools and is better taught, so that it is more interesting and meaningful. Improved teacher training is under way, placing a greater focus on the background to conflicts and on the linkage to related events. This will help pupils to establish a greater perspective to their place in the world and, we hope, will lead to the engendering of a greater purpose to and responsibility in their lives. As my noble friend Lord Lee of Trafford has highlighted, schools should be encouraged to take an interest in adopting local war memorials, to teach pupils about the sacrifices within their communities.
It is hoped that a greater awareness of conflict and the reasons behind conflict, with tangible improvements in our moral standards, in encouraging greater self-help and in giving more help for our fellow human beings in society, will help begin to repay the debt which we will be remembering again in depth on Sunday.
Lord Glasman
My Lords, I also echo the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, for a beautiful speech and particularly for the beautiful words in relation to memory from Abraham Lincoln. That was beautifully chosen. This is only the third time I have spoken in the House; that is because I am extremely nervous, and because of my incredible sense of gratitude at being able to speak in a free institution in a free country. This is a marvel to behold. I was in a Select Committee this week on a Private Member’s Bill on pedlary. It was said that while the concept of the pedlar may go back to the 13th century, it is not really compliant with EU directives. I wondered what it would be like to subject the House to such a directive. It is wonderful that we have kept the particularity of our traditions and can speak freely on these matters.
We have just had 5 November and Guy Fawkes’s night. That is an example of statecraft, of an attack on the realm that was turned into great political memory. A link was established between the monarchy, Parliament and Protestantism that has lasted for hundreds of years. It seems to me that we have not grasped how to preserve our memory in this country—how to give flesh to the covenant. The covenant is not a contract. The noble Lord, Lord King, spoke of something sacred in the obligation that we owe. This is the third time I have spoken and the second time that I have spoken on the concept of remembrance. The last time I spoke was about Remembrance Sunday, suggesting, with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and my noble friend Lord Davies, that we need a day that we can establish a tradition within. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, told a beautiful story about tending the graves of the neglected dead; that could be a beautiful tradition to establish on Remembrance Sunday.
It is also the concept of the generations. I am from a Jewish background: I owe my life to your parents and grandparents. It is not just the people who fought; it is the people who lost family and loved ones, and the way that that has to be endured. They should also be remembered when we think of the defence of the realm. We should have one day a year and use our imaginations as the Tudors and Stuarts used theirs, to create some national memory. Could not schoolchildren visit grandparents? Could not some link be established, so that we can remember our obligations to previous generations and, as my noble friend Lady Dean said, look to the future? If we have no way of remembering the sacrifices, we will lose the memory. Just having a moment of reflection by the cheese counter in Sainsbury’s is not as good as we can do. That is why we should return to the idea of a genuine holiday on Remembrance Sunday, so that we can have a day where we can establish traditions like fireworks night—some way of remembering the sacrifices made in this country and the fact that, alone in the world for a while, we preserved democracy and liberty, against extraordinary odds.
I am something of a radical traditionalist, as some noble Lords may know. I say to the right reverend Prelate that it took a few days for the church to remember what St Paul’s Cathedral meant, but I am very glad that it did. It was completely by chance that the protesters in their tents stumbled upon the site of St Paul’s Cross, the oldest site of democracy in our country, upon which the Corporation of London and this House base our democratic inheritance. It is extraordinary that they discovered it, and now they celebrate it.
This country is a marvel, and it is full of miracles. We need to preserve our institutions and have days and commemorations when we can remember all that is best about our country and that in difficult times we cared for each other, looked out for each other and were prepared to make quiet sacrifices.
I support what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, said about the coroner. The matter of the coroner is of concern to grieving families, and just to put it into the accounting system would be too petty.
In remembering people’s sacrifice, we as a House need to be much more imaginative in thinking of a day when we can remember and the sorts of traditions that we want to see. Fireworks night is now a tradition but it was instituted by Members of this House in order to remember the institution of this House. I urge all of us to think of ways in which we could put aside a day and develop traditions whereby we can remember the enormous sacrifices made not merely by the dead but by their loved ones.
Lord Bew
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for securing this debate and for his moving opening speech. I echo his words that it is a privilege to speak in a debate of this sort in this House.
My remarks will follow partly in the spirit of my noble friend Lady Flather. I make the point before I start that it is enormously important to acknowledge the varied nature of the sacrifice that has been made in the struggle to maintain freedom in this country, and that full acknowledgment of that is part of ensuring better relations between different groups in our society.
Ireland provides a striking example. I remind noble Lords that in the case of Ireland there was no conscription in either the First World War or Second World War, so all the sacrifice that was made by Irish people of different traditions was entirely voluntary. In the First World War, nearly 135,000 Irishmen volunteered, in addition to the 50,000 who were already serving with the regular Army and in the reserves in August 1914. Within a few weeks of the outbreak of war, no fewer than three Irish divisions—the 10th (Irish), the 16th (Irish) and the 36th (Ulster)—were formed from Irishmen, Catholic and Protestant, who responded to the call to arms. An estimated 35,000 Irish-born soldiers were killed before the armistice in November 1918. Over 4,000 of those died in the 16th Irish Division.
We have grown increasingly free in recent years of that version of the relationship between the two countries in which the only important military event was the Easter Rising, in which 450 people died. I am increasingly aware of the other important context of the sacrifice of Irishmen of both traditions in the First World War. I should add that, in the Second World War, 170,000 Irishmen again volunteered freely in the Allied cause. It is important, and no accident, that the increase in what is called the peace process, but more profoundly in the better relations between the two islands, has been characterised in recent years by an awareness, both in Ireland and in Britain, of the importance of those men and women who gave their lives in the First and Second World Wars. That process culminated in the important visit made by Her Majesty to Dublin earlier this year.
I shall say a few words about the Irish who died in the First World War. The first Member of Parliament to die was Arthur Bruce O’Neill, the Unionist MP for Mid-Antrim, who died within a few weeks of the war starting, on 6 November 1914. He had four children and his wife was expecting another. That other child was Terence O’Neill, who became Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and a Member of this House. I also happily report that another kinswoman of Arthur O’Neill, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, is in her place. This House has intimate connections with the case of the very first Member of Parliament who died in arms in the First World War.
However, this is not a question of unionist sacrifice alone. Several Irish Party MPs joined up in the First World War. One of the most moving moments in that war was the speech made in June 1917 by Captain Willie Redmond, the brother of the leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party, who had cheated on his age to get in and serve but at the age of 55 spoke to Parliament about what was happening at the Front, in one of the most dramatic speeches in uniform ever given in the other place. He was killed at Messines in 1917. A number of other Irish nationalist MPs—most recently, I think, Stephen Gwynn, who is the subject of a biography published this week by Colin Reid—also served in that war.
These remarks about Ireland, on the importance of acknowledging the importance of mutual sacrifice and the positive role that that has played in recent years, do not apply only to Ireland. That is why the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, were so important. An important book by Shiraz Maher has just been published, Ties that Bind. It reminds us of the sacrifice of Muslims in the First and Second World Wars as they fought alongside the other Imperial and Commonwealth forces. About 65,000 Muslims were killed in Flanders and Mesopotamia alone in the First World War. Similar Muslim sacrifices were recorded in Burma, Italy and north Africa in the Second World War.
The noble Baroness has already referred to the beautiful set of Portland stone gates installed in 2002 on Constitution Hill that acknowledge that sacrifice alongside that of other Commonwealth soldiers. I support the noble Baroness’s words. It is a reasonable request on her part that senior members of the Government should consider attending that place and marking in some way the importance of that sacrifice. She has made a tremendously important point and I support it as strongly as I possibly can.
Lord James of Blackheath
My Lords, at this time of national remembrance, I would like to use my time to talk about a national loss of memory, rather than of memory. It is a matter of great concern to me because it involves the greatest single loss of life by any of our fighting forces in any single engagement since, I think, the Battle of Hastings. This also involved: a massive failure on the part of the supporting authorities for the provision of equipment; a total failure of duty of care to the widows and families of the fallen; and the insult of today not even recognising it as a campaign in the official histories of the services. Yet—if one can stretch the point, and I have already apologised in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk—it was important to the defence of this realm, including our laws, reputation and principles of humanitarianism. I am talking about the suppression of the slave trade.
After Wilberforce’s moment of triumph in this House in 1806, there followed a 54-year campaign for suppression. The whole burden fell on the forces of the Navy and the rapidly-developing Marines, who had ceased to be sailing soldiers and at that time were beginning to be proper amphibian forces. Suppressing the slave trade required massive intervention on the waterways surrounding the coast of Africa. There was a terrible lack of accurate intelligence about where they should be and what they should do; and they had no shallow-draught boats with which to fight this battle.
Having won the Battle of Trafalgar, there were no enemies left for the Navy, so nobody was spending any money on it. They were certainly not going to build a fleet of shallow-draught boats to fight with. They were told to take what craft they could get from the southern ports of England, sail out and suppress the slave trade. In the course of doing so, they lost 23,000 people through fatality. For every one killed in battle, another three were lost to the diseases that beset the troops, who had no protection against them.
A total of 23,000 died in a fighting force engaged over 54 years. In doing so, they succeeded in suppressing the slave trade, but they got no help from anybody, least of all from many of the vested interests in Britain. They had to fight in dreadful conditions in shallow water and in villages where local tribes and their leaders wanted the slave trade to continue because they made a fortune. The slavers themselves would wait for the flotillas from England to arrive, then come in behind them and try to attack and kill our forces, because they wanted their vested interest in slavery to continue.
Only after six years did the Navy bother to send out a couple of frigates to try to cure that process, but in the first five years a total of 1,580 flotillas were sent out, of which not one returned intact. The total number of deaths in the first five years alone was just over 11,000. It was an appalling slaughter. Worse still, because it has never been categorised as a campaign, the Admiralty and Government would acknowledge no obligation whatever to the widows and families of the fallen, who became a complete burden on society and were left to drift for the rest of their life—as far as they could eke it out. There was no money spent on equipment and nothing on welfare. If that sounds surprising for 204 years ago, we have a few more recent episodes that could remind us of the same today.
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, has invited me to join forces with him in forming a committee to erect a monument to the heroes of that campaign and I have happily agreed to do so. He is committed to raising a statue to Mary Seacole, and I have a commitment to raising one to the warriors of suppressing the slave trade. We will work together to do so, though my only argument with the noble Lord is that Mary Seacole rates seven pages more than Winston Churchill in the history curriculum. I am not sure that that is entirely fair. In contrast, the suppression of the slave trade does not get a single paragraph and that is a disgrace.
As we stand today, we need a statue and I have a clear view in my mind about what it should look like. It should obviously carry the image of a heroic warrior at the front, but behind him I want the bodies of a dead wife and children. It would serve as a great reminder to the generations today of the sacrifice that has to be honoured as an obligation. In the immortal words of Nelson, they are a “bequest to the nation” which we must never fail. I am concerned that we do fail, and I have been delighted to hear the comments made on their behalf today. However, we are still not doing enough and I hope that a statue in those graphic terms might help to advance this cause.
Lord Soley
My Lords, it is a delight to follow the noble Lord, Lord James. He is absolutely right. We have discussed this at some length and I will touch on that in a moment. One thing that I would add, and what is often forgotten about the loss of life, is that in that campaign more than 200,000 slaves were released and often taken back to Africa when possible. So it is a far more important campaign than people realise.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, and thank him for the help he has given me on the Arctic convoys, which I will talk about in a moment. What I really want to mention are memorials. We think of them as remembering individuals, as they do and should. However, they are also—this is where my views have changed, or developed, over the past 20 or 30 years—an educational process. They teach us about our history—not just the history of Britain but of the world. I will return to that in a moment. It has been touched on to some extent by others.
I want to mention the Arctic convoys because I frequently go to the west coast of Scotland. I have always known about the Arctic convoys and the dreadful conditions in which sailors from both the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy served. Not only were there constant air and naval attacks on them, but if the ice built up to a certain extent on merchant ships they simply turned over. If your ship turned over in that sea, you would die very quickly. I said that there ought to be a museum since there was not one and many people thought that there should be. I was proud to attend recently the 70th anniversary of the Arctic convoys at Loch Ewe on the west coast. I was delighted to learn that people were now trying to fund a convoy museum. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lee, and my noble friend Lord West, who have both indicated that they will in some way assist, if only in publicity or by lending their names to this group.
Jock Dempster, who is one of the veterans and chairman of the Russian Arctic Convoy Club, was presented with a medal by the Russians who were present. Americans and Canadians were present, as were some of our own people. However, there was very little recognition by the British Government of our involvement in the convoys. There is feeling about that. The Russians cannot understand why we do not remember it. The Russians teach their schoolchildren about the importance of the Arctic convoys. Their children know about it. They also know about it in the Russian ports in the Murmansk area. It is a classic example of an area that we have, somehow or other, allowed to slip from our memory.
There is now a charity that has been set up to build a Russian Arctic convoy museum. If anyone is interested in supporting it, they should look at the website. It is certainly something that I want to support and I have lent my name to it as a patron. It is very important that we remember the Arctic convoys. The charity would also like a medal to be struck for the Arctic convoys. I say to the Minister that I understand the problem of having separate medals for separate parts of a campaign. There is, after all, the Atlantic Star. However, I cannot believe that it is beyond our ability to come up with some additional way to recognise specific campaigns within a larger strategic area, such as the Battle of the Atlantic. The circumstances of the Arctic convoys were quite exceptional and brutal. I ask the Minister to look at ways of recognising that particularly heroic time.
The noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, has anticipated me. I was going to say a bit about the need for something on the slave trade. He talked about the loss of life; I have mentioned the number of slaves who were released. It is important because, as I have said before in this House, it is probably the world’s first example of a humanitarian intervention. As I have also said before in this House, when people rather loosely—and, in my view, foolishly—throw around claims about illegal wars, we must remember that several captains in the Royal Navy were brought before the court, as the noble Lord, Lord James, will know. Appeals were heard in this House, and they were charged with interfering with trade on the high seas and fined for it. That is an indication of how attitudes move. You have to say, “Thank heavens they continued”. That is an interesting aside on our history.
The noble Lord, Lord James, also mentioned the last charity that I want to mention. I declare an interest as unpaid chairman of the Mary Seacole Memorial Statue Appeal, which has been part of my educational process. Back in the 1970s, I was asked by some of the Caribbean people in my then constituency of Hammersmith to help to identify the grave, which had been overgrown, in Kensal Green Cemetery where Mary Seacole was buried. I knew about her background as a Crimean War nurse who was also greatly appreciated in Central America. There were no nurses, as such, then. Florence Nightingale put the nursing profession on the map but it is impossible to see Mary Seacole as anything other than a battlefield nurse. She went out on to the battlefield and looked after the wounded. She was a remarkable woman, who ended up being so popular in the United Kingdom when she returned from the Crimea bankrupt—because she had funded herself by running what was called the British Hotel there—that the troops here held concerts for three days to raise money for her. Troops do not do that unless they have a very positive memory of someone. Yet, by the beginning of the 20th century, Mary Seacole had been forgotten to our history. Both the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who I should thank for being a great supporter of Mary Seacole, recognise that British military history is full of international history, too. The British Indian Army has been mentioned on many occasions; there is Africa and so on. However, the people who alerted me to the grave of Mary Seacole in Kensal Green Cemetery were among the Caribbean people who came over to volunteer in 1939 and very often ended up servicing the anti-aircraft guns. We did not stand alone in 1940, we stood with the empire and dominions behind us and the contribution they made was enormous.
If you walk out into the Royal Gallery, look at Daniel Maclise’s picture of Nelson dying on the flagship and you will see a black sailor pointing up at the Frenchman who shot him. Look to the left of it and you will see what we would then have called Lascar seamen and women tending to the wounded and doing other tasks. The Royal Navy tells me that close to 200 sailors at Trafalgar were of African origin and that 20 per cent of those on Nelson’s flagship were non-British.
The values we defend and fight for are about freedom, democracy and the rule of law and the educational role here of all these things is important. If I succeed in raising funds for the Mary Seacole memorial it will be the first memorial to a black woman in Britain. That is also important. What she did for the military was profoundly important but what she did and still does today in the school curriculum is remind people that our history is not a narrow one, built just in this island alone; it is literally an international history and we rely on that to convey the message about freedom, democracy and the rule of law. I would ask Members to bear this in mind when they look at these charities. They are not just monuments of stone; they are monuments of feeling, of history and of thought.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, on obtaining this timely and important debate and on his masterly and moving introduction. In the wording of his debate, he has provided a possible let-out for the Government to extract themselves from an unfortunate position with regard to the Armed Forces covenant, to which I shall return.
Tomorrow uniquely, at 11/11/11/11, like many others I shall be remembering the sacrifice made and the recognition of it not only by citizens in the UK but in other parts of the world. I would like to draw attention to four of those places.
One lovely morning in early January in 1966, with the remainder of B Company The Rifle Brigade, I went to pay my last respects to the five members of my company who had died or been killed in Borneo and would not be coming back to the United Kingdom with us, knowing that they would be looked after by the Singaporean gardeners from that incomparable organisation, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. This has, in fact, happened.
Moving further west, I sometimes lecture at the battlefield of Gallipoli; a place of terrible beauty but also a place of extraordinary magnanimity which I can illustrate by two of the memorials. One witnessed by Lord Casey, later Governor-General of Australia, of a Turkish soldier carrying in a wounded Australian to the Australian lines. Secondly, a monolith beside that extraordinary Anzac Cove, a strip of sand on which the Anzac Corp was landed in error, containing the words of Kemal Atatürk, president of Turkey, who himself gained fame there.
“Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives,
You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country,
Therefore rest in peace.
There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets,
To us, where they lie side by side, here in this country of ours.
You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries,
Wipe away your tears.
Your sons are now lying in our bosom, and are in peace.
After having lost their lives on this land,
They have become our sons as well.”
They are wonderfully magnanimous words. And then I move further west to Hermanville in Normandy, where every year there is a ceremony, started by the French in 1946, with the 3rd Division which landed there on D-day. After has boat has gone into the sea and thrown out a wreath, and the French flags are lowered, a party led by the mayor and the general march to the village, where they are joined by the schoolchildren. In the cemetery, after the British flags have been lowered, the schoolchildren put flowers on every one of the 3rd Division graves. They have done that since 1946.
Finally, I move further west to Ocracoke Island on the coast of North Carolina, where I once went for a memorable weekend. My wife and I thought we had found a snow storm on the ground, but it was in fact a cloud of snow geese in migration. There, when having breakfast before going fishing, the man running the restaurant said, “Have you come to see our cemetery?”. I asked, “What cemetery?”. There are four graves of sailors from HMS “Bedfordshire”, which was a trawler sunk in May 1942, that are looked after every year by the United States Coast Guard; and Her Majesty the Queen is sending a new British flag this year to mark the anniversary.
Those examples show that our dead are acknowledged and recognised all over the world. The Armed Forces community this year was given a huge boost by the announcement of the Armed Forces covenant—an enduring covenant between the people of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government and all those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown, and their families. This covenant is based on trust and goodwill. Each of those three partners has obligations. Among those laid on the Government is,
“special treatment for the injured and bereaved, as proper return for their sacrifice”.
The despicable defiance of the covenants by the metal thieves has been referred to by many noble Lords during this debate. However, to me, much more serious is the continued defiance of the covenant by the Government and, in particular, I name the Secretary of State for Justice in his refusal to appoint a chief coroner—as mentioned by my noble and gallant friend Lord Walker, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman. There were long-standing complaints about the failure of the coronial system to serve families up until the passing of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which appointed a chief coroner. The campaign was orchestrated by the Royal British Legion and the charity, INQUEST. Since then, despite the fact that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted for the chief coroner, the Secretary of State for Justice has opposed that appointment on grounds of cost. However, the costs he uses are spurious, grossly inflated and have never been compared with the revised proposals made to him. Furthermore, he has produced no supporting documentation or explanatory calculations of cost-benefit analysis. If the costs were as high as he alleges, the Royal British Legion and INQUEST would share his concerns.
I am saying this not just because this is the eve of Remembrance Day, but because I believe that it would be a tragedy if the Armed Forces covenant was discredited before it was introduced. There is great danger of that happening over the issue of the chief coroner. I ask the Minister to say to the Secretary of State for Justice that it is not too late for him to reflect on the devotion of the Singaporean gardeners, the words of Kemal Atatürk, the actions of the schoolchildren in Hermanville and those of the US Coast Guard in Ocracoke. He should draw back before 23 November, recognising the damage that might be done to the trust in the Government’s honouring of the obligation that they owe to those who pay the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of this great realm of ours.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, it is always a privilege to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and it is a privilege to follow him in this debate, which was so eloquently and movingly introduced by my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas.
When I went to the Printed Paper Office to obtain the list of speakers, I saw that I was the final Member to speak from the Back Benches, and I wondered whether there would be anything left to say. However, as I have listened to every word in this debate, certain themes have come through.
I could not help but reflect, as I listened—particularly to the speeches of my noble friend Lord James and the noble Lord, Lord Soley—on the historic nature of this place. It was in this Chamber that Winston Churchill made almost all of his great wartime speeches, the Chamber of the House of Commons having been destroyed. As he made those speeches, I know that from time to time he looked up at the statues of the Barons of Runnymede, still above us as we speak today. The historical perspective brought to this debate, especially by the speeches of my noble friend Lord James and the noble Lord, Lord Soley, made me realise that although of course we have focused particularly on the sacrifices of the First and Second World Wars, there have throughout the ages been those who have defended the realm and the liberties of Magna Carta, the very foundation of the freedoms that we enjoy in this country today.
One has only to go to the Royal Gallery—the noble Lord, Lord Soley, talked about this—to see not only the wonderful Maclise mural of Trafalgar but, opposite it, the mural of Waterloo. In 2015, we shall commemorate not only the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta but the 200th anniversary of Waterloo and, for good measure, the 600th anniversary of Agincourt. That gives a sense of historical perspective and belonging. Throughout our ages, the liberties built on Magna Carta and developed through a gradually evolving free Parliament have had to be defended on the field of battle and on the oceans many times by brave, brave men and, more latterly, by brave, brave women as well. We should also remember, in the context of anniversaries, that 2015 will see the 750th anniversary of the de Montfort Parliament.
All that, I hope, gives us a sense of belonging to an institution which is the ultimate bulwark of our freedoms. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, and others have rightly talked about the sacrifices made in more recent conflicts. I shall be, God willing, at a remembrance service in Lincoln Cathedral on Sunday—the first time that I have not been in my little village church in Staffordshire, which I left recently—remembering the fallen. In Lincolnshire, we remember particularly the heroes of the RAF, and we shall be remembering two from the Royal Air Force who have recently given their lives, not in conflict but in perfecting their skills.
All of us have our individual and personal memories, which bring alive to us the sacrifices that we are seeking to underline in this Chamber today. I think of a trunk that I opened when my dear late mother died in 2000 at the age of 90 and discovering for the first time that she lost six of her cousins in the First World War—all of her male cousins, I believe. I think, too, of the services that we have had in the village of Enville, where I lived for well over 35 years, where, every Remembrance Day, the roll of honour is read. The Royal British Legion assembles from Enville and the neighbouring, rather larger village of Kinver, and it takes more than five minutes to read the names of those who fell, a number of them from specific families.
All that, as has been emphasised today in notable speeches by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, and others, underlines the debt that we collectively owe and the obligation that we collectively have. I am so glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, in his place, because he made a brief but moving speech. He referred to one thing that I specifically want to talk about now. Earlier this year, we had a Second Reading of the Remembrance Sunday Bill promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. It is a Bill which I introduced in the House of Commons shortly before I left that House in May last year. I was sad that the then Government obstructed its speedy passage on to the statute book, as I made plain in my speech to this place earlier this year. I was sad, too, that I did not get a more encouraging response from my noble friend who was replying from the Dispatch Box. It seems to me that giving Remembrance Sunday a status equivalent to Christmas Day and Easter Day as a day when the tills stop ringing, when people have a chance to pause and remember, and when, as the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, said, they can be with their families, can do only good. It is a very little thing that we are asking for. It is an extremely modest measure but one that would mean a very great deal to war widows, about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and my noble friend Lady Fookes spoke so eloquently earlier, and to all those to whom the right reverend Prelate referred. I realise that it is not my noble friend’s departmental responsibility but I advised him that I would be referring to this. I hope that he will be able to give a little encouragement and make at least two people—the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, and me—very happy today.
Finally, we have recently touched on the encampment at St Paul’s. I do not want to go into all the details now, as there is not time. There is not a Member in this House who does not defend the right to free speech and free protest, but I say this to those encamped at St Paul’s. Remembrance Sunday is but three days away. Remember that you are not there because of your own actions; you have the freedom to be there because of what generations of men and women have done in the service of their country. Therefore, I hope that, if you cannot pack up your tents and go—which is something that I should like to see—you will at least watch reverently and attentively and do nothing to disturb the solemnity of the day.
Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to all the very wise words that have been spoken in all the speeches and I agree with much of what has been said. I have been wondering whether, at my great age of 89, I am the only person in this Chamber who was alive and had a job during the time that we have in mind.
I should like to pay a heartfelt tribute and express immense gratitude to the staff of the Royal Star & Garter home who looked after my wounded husband until his death. I owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. Their work, thank goodness, continues.
Perhaps I may also mention members of the Home Guard. I particularly do so because my father, who won an MC in the First World War, commanded the Marylebone branch, which included the BBC, Harley Street, Oxford Street and the Windmill Theatre.
Baroness Trumpington
Noble Lords may well laugh—they have very good reason to do so. My mother used to go away for one night during the year. Now your Lordships have ruined my entire speech.
The Marylebone area was very heavily bombed and many of my father’s comrades were casualties. Indeed, there were casualties among the Home Guard throughout the war. Its members did a wonderful job; they were brave men.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, thanks have already been expressed a number of times to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, for securing this debate and for his opening contribution. Nevertheless, I still wish to take this opportunity to add my own. It is only appropriate that we should be having this debate close to Remembrance Sunday, which the nation observes in the middle of this month because it was on 11 November 1918 that the guns finally fell silent on the western front. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and my noble friend Lord Soley have quite rightly reminded us that it was not just British military personnel who have made such sacrifices on our behalf over the years.
Remembrance Day enables us to commemorate in a very visible and dignified manner the sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, made in our name by our Armed Forces, both in years gone by and currently by those on active service at home and abroad. In your Lordships’ House, we admire their commitment, their patriotism and their courage, just as do the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. That feeling is reflected, as has already been said, by, for example, the people of Royal Wootton Bassett and in another way by the determination of the Football Association to ensure that the England team should be able to wear poppies during their match this weekend. This feeling is not reflected in the sickening actions of a handful of people who think it appropriate to strip the metal plates from war memorials with the names of those who have given their lives. I share the hope expressed by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester and the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, that action—if necessary new legislation—will be taken very soon to assist in bringing this despicable practice to an end. This practice is particularly abhorrent to the All-Party Parliamentary War Heritage Group, which does such important and invaluable work in remembering those who have fallen by promoting and supporting the protection, conservation and interpretation of war graves, war memorials and battle sites.
We know that other countries are planning to commemorate the centenary in 2014 of the outbreak of the First World War. I hope that the Government will also be commemorating the centenary in an appropriate and fulsome manner which reflects the significance of the Great War in the history of our nation and the enormous sacrifice that was made by so many. In that regard, I welcome the appointment of Dr Andrew Murrison MP as the Prime Minister’s co-ordinator of the centenary commemoration.
We tend even today to think in terms of men when we talk about the courage and commitment of our Armed Forces. We do not always recognise the major role that women play and have played in the service of our country, a point of which we were reminded in a debate in your Lordships’ House last June initiated by my noble friend Lady Crawley. She asked what steps the Government were taking to recognise the contribution made by women put on active service by the Special Operations Executive in the Second World War. As my noble friend said in that debate, and as the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, reiterated today, the women concerned served in occupied France, acting as couriers, wireless operators and saboteurs, working with the resistance movements to disrupt the occupation and clear the path for the allied advance. Needless to say, many of these brave women never returned. For that reason alone, they must never be forgotten.
In the past day or so, we have read in the press about an apparent suicide pact between an Army veteran and his wife who, among other things, were, it appears, struggling financially with very little to live on. Something in that case—for whatever reason—would appear to have gone tragically wrong. However, that is not the norm. We should recognise the contribution being made by many local authorities in the developing community covenants. The service charities also do tremendous work and it is only right that we should express our thanks to them for their work not only in supporting our veterans and their families—not least with the difficult adjustment that some find making the transition back into civilian life—but also for the support they provide for the men and women of today’s Armed Forces.
The welfare of our Armed Forces, as well as the adequate equipping and training of our Armed Forces, is of paramount importance. The previous Government published a Service Personnel Command Paper which was the first cross-governmental strategy on the welfare of Armed Forces personnel, putting the welfare of our Armed Forces as a mainstream policy commitment through all government departments. Among other things, it doubled compensation payments for the most serious injuries; it doubled the welfare grant for the families of those on operations; and, since housing is an issue that has been mentioned today, it led to increased investment in service accommodation. We now have, after a campaign by the Royal British Legion and a political row, the military covenant enshrined in law to ensure that no disadvantage arises from service. I do not doubt that it is the Government’s intention to seek to adhere to the principles of the military covenant, but it will be through their actions, not their intentions, that they will be judged.
There are three issues to which I should like to refer and which I hope the Government will address. The first concerns the Office of the Chief Coroner, to which a number of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Glasman, have already referred. The office of the chief coroner has been legislated for, yet it is being abolished by the Government. The Government say that they are concerned about the cost, but arguments that it can be implemented at lower cost have been consistently and resolutely ignored. All bereaved families, and not least bereaved service families, deserve an expert independent coronial system at the most difficult time.
In a letter some 10 days ago to the Minister concerned, the Royal British Legion said that it was mystified by some statements that he had made in the other place some three days earlier. The letter went on to say:
“At this poignant time of year when the Nation pauses to remember, it seems incredible that the Ministry of Justice should be in such a determined rush to take away from those brave families the support they desperately need and so deserve—the Chief Coroner which Parliament, with cross-party support, promised them less than two years ago”.
The Royal British Legion regards this issue of the office of the chief coroner as,
“the first big test of the Armed Forces Covenant since it was written into law and a very important opportunity for the Government to demonstrate its commitment to the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant”.
The Royal British Legion is right.
The second issue is military pensions, which have already been referred to by my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. The permanent change to a lower rate of indexation will significantly reduce the value of pensions for soldiers and war widows. This year-on-year change will disproportionately affect service personnel because they rely on their pensions at earlier ages than almost anyone else. According to the Forces Pension Society, a corporal who has lost both legs will miss out on £500,000 in pension and benefit-related payments. A 34 year-old wife of a staff sergeant killed in Afghanistan would be almost £750,000 worse off over her lifetime. These are big figures, and this is a change which does not just apply to the current period of deficit reduction but will continue to apply permanently, stretching way beyond the period of deficit reduction.
The third issue relates to cuts in personnel. In October 2010, when the SDSR was published, we were told that 17,000 personnel would have to go across the three services. As of July 2011, however, we were told that 22,000 would have to go. We need to end the uncertainty about the future size of our Armed Forces and we need to know exactly how many redundancies there will be and where. Uncertainty over cuts and the threat of redundancy does not help morale, and service personnel deserve clear answers to enable them to plan for their own and their families’ futures.
Service personnel make many sacrifices, as my noble friend Lord Parekh pointed out. They are often separated from their families for long periods. They often work in extremely dangerous conditions and situations, risking their lives or facing the prospect of suffering life-changing injuries whether physical or mental. Neither are they able to have the same political or contractual rights that apply in other occupations. For those reasons, they should not be treated like other public sector workers but instead deserve special recognition.
Our nation comes together at this time of year in particular to show its respect and solidarity for and with those who serve and have served, and in particular those who have sacrificed their lives. The noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, has also given your Lordships’ House the opportunity to do just that. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that today’s debate, which I know will be further enhanced by the Minister’s speech, has achieved the objective for which he hoped.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever)
My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Selkirk on proposing this debate and on his very moving speech.
Tomorrow, at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month—and, for the first time, of the 11th year—we shall mark the moment when the guns fell silent at the end of the First World War. I wonder whether our forebears, when they first introduced this mark of respect in 1919, believed that it would last this long, or that a second world war and countless other smaller conflicts would be added to the ledger of remembrance. Indeed, it is hard for us to put ourselves in their place—not just to grasp the sheer horror of the conflict which had just ended, but to appreciate their hope that they had at least witnessed the war to end all wars.
The last survivors of the trenches have passed away, and we know to our cost that war continues to tear nations and families apart. Yet I believe that we still feel a connection to those who fought in the Great War, not because we watch episodes of “Downton Abbey”, but because every family in the land was affected by the conflict. It was truly the nation at war.
Remembrance Day is not just about the First World War, nor even about the two world wars. It marks the loss and debt we feel to all those who have died in the service of their country. Sadly, since the last time the guns fired to mark Remembrance Sunday, we have lost 35 brave personnel in Afghanistan. The world has changed enormously since the trenches of the First World War, and so has this country, and so have its Armed Forces.
What have not changed are the spirit and dedication which characterise our soldiers, sailors and airmen in all that they undertake. This past year, in Afghanistan and over Libya, countering piracy in the Indian Ocean or even walking to the North Pole, they have again acted with courage, professionalism and commitment, and I pay tribute to them.
Remembrance unites our country. The ceremonies at the Cenotaph are impressive and moving, bringing together Her Majesty the Queen and members of the Royal Family, the heads of the political parties, military leaders and Commonwealth ambassadors with thousands of the men and women who took part in the conflicts of the recent and more distant past.
That is only a part of what is happening. Up and down the nation, ceremonies will be taking place and wreaths will be laid, to commemorate local sacrifices and local heroes. In Afghanistan, services will be held, to remember not only the many who have given their lives in the past, but friends and colleagues whose memory is still very real. From the youngest recruit to the oldest veteran, their faces will show the mixture of sadness and pride that sums up the spirit of these ceremonies: sadness that they gave their lives, but pride that they did so in the performance of their duty and in the service of their country.
The poppy is the enduring symbol of this act of remembrance. It symbolises hope as well as memory. Every poppy seller, and every poppy buyer, is doing their bit to ensure that we remember the sacrifices our Armed Forces have made to make a better world, and that we do not forget. This is the season when the work of the Royal British Legion is particularly prominent, but that vital work carries on, every day of the year, to support the living.
The legion and its fellow service and ex-service charities are the channel through which the people of this country express their gratitude and respect for the men and women who have fought for them. The volunteers who form the backbone of these charities deserve our special thanks at this time of year.
As my noble friend Lord Selkirk points out, remembrance of sacrifice is not some optional extra, which is a good thing to do, if we have time. It is a debt, an obligation on all of us, whatever our age and whatever our political persuasion. That is why it is so repulsive to read of war memorials being vandalised to sell for scrap metal. A number of noble Lords mentioned this, including my noble friend Lord Selkirk, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester—to whom I pay tribute for the really important work he does as chairman of the War Heritage Group—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, and my noble friend Lord Lee. In responding to this issue, I can do no more than repeat what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the other place on 2 November:
“We are working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to put in place an action plan to deal with this, which will involve looking again at the whole regulation of scrap metal dealers. We are determined to do that to put a stop to this appalling crime”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/11; col. 918.]
My noble friend Lord Lee made an excellent suggestion that schools might adopt their local war memorials. As part of their service to the community, members of all Ministry of Defence-sponsored cadet forces are being encouraged to take part in the In Memoriam 2014 project. This involves the locating and logging of the thousands of war memorials across the United Kingdom and marking then with smart water, which enables the metal components to be forensically tracked should they be stolen. It is therefore both helping to tackle the problem and raising awareness of the sacrifices that have been made.
It is also objectionable when groups seek to exploit this solemn occasion to further their own agendas. That is why it is so distressing to read of thoughtless actions, which lead to poppy sellers being treated as a nuisance or a health and safety hazard.
I will say a little about what the Government have done to honour the debt. It takes many forms, but starts from the moment that those who have given their lives arrive back in the UK. This year has seen the return of repatriation flights to RAF Brize Norton, after several years of flying in to RAF Lyneham. During those years, we have seen something quite extraordinary, as the people of Wootton Bassett have come together to show respect for the fallen, in a dignified and solemn way. They never looked for any recognition. However, I was delighted that Her Majesty the Queen was pleased to bestow the title of Royal Wootton Bassett on the town, as a permanent reminder of when it stood for all of us.
The example set by the people of Wootton Bassett placed a spotlight on the new arrangements for RAF Brize Norton. Quite rightly, the nation was concerned that we should get this right. I believe that we have done so. The new purpose-built facilities on the base give the deceased and their families the dignity they deserve. Oxfordshire County Council and the Thames Valley Police have sought to ensure that the route which the hearse takes after it leaves Brize Norton is both suitable for the cortege and gives an opportunity for members of the public to pay their own tribute.
Today will see the repatriation of Private Matthew Haseldin, who was tragically killed in Afghanistan last week. I know that he will be given all suitable marks of respect.
Each death leaves behind a grieving family. Another part of our debt to the fallen is that we should support their loved ones to the best of our ability. Last month, when your Lordships were debating the Armed Forces Bill, we recognised the importance of the inquest process as part of that support. The inquest has a crucial role to play in helping families understand what has happened and perhaps in helping them to come to terms with it. The Ministry of Defence will continue to work with coroners and families to make inquests as effective and valuable as possible. As your Lordships know, the Secretary of State is now under an obligation to cover this topic in his annual Armed Forces covenant report.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the position of the chief coroner. This will of course be debated in this House on 23 November. However, I can address the nugget put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. The Government are clear that urgent reform is required to ensure that the coronial system offers a much better service to the bereaved families of service personnel. That is why we are ensuring that coroners conducting military inquests can access proper, specialist military training and that inquests can be transferred to locations close to the homes of bereaved families. We are also introducing a new charter to set out the clear, enforceable standards that everyone should expect at an inquest. We are appointing a Minister, supported by representative bereaved families, to be in charge of driving and monitoring these much needed changes.
The inquest should and does help bereaved families to come to terms with their grief, but the loss that they have suffered is permanent, with the greatest impact perhaps on children. That is why it is so important that we have introduced scholarships for the children of those who die in active service to enable them to go on to further and higher education.
Honouring the debt to the fallen is the sum total of a host of small actions. It is honoured when SSAFA organises support groups for the bereaved. It is honoured when regimental associations make sure that they keep in touch with the families of the deceased. It is honoured when the Ministry of Defence and other agencies of the Government conduct their dealings in a sensitive and respectful fashion.
Last week the Armed Forces Act 2011 received Royal Assent, and the Armed Forces covenant is recognised in law for the first time. It has signalled the Government’s determination to rebuild the covenant. The debt that we owe to the fallen is an important part of that wider moral obligation to recognise what our Armed Forces do for us, and we will not neglect it.
In this debate about remembrance, it is fitting that I should again draw attention to the contributions of the War Widows Association, as many other noble Lords have done. Of course, my noble friend Lady Fookes is president of the association and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, is vice-president. We had an opportunity to debate its work on its 40th anniversary on 8 June. It campaigns tirelessly and effectively for the widows and widowers of all conflicts, who occupy a special place in our thoughts. I am always impressed by how those who have suffered such a tragic loss are able to turn that loss into such a positive force for good, and I pay tribute to them.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, paid tribute to the work of Help for Heroes, and I echo what he said. My noble friend Lady Fookes pointed out the wonderful work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. My noble friend Lady Trumpington paid tribute to the Star and Garter and the Home Guard. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, made a very eloquent speech about the contribution of Indian troops in both world wars. I assure her that we shall always remember the millions of Indian soldiers who supported us. I was very honoured to represent the Prime Minister last night at the remembrance meeting of Indian soldiers killed in both world wars, and to lay a wreath at the annual ceremony at the memorial gates on Constitution Hill that the noble Baroness did so much to make possible. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, spoke movingly of the contribution in both world wars of the Irish, from all backgrounds.
My noble friend Lord Lee asked whether the Royal British Legion visits schools and can sell poppies. I understand that the Royal British Legion is active in a number of ways to engage with children and schools on remembrance issues. For example, it produces a learning pack that schools can download from its website. It also offers specialist tours to battlefields and cemeteries and its members visit schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, asked about the appointment of Dr Murrison, which he welcomed. My honourable friend the Member for South West Wiltshire, Dr Murrison, will act as the Prime Minister’s special representative and co-ordinator for events commemorating World War I. We are aware that a number of Governments, including France, Belgium and, most notably, Australia, are quite well advanced in their thinking. As our own plans develop, we will ensure the proper engagement of all interested parties in the UK and overseas. I very much look forward to keeping in touch with the noble Lord on this important issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who of course is a commissioner of the Royal Hospital Chelsea, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the FIFA compromise to let England wear poppies on their armbands on Saturday, which we feel is a very sensible way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, also asked about ID cards. We are working to incorporate a veterans card as part of a new contract for the defence discount scheme. Rollout is planned during next year, but I should make it clear that these will not be formal identity cards.
My noble friend Lord Lee mentioned the National Memorial Arboretum. There is no intention to reduce the current MoD grant in aid to the arboretum. Although it is independent of the Government, we provide it with a grant in aid to defray the costs of maintaining it as a place of national importance of commemoration.
My noble friend Lord Cormack, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Glasman, in, if I may say, an excellent speech, raised the Bill to extend Christmas Day and Easter Day restrictions to Remembrance Sunday. I can assure my noble friend that we are consulting with other departments on this issue and within the department.
The noble Lord, Lord Soley, asked about the Arctic convoy medal. The Government have agreed that there should be a fresh review of the rules governing the award of military medals. This will be conducted by an independent reviewer with full consultation with interested parties. The scope of the review and who is to lead it are expected to be announced shortly. This will include the issues surrounding Arctic convoy veterans.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, raised Armed Forces pensions. Specific proposals from the Armed Forces have not yet been formulated. Consequently, it is too early to inform service personnel of what the changes will mean for individuals. It is clear that a new pension scheme must be acceptable to service personnel, highly competitive in relation to other schemes in recognition of the unique commitment of the Armed Forces, retention positive in pulling personnel through to key career points and aligned with the development of the new employment model.
On the third point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, personnel preparing for, deployed on or recovering from operations, such as Operation Herrick in Afghanistan, will be exempt from selection for redundancy unless they apply for it.
Concerns have been expressed by noble Lords about the position of widows who lose their pension on remarriage or cohabitation because they fall into the gap between 1973 and 2005. This reflects the fact that pensions paid to widows under the 1975 Armed Forces pension scheme, where the death was not due to service, cease upon remarriage or cohabitation. This is not the case for survivors’ pensions paid under the 2005 scheme, which are paid for life. I fully understand why this difference appears to be unfair. Nevertheless, successive Governments have maintained the principle that improvements to public service pensions should not be applied retrospectively. Addressing one issue would increase the pressure to address the legacy issues in all public sector pension schemes. This would have huge financial implications and is simply unaffordable.
I am running out of time, but I will address all those other questions I have been asked in the form of a letter.
Remembrance is not just about passive contemplation or private grief. It is about public action—action to look after the living who have suffered as a result of sacrifice, action to ensure that our young people understand their history, action to treasure the values which so many have fought and died for. In the moment of calm when the minute’s silence falls across the nation tomorrow, we should all bear that in mind.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving reassurances on many of the subjects which have been raised today, particularly that the matter of the desecration of war memorials will be followed up with vigour in due course.
On the issue of protecting a war widow’s pension, I sense that the mood of the House is very sympathetic to the Minister doing everything he can within the framework of what is possible. On the chief coroner question, it might be a great help if the attention of the relevant Secretary of State could be drawn to what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who made an excellent speech, I very much hope that the memorial gates at Hyde Park Corner commemorate appropriately all those from India who played such a role in the last century—India being the world’s largest democracy today.
The suppression of the slave trade, which the noble Lord, Lord James, spoke about, went on for a very long time. When I was a small boy, I was told that my grandfather, who was a midshipman, had to play a very small role in that. I think that story should be better known because the British and the Commonwealth have been involved in humanitarian projects and objectives on many occasions in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Soley spoke very well about the commemoration of the Arctic convoys, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lee, on the need for a memorial for RAF Bomber Command, which I hope will be opened before very long.
Remembrance is very important for the families of all those who fell in battle. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, touched upon the role of women. The best way I can illustrate the importance of remembrance is by quoting a very few words claimed to have been used by Leo Marks to contact Violette Szabo, to whom I have already paid tribute, in a wartime code. Violette Szabo’s husband Etienne had been killed during the battle for El Alamein. Violette herself later worked behind enemy lines. In the film “Carve her Name with Pride”, the words were used to symbolise the wartime love and loss experienced by a warrior for a married partner who had been killed. It is really remarkable for its shortness and simplicity. It reads as follows:
“The life that I have
Is all that I have
And the life that I have
Is yours.
The love that I have
Of the life that I have
Is yours and yours and yours.
A sleep I shall have,
A rest I shall have
Yet death will be but a pause
For the peace of my years
In the long green grass
Will be yours and yours
And yours”.
EUC Report: Grass-roots Sport
Baroness Young of Hornsey
That this House takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on Grassroots Sport and the European Union (16th Report, HL Paper 130)
Baroness Young of Hornsey
My Lords, as London and the UK gear up for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, and with the EU year of active ageing rapidly approaching, the publication of the EU Committee’s report, Grassroots Sport and the European Union, makes this debate timely. When the Social Policies and Consumer Protection EU Sub-Committee, which I chair, began its inquiry at the beginning of this year, it was not immediately obvious to all of us that the EU had any specific locus in the sporting arena. Your Lordships may be aware, however, that the Lisbon treaty, which entered into force at the end of 2009, granted the EU a formal competence in the field of sport for the first time. This now permits the EU to support, co-ordinate and complement the actions of member states, which retain primary responsibility for sports policy. To this end, the Commission published a communication on developing the European dimension in sport on 18 January 2011. It was this document that prompted us to conduct the inquiry.
The report considered how the new competence could best be used to support grass-roots sport by extending the benefits of participation to individuals, teams and communities. It focused on grass roots rather than on professional sport in light of the fact that one of the reasons for developing an EU sports policy and therefore introducing a competence was recognition of the social significance of sport. While it is fair to say that there was a degree of scepticism among some members of the committee at the start of the inquiry, we heard powerful evidence from a range of stakeholders that convinced the committee at an early stage that sport can make a valuable contribution to policy areas in which the EU has a stake. For example, we heard from volunteers of Street Games who run sports projects in disadvantaged communities where they have reduced anti-social behaviour and brought together diverse or fragmented communities. As part of its inquiry, the committee visited Swiss Cottage School in Camden to learn first hand how disabled children and young people in the area are benefiting from being involved in grass-roots sports. In addition, we heard about projects that are helping people into education, employment and training by developing skills such as team work, as well as confidence, and other initiatives that aim to reduce social isolation among elderly and migrant communities.
Sport alone will obviously not solve these complex social problems, but the committee became convinced that it is a powerful tool which policy-makers should use. The committee’s report recommends ways in which the EU and the UK can exploit the full potential offered by a sport through mainstreaming it into their policy-making and using it to deliver their objectives in a broad range of areas, including health, education, social inclusion and equalities. Increasing the participation of underrepresented groups such as older people, the unemployed, disabled people, migrant communities and other disadvantaged groups, should be a particular priority, as well as recognising the importance of recruiting and retaining volunteers.
The EU can also affect sport in a number of less obvious ways, and it is here that the committee considered that the new competence could be particularly helpful in ensuring that sport is taken into account. For example, EU legislation on the single market and intellectual property can ultimately affect the amount of money available for grass-roots sports projects. Our reports suggested ways in which the EU can avoid placing unnecessary regulatory or legislative burdens on sport, particularly when they affect volunteers, who are essential to grass-roots activity. In this respect, we recommended a review of EU legislation by the Commission, similar to that recently undertaken in the UK to identify regulatory burdens and ideally remove them in due course.
Although there have been signs that the Commission is starting to integrate sport into policy-making and funding programmes, we did not consider that it was taking place consistently enough. We considered that the EU could adopt a more focused role through the Commission’s sport unit in making a more compelling case for the integration of sport in a wider range of policy initiatives. This could be effected through data collection and research, for example, particularly with regard to the evidence base for the social outcomes that sport can facilitate, through improving mechanisms by which member states and grass-roots organisations can share best practice, making funding available through truly transnational projects via a dedicated sports programme and through recognising that more general EU funding streams, such as the structural funds, can also offer significant potential to grass-roots sports. While we accept that resources for any funding streams specific to sport are likely to be small, we are still hopeful that the matter will receive the attention that it deserves during the current negotiations in Brussels regarding the next multi-annual financial framework for the period 2014-20.
The redistributed revenues from the broadcasting of professional sport also provide a significant source of funding for grass-roots sport. The treaty now allows for the specific nature of sport to be taken into account in the assessment of commercial arrangements, such as collective selling and territoriality, that had previously come under scrutiny for their compliance with EU competition and internal market legislation. We welcome the Commission’s recognition of the benefits to be derived from collective selling. However, the uncertainty over what the specific nature of sport entails has been a long-standing concern of stakeholders.
Your Lordships may be aware that this matter received media coverage last month as a result of court action taken by a UK publican, Karen Murphy, who has been fighting for the right to air Premier League games using a Greek TV decoder. The European Court of Justice, which took note of the new article in the treaty and the requirement to recognise the specificity of sport, ruled that national laws which prohibited the import, sale or use of foreign decoder cards were contrary to the freedom to provide service. While not providing an absolute green light for publicans across the land, especially regarding copyright issues, this decision could nevertheless have major implications for the Premier League and lead to cheaper viewing arrangements for foreign broadcasts. The implications for the funding of grass-roots sport from broadcasting revenues are far from clear, particularly as lower subscriptions may, of course, increase the volume of subscribers.
Digital piracy of sporting events is another issue of increasing concern, and our report recommended that sport be included in the Commission’s work on the digital agenda. Similarly, we recommended that any work resulting from the Commission’s Green Paper on online gambling takes sport into account. We heard divergent evidence on whether the gambling industry should be required to pay a fair return for the use of sport’s intellectual property. This is a complex issue, and we recommended that the Government and the Commission analyse the French levy and consult more widely on the issue.
Lastly, we concluded that the Commission needed to do more to ensure that the voice of grass-roots sport is sufficiently heard. Dialogue between the Commission and sports stakeholders is currently dominated by professional sport, particularly football, and is therefore not truly representative. Our report recommended that the Commission should put in place enhanced measures to inform grass-roots organisations about work being undertaken at the EU level and the opportunities available to them. The EU Sports Platform, as chaired by the ex-Taoiseach John Bruton, should help with this.
We also suggested ways in which the EU working groups, which progress many of the EU’s initiatives in this area, could be more productive and focused, including making use of smaller grass-roots organisations with expertise in specific areas where appropriate. In the UK context, we considered that Sport Northern Ireland, sportscotland and Sport Wales should be invited to join the DCMS EU Sport Stakeholder Group, which is currently only attended by Sport England.
Hugh Robertson MP, Minister for Sport and the Olympics, wrote to us on 22 May this year to set out the Government’s response. There is clearly a lot of common ground between our views and those of the Government on the issues we dealt with in the report. We welcome in particular their commitment to ensuring that the contribution of sport to other EU policy areas, including the Europe 2020 objectives, is recognised in the work plan for sport for 2011-14, as well as being mainstream throughout the EU’s broader activities. We also welcome their commitment to increased participation, including through volunteering, and in line with their London 2012 Singapore promise across government departments and building on their existing engagement with the devolved Administrations.
The Government were less persuaded of the committee’s recommendation to establish an EU sport programme as a specific funding stream under the next multi-annual financial framework, which we note does not form part of the Commission’s recent proposals in this respect. However, the Government did support the committee’s recommendation that sport should be mainstreamed through other funding instruments, including the structural funds, and they undertook to promote such opportunities to the UK sports bodies. However, the Government did not indicate whether that policy would be integrated into the UK’s negotiation stance in the next round of structural funds. We look to the Minister to tell us more about the Government’s intentions in that regard.
The Government also supported the committee’s recommendations on the need to address the digital piracy of sporting events in work on the digital agenda, as well as accepting the committee’s conclusion that too often EU legislation in unrelated areas unintentionally adversely impacts upon sport, particularly on volunteers. They also accept that there needs to be better vigilance and better use made of the impact assessment process. The EU’s impact on grass-roots sport would surely pass unnoticed without adequate dialogue between the Commission and the sports organisations on the ground. In this respect, the Government support our recommendations on the need for such dialogue to be more representative and outcome-based and for the Commission to communicate better, particularly to smaller organisations, the opportunities available to them at EU level.
We also received a response to our report from the European Commission in September this year. We were encouraged to read that the Commission was largely supportive of our report’s conclusions and recommendations, although it also suggested that financial constraints may prevent certain measures being adopted to improve dialogue between it and sports organisations.
The committee understands that the Council will adopt further conclusions on the role of voluntary activities in sport in promoting active citizenship and, in the wake of the recent international cricketing no-ball controversy, on combating match-fixing and promoting good governance in sport more generally. In similar vein, the Commission is currently developing its approach to online gambling following the publication of its Green Paper, and the committee will look forward to considering any proposals that may result from that process.
Since the responses from the Government and Commission were received, I have also had the pleasure of giving an address about our report to a conference in London that was organised by one of our main witnesses during the inquiry, the Sport and Recreation Alliance. The Commission and the European Parliament were also involved in that event, so it provided an excellent opportunity to make the committee’s views known on this matter.
I hope that my remarks today have demonstrated that the EU’s new competence potentially offers real benefit to sport and the millions of people who enjoy participating in it across Europe. The committee is hopeful that the competence will be used to ensure that even more people can reap the benefits of doing so, and we expect that the EU’s work in this area will only develop further over time. As sport is truly international, it seemed only reasonable that the EU should have a strong role in that context, as long as grass-roots activities at the local level continue to receive the support that they require and deserve. In that respect, we are hopeful that the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London and the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow will provide a lasting sporting legacy without taking much needed funds away from grass-roots sports. I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords, and of course from the Minister on behalf of the Government, regarding this important matter. I beg to move.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, this is a fascinating report and a particularly worthwhile subject to investigate. Sub-Committee G has produced a paper to the expected high standard, ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey. I should add that while I am a member of the committee now, I was not in place during the course of the report.
The committee has looked at a subject that requires, and has been given, in-depth investigation. I look forward to the response from the Minister, particularly in response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The European Union has the ability to develop and make a difference to the success of grass-roots sport. It will be able to integrate sport into policy-making and funding streams and to encourage more member states to improve their own performance, both on the playing fields and in letting grass-roots sport thrive.
The great benefits of grass-roots sport and taking part stand repetition. As the noble Baroness mentioned, sport is good for health and education. With regard to health, as we all know, we are in the midst of a massive obesity epidemic in this country that is creating a population with a high incidence of type 2 diabetes. This, I might add, is costing the British taxpayer almost £1 million an hour. I am not, of course, saying that grass-roots sport is a cure-all for all things obese, but it can certainly help. I also mentioned education. There is the physical side, including fitness and skills, and there are the social skills. Something that is often forgotten in competitive sport is that playing as part of a team is a great thing for the young of this country to take part in.
We cannot look at grass-roots sport without also looking at major sporting events. It would be difficult for one to exist without the other. Major events rely on the grass roots to buy tickets, shirts, scarves and other goods; and to watch pay-to-view terrestrial or satellite television. The grass roots also rely on funding gained from these major events. This is particularly poignant at the moment when we look at the enormous sums of money that have been mentioned in some sports, such as salaries and transfer fees. Money can trickle down to grass-roots events. The holy grail, though, is the sporting legacy from these major events. This is also the basis on which competing nations have won the right to hold events such as a world cup, championship or the Olympic Games. This is an area that appears to be difficult to achieve; therefore co-oordination from the European Union can possibly help to extend this sporting legacy further.
A study from the University of Kent was highlighted in the Guardian about six months ago. It looked at the sporting legacy from the Greek Games held in 2004. It found that there was a short-lived boost in sporting activity of 6 per cent in 2003-04. Five years later this dropped by 13 per cent. What made this more depressing was that over the same time Greece won the European football championship, so there was a big push on sport in that country. The legacy is not there now. The data and the study show that a broader strategy on active lifestyles must be implemented when these major events take place. I hope that the European Union will help to put that in place. This of course can be implemented on a pan-European basis.
Two countries with a sporting heritage, admittedly outside the European Union, are Australia and New Zealand. Australia held the Sydney Olympic Games, which were another successful major event. Once again, no noticeable legacy was found. More recently, we have had the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. We have yet to see what the sporting legacy will be from that, but in a country of 4 million, with every one of them wearing an All Black shirt, there were 120,000 visitors to the country and 1 million tickets were sold.
When the Rugby World Cup comes to England in 2015, I understand that we aim to sell 3 million tickets. Let us hope that it will produce a pan-European sporting legacy and stretch even further and be long-lasting. By then, I hope, a number of European countries will play in that World Cup.
So now we look to 2012 and how the sporting legacy will be achieved. We have the capital projects, the creation and improvement of stadia that will be used for the event, and the upgrading of thousands of local sports clubs and facilities. We should also not forget the protection and improving of sports fields across the country. These will have a long-lasting use after the event has ended, but we must ensure the legacy also brings more people to take part in sport.
The European Union has the opportunity to co-ordinate and to oversee progress. However, I make a sincere plea, along with the noble Baroness, not to overregulate areas where it is not required. This is so important. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Billingham
My Lords, the European Union Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, are to be warmly congratulated on producing this excellent report. Not only does it inform and update us on the role of sport in the EU, but it points the way to the future, where grass-roots sport can take its place at the centre of people’s lives.
It is a particular pleasure for me to talk about sport in such a context. In the 1990s, when I was a Member of the European Parliament, I wrote and spoke constantly of the need to reflect the importance of sport in member states, and urged the Commission to provide legislation to reflect that. I was secretary and, later, president of the European all-party committee on sport, which undertook numerous reports and hearings that provided an opportunity for important debates. None was more so than when a Belgian footballer made his way to my office in Brussels to explain his predicament and his dispute with the football club for which he played. I almost said “which owned him”, since that was the nub of the case.
Little did I realise at that first meeting that the Bosman case, as it became known, would have such a fundamental effect, not only on football but on all professional sport. It changed for ever the rights and entitlements of individual players. I well remember telling the player that his case, within the existing legislation of the single market, was strong. I urged him to take it forward; he did and the rest is sporting history. Despite this and other controversial cases, the Commission refused to incorporate sport into EU legislation. Therefore, its inclusion in the most recent treaty—the Lisbon treaty—is welcome, if long overdue; sport is now recognised.
As with many good ideas, timing is everything. With economic chaos across Europe, the likelihood of generous funding—a strong, separate budget line—would appear to be a forlorn hope. What is to be achieved in the current situation? The report gives us good pointers. It reminds us of the scope of sport within society, notably in health, social and educational spheres. It highlights the role of volunteering, which is so crucial to both professional and amateur sport, and asks for recognition of this. Here in the UK we are focusing on volunteering in the build-up to the 2012 Olympics. Thousands of people have already signed up, with many more to follow.
By taking evidence from a wide range of sources, the EU Committee provides us with an excellent overview of where we are now and where we can be in the future. Not only does it look at the implications of the single market, it focuses strongly on intellectual property rights—all of which is aimed at protecting sport from negative factors and promoting good practice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, the failure to take sport into account in the formation of legislation has caused significant problems.
What, in reality, can we hope for in the future? The Commission is now a paid-up member of the sports lobby, promising to include sport in all future policy areas and quite rightly granting it its proper status. The benefits for member states are highlighted in the EU work plan for sport. With better EU data collection, member states will be able to measure themselves against others. There are huge discrepancies, so the comparative performance data will enable member states to learn from each other, stimulating Governments to match up, either through better funding or better structures. No sporting body ever wants to be at the bottom of the league table.
The breadth and sources of submissions to the EU Committee are impressive. The Sport and Recreation Alliance made a strong case for the benefits of participation and the active notion of sport for all ages and standards, which is of course the hallmark of grass-roots sport. It also reminded us that sport and physical activity have a positive impact on educational attainment—a fact which sadly seems to have eluded Mr Gove with his dispiriting educational proposals. The point was strongly made that sport must be mainstreamed in structural funds if disadvantaged and unrepresented groups are to be helped.
Sport England highlighted a number of concerns, not least the sadly small number of women participating in sport compared to the number of men. Oh, for some form of Title IX across Europe—the USA really did get that right in the 1980s and Europe should be encouraged to follow suit.
My suggestion for enhancing sport in an economic downturn is based on co-operation. My inspiration comes from comedian and writer Tony Hawks, a committed and, indeed, good tennis player, who for the past seven years has founded and promoted Tennis For Free. For most of that time I have encouraged and supported him and lobbied for him with the LTA and with governments, until recently with scant success. His formula is simple. A charity, Tennis For Free, uses his local park courts at the Joseph Hood Recreation Ground in Merton, for a weekly free coaching programme on Saturday mornings. It is amazing. The courts, though pretty rundown, are packed, with mums, dads and kids all being coached, provided with racquets and balls and coming back week after week. It is all made possible by the far-sighted Merton Council, which has decided that the court should be free all week and the pay-and-play charges have been removed.
Now Tony has moved further. Councils up and down the country—most of them cash-strapped—have signed up for a similar package. There is no requirement for expensive upgrading of courts for Tennis For Free; as long as the courts are deemed to be safe, they are deemed to be playable. Some 80 councils have now signed up to that project; it is truly amazing. At last—at very last—Sport England has come online, recognising that this is a unique way to foster grass-roots tennis. It is funding eight new centres so that the basic cost for coaches, racquets and balls can now be met.
This I believe is a formula that could work for most sports: a charity employing coaches, a local authority giving its facilities free of charge and seed-corn funding from the Sports Council. It is a formula that could be used across all member states.
I thank the European Union Committee for opening up this debate and I thank all who contributed to the report. Let it be the first of many.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, on 22 November I shall be taking over as chair of the Volunteering Development Council, following in the footsteps of my noble friend Lady Hanham. It is a great honour to have been asked to chair the council, because it represents the opinions and interests of the millions of people throughout this country who contribute to the daily life of our nation by volunteering. I would like to use today’s debate as an opportunity to say a few words about the relationship between the EU and grass-roots sports and volunteering.
First, may I place on record my appreciation of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her chairmanship of EU Sub-Committee G. She combines incisiveness and understanding of whatever subject is in hand with great good humour and a collegiate approach, and it is genuinely a pleasure to serve on the sub-committee. We are also, as ever, served very well by the staff of this House and in the case of this inquiry by the specialist adviser, Professor Richard Parrish.
Our report highlights the importance of volunteers in sporting activity and notes that, for example, the average football club will involve some 21 volunteers. Indeed, the Football Association estimates that there are more than 400,000 volunteers involved in footballing activities alone.
Why do they do this? For some, it is the love of a particular sport that stays with them throughout their lives. For others, it is drawn from a commitment to their local area and the role sport can play in cementing that sense of local community. My home town of Needham Market has a thriving and very successful football club that was first established in 1919. It has a number of teams and a record of success that is the envy of far larger towns. Over the 30 years that I have lived in Needham Market, I have seen hundreds of young people commit their time and energy to the club. There are currently some 130 young people active in football in the town, which has a population of only 4,500.
Other people become drawn to volunteering in sporting activities because of the many benefits that sport can bring to people who are disadvantaged in some way. We had powerful evidence from Street Games and the Prince’s Trust, among others, about the role that sport can play, not just in providing meaningful activity but in teaching leadership skills and providing a route to recognised qualifications. The RNIB, for example, explained how physical activity can improve balance, mobility and co-ordination for those with a visual impairment, and locally I have seen how the bowls club often brings great social as well as health benefits to older people.
All these activities depend on volunteers, and one of the great things is that much of the interaction goes across the generations in a way that few other activities do. Volunteering of any kind is and should remain essentially a local activity with support from local councils and national Governments. The European Union-level dimension to grass-roots sport and volunteering is hard to establish at first sight. Indeed, a very recent communication from the Commission spoke about having a legal framework for volunteering. Even as a Europhile, I would need some convincing of the need for that.
However, as our inquiry went on, it became clear to me that there is a role for the EU in grass-roots sport, although it is limited. First, many witnesses highlighted regulatory burdens as one of the great barriers to volunteering. The experience of the English Federation of Disability Sport was that,
“even small increases in administrative burdens can have a devastating effect on a club’s ability to recruit and retain volunteers”.
While I accept that it is often difficult to sort out the truth from myth about EU regulation, I would support the Sport and Recreation Alliance in its call for a review of EU regulation as it impacts on volunteers. A number of witnesses told us that both sport and volunteering are vulnerable to the law of unintended consequences as a result of EU legislation in other areas. The Sport and Recreation Alliance told us how regulations about working at height and on the use of open water had had serious adverse impacts on climbing and water sports. With the coalition Government committed to reviewing domestic regulatory burdens, perhaps it would be a good idea, before we end the EU Year of Volunteering, to begin to carry out a parallel exercise in EU law.
In an ideal world, impacts on volunteers would be considered pre-legislatively, rather than afterwards. Our evidence suggests that despite the coming into force of Article 165 of the Lisbon treaty, which, as we have heard, has given the EU a legal competence in sport, the procedures within the Commission are not giving sufficient weight to the opinions of the sport unit when looking at how other policy decisions might impact. There are certainly many formal channels for dialogue between policy-makers and sporting organisations, but our evidence suggests that these are dominated by elite sport and big money, especially in football. An MEP who is an expert in this field highlighted the lack of a real grass-roots voice in EU policy-making in sport.
We definitely detected among our witnesses a real appetite for the strengthening of pan-European networks between grass-roots organisations, especially for using the benefits of modern technology in the exchange of best practice. I note that the Minister was reticent about this, but both Street Games and the Football Foundation pointed to the success of their websites’ pages that detail case studies, briefing papers and best practice.
Marginalisation of grass-roots sports organisations extends to the funding programmes. The chief executive of Street Games told us that the application procedures are simply too complex and bureaucratic for small organisations. At this morning’s sub-committee meeting, we looked at a mid-term evaluation of the Europe for Citizens programme, and it is shown that of the €215 million budget for its projects only €1.16 million has come to the UK. This is a significant under- representation in a programme that ought to be of great interest to the UK, and which includes sport.
Although it is tempting just to blame the bureaucracy, the fact that other countries are finding a way to get through the bureaucracy suggests that we have a particular issue. I certainly undertake to work with the current Government, if they wish, and with the volunteer sector to find out exactly why we are so poor at accessing this money. I look forward to the Minister's response.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
My Lords, I very much welcome the debate today, and I start by declaring my interests in sport, which are many. I am a board member of the London Marathon and UK Athletics, a trustee of the Sport for Good Foundation, which is part of the Laureus World Sport Academy, and an ambassador for International Inspiration. I sit on several committees of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, and I am chair of the Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation’s Commission into the Future of Women’s Sport. We are investigating areas such as commercialisation, investment, leadership and profile, which all have a massive impact at every level, and ultimately affect how sport and physical activity is run in the UK.
This is a very positive and important report and it makes a lot of sense about the power of sport. As others in your Lordships’ House have already said, sport teaches young people about rules, life skills, discipline, and working as a team—all things which are important in society. I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, on the report, because it strongly highlights that those who currently do the least have the most to gain. That is very simple, but oh so important.
In a visit to Rwanda with the Sport for Good Foundation, a couple of years ago, I saw at a very practical level how sport was being used to bring together and provide support for those who had been affected by the genocide. I have been fortunate enough to make visits with both the Sport for Good Foundation and International Inspiration to see that in other parts of the world.
I very much like chapter 2, which is summarised in paragraph 27, where reference is made to the groups who can benefit, which include women, an area of particular interest to me. I also very much welcome the highlighting of those areas and the positive response of the Minister for Sport and the Olympics in the other place, Mr Hugh Robertson.
It is important that more support is given to those groups and organisations that promote the inclusion of underrepresented groups. I emphasise that work is needed not only across Europe; there is a still a lot to be done in the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, mentioned the lack of participation among women. It is important to emphasise not just that women participate in sport much less than men, but that, in the UK, 80 per cent of women and girls do not do enough physical exercise to benefit their health. That has major long-term implications for the health of our nation.
From recent research from the Commission on the Future of Women’s Sport, published last week, we also know that the amount of money that goes into men’s and women’s sport varies considerably. That impacts on participation and the interest in sport for women. If we look at the commercialisation of sport, 39 per cent of money goes into mixed sport, which include sports such as tennis and golf, which are relatively equitable, but also rugby and football, which are not. An average contract for a woman who plays football for England is £16,000 a year, plus a club contract of around £20,000 to £30,000.
If we look at where the rest of the money goes, we see that 60.5 per cent of it goes into men’s sport. That leaves a scant 0.5 per cent for women. That figure will be pushed up by the Olympic and Paralympic Games next year to around 1.5 per cent but is likely to drop afterwards, and is still shocking. We are therefore stuck in a closed circle. With fewer women participating now, there is less interest in the commercial side of sport, and therefore less media interest. In an average year, only 2 per cent of media coverage is devoted to women in sport. In the UK, we need to break this cycle if we are to change the pattern.
If we see more women doing sport on TV, that encourages more women to do it. The myth that people do not want to watch women play sport is simply not true. People who like sport want to watch women play sport. In the last women’s World Cup semi-final, 1.6m people watched England play France.
What about some solutions for the UK? What I believe is needed is for the sports sector to take a radically different approach from that it is used to. Rather than just opening the doors and expecting a different mix of people to come through, sport needs to adopt basic business techniques of identifying a target market, developing an understanding of what that market wants, and then delivering sport to meet the needs and preferences of that market.
There are a few good examples. England Netball’s Back to Netball campaign has allowed thousands of women to play regular netball without having to join a club or pay an annual membership fee. Other national governing bodies are also trying. It would help considerably to keep up the pressure on national governing bodies that take public money but fail to succeed in increasing participation among underrepresented groups. I ask the Minister for continued support in this.
Many national governing bodies could benefit from looking at how private sector providers, such as military fitness or Zumba classes, develop markets and deliver their offers. There is definitely more to be done in schools, too, and the latest research from the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation shows that girls leave school half as likely to meet recommended activity levels as boys. The introduction of the School Games and the current review of the PE curriculum provide a good opportunity for schools to redefine and redesign competitive sport so that it encourages all pupils to be active regularly, rather than just those who make the first team.
Paragraph 42 talks of the need to share best practice across Europe. I should like to suggest that British national governing bodies look at how the commercial sector operates in order to make real improvements. I also suggest that they use their own networks across the European international federations to share this best practice.
Paragraph 48 of the report identifies the need for more wide-scale research into the societal and personal benefits of sport. This is very important, and further work must be done—not because we are unsure whether sport for women has a value but because, as a sector, we need to be much better at turning anecdotal evidence into hard facts which will convince potential funders of the value of sport. I suppose that the flip-side is that we spend too much on research and monitoring, and then the amount of cash available for the delivery of projects diminishes, but there is a balance to be struck.
Box 4 on page 24 of the report highlights the case study of the Women’s International Leadership Development Programme and the links that this can provide to the wider gender and diversity equality movement. It is useful in ensuring that British national governing bodies have the chance to consider the opportunity that having a more diverse leadership would offer them.
Again, figures from the Commission on the Future of Women’s Sport show that only 20 of the national governing bodies’ board members are female and that eight national governing bodies, including the Football Association, have no women on their boards at all. The lack of diversity on the boards of national governing bodies is perhaps the biggest single factor that stops these NGBs achieving their potential in terms of participation growth and elite success. Such a change is completely within their own grasp.
Finally, I realise that what I have said may be seen as all doom and gloom, but there is some exciting work going on and we have a chance to really make a change. Rather, the areas that I have covered should be seen as an opportunity to do things differently and to do them better. We owe that to the young women and girls in our society. This report makes a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the wider context.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am pleased to participate in this short debate and I congratulate the committee on its report. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, for introducing this discussion.
Three or four themes have come out of the contributions. Clearly, health and the role that sport plays in improving not only the nation’s health but individual health, particularly in the context of diabetes, is an important point. Another is the requirement on all of us to think again about how sport can help with social inclusion and other areas by reaching out to groups that are currently under-represented, making their lives more meaningful and helping them to engage and participate.
Despite the fact that we are living in difficult economic times, there are still some practical steps that can be taken, and there were some very good and interesting examples from my noble friend Lady Billingham, as well as from the volunteering sector. I hope that the Government will take up the offer of further discussion to see in what ways we can build up from the real grass roots and get rid of some of the problems caused by regulatory and other areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, as usual, made some very important and telling points from her good and significant experience in this area. The phrase that she left us with was, “Those who do least have most to gain”, which is something on which we should all reflect. She pointed out the incredible disparities that exist in the contributions made by government and other sources to the male and female sides of the sport. The fact that 80 per cent of us do not take enough exercise somehow summed up the points that others made in the debate.
Like my noble friend Lady Billingham, I should like to make a few general points, particularly with reference to grass-roots sport, and to draw attention to how things stood when we left office. I do so not for a party-political reason but because I think that it provides a good baseline for assessing how we respond to this debate. The report and the comments that we have heard reflect the fact that work done in the UK in recent years is well regarded across Europe. In truth, our model for sport is admired across the world.
During our time in government, we increased participation in both activities and competitive sport. We did this through three tiers: the Youth Sport Trust, dealing with school sport; Sport England, working at a community level with sport governing bodies, and UK Sport, financing the elite who are moving towards gold medal standard at the highest level. This model, in its totality, moved us from tenth in the world in 2004 to fourth place in the Beijing Olympics in 2008, behind China, the USA and Russia. That was an amazing achievement for what is really a very small country. Our target is to do at least as well in London in 2012.
Given that, it is somewhat odd to read in the Secretary of State’s recent blog:
“I can sum up our sports policy in three words: more competitive sport”.
If that is the case, why was a cut of £162 million for School Sports Partnerships announced without consultation in October 2010? If this is indeed the sports policy of the Government, why is there still no long-term strategy for increasing competitive sport in schools? We understand that DfE funding of £32.5 million is planned to stop after 2013 and there will be no more beyond that. The contributions of £11 million each from DCMS and the Department of Health stop after 2015. Sport England’s lottery funding, which is £4 million until 2015, stops after that. A further £72 million has been cut from Whole Sport Plans. There is no long-term certainty and there does not appear to be a strategy. I would be interested to get the Minister’s response to this.
It is worth putting on record that in 2006-7, 35 per cent of pupils in years 1 to 11 took part in inter-school competitive activities. By 2010, this figure had risen to 49 per cent. In 2006-7, 58 per cent of pupils in years 1-11 took part in intra-school competitive activities, and by 2010 this had risen to 78 per cent. In these competitions, 77 per cent of girls and 79 per cent of boys participated. That was a pretty good record, and should be the standard against which we judge what is going forward.
I would like to highlight three of the recommendations in the report, some of which were brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. To recommendations 120 and 121, the response from the Minister for Sport and the Olympics was:
“Domestically, increased participation in sport is a key priority for all the Government across the UK both in terms of health and social outcomes, and specifically in answering London 2012’s Singapore promise to inspire a new generation to play sport”.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, in response to a Written Question from the Shadow Minister for Sport and the Olympics, Mr Clive Efford, Mr Hugh Robertson said earlier this week:
“We are determined to get more people playing sport as a legacy from London 2012 and we will continue to hold national governing bodies to account for the delivery of their whole sport plans. I am confident that with the inspiration of the games in 2012, and a new approach with a clearer expectation of concrete results in return for Government investment, we will see the benefit at grassroots level”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/11/11; col. 91W.]
Determination is good, but as for the rest, they seem to be relying on something turning up. I do not think that is good enough. As we heard today, notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, there are some very good and persuasive reasons for believing that sport is a really good way of bringing the benefits to disadvantaged groups I was talking about earlier. It is to be hoped, therefore, that there is something to back up the aspirations of Ministers. Can the Minister help us out here? Can she provide some details to flesh out Mr Robertson’s confidence about concrete results? Indeed, what are the Government’s targets now in this area?
In response to recommendations 122 to 124, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics says:
“Despite its importance, all too often sport has suffered unintentionally due to policies in other areas”.
Can the Minister give us some examples of this and tell us what the Government are going to do to remedy this situation?
The Minister for Sport and the Olympics goes on:
“There is already good cross-departmental work taking place—for instance, with the DH and DfE in relation to grass roots participation”.
Again, can the Minister help us on this? What good work is going on and what are the expected outcomes?
Finally, in relation to recommendation 126, there is a great deal in the report about the potential of sport in delivering social objectives, much of which has been touched on already. In his response, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics gives some interesting comments about the relationship between sport and social returns. He says that young people who do sports at school benefit from wider academic achievement, compared to similar young people who do not. There is also a suggestion that taking part in sport can result in tangible savings to the economy. He says:
“Regularly playing badminton can save around £11,000 per person in their lifetime, comprised of savings to the health system and the value of increases in their quality of life”.
Is this plan B? Is this the way in which the Chancellor is going to revivify the country’s economic situation? If so, how may badminton courts will be required to be plastered across England, Wales and Scotland in order to achieve that?
To be serious though, will the Minister point out what research is being commissioned by Her Majesty’s Government on this topic, as the way in which sport enhances social achievement and reduces cost is at the heart of a lot of what we have been saying this afternoon?
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to an initial scepticism in the committee when it started its work, yet she also drew attention to the fact that this changed during the process of its deliberations. Reading the report and listening to the debate today should have convinced even the most hardened sceptic that this new competence is a useful part of the EU framework, and we support that. Lest your Lordships have any doubt at all, I would like to share with you an e-mail that pinged into my inbox as I was finishing off my notes for today. It came from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and was advertising an event that is taking place shortly. I was invited by the CPA to,
“score a goal for development by participating in its parliamentary penalty shoot-out for the Millennium Development Goals”—
which I am sure we will all be rushing out to do—
“taking place on Speaker’s Green”—
if I can continue my small advertisement for it—
“on the afternoon of Wednesday 23 November”.
See you there. The e-mail continues:
“With sport increasingly recognised as a viable and practical tool to assist in the development process, international and premiership footballers with an involvement in development initiatives will attend the event. You will have a chance to drop in over the course of the afternoon to test your skills against the professionals and discuss the contribution that sport can make in promoting global solidarity and development”.
I rest my case. That shows that the idea that sport is somehow a part, and not a separate aspect, of the work that we all want to do to improve society has reached the CPA and become part of the common discourse. In that sense, it reflects what is said in the report.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, for leading this afternoon’s debate on grass-roots sport and the European Union. We are grateful to her and her committee members for launching the initial inquiry that led to their report, published in April this year. The debate is particularly timely as we approach next year’s Olympic and Paralympic Games.
We all know that sport is firmly ingrained in British life. People of all ages, abilities and backgrounds from across the country take part regularly. That participation comes in a variety of ways: there are those who are active sportsmen and women; those who give their time voluntarily to support sporting activities; and the many millions who just enjoy watching sport. However, as we have heard today, compared to the significant amount of media coverage that professional sport generates daily, grass-roots sport often remains in the shadows. As the committee’s report recognises, grass-roots sport makes an important contribution to British society, but we are also looking at the role that the EU has to play.
As we have heard, sport became an EU competence with the ratification of the Lisbon treaty two years ago. Since that landmark moment, the European Commission’s work has progressed and, throughout this time, the United Kingdom has continued to be fully engaged, ensuring that the UK’s voice is clearly heard in Brussels and beyond. We want our relationship with the EU to be about maximising benefit for the UK as we work with our EU partners. We make no apology for that. Where there are changes that can add genuine value, or which will help our sports do even better, then we will willingly support them. However, where there is duplication, unnecessary regulation or overspending, then our job is clearly to say so and to negotiate in the best way to protect our interests. We have heard from my noble friends Lord Courtown and Lady Scott and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, of the difficulties posed by overregulation in trying to encourage grass-roots sports.
The Government presented their response to the committee’s report in June, setting out their position. As we have heard, we welcomed and supported a number of the report’s recommendations. I shall comment on some of the developments that have taken place so far. The European Commission’s first sports policy document since the ratification of the Lisbon treaty, Developing the European Dimension in Sport, set out the Commission’s work plan for sport through to 2015, listing actions for both the Commission and member states. The European Council of Ministers subsequently adopted a resolution on the associated European Union Work Plan for Sport, 2011 to 2014, in May this year. It was intriguing to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, of the work that she had been involved with as an MEP in the 1990s, urging the Commission then to support sport. Some things take rather a long time to come to fruition, but we seem to have made progress since those days.
We fully recognise the importance the committee placed in its report on ensuring that sport is mainstreamed effectively both at the European Union level and at the national level. Despite its importance, sport has from time to time suffered unintentionally due to policies in other areas. We are encouraged that, at the European level, following strong UK interventions, the work plan now makes explicit reference—as we have heard—to the need to take sport into account when formulating, implementing and evaluating policies and actions in other policy fields, with particular attention to ensuring early and effective inclusion in the policy development process. Ministers and officials will continue to use each appropriate opportunity to ensure that this commitment is fulfilled across government departments.
Participation in grass-roots sport is a high priority for the Government, particularly as we look to leave a wide-ranging sports legacy from London’s hosting of the Olympic and Paralympic Games next year and from Glasgow’s hosting of the Commonwealth Games in 2014, as well as from the various other major sporting events in the UK in the coming years. We are therefore pleased to see that participation is one of the key priorities in the communication.
As we said in the Government’s response to the committee’s report, we are encouraged that one of the new expert groups set up under the work plan is focused on sport, health and participation and will be charged with producing recommendations on promoting physical activity and participation in sport. The UK is already playing a key role in this expert group, having put forward two expert representatives from Sport England and sportscotland as members. A number of noble Lords stressed health in their speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, my noble friend Lord Courtown and a number of other contributors all stressed the part that sport can play in having a healthy community.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, my noble friend Lord Courtown, the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, and others challenged the Government as to what we are doing to increase participation at a national level. In England, last November the Government launched Places People Play, which is a £135 million mass participation legacy programme. In the past six months, under the places strand, we have launched the £50 million Inspired Facilities fund and the £10 million Playing Fields Protection fund, which acknowledge the importance of having the right facilities in place to support grass-roots sports participation.
In this the EU Year of Volunteering, my noble friend Lady Scott and the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, drew attention to the important contribution of volunteers to grass-roots sporting activities. As an example, for the 70,000 places available for the London 2012 Games makers, we received around 250,000 applications. Under the people strand, the £4 million Sport Makers programme launched last month will capitalise on this by training the next generation of sports volunteers to organise and lead grass-roots sporting activities, creating sporting opportunities to give everyone the chance to take part. The enormous number of volunteers for those posts is an indication of just how enthusiastic the British population are about volunteering to contribute to sport.
The committee’s report recommended a focus on groups whose participation rates are lowest. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, said that we need to concentrate more on particular groups in society. To give one example of action being taken in this area, £8 million is being ring-fenced to support a legacy to inspire disabled people to take part in sport. This is currently under development. Disability groups are being consulted and the programme is due to launch in the new year.
In addition, the English Federation of Disability Sport has been awarded £1.5 million in Exchequer funding to accelerate its strategy to work with national governing bodies to make grass-roots sports more inclusive. For the first time, Sport England is making funding available specifically to create opportunities and accessibility. We are committed to securing a lasting legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. We aim to drive forward wider attitudinal change towards disability sport, for example; and, through the School Games, to provide increased opportunities for all pupils—boys and girls, from all backgrounds and of all abilities—to compete at local, regional and national level. While we have been concentrating on the young in a lot of these debates, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, highlighted all ages and the importance also of making sport accessible for older people, and the ways in which that can contribute to their quality of life in later years, as well as in younger years.
The UK has played, and will be, playing an active role in each of the six EU expert groups on sport, through putting forward strong sectoral expert representatives. As evidence of that, the UK has secured the chairmanship of three of the expert groups—those on education and training, good governance and sustainable financing.
The UK has a good story to tell on good governance, an issue mentioned, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The current Polish presidency is also putting forward Council conclusions on match-fixing; again, trying to tackle aspects of sport that go wrong. The draft text of that is being discussed at official level, and the UK is working to ensure that the proposals are not watered down and are as strong as possible, and that there is real integrity in sport.
One of the concerns raised by the committee was that Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales were seen to be excluded in EU sports policy discussions. Ministers and officials have been proactive in consulting their counterparts in the devolved Administrations on EU sports policy matters. In addition to sportscotland providing one of the UK experts on the sport, health and participation expert group, the Scottish Sports Minister will, for the first time, be joining the UK delegation later this month to attend the European Council of Sports Ministers meeting. However, I should stress that it is the responsibility of our devolved Administration colleagues to cascade any information from the UK Government to their own relevant stakeholders, such as their respective sports councils.
The UK has many examples of the positive nature of grass-roots sport participation and will share these with our EU colleagues. For instance, this summer, we hosted a delegation of MEPs from the European Parliament’s culture committee. They visited a tennis project in Haringey that has completely revitalised the local community and heard from Tottenham Hotspur Football Club’s foundation about the positive work it is carrying out in the area, including the Premier League’s Kickz programme. The noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, has told us about the Tennis For Free programme, and there are other examples of this happening throughout the country.
The UK also recently hosted the European Women and Sport Conference. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, commented on the lack of women on sporting boards and generally participating, and the disparities in funding for women’s sport as against men’s. I am quite sure that the lack of women on sporting boards will be something that my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone, the Minister for Equalities, will be looking at to try and ensure that sport does not suffer from the lack of women in those positions of responsibility.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned the structural funds. The decision on whether to fund a sports programme is part of the wider discussions of the future EU budget, the multiannual financial framework, which will of course include the structural funds. Discussions have taken place in friends of presidency meetings, but I believe that so far they have centred on technical clarifications. However, discussions on the EU budget, the structural funds and a future sport programme are of course linked, and the Government will be making the case for sport whenever opportunities present themselves in negotiations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble friend Lady Scott mentioned the importance of Street Games. Obviously we recognise that Street Games can play a vital part in fragmented communities and in other communities, and can give examples of participation, of teamwork and of reaching across boundaries to a whole range of young people in those communities. My noble friend Lady Scott asked whether there would in some way, through the volunteer section, be a route to recognised qualifications through sport. We will be looking at that to see that people have recognition for their achievement in a formal way as far as that is possible. My noble friend also mentioned the fact that the UK is not applying for EU funding streams to look at volunteering. The Government would very warmly welcome her offer to look more closely at ways in which the UK can take advantage of the available funding streams. We heard from my noble friend Lord Courtown on the sums of money at the top of professional sport and the disparity between the vast sums that professional sportspeople seem to have at their disposal and the grass-roots fund, which is constantly looking for fairly modest sums of money. That is something the sporting community is looking at and will take forward.
I have touched on the issue of diversity on boards. On the participation of schools, there will be an increased focus on competition as part of the curriculum review. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has obviously been looking at the Secretary of State’s blogs. On the importance that he puts on competitive sport, we will find that there is cross-departmental work going on between the DfE, the DCMS and the Department of Health to try to ensure that those departments work together to encourage more sport in schools and to see that funding is made available through the different streams that are around at the moment for that purpose.
I may have missed some of the points that noble Lords have made. If so, I will write to them afterwards. To sum up, we are still in the early days of the development of the EU sports policy, but the direction of travel so far has been encouraging. The UK has uniquely positioned itself to be as influential as it can, both in our own interests and those of EU sport, through sports bodies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We will continue to be fully engaged in developments and take advantage of opportunities for the UK within an EU context. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, and her committee for taking a proactive interest in this area and for producing such a valuable and wide-ranging report and recommendation. Indeed, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate as we embark on a high-profile time for sport in the UK. We can see from this report and the debate that the United Kingdom is well placed to make the most of the new EU sport competence.
Baroness Young of Hornsey
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in today’s debate. It has been most stimulating. It is particularly gratifying to hear some sort of endorsement for our report from those who have been participating in sport at a very high level indeed. I am particularly pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, and my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson were able to participate this afternoon. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, who, as a new member of the committee, made a very important contribution, I think, when he raised the issue of obesity and the potential for sport to be used to address that, among other things. He also pointed out the difficulty of ensuring that that legacy actually happens and gave us some examples.
Going back to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Billingham, I think she pointed out some of the challenges in thinking about a new area of competence in the current economic situation. It was also very useful to hear about Tennis For Free. It exemplifies the kind of work that can be carried out quite effectively with little or no money to push that kind of initiative through a whole range of different sports activities; and I know that there are other initiatives like that going on.
I am not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, is aware that Street Games is an organisation. It visited the committee as part of its submission to the inquiry. It was notable that it brought along two volunteers who had formerly been involved, shall we say, in local activities that were not steering them in quite the right direction and who had ended up working with Street Games to great effect with their peers. They also gave evidence to the committee.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, a dedicated member of Sub-Committee G, who focused on volunteers. As we all know, they are the absolute bedrock of grass-roots sport, as they are in other areas of activity in this country. She emphasised the regulatory burden particularly on smaller groups and the lack of representation, a point to which virtually all noble Lords referred.
My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson raised the important issue of the participation of girls and young women in sport—perhaps I should say the lack of adequate participation. The lack of attention given to women’s sports was also raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and I discussed that as we came over to the House today. If one looks at most newspapers and television, one would not even know that women play professional sport in this country. That matter needs to be addressed if we are serious about getting more girls and young women to participate in sport. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, recognised the potential of sport to do that and the way in which it can contribute to a wide spectrum of policy objectives, not only domestically but internationally.
I thank the Minister for reiterating the need to overcome regulation, among other things, and for her encouraging comment about continuing to push in negotiations around structural funds, the ESF and so on to embed sport in those discussions. There is a danger that either the area could be hived off into one corner with the thought, “Okay, we have dealt with sport now because we have put it in a kind of box and therefore we do not have to try to embed it elsewhere”, or it will become so thinly spread that people will not know where it is or what its specificity is. Somehow we will have to steer a course between those two extremes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson raised the issue of women on boards. It might be useful to look at other areas, such as the arts, where there have been quite a few initiatives that have had effective campaigns and mechanisms to broaden the membership of boards in the arts and the cultural sector.
In conclusion, I acknowledge absolutely the efforts of my fellow members of Sub-Committee G and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his place. He was a member of the committee which carried out the inquiry, although he has now sadly left us for other pastures. There was much questioning and reflection, and a good deal of openness. As I said at the beginning, people were a little worried about where this might take us but in the end we were convinced of its worth.
I should also like to thank Professor Richard Parrish, who was our specialist adviser for the inquiry. I also want to record the contribution of clerks and special advisers, which we should never take for granted. I should like to acknowledge Talitha Rowland, who has moved on to other work within the House, and Alistair Dillon and I thank them for their work on the inquiry and the report.
This has been a particularly stimulating debate. We have covered a wide range of areas and issues in a relatively short time. I am very glad that we were able to have this debate on the Floor of the House. I beg to move.