International Women’s Day

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde]

My Lords, I join in congratulating the Minister on not only initiating the debate but on the manner in which she introduced it. She is probably the first Conservative Minister in this House to introduce what has become an annual debate—certainly she is the first coalition Minister.

This has become an annual event—it was initiated from the Labour Benches some years ago—but it has never become ritualistic. It is always an interesting debate with many diverse opinions, on some of which we all agree and on others we do not. That is one of the strengths of this House. Occasionally some issues arise which we normally do not think about—the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and my noble friend Lord Bach, for instance.

Twenty-five per cent of the contributions today will come from our male colleagues. We could say from “noble Peers” because that is a term that does not mean man or woman. Perhaps we should consider that in the future.

It is a wide-ranging debate and one of its assets over the years has been that we have never totally concentrated on the UK. Those of us who have taken part have recognised that this is an international and global subject. Women throughout the world have issues. Some women—such as those in this country—are in a very privileged position and have made huge progress over the years. So far, so good; the jury is still out. We have made progress but we have a long way to go. However, compared with women in some other nations of the world, our progress has been enormous. They are still very much in the foothills.

I was delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, mentioned Maria Colvin because, over the years, it is women like her who, in their own chosen channel of life, have made enormous impressions that help our general debate. She was born in New York but chose to live in and work from the UK. Her male colleagues have suffered the same fate and many journalists have lost their lives in trying to get the full story out. It is a name for which we should perhaps pause today and pay respect.

The debate often deals with generalities but I should like to discuss a specific area that has not been mentioned so far—it is one to which I am very much attached—and that is Colombia. What has been and is going on in Colombia in the human rights field has impacted substantially on the ability of women in that country to make a major contribution to its economy. For 50 years, it has had civil strife and it is perhaps more telling to name incidents rather than to talk in generalities.

An elected senator in Colombia, Piedad Cordoba, who helped with the negotiations for the release of some prisoners from a terrorist organisation, was subsequently charged by the state and has been banned from holding office for 18 years. She was accused of events that cannot be proven. Liliany Obando is an academic who worked in Australia and Canada to campaign for human rights back home in Colombia. In 2008, she was torn from her daughter, put in jail and accused of exchanging e-mails with what the Government regard as a terrorist organisation. During the course of this debate, I have received a message that she will be released today having been in gaol for nearly four years with no charges against her that have been proven. One of the reasons she is being released today is because of the work of parliamentarians in both of our Chambers. I am not saying they are totally responsible for it but the pressure they have put on has had an impact. We need to learn a lesson from that.

So great has become the concern about the assassinations in Colombia that it is now considered the most dangerous country in the world to be a trade union activist. Slightly fewer than 3,000 trade unionists have been murdered—assassinated—by the paramilitaries since 1985. Such is the concern that the United Nations sent a special rapporteur, Professor Philip Alston, to look into the assassinations. In referring to the mothers of Soacha and an incident in which 23 young men were mutilated and killed by the paramilitaries and then accused of being terrorists, he said:

“While the Soacha killings were undeniably blatant and obscene, my investigations show that they were the tip of the iceberg”.

It is against that kind of environment that the EU this year is being asked to endorse a free-trade agreement. Our reputation for tolerance and democracy as a nation will be besmirched if Britain supports that free trade agreement against that background of an invasion of human rights and a whole catalogue of other incidents affecting women in particular.

I accept that probably the Minister cannot give a definitive answer on this today, but will she take that message back from this debate? Women can participate in the economy of a country only if they are free and unfettered, and do not have this kind of repression.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde]

My Lords, I, too, welcome many of the provisions of this Bill. Social networking is one of the areas of concern. If it is on the social network, people believe it and do not believe the official authorities. A whole group of young people growing up today look at the social network and think if it is on there, it must be right. People who have bad instincts towards children are drawn to it because that is where young people go. I, too, raise the question referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, a few moments ago.

I welcome very much Clause 58 on detention without charge. I felt that my own Government were going too far in their proposals and I would not have supported them. I support very much the change that is being proposed, and indeed, the removal of a homosexual record. What was then regarded as a criminal act is not so today, so it makes sense to remove it.

My concerns are on Part 5 and this is where I depart from some of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. It is very easy to caricature a vetting and barring system as the nanny state gone mad and being completely wrong. We are talking about the protection of children. I agree that we need to get the balance right but much of the provisions in legislation arose out of cases where children were groomed and treated in an appalling way, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, rightly says, is absolutely repugnant to any decent person. I feel that the balance in Part 5 has swung too much from one part to the other. We need to get some balance into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will listen and perhaps deserve that little bunch of mistletoe at the end of the Bill by getting some changes into this area.

The most popular team sport for youngsters in the UK, which is not one that I follow, is football. I have spoken to the Football Association because I know that it has a very good structure. It has just under 55,000 youth teams up and down the country covering about 1 million children. Each year, around 35,000 people are vetted to work with those youngsters. There is a welfare officer working with the Child Protection in Sport Unit and it is all properly organised. One could repeat that among a number of charities. There are the big organisations and the small ones that do not have that support, which will be affected profoundly by the Bill. The effect will be not from the adults working with them but from the youngsters taking part where parents may be concerned that their children are not being properly protected.

The Government have said that in future only the applicant will complete the form and only the applicant will see the certificate, as I would call it, of the vetting. At the moment, it goes to the employer or the registered organisation, but that will not happen in the future. One of the rationales for this is that only 5 per cent of the applications actually have some content or concern which means that you probably would not want those people working with youngsters. The Football Association says that it does not accept that figure and that it is around 15 per cent. Irrespective of whether it is 5 per cent or 15 per cent, that of itself is a case to argue that the Bill has gone too far. That does not mean that I do not believe that there need to be changes.

We have talked about social networking and we talked earlier about new technology—even looking at our own procedures in this House. I wonder whether the Minister should perhaps give some consideration to saying that, for the 95 per cent, or indeed the 85 per cent, that cause no concern at all and whose applications go through without problem, the notification of clearance could go by e-mail. At the moment it goes in the mail, but e-mail is much quicker and not as expensive. At the moment the whole problem will be loaded on to the voluntary organisations. We know what will happen. There will be a dreadful case that is all over the papers. The Daily Mail will be calling for the Minister’s head because he has not given proper protection to children. We need to find a balance to make it more efficient, so that it is not so overbearing, but protects children. That is one thing that we could have. The ones that cause concern could then go in the normal way to the organisation, whether it is an employer or a voluntary organisation.

The Government say, “Well, sometimes there are errors”. We could allow a period between an individual being told, “We are not going to clear you to work with children”, and the third party—the employer or organisation—being told. It could be a period of two weeks, a month, or whatever to allow the individual to appeal that the information is incorrect. Certainly that would bring back some kind of balance. There is also the issue of transferring the cost entirely under the present proposals from the centre to the organisations, many of which do not have the resources to do it. What will happen? At the moment, they will be able to take a judgment about not having clearance and, again, we will have not one but several public scandals.

The Bill provides—this is very welcome—the portability of the clearance. Once you are cleared, you are cleared, and that is it. Quite often volunteers work not for one organisation but several. That would be extremely helpful in improving matters. The Bill has a number of unintended consequences in this part and I look forward to discussing it as we go through the Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will deserve that little bunch of Christmas fare at the end of it. I am sure he will.