Global Gender Equality
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts(5 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, although like others I note that we are predominantly ladies in this debate—with the honourable exception of my noble friend Lord McConnell—I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, on securing this opportunity to reflect on the recent Women Deliver conference, so soon after it took place earlier this month. This is indeed a welcome chance to note the role that the UK is playing in promoting global gender equality and sexual and reproductive health and rights.
Women Deliver is the world’s largest conference on gender equality and women’s rights, health and well-being. This year, the 7,000 attendees and speakers, from some 165 countries, included everyone from the noble Baroness herself to Melinda Gates and the #MeToo movement’s Tarana Burke, from the Canadian Prime Minister to the President of Ethiopia, not to mention hundreds of campaigners, government officials, civil society and youth leaders, academics, activists and journalists. However, I was concerned to hear that many invitees from African countries, including Ethiopia, had their visas denied, with little explanation. This is really disappointing, especially given how crucial it is that the global fight for women’s rights and equality involves partners from across the world. Some of the greatest challenges for women’s rights are in the developing world, and we must work with the leaders of these states if we are to realise our goals of gender parity. As the UK will be hosting a global summit to end sexual violence here in November, can the Minister confirm that this conference will involve representatives from across the world?
To date, the UK has a good track record on advocating gender equality and empowerment for women and girls on the international stage. In the Minister’s address to the conference, I was particularly pleased to hear her give her commitment to the UK continuing that work. We have taken great steps in support of the United Nations’ 17 sustainable development goals, as outlined in the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. It is absolutely right that the UK continues to deliver on its commitment to SDG 5, the much lobbied-for goal entirely dedicated to gender parity, which challenges the world to:
“Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”,
by 2030.
The UK’s continuing commitment to this goal is particularly important when we look at what is happening elsewhere today. As the Minister has observed, the world is witnessing a global roll-back of women’s rights. Campaigns to undo women’s hard-won victories are gaining traction; I think of course of the recent rulings in Alabama and Missouri on abortion rights in the US. The US position on sexual and reproductive health and rights is deeply worrying. Earlier this year, these rights were excluded from a UN resolution on combating rape in conflict, after pressure from the US on the grounds that such language implies support for abortions. Watering down the text in this way has gone against years of gains for women’s rights in situations of armed conflict. My party has pledged to provide political leadership globally where women’s rights are under attack, championing women’s sexual and reproductive health rights and mitigating the impact of US-led funding cuts. Will the Minister outline what recent representations the Government have made to our US ally over women’s rights?
I am thinking of the recent Crisis In Care report from the International Women’s Health Coalition, which noted that since the US Administration announced that any foreign charity receiving US funding would be prohibited from promoting or performing abortions, an organisation in Kenya which focused on maternal and newborn health has been forced to terminate programmes after refusing to sign this rule. Can the Minister tell us what representations have been made to the US Administration over this policy, which is now leading to the denial of aid to some of the world’s most vulnerable?
As the Women Deliver conference heard, the UK has long been recognised as a global leader on gender equality. Our initiatives have meant that girls and women across the world are leading safer, healthier lives. By backing Africa-led work to end female genital mutilation, challenging child marriage, upholding sexual and reproductive health and rights, and helping girls to get a good education, we have helped to give women and girls the opportunity to fulfil their potential. But I am concerned that the UK, too, may be rolling back on this commitment as it focuses more on its trade and economic development work. In May last year, the Government published an update on the UK’s key targets for the SDGs. As we see, there is no room for complacency over any past gains made in these areas. The findings of a new global index measuring efforts to end gender inequality were published last week in Vancouver. They show that with 11 years to go, no country is on track to reach the 2030 target on gender equality.
The SDG gender index developed by the Equal Measures 2030 partnership measured progress on 51 targets in 14 of the sustainable development goals. The average overall score for the 129 countries in the index, home to 95% of the world’s women and girls, was 65.7 out of 100. This is firmly in the “must do better” category; the findings show that nearly 40% of the world’s women and girls—1.4 billion—currently live in countries that are not doing enough to improve women’s lives. Only a fraction of total aid by OECD donors—0.1%—is committed to women’s organisations, and only 0.02% to women’s organisations based in developing countries. Given the vital role of women’s groups in tackling gender inequality, can the Minister tell us what steps her department is taking to increase the funding for these organisations?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank every Member of the House who has attended the debate and contributed today. I thank, too, those noble Baronesses who were able to travel to Vancouver to attend the conference. It is great that we have cross-party representation at such international events, and long may that continue. We have heard some powerful messages from across the Chamber. It is vital that we continue to discuss and debate gender equality and to ensure that the issue receives the attention that it deserves. I also thank noble Lords—and, of course, noble Baronesses—for the important work that they have done to raise this issue outside the Chamber and to improve the lives of women and girls. Many issues have been raised. I shall try to get through as many of them as I can, so I shall turn to them straightaway.
The importance of girls’ education was highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hussein-Ece and Lady Goudie, and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. The UK is a global leader on girls’ education. Our support helps girls to access and stay in education, so that they can help their families and communities to prosper as well as the economy. Over the last three years, we have spent nearly £700 million a year on average through our bilateral programmes on education. We also have the Girls’ Education Challenge, which is our flagship programme. We are determined to continue showing leadership in this area.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on the importance of continued education in conflict zones, ensuring that girls—and boys—do not drop out in those difficult situations. We know that the situation is worse in conflict. Girls are two and a half times more likely to be out of school than boys. We are therefore one of the largest contributors to Education Cannot Wait, which is a fund for education and humanitarian emergencies. That fund expects to reach 8 million children by 2021. We are also supporting the No Lost Generation initiative, which has helped more than half a million vulnerable children displaced by conflict from Syria and Iraq to access education in host countries, including Lebanon and Jordan, as well as providing safe spaces, counselling and medical and psychological care.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for highlighting the important goal 16, on peace, justice and strong institutions. We in the UK were integral in getting that included, and we will continue to champion it. In fact, in July when I travel to New York for the high-level forum, I am due to attend an event to highlight goal 16.
Many noble Lords raised the issue, as I did in my opening speech, of the global rollback of women’s rights. We have witnessed a visible drive against gender equality over the last decade. A growing number of states have been emboldened to challenge our internationally agreed positions on gender equality because of this rollback. It is evident at national level in developed as well as developing countries, as was highlighted today. We have seen legislation weakening the protection of girls against marriage in at least five countries in which we operate, but more progressive regimes such as here in the UK are countering this rollback. Our position is very clear that, in order to achieve gender equality and to empower all girls and women, we have to fight back against this rollback. We will continue to play a world-leading role on the global stage.
What are we doing on that? We are working really closely with like-minded countries to protect existing agreed language on sexual and reproductive health and rights in international negotiations. As I said, we deeply regret that the language was not included in Resolution 2467 and were disappointed that we were not able to see the inclusion of established language in the G7 gender equality communiqué. As for new international texts, we have the upcoming political declaration at the UN high-level meeting on universal health coverage ahead of UNGA this year and are working very closely with like-minded countries to advance UK priorities—that was something we discussed in Canada.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, highlighted how economic empowerment can change the perception of women in societies. I agree entirely. Women’s economic empowerment is one of the biggest potential levers we have to boost global prosperity and we are leading on that. We are helping to build a more prosperous world through women. Between 2011 and 2015, we helped more than 36 million women gain access to financial services and helped 3 million women improve their land and property rights. We have a flagship central programme on women’s economic empowerment, Work and Opportunities for Women, which looks to build on the momentum we saw after the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Women’s Economic Empowerment.
Abortion was raised numerous times, and I was delighted to hear support from across the Benches for our policy on safe abortion, which takes an evidence-based public health approach that aims to reduce death and disability, which can be caused by unsafe abortions. We are clear, of course, that the best way to avoid abortion is to give women information and contraception so that they can decide whether, when and how many children to have. The primary aim and the vast majority of our investment in reproductive health is to increase the uptake of voluntary family planning, which of course helps reduce demand for abortion. There is still a substantial gap between the number of women who do not want to get pregnant and the number who can access contraception. A significant number of those women are at risk from death or disability because they are accessing unsafe abortions. We know that back-street abortions kill at least 23,000 women per year in the developing world. We know that restricting access to safe abortions does not reduce the number of abortions that take place; it just makes them less safe. Supporting comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls saves lives and supports prosperity, so we will continue to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, raised the question of abortion in conflict. Our position on that is that, in situations of armed conflict or occupation, international humanitarian law principles may justify offering an abortion rather than perpetuating what amounts to inhuman or degrading treatment. I am happy to repeat that position over and over again—I will learn it by heart. We also support the roll-out of a minimum initial service package for reproductive health in crises, which includes the provision of safe abortion care.
I am happy to confirm our continued commitment to 0.7% of our GNI going to overseas aid—that is now on our statute book, happily. I am proud to have been part of the coalition Government who got that on to the statute book. We will continue to support NGOs delivering SRHR services. In addition, of course, to being the largest donor to the UN sexual and reproductive health and rights agency, a significant amount of our funding for family planning is delivered directly through NGOs.
On the cost of these services, our family planning programmes are delivered in accordance with local government policies, and the financial model varies considerably from country to country. We are of course working to reduce the cost of family planning. We are promoting financial protection and reducing the costs of out-of-pocket health expenditure in the countries we work in to help reduce the burden on poor people and families and improve access to contraception. Our new regional WISH programme, with the IPPF, is focused on reaching the very poor and reducing costs on that. Some countries’ programmes charge clients who can afford to pay, but they also employ a no-refusal policy to allow poor clients to access those services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, quite rightly raised the issue of abortion in Northern Ireland. Abortion has always been a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, and there are strongly held views on both sides of the debate. The Government’s priority is to restore devolved government so that the people of Northern Ireland can decide, but we have put arrangements in place to allow women normally resident in Northern Ireland access to safe abortion services in England, including support for travel costs. The aim is to make them as accessible as possible, so that women can make use of these services without having to be referred by a medical professional in Northern Ireland.
Many noble Lords raised the US and its Mexico City policy—the global gag rule. Following the reintroduction and expansion of the Mexico City policy in January 2017, we have of course been keeping in close contact with our partners to ensure that the policy does not compromise UK support of comprehensive SRHR programming. The full implications are still not clear, but we are working, as I say, closely with other offices. We are not like-minded with the US on our policy on abortion. We do not agree with it on that, but we work with it closely on many aspects of international development. We have also worked closely together on family planning. It continues to be the biggest donor in that area, so we must work with it to advance common interests and tackle shared challenges where we can.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
Could the Minister say whether we have in fact made representations to the US Government on the impact of their policy abroad, particularly where it is in direct conflict with our own policy?
Baroness Sugg
As I say, we are not in agreement on abortion in particular, but where we are in agreement we will continue to work very closely with the US. It is very clear on our position on that. I am afraid that our position will not change the US position, but we are making sure, along with our partners such as Marie Stopes International, that we are able to ensure the continued delivery of services for which we are responsible and on which our policy makes clear our position.
Turning to some points raised by my noble friend Lady Helic, I join her in paying tribute to my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Bates. He had an incredible depth and breadth of knowledge on this. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, he is a tough act to follow. He also helped on the gender balance in these debates, but I will do my best there. I also join her in paying tribute to the work of the Civil Service in this country at DfID and elsewhere, which is really committed and determined to make real progress on gender equality. I also pay tribute to my noble friend for putting and keeping the issue of preventing sexual violence against women in conflict on the international agenda.
On the specific proposals supported by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, I agree that an international investigatory body to collect and preserve evidence is really important. We have all heard horrific stories of women who have gone through terrible situations, having to give evidence again and again to different people and sometimes having that evidence used against them when they finally get to prosecution. We have invested in a specialist team of experts that can be deployed globally, but we should absolutely do more in assisting and investigating allegations of conflict-related sexual violence and related war crimes, helping to gather that evidence and prepare case files to be used in eventual prosecutions. The FCO is considering carefully how best to support this proposal. I think my noble friend is meeting with them this week to discuss that further.
On the level of spending on combating sexual and gender-based violence, I absolutely agree that the UK should be doing more to prevent all forms of violence, including sexual violence. Through the PSVI and Oslo conferences, we are working on initiatives and we continue to challenge ourselves to do more. My noble friend Lady Helic and other noble Lords highlighted some recent research on how much money is spent on combating gender-based violence. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked how much we in DfID spend on it; I cannot give her a figure because we are unable to calculate it at the moment. DfID does not currently favour earmarking overseas development aid for specific projects but, as I said, we should do more in this area. I look forward to discussing the proposal with my noble friend in much more detail ahead of the summit in November.
My noble friend Lady Helic and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, asked about the Istanbul convention. The Government remain committed to ratifying the convention as soon as possible. We already have measures in place in the UK to protect women and girls from violence. In most places, that complies with the convention or goes further than it requires. We signed the convention to signal our strong commitment to tackling violence. In October, we published a report setting out the UK’s position; we are working to strengthen significantly a legislative framework there.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Tonge and Lady Flather, were quite right to raise the role of men and boys in gender equality. Some of the women I met in Vancouver said that the men in their communities felt that women had been overempowered or that things had “gone too far”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, put it. I do not agree with that description. Of course, as women’s roles change, which is welcome, men’s roles will change as well. Men and boys have long been taught that a woman holds a specific role in society; that must be addressed if women are truly to achieve gender equality and men are truly to accept it. It is important that we continue to work with men and boys as well as girls and women—indeed, with all of society—on this issue. We work with Promundo, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and will continue to do so. It is doing good work in helping to change attitudes towards women. We fund and research programmes to engage with men and boys on a number of issues, including violence against women and girls, women’s economic empowerment and preventing FGM.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, highlighted the situation in northern Iraq. I agree that we have a duty there. We are one of the largest humanitarian actors in Iraq. Since 2014, we have committed more than £250 million of humanitarian aid; that has supported some of the most vulnerable Iraqis with life-saving healthcare, psychosocial support and education. We absolutely support the return of the Yazidis and other communities displaced by Daesh—the ambassador recently discussed this issue in depth—and we have played an active part both in facilitating their return and making sure that there is a major humanitarian and stabilisation programme in Iraq. In particular, we are working on projects in Sinjar and Sinoni to ensure that those returns can happen, and we are pressing the Iraq and Kurdistan regional Governments for more progress on security and services in the liberated areas to allow such returns.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson and other noble Lords raised the role of women in peace and security. We continue to champion on the global stage the role of women and girls in preventing conflict. We hold the pen on Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, which commits us to putting women and girls at the heart of our work. We have committed substantial funding to, and published our annual progress report on, that issue. We are the largest donor to the UN Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund. My noble friend quite rightly explained the benefit of involving women in conflict resolution. In January 2018, we launched our latest national action plan, which explains how we will put women and girls at the heart of our work.
Syria was mentioned specifically. We have launched a shared government approach to gender in Syria, which includes an outcome on ensuring that women have a meaningful voice in the peace process and peacebuilding discussions. We are working on that in various countries to ensure that women have a seat at the table.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked specifically about Yemen. We are working in Yemen, Afghanistan and South Sudan to encourage efforts to include women in these processes, while through the CSSF we support the UN women-led Yemeni Women’s Pact for Peace and Security to increase the capacity of Yemeni women to influence the peace process.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson raised the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative ahead of the conference we are hosting in November. I pay tribute to my noble friends Lord Hague and Lady Helic for setting it up. We have seen achievements since the last conference five years ago last week. We have trained investigators into crimes of sexual violence and we have given £46 million to projects in 14 countries. We have trained film-makers, including in DRC, to raise awareness of stigma, but there is much more to do. The objectives of the PSVI conference are to celebrate progress, address the remaining challenges and secure commitments to action. That will focus on securing justice for the survivors of sexual violence and indeed holding the perpetrators to account. We will look at the Murad code highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Osamor, and others that it is really important that we hear from women’s organisations and activists at meetings such as the Women Deliver conference and the upcoming PSVI conference not just to tell their stories but also to be properly involved in policy-making and next steps. I can reassure the noble Baroness that representatives from across the world will be there.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Goudie and Lady Finlay, highlighted the stigma faced by children born of rape in conflict. I agree entirely that we must tackle this and we are working with faith leaders ahead of the PSVI conference to see what more we can do to ensure that children born of rape are not unfairly stigmatised throughout their lives.
The issue of women’s rights organisations was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Osamor. I agree about the critical role that such organisations play in transforming lives and we must do more on that. I mentioned in my opening speech our support for the Women Deliver Advocacy Academy and the AmplifyChange fund which is funding 40 grass-roots organisations to address issues like FGM and enforced child marriage. Last year we launched the Jo Cox memorial grants which include a focus on women’s social, economic and political empowerment.
The Girls Not Brides partnership was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie. I met the chair, Princess Mabel, in Vancouver—she is a very impressive woman. The partnership is a key partner on ending child marriage. For example, we recently organised a joint seminar on evidence and interventions for preventing child marriage and we will continue that relationship.
I am running out of time and I am sorry that I did not get to talk about periods or many other subjects, but I will follow everything up in writing because there is a lot more to say. I thank everyone for contributing to this debate. Looking ahead, we have a number of opportunities coming up to keep this issue firmly on the global agenda. I am certainly committed to doing so, as is the department and the Government. We have a number of conferences coming up and our next phase of engagement on initiatives such as FP2020, but we must and can do more. We will continue to champion the rights of women and girls in everything we do at DfID.
Neglected Tropical Diseases
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for once again giving us an opportunity to consider what progress has been made in the unceasing challenge to combat neglected tropical diseases. He is steadfast in his commitment to bringing this issue to the attention of the House.
We have now had the fifth report on the progress of the London Declaration on NTDs, and I share other noble Lords’ satisfaction with the tremendous strides that have been taken in the five years since the World Health Organization set out its road map and prompted the London declaration. As the report highlights, the story of tackling NTDs is one of great progress alongside continuing challenge.
The progress is well documented. In 2016, more than 1 billion people received treatment for at least one NTD. Since 2012, pharmaceutical companies have collectively donated more than 10 billion tablets. With the support of many logistical partners, ministries of health and local NGOs, treatments are getting to some of the remotest communities across the world.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, enumerated many of the key successes, and I shall not repeat them, but I mention Pfizer, which just last month agreed to extend to 2025 the donation of Zithromax, its antibiotic, to the International Trachoma Initiative, to help eliminate that horrible disease. Trachoma is the world’s leading infectious cause of blindness. Pfizer’s recommitment is a critical component of the global strategy to eliminate trachoma. It will certainly help accelerate progress brought about by drug donations, which in the past decade have resulted in in a roughly 50% decrease in the number of people at risk compared to 2011. In May, Nepal became the sixth country to declare the elimination of trachoma. Ghana is close to being validated by the World Health Organization, and when this happens, it will be the first country in sub-Saharan Africa to achieve this milestone.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I want to mention rabies. It is one of the oldest and most terrifying of diseases. Although it can be prevented, it kills an estimated 59,000 people a year. About 40% of the victims are children younger than 15 living in Asia and Africa. It is almost universally fatal yet, unlike many other NTDs, there is a vaccine. However, implementation, research and political challenges still mean that it has been neglected for a very long time. Until recently, the global response to rabies was fragmented and unco-ordinated. Now, the WHO, the FAO, the World Organisation for Animal Health and the Global Alliance for Rabies Control are joining forces to support countries as they seek to accelerate their actions towards the elimination of dog-related rabies by 2030. So there is at last some global momentum working towards breaking the cycle of neglect, but much remains to be done to achieve the goals the global community has set.
The challenges overall remain enormous. NTDs kill 170,000 people every year, but the biggest impact is on the millions they disable and disfigure. Currently, NTDs affect some 1.5 billion people in the world. These are the poorest of the poor, who live in the hardest to reach, most marginalised communities. We know also that women and girls bear the highest burden of infection.
The London declaration’s 2020 timeframe for eliminating 10 NTDs is not far off, and there is a more urgent tone to the latest progress report to make sure no one is left behind. We know that drugs alone cannot achieve the London declaration goals. There needs to be an increased domestic financial and political commitment to tackling NTDs, as well as new resources, new partners and new approaches. Among these new approaches, I was fascinated to learn of the role technology is playing in some critical areas. I am thinking of the work of German biochemist Christian Schröter, who as head of pharma business integration at Merck, has been involved with a WHO donation programme to treat children in Africa against schistosomiasis. He has worked with supply chain experts from around the world to develop a method for tracking medical donations from the warehouse to NTD treatment points in the most inaccessible places, using a simple cell phone. In his recent TED talk he describes the process as being similar to the way you track a package you order on Amazon: text messaging allows you to see in real time when the drugs leave the warehouse and when they reach the school or medical centre. We can see how many tablets have been administered, and where, and how many are still on the inventory.
The system was piloted in Mozambique last year and has huge promise. Schröter describes how it could mean excess shipments being rerouted after treatment campaigns have been completed; an end to drugs being stuck in warehouses reaching their expiry dates and having to be destroyed; and an end to paper-based reporting, which can take months to receive and process. Noble Lords will see from my description that his enthusiasm has certainly communicated itself to me.
I was also captivated by the ingenuity and practicality of Zipline, a start-up company which uses drones as a delivery system to transport blood and plasma to remote clinics in east Africa. This fleet of electric autonomous aircraft are helping to ensure that local people can have access to basic healthcare, no matter how hard it is to reach them. Equally inspiring is the software being devised in Malawi to ensure that health records can be kept electronically, even in areas of sub-Saharan Africa with power outages, low technology penetration, slow internet and understaffed hospitals.
I have enumerated these because it seems to me that such new ideas are vital if we are to beat these diseases. Alongside the basic science, multidisciplinary and long-term medical research and development, we need to be funding our engineers and smart technology experts to take forward new and exciting approaches to mapping NTDs. Can the Minister tell us whether DfID is looking at the use of such smart technologies?
The World Health Assembly recently set out an ambitious target to eliminate at least one NTD in 30 additional countries between 2019 and 2023. It is clear that if we are to continue to make progress against these awful diseases and future threats to global health, existing scientific partnerships must be expanded and new ones created. Yet our future involvement in European research programmes remains uncertain. Can the Minister reassure us that the UK’s research expertise and commitment to the London declaration goals will be supported as we look beyond 2020?
This is probably a bit unfair, but I asked exactly the same question last year in relation to our continuing collaboration with member countries of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership. I was not reassured by the Minister’s answer. Programmes such as EDCTP have proved very effective, yet I got rather a bland response last year, and I still feel very uneasy that our participation in such programmes would be a casualty of Brexit. So I ask the Minister, a little more bluntly: can he tell the House categorically that the impetus for this European funding will be continued?
Development Aid Budget
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for introducing this debate and giving us a timely opportunity to make the case for the importance of UK aid and of continuing to spend it effectively.
First, I echo what others said in recognising the tremendous work the UK has already done and continues to do on the international aid front. We do it quite simply because giving aid is the right thing to do. More than 700 million people today live in extreme poverty. The challenges they face include food shortages, disease, natural disasters and conflict. Limited access to healthcare and education compounds and continues the cycle of poverty. We can help—and we do. The UK gives aid because it makes a difference. UK aid is effective. The charity ActionAid reminds us that UK aid has helped to immunise more than 55 million children against preventable diseases and provides 60 million people with access to water, sanitation or interventions to promote hygiene.
My noble friend Lord McConnell pleaded persuasively not just for such clear, immediate outcomes—good as they are—but for longer-term commitments that deliver wider-scale outcomes. I cite one particular programme that seems to exemplify this: in humanitarian aid, the UK led the way in tackling the Ebola crisis in west Africa. I have mentioned before in this House the expertise at King’s College London, which contributed so much to the UK’s role in helping Sierra Leone conquer this terrible disease. King’s strong background in global health and the creation of the King’s Sierra Leone Partnership meant it was able to step up its work in response to the Ebola outbreak, enabling it to treat an estimated one-quarter of the Ebola cases recorded in the country. But since then King’s has contributed enormously to healthcare capacity building in the region, demonstrating the vital role that university health partnerships can have in creating sustainable healthcare systems for the long term and globally. We should be able to demonstrate sustained benefits for the longer term in all our aid programmes.
It is to this Government’s credit that they have pledged to continue to meet the UK’s target of spending 0.7% of our gross national income on official development assistance—ODA, as it is normally referred to. This is entirely in line with the promises we made at the 2005 G8 summit. Of the 15 EU countries that made the pledge in 2005, only the UK and Germany have risen to the challenge since then. The UK was the first to meet that target—in 2013, before it became a legal requirement in 2015. As others have observed, the UK was one of just eight countries to meet that target last year. Indeed, eight of the 15 have actually reduced their ODA spending as a proportion of GNI since 2005. To meet our commitment, our ODA spending nearly doubled between 2005 and 2016, from £7.4 billion to £13.6 billion in today’s terms. To continue to meet that commitment, we will need to increase our ODA spending by another £1 billion from now until 2021.
As we have heard, most of our ODA or foreign aid spending is done by the Department for International Development. Between 2010-11 and 2016-17, spending by DfID rose by 24%—at a time when budgets for departments other than health, education and defence were cut by an average of 28%. It is worth noting that bilateral aid makes up almost two-thirds of UK ODA. This means it goes to specific countries, regions or programmes, and spending is controlled almost entirely by us as a donor, unlike multilateral aid, which is channelled through organisations engaged in development work, with little condition on exactly how the funds are spent.
The recent IFS report, The Changing Landscape of UK Aid, highlights the fact that the UK—specifically, the Department for International Development—is seen internationally as,
“a leader in shaping the global development agenda”.
Importantly, the report also notes that despite being one of the smallest areas of government spending, it is one of the most scrutinised. The International Development Committee, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact all have a monitoring role to ensure that overseas aid is properly spent. DfID is rated in the highest category in the international Aid Transparency Index, and the most recent peer review of the UK aid strategy by the OECD in 2014 was largely positive about the UK’s performance. No less a philanthropist than Microsoft founder Bill Gates has said that DfID is,
“one of the most effective, efficient, and innovative aid agencies in the world”.
I was filled with alarm, therefore, when I realised that the strategic focus of the UK aid commitment has shifted to support aid “in the national interest”. This approach seems to mean that when Britain is determining how it will meet its responsibility to the world’s poorest, it will make a judgment based on what,
“best serves and protects its own security and interests”.
So while we are reducing poverty, we are also looking to improve the business climate and create international business opportunities for UK companies. I suspect that there will be huge challenges in the evaluation of the impact of these two very different aims. I cannot help but also feel that in our relationships with our partners overseas, it will be counterproductive. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised similar concerns, and I will listen very keenly to the Minister’s response to his questions.
Money is being diverted to other government departments which may not be subject to the same scrutiny as DfID, as we have heard already. Between 2014 and 2016, there was a 12 percentage point drop in the proportion of the ODA budget received by DfID. In 2017-18, 20% of the UK’s ODA is due to be spent by departments other than DfID or by cross-government funds. That is set to rise to 25% by 2019-20. I feel this should be a matter of real concern, particularly in relation to evaluation, because while DfID is a world leader in delivering aid, the aid spent by other departments does not meet the same high standards. Where DfID was rated very good, the highest category in the Aid Transparency Index, the Foreign Office was ranked poor and the MoD very poor. How can we be sure that the Government will live up to their promise that all departments will follow the same high standards as DfID on fighting poverty? How can we be sure that they will remain transparent and accountable?
A further concern is the recent indication that international definitions of development assistance will be changed to,
“better reflect the breadth of our assistance around the world”.
Redrawing the definition of what constitutes foreign aid to include work that the UK already does abroad but which cannot currently count towards the 0.7% target has worrying echoes of the changes to the definition of child poverty a couple of years ago. The Government have built on a great track record of generosity from the UK and a strong reputation for effective aid. Will the Minister tell the House how he will ensure that this is not put at risk by poor evaluation of the impact of spend from other government departments?
Neglected Tropical Diseases
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts(7 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, for her tenacity in keeping this issue high on the agenda and for giving the House this opportunity to consider the progress being made in combating neglected tropical diseases. It is certainly worth celebrating. In January, the WHO published an impressive catalogue of progress made in the prevention, control and elimination of NTDs such as Guinea worm disease, sleeping sickness, river blindness and trachoma. The collaboration between the WHO and the global NTD community has clearly had a tremendous impact, but the task remains enormous and we have only four years to meet the WHO’s road map targets. Although we are reaching more people than ever, we need to accelerate to stay on track. Last year’s progress report on the London declaration points out that the road map’s drug donation programme alone is not enough. The coverage and reach of programmes must increase for all these diseases.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, the UK Coalition against Neglected Tropical Diseases said that there must be national government leadership to integrate programmes with other health, water, sanitation and education initiatives. DfID has promised to help countries build “resilient, responsive health systems”. What priority are the Government giving to supporting health systems in the countries dealing with NTDs? What practical steps are we taking in the UK to ensure that donated treatments, surgical interventions and hygiene promotions are delivered to where they are so desperately needed?
My second point is about research. Even as some NTDs are eliminated, others will take their place. Mycetoma joined the list of poverty-related diseases last year. It is just one of the many tropical, poverty-related diseases affecting the same populations and sharing many features with NTDs. Advancing research and development is essential in tackling the next bend in the road map. Priorities must be debated, but the need for more research and funding remains constant. Globally, in recent years, 60% of clinical research on poverty-related diseases, including NTDs, has been conducted in collaboration with European member countries of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership. Historically, the UK and France have been part of these collaborations, due to our former colonial ties. Several other European countries are now increasing their research interests in PRDs and collaborating both with each other and sub-Saharan African countries. Programmes such as EDCTP, promoting cross-national research, make this possible.
To make progress against these hideous diseases and future threats to global health, existing and new scientific partnerships must be able to flourish. It is so important that the UK collaborates with our European counterparts. Among the many uncertainties that lie ahead for UK involvement in European research programmes, has this area been highlighted in the Prime Minister’s agenda for Brexit discussions? Can the Minister reassure us that the UK’s research expertise and commitment to the London declaration goals will continue to play their part as we reach 2020?
Neglected Tropical Diseases
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts(8 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and others, that we must keep up the momentum in combating these awful diseases if we are to meet the World Health Organization road map targets. It is still shocking that so many of the world’s poorest men, women and children suffer from avoidable infections that, where they do not kill, bring deformity, disability, blindness, and stigma. Virtually all the world’s absolute poorest, those existing on barely more than a dollar a day, have one or more of the most common NTDs, such as river blindness, roundworm or hookworm. Adults with these diseases cannot work to support their families, and children affected by them cannot attend school. Families struggle to afford food and basic services, including healthcare, and communities blighted by these diseases are forced deeper into poverty, with few prospects for the future.
Combating NTDs is one of the best paths to cutting this cycle of poverty and enabling sustainable social and economic development. Indeed the third progress report of the 2012 London declaration confirms that NTDs provide one of the strongest returns on investment in public health. It suggests that, if countries achieve the WHO’s 2020 goals for NTDs, their healthier citizens would generate some $623 billion in increased productivity between now and 2030. If these NTD goals are reached, the ongoing health benefits up to 2030 would be comparable to those achieved for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Yet, compared to those “big three” diseases, the cost of reaching the WHO targets for NTDs is relatively modest.
Clearly it is vital that we do not let up in our collective attempts to combat any of these diseases, so I was pleased to read in the report that progress is being made. However, the report also makes it clear that progress is not being made fast enough to meet key milestones. To reach them, we need greater collaboration across countries, between development organisations and across government departments and sectors. One welcome recent announcement has been the £3 billion from the UK and the Gates Foundation for the Ross fund, to support R&D and work towards the eradication of malaria. This is good news, especially in light of the disturbing spread of the Zika virus. By understanding the prevention and treatment mechanisms for mosquito-borne diseases, such as the development of genetically modified sterile mosquitoes, the global community will be much better prepared to respond to, and prevent, diseases such as Zika. I mention this because I understand the Ross fund will also encompass work that targets neglected tropical diseases, where the need for more partnerships, greater collaboration, new approaches and better preparation continues. What further steps can the UK take to continue to lead the world in R&D and, in particular, to encourage more product development partnerships and support the research to deliver such products where they are most needed?
A few weeks ago we heard the welcome news that the WHO has declared Liberia free of the deadly Ebola epidemic, which claimed some 11,000 lives in that country in 2012. Of course, I am aware that neither Zika nor Ebola are neglected tropical diseases, but I was struck by comments made by Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust. I believe they are just as relevant to any discussion of NTDs. He outlined the lessons that need to be learned from the Ebola epidemic, stressing the need to change structures and strengthen health systems around the world. He called 2016 a pivotal year by which changes of global governance of health and preparedness need to be effected. He also said that if we do not change now we never will, but I am more optimistic. For our continuing work to combat NTDs there is hope, and there is political will. The progress report shows us that controlling NTDs can make a greater contribution to endemic countries’ health and economies than any other investment. Getting more health for less money is a target we must continue to pursue.
BBC World Service and British Council
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the number of speakers in the debate is testament to the huge respect in which both the World Service and the British Council are held in this House. I want to focus on the role of the British Council as part of the fabric that underpins the UK’s foreign policy, and our soft power. There are friends of the UK around the world for whom the first step towards engaging with our country was sitting in the library of the British Council office in their home city.
I have had a long connection with the British Council and was once one of its trustees. Since that time, the landscape in which the British Council operates has changed, and the council has changed, too. It is not widely known that the council now draws just 20% of its income from government, and as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said, that is set to fall further. The council exists to provide a public benefit. It has evolved to become a very significant social enterprise with a turnover of nearly £1 billion, but it operates in an increasingly commercial and competitive environment. Its bridge-building work between the UK’s cultural and education sectors, and those overseas, is funded by delivering commercial services. I have no doubt that this social enterprise model has created some challenges for the council, although I am glad to say that it continues to grow, to provide indispensable services and, most of all, to provide a network of well informed staff around the world. It is an exemplar of an entrepreneurial public service model and, in that context, offers excellent value to taxpayers.
I have seen this in the context of universities. The council’s network of international offices is envied by many of our competitors. It has the ability to provide market intelligence and to anticipate opportunities in countries where links are not well established. These are functions that we should protect and support, and I hope that the Minister will agree that the Government should continue to fund them. There is inevitably a tension between its cultural relations role on the one hand, and on the other the need to provide services for which universities are willing to pay. I believe that the council is well aware of this and is sensitive to it.
When I was chief executive of Universities UK, I created a small international and Europe unit. I am delighted to learn that this has grown to be a significant organisation, delivering millions of pounds’ worth of benefits by identifying opportunities, making links, influencing policy and negotiating collective agreements around the world. The council should be applauded for the way in which it has adapted to this changed landscape. It has recognised that it can be most effective by working in partnership with Universities UK’s international unit and with parts of government pursuing opportunities overseas, such as the UKTI education unit. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is important to ensure that those sources of support are well articulated, and work in complementary ways rather than creating confusion and duplication.
I like the fact that the British Council has been working closely with the international unit of Universities UK on an advisory service to help universities develop the rapidly growing area of transnational education. I like the fact that the council is working alongside Research Councils UK, the national academies, the international unit and a range of other bodies to deliver aspects of the Government’s newly announced Newton Fund, which supports research links with 15 emerging powers around the world.
Yes, the world has changed since the creation of the British Council. Yet it remains an important part of the UK’s effort to promote strong and lasting relationships internationally, including through education links. Reduced funding has necessitated changes in strategy, yet it has picked its way sensitively and effectively through this increasingly complicated terrain. It is a hugely valuable asset to the UK. We should be proud of it, and we should continue to support it.
Global Health
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, All the Talents is an excellent report from the two All-Party Parliamentary Groups on Global Health and Africa. It gets straight to the point—that there is a critical shortage of healthcare workers in many countries—and it sets out clearly what can be done to tackle the problem. Crucially, it also provides us with the evidence that global health services can be improved by giving people extra skills and changing their roles to enable them to expand their capability. I congratulate the groups on their work in bringing the evidence together in this report. I also take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for his tireless commitment and great contribution to international development.
I was particularly struck by the example of the creation of orthopaedic clinical officers, or OCOs as they are called in the report, in Malawi. Currently—this is an astonishing statistic—there are only seven orthopaedic surgeons for Malawi’s 14 million people. Here in the UK we have roughly one per 30,000 people. It is an astonishing contrast. These OCOs were once local medical assistants, people who left school at around GCSE level and, after a two-year course in basic clinical care, ran the country’s small health centres. An 18-month training course in orthopaedics has enabled these medical assistants to develop sufficient skills to give good-quality care to around 90% of all injuries. They are expected to be competent to treat burns, septic joints, osteomyelitis and Malawi’s high incidence of club foot deformities. They can provide casts for the most common fractures and emergency resuscitation in the case of severe injuries. Every district hospital in Malawi now has at least one OCO and they are estimated to treat more than 30,000 fractures a year. What a great example of task-shifting that is, and there are others throughout this report that are similarly inspiring.
Of course, task-shifting, or task-sharing, is not a new concept. We have been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that there is a shortage of 4.2 million health workers world wide, with 1.5 million needed in Africa alone. Therefore, in many countries with severe shortages of trained professionals, health workers often have no choice but to get stuck in and carry out tasks which are not in their job title.
This makes the words of warning contained in the report all the more important. If changes to a health workforce are managed badly, they can lead to poor-quality and unsafe services. We must not risk more burden being placed on poorly trained, poorly paid workers who are expected to deliver an increasing range of priorities. But done well, as this report shows us, giving people new skills can improve access to services, improve quality and possibly reduce costs. The report’s list of recommendations forms a sensible checklist of what will make the difference between success and poor-quality, even dangerous, care. When a health worker takes on a new task or responsibility, it is essential that they are effectively trained, supervised and supported.
The report emphasises that successful skills-mixing starts with health professionals and local health organisations leading the changes, with Governments and national health systems enabling them to do so. We need more evidence of the effectiveness of skills-mixing to help support further development. I was struck by the point made in the report that significantly more investment is made in drug research than in human resources research, even though health workers account for a much greater proportion of costs. This was reinforced for me by OECD Health Working Paper No.54, helpfully provided by the Library, which emphasised the many barriers to be overcome and how Governments have to support the process to overcome them. In her response to this debate, will the Minister tell us what measures the Department for International Development is taking to assist Governments to develop their HR and workforce planning capacity?
The real benefit of skills-mixing is that experiences can be shared between countries. That is where international and national volunteering can play an important role. International development agencies such as VSO can assist national Governments to train medical staff and draw up sustainable plans for skill-mix changes. I declare an interest as a life vice-president of VSO and draw your Lordships’ attention to the work that VSO is doing with regard to task-shifting, or skills-mixing.
VSO sees these as positive ways of getting skills and health services to the grassroots, and as close as possible to those who need access to services and education. Skills-mixing also supports VSO’s belief that citizens are active agents of change and that communities will prosper if people are given the skills and opportunities to develop. But—and there is always a but—for this approach to be successful and sustainable, it must receive continuous investment. If community health workers and volunteers are to be given increased skills, responsibility and tasks, they must have the equivalent increase in support. They need the professional training and management that will ensure that they are able to deliver this work effectively, and their increased responsibility must be reflected in their remuneration.
In every situation, in every country, ongoing training and support are vital in health services. Health workers should be supported to learn continuously, and to be trained in the latest medical developments, healthcare approaches and effective techniques.
VSO makes this happen whenever it can. I will give just one example, still in Malawi, where VSO volunteers are training health workers because, again, the country has a critical shortage. VSO is pushing for improved supervision and management of these health workers. The Malawian Government are listening and making a concentrated effort to tackle the shortage through recruitment, training and retraining. I hope the common sense approach contained in All the Talents will give extra support to VSO's representations in Malawi. I know VSO will make some of these points tomorrow to the APPG's review on overseas volunteering, which itself acknowledges the importance of the direct exchange of knowledge and skills between people.
The UK has taken some positive steps in this area. DfID's £20 million four-year health partnership scheme enables volunteer British doctors, nurses and midwives to train overseas healthcare workers across many disciplines. These skilled health professionals offer practical assistance to their counterparts in the developing world, including one-to-one mentoring and developing guidelines to ensure that clinics run more effectively. Will the Minister give us any assurances that opportunities for skills mix changes and task-sharing are being promoted as part of the health partnership scheme?
Health workers—midwives, clinical officers, community workers, nurses and doctors—provide healthcare in many of the world's hardest to reach areas. They face daily challenges and do amazing work, but there are not enough of them to get the job done properly. They often lack support and supervision, the right training and equipment. In the best possible way, All the Talents states the obvious when it addresses these points. It makes sense to develop the talents of everyone working in healthcare, so that money is not wasted, quality can continue to improve, and above all, so that more people can access the health services that they need.
Foreign Affairs: Global Role, Emerging Powers and New Markets
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the timeliness of this debate. Yesterday’s Autumn Statement sets a powerful context for it. There is no question that we have to develop a strategy for growth for the short term in the light of disappointing economic prospects, but the longer-term challenges are far more profound, as the wise and comprehensive introduction to this debate by noble Lord, Lord Howell, underlined.
In a recent speech, referred to earlier by the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Worcester, Jeremy Brown MP talked about the revolution taking place in the world order and of the scale of the task facing the UK if we are to preserve anything like our current level of influence in the world. I am grateful to the Library for drawing this speech to my attention. It had several interesting themes and I enjoyed it. He pointed out that we have a very strong position on which to build. Our history of openness and the strength of our cultural, diplomatic and educational ties go towards giving us a great advantage in emerging economies. But he also pointed out the dangers of complacency. Just because the UK has been in the lead in the past two revolutions—the industrial and the information revolutions—that is no reason to assume we will remain in the forefront of the next. He said:
“Britain needs a big wake up call. We have no pre-ordained right to be wealthier, more successful and more influential than other countries. We earned that status in the past through invention, adventure and enterprise, and we need to earn it again for the future”.
In describing this competitive advantage, he said,
“No part of our Government or public life should be exempt from this national task”.
I will restrict my comments to one issue that I see as a real competitive advantage. We are a major force in the provision of international higher education. I declare an interest as a member of the council of UCL. The Government should be congratulated on identifying higher education as a key strand within its industrial strategy. Doing so recognises that universities play an increasingly important role in the UK’s export success. This role is both direct and indirect. In direct terms, as this House is well aware, universities earn the UK £8 billion a year as a result of their recruitment of EU and non-EU students and the number of globally mobile students is growing rapidly, so projections suggest the UK’s export earnings in this sphere could rise to £17 billion by 2025.
But universities also support other aspects of UK international trade. Their international character contributes to the education of UK-domiciled students who have the opportunity to learn alongside students from the countries which will, in future, be of the greatest economic importance to the UK. International graduates clearly make an important contribution to UK business, through language skills and contacts as well as their professional competencies. Our own Science and Technology Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has drawn attention to the importance of international students in STEM disciplines, but it is important to point out that the links we are building are important across the whole range of subjects.
The creative industries are one of the sectors of the economy where we have the strongest potential for future growth. Our cultural and creative output is one of the great draws for talent to this county—one of the reasons good people will move here to work, and therefore one of the reasons major multinational companies will locate here. It is likely to be the foundation of many of our export successes in the future. I think there is an argument that our strength in these areas flows from our inter-connectedness, our openness to new influences and ideas, the exchange of cultures and histories which takes place in all our major cities, and our intellectual culture of challenge and criticism, which is not innate in all cultures. So I would argue that, although there may be particular issues about our dependence on international postgraduates in certain STEM disciplines to maintain the viability of these areas, there is no doubt that we should look to encourage the international character of all our higher education. This will be obvious to those in this House who have been involved in international diplomacy, and I warmly endorse the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in this respect.
As others have said, the UK occupies an enviable position in terms of its soft power. An annual survey recently published by Monocle magazine put the UK first, ahead of the US, based on a methodology which includes the UK’s attractiveness to business. The international links our universities help us to build are, I believe, critical to our future success in emerging markets where we have traditionally performed poorly. It is not surprising, then, that a couple of weeks ago CBI supremo John Cridland joined a growing chorus of business leaders in saying that Britain was losing a massive business opportunity with a policy that was turning away the brightest foreign students. Four Select Committees have recommended that the Government change their policy on student visas. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is also leading an inquiry which has touched on this issue. All the serious newspapers have supported the call for international students to be removed from the Government's net migration target.
The Prime Minister has said:
“We must support all sectors of the economy where we have a comparative advantage”.
I believe that the Government, in many ways, have done that in respect of higher education, except, that is, in their immigration policy. Here, there is a fundamental inconsistency between the Government's desire for short-term and long-term economic growth, and a policy that few outside the Home Office support.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister what steps he is taking to advance the cause of international students in his discussions with colleagues. Will he personally ask the Prime Minister, on behalf of the many of us in this House who feel strongly on this issue, to reconsider their policy on net migration to exclude explicitly international university students and support growth in this hugely important area?
English Cathedrals
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for introducing this debate and, indeed, for the way in which he has championed our national heritage over many years. I speak with much less authority on this subject than other speakers, but I am delighted to contribute to a debate that has sparked such knowledge and passion, and to take the opportunity to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester on a moving and illuminating maiden speech.
As has been said already, England’s cathedrals are some of the greatest ancient buildings in Europe. Whether ancient or more modern, each is often the largest, most architecturally complex, most archaeologically sensitive and most visited building in its town or city. While our cathedrals are first and foremost places of Christian worship, they are also cultural centres and tourist attractions. They are at once places of pilgrimage and public buildings that host great national or civic events. They are prayerful spaces that also host community events and busy cafés.
Beautiful and breathtaking their architecture may be, but as the Church of England points out, these buildings are not just heritage landmarks but contribute to the wider community in diverse ways. Often they are the only local space of any size with public access, hosting concerts, lectures and degree ceremonies; and, of course, they are still used for their original purpose. Attendance at regular weekly services in Church of England cathedrals has increased over the past decade, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said.
The number of volunteers involved in the mission and ministry of cathedrals on a regular basis has increased by 24% to 14,500—an average of 345 volunteers for every cathedral. They are truly part of the big society. Last year more than 250,000 children attended educational events at a cathedral, with Westminster Abbey adding a further 12,000 to that nationwide figure. Just under 10,000 children are being educated at schools associated with cathedrals, and more than 2,000 of these children and adults are involved week by week in providing cathedral music.
Other noble Lords provided many examples of the contribution of cathedrals to the community—I will not repeat them. They all demonstrate our cathedrals’ continuing active role in people’s lives. This also means meeting legislative requirements and offering modern facilities. It is for this reason that I support the long-running campaign by the Church of England’s General Synod to cut the rate of VAT on church repairs and maintenance. The former Council for the Care of Churches argued that,
“charging VAT on repairs … encourages unnecessary alterations and discourages … good conservation”.
The distinction between repairs and maintenance on the one hand and alterations on the other is artificial and complex to administer.
Like other noble Lords today, I welcome the recent rethink by the Chancellor of the ill conceived proposal to introduce VAT on alterations and improvements made to churches and cathedrals. Cathedral deans—who can generally be relied on to speak their minds—were quick to point out that the tax would not mean more money for the Government but less maintenance for historic buildings. Adding 20% to the already fearsome costs of keeping open our great cathedrals—let alone keeping on top of major repairs—would have made this work completely unmanageable.
As the majority of alterations to listed church buildings take place in order to improve access to them and to broaden their use by the wider community, the Chancellor’s U-turn is entirely right and proper. By increasing the annual budget of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme by £30 million and amending its scope to fully compensate churches for the impact of removing VAT relief from alteration work, he has acknowledged the importance of these buildings, which, of course, should never have been overlooked in the first place. However, concern remains. Although the proposals in the Budget will have an impact mostly on alterations to listed church buildings as distinct from repairs, the Church of England is nevertheless concerned that the money available to reimburse churches for VAT charged for repair work will also be affected as a consequence of the extra demands placed on the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme.
I echo the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and ask the Minister how confident she is that the £30 million will cover the additional costs borne by listed places of worship following the VAT change. Can she also be confident that the additional resources will enable 100% compensation for repair and maintenance costs eligible under the current grant scheme? I ask because I want to see more of the life-enhancing alterations so magnificently exemplified by Wells Cathedral in Somerset—a cathedral I love visiting—as well as by others in English Heritage’s report, Creativity and Care.
The report shows how thoughtfully and sensitively some of our cathedrals have been adapted and developed to remain relevant today. I, too, pay tribute to the superb contribution to this work made by my noble friend Lady Andrews. At Wells there are some 1,700-plus services, concerts, educational visits and other events organised by the cathedral each year. That amounts to about five events a day, each attracting a different public. Yet until recently the cathedral had no adequate toilet, no disabled access to many areas of the cathedral church, no education area for visiting school groups and an overcrowded restaurant.
All that has changed following one of the biggest building programmes at a medieval cathedral since the Reformation. Unblocking the pilgrims’ porch—in medieval times the main entrance to the building—has allowed access between the precinct, the cloister and the church. A new cloister provides a reception area, an expanded shop and a first-floor restaurant. It took seven years to get permissions and, in total, the work cost £7 million, much of it coming from the Sainsbury and Garfield Weston Foundations and the Heritage Lottery Fund. The end result is a triumph of 21st-century vision and sensitivity, magnificently balancing the building’s significance with the needs of modern users.
A cathedral in my home county of Yorkshire also supplies a wonderful example of where the money has been found to make alterations that serve a 21st-century community. The Leeds Roman Catholic Cathedral, built in the early years of the 20th century, now has some very modern new facilities. A thoroughgoing clean of the interior in 2005 transformed the grime of my childhood to light-filled glory. Some 25% of the £2.4 million cost was gathered by fundraising within a relatively small and not particularly wealthy diocese. Another example is York Minster, where an innovative project by the York Glaziers Trust has transformed the Bedern chapel, a medieval building in the close which I recall as merely a ruin. Winning a Heritage Lottery Fund bid in 2006 led to new flooring and a new ceiling, and CCTV that allows visitors to watch the work at close hand.
To keep our cathedrals relevant takes money, vision and commitment. This has always been so. As Frank Field pointed out, the process of refitting our cathedrals for the future has never stopped. For that process to continue today, funding is vital, as so many other contributors to the debate emphasised. So, too, of course are goodwill and volunteers.
It is not only our cathedrals that are extraordinary; so are many of the 14,000 listed places of worship in England, as other noble Lords attested. Anglican churches alone form 45% of the grade 1 listed buildings in England. In 2006, necessary repairs to all listed places of worship in England were estimated to cost £185 million a year. It is worth noting that of the money spent on the repairs, 70% was raised by congregations and local communities.
The Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, now totalling £42 million, is only guaranteed for the next three years. We need to know that our extraordinary legacy of cathedral buildings will be safe on our watch and that they will be given the best chance of seeing out the next thousand years. I join with other noble Lords in hoping that the Minister will be able to offer hope that the state will continue to provide its part of the necessary funding.
Women: Special Operations Executive
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for initiating this debate. I add my support to the growing band of voices urging greater recognition for the female agents of the Special Operations Executive. That small number of extraordinary young women gave everything at an extraordinary time in our island history. Besides their bravery, their language skills and ability to pass unremarked in enemy-occupied countries, many female SOE agents also had in common their extreme youth. Many were in their early 20s when they volunteered to carry out SOE’s work of reconnaissance and sabotage behind enemy lines. Their youth and their bravery have echoes today. I think of my god-daughter, whose ship, HMS “Liverpool”, was engaged in a fierce gun battle earlier last month, six miles off the coast of Gadaffi-held territory in Libya. Thankfully, the attack was quashed with no casualties or damage to the ship.
Further afield, of course, Britain has women serving alongside men in Afghanistan and Iraq, risking their lives in the service of their country. We do not take for granted their willingness to do a difficult and dangerous job on our behalf, and we must not forget those who did so during previous conflicts.
The contributions of some SOE female agents—notably Violette Szabo and Odette Sansom—were recognised posthumously with the George Cross. Their stories, inevitably romanticised, became widely known through films and books in the decades immediately after the war. Of those women who survived the war, many maintained a long silence about what they did, as is borne out by the case of Eileen Nearne, already referred to, whose service in occupied France was known only on her death. As time goes on, more stories are revealed and deserve wider recognition among younger generations.
Like other noble Lords, I think of women such as Noor Inayat Khan, the first female SOE agent to be airdropped into occupied France. She sent back vital information from Paris for three months—far longer than the expected lifespan—but was eventually captured, tortured and executed in 1944 aged just 29. While she, too, received a posthumous George Cross and memorials exist to her in Paris and Dachau, there is no dedicated memorial to her in England, her adopted country. Campaigners are hoping to raise sufficient funds to unveil a statue to her in Gordon Square in London, near her childhood home. A public commemoration of the contribution to this country’s history by a young Asian Muslim woman would be a tremendously positive signal at the current time and I hope that the Government will give some public support to this campaign.
At a time when women in the Armed Forces were restricted to a non-combatant role in warfare, the women of the SOE trained and served alongside men, risking their lives, often on a daily basis. Greater recognition is long overdue for their unique contribution.