Black Lives Matter

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sugg [V]]

I agree with my noble friend. As he says, we police by consent in this country. Our world -class police officers continue to put their own lives on the line to protect the public during the protests, despite coming under attack. We ask our police officers to do the most difficult of jobs, and they are respected around the world for the excellent work they do.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, following last week’s PHE report, are the Government now in a position to say how successful NHS trusts have been in risk-assessing and reassigning those staff most at risk, given that, in many hospitals, front-line NHS staff are predominantly black, Asian and minority ethnic? I understand that the noble Baroness is from the Foreign Office, so I will be happy with a written answer.

[Baroness Sugg [V]]

My Lords, all NHS organisations will continue to make appropriate arrangements to support their black, Asian and minority-ethnic staff. On 28 May, NHS Employers published guidance for employers on risk assessment, advising them to consider issues such as ethnicity. The PHE Covid-19 report on disparity is the first step—it is certainly not the end; there is lots more work to do.

Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree that there is increasingly co-ordinated and effective opposition to women’s rights generally. It is something that I discussed while I was at the UN commission. As for growing racism in the media towards a member of the Royal Family, I am aware of one or two comments, but I am not aware of a mass of racial opposition to any members of the Royal Family.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

Does the Minister know that there is a petition by women’s NGOs, which over 10,000 people have signed, for us to have representation on CEDAW from 2020? Does she agree that it is very important that we increase our influence at the UN while we are losing it at the EU?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was not aware of the petition but, as I said, just because you are nominated does not mean that you are nominated for your country. You are nominated as an individual. Our influence is quite significant, even without the nomination, but I take on board that helpful comment about the petition.

Gender Pay Gap

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly agree with the noble Baroness—it is borne out by fact—that women bear the burden of caring far more than men. She is absolutely right about the work that has gone on over the past few years to improve flexible working being offered. As she knows, all employees with 26 weeks’ continuous service with their employer already have the right to request flexible working. That accounts for approximately 90% of employees. That sends a really clear signal that flexible working should be the norm rather than the exception, but we would like to take this further, which is why we are considering requiring employers to say in each job advert whether a job can be done flexibly.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, could the Minister say what the Government are doing about the gender pension gap, which is double the pay gap, with women receiving £7,000 less on average than men in their pensions according to House of Lords Library figures?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness brings up a good point on the gender road map, which we are talking about, affecting women as they reach pensionable age because they have fewer years of working service. The new state pension was introduced for people reaching state pension age from 6 April 2016 onwards to provide a clearer, sustainable system for their future. More than 3 million women now stand to receive an average of £550 more a year by 2030 as a result of recent reforms.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, just before I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I heard the very sad news that the principal of my old college, Sister Dorothy Bell, has died. I want to put on record that she was strong, compassionate, very funny and a great supporter of other women. She was a person I will never forget. She is now in Hansard—and, I am sure, in heaven.

I am delighted to be taking part in this year’s Lords debate to celebrate International Women’s Day. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for setting out the many positive initiatives that the Government have put forward or are supporting, especially on violence against women. However, like my noble friend Lady Gale I am dismayed that this might be the last such debate with us as members of the European Union, which has been the bedrock of women’s and family rights legislation for four decades.

We discuss the Irish backstop a great deal in this House, but the EU’s historic backstop in the protection of women’s workplace rights is a story still to be told. EU law underpins the Equality Act 2010, including rights to equal treatment for part-time workers, the majority of them women; to health and safety protection for pregnant workers; and to maternity leave, emergency time off for dependants, and parental leave. As chair of the Women’s Rights Committee in the European Parliament in the early 1990s when this country signed up to the maternity leave directive, I am inclined to take these issues personally. The TUC, the BMA and others have written to us setting out their concerns that while the Government have committed to maintaining equality rights and transposing other rights into UK law upon withdrawal from the EU, those rights could become vulnerable to amendment, narrower interpretation and weaker enforcement following Brexit. So for me, Brexit is no good for women.

It is inspiring to think that debates such as ours today are taking place in Parliaments all around the world this week—from countries where voting rights for women are over a century old to those where women have only just won the vote. As I understand it, one of the themes this year is the need to highlight the gender digital divide. That divide is highlighted in the research by our own excellent Lords Library for this debate, which says that an analysis of world labour markets in 2018 by the World Economic Forum,

“focused specifically on the gender gap in artificial intelligence … It found that, globally, 22% of AI professionals were female, compared to 78% who were male. This produced a gender gap of 72%; the WEF stated this remained constant and ‘does not at present indicate a positive future trend’. The study ranked the UK 10th globally for its AI talent pool, with 20% female”.

Three worrying future trends come out of these figures. First, the AI skills gender gap may exacerbate the gender gaps in economic participation and opportunity for women, as AI represents an increasingly in-demand skillset. Secondly, the AI skills gender gap implies that general-purpose technology across various fields is being developed without women’s talent, so limiting its innovative and inclusive capacity. Thirdly, the low integration of women into artificial intelligence talent pools represents such a missed opportunity in a sector where there is insufficient supply of adequately qualified talent. Some estimates tell us that by 2030, up to 9 million people’s jobs will be replaced by AI. It is the future, whether we like it or not, and not enough women and girls are creating that future. I would like to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, has to say—I am sure she is as concerned as we are about these figures—and what she believes the Government can do about it.

Gender Equality and Rights in the Workplace

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Crawley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom maintains gender equality and rights in the workplace in line with other European Union member states.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer noble Lords to my pension as a former MEP, which is in the register of interests.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK has a proud record of supporting workers’ rights and some of the strongest legislation on equalities in the world. We have committed to maintaining these rights but we already go beyond EU requirements in many areas: our ground-breaking gender pay gap reporting regulations and public sector equality duty, to name just two. Our new strategy, to be published later this year, will restate the Government Equalities Office mission on gender and set out the ambitious work taking place across government on this agenda.

[Baroness Crawley]

I thank the Minister. We can agree that current UK gender equality legislation is indeed in good health, although I am sure she will agree that it is not always complied with. However, does she agree that we are where we are only because the EU has been a backstop—if noble Lords will excuse the expression—against the unilateral lowering of standards by member states? I am aware of the Prime Minister’s announcement today but how can we be confident that her Government will protect women and workers’ rights when members of her own party have regularly voted against them?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that the UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that our rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international rights and obligations. The decision to leave the EU does not change that.

Women: Contribution to Economic Life

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palumbo, on an excellent and entertaining speech. He has moved from the Ministry of Sound to the Parliament of Speech. His speech adds to the many we have had and is an excellent addition.

It is always a great joy to take part in this annual debate as we are surrounded by noble Lords who have actually improved the lives of women in this country—whether that was last year or 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago when they were active in the women’s movement. I would also mention the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission on the Status of Women, the Women’s National Commission, Ministers who have moved departments to be more women-friendly and Back-Benchers who have applied their specialisms to ensuring that women’s progress is an onward march.

I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, for initiating this important debate to mark International Women’s Day. I will look specifically, and briefly, at the UK. The topic of women’s contribution to our economy might not seem overtly controversial, until we remember that only a few months ago we had the disgraceful episode of the Twitter trolls coming out from under their stones when it was suggested that women’s faces on bank notes might be a good idea. Anyone who suggests that women’s struggle for equality is now accepted in the UK has only to read about the experience of the victims of that Twitter episode to know that that is not the case.

The contribution of women to the economy is a story of some good news—we would be churlish not to admit the progress that we have all made—and quite a lot of not so good news. The good news is that women’s leadership role in the economy in terms of female directors of companies, which many noble Lords have mentioned, is at last growing, albeit from a very low base.

I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Davies of Abersoch for his report, which raised the bar for our expectations for women on boards. His proposal fell short of quotas—of which, I put my hand up, I am a big fan; I have seen what all-women shortlists and quotas have done to transform women’s activity in the Labour Party and, therefore, the Labour Government’s moves, measures and initiatives aimed at progressing women—but was that companies should achieve a target of 25% female membership of boards by 2015. In 2010 women made up only 12.5% of the members of corporate boards of FTSE 100 companies. Since the publication of my noble friend’s report, that has grown to 20.4%, an increase of 7.9% since 2010. He will for ever be an honorary sister.

However, before we get too excited, there are still all-male boards in the FTSE 100, hanging on by their fingertips, even if it is now down to only two. That is, of course, a nonsense. As Helen Cook, HR director of RBS, said recently, an increased gender balance on boards has become “a commercial imperative”, with boards with more women achieving “better financial results”. The Credit Suisse research report of 2012 found that over the previous six years stocks in companies with women on the board outperformed the stocks of companies with no women on the board. The study also found that the difference in share price was more marked after 2008—we all remember 2008—with stocks of companies with at least one woman on the board tending to perform better than male-only boards in markets where share prices were falling. It took an unprecedented worldwide economic crash to begin to convince men that women make economic sense.

Professional career paths and women’s tendency to produce children—shock, horror; hold the front page—continue to clash at some point in their lives, but there is at least some gradual but very good news coming from the boardroom floor. Have we finally moved on from the time when it is easier for a woman to become a bishop—or, in my religion, a cardinal—than a board director in a British company? Well, we shall see.

There is also some brighter news when it comes to female entrepreneurs. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills found that, in 2012, 19% of small and medium-sized enterprises were either run by women or had a management team that was more than 50% female. In 2010 only 14% of such businesses had a female majority leadership. However, much of the groundwork for that increase was laid in the actions and incentives of the previous Government in encouraging women to run their own businesses, and our party’s pledge is to back more women to start their own businesses in 2015 by cutting business rates.

I am grateful to the Federation of Small Businesses—it is not often I say that—for its timely briefing for this debate. Its figures drill down into different sectors where women are at the helm. We have heard about the retail sector. The federation tells us that nearly 50% of small firms established in the past two years in the retail, hotel, catering and leisure sectors are owned primarily by women. It also makes the important statement that it is vital to support female entrepreneurship, and that 150,000 additional start-ups would be created each year in the UK if women started businesses at the same rate as men. We will grow ourselves out of these times of austerity only if women’s contribution to the economy is recognised and encouraged in these ways.

When it comes to labour market activity, 67% of women are now active in the labour market. This is the highest figure since 1971 and is to be welcomed. On the higher education front, we see that women now constitute 60% of all new university graduands. That is not particularly new but represents a complete change from a generation ago when less than 40% of graduands were women. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked in his excellent speech, why do the executive positions in our professions, especially in science and engineering, not reflect the massive improvement in women’s skills over this generation?

There are so many encouraging signs for women in the economy but—a big but—the economic experience for millions of women across the UK has been far from positive. It is just not good enough that, according to ONS figures, women working full-time in the category “professional occupations” earn only 80% of what men in that category earn; in the category “director”, women earn only 75% of what men do; and in the category “skilled trades”, women also earn only 75% of what men do. This latest publication of figures from the ONS shows that there has been very little change in that gap since 2007. That is just not good enough. Of course, those figures only address women in full-time work. As we know, and have heard from many noble Lords in this debate, a larger percentage of women work in part-time jobs than is the case for men. Those jobs are often unstable, multiple and badly paid. In the last four or five years they have been on the increase.

My late mother’s long illness with dementia brought me close to the social care sector. My conclusion is that we need to respect the caring professions more than we do at present as a country. Some 1.5 million people, mostly women, are employed in the adult social care sector. Of those, 300,000 care workers are on zero-hours contracts and up to 220,000 do not earn the minimum wage. When we brought my mother home from hospital to die, her care assistants were the first on the scene. They dressed and soothed her bed sores with great love and attention, as if she had two more decades to live and not just two more days. Her eyes lit up when she saw them and they were there at her funeral. The status of caring, be it by family or care assistant, is an issue we have to grasp.

That comes to my noble friend Lady Prosser’s statement about the value of women’s work. We have to grasp that point if we are to be an economically credible country. It is not acceptable that women still struggle on in low-wage, temporary and insecure work. One in four women now earn less than the living wage. More women than ever before work in temporary jobs because they cannot find a permanent position. Women make up the majority of zero-hours contracts. Our aim must be to see women take their proper and rightful place in the economic future and prosperity of this country as we move away from the austerity of the last five years and into better times.

International Day of the Girl

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend is right in what she says about child marriage. It is of course a reflection of the low status of women and girls, which is why investing in education and the long-term cultural changes that result from it is so important. Evidence shows that education may be the single most important factor in reducing child marriage. We address this explicitly, for example in our programme in Ethiopia, and we have other programmes in development in the DRC, Yemen and Zambia, because we recognise the importance of this issue.

[Baroness Crawley (Lab)]

What is the Government’s ongoing policy on ensuring equal treatment of girls and boys a little nearer home, in our own state-funded free schools in this country?

Women: Special Operations Executive

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness Crawley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to recognise the contribution made by women put on active service by the Special Operations Executive in the Second World War.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, might I remind your Lordships that this is a timed debate? When the clock says three, you have completed your three minutes and should give way to the next speaker so that all those on the speakers list have the opportunity to contribute.

[Baroness Crawley]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords taking part in tonight's debate, especially for their patience. Their knowledge and experience will indeed enhance our proceedings. I am sure we would wish to remember our dear colleague Baroness Park who, were she with us today, would surely have taken part. I open my remarks by congratulating the Government on the recent announcement that the UK is to donate £2 million to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation. As the years pass, ever fewer of those who saw active service in the Second World War are still with us and, today, so much public attention is understandably focused on immediate conflicts. It is precisely for this reason that those of us who have the privilege to be in Parliament in this era should find the time to reflect on the effort mounted by so many, all those years ago, to rid Europe of fascism and especially to liberate France.

In this Question for Short Debate, I am revisiting the history of the women of the Special Operations Executive F Section, while acknowledging the tremendous debt that we owe to all members of the SOE. I am asking out loud whether the Government agree that not enough has been done to commemorate them formally. The women concerned were recruited to serve in occupied France. They acted variously as couriers, wireless operators and saboteurs. They found places for planes to land, bringing more agents and supplies. They established safe houses and worked with resistance movements to disrupt the occupation and clear the path for the allied advance.

Those women did these things, given wartime pressures, after a very brief period of training. Apparently, they had each been told when recruited that there was only a 50 per cent chance of personal survival—yet, to their eternal credit, off they went. Some had been born in France, some in Britain, a couple in Ireland and some still further afield. Some were Jewish, some convent-educated, one Muslim. Some were already mothers, some just out of their teens; some shop assistants, some journalists, some wives; some were rather poor. In France, they often had to travel hundreds of miles by bike and train, protected only by forged papers, and as they went about their frequently exhausting work they were under constant danger of arrest by the Gestapo. Some were even exposed to betrayal by double agents and turncoats.

The story of what happened to some of those women is often unreadable and, in 21st-century Britain, is perhaps too easily under-remembered. A number were captured in France, horribly brutalised and sent to camps in Germany. There, the torment was often sustained over weeks and months on starvation diets, the women crammed in unsanitary and overcrowded huts with disease rampant. Four of them were killed in Natzweiler by being injected—scarcely credible as it is—with disinfectant. A number, once worked and beaten to a standstill, were shot and hanged at Dachau and Ravensbrück.

From the list of those who survive, the House will perhaps recall the case of Eileen Nearne, whose death in lonely poverty in Torquay only last year provoked so much controversy. Over the post-war years, a number of initiatives have taken place publically to remember and honour these women. There have been plays, movies and TV programmes. There have been a number of biographies of specific individuals. There has been the occasional small mural and a number of memorials around the country. Most recently, we see the bust of Violette Szabo, her head facing this very House, on the Albert Embankment.

At this point, I will mention those who, over the years and up to the present day, work to keep alive the memory of these outstandingly brave women. In this respect, I mention Shrabni Basu and the Noor Inayat Khan Memorial Trust, currently raising funds to build a statue to her in Gordon Square in London. I mention the Violette Szabo Museum in Herefordshire, run by Miss Rosemary Rigby, who I had the pleasure of meeting recently. I also mention the efforts mounted by Madame Szabo’s daughter Tania, who has commemorated her mother in a wonderful book and website. More generally, we know, of course, of the work done every day by the Royal British Legion and other bodies, such as the Allied Special Forces Association. Plenty of people care very deeply about this.

These days, however, the preponderance of effort from the relevant organisations is directed at preserving existing memorials relating to the Second World War rather than creating new ones. However understandable this might be, we just cannot let the mist of oblivion creep over the memory of these women. It would be wonderful if there could indeed be a special new memorial to them. I ask how the Minister feels about that point and how it might be organised.

However, all memorials need not just be pieces of metal or stone. We need to remind our artists of these achievements and sacrifices. We need to prompt those who name new streets and halls of residence and blocks of flats. We have a tradition of celebratory and memorial stamps that could be revisited. We need to bring this story into schools and into the curriculum. We need to encourage English Heritage and other bodies to allow plaques to appear on the houses where these women once lived.

The women to whom I refer are Cecily Lefort, Diana Rowden, Eliane Plewman, Yvette Cormeau, Yolande Beekman, Pearl Witherington, Elizabeth Reynolds, Anne-Marie Walters, Madeleine Damerment, Denise Bloch, Eileen Nearne, Yvonne Baseden, Patricia O'Sullivan, Yvonne Fontaine, Lilian Rolfe, Violette Szabo, Muriel Byck, Odette Wilen, Nancy Wake, Phyliss Latour, Marguerite Knight, Madeleine Lavigne, Sonya Butt, Ginette Jullian, Christine Granville, Gillian Gerson, Virginia Hall, Yvonne Rudellat, Blanche Charlet, Andrée Borrel, Lise de Baissac, Mary Herbert, Odette Sansom, Marie-Thérèse Le Chene, Sonia Olschanezky, Jacqueline Nearne, Francine Agazarian, Julienne Aisner, Vera Leigh, Noor Inayat Khan and Vera Atkins. Even, and especially, Hansard can be a memorial, too.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

[Baroness Crawley]

Many of the women of whom I speak tonight went on to live lives of ordinary toil, making a living, raising a family, paying their taxes, watching the television. They got on with things as best they could, just as they did what needed to be done in the 1940s. I can only guess how heavily their wartime experiences weighed on them and their families. Their greatest memorial is, of course, a free Europe: a Europe that was liberated to build peace and prosperity over the decades to come.

However, it has to be our insistence that, as new generations appear, this story does not become a sad sepia snapshot of a fast-fading time, but a story retold, refreshed and respected anew.

This House and the Government of the day carry a clear debt of honour: a duty of care to perpetuate the memory of our SOE women.

To live now for so long in a Europe purged of fascism, where millions have a reasonable chance of living their lives without enduring prejudice and brutality, where minorities can hope to be free, where political ideas compete inside democratic institutions and are not imposed by thuggery, must have seemed like an exotic fantasy in those early days of the 1940s. As the women of whom we speak today knew better than most, none of this comes cheap. My granddaughter’s granddaughter should be able to know and see this story—this wonder of sacrifice, determination and achievement—in a century still to come. That is why I put down this Question tonight.

Children: Parenting for Success in School

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on securing this most important debate on one of the most intractable issues facing our society today. I also thank him most sincerely for his courtesy in giving me sight of his speech notes and, more broadly, for his terrier-like grip on the subject of parenting and children’s well-being over many years in this House.

We have had a number of maiden speeches today and we welcome them all. The noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, in a most informative contribution, gave us the benefit of his wide experience in this area of children’s special educational needs and mediation. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford gave us a refreshing, moving and most amusing tour of his diocese. As a resident of north Oxfordshire, I hope that our paths will continue to cross both inside and outside this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston—I am looking for her; there she is—will be a very important asset to this House, as her clear, humorous and excellent maiden speech demonstrated, while the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, gave us an engaging, arresting, confident and highly enjoyable maiden speech, outlining his great experience with young people. He is most welcome both day and night in this House. They were all excellent maiden speeches and the House is all the richer for the contributions of our new Peers.

The Library note issued for this debate draws our attention to the bulging literature on the subject of educational outcomes and parenting. We know from Leon Feinstein's research, which the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to in her contribution that at a very early age—by 22 months—a bright child from a disadvantaged background begins to be overtaken in cognitive ability by a less bright but privileged child. While this is not to say that parenting is more likely to be poor in poor families, it does suggest that when parenting is poor the negative effect starts to accrue very early, well before the child goes to school. Moreover, the effects are cumulative and can markedly shape the lifelong prospects of the child.

Professor Desforges and Alberto Abouchaar undertook a literature review on the impact of parenting, one of their findings being that in the primary age range,

“the impact caused by different levels of parental involvement is much bigger than differences associated with variations in the quality of schools”.

A paper by Ingrid Schoon and Samantha Parsons assessed whether growing up in a socially disadvantaged family has a lasting implication for psychosocial adjustment in childhood. It concluded that,

“generally the study indicates that a stable and supportive family environment provides the ideal context for the child to flourish. In the long run, however, even resilient children are still at least in part handicapped by the experience of early social disadvantage”.

Demos, the think tank quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, states:

“Parents are the principle architects of a fairer society”.

Amen, I say, to that. Philip Larkin, the poet, put it in another perhaps even more succinct way. We conclude that positive, early parenting is essential for children to grow up into healthy, happy, achieving and rounded adults. We know that, and that most parents want to do the best for their children. They worry about whether they are getting parenting right.

A report was published recently by the charity Family Lives, formerly Parentline Plus, which found that a majority of parents felt under pressure to be a perfect parent—pressure mostly from the media, sometimes from Government and from their own parents. So many parents know that good parenting really matters and they want help and advice from time to time. Almost a quarter of parents in the report had sought help from the child’s school on parenting issues, which is to be welcomed. This raises questions on what role the Government—any Government—should have in supporting good parenting.

It is because of the importance of good early parenting in securing positive outcomes for children, and because parents say that they want access to advice and support when they need it, that the Labour Government were committed to developing a wide range of support for parents, including parenting classes. For example, there are all the main Sure Start children’s centres, which my noble friend Lord Winston advocated very well. We built 3,500 of them in our time, which were used by more than 2.5 million children and families. They were all required to offer parenting classes using one of the well evidenced programmes that have been shown to have lasting, positive benefits for children and their families.

The centres were funded to train staff properly to ensure that such classes were delivered effectively, which was most important. Most primary schools and many secondary schools also choose to offer parenting classes as part of the extended activities and family learning programmes, which again were funded by government, because those schools understood the benefits not only to the children and families but for the schools themselves, with improved behaviour and better learning for all. Is the Minister concerned about the proposed closures of the Sure Start children’s centres and the reduction in parenting classes that they provide?

The Daycare Trust, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said last week that 250 Sure Start centres may shut altogether, with most others suffering deep cuts to their services. The new early intervention grant to cover Sure Start, although welcome, is considerably less than the grants it replaces, with some suggesting that there will be as much as £1.4 billion of cuts in all early intervention programmes. What impact does the Minister expect that the cuts in local government will have on parenting support?

As many noble Lords have said, by far the most effective approach is preventive—helping vulnerable parents by getting to them early—and, as we believed that to be the case, the Labour Government introduced in many areas the much acclaimed Family Nurse Partnership, developed over 25 years in the United States. This approach attaches specially trained midwives to very young, vulnerable first-time mothers, from early pregnancy and through the first two years of a child’s life. The family nurse teaches and encourages all aspects of positive parenting as well as healthy lifestyles, and helps with strong couple relationships between parents, as marvellously outlined by my noble friend Lady Sherlock. Research in the United States has demonstrated that this approach has long-lasting benefits, including in educational attainment, to children born in the most deprived circumstances, as well as significant savings by preventing problems occurring later on in the child’s life. Will the Government continue to expand the Family Nursing Partnership programme across the country?

This has been a serious and timely debate, with highly informed contributions from noble Lords. Nothing is more important than the well-being of our children, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lady Massey have said. We are living through austere, sobering times. The Minister may argue across the Dispatch Box about the rights and wrongs of cuts that are being made to services, but one thing that we absolutely agree on is that it is not the children’s fault that we are where we are economically, and that the impact on them must not lead to a lost generation. As well as responsible parenting, we always need responsible government.