Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to speak in this debate, which always has a particularly important place in the calendar. I look back fondly at our debate this time last year on families and the really wonderful work that the outgoing most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury did on Love Matters, helping people accept families as they are in the present world. These are not always wonderful—we remember RD Laing and the schizophrenogenic mother—but, for the most part, families are the building block of society. That seems to me to be the right place then to move into social cohesion, such a critical issue.

I am alienated by the Library briefing referring to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to give me my definition of social cohesion. Social cohesion goes back to Durkheim, the French sociologist and founder of sociology, 150 years ago; to Max Weber and Karl Marx trying to understand how societies would operate in the face of declining social and religious factors and the change in the workplace. They talked about social cohesion and the outfall of suicide, delinquency and deviance if social integration was not properly respected. Of course, in today’s world, social cohesion is even more difficult.

One reason I became Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when my boss had asked me to take a much chunkier department, was because my observation, as a social scientist, was that the framework that held people together was increasingly disintegrating. People were held together by the docks, the steelworks, the mines: that was the drumbeat of communities. In a world where people work from home, those common causes are no longer there, and it is the DCMS responsibilities that hold people together. Going to the Last Night of the Proms is an act of social cohesion. Going to the cup final at Wembley is an act of social cohesion: people are there together, regardless of their class, their background and so on. Museums, sport and galleries are all ways of creating social cohesion in a world where it is not always the Church that provides that cohesion. I regret that.

There was a time when political parties created social cohesion. Anybody who went to my constituency, when I was first an MP, joined the Tory party not because they were Tories but because they would meet nice people. I know that it was the same in a lot of Labour constituencies, but it is not like that any more. The work of the Church, and all faith groups, is enormously important because it gives meaning to life, it helps the needy, it helps the lonely and it helps people through the life cycle. The great thing about faith groups—religious, Muslim, Hindu, Christian—is that you celebrate birth, you celebrate adolescence, you celebrate marriage and you prepare for death. This is how we create communities that care for each other and understand each other. It was shocking, the most reverend Primate’s comment about people who are so obsessed with being online, they do not have a friend. How often do we see that with children? Their friends are their online friends. How dangerous and sinister is that?

I want to talk about this new development, articulated by Dame Sara Khan as “freedom-restricting harassment”. That is a rather fancy name, but we see it in the cancel culture in schools and universities—the idea that people are not free to speak the truth as they see it. The joy of the House of Lords is that we cannot be intimidated; we can say what we like without even having to be afraid of our constituents getting at us afterwards, as those who have been in the Commons will understand. I have spent many years in universities, as have many, and my message to graduates getting their degree is always, “University is the place where you have created your values, you decided who you are. It is not just about facts and knowledge, it is about wisdom, trust, values and what you believe to be right for the future”. The fact that our universities are particularly international in nature is all the more important, because the stranger factor is so sinister and dangerous, but if you have learned together, you work together and understand different cultures—how important that is for the economy.

Those of us who are followers of McKinsey will recognise that diversity is one of the critical factors in successful businesses. I applaud employers and I think we should say more about them in terms of social cohesion, and the work they are doing on diversity and inclusion. It sounds very woke but it really matters. Can you be yourself at work? Can you be the best possible person you can be? Can you give 110% of your effort? Because if you are feeling insecure about being of a different ethnic group, sexual orientation or whatever, you are not able, you are not liberated, to do the best you can in your economic enterprise.

How much more important is this now too, with all this working from home, which I have viscerally opposed? Except for women, or men, with childcare purposes, I will not believe that working from home is a healthy thing to do. We are social people. We need to go to work. Young people need to go to work to see grumpy old women like me at work, and grumpy old people like me need to see young people who will explain to them about TikTok. This is how we share values and how we change. The sooner we move away from thinking that working from home is a wonderful thing, I shall be delighted. I accept that it has transformed life for many women, and I will allow it there, but otherwise nothing will convince me.

On democracy, the most reverend Primate made really serious comments about people failing to vote, their alienation and disinterest. I get very angry when I hear people say, “All politicians are in it for themselves”. If you want to do it for £80,000 a year or whatever it is, working seven days a week, you try. I meet a lot of people in the business world who sneer at politicians, and that really winds me up big time, but there is an issue about the effect of social media. This is familiar. When we all went to political meetings when we were young—long ago—people would argue and debate. You would never leave a political meeting thinking it was 10-0 or 8-2, everything was divided, but social media is about assertion. There are no facts, no evidence, no logic; there is assertion, and this vulgarises and polarises debate.

I commend the most reverend Primate particularly on his presidential address at the York Diocesan Synod last March. He quoted Jonathan Sacks, with whom I used to work a lot, talking about the temptation for religious leaders to be confrontational, like politicians. He said, “I am trying to resist this temptation, please pray for me. And please resist it yourself”. He also said that with this divisive mindset:

“Choices must be set out as stark divisions. Not to condemn is to condone … A prophet hears not one imperative but two: guidance and compassion, a love of truth and an abiding solidarity with those for whom that truth has become eclipsed”.


It seems to me that that is what we have to do. I want to draw attention to the English-Speaking Union, which encourages young people to debate, to take each other’s sides in an argument, to speak with logic and rational purpose—to become the citizens we need.

Cybersecurity and UK Democracy

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for all he does in relation to educating us on China. I cannot agree with everything he says, but I agree with the points he made about debts building up on the belt and road, and the importance of his committee’s report, which I think I will take away with me. I am going to America; I might take it away with me to read and have a fuller look at over Easter.

We have seen China’s continued disregard for universal human rights—in Xinjiang, as well as what the noble Lord mentioned about the stifling of opposition in Hong Kong and, of course, the aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea. He is right to call these points out.

I think that the noble Lord was asking about the foreign influence registration scheme’s enhanced tier, and it is important to remember that all foreign powers, including China, will be subject to the requirements under the political influence tier of FIRS. No country is there yet but the Government are currently considering which foreign powers and entities should be added to the enhanced tier, which requires collective agreement. As you would expect, these considerations will take into account what is necessary to protect the safety and interests of the UK.

The noble Lord was keen to mention the importance of working with allies. I could not agree with him more on that, and it has been pleasing that, in parallel to the UK this week, the United States has made designations. The targeting of parliamentary entities in New Zealand has also been called out, and statements of support have been issued by the European Union, by some individual member states, and by Japan and the Republic of Korea. The Deputy Prime Minister was in Japan and Korea last week trying to do exactly the sort of international co-ordination that is so important, given the borderless nature of many of these threats that we are now facing.

Regarding Hikvision, we are due to produce a report fairly soon, thanks to the noble Lord, and I cannot anticipate that, but I am very aware that when I make promises to him in this House, I take great pleasure in delivering them whenever I can. So that is certainly on the agenda, as is the work we are doing under the Procurement Act to make sure that we make use of the new provisions on security in due course. There has, I think, been some briefings for Lords and MPs from Minister Burghart on that, as he is taking that forward.

Regarding electric cars, obviously we are determined to make sure that the UK remains one of the best locations in the world for auto manufacturing—we have such a long tradition—and that includes the transition to electric vehicles. But, as is standard practice, we must ensure that any investment in UK manufacturing facilities, for any purpose, poses no threat to our national security. We are determined to do just that.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, clearly, these events are deplorable, unacceptable and have been widely condemned. I admire all the steps the Government have taken to improve cybersecurity and much else besides, but I also ask for a sense of proportion. China is our fourth largest trading nation. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, I have been very involved with the International Chamber of Commerce, and we believe that through trade comes more civilised relationships and wealth creation. We know that in China—for all the evil in China—a vast number of people have been lifted out of poverty.

Is there anything we can learn from America, which talks a big talk but carries on trading? My concern is that the pendulum will swing again. The Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday in another place:

“The UK’s policy towards China is anchored in our core national interests”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/24; col. 1262.]


Our national interests are to protect democracy, but also to ensure that trade continues to flourish. Like many people who have been a spending Minister, I know how much we want to spend on hospitals, schools and prisons, and I do not want this debate to result in a detriment to the British economy. But I do deplore the behaviour in which China has been involved.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am glad that my noble friend deplores this behaviour, because I think that that is agreed across the House this evening. Of course our approach must be rooted in our national interest and we need to be co-ordinated with likeminded partners, and we are all working to have an open and stable international order in difficult circumstances. But China represents a systematic challenge to the world order, remains a long-term state threat to the UK’s economic security, and its behaviour is concerning. It has a choice—we have called in the Chinese ambassador today and we are making that clear. We must hope that China will move in the right direction, but we have to take on the challenge and take proportionate action to hold state actors to account for hostile cyber activity, and to protect UK interests.

Budget Statement

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Friday 12th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con) [V]]

Let me add my welcome and congratulations to the distinguished Peers who have made their maiden speeches today. They have whetted our appetites and we very much look forward to hearing more from them.

In the Budget debate a year ago, in his final speech in this House, the late Earl of Selborne said:

“We rightly congratulate ourselves on the quality of our basic research, yet we consistently fail to exploit this to the point where we deliver the new technologies, whether to promote the green economy or anything else.”—[Official Report,12/3/20; col. 1184.]


How right he was. He was a massive force for good, maintaining priority and integrity given to science and technology. He was in the House for almost 49 years, and I hope that his memory and influence will live on with us. He would have welcomed the Government changing the Bank of England’s mandate, despite the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord King, to include climate objectives. This will focus financial markets towards green investment. Many will have noted that the last governor, Mark Carney, in his impressive 2020 Reith lecture, referred to the urgency to reorient the financial system, with a massive investment needed to create a sustainable green economy.

In hosting COP 26, and our presidency of the G7, we look for an all-encompassing road map, delivering green growth at the heart of our recovery. The Chancellor’s planned Leeds-based national infrastructure bank will play a key role in financing green investment. The aspiration is to attract up to £40 billion of private investment in green projects. I also welcome the announcements of the green ports. I declare my interests as sheriff of Hull and chancellor of the university. The unemployment rate there is 7.1%; in my former constituency, it is 3%. Levelling-up and building back better, in the Prime Minister’s words, are crucial. We can see in the Humber how money is already being used to convert the Alexandra Dock, the centrepiece of Green Port Hull, which has been transformed by Siemens Gamesa to manufacture phenomenal zero-carbon energy-producing mega turbine blades.

With all the other measures in the Budget, there is a note of optimism and hope, but like others, I must press the Minister for greater clarity on plans to overhaul social care. This is a Schleswig-Holstein question. It is incredibly complex. Healthcare traditionally has been free at the point of use.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness that contributions are time-limited.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con) [V]]

There has always been an assessment of means for social care, but the issue must now be faced.

EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Friday 8th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register and add my praise for my noble friend Lord Wharton of Yarm’s maiden speech. I greatly admired his activities championing the northern powerhouse. At that time, I had reservations about his referendum activities, but all that is behind us now. I feel most strongly that the time of mourning and looking back has gone. We have spent a year arguing with each other; it is now time, as the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, said, to think what we are going to do for Britain. Brexit did not cause our problems and is not going to answer our problems: it is our combined efforts—civil society, the commercial sector and the Government—deciding what we are going to do with our economic, industrial, commercial and social fabric that can make us the winners that we so want to be. We need a great deal of positive energy in that.

I commend the Prime Minister. He said he wanted Britain to leave the EU and to negotiate a trade deal. He has done both these things in the timetable he set for himself and the country. Politicians are often accused of not doing what they say: in this case, he and his team deserve credit for delivering what he said he would. Whatever the quibbles about the agreement we have reached, things would be a great deal worse without it.

Let me move to the detailed question about what we are going to do about our industrial strategy. Forgive me, this is not a matter of Twitter wars or soundbites but of extremely knowledgeable, experienced people coming together to look at our priorities: academics, leading businesspeople and top-quality civil servants. I think it is time to reverse the balance: for campaigning, political skills are excellent, but now we need a much more hard-headed, cool-hearted, pragmatic, logical purpose. I hope we will see more people join the Government who have those skills—there are many of them in the Tory Party—and can take people with them and earn respect.

I particularly commend the activities of the International Chamber of Commerce. For many years, it has been unequivocally committed to global trade. Those who work with the ICC—I have been a director of the UK component for many years now—argue that we should reset trade relations, do trade differently and develop a trading strategy that includes climate, development, digital and foreign policy to deliver a more inclusive, sustainable and greener economy. So say I. We remain the world’s fifth biggest economy and have any number of settings where we can play our part, whether it is CHOGM, the G7 or COP 26, which will be a really exciting moment for us later in the year. We need to put a positive message of how we are going to put the past behind us and remain on extremely civilised terms with our European friends.

Of course, European Britain is part of global Britain, and constantly blaming the inadequacy or otherwise of the agreement will be exactly like when people complained that everything that went wrong in Britain was Europe’s fault. We need to stand on our own two feet. We need a degree of Margaret Thatcher’s bracing energy and positivism; no carping, constructive work and looking forward. Let me just say—have I got time?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

There was an error with the clock, but I fear my noble friend has had her two minutes.

Conduct of Debate in Public Life

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his Motion and the noble Baroness on her comments. Both speakers made many points with which I strongly agree.

Of course furious debate, passion and rage are nothing new in a democracy. In the Commons, the two sides are two swords’ lengths apart to stop them from striking each other. Over the years there has been protest, militancy and outrage. I understand that during the rage around the Great Reform Bill, at Trinity College, Cambridge—where the noble Lord went, as did my noble kinsman Lord Hunt of Chesterton—the fellows voted unanimously to reject the pro-reform Times from their combination room, disgusted by its violent and unprincipled language and doctrines.

Over the years we have had many more such examples. My early years were surrounded by the race riots; I was chair of the juvenile court at the time of the Brixton riots and was very involved with Scarman. This seemed appalling. I also spent many years as chairman of the juvenile court dealing with football hooligans. There were all sorts of uncontrolled groups, anger and rage, and we have seen that time and again. We have had real aggression from the Militant tendency, and other examples. Many of us have had colleagues murdered by bombs and mortars. My own daughter’s early years saw her always running around the corner so that, if there was a bomb under the car, my husband, the carer or I would be blown up and not her. That was the fear with which we all lived for many years: “Never go out without looking under your car”, and many other examples.

In a way we have to analyse what is new. What is new and different is that with mass education, effectively very low unemployment, opportunities and effectively a good health service—however much we argue about it—many of us thought that values such as enlightenment, civilised debate, balance, reason and consensus would spread and become ever more common. Many of us fear that they are in fact diminishing, and we are perplexed.

I request to the Minister that the recent speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, which he made at the Temple Church on the debate around Brexit, be placed in the Library. In it, without declaring his own position, he describes the way in which the argument is emotional, irrational and not evidence-based. There is no attempt to achieve consensus or reach a middle ground. This is an extraordinary way for a grown-up democracy to resolve issues, and we have to analyse why that is.

Perhaps the most eminent judge in this country of recent times, Lord Bingham, Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice and senior Law Lord, said:

“In a world divided by differences of nationality, race, colour, religion and wealth”,


the rule of law,

“is one of the greatest unifying factors, perhaps the greatest, the nearest we are likely to approach to a universal secular religion”.

In his book The Rule of Law in 2010, he says:

“In a modern democracy where the ultimate decisions rest with the people, it is the more important that they should be fully informed and empowered to choose between conflicting opinions and alternative courses of action. The media, of course, have a crucial role to play … ‘The proper functioning of a modern participatory democracy requires that the media be free, active, professional and inquiring’”.


What has happened? Many of us had thought that the more information the better. When I was Culture Secretary, so long as we had diversity of ownership and plurality of voice we all thought that we were on the forward march. It is of course the development of social media, which had initially felt so exciting and such an opportunity to connect, integrate and communicate with constituents and to be responsive. We have seen how, with Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat, it has vulgarised society. It is not accountable. In the press you can ultimately have some redress from inaccurate reporting, but these are people without bounds who are not accessible. I am delighted that the Culture Secretary and the Home Secretary are bringing online harms measures for us to consider to give social media operators a duty of care. It will be a lot more complex than people think.

The way the world operates like an echo chamber reinforcing people’s views has been mentioned. The great thing about parliamentary meetings such as those my noble friend Lord Baker and I used to go to on many occasions in Surrey was that people would come to them. You could argue and debate. You knew that in the end most decisions would be 6:4, 7:3, or probably 5.5:4.5. Social media is about assertion and emotion, with no evidence base and no balance. It has become a sort of online game, like a television show. It is almost part of entertainment. It is totally without responsibility.

I echo the points about becoming more siloed. Gillian Tett’s book about the silo effect in modern society is all too true. Politicians do not know academics. This, again, is a sinister feature. I also take to heart David Goodhart’s point about anywhere or somewhere and the emotion around Brexit if you were left behind and had not had the proceeds of globalisation. It is wonderful that 600 million have come out of poverty in China but, if you are in Hull, where I have been chancellor of its university for 11 years, it is not how it feels. You feel out of London, out of the central area, alienated without power and effect.

I agree with those who have said that women are often the butt of this. Women are either deified or vilified. Yesterday Caroline Slocock gave a wonderful address to the Speaker’s Art Fund reception about the way Mrs Thatcher was perceived, and so also Julia Gillard or maybe Hillary Clinton.

What is the answer? It is to follow through the measures to protect politicians and to do everything we can to create a more united society, in exactly the words the Prime Minister used when she came to Downing Street. I am sure she more than anybody hopes that this Schleswig-Holstein question of Brexit will be resolved— although in that case one went mad, one died and one forgot the answer. I hope we can find the answer. I believe that we are a much more united nation than is often argued. We have to cope with social media and resolve this dilemma, but we should be proud of ourselves as a civilised, liberal and enlightened nation.

Prisons: Rehabilitation

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Thursday 6th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, as ever we are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for speaking so powerfully about a critical issue in our society. The number of people in prison is disgraceful. It is an incredibly serious problem. The report over the summer on the situation at Birmingham was quite deplorable. The Chief Inspector of Prisons described a situation of widespread violence and bullying, pervasive drugs problems, squalid conditions, inadequate levels of staff control and prisoners so terrified for their personal safety that they resorted to self-isolation. I am pleased that he did not go down a sterile argument about prisons being in either private or public ownership. It is clear that HMP Oakwood is a magnificent example under G4S. I do not think that this is a question of public or private ownership—but it is an issue of culture in prisons and regaining control.

I will speak particularly about HM Inspectorate of Prisons, because it has a position of authority, power and integrity that is listened to by all. I pay tribute not only to Peter Clarke in his present role but to a particularly fine Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick. He did the job excellently. He showed a lifetime of commitment to the most disadvantaged in society, but also a cool head and a warm heart. He established the independence of HM Inspectorate of Prisons, which has been established for some time now.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bird, said, prisons operate in a wider context—the multiplicity of causation, the whole situation of health, mental health, homelessness and education. I read a paper only last week about rough sleepers. Those are all contributory elements, as we well understand, to how people end up in prison. But it cannot be an ideal place for them.

Two years ago was a dramatic period in which the Inspectorate of Prisons documented some of the most disturbing prison conditions we had ever seen—conditions that have no place in an advanced nation in the 21st century. I am hugely encouraged that the commitment of the Minister for Prisons, Rory Stewart, to implementing substantial improvement is there for all to see. As a new MP, I had been a candidate on the Isle of Wight where there were three major prisons and I knew a lot about the situation there. I had an adjournment debate in the middle of the night. The then Minister of Prisons tried to coerce me into not raising the debate because really nobody was very interested and it would not do my career very much good at all. There is now a very different situation and I welcome that, led often by Members of this House.

We understand that organised crime in prisons is connecting two interlinked components—staff corruption and the use of drugs in prison. I call on the police to work very closely with prison officers to try to tackle the violence, disorder and crime. It cannot be done from prison alone: it has to be done beyond the walls.

Of course, there are many prisons doing excellent work and there are many valiant prison officers who are really committed, in spite of the odds. But there is an extraordinarily serious issue concerning staff retention. We have had the announcement of 2,500 more prison officers, but in 2010 only 1.5% of operational staff had had less than one years’ experience. By 2018 this was 22%. The real, underlying issue is the extraordinary rotation. People join the Prison Service and then leave. In other professions, there are programmes: for example, to look at how nurses can stay and hold on to their vocation.

Rory Stewart’s announcement of £10 million of government investment in the prison system and 2,500 prison officers is important, but we know that we also need investment in scanners, security, estate management, governor training and support for prison officers. Fortunately, the number of those in youth offender institutions is, quite rightly, significantly down from 3,500 to 883—almost all boys. We need to focus on education, but here again, with the new secure schools, I urge that HM Inspectorate of Prisons should continue to have a crucial place in inspecting the schools, because it was the inspectorate, after all, that discovered some of the abuses in the secure training centres. If there is an ideal example of these institutions, it is hard to find.

Let me echo the call by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, to find time for more enlightened approaches. We speak about restorative justice time and again. Let me commend Gerry Johnstone and Iain Brennan at the criminology department of the University of Hull, who are doing a fascinating piece of work comparing restorative justice in seven European countries. They will produce work that we should see and value.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I am convinced that the Minister takes this seriously. We must all wish him well in trying to ensure that our prisons set an example and do some good for the people incarcerated in them, instead of carrying on in their present deplorable state.

The Future of the Civil Service

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, I join those who warmly congratulate the noble Lord on initiating this debate. I am not one who believes in a major commission, except in so far as it would give the noble Lord many opportunities to present evidence which we would all greatly enjoy.

At a time of coalition Government, I do not think that uncharted territory is the time for a fundamental reform. Many of the comments around whether the central role of the Cabinet Secretary as the head of the Civil Service should be split have a lot to do with coalition Government and the fact that we live under severe financial constraint.

I declare my interests as set out in the register, but suffice it to say that, from the experience of running the health service, where we brought in commercial people to help lend their skills to what we were trying to achieve, I have become a very strong believer that there are talented people in the commercial world who have a huge amount to offer government. It is possible to find people who will undertake the work on much reduced income and be committed and add great value to what we are trying to achieve.

My concern is that, even now, the only Permanent Secretary we have who comes from an outside environment is Stephen Lovegrove at DECC, who came from Deutsche Bank to the Shareholder Executive and is now a Permanent Secretary. I do not think that this makes sense. The work that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, has been doing with non-executive advisers on departments—I refuse to call them “directors” because they are not—has shown the calibre of people who are prepared to come to assist in government. I see the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who I remember said, “We want a permanent Civil Service; we do not want permanent civil servants”. We should question more closely whether there is a resistance in the Civil Service Commission to giving ultimate leadership appointments to individuals who have spent a lot of their life in a different field.

Only today I have published a paper about the leadership of universities. We have Bill Rammell, a former Minister; Martin Bean from Microsoft; Sir David Bell, a former Permanent Secretary; Debbie Swallow from the V&A—they are all now vice-chancellors. It is not that they should necessarily come straight into the top job. When commercial people come in, of course they need to learn and understand the subtlety and values of the Civil Service. It is my sense, however, that we should look carefully at what the resistances are.

The Civil Service was commended by my noble friend Lord McNally for diversity—maybe of gender, orientation, race and ethnicity, but not of occupational background. Every other field of endeavour in this modern, fast-changing world needs different skills, which do not necessarily grow themselves.

There are of course great differences—although I understand the ministerial frustration—but, increasingly, politicians have very little business background. They know about press notices; they do not know about delivery of projects. The implementation of anything means you have to go through winter and spring before you get to the summer of delivery. There are key fundamental principles, and my sense is that both Ministers and civil servants need to look again at this.

Finally, have we looked closely enough at the model of the Greater London Authority and some of the local government models, where service delivery and policy formation is much more closely integrated? Certainly, the much underexamined GLA has in many ways a more interesting balance of people coming through into the executive.

Mental Health (Discrimination) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Excerpts

Friday 25th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone]

My Lords, I strongly commend the noble Lord for his initiative in bringing forward this practical, concise and important Bill. It was 50 years ago that Enoch Powell talked about putting a torch to the funeral pyre of the great Victorian lunatic asylums. It was also 50 years ago that Erving Goffman, the great American sociologist, talked about stigma theory: the process whereby an individual is isolated, denigrated and humiliated to make others feel more normal and safe.

In the field of mental health, discrimination and stigma have been extraordinarily persistent. It is quite wrong for reality to reinforce prejudice. As the noble Lord said, there can be no justification for singling out mental ill health, whether of a school governor, Member of Parliament, company secretary or juror, when many other forms of difficulty would make them far more objectionable in any of those roles.

My original reference to become a Member of Parliament was written by a professor of child psychiatry at the Maudsley, Lionel Hersov, with whom I worked for a long time. Like others, I made it my role in Parliament for all these years always to do what I could to promote understanding and recognition of, and better services to tackle, the problems of mental ill health. I know that the noble Lord is doing a huge amount to develop a major global initiative to promote research into the understanding of mental illness and its cures.

I recognise the Government’s work in their excellent recent paper, No Health Without Mental Health. A key feature is the intention to combat stigma and discrimination. In that context, I strongly add my voice of support to an enlightened, simple and practical Bill that can make a significant difference.