Women: Special Operations Executive
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(13 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Crawley for her excellent speech and for securing this debate to celebrate the courage and tenacity of the 39 exceptional women who were members of the Special Operations Executive. It is right this evening not only that we remember these women but that we enable our children and our children's children to honour them in future years.
By the end of the war, there were 460,000 women in the military and more than 6.5 million doing civilian work. Without their contribution, we would not have won the war and secured our cherished freedom. I pay tribute to all these women, including the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. For me, the ones who stand out and who are in danger of being forgotten are the 39 women of the SOE. Many men did not believe that women should serve behind enemy lines, and recruiters were often sceptical in their assessments. However, these seemingly ordinary women, from many walks of life, were extraordinary. They left parents, lovers, husbands and even children to fight the tyranny of fascism alongside the Resistance in France. They were feminine and fearless, brave and beautiful, and we owe them a debt of honour.
This evening, my thoughts turn also to another intrepid woman, my late friend—because she was my friend—Lady Park of Monmouth, who trained operatives for the SOE. At her memorial service, we learnt that her personal gun had been crafted by the SOE armourer. As the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, said, many women helped prepare the valiant men and women of the SOE family for their work in many countries.
It is difficult to imagine the contrast between the normal lives of the SOE women and their existence in France. One-third of the women were either tortured or killed after capture, but in life all maintained their dignity and none ever betrayed anything of substance. One of the most amazing women was codenamed Madeleine. She was shot at Dachau concentration camp after months of torture and attempts to escape. She revealed nothing to her interrogators, and her last act was to shout, “Liberté”. This would have been an act of astonishing courage for any man or woman.
Madeleine’s real name was Noor Inayat Khan, of whom we have heard much this evening. She was the daughter of an Indian Sufi preacher and an American woman. She was born in Moscow and educated in Paris, where she became a writer. Apart from carrying the British passport of an imperial subject, she had no innate loyalty to the country for which she died. She was immensely brave and the first female wireless operator to be sent into France. We know that she did a fantastic job on the ground with the Resistance, and for several weeks she was the SOE's only radio contact in or near Paris. However, tragically, she was betrayed, aged 30, by the jealous girlfriend of a comrade.
I agree with Shrabani Basu, who researched Noor’s history and wrote:
“I feel it is very important that what she did should not be allowed to fade from memory, particularly living in the times that we do. Here was a young Muslim woman who gave her life for this country and for the fight against those who wanted to destroy the Jewish race. She was an icon for the bond that exists between Britain and India but also between people who fought for what they believed to be right”.
I very much hope that the planned memorial for Noor will be raised later this year, the first one in London to an Indian woman. It would help to ensure that at the going down of the sun, and in the morning, we will remember the extraordinary women of the Special Operations Executive.
Charities (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Order 2011
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her explanation of the order and for the background information that she provided. She is of course correct when she says that the previous Government—my Government—made a commitment to seek a consolidation of the charities legislation subject to support from the Law Commission, which the commission has now given. I am very glad that we heeded the wise advice of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. We look forward to discussing the consolidation Bill, although it will not be I who does that next week as I shall be otherwise engaged.
I note that the amendments made by the order are not considered to make substantive changes to the law or to introduce new policy, and I rely on the incisiveness and expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, because I do not have the talent of an egg-head. I further note that in a consultation about the consolidation, there were only two responses about the draft order, so clearly not a lot of people out there have deep, if any, concerns.
I have one rather simple question. The noble Baroness mentioned the review which will take place later this year. I wonder when we can expect the results of the review and also how the Government will act on those results. I realise that the report of the review will be debated in Parliament but I wonder whether this might lead to further legislation, further simplification or what. I do not know how these things work and I should be grateful for some clarification from the Minister.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am most grateful for the warm welcome for the order from my noble friend and the noble Baroness. This has been a very short debate but it has been very informed, and I am glad that I have an egg-head in my noble friend on my side. Although I tried very hard to follow and navigate my way through what he was saying, at times I got slightly lost and tried to refer back to the order. I am also grateful to my noble friend for giving me prior notice of the two questions which he has put. I will try my level best to respond. If I fail still to allay any of his concerns, I shall write to him and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
My noble friend asked, first, about the amendments made by paragraph 10 of the schedule, which gives effect to the recommendations of the Brooke committee of 1972-73 to rationalise statutory instrument procedure. The committee recommended that the procedure in the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, whereby a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure had to be laid in draft before both Houses, should be avoided. The amendment removes that aspect of the statutory instrument process for orders made under Section 17 of the Charities Act 1993, which provides a mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny of a Charity Commission scheme that alters the constitution of a charity governed by statute. Such orders will still be laid before Parliament and can be prayed against.
My noble friend also asked a valid question about paragraph 24 of the schedule. It is not our intention to make a substantive change to Section 79. We shall look carefully at the point that my noble friend has raised and refer it to the drafters of the Bill. If necessary, we will confirm that the appropriate amendments will be made before the Bill goes to the Joint Committee for consideration. We will write with further details once the drafter has considered my noble friend’s question. I hope that my noble friend feels a little more satisfied by my responses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, asked about the review. There is no firm timetable as yet, but the review must begin before 8 November and its report be laid before Parliament. We anticipate the review concluding some time in 2012, but it is too early to say how long it will take to take forward any recommendations.
I hope that I have answered the questions of my noble friend and the noble Baroness. It has been a very short debate, but I hope that I have been able to satisfy noble Lords. I hope that my noble friend will be in the Chamber next Thursday, or I shall feel very lonely debating the Charities Bill all on my own.
House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, another year, another Steel Bill. We should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, for his dogged persistence in trying to secure some much needed incremental changes along the road to Lords reform. As ever, it is a well drafted and commendably short Bill, a perfect symphony in four movements, as he said.
The previous time that this Bill had its Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that it was,
“intended as a spur to the Government, in the hope that they will take over these measures and proceed with them”.—[Official Report, 27/2/09; col. 431.]
There was much frustration at that time, and in the following months, because it was felt that the then Government, the Labour Government, were ignoring the important issues raised in debate on the Bill. I pay tribute to my noble friend, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for a well honed balancing act in response to the debates.
We well understood the critical need for Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill, and the noble Lord was right to say that we did not include a statutory appointments commission because of the ongoing discussion about whether there should be a wholly or partly elected House. Subsequently, these parts were included in key clauses of our Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill. I can already hear the echoes round the Chamber of “too little, too late”, but the fact is that those important clauses were part of a Bill that was eventually given Royal Assent. Sadly, the clauses relating to the House of Lords were washed out in the wash-up. We all agree that the wash-up is a complex, untransparent and unsatisfactory process that needs to be examined, but the fact is that if those clauses had survived, we would be in a better place on the issue of further reform of your Lordships' House. The parts of the Steel Bill that we included in our Bill but which were removed on the insistence of the party opposite would, for example, have given us a means of addressing the growing size of the House. Indeed, perhaps the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would not have had to set up the retirement group under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I am sure that whatever views noble Lords might hold about radical reform, there are few among us who are in favour of a House of more than 800 Members, and I believe that shortly we will have 836 Members.
When answering a supplementary question on Wednesday, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, implied that during his period as Prime Minister Tony Blair had added more than 300 Peers to the Labour Benches. It is the case that during his time as Prime Minister Mr Blair created 375 Peers, but fewer than half were Labour Peers. Indeed, as Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher created a higher proportion of Conservative Peers than Labour. I would ask the Minister to confirm that my figures are correct.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, said on Wednesday:
“The new appointments since the general election are entirely consistent with the coalition’s programme for government, which set out the objective of creating a second Chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties at the last general election”.—[Official Report, 1/12/10; col. 1473.]
Following the noble Lord’s worrying comment, can the Minister tell us how many new Peers will be appointed in the future?
The burgeoning size of the House presents us with logistical challenges. For some, it also damages our reputation and opens us to ridicule. Most importantly, it disturbs the balance that has benefited both this House and politics more broadly where no single party has had an overall majority. In the new year, the coalition Government will have a political majority of 72, which means that the role of this House as a revising Chamber is changing profoundly to that of a rubber stamp for policies from the coalition Government, which were not even voted for by the people of this country.
It is no secret that I am currently a member of the Clegg committee that is charged with producing a draft Bill on Lords reform. I have no doubt that this Bill will be published in the spring and it will then go into a joint pre-legislative scrutiny committee, which is the correct way for Bills of constitutional importance to be considered. It is indeed precisely the way in which the Parliamentary Voting Systems and Constituencies Bill should have been considered, and likewise the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill. I have to say, however, that pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill on Lords reform is likely to take some time. That is not because most people will wish to employ delaying tactics, although some might, but because the issues that have to be addressed are complex and of crucial importance to the governance of this country. An example is the issue of powers and the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament. In looking at these issues, the Joint Committee on Conventions, chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling and approved by all parties in both Houses, rightly concluded:
“Should any firm proposals come forward to change the composition of the House of Lords, the conventions between the Houses would have to be examined again”.
I entirely agree with that conclusion, not as a reform refusenik but as someone who wants reform and wants it to work.
I realise that noble Lords, especially those on the Benches opposite, are anxious for reform and would like a Bill to whizz through in 2011 to mark the anniversary of the first Parliament Act. But proper consideration of these complex issues takes time. Hundreds of hours must be spent in discussion in Cabinets, Cabinet committees and working groups trying to find solutions to problems which on the face of it are simple, but as soon as you drill down become seemingly intractable. That is not an excuse for delay; it is the reality. Perhaps that is the attraction of the noble Lord’s Bill. It is not just for those who want to retain an appointed but reformed House, but for those who want radical reform and see the provisions in the Bill as an incremental step. Again, I look forward to hearing the views of the Government.
It is, of course, difficult to place a timescale on Lords reform. As I say, we will shortly have a tangible draft Bill, but perhaps some incremental legislation will be necessary in the mean time. For example, as the noble Lord himself suggested, the House of Lords retirement group will conclude that a legislative means is necessary to reduce numbers in this House. In the debate held during the wash-up on the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, when many noble Lords were frustrated because the clauses on our House had been cut, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said of the clauses on the expulsion and suspension of Members that:
“If we are the next Government, we will certainly wish to find an early opportunity to put this right”.—[Official Report, 7/4/10; col. 1610.]
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us when that early opportunity might be, and in what legislative vehicle.
Sometimes in debates on House of Lords reform there is a perceived tension between those who want radical reform and those who merely want the current House to work better. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, suggested in a radio programme on Sunday evening that those of us who want an elected or mainly elected House might not wish to support, for example, an improved committee system in the House because it would weaken the arguments in favour of radical reform. I take this opportunity to say that although I want an elected or partially elected House, I think that this House does a terrific job, but with improved procedures it could do even better. I want us to excel at what we do. That would be good for the Lords, good for Parliament, good for governance and good for democracy.
Naturally I look forward to the maiden speeches of the two noble Lords that we shall hear later in the debate, and I am sure that we will benefit from their wisdom and experience both today and in the future.
Socioeconomic Equality Duty
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement on the socioeconomic duty made in the other place by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. In thanking the Minister, I note that the Statement is not being repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, who of course was the principal shadow Minister when, in government, we took the Equalities Bill through your Lordships’ House. The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, made it clear throughout that she supported the Bill. She now seems to have done a virtually complete disappearing act from your Lordships’ House, especially since she made her allegations that three Members of the other place were sitting unlawfully as MPs. This Statement might indeed have been an occasion when she wished to make one of her rare appearances at the Dispatch Box.
I thank the Minister, for whom I have very high regard, but I am sorry that I have to do so. I am sorry that the Government are taking the step they intend in relation to the socioeconomic duty in what is now the Equalities Act. In a speech last night in London, the Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities signalled her intention towards this provision of the Act—a provision which, I remind your Lordships, this House voted for, as did the other place. Because she had not informed Parliament first, as she is required to do under the Ministerial Code, the Parliamentary Secretary was dragged into Parliament this morning to give the grudging little Statement—sadly, not a Statement from the Home Secretary herself—which the Minister has just repeated here. The Home Secretary had time to make the speech last night but clearly did not have enough time to make a Statement in the other place today. In claiming they would do politics differently, the coalition Government promised they would place Parliament first. Yet again, they have not done so. Yet again, they have been dragged into Parliament to do so.
The Statement from the Minister attempts to make considerable play of what it claims to have done in the name of fairness. It makes no mention of the Home Secretary’s speech last night. Perhaps I could help the House by informing it of some of the things that the Home Secretary said last night. She said:
“Equality is not an aside for me; it is not an after-thought or a secondary consideration … For this government the equalities agenda is about fairness: that is, equal treatment and equal opportunity … in recent years, equality has become a dirty word because it meant something different. It came to be associated with the worst forms of pointless political correctness and social engineering”.
The Home Secretary has said that, in relation to the socioeconomic duty in the Equalities Act, my right honourable friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham had,
“slipped it into the Equalities Act at the last minute”.
What the Home Secretary called the Harman law which had been slipped in “at the last minute” was Clause 1 of the Bill that this House considered. I was proud to take the Equalities Bill through this House with my noble friend Lady Thornton, and I was proud of the socioeconomic duty. I assure noble Lords that it was not an empty gesture but a sensible and proportionate way of ensuring that the most disadvantaged people and deprived communities had some protection when strategic decisions were being taken.
The Home Secretary, perhaps inadvertently, then revealed why she was announcing that she was,
“scrapping Harman’s law for good”.
She said:
“Many have called it socialism in one clause”.
The Home Secretary once characterised the Conservatives as the nasty party. Clearly, describing the socioeconomic duty—passed, as I say, by both Houses of Parliament—as “socialism in one clause” shows that, for the nasty party, nothing much has changed. The Home Secretary’s remark shows the real intent behind this move. It has nothing to do with equality, the most disadvantaged in our society or opportunity, but everything to do with ideology, politics and prejudice.
The socioeconomic clause in the Equalities Act is a far cry from socialism in one clause, as the Home Secretary seeks to characterise it. It is a measure aimed simply at getting public organisations to think about the impact of their decisions on people who are disadvantaged. Many of these organisations already do so, and this mean-minded little announcement will in all probability not change that. Good public organisations will continue to pursue good policies regardless of what the Home Secretary says, and I am pleased that they will.
The shame of it is that both during the passage of the Equalities Bill and in remarks made since by the Prime Minister and others, senior figures from the party opposite made it clear that they supported many provisions of the Bill. Indeed, I am both grateful for and pay tribute to the principled way in which the Conservative Party in this House enacted the support for the Bill. In this I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, who, with her normal constructive and gracious approach, showed real commitment to equality issues, which I know continues.
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us precisely how the Government intend to scrap the so-called socioeconomic clause “for good”, as the Home Secretary said. Will they do it openly and transparently by bringing forward primary legislation aimed at removing this section from the Act, so that this House and the other place can debate and consider it? Or will the Government do it covertly and furtively by simply not implementing this section so that it cannot be debated properly by your Lordships’ House? Despite the Home Secretary’s lengthy speech, could the Minister confirm that the coalition simply does not care about equality? The Minister has said that the socioeconomic duty is bureaucratic, but the truth is that the Government have the power to decide how the duty would be implemented. Did they attempt to draw up a flexible way of introducing the duty? Despite the Home Secretary’s claims that the Government are all about fairness, is it not the case that the Government do not believe that they have any responsibility to deliver a fairer society?
The duty would have helped to make our society fairer and would have given disadvantaged people a fairer chance. The fact that the Government are scrapping the duty because it is “socialism in one clause” shows, in reality, precisely how little fairness actually means to them.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I have huge respect for the noble Baroness and feel rather saddened and disappointed at her response to the Statement. I should clarify to the House that, in this House, I am the lead spokesman on equalities and women. Therefore, I would repeat the Statement in this House. I am disappointed that the noble Baroness feels that I may not be up to the job.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I did not say that. I have the utmost regard for the noble Baroness. She does a splendid job and I am delighted that she is the Minister responsible for women and equalities in this House. I was making quite a different point, as the record will show.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I will come back to some of the points that the noble Baroness raised. First, I should say that I have understood what equality means from a very early age. I understand very much what is needed to ensure that everyone in this country has access to opportunity and equality to enable them to reach their full potential. However, the clause that we are discussing did none of that and was unenforceable. Local authorities could consider it but did not need to implement it. It comprised an exercise in bureaucracy and box-ticking and imposed an extra burden on local authorities which are already struggling to manage within the constraints of budget reductions. Therefore, I do not agree that it was a useful part of the Act. Ninety per cent of the provisions of the Equalities Act were introduced in October. The remainder, including the public sector equality duty, will be introduced in April, although we are still debating parts of the Act. However, this particular part is not helpful or useful in terms of what the noble Baroness wants to see happen. It will not aid equality of any kind but will add to bureaucracy. We are helping the most vulnerable people. It is important to make this point. The public sector equality duty will ensure that local authorities and public bodies respond to inequalities of gender, race, disability and all the other inequalities that people face, so I do not accept the argument put forward by the noble Baroness. I hope that she realises that this tiny clause is nothing more than a gesture and will only add to the burdens and bureaucracy of local authorities.
Women in Society
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for enabling this debate to take place and for her comprehensive introduction. In the range of superb and powerful contributions today, we have heard seven fine maiden speeches. We are fortunate to have these additions to our Benches with their expertise and their enthusiasm. They espouse many of my own passions. While it might be invidious to single out one speech, I have to say that I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Black, spoke of osteoporosis and the health of older women. My mother suffered from osteoporosis and polymyalgia and I am a proud member of the National Osteoporosis Society.
In recent years, PCTs have worked strategically to raise awareness and to commission services that improve the health of older women—women who contribute so much to our society. Clearly, much more should and must be done, but I do not think that the radical pursuit of GP commissioning is the best way forward to ensure the continued and strategic improvement in the health of older women.
I want to focus my remarks today mainly on economic matters, as well as on a number of other issues, including carers and domestic violence. However, I begin with a quote from Aung San Suu Kyi. In citing her words, I celebrate her contribution to democracy and freedom and I lament the fact that such an inspiring, courageous leader should have to suffer for her belief in universal human rights. She said:
“The democracy process provides for political and social change without violence”.
I celebrate democracy along with all noble Lords in this Chamber.
The election a couple of months ago means we that have just experienced political change. The consequences of the election—the deficit reduction programme on which the coalition Government have embarked—mean that we are about to experience social change. This is the first debate on women in your Lordships’ House since the election. We on these Benches did not win the election and we know the consequences of that. One of the consequences about which I am concerned is the impact of the coalition’s policies on women. That includes the economic impact, the impact on their employment, the impact on the work-life balance, especially for those with children or who are carers and are holding their families together in very difficult circumstances, and the impact on women who suffer domestic violence.
As many inside and outside this Chamber have pointed out, it is women who bear the brunt of the cuts that are a consequence of the recent Budget. Yes, we all agree that there must be cuts in order to reduce the deficit—a deficit that arose because of the global economic crisis—but we do not agree that the cuts should be imposed so early and so savagely. We do not agree that they should be imposed without proper analysis of their impact. The Minister said that fairness must be at the heart of all of our decisions. I agree and I am delighted that she said it. I ask her to confirm whether a robust process for assessing the gender impact of proposals is being put in place before departments make decisions on their cuts and spending. I remind the noble Baroness of the gender equality duty, which, at this time of financial constraint, would not prevent the Government and other public authorities from making difficult and often unpopular decisions on funding and service provision. However, it would enable them to ensure that decisions are made in such a way as to minimise unfairness.
It seems from the evidence to date, including the gender audit of the Budget that was commissioned by my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper, that an analysis of the impact of the Budget on women was not made before the Chancellor made his announcements in June. The coalition tells us in its programme that,
“strong and stable families of all kinds are the bedrock of a strong and stable society”,
and that it wants to,
“make our society more family friendly”.
I welcome that, but I do not think that at present the rhetoric and the reality match. My right honourable friend’s study found that, of the £8 billion net revenue to be raised by the financial year 2014-15, nearly £6 billion will be from women. That can be neither just nor family friendly.
Support is being cut for children, which clearly has a profound impact on women, but, even if those cuts are put aside, women are being affected by cuts in things such as housing benefit, upratings to the additional pension, public sector pensions and attendance allowances, while they benefit less than men from the increases in the income tax allowances. That is without any consideration of the impact of public spending cuts. As women make up more of the public sector workforce, they will be more heavily hit by the public sector pay freeze and the projected 600,000 net public sector job losses.
Just last weekend I happened to have conversations with some women working in the public service—women who are teachers, health workers, teaching assistants, nurses and civil servants. I also spoke to some carers. All of them are worried about their jobs and the consequences for their families. In addition to their feeling of insecurity, they have already tightened the reins on their family spending, which on a larger scale will have an impact on the economic recovery. It is a real concern that the approach taken to deficit reduction is already pushing firms in the private sector, and the economy in general, back towards recession. We will all be losers if that happens, but women will bear the brunt.
Today’s debate asks us to take note of the position of women in society and speaks of the development of women’s potential. I argue that, in order for women to develop their potential, which they must if we are to have a healthy economy and a healthy society, they need security rather than insecurity and they need to be able to manage work and family life. Carers can be essential to that. We all recognise the huge contribution that carers, predominantly women, make to our society and our economy. Carers UK is absolutely clear about what the emergency Budget means for carers. It welcomes some of the plans, but it expresses clear anxiety on behalf of millions of carers and the people for whom they care. It is concerned, for example, about the switch in the system of uprating benefits, tax credits and public service pensions from the retail prices index to the consumer price index. This will hit the incomes of certain families particularly hard, including those families where disability, carers’ and means-tested benefits are the only source of income, single parents—usually women—caring for a disabled child or carers looking after a partner or an elderly parent.
Another aspect of security for women is domestic violence, a key issue for many women. I was glad that the Minister spoke in her opening speech of forced marriage and rape and I certainly welcome the establishment of more rape crisis centres. However, domestic violence goes much further than rape and forced marriage. In the UK, one in four women and one in six men will suffer from domestic abuse in their lives and 750,000 children live in violent households. Domestic violence affects women disproportionately. As my noble friend Lord Brooke said, 90 per cent of repeat victims of domestic violence are women. On average, a woman will be abused 37 times before she tells anyone about it. That is an astounding figure.
I am proud to tell the House that, while in government, my party took steps that reduced domestic violence by more than 60 per cent. I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend the shadow Attorney-General for much of that success. The multi-agency model that we developed to tackle abuse and domestic violence was and is successful. The multi-agency risk assessment conference model got results. In 60 per cent of all cases heard at MARAC, there is no further abuse. For the 120,000 women living in fear of their lives and suffering serious and sustained abuse—for those most at risk of being killed—the MARAC model offers the best ever chance of a safe life free from fear.
While these kinds of results alone ought to be enough to embed the multi-agency approach across our public services, there is a real risk in the approach being taken by the coalition that this type of specialist, intensive support will be seen to be unaffordable. This is short-term thinking, because the opposite is true. In the criminal justice system, health services, children services and police services, proper provision of MARAC nationwide will save this and future Governments well over £700 million each year and will save women from what is still the greatest cause of female morbidity—domestic violence. I would be grateful for confirmation from the Minister that the Government will continue the violence against women strategy.
On broader equality matters, noble Lords will recall the excellent debates that we had in this House on the Equality Bill, now the Equality Act. I am grateful for the contribution made by the Minister and I am immensely proud of that Act. It begins with a new duty on public bodies to reduce socio-economic inequalities—a duty that has assumed greater importance in the current economic climate. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that this duty, along with other duties, will be implemented in October. It was good to hear from the noble Baroness that the recommendations of the Speaker’s Conference are being acted on.
We on this side of the House, when in government, had a record on the issue of women of which we could be proud. The minimum wage alone pulled hundreds of thousands of low-paid people, many of whom were women, out of poverty wages. We hope that the coalition will continue that approach. Naturally, I welcome the proposed extension of the right to request flexible working.
I regret that I do not have time to focus on issues regarding women in the world, but I am delighted that so many noble Lords—including new noble Lords—have referred to it and have spoken of women and development, women and human rights and women and peace and security. I look forward to the Minister’s responses to questions on these matters, especially those concerning progress towards the millennium development goals. Women throughout the world bear the burden of poverty, so the achievement of the MDGs, especially those relating to the education of girls and maternal health, will do much to alleviate that burden.
Christabel Pankhurst said:
“What we suffragettes aspire to be when we are enfranchised is ambassadors of freedom to women in other parts of the world who are not so free as we are”.
As noble Lords have said, suffragettes were brave women who fought for the vote. It was a struggle, but they achieved it and we celebrate that. Today we celebrate women’s contribution to and participation in democracy and the role of this House in our parliamentary system. We are ambassadors of freedom and we must continue in that role until there is no more stoning and no more trafficking and until women enjoy the freedom of human and democratic rights wherever they live in the world. We want the Government to support women properly in this country and through our international development work and our foreign policy. We urge the Government to continue to adopt policies that will do so and, as a responsible Opposition, we will keep the Government under scrutiny on women’s issues to ensure that they do.