Violence Against Women

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

It is, indeed, a widespread problem. Last year, 88 women were killed by a partner, 60,000 women were raped and 400,000 were sexually abused. The report talks about a “watershed moment” in relation to child sexual abuse and other violence against women and girls, as shown by the concern about the Savile investigations, and so on. We have to make sure that it is indeed a watershed moment and that things start to improve.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware of the value of women’s refuges, which allow women to remove themselves from immediate danger of physical or sexual violence towards them or their children. A number of refuges are reporting serious financial difficulties at the moment. Will the Government consider carrying out some kind of review of the impact of local government cuts and of stopping the ring-fencing of financial support so that we can assess that impact and see what can be done to ensure that these refuges have the finance that they so desperately need?

[Baroness Northover]

Across government, we are determined to make sure that we do everything we can to protect the victims of domestic abuse. I know that colleagues across government have looked at this issue. If the noble Baroness has more specific information, I would welcome receiving it.

Zoos

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 8th October 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue today. When we are looking at legislation and government responsibility regarding zoos we have to understand how wide the definition is of zoos and how many different kinds of premises can be licensed. As well as the smaller number of large, more professionally managed zoos, there are probably hundreds of zoos in various shapes and sizes and some are clearly more willing and able to follow their obligations under their licenses and EU directive than others.

I am a patron of the Captive Animals Protection Society and a supporter of the Born Free Foundation. I am grateful to both of those organisations for the information and advice that they provided for this debate and also for the wider education and monitoring role that they fulfil, whose value the Government have recognised.

Zoos should operate only under a local authority licence. The system of regulation across the UK is there to ensure that zoos are safe for the public to visit, that they have high standards of welfare that are maintained and that they make a contribution to the conservation of wildlife. The legal basis is the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 which was amended in 2003 to include the provisions of the European zoos directive. That is informed by a set of standards from the Secretary of State for Defra and additional guidance. They are not just there to be bureaucratic. They are there for real value to ensure high standards for both animals and the public.

The legal protection is only ever as good as its enforcement. I refer to a report from the Captive Animals Protection Society which commissioned an independent study. The report was based not just on visits to zoos, but as we are talking about regulation of zoos, official documents from licensing authorities and from Defra. The report was called A Licence to Suffer: A Critical Analysis of Regulatory Protection of Animals in Zoos in England. Unfortunately, its findings give real cause for concern because a fundamental requirement of inspections was not being met in too many cases.

Some 70% per cent of local authorities with zoos have missed one inspection since 2005. That is around 380 inspections missed over the course of the study. I quote from the report which is an indication. In one district council,

“informal inspections were not carried out in 2005 or 2006”.

In Portsmouth City Council, the report stated:

“The only record of inspections on file are 2008, 2009 and 2010. It would appear that with the exception of complaint visits, no inspections were carried out since 2002”.

That was not uncommon. There were a number of areas where no inspections were carried out at all.

For those inspections that took place, there was real concern whether enough inspectors were available for enough time to ensure that the licence conditions of the EU directive and legislative conditions were not being breached. Using the Defra Zoo 2 forms, inspectors, even though they gave a positive report, would then identify that there were problems. In 34% of cases identified from the official Defra forms—more than a third—the inspectors stated that the existing licence conditions were met but then went on to provide additional information as to why they were not being met. I quote from one of them where the inspector marked “Yes” to the question,

“Are on site veterinary site conditions adequate?”

However, he said that the facility was inadequate and,

“should be brought up to a modern standard as a matter of urgency … It is strongly advised that the zoo management discuss these changes with the collection’s veterinarian without delay”.

However, he had been saying that every year since 2007 and no action had been taken.

In one question, where the inspector said that the conditions were being properly addressed, he also said that there are a few issues that need addressing, such as conditions 16, 17, 19 and 30 of the licence. So although inspectors are satisfied that conditions are being met they then move on to list the conditions that are not being met. Clearly there are a number of unsatisfactory issues that are not being addressed. The report stated:

“The study found that 68% of inspection reports had unsatisfactory issues found during inspections that did not make it into suggested conditions and 40% of reports had unsatisfactory issues found which were transposed into neither suggested conditions nor recommendations”.

I appreciate that many people have affectionate relationships with local zoos. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about his relationship with London zoo, as will the noble Lord, Lord Paul, and the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, talked of Chester Zoo. My experience is somewhat different. In my former constituency and my hometown, we used to have a small embarrassment of a zoo of which the highlight was Carla the lioness. An undercover BBC reporter claimed that he was able to buy this sorrowful, pathetic lioness for £1,500 with no paperwork or regard for her welfare. The zoo eventually closed in 2001, but I never understood how it could get a licence or how it had been inspected and allowed to remain open. I draw that distinction because when people think of zoos, they think of the great zoos, the big zoos, which are open to public inspection regularly so that people know what goes on. Smaller zoos and other establishments around the country are not of the same standard. If the inspection regime is inadequate, we must raise concerns about the welfare of animals in those zoos. It got to the point where I dreaded getting another distraught letter from a child upset at what they had seen in that zoo.

Given the report, there was clearly a need for the Government to take the evidence seriously. A second report was given to the European Commission regarding the lack of enforcement action taken against zoos that were not meeting even the most basic legal standards. That is now being investigated by the EU and we hope for a response in the next few months. More immediately, the Captive Animals Protection Society presented its report to local and central government. I congratulate the Government, who should take pride in the way that they responded with new formal guidance and detailed recommendations for local authorities regarding inspection. The Government have beefed up the tools available to ensure that standards are being met and legislation is being enforced. That may lead to some zoos closing down, like Basildon, but if they are unable to meet the most basic standards, that is the right way forward. That is a positive response from the Government on which I congratulate them.

A further inquiry by the Born Free Foundation in 2011 investigated the implementation and enforcement of the EU directive regarding zoo animals across a number of European countries. Again, it gave real cause for concern. Born Free has presented a number of recommendations to the Government, including on inspection, conservation and education. There are some very good examples of zoos that are abiding by the regulations and their licence conditions, but the only way that we can allow all zoos to proceed is if they all abide by their licensing conditions and the European regulations.

Charities Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, although shorter than usual, this has been an enjoyable debate. It has shown this House at its best and the depth of knowledge, commitment and expertise of its Members. I thank the Minister for her detailed and helpful introduction and explanation of the consolidation Bill.

I welcome this consolidation. As we have heard, it brings together the provisions of the existing main charity legislation. The Recreational Charities Act 1958—I am not entirely clear what a recreational charity is as opposed to any other charity—the Charities Act 1993 and the relevant, although not all, provisions of the 2006 Act are brought together into one piece of legislation. I welcome the assurance of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, that there are no new policy issues involved and that no changes have been introduced. This is exactly what it says on the tin—a consolidation Bill designed to simplify existing legislation.

Like all noble Lords who have spoken today, I thank the Law Commission and congratulate it on its work, as I do the Office for Civil Society, the former Office of the Third Sector and the Charity Commission, which also consulted on this prior to the official formal consultation.

As noble Lords will know, the consultation was launched in September 2009 and closed in December 2009. I should confess to your Lordships’ House that at that time I was the Minister for the third sector, with responsibility for this legislation. I was keen to see progress before the last election but in those few months between the end of the consultation and the dissolution of Parliament in April 2010, there was no time in the legislative timetable—which was certainly of regret to me. Another year has passed before we have found time for debate but I certainly welcome the legislation being brought forward.

On the consultation, I was keen to refamiliarise myself with the consultation responses and am disappointed that they are no longer available on the website. It may be helpful for further consideration of the Bill, and would have been helpful for today’s debate, if they were made available. Having said that, I understand, and the Minister made it clear, that there was broad support for the Bill. As far as I am aware, there were no substantive objections to issues in the Bill before us today.

There have clearly been widespread concerns that, since the first legislation was introduced in 1958, charity legislation has over time become more complicated. That can be a deterrent and put off those who wish to contribute to society through charities and charitable work. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, described the previous legislation as “unfriendly”. That is a good description for those trying to wade through the legislation or to set up a charity or conduct themselves as trustees. It is right to pay tribute, as other noble Lords have done, to not just those who work for charities and the wider sector but also the, in many cases, unsung trustees. Being the trustee of a charity can be a huge responsibility. We should be grateful to them, many willingly and some not so willingly taking on these roles out of a sense of duty and responsibility. We have an obligation as legislators to make it as easy for them as possible to take on the responsibilities that they wish to and to play a role in society. Consolidating the law in a way that seeks to reduce complexity and bring the laws together in one place can be extremely helpful.

One general point that other noble Lords have made is that we should not be overly confident that this is going to make life much easier for charities. Looking through the Bill and its schedules, it is long and detailed, with huge implications and responsibilities. It will not be that much more easily understood by the lay person, however much we in your Lordships’ House try to make it so. Those noble Lords in the House for Questions yesterday may have heard the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Boateng: whether those who wish to set up charities should be able to do so without needing a lawyer. I noticed at the time that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, gave a wry grin at that comment. That wry grin was explained when he spoke on some of the clauses of the Bill: it is almost impossible for the lay person to understand charity law in detail or to navigate their way through without a lawyer.

Charity law has, of necessity, to be detailed. It seeks to protect the donor and the public, and also seeks to regulate the charity’s activities, protect its integrity and that of its trustees. Looking at the Table of Origins and the involvement of different Government departments, the legislation is a response to issues that have arisen. This is a hugely complicated area but the legislation exists to bring order and, I hope, logic to that complexity. As welcome as this is—I warmly welcome the legislation coming forward at this point—there still remain some uncertainties for charities which I hope the Minister will be able to comment on. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, referred to some of these as well.

I commented that the Bill brought together existing legislation, including the relevant provisions of the Charities Act 2006—as other noble Lords have mentioned. I was grateful for the Minister’s explanation at the beginning as to why, as part of this consolidation, we have not got to the parts of the 2006 Act that have not been activated and which would make the Charity Commission the lead regulator for public charitable collections. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said—I agree with his comments and will also look at Hansard carefully—there seems to have been a change of policy by the Minister on that issue. I would be interested to know, if the Government’s intention is not to proceed with those provisions in the 2006 Act, whether there will be a further consultation with those charities. My understanding is that as part of this consultation a number of organisations welcomed those provisions and wanted to see them included in the legislation. The Minister seemed to say that it was unlikely that they would come forward. If that is the case, will there be a further consultation on this? She will also be aware—and her own comments hinted at this—that one reason why that is not included today is because cuts in the Charity Commission’s budget make it difficult for it to undertake further responsibilities. If that is the prime reason, the House would appreciate some further information, but I may have misunderstood that.

The other provision from the 2006 Act that has not yet come into force is on the charitable incorporated organisations. It is in this legislation and is widely welcomed; there is no dispute over how widely welcomed it is. I may be missing something, but could the Minister explain why the CIOs are in this legislation while the other measures that we mentioned on fundraising are not? Is that a policy decision or a funding decision for the Charity Commission rather than a technical legal point?

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, about the uncertainty around the 2006 review of the Charity Acts. The commitment is that the review would take place in 2011. I fully understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, said, that there would be a reluctance to delay consolidation legislation, because that would mean that much-needed legislation would come through the statute books. But there may be changes and suggestions for changes following the review that will make this legislation out of date very quickly. That is the concern. After we have gone to the effort, in which all the organisations have been involved, of ensuring that we have comprehensive legislation, if the review takes place this year it will be out of date within the year. Given that the commitment has been made to have the review on the legislation go through now, can the Minister assure me that following the review, should changes be sought that benefit charities and civic society, the necessary parliamentary time will be made available as quickly as possible to ensure that we do not have legislation on the statute books advising charities that will be out of date so quickly?

The third uncertainty, although I shall not overly dwell on it, is about the funding difficulties faced by charities for both national and local funders and the impact that it is having on their ability to deliver and provide support for the big society. We have heard the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that almost every Member of your Lordships' House is involved in a charity in one way or another, which is perfectly true. So your Lordships' House is only too aware that the charities and the wider third sector have been the backbone of the big society, although it has not been called that, for many years. There is now an increasing anxiety and uncertainty of what that means for them, and how they can continue to fulfil that role against a backdrop of funding cuts. Those charities will broadly welcome the legislation before us today because they know that it seeks to address some of their concerns and the problems that they have with legislation and simplify the legal requirements on them. We also welcome it and hope that the co-operation and support shown in the legislation continue in other areas of government policy, in recognition of the enormous power for good and the practical support that charities provide to communities across the country.

Women in Society

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, when I indicated that I wished to speak in today’s debate I had not anticipated making the seventh maiden speech of the day in what has been an excellent and really thoughtful debate. I have enjoyed listening to the contributions. May I add my comments to those other noble Lords making a maiden speech today who referred to the warmth of welcome from Members of your Lordships’ House? I genuinely and gratefully echo that sentiment. I have greatly appreciated the welcome, support and advice of noble Lords from across the House—especially from my supporters, my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Andrews, who really have been unfailing in their help to me. My noble friend Lord Dubs and I share an interest in and affection for Northern Ireland, where we served as Ministers at different times, while my noble friend Lady Andrews and I worked together extremely well in the Department for Communities and Local Government.

I also place on record my thanks to the attendants and staff of your Lordships’ House, who really have been extremely helpful to us new Members. They have taken pity on us when they find us walking around the corridors, trying to find a room or a desk to work from. I look forward to participating fully in the work of this House and its work as a revising Chamber.

When I was introduced to your Lordships’ House, I did so as the first Baroness of Basildon—possibly the first time that a modern new town has been recognised in this way—but I have to confess to your Lordships that I am not the first Lady Basildon. The first was created in 1895 by the great Irish writer Oscar Wilde in his play “An Ideal Husband”, which was performed first at the Haymarket Theatre. Lady Basildon was described as being of “exquisite fragility”—an attribute which I doubt has ever been used to describe me—but she showed an interest in politics, of a kind. At a political party, she informs one of the leading characters, in typical Wildean style:

“I delight in talking politics. I talk them all day long. But I can’t bear listening to them. I don’t know how the unfortunate men in the House stand these long debates”.

To that she is told that they do so “by never listening” to them. However, they did not have the advantage of listening to today’s debate, and one thing I have already learnt to appreciate in your Lordships’ House is the depth and value that we place on debate. I promise your Lordships that I shall listen more often than I shall speak.

As a child from a very ordinary working-class family, I could not have expected to have the honour of serving your Lordships’ House and the other place. My parents—my mother being from a Scottish mining family and my father from the east end of London—saw, like too many of their generation, their education ended too soon. They were therefore determined that both my sister and I would have the educational opportunities they never had, for which I remain enormously grateful, although I did not perhaps appreciate them at the time. It has also made me a great believer in the value of education and of access to education for all.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, for securing this debate because the position of women across the world and in the UK, which we are discussing, depends so much on access to education. I was encouraged both by her choice of debate and by the commitment that she showed in her comments. The first female Prime Minister in the world, Mrs Bandaranaike, took office on this day 50 years ago, in 1960, while during this month in 1928 women over 21 first gained the right to vote on the same basis as men. We are all aware of great women achieving high office in many parts of the world and of the noticeable achievements of women in politics, business, science, the arts and sport—and we all know extraordinary women who inspire us. For many ordinary women across the world life has changed little, despite the great achievements of a few.

Across the world more people than ever say that they believe in gender equality, but when difficult economic times bite, that becomes harder to sustain. There is a gap between the belief that so many articulate and the reality. A recent survey conducted for the International Herald Tribune looked at attitudes to gender across the world and examined the difference between the richer and poorer. Of the European countries the French self-identified the lowest level of gender equality, which was attributed to unequal economic participation. Professor Ibarra from an international business school identified it as being about so few women running large organisations and the business culture remaining resolutely a boys’ club.

While in most countries more than 90 per cent of people said that they supported equal rights, few thought that that had been achieved. If we are looking at the advancement potential for women we must first start with education and employment. In Egypt, for example, 60 per cent of men said that boys were more entitled to education and there was a similar gender gap in Jordan and Pakistan. A strong core in several countries believes that men have more right to a job than women. Even in the UK, 12 per cent hold that view. That is where the economic reality really bites.

Here in the UK the impact of the recent Budget on women assessed by the House of Commons Library found that of the £8.1 billion net personal tax increases or benefit cuts, an estimated 72 per cent is being paid by women and only 28 per cent by men. I hope that this is something that the coalition Government will want to look at again. It is also relevant that women in the UK are still earning 12 per cent less than men. If we are to truly develop the potential of women in society, we have to address the disproportionate impact of our own economic policies and ensure that we provide those educational opportunities and economic equality.

In this country both boys and girls have equal access to education, but across the world so many children are denied that right. Across the world 72 million children are not able to attend school and more than two-thirds are girls. There are 771 million adults world wide who are illiterate, a staggering 64 per cent of whom are women.

Good progress has been made in Afghanistan since 1996 when the Taliban made it illegal for girls to be educated. But so many schools have been destroyed and the lack of female teachers makes it an ongoing battle for so many young girls seeking to be educated. Oxfam regularly organises a campaign that encourages children in this country to understand how difficult it is for other children across the world to gain the education that they rightly take for granted. Over the years I have visited a number of schools in Basildon and Thurrock and the double impact of this campaign is that not only do the children in our schools want to help and support those in other countries, they start to value their own education in a way they had never considered before.

Tremendous advances have been made over the decades in the role and position of women in society. Our challenge now is to build on that progress and to widen the opportunities in education and employment for women and young people from all backgrounds and all countries so that they can fully realise their potential. Society as a whole will benefit from the knowledge and skills that they have.