Universal Credit

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The Government recently increased the national living wage to £8.72 per hour, which means the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage have increased by nearly £3,700 since 2016. The Spring Budget confirmed a tax cut for 31 million working people, and other tax changes make basic rate taxpayers over £1,200 better off. We have been able to extend the holiday activities and food programme with £220 million, and the Covid winter grant scheme has £170 million, so be in no doubt: the Government do care and do take action.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, every citizen, whether in paid work or not, deserves an income that allows a decent standard of living. We should not be permitting a system where discomfort and, indeed, poverty are built in. You cannot live on the standard allowance—no one can—and that is apart from delays in payment. How can the Minister possibly defend universal credit, even as a viable safety net, when demand for food banks is at a record high and homelessness is rapidly rising, even with the extra £20 a week?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I understand the noble Earl’s point, but as I said, we have put out a raft of additional support. I could read it out, but it would take the whole 10 minutes, if not longer. I understand his point, but the Government are taking action to make life better for people.

Covid-19: People Living in Poverty

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, in normal times it is the duty of a Government to provide an adequate safety net for the poorest in society. There is no clearer indication of the Government’s failure to do so since the financial crash than the rise in the demand for food banks, the use of which last year was the highest ever recorded. Behind the help currently being given to some, we are nevertheless still “austerity Britain” with a level of welfare provision that is wholly inadequate for those being left with little or no income.

The effect of Covid on top of continuing austerity is a double whammy. The Government need to recognise this, otherwise why would 1.5 million UK citizens not be eating for a whole day, and why would already struggling councils be handing out emergency grants? The welfare system should cover those needs, even in a crisis, although better still would be a basic income. Welfare needs to be reformed to speed up payments, remove the restrictive conditionality and, significantly, raise the level of payments far beyond the current modest increases. When food banks are a thing of the past, we can start to stop talking about poverty.

Architecture and the Built Environment

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Monday 28th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate. The report in question, as one led by an architecture practice, emphasises the immediate built environment, which to me feels refreshing. The report rightly stresses the significance of school education, a central aspect of which should be an awareness of the importance of, to cite the review,

“‘your home, your street, your neighbourhood, your town’ where the smallest part, your home and your street, collectively make an enormous contribution to the future of our planet”.

There are many contexts for the study of architecture. The distinction between public and private space is one crucial context not addressed in the report. The first place where the child experiences architecture in a meaningful way must be their home; a good topic, surely, for a child’s first learning about architecture

The reality is that architectural and planning decisions are being made every day around us. My young daughter was aghast when she went to our local playground only to find that many things, including her favourite climbing frame, had disappeared and been replaced by other equipment. She got used to the changes, but she did feel left out of the decision-making process—as, in the wider sense, do many adults about the planning process, and increasingly so, despite the coalition’s long-standing localism agenda. The right as a citizen to have a say in one’s architectural environment should be taught in schools. That should include at least one visit to the local council.

Architecture is clearly not only about history or about famous buildings, important though they are, although the national curriculum would have us learn first at key stage 2 who the so-called great architects are. If this report is to be taken seriously, then we should be looking carefully at the tone and content of the national curriculum.

The report stresses the importance of teaching. It states:

“Architecture, the built environment and an understanding of ‘place’ ... through many different subjects including art and design, geography, history and STEM subjects … rather than as a subject in its own right”.

That multifaceted approach fits with what architecture schools want.

A problem, however, with this approach is that art and design are under increasing threat, particularly in state schools, and less so in independent schools—as is teacher training in these subjects. This is well demonstrated in a new survey by the National Society for Education in Art and Design, which also makes clear that these are things which the Government have in their power to rectify. If these trends continue, success will be made more difficult for some of the good ideas that this report contains, such as the local “urban rooms” that could be used for school outreach work.

I was taken with the idea that councillors should have training in design literacy. At a time when the public have less and less faith that the right planning decisions are being made, this can only be a good thing, although it would mean public money being spent on this, as well as in other areas—despite the plea for volunteering—if this report’s recommendations are to be followed through.

Culture: Cinema

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for the opportunity to talk in this debate. If there were to be two little tweaks I would have made to the terms of the debate, they would have been to put “diverse” in front of “cinema culture”, and “access to a” in front of “diverse”, although the basic premise of having a debate where the accent is on cinema culture rather than on the film industry is an important one.

The way I understand the term “cinema culture” is that it is part of film culture more generally in this country, of which the film industry is then also a part. I think it is important to place it in this context because the cinema should not be regarded as merely an adjunct to, or only for the consumption of, contemporary British and American commercial cinema, important as that function is.

From the film industry’s point of view, it needs to be said that the film industry in the UK has not developed and does not develop in a cultural vacuum. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made the point at Question Time on Monday about the interdependence of theatre and film, which has been a long-standing characteristic of British cinema and continues to be productive. One can add to that the influence of the visual arts, from Derek Jarman to Steve McQueen. As an artist, I am aware that the influences go the other way as well. One can see that in the work of Richard Hamilton, for example, whose retrospective is currently at Tate Modern. The arts world as a whole, which sometimes seems ghettoised, is a place where many influences pervade. This is certainly growing not just in the UK but in other countries in Europe and America, as many individual artists in the widest sense work more and more in different mediums of which film-making is one. With this wider cultural context in mind, the Government have to be careful that they do not simply narrowly support a film industry for purely commercial reasons while stripping away support for film culture and for the other less commercial arts that feed into that culture.

Cinema culture must include enabling access to global cinema and the history of film. The funding cuts to the BFI of 10% in the next year, in this context as well as others, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out, are worrying. I wonder, too, whether more can be done for our art-house cinemas generally, as I think that the appetite for world cinema is much greater than is commonly believed.

I want to take the opportunity of expanding further on an issue that we discussed in this Chamber late last year. I refer to the Competition Commission’s ruling on Cineworld regarding its arts Picturehouses, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, referred. There are two things I want to say about this. First, the Competition Commission must in such cases take into consideration cultural value, which perhaps ought to be a precept for the whole of this debate. There is a resonance here within the wider arts world about what all arts and cultural enterprises have to offer that is distinct from commercial interest. I think it is impossible for a body placed in this situation to make a meaningful decision without bearing in mind this concern. For example, one can cite the Cambridge Film Festival held at the Cambridge Arts Picturehouse as having a distinct cultural value. The second, and related, thing is the Competition Commission’s insistence on there having to be two entirely separate markets, and the accent being on so-called value for money and the behaviour of the cinema-goer. I can see how the problem has occurred because of the development in recent years of what might be termed combination cinemas, where new commercial releases are played side by side with foreign language films or older classics. The reality is that individual cinema-goers will often go to many different kinds of films. I do not know of an avid cinema-goer who would not, for example, go to see a new subtitled release from Iran one day but the next go to see—perhaps with their family, perhaps not—the latest Muppets film. It is pure snobbery to suggest that such a separation has to exist in cinema-goers but that is not so say that art houses do not nevertheless offer a distinct and uniquely valuable product over and above the commercial screens which an exclusive commercial cinema does not. The proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, of an art screen designation as a standard needs to be taken very seriously.

Commercial cinema is thriving in the UK, although it is also changing and may not always in future be completely about film in the traditional sense, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, pointed out. The rise of event cinema is testament to a burning desire that continues to exist for being part of an audience in front of a big screen. Such an event last year involving film, funded by the BFI Distribution Fund new models scheme, was Ben Wheatley’s film “A Field in England”, which premiered simultaneously at the cinema, on Film4 and on DVD and Blu-ray. Public funding should still have a hugely important part to play in promoting diversity and encouraging access and innovation in our cinema culture.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, the great majority of young people are baffled by the fuss over same-sex marriage. In terms of change happening, they do not see a huge gulf between civil partnerships and marriage, even as we need to acknowledge that the distinction is important for gays and lesbians who wish to be married. The latest YouGov poll for the Sunday Times last month had under-40s in favour of same-sex marriage by more than three to one. Indeed, some young people that I have talked to believe that same-sex marriage already exists in this country, and are surprised that this is not yet the case. Young people’s opinion is well in advance of the legislation itself.

There are some in favour of the Bill who have argued that, with the conditions attached, it takes a modest and reasonable step. I do not entirely agree with that assessment because real progress in human rights, which is what the Bill is about—a point made yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett—always enters new territory and is always difficult for some, if not, in this case, for the majority of young people. The Bill will redefine marriage but, I believe, for the better.

The institution of marriage as it stands is the last redoubt of discrimination against gays and lesbians. It reminds me of the latter-day struggles that women have had, long after they won the right to vote, to gain access to the pubs and clubs, among other places, from which, in many communities, they continued to be excluded—excluding them from defining aspects of the culture. Whatever people think of marriage, and, as we have heard in this debate, there are those who are critical of marriage as a formal institution, the reality is that marriage is a defining aspect of our culture. However, just as we are in the process of restructuring our social and work meeting places, so we also need to redefine marriage to make it a more inclusive institution.

The letter from the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Bristol and others published in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday says that:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is the fundamental building block of human society”.

Apart from the highly questionable assertion that marriage in any form is the fundamental building block, I would argue that it is not the constituent sexes that make it a building block but the public act of commitment by two individuals to each other, as some brilliant, heartfelt speeches have already made clear. We should recall Elizabeth I’s dictum not to be making “windows into men’s souls”, a politic plea for religious tolerance in her own time that, in ours, should become an acceptance that there are many valid reasons why two people wish to get married. No church, whatever its policy, should have a monopoly over this institution, and Quakers and other churches that wish to perform same-sex marriages should be allowed to do so. This will be the meaning of equality.

As the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, said in the Guardian:

“Religious tolerance is a vital part of a democratic society. But religious rules should never dictate society’s laws”.

Furthermore, those who see marriage in a traditional sense are missing the much wider picture that unusual or even themed weddings that do not have religious content in any formal manner are already taking place. Heterosexual couples are introducing their own personal or spiritual stamps on their marriages. Therefore, it seems doubly ironic that a gay or lesbian who is a practising Christian and has been going to church on a weekly basis over a long period of time may have no claim over having a church marriage, whereas a non-believer has. That is a matter for the church, though, and the speeches that we have heard over the past two days from Christians give me hope that things will change. As someone who is married and therefore part of the institution of marriage, I would be embarrassed if, at the very least, the opportunity presented by this Bill was not taken to allow others who have been excluded to now be able to participate.

On civil partnerships, I agree with what Peter Tatchell has said about equality. The important thing is to get the Bill on the statute book. I suspect that it will become clear quite quickly that heterosexual couples will be at a disadvantage over the choice of form of union that they can opt for and that further legislation will be needed to correct this if the correction is not included in the Bill, which would be more efficient. It is perhaps most immediately important to ensure that heterosexual and gay couples have the same, equal rights in terms of survivor benefits.

Looking around the House, I think it would be fair to say that most of our marital choices have already been made, whether that means having married once, twice or more, or not—yet. But the young people of this country who are still to make these choices are very clear about how they feel about same-sex marriage and what they want us to do. If this House were to vote the Bill down—I say “were” because I do not believe that that will happen—it would show itself to be seriously out of touch with the youth of the country. I support the Bill and will vote against the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dear.

Media and Creative Industries: Equality

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I share the point that the noble Baroness has raised. I am aware that the BBC, which is the main public service broadcaster, has the largest responsibility to ensure that it is reaching out to new people in terms of its workforce. There are a couple of schemes that the noble Baroness may or may not be aware of. A BBC apprenticeship scheme has recruited over 50 apprentices in the past 18 to 20 months, 30% of whom were from the black and minority ethnic communities. The BBC’s work experience scheme has ensured since January 2011 that 60% are from BME backgrounds, and of those 21% have secured paid work at the BBC. The latter scheme has been recommended for an award for extending diversity in the workplace.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, do the Government accept that cultural diversity in the creative industries will have significant roots in school education? If so, will the Minister say what they are doing to encourage every child, whatever their background, to have the best possible education in art and design subjects?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Earl raises an important point about how we can ensure that people’s aspirations at school are broadened and increased to include areas which might not be most obvious to them. I certainly support that. I do not have a specific response to the noble Earl on his question, but I will see whether I can follow up in writing.

Poverty

Earl of Clancarty Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to have been returned to your Lordships’ House following the recent Cross-Bench by-election and I thank everyone for the warm welcome that I have received. I have very much enjoyed the remarkable maiden speeches that we have heard today and look forward to those yet to come.

We have of course many experts in the Chamber today, but perhaps the biggest experts of all on the subject of this debate are not present. They are the poor themselves. I believe that they should be here in the Chamber somehow, for the simple reason—and it seems common sense to me—that the views of the poor should be heard in a debate on the poor. It is a question of representation, since those who are poor and on the margins of the mainstream are effectively denied a voice. This is the reason, I think, why we still have something called “poverty” in our sophisticated western society.

I was once a little closer to this form of expertise; I was on benefits myself, specifically income support. This was in Sheffield in the 1980s at a time when unemployment was less reviled than it is now, partly because of the sympathy for those working in the coal-mining and steel industries who had been put out of work.

I suggest that poverty as an experience is actually very simple, even if the bureaucracy that has accumulated to deal with it, including the benefits system, is complicated and public attitudes themselves are convoluted. I think that over a period of decades we have become, with a larger middle class, more aware at least of the idea of poverty, but perhaps less tolerant of those who remain unemployed, in the sense, of course, of not having paid work.

I believe that there are really just two things that a Government should bear in mind about poverty. The first is money. This Government are freezing benefits and capping the housing benefit. Sheffield was then, and still is, cheaper than London, but income support was impossible to live on then; today, with a personal allowance rate of £51.85 per week for the under-25s, who have been hit the hardest by this recession, I would say that it is absolutely impossible to survive on. Whatever you read in the newspapers, it is difficult to survive on most benefits.

The second and related issue is the stigma of being unemployed, by which I mean not having paid work, which is not necessarily the same as not working. For everyone on basic benefits, this stigma is now less connected with unemployment; it is more about being off the map and unvalued as a citizen. I believe passionately that one should be regarded as a citizen whether one is in paid work or not—indeed, whatever one’s status. That means that if you do not have an income, or have a low income, the state should pay you a decent rate on which to live.

The very language that the new Government use perpetuates the stigma. For example, The Coalition: Our Programme for Government says:

“The Government believes that we need to encourage responsibility and fairness in the welfare system. That means providing help for those who cannot work, training and targeted support for those looking for work, but sanctions for those who turn down reasonable offers of work or training”.

Carrot and stick, carrot or stick, it does not matter—this is still, in an old-fashioned sense, a perpetuation of an “us and them” situation for the poor who, in comparison with the poor in Victorian times, are highly articulate and educated and have expectations.

If we were not so wedded to the entirely constricting idea of paid work being the measure of all things, we would solve poverty overnight. However, by these restrictions on benefits, this Government are saying that we cannot afford to do so. Like others, I believe that this Budget owes its inspiration much more to political philosophy than to national need. The Green Party for one, now represented in Parliament at last, believes that we should not be having these cuts at all and that we should be doing quite the opposite and creating jobs in the public sector.

Another example of this same stigmatisation are the powerful television adverts which are supposed to target, in their words, “benefit thieves” but which in fact, I believe, help to criminalise people who are claiming benefits. Just as bad is the fact that no Government yet have run TV adverts advertising unclaimed benefits, which is a little bit like the “finders keepers” rule. Why do a Government who would claim to lift people out of poverty not chase down as assiduously the poor who do not know how to claim benefits as ferociously as they do those who may be claiming too much? It is easy to build up a head of righteous indignation over those who it is said are abusing the system, but are we not truly abusing the system if we do not reach out to those who are so caught in the poverty trap that they do not even know that help exists, let alone how to claim? I would like an answer from the Minister as to whether the new Government would consider running such TV adverts.

Where should we be looking for answers? Is it appropriate for charities to fill the gap? I notice this week from the Evening Standard that the Government, in a supposed time of national austerity, are providing £1 million of matching-funds to a newspaper editor’s project to dispense largesse to the poor, piecemeal via a number of charities. This is David Cameron’s big philanthropic society in action, turning the clock back to a Victorian society in an age when the poor do not want to be, and should not be, patronised. I am not saying that individuals might not be helped by this, or that charities are not fine, but the proper purpose of charities is, in my view, that they do—yes—a significant job of stepping into the breach when a Government fail to do the appropriate and long-term job that they should do. I would support a Government who said, “We will make all the charities that cater to poverty redundant by such and such a date”.

I can give one example of a government policy that seemed to address the twin evils of money and stigma. From income support, I went on to the original enterprise allowance scheme as an artist. Of course, the scheme did not suit everyone at the time—those who had worked in traditional industries in and around Sheffield just wanted their old jobs back—but a number of things made the enterprise allowance scheme unique.

First, you were instantly destigmatised, because as soon as you were self-employed, you were considered to be working, although—this is the significant point—you might not yet have had any income from your work except for the small weekly grant that you received. Secondly, there was no bureaucracy. The business plan was easy for anyone to fill in. You did not have to be a businessperson to do that and you were not judged according to how the business might do, although some people later became highly successful commercially as a result of being on the scheme. Thirdly, they left you alone—a mark of respect and trust. Fourthly, you followed your dream, or simply continued with your work, for which one might say that the state was paying, although not very much.

Unfortunately, the enterprise allowance scheme did not last. It was watered down and then scrapped as the big stick once more came out, but it is being looked at again. It features in the recent Arts Council England report, Creative Survival in Hard Times. I understand that the Government are taking an interest in the original scheme and I would like to know whether they are thinking about reintroducing it.

I believe that the only way to cure poverty is finally to accept that there will never be full employment in terms of paid work unless the state itself fills that gap and assumes and respects people’s contribution to society irrespective of their income.