International Women’s Day

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Friday 10th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I too wish to pay tribute to Baroness Boothroyd. Because of the proximity of our offices, we often used to bump into each other in the lift. One day I complimented her on one of her fabulous outfits—she was always beautifully turned out—and in that unmistakeable voice she said, “give it brass and go big.” I have always thought that I will for ever hold that as my phrase: give it brass, go big.

The theme of today’s International Women’s Day is “Embrace Equity”. It is a very good phrase, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has just said, because it carries within it the implication that we are, as women, diverse—very diverse. Women have different life experiences, different economic circumstances and all sorts of differences between us, yet we have common aspirations for safety, health, autonomy and prosperity. It is important to bear that in mind as we have this debate, because it takes place against the background of a campaign originated and orchestrated by Christian nationalists in the United States, Europe and across Russia, which is very definitely about curbing the aspirations and autonomy of all women.

In the United States and places like Poland and Hungary the focus is on anti-abortion activities. In Africa, the focus is against equality and LGBT rights. In the US and UK, the key focus of this campaign is anti-gender. We are beginning as we go through, to see a greater emphasis on unpicking this campaign and understanding the motivations behind it. The Council of Europe, for example, in 2022 produced a thematic report on legal gender recognition in Europe, which began to show what this campaign is about. Ultimately, it is about the rolling back of human rights and the destruction of human rights legislation and the organisations which are there to protect and promote it. That is a key concern for all women because human right lies at the basis of our equality and equity.

In the UK we know that there is a daily campaign against trans women. We see it day after day in our media. It is a campaign that seeks to pit women against women. It portrays trans women as a significant and systemic threat to other women. I have to say that, after six years, it is a campaign that has yet to provide evidence of that, and it is yet to win significant approval. That is not to say that some politicians have not been taken in by this and have been ever ready to use it to their political advantage. I have to say today that some of us will always reject playing with human rights, because if you play with the human rights of some people, you play with the human rights of all, and if you jeopardise the rights of some women, you jeopardise the rights of all. I hope that politicians in this country will look again at some of the aspects of this campaign and will desist in the demonisation of a very small minority of people in this country. They are at the moment under attack and very frightened, and today, on International Women’s Day, it is important to give them some hope and solidarity.

I want to pick up on one particular point. It is inescapable that the cuts to the FCDO budget will have a tremendous, seriously deleterious impact on women around the world because of the leading role the United Kingdom has had for so long in international health. The FCDO cuts, swingeing as they were, not only jeopardised particular programmes, services, the availability of medical interventions, drugs and treatments; they also did something far more serious but less commented upon. They jeopardised the 40 years of research that has gone into work on infectious diseases such as HIV, and which has had such an important, transformational role in medicine, and not just in relation to HIV. Much of the response to Covid came about as quickly as it did because of the science and learning from those other pandemics. Therefore, I say to the Minister—she did an admirable job of talking up the Government’s record—that unless and until we restore not only the budget but the planning and strategy that went into the long-term programmes in the FCDO, we will be doing serious harm to women and girls across the world.

One particular piece of work we need to do in the HIV field is on PrEP. We know the importance of PrEP domestically and we know its importance for men. It has had a transformational effect on transmission of the virus. We now need to replicate that work across the world and understand what we can do for women, particularly in countries where they do not have a lot of power and autonomy over their own lives and in dealings with their partners, to ensure that they too can access it.

A second area that we need to look at domestically and internationally is the menopause and HIV. One of the great benefits of having had so much scientific success in the field of HIV and other diseases is that we now have, for the first time, a cohort of older people living with these diseases. We do not yet know what the interaction between long-term conditions and diseases such as HIV actually are. That is an area in which, yet again, the UK, because of the existence of the National Health Service and our involvement in health services abroad, can play a leading role in understanding.

Finally, I wish to draw attention to something we often gloss over on International Women’s Day: mental health. We know that women’s mental health is in many cases overlooked and underreported. Why? Because women are so busy coping with everything else that they put themselves last and others first. However, as we began to see in the Joint Committee that looked at the recent draft mental health Bill, there is an underreporting of incidences of women with mental health problems, particularly women with learning difficulties and autism, who are being misdiagnosed in the field of mental health. If that can happen in an advanced medical system such as ours, it must be much more pronounced across the world. In her reply, can the Minister say when we can expect the Government response to the Joint Committee report and whether, following the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, over so many years on this particular minority group, we can look forward to some movement from the Government?

I welcome the appointment of Professor Lesley Regan as the government ambassador and adviser on women’s health—she has been a tremendous champion for women for many years. Taking a life-course approach to women’s health will be a significant step forward. She, like many others in the health service, has a particular fear about the fractured commissioning of contraception, because our contraceptive services are in such a state that we now have an alarmingly high rate—45%—of unplanned pregnancies in this country. Again, we are part of international studies on the efficacy of making contraception available, because, wherever you are in the world and whichever woman you are, having control of your body and reproductive health is absolutely fundamental to your well-being and prosperity. We have typically led in this area since the 1960s, and I sincerely hope that we will regain our eminence in it, because it is one area in which we can teach the rest of the world some news good for all women and girls.

Warm Hubs

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have given large amounts of money to support people, households and businesses with their energy issues. I do not agree with the noble Baroness; I think communities are where these things are best delivered, and communities and local government know how to deliver them in the best way. I know that local authorities are always strapped for cash, but it is a matter of prioritisation for those local authorities and we have increased their grant by £3.7 billion this year. There is also the household support grant, a third of which is for supporting families and a third for pensioners. The other third is not ring-fenced and can very well be used for these sorts of projects.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

I commend my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the London Borough of Sutton, who have already announced that they will use their libraries as warm hubs throughout the winter. Does the Minister agree with me that many commercial businesses inevitably have to use energy for their business? Will she ensure that some of the funding that goes to local government enables it to turn businesses, where possible, into warm hubs? I am thinking of places such as shopping centres, for example, which have to have a minimum amount of heating.

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Okay. I am just getting used to this process. On Amendment 6, it is really helpful that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, raised the issue of timing. Of course, in order to start the gun, if you like, we need Royal Assent, and then there needs to be a commitment around commencement, which means having all the regulations in place. So let us get this Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible. I have already made a commitment—which perhaps goes beyond where I should have gone because I am, perhaps, a little naive—that, within six months of Royal Assent, we will have commencement. So we know what the window is, effectively, because I made that commitment at the Dispatch Box and I do not want to let anyone down. That is the timeframe: let us get Royal Assent and then, within six months, we will have commencement—and that is the period of time we should be concerned about.

We have very genuinely tried to respond to the issues that have been raised to ensure that the greatest number of people are aware of the dangers and the risks of carrying out a lease extension in that window in a way that would be detrimental to their interests. That is why we have that suite of communications measures. I hope, therefore, that with that and a better understanding of the timeframe, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, will withdraw his amendment.

On the timing, I have now been in post and responsible for leasehold reform for nearly two years—I have survived one reshuffle—and it is fair to say that both Secretaries of State, particularly the right honourable gentleman in the other place, are absolutely committed to the second wave of leasehold reform, which will be far harder than this modest ground rents Bill. I cannot give a commitment about what will appear, but my expectations are that leasehold reform will be front and centre around his ambition for a wider reform of housing.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

My Lords, the Motion is that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 6. As many as are of that opinion will say “Content”. Lord Stunell?

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

Well, if that is the Motion being put to the House, that is fine. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment—although I do so a little grumpily and I shall be keeping a very sharp eye on the Minister.

Building Safety

Baroness Barker Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

My Lords, around £3.5 billion in direct, additional grant has been committed. This is a significant amount of money which dwarfs the £1.6 billion previously promised. More than £5 billion has been committed to support the ending of the cladding crisis. The plans go a long way towards ensuring that affordability is not an issue for any leaseholders in medium-rise properties. It also ensures that, where there is no warranty outstanding or insurance available to protect the leaseholder, the taxpayer—through the Government’s additional grant—will step up and provide the funding necessary to ensure that the cladding system is removed.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about progress. Despite Covid, we saw 50% more starts in 2020 than in any other year. Workers were on site and, by the end of the year, 95% of high-rise buildings with the same sort of cladding as at Grenfell had either started or completed remediation. We know exactly where these buildings are. The vast majority of the remaining cladding will have been removed from them by the end of this calendar year.

The main thrust of the questions was around the scope of the fund. It is important to recognise that height is a huge factor when it comes to safety and the risk to life. The higher the building, the more risk there is to the residents. People who live in buildings between 18 and 30 metres high are four times more likely to have a fire involving a fatality or the need for hospital treatment. In buildings above 30 metres, this rises to 35 times more likely. We know that height is a factor. Eighteen metres is the cut-off point for the definition of a high-rise building. This has been part of building regulations for a considerable number of years. The definition that we are using for scope is above six storeys, so The Cube would fall within the remit of a building where an application could be made to the building safety fund to remove its cladding. The threshold is six or more storeys or a height greater than 18 metres.

The long-term safety advice makes it clear that the external cladding system acts as accelerant, helping the fire to spread. This is why the government money is focused on the removal of external cladding systems. Internal compartmentation, firebreaks and fire doors are designed to stop the spread of fire. It is right that taxpayers’ money should focus on the material that accelerates the spread of fire.

The £3.5 billion and the finance scheme will together help hundreds of thousands of leaseholders. For those in medium-rise properties, it will cover a significant part of their costs. For those in high-rise buildings, there will be no cost. To date, 13,000 leaseholders in ACM buildings have been supported by the government grant scheme. Between 70,000 and 90,000 leaseholders in buildings with non-ACM cladding systems will not bear any cost. A further 150,000 leaseholders in buildings between 11 and 18 metres high will also be helped.

It is important, however, that building owners step up to the plate to support remediation where the government grant is not available. We do not expect this cost to fall entirely on leaseholders. With the ACM fund, more than 50% of owners did the right thing and ensured that the cost did not fall on leaseholders. We expect to see that with the non-ACM buildings as well. Here, warranty schemes can often still be drawn on and protect leaseholders.

It is worth looking at the cladding manufacturers. I will take that point away because, as well as the developers, they are culpable for the situation that we find ourselves in—a point that has been made by both the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. That is something that we can look at in due course.

This is a five-point plan looking at significant sums of money to support the removal of the external cladding systems. It is those systems that have accelerated the spread of fire and their removal makes it far more unlikely that Grenfell will ever happen again. We know that the future building safety regime will be focused on ensuring that the new buildings will be of far greater quality and then provide the greater confidence that is required in the housing market to ensure that it begins to function properly in future years.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

We now come to the 20 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. Questions and answers must be brief.