International Women's Day

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton for instigating this centennial debate and for all her work on behalf of women over many decades, including her expert chairing of the Women’s National Commission, which I, too, had the privilege to chair between 1999 and 2002 before handing over to the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser.

It is a very great shame that, as we celebrate 100 years of International Women’s Day, we also acknowledge the demise, in the past few months, of the Women’s National Commission, a body that has represented the entire women’s voluntary sector since the Wilson Government, and through all Governments until now. I have to say to the Minister, who I know takes her brief very seriously, that abolishing the WNC will be seen as short-sighted, not only in the years to come but now, with the Government’s current promotion of concepts such as the big society, which we know can work only if it is organised and driven by women.

In the course of 100 years, women’s lives in this country have changed out of all recognition. Hugely improved health and education systems, universal suffrage, access to family planning, and some control over economic independence through entry to the labour market, all add up to incredible progress. Yet before we become too self-congratulatory, we have only to look at the hard facts in any area of UK life to pull us up short. In the political arena, for instance, we see that, since women gained the vote, there have only ever been 32 female Cabinet Ministers—32, my Lords, in 82 years. I am proud that 21 of those were Labour Cabinet Ministers, and that former Cabinet Ministers are taking part in this debate, but the shortness of the list is derisory, spanning as it does two centuries.

In the world of work, women are still vulnerable, despite many advances. The present speed and scale of public sector cuts is not helping that vulnerability. The recent labour force survey finds that the cuts will lead to hundreds of thousands of job losses for women, as my noble friend Lady Morgan has said, because women form 53 per cent of the jobs in public sector services that have not been protected from the cuts. These are all held by women. It is clear that, despite the coalition’s expectation that,

“all sections of society who are able to contribute to deficit reduction should do so”,

women are bearing the brunt of the present cuts.

Finally, I briefly mention the world of the boardroom, as mentioned by several others this morning. I very much welcome the report of my noble friend Lord Davies of Abersoch, Women on Boards. It is a vital contribution to the debate on achieving more women in decision-making roles in our economy. Since the crash of 2008, a much wider pool of executive talent is needed more urgently than ever. As my noble friend points out, only 12.5 per cent of directors of FTSE 100 companies are presently women. This is not a statistic of which any of us can be proud. Does the Minister agree that companies and CEOs will take the problem of a lack of diversity on company boards seriously only if the spectre of legislation casts its shadow over them? Would she also give the House some idea of how the Government intend to respond to my noble friend’s 10 recommendations, especially as boards and chairmen are being asked to announce their goals in response to his report within the next six months?

This has so far been a positive, expert, useful and sparkling debate, with wonderful maiden speeches. If we ask ourselves how women have fared in the past 100 years, the reply of Mao Tse-Tung, when he was asked what the lessons of the French Revolution were, would suffice: “It is too soon to tell”.

Bloody Sunday Inquiry

Baroness Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Crawley]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, even though I disagree with 90 per cent of what he said. We have had a sober, measured and wide-ranging debate on the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Many noble Lords who have spoken today served with great distinction as Ministers in Northern Ireland, while others have spoken movingly of their personal experience, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. Noble Lords have also shared their political and legal judgment with the House, and we have had the welcome and authoritative maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven; we welcome him very warmly to the House.

As the final sentence of the report’s principal conclusions states:

“Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland”.

Many noble Lords have repeated those words and I believe quite rightly too. Given that another 26 years of sectarianism and wrecked lives across Northern Ireland would pass before the Saville inquiry started in July 1998, and given that the inquiry itself would be so controversial in its length and cost—we have heard about that from many noble Lords—it would be remiss of us not to reflect on the lessons both of the events themselves on 30 January 1972 in Londonderry—Derry—as well as on the public inquiry process and its future. In response to the publication of the inquiry report on 15 June 2010, the Prime Minister mentioned,

“the wholehearted support of Her Majesty’s Opposition”.

I commend him on that. But the conclusions of the report are absolutely clear:

“There is no doubt. Nothing is equivocal. There are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong”.

This was reiterated in our debate by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, in his welcome opening remarks.

Also in his June Statement, the Prime Minister expressed his immense pride in the skills of the British Army, and we have heard those expressions of pride repeated today by noble Lords and the noble and gallant Lord. They have talked of the difficult work undertaken by the Army over the years in Northern Ireland, where in 38 years, over 1,000 members of the security services lost their lives. Having been one of the longest serving Whips at the MoD—it certainly felt like that—I am keenly aware of the extraordinary sacrifices that the members of our Armed Forces undertake on our behalf. But the Prime Minister concluded that on that day, 30 January 1972:

“Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The Government is ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces. And for that, on behalf of the Government—and indeed our country—I am deeply sorry”.

His apology was greeted with an outpouring of relief and pent-up emotion by the families of the dead and wounded, as my noble friend Lord Dubs has said. One would hope that, with the publication of the report, 38 years of bitterness, questioning and cynicism went some substantial way to being salved.

The report from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville, is clear about the 13 mainly young people who were killed that day and the 15 others who were also injured by the Army. Saville concludes that none of the casualties shot by the soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm. Moreover, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, reiterated that conclusion. Saville also finds that the soldiers of Support Company reacted by losing their self-control, forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training. Given those stark findings, can the Minister give the House any information about the timetable in which the Director of Public Prosecutions will come to a view? I do not make any judgment about prosecutions, a point also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, but I would ask about coming to a view about the matter because I believe that that is hanging in the air and needs to be answered.

Noble Lords who, as I do, wish to see a modern, reconciled Northern Ireland striding forward, free of division and recrimination, will acknowledge the shocking findings of the Saville report and that there was a need for those families to find the truth. I take note of the wise words of my noble friend Lady Smith on the complexity of truth: truth is never simple. What contact since the publication of the report has there been with the families concerned by the Government? What discussions have taken place within the department on the way forward as far as the families’ needs are concerned?

It is clear that the Saville conclusions throw into stark relief the fact that many other families and communities across Northern Ireland have suffered loss and violence. We know that more than 3,000 people have died in the conflict in Northern Ireland and that closure for their loss has never been found. Every innocent life lost and family scarred is a tragedy. Therefore, it is important to look at the work of the excellent Historical Enquiries Team and to see what further support it requires in its endeavours to deal with the past. What financial settlement do the Government have in mind for the HET given its present limited budget? Do the Government believe that the HET can in the future run inquiries of the scope of anything like Saville, Billy Wright or any of the other outstanding cases? What about Ballymurphy, the Omagh bombing and Pat Finucane?

If large-scale open-ended public inquiries are to be ended, what is to be put in their place? The Minister will know that you cannot deal with the past just by closing it down. The Inquiries Act 2005 was an attempt to deal with the issue of open-ended inquiries; however, in the debates on that Act, the point was made continually and strongly by the Opposition that inquiries need to be independent. That independence comes at a cost. What is the future for independence if it is not the route of the public inquiry? That question, in many different forms, was raised by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Carswell, and Lord Lloyd, the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Bew, who made a special plea for historians in his contribution, and many other noble Lords.

In terms of dealing with the burdens of the past, I reiterate the words of my noble friend Lady Royall in thanking the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and Denis Bradley for their work in the consultative group on the past. I suggest that noble Lords who have not taken part in this debate should look at that important work. The fact that a consensus was not found should not diminish its importance.

The Saville inquiry was costly, long and has been the source of heavy criticism. However, its value is incalculable, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, because the Government’s commitment to it over the years has built up trust in the community. Unless you have trust, which is a precious commodity, especially in Northern Ireland, you cannot move forward—and building up trust is about the future of Northern Ireland.

In looking to the future, on 20 October the Government will announce their views on the comprehensive spending review. Many are extremely worried at the effect of the cuts on the regions and nations that heavily rely on public sector spending; Northern Ireland is one such example. As economic well-being and political stability are so bound up in Northern Ireland, I implore the Chancellor to tread softly.

We welcome Saville. Our debate today will, I hope—along with further discussions in another place and in partnership with the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly—be part of a continuing conversation about the future stability, in both economic and security terms, of a modern Northern Ireland, without ever forgetting the sacrifices of the past.