Socioeconomic Equality Duty

Baroness Gould of Potternewton Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister some questions about points that she has raised today and about what her right honourable friend said at the reception. Her right honourable friend cited as a reason for getting rid of the duty the fact that public sector spending is skewed towards certain parts of the country. I do not know what that means. I could understand its meaning if she was referring to certain parts of communities, but I do not know what is meant by certain parts of the country. She then went on to refer to bin collections and bus service redesign. Neither of those things has anything to do with equality. The socioeconomic duty would help to meet that practical need, whereas talking about dustbins and buses has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The Statement referred to compensating measures to make up for the drastic cuts in benefits and services. For some, that might sound like big and impressive figures. However, I should like to quote again from the comments of the End Child Poverty campaign, which identified many of the things that the Minister talked about. It said:

“The compensating measures don’t go nearly far enough to stop this being a dark day for any family struggling to stay out of poverty”.

It also talked about householders falling behind. My goodness, a lot more of them will be falling behind. The socioeconomic duty is even more important as a result of the cuts that are coming.

I have another question regarding the sums available. Will those be ring-fenced? How will the Government ensure that they go to the poorest families? What process will make that happen? It is a key part of the Statement.

I am fully in favour of the concept of increasing flexible working—I would not disagree with that one iota. However, many more families will need support, because a large number of them will be unemployed. As for the half-million unemployed public sector workers, I have no doubt the Minister will say that many of them will go into private sector jobs. However, PricewaterhouseCoopers has warned that almost half a million private sector jobs could be lost as a result of the spending squeeze. Are we talking about more families in need of support? The socioeconomic duty would have been invaluable in helping to ensure that support went to the right people.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

Perhaps I may remind noble Lords to make their comments as brief as possible so that we can fit in as many people as possible.

Public Bodies: Reform

Baroness Gould of Potternewton Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

I apologise to my noble friend, but I am the chair of two organisations that have been purged today, so I feel I must express my views. One of the organisations will become an advisory stakeholder group, and we might well be able to work with that. We have had lots of discussion on how that is going to happen. The other organisation, which is the only national body in this country and the whole of the UK responsible for gender, is being abolished with absolutely nothing to say that it will be replaced. It will be abolished full stop, and its work will go into the department. I want to know how the 620 organisations that belonged to the Women’s National Commission will have a voice direct to the Government, and how they will have a voice when they disagree with government. The commission has very often acted as a caveat, being able to co-ordinate the voice of women to government. I have not yet received any answers on that point.

The whole process has been absolutely diabolical. I have not received a single piece of paper until today, when I had an e-mail message from the Secretary of State that told me that we were no longer going to exist. I have had a couple of conversations with the director of the Government Equalities Office, but not one of our commissioners has. There has been no transparency in the process whatever. We have not been told at all why the three points—although it says four in the document—that we were asked to put to the Cabinet Office have not been responded to. They were put through the GEO, but we have had no response as to why it was decided that we did not qualify on any one of those three points. The whole process has been rushed and, quite honestly, if it could be done, might be subject to a judicial review. There has been no stakeholder involvement in the decisions that this Government have taken.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am sorry to have to disagree with the noble Baroness. Some of these decisions have had to be made by government, and we take full responsibility for making them. Consultations were done with each department, and each department was responsible for ascertaining from all these bodies their capacity to meet the tests that have been set. Discussions have thus been taking place within departments and I am quite surprised to hear from the noble Baroness that she has not been aware of the discussions going on in this field, because I know that she is very much involved in these things. Concerning the women’s commission, we are really keen to move away from the idea of having a single body to voice women’s issues. Women should actually be engaged in all public bodies and articulating their views across Government.

Women in Society

Baroness Gould of Potternewton Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate and for doing so in such a detailed, extremely informative and sensitive way. The debate gives the House the opportunity to hear about the Government’s future strategy for women, which has now been well explained to us. I pick up on one point that is fundamental to all the discussions that we are going to have, which is the question of women’s rights, whether in the UK or abroad. That has to be the basis on which we have all our discussions.

I declare an interest as chair of the Women’s National Commission, a non-departmental government body that is under review. I cannot resist the opportunity to say that I trust that the Government will appreciate and respect the value of the WNC in hearing the voices of women throughout the UK. It is a model that is envied and has been adopted by many other countries. We look forward to seeing what the future brings.

We have had many successful debates in your Lordships’ House, but I do not think that we have ever had the privilege of hearing seven maiden speeches in our debates. We sincerely look forward to hearing them all. I had a dilemma today in thinking of what to speak about. I might have known more had I heard the Minister’s speech in advance. Many subjects come to mind, but I decided to take my theme from a conference that I recently chaired—jointly organised by the health department of Birmingham City University and the National Council of Women—on vulnerability across one’s lifespan.

The conference made me recognise the large number of women who, for very differing reasons, are at some time in their lives in a vulnerable position. It also took me back to 16 and a half years ago when I made my maiden speech, standing somewhere over there, on vulnerable women in the criminal justice system. It was 25 October 1993—never to be forgotten. I asked the Library to find it for me, which it kindly did, so that I could see how much of that speech was relevant today.

One of the findings of the Runciman report, which was what we were debating that day, was that all within the justice system should be treated fairly, reasonably and without discrimination. In spite of that, the report failed to address the position of women within the system, which is primarily geared to men. Nor did it take account of the marked gender differences in the pattern of offending, often resulting in disproportional punishment. That principle has not, I am afraid to say, absolutely disappeared. As the Minister said, sometimes it is hard to change one’s mindset.

Last month, the number of women in prison in England and Wales was 4,302, which is 60 per cent up on the last decade. That sounds like a big increase, but the question has to be asked how many of those prison sentences were justified. For instance, in spite of evidence that women defendants rarely commit offences on bail, half of women entering custody each year do so on remand. These women spend an average of four to six weeks in prison and 60 per cent do not then receive a custodial sentence. Very often, these women in custody for that short period are five times more likely to have a mental health concern than women in the general population. Many self-harm, more than one-third are alcoholics, 58 per cent are on drugs, more than half have experienced domestic violence and one-third have experienced sexual abuse. There is no denying that these women have committed a crime, but do the punishment and its consequences fit that crime? Is a prison sentence always necessary?

At a meeting last month held jointly by the Women’s National Commission and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Penal Affairs, the governor of Styal women’s prison indicated that, in that prison, 107 women were on remand, 50 per cent of whom he believed would not receive a custodial sentence; 72 women were doing six months or less; 34 were doing eight days or less; eight had been sentenced for one day; and there had been one fine defaulter who had been discharged before she had even spent one night in prison. Surely something is wrong with that.

The question has to be asked whether it is right to impose those short sentences. It is, therefore, encouraging to hear the Minister for Justice, Ken Clarke, arguing the case for a more constructive approach to sentencing. However, I hope that in his deliberations he will also have a constructive approach to sentencing women. I hope, too, that he takes into account the findings of the Corston review on women in the criminal justice system who have particular vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, cannot be here to take part in the debate today.

The review was commissioned by my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland after a series of self-inflicted deaths of women prisoners in Styal prison. The review raised the issue of the appropriateness of custody at huge public cost for women who pose no risk to the public. It called for the introduction of small custodial units for serious dangerous offenders and, for most women who come before the courts, a larger network of support and supervisory centres, based on existing successful women’s centres, as alternatives to custody. I am proud to be the patron of one such centre, of which there are now 38.

At the all-party meeting, we heard many examples of the value that the centres have had to women. A woman from Wales, now aged 31, had been in and out of jail since she was 19, all in short sentences. She had been introduced to drugs in prison and needed money to feed the habit. She saw a leaflet about the women’s centre, the Women’s Turnaround Project, in Wales. With its help, she is now clear of drugs and is planning to go to college to train to do a job in which she can give something back to society. We need many more examples of that being possible.

Of course, all those centres require funding. What plans are there to retain this incredibly valuable resource to help vulnerable women to restore their lives, to prevent them from reoffending and to steer them from drugs and alcohol? I do not have the time to go into the consequences of these short-term prison sentences, with the loss of jobs, the risk of losing children and the risk of ending up homeless, adding to the growing number of vulnerable homeless women who are not only ex-prisoners but also survivors of domestic and sexual violence. A report by Crisis identified that 20 per cent of homeless women were escaping domestic violence; many of them then enter into unwanted sexual relationships to secure accommodation and basic necessities, or are housed in mixed accommodation, which, because of their experience of abuse and violence, is seen as threatening and unsafe.

Violence against women, so explicitly described by the Minister, takes many forms, whether it is domestic violence, which affects one in four women in their lifetime, sexual violence—and it is vulnerable young women, normally aged between 16 and 19, who are most likely to experience violence and sexual victimisation—or the examples given by the Minister, such as FGM and honour killings. All too often, it is those women whose voice is difficult to hear who are the subjects of such violence. In order to hear their voices, the Women’s National Commission was commissioned by the Home Office and the Department of Health to organise and facilitate 24 focus groups of particularly vulnerable women, such as women trafficked into the UK, Gypsy and Traveller women, women asylum seekers and refugee women. The results played a big part in the cross-government violence against women strategy that was introduced last year, as I am sure they will in any future proposals to eliminate violence against women.

I could go on, illustrating the incidence of women who, at some time in their lives, are vulnerable. This is an area to which we should give much more consideration, because it often affects those women from whom we hear nothing; they are hidden and unheard. It is clear that improvements can continue to be made to the lives of those vulnerable women by cross-government working on violence against women, by further implementation of the Corston report, by the valuable use of the women’s centres working within the community and by other initiatives which should be maintained and developed. I was pleased to hear the Minister’s remarks on the disadvantaged community—these women are sincerely and severely disadvantaged. I hope that we will hear more from the Minister in the future about this agenda and what the Government plan to do to help those women.

Women: Public Bodies and Listed Companies

Baroness Gould of Potternewton Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take to encourage more women to take up places on committees and on the boards of public bodies and listed companies

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as chair of the Women’s National Commission.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness’s contribution in raising this important issue and to her continued work in the field of equalities. The Government share her concerns on these issues and that is why we have pledged to take action to promote gender equality on the boards of listed companies. However, we have more to do on the detail and in due course will be making an announcement setting out our future direction.

[Baroness Gould of Potternewton]

I thank the Minister for her nice comments and for her very helpful reply. However, what action do the Government intend to take to challenge recruiters and encourage them to ensure diversity in the membership of boards? Allied to that, how are the Government going to respond to the growing demand for specific places to be designated for women on boards and in public bodies?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, it is all about engaging with business and business organisations. We will engage with all relevant partners in developing our programme to fulfil the commitment in the coalition agreement. Head-hunters and recruitment companies will be aware of the stronger provision in the revised UK Corporate Governance Code, published on 28 May this year, on the importance of boardroom diversity. On the noble Baroness’s second question, we are working very hard to encourage people to work with us, rather than enforce an extra regulatory burden.