Charities and Civil Society: Ministerial Responsibility

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Pitkeathley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of including charities and civil society within the remit of a Minister who is also responsible for sport, tourism and heritage on the level of ministerial attention charities and civil society will receive.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare an interest as president of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)]

My Lords, we greatly value the important role that charities and civil society groups play, and work across government to support them as they do so. This includes in the areas of sport and heritage where, as in so many others, charities and volunteers play a crucial part. Aligning those ministerial responsibilities creates a real opportunity for an innovative and collaborative approach to growing the sector’s contribution. My honourable friend is committed to his brief and will ensure that charities and civil society organisations benefit from significant attention.

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his reassurances, but research by the commission on civil society showed that ministerial engagement with the social sector is significantly lower than engagement with business, despite the huge contribution made by that sector in the Covid crisis, as the Minister acknowledged. In the absence of a dedicated Minister, will the Government consider returning to a system of having nominated civil servants in every government department, not just DCMS, responsible for engagement with civil society, as was the case some years ago, when I chaired the advisory body for the third sector set up by a previous Government?

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, with 170,000 registered charities in England alone, it would of course be impossible for any or all Ministers to speak to every charitable organisation that does such important work. It is a duty for all Ministers in the roles they perform. In my portfolio, I have already in my weeks of office had the pleasure of working with the Music for Youth organisation and the Intermission Youth Theatre, and I know that ministerial colleagues across government take very seriously the role that civil society organisations play, not least my honourable friend, with his specific responsibilities.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

Amendment 10 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 11. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if anyone intending to say “Not content” when the Question is put made that clear in debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee; the Committee cannot divide.

Amendment 11

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Fox, for tabling this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked for a positive and ambitious response—I think those were his words. I hope to give him a positive response, but I fear that it will be a practical one.

This amendment seeks to understand our thinking on the key concepts of connected land and common ownership, and the impact of this link on the speed and ease of the rollout of gigabit-capable broadband. As the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, outlined, the concepts of connected land and common ownership form a vital underpinning of the Bill.

It may be helpful to noble Lords if I give a slightly more technical explanation of the concept of connected land. In technical terms, let us consider land in respect of which an operator wishes to have code rights, which we will call Land A. In order for Land A to be “connected land”, it must satisfy both limbs of the definition set out in paragraph 27B(3) of the code. It is not enough that it is used for access to, or otherwise in connection with, the target premises—limb (b). Land A must also be in common ownership with the target premises—limb (a).

The concept of common ownership as drafted in the Bill therefore stands and falls with the need for Land A to be held or used for access to, or otherwise in connection with, the target premises, as contained in limb (b).The definition of “common ownership”—as set out in paragraph 27I(2) of the code, towards the end of Clause 1—will catch two pieces of land which have the same freeholder, or which are held under a lease of any sort by the same person. It will also catch two pieces of land where the same person owns an interest in each but at a different level; for example, where a person owns the freehold of one but is the lessee of the other. I am happy to give practical examples of that point if that would be useful to your Lordships.

The connection set out in paragraph 27B(3) of the code is a conjunctive test, so both limbs (a) and (b) are needed for the concept of “connected land” to work. Without that, the essence of the concept of connected land is removed, and it is completely integral. The amendment would remove the requirement for the land to be in common ownership, thus allowing operators to use this policy on any land that exists between their exchange and the target premises. In practice—this is the key reason why the Government do not support the amendment—it would give operators code rights to access land where a landlord was not responsive. A landlord who has no connection to the properties where the operator is going to make their installation could be opened up to potential Part 4A orders, which we believe is disproportionate.

There are other, technical points which could affect the powers in the Bill with the amendment as currently drafted. Paragraphs 27I(2) and (3) seek to define “common ownership” and “relevant interest”. This was designed to ensure that the Bill worked within the different ideas of land ownership in Scotland. The amendment would render those paragraphs ineffective and affect the efficacy of the Bill, particularly in Scotland.

While I recognise that operators are encountering significant problems gaining access rights in situations other than multiple dwelling buildings, this Bill is not the right vehicle for a change as profound as this. My officials have engaged with them, and representatives of landowners, on these points and we are considering what, if any, action could be taken to support delivery if evidence emerges that further interventions are necessary. With that reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw the amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has indicated that he wishes to speak after the Minister.

[Lord Fox]

I thank the Minister for her anatomical explanation of the situation. Large lumps of Victorian and Georgian cityscapes have been converted into a multiplicity of dwellings and flats, many of which are going to find themselves unable, within the definitions of limbs (a) and (b) and the rules set out in the Bill, to request access. Is that correct? There is obviously complicated ownership in all such places: perhaps the need to go through one flat to get to another; there may be leaseholds and freeholds muddled up. However, the point of the Bill should be to get gigabit broadband capacity to as many people as possible, rather than rule out everybody except a very pure clay of candidates. Perhaps the Minister is grasping—albeit eloquently—at the wrong end of this stick.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 12. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the Clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if anyone intending to say “not content” if the question is put made that clear in the debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee; this Committee cannot divide.

Amendment 12

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I move Amendment 12 and will speak to Amendment 13. Taken together, these amendments probe in a little more detail the way in which operators and property owners will be able to come to some sort of deal. While the Bill sets out to provide a mechanism under which, if necessary, the courts can supervise an arrangement so that access can be provided, the truth is that most operators would wish to have a voluntary arrangement through which they can deal face to face with the person responsible, in order to satisfy the potential user of the new equipment about what they are trying to do. In a sense, it is a slightly strange mixture.

The Bill seems incredibly one-sided in the way it approaches the rights of the owner of the property. We had this debate when considering previous amendments, and I am still a little uncertain as to why this should be. Throughout the discussion, the Minister has tried to make it clear that it is a balance between three competing interests: the rights of the owner of the property, those of the user and those of the operator. But I do wonder whether the balance is right in this respect.

The bar set by the Bill for a landlord to be engaging with the network builder—this is the dialogue that we are talking about—seems to be set a bit low. As I read it, the only requirement of the landlord is that they acknowledge the request notice in writing. That does not give any confirmation that the landlord will negotiate the terms of access to the property in good faith. Can the Minister say in more detail what the Government have in mind here? Could the landlord simply say, “Thank you for your letter—I will get back to you”, and the whole process stops at that point because there is no way of unlocking the arrangement?

In responding to the original consultation, the Government said that a substantive response from the landlord would be enough to take them out of the scope of the Bill, but the Bill as drafted does not require a substantive response. I agree that this might be a definitional issue but if so, why is no definition included in the Bill? This issue was discussed during the Commons stages of the Bill. Amendments that could have addressed it were discussed extensively but the Government rejected them, confirming their view that, by definition, in responding, a landlord ceases to be unresponsive. While I absolutely agree that there is an element of truth in that, it does not solve the problem, which is that if landlords want to play this long and get out of it without committing, it looks as though they can do so. It would sensible either to have no recommendation at all, as per the amendment, or some form of time-limited arrangement under which further action could be taken to resolve the issue. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Lord Clement-Jones?

[Lord Clement-Jones]

I will not be speaking to this amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Lord Adonis?

[Lord Adonis]

I will not be speaking to this amendment either.

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill, like the code itself, aims to provide a balance between the rights of the landowner and of the operator. I believe that the amendment would have the opposite effect of what it hopes to achieve. Rather than encouraging landowners to enter into negotiations, I suspect that it risks leading to landowners responding with a knee-jerk refusal. The Bill as drafted incentivises the landowner to respond to an operator by either agreeing to or refusing access, or otherwise acknowledging the notice in writing. Only if they fail to do so will the requirements for the operator to apply to the court crystallise. We hope that this strikes a balance, providing time for the landowner to consider the operator’s proposals carefully, while providing the operator with the certainty that, while they might not receive a simple yes or no, their request for access is nevertheless being considered. With that, I hope noble Lords are content, and I beg that this amendment be withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I have received no notification that anyone wishes to speak after the Minister, so I return to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I will read carefully in Hansard what has been said and reflect on it. I am bound to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, we are back in the land of unintended consequences, which is not really an appropriate argument to use against what is essentially a probing amendment. We do not intend it to go forward into the Bill as it stands. Simply raising the spectre that it might have unintended consequences has not advanced the discussion.

The Minister’s main point was that the Bill’s intention, which I recognise, is to incentivise a situation in which discussions with the operators and others are brought up when people do not reply to requests for information. In a sense, what is in the Bill is an answer to people who have gone AWOL or died and are not able to answer their letters, rather than encouraging dialogue and leading to a conclusion, which is what we are all trying to get to if we are ever to get to the full gigabit-ready internet that we all look for. I do not think that is the answer, but having said that I will reflect on what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendments 13 and 14 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 15. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if anyone intending to say “not content” when the question is put made that clear in debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in Committee. This Committee cannot divide.

Amendment 15

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government’s thinking and provoke some debate on the issue of competition and open access in the provision of services on the back of the new infrastructure which the Bill makes possible. It is the same amendment that my colleague Chi Onwurah moved in the Standing Committee in the House of Commons. I draw colleagues’ attention to the very interesting debate in that Committee on 11 February 2020 at cols. 20-23. The interesting point about it is that the amendment itself is almost motherhood and apple pie. It is very weak. It is a declaration of what those of us with a history of engagement in telecoms competition issues think is the state of play anyway. The amendment says:

“Any operator exercising … code rights is obliged to ensure that alternative operators can easily install the hardware needed to provide their own electronic communications service … The definition of ‘easily’ … to be provided by Ofcom”,


the regulator.

The significant thing about that debate is that the Government opposed the amendment. Indeed, it was pushed to a Division in the House of Commons Standing Committee and there was a straight vote on it. Highly peculiarly, given the usual position of the parties on these issues, all the Conservatives voted against having any requirement for open access and competition in the Bill, even though Chi Onwurah’s amendment, as I read it, was a statement of existing government and Ofcom policy.

Reading the Minister’s response—this is Matt Warman, the Under-Secretary in the department of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—left me more concerned than before. I would like to probe the noble Baroness further on two particular points that came out in his response. First, he made a straightforward anti-competition declaration about the policy intended to result from the Bill. In col. 22, he said:

“Far from improving competition in access to gigabit services, the amendment”—


this amendment I am now moving before your Lordships—

“may actually have the unintended consequence of doing the opposite. As the hon. Member knows, much of the cost of connecting premises is in the initial installation. The amendment could therefore seriously undermine the case for operators to make that initial installation, as they risk being undercut by second or third movers who would not have to bear the same costs.”—[Official Report, Commons, Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill Committee, 11/2/20; col. 22.]

That is a classic statement of the reason that operators, including Openreach, always give for not allowing others to be able to access their wayleaves and technology, but it is not one that the Government have supported in the past. Do the Government believe that allowing operators to ban competition and introduce anti-competitive requirements in contracts is justified as a means of getting this investment? That is a direct question for the Minister. I would like to know what the Government’s policy is. Do they support anti-competitive practices?

On the operation of the existing law, in col. 21 Matt Warman said:

“The Bill aims to support leaseholders to access the services they request from the providers they want”—


a straightforward statement of pro-competition policy.

“It already ensures that leaseholders are not per se locked in to services provided by a single provider; nothing in the Bill prevents a leaseholder with an existing gigabit-capable connection from one service requesting an alternative network to come in and request code rights as well.”—[Official Report, Commons, Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Bill Committee, 11/2/20; col. 21.]

Can the Minister point me to the provisions ensuring that

“leaseholders are not per se locked in to services provided by a single provider”?

How does that provision square with the Government’s resistance in the House of Commons to this amendment, on the grounds that anti-competitive practices were justified to support operators making investments in extending fibre to the home? I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst. He is not there. We will move to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I beg your pardon; I call the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

The case has been so well made by my noble friend Lord Adonis that I have very little to add. I thought, as he did, that the exchanges in the Commons were extraordinary. We need some better explanation of what has been going on there. This is an area where there may be some case for a bit of guidance being issued by the Minister, and not necessarily in regulatory form.

I have recently moved house and have had exactly the same problem of trying to take over an existing line from the previous owner and being told that I could not switch operators and had to stick with the same equipment, even though it is clearly not right for our type of use. I am sure that this a pro-competition and pro-choice amendment which the Minister will want to support—there is a bit of a get-out here which she may want to think about.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Apologies for skipping over you, Lord Stevenson. We will try the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, again. He is not there. Lord Liddle? We go then to the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

[Lord Fox]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for introducing this, because it throws up a sort of paradox—although the noble Lord did not mention it—and I am interested to know the Government’s view on it. In certain categories of installation government money is going across either directly or through local authorities into investment in installation and hardware. Are the Government suggesting that state-subsidised and state-supported hardware would not be mandatorily interchangeable?

--- Later in debate ---

We also have technical concerns about the drafting of the amendment, which I can cover if noble Lords would like or write to them about. The Government sympathise with some of the intention behind the amendment—namely, to allow operators to compete on comparable terms as the best course of action. However, I ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I have received no notification that anyone wishes to speak after the Minister, so we return to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

[Lord Adonis]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister. As she says, there are drafting issues, but I am sure that if they were the only concern we would all be happy for the Government to do the drafting for us. There seems to be a contradiction in the Government’s position. May I ask the Minister to clarify it? Is she saying that under the Bill as drafted, and the terms of the agreement with the proposed Part 4A order, alternative operators will or will not have easy access to new infrastructure? To prevent people unfairly undercutting initial investors, it is important that they should not. It is not clear to me and that point seems to go to the heart of the Government’s argument. Are they arguing that operators will have easy access, so that what is proposed here is irrelevant; or that operators will not have easy access, which is intentional because if they did, there would be undercutting? Which of those is the Government’s position?

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 16 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 17. I remind noble Lords that anyone who wishes to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if anyone intending to say “not content” when the question is put makes that clear in the debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee. The Committee cannot divide.

Amendment 17

Moved by

Charitable and Voluntary Sector

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not need to tell any Member of your Lordships’ House that charities are the eyes, ears and conscience of society: they mobilise, they provide, they inspire, they advocate and they unite. I have worked in or with the sector for most of my long working life, and I chaired the House of Lords Select Committee on Charities. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for bringing about this debate and congratulate him on its extremely significant timing.

When my Select Committee reported in 2018, it was recognised that we were living in a time of profound change and that the environment in which charities were working was altering dramatically. How much more is that the case now? We should never forget that charities are not, and should not be, in existence to preserve themselves. Their only reason for existence is to serve the individuals and communities that they were created to serve. Those communities, such as the poor, the sick and the disadvantaged, are more in need than they have ever been—perhaps since the beginning of the welfare state—as a result of Covid-19.

The £750 million pledged by the Government is very welcome but it is nowhere near enough to reflect the money that charities have lost. For years, charities have been urged to diversify their income streams and to find new ways of financing their work, but now those very ways—their shops, their social enterprises and their partnerships with businesses—are all under threat.

What changes will the Government make to existing support measures for businesses, to make them more suitable for charities? Will the Government understand the urgent need for immediate support for charities, which are already running through whatever reserves they have and may well close entirely? Indeed, many would have done so already if it were not for the committed staff and volunteers on whom the sector depends.

Also, thinking beyond today, will the Government commit, through DCMS and the Treasury, to continue to work closely with charities and their representatives to ensure that this sector, which I do not—[Connection lost.]

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a wonderful—indeed, heartfelt—debate with two major themes: first, the vital role of charities during this global crisis, which could see 1.6 billion people lose their jobs worldwide; and, secondly, that more government support is needed to provide the sector with the resilience it needs to protect the lives of others, both now and in the future. If charities founder, it is the beneficiaries who suffer.

It was Warren Buffett, I believe, who said:

“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”


Indeed. Covid-19 has exposed how very vulnerable many here and across the world are, but in fact many of the needs described today existed before the virus. Perhaps society’s recognition of them has only really happened as the tide has gone out, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Astor, suggested. Those running charities knew, but at the exact time when the demands on those charities have mushroomed, their resources have been seriously compromised. Of course, the price to be paid if charities are unable to respond will be felt by exactly those groups described today: victims of domestic abuse, the homeless, vulnerable children, hospices, advice services and small arts groups—we have heard about all of them—as well as the international ones, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Cox, and my noble friend Lord Liddle.

It is not just beneficiaries who depend on charities; so too do the Government. They depend on them to provide a wide range of services from which the state, over decades, has withdrawn as the supplier. The Government therefore have a duty to step in now to ensure the continuity of these essential bodies, and that means funding.

As we have heard, charities are experiencing acute loss of income, including from voluntary fundraising, such as by my colleague Dan Stevens and his ex-soldier brother Gary, who were due to cycle 88 miles along the Normandy coast on the D-day anniversary to raise money for Combat Stress. Such fundraising is vital for awareness-raising, as well as for the hard cash.

As we have heard, equally dire is the loss of retail income, such as for the British Heart Foundation’s fundraising. The BHF probably cannot access the retail, hospitality and leisure grant, as state aid rules currently cap the amount at €800,000, which would cover only 30 of its 750 shops. Can the Minister explore whether this should not count as state aid, so that charity retailers can claim their full allowances?

Looking across the whole sector, the loss is some £4 billion, against which the Government have allocated only £750 million. Furthermore, that is for additional services needed for Covid-19. It does not begin to address the other continuing issues, particularly the ongoing costs, such as leases, rents, insurance, payroll and DBS checks, which all charities have to carry out, as well as the increased costs of existing work—for example, PPE and IT—which cannot now be met due to loss of income. Indeed, Age UK has warned of closures as charities stand on the brink, while disability charities similarly face enormous battles to meet increased needs. The MS Society sees a 30% drop in income as fundraising events are cancelled, leading it to fear that its ability to continue to support sufferers and fund research hangs in the balance.

Furthermore, as we have heard, some specific areas are not covered, such as medical research. The Brain Tumour Charity, for example, has seen a 70% loss of income, and Diabetes UK and Cancer Research UK have been similarly affected. However, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, research charities are unable to access the government scheme because they do not provide front-line services. Therefore can the Minister undertake to work with the Association of Medical Research Charities so that, with a future pandemic, illness or needs charities do not pay the penalty of today’s crisis?

Small charities, often community based, are also feeling the hit, with the small charities scheme managed via the National Lottery Community Fund criticised for being slow and ponderous. Importantly, local charities that get the 80% rate relief are therefore not eligible for the £10,000 small business grants. Could the Minister undertake to see whether that could be changed? We know that the Government are trying to help, and I hope that they will look at the experience in Wales, outlined by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, where the Government are working across the piece with charities to help them survive this crisis.

When the tide next goes out, we do not want to see that our wonderful, unique network of brilliant charities —which engage the volunteering and philanthropy of our citizens—are no longer there when the needs continue, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said in opening. It is therefore essential that work now starts on a recovery and rebuilding phase, where voluntary organisations will still be needed to play a major role, as there will be continuing demands on their services even as people emerge from the lockdown. We must ensure their resilience now so that they are there when society—and government—needs their strength, continuity and experience. That means infrastructure bodies able to speak for the whole sector being created where they are currently missing, to co-ordinate and help to establish local networks.

Major funding challenges confronting this sector will remain, and it will require financial support from the state. Government must acknowledge the value of the sector and help to build new capacity, with a long-term underpinning of security so that it can emerge as a sector with a renewed and strengthened voice of advocacy and service for its beneficiaries.

Today we pay tribute to charities, their funders, their volunteers and their staff, for how they have risen to the unprecedented challenge posed by Covid-19. But our appreciation and thanks are worthless if we as a society do not provide the financial support to ensure their own resilience and long-term future. We will need the third sector in the future. How we react now—how the Government act—will determine whether we can again see its strength should the tide once more go out.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Is she with us?

Older Persons: Provision of Public Services

Baroness Pitkeathley Excerpts

Thursday 13th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend, including on his timing, and acknowledge his long commitment to the cause of support for older people.

I could not agree more with his calls for free TV licences, transport and so on, and I agree that the problem of loneliness in older people is acute. Nowhere is this seen more starkly than among carers who are themselves often elderly while caring for older people. The Carers UK survey published this week for Carers Week told us that carers—especially if they receive no practical support—are eight times more likely to report that they are lonely than the general population. So any practical or psychological support is welcome for the growing number of carers.

I endorse all that has been said about the need for well-funded services. I have to say, with the greatest respect, that without these well-funded services, including those provided by the voluntary sector, any discussion about social care is simply moving deckchairs on the “Titanic”. We have to tackle the wider issue of how to provide social care for an ageing population—how it will be funded and how it will be organised.

I have been in your Lordships’ House for 22 years and I have lost track of the number of times I have led or participated in debates on social care. Of course, when we do this our speeches are assiduously collected by the doorkeepers and returned to us—and some of us are sad enough to keep the hard copies as well as the electronic ones. I looked through the large pile of mine and I can tell noble Lords that they make pretty depressing reading—as do the Hansard records.

This is certainly not to criticise the quality of your Lordships’ speeches in those debates, which were fine, perceptive and innovative. What is depressing is that we have kept making the same arguments over and over again: in fact, I could have stood here and made the same speech for the past 10 years. We all know that social care is underfunded; that it is as important as healthcare but has never been accorded the same status; that people do not understand the system and do not realise that social care is means tested; and that no one plans ahead for their care.

The arguments are familiar, as are all the attempts to deal with the issue: the royal commission, the Wanless review, the Barker review and the Dilnot commission. Occasionally we have a ray of light. One party commits to a policy and it is labelled a “death tax”—that was my party. The party retreats in confusion. Another party—the party opposite—commits to something that is labelled a “dementia tax”. More retreat in confusion. We did get as far as passing legislation on the Dilnot report, but it was never enacted.

In the last Queen’s Speech—can anyone remember that far back?—we were told that there would be a consultation on social care. Even the promise of a Green Paper got us excited. But where is it? Is anything happening? How important do the candidates in the Tory leadership race think this pressing problem is? I do not have much hope that they will take my advice, but I will give it anyway.

I have just two pieces of advice. First, be honest. No Government of whatever colour or combination have ever made it crystal clear to the public that responsibility for paying for care and for arranging it rests with individuals and their families, and that public funding is available only for those with the least money and the very highest needs. As a consequence, no one prepares or plans for care. We must rethink this and be honest. In addition, we have grown up with the idea that savings and the considerable assets now contained in property can be passed on to one’s family without being touched. We must rethink that.

My second piece of advice is: be bold. Every independent review of the past 20 years has recommended that the future funding of social care as well as healthcare should come from public, not private finance. The needs of individuals cannot be divided neatly into either health or social care needs—as those of us who have tried to fathom the difference between a “health bath” and a “social care bath” have long acknowledged. We must embark on a frank and open debate on how to fund health and social care on a sustainable basis into the future, and remind everyone that such a debate will not be settled in a single Parliament—so we need to secure cross-party support.

The Government’s usual response is to say that no more money is available. However, as Andrew Dilnot often says, it is a case not of “can’t afford” but of “won’t afford”. Our GDP shows that we are five times better off than we were in 1948, and time and again we find that social care, properly delivered and of good quality, with an emphasis on prevention, is a better way of caring for frail, elderly or disabled people than healthcare, especially in expensive hospitals. If we pool the risk—after all, only one in five of us will ever need the more expensive types of care—and prioritise this, we can afford it. It is a matter of priorities. Surely it is not asking too much to call for some commitment and vision on this most pressing problem for our society.