Census (England and Wales) Order 2020

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, this census form is extensive and will provide valuable information for formulating social policies in the future. However, this extensive list poses a problem: there are a great number of questions, with a range of options, and some people will find the form very difficult to fill in. Therefore, I was very glad to learn from the Minister at the beginning of this debate that the Government intend to have a contact centre. I know that the internet will offer a great deal of help with the usual list of frequently asked questions, but my experience of FAQ lists is that they do not answer the questions that you actually want to ask.

That contact centre will be a vital ingredient in making the next census a success. It will need to be well staffed and the staff will need to be well trained. Linked to this is the fact that those who do not have English as their first language will probably need special help. I hope that it will be possible for people not only to get help answering the questions via telephone but to do so in a number of different languages. That centre will need to be well staffed with people who are well trained, with a range of languages available.

I will briefly cover two points. First, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. From the point of view of the Welsh Government and their educational programme, it is vital to know the number of Welsh speakers in England. Secondly, I also strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Singh. Like him, I believe that Sikhism is a great and very distinguished world religion. I do not think there should be any blurring of that fact and I worry that putting this in the ethnic minority category will somehow diminish what Sikhism has to offer as a world religion.

Income Equality and Sustainability

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Wednesday 6th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who has always been courageously committed to the subject of this debate. As he retires as Archbishop, I wish him well for the next stage of his very distinguished public ministry.

The coronavirus has revealed in the starkest terms that the world we have lived in until now is quite unacceptable. For example, it has long been known that life expectancy in the most deprived areas is about 10 years less than it is in the more affluent areas, so it is not surprising—though still deeply shocking—to see twice as many people dying of the virus in those deprived areas than in the wealthier parts of the country. We got too used to the old world, with its grotesque inequalities, too resigned to the notion that this is the way that things always must be. They do not always have to be like that.

At the same time, the virus has revealed that another world really is possible. The population have shown the most remarkable solidarity, the Government in their financial rescue plans have acted boldly in the interests of the whole, and the underpaid hospital workers, care workers and others at the front have rightly been recognised as vital key workers. Let us have a world where they are not only clapped, but also paid enough to live on. The average hourly pay for a care worker in the UK is £8.19 an hour. How many of us could live on that?

We cannot think only of those in our country. We must think of the most vulnerable groups across the world, on whom the global economy depends. For example, there are 64 million migrant workers in the world, and in so many countries, crowded into insanitary dormitories. They have been particularly at risk. People used to talk about cheap labour. Let us talk instead about precious human beings. It sometimes seems as though the world is divided between those who, broadly speaking, are beneficiaries of a capitalist economy, and those who are financial slaves because they have no option except to starve. The world that we have inherited is no longer acceptable. Let us find a new, more humane way to live together.

Tax Avoidance

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Wednesday 29th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

The noble Baroness makes a sound point. It is just too early to make those sorts of assessments. I want to pick up on the point about digital companies. We have introduced the digital services tax, which came into play on 1 April this year; it is a 2% tax on the revenues which search engines and social media platforms derive if they generate more than £2 billion over the next five years. We have made a start on this but, as the noble Baroness will probably know, these things need international collaboration. If there are excessive profits over the next few months, we will of course review things.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I am sure the Minister is aware that 80% of the population believes that registering a company abroad in a tax haven to avoid paying full UK tax is wrong. At a time of unprecedented social solidarity, would it not help to cement that solidarity if the Government made it clear that they will offer bailouts only to companies that do not follow this practice? After all, France, Poland and Denmark have done that. It would be sad if we stayed a long way behind those countries. If I may, I will send the Minister a list of five criteria drawn up by the fair tax alliance to help the Government to make fair decisions in this area.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

I take on board the noble and right reverend Lord’s points, and I would be interested to see the five criteria that he mentioned. I reiterate that the thrust of our approach has been to support businesses that are active in this country with premises and people. In a way, our approach is quite similar to that of Poland, because we require that foreign businesses have a permanent establishment here. I reassure the noble and right reverend Lord that we have taken a huge amount of action over the past 10 years to clamp down on poor tax practice.

Civil Society and Lobbying

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, for initiating this debate. As she emphasised, charities and campaigning groups of various kinds play a vital role in our society. The health of our democracy depends not just on political parties but on organisations which are rooted in the varied experiences of people’s lives being able to bring different viewpoints to bear, not least at election time.

It is absolutely right that all such groups should be regulated and that they should be required to be transparent in what they do. At election time it is again right that they should not be able to spend money disproportionately compared to political parties and candidates. However, Part 2 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 was itself disproportionate in the way in which it sought to limit third-party campaigning at election time. It was hastily put together without consultation, driven by a fear of American-style political action committees coming to this country—a fear without serious foundation. The evidence of third- party groups was, and is now, that it would, and does, seriously inhibit their legitimate activity.

The House was, thank goodness, able to achieve some little improvements in this lamentable piece of legislation, one being that there should be a review of how it worked at the last election. That review, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, has now taken place and the report published. We are very grateful to him for it. It bears out many of the criticisms made in this House during the passage of the Bill and urges some significant changes. Many of these were argued for by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which I have the privilege of chairing.

I will briefly summarise some of these recommendations. First, instead of the phrase,

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote electoral success”

for any party or candidate—which was thought to be too wide and uncertain—the Hodgson review recommends that this should be changed to one of actual intention to procure success in an election, along the lines of the Representation of the People Act 1983. I believe that this change would be welcomed by charities in particular, because it would be aligned with what their status as charities allows them to do anyway.

Secondly, the review recommends that the electoral period for regulation should be reduced from one year to four months—the same as for European and devolved legislatures. All the evidence submitted shows that third parties focus on elections at the most six months before the date. To require them to delineate expenditure relating to the election from normal expenditure a whole year before is an unnecessary, bureaucratic burden.

A third area of concern is how expenditure for joint campaigning should be allocated. It is good practice for charities to work together when appropriate and possible, but Part 2 of the lobbying Act in effect frustrated this purpose. The Hodgson review recommends important changes in this area.

Those are just a few of a number of important recommendations. My first question to the Minister is: when is the Hodgson review to be brought before the House? When would she see these vital changes, if agreed, being made to Part 2 of the lobbying Act? It is deeply flawed and needs to be amended in order to ensure that third-party groups can play their proper role without the undue chilling effect that the Act, as it now stands, has had.

My other main concern is the anti-advocacy policy brought in and announced by the Government in February. The Government’s stated intention was to prevent funds paid to charities by government being used to fund lobbying. As has already been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, this has aroused widespread disquiet. The fact is that charities are regularly called upon by officials within departments to bring real-world experience of users and evidence-based expertise into public policy, and to engage with parliamentarians on these issues; for example, through providing evidence to Select Committees.

Clear guidance already exists about what charities can and cannot campaign and advocate on. However, it is critical that charities are able to speak up on behalf of their beneficiaries and are seen to be independent from government regardless of their financial arrangements. Charities are concerned that this clause could be perceived as limiting what they can and cannot say about important issues for fear that this will have an impact on their funding. Therefore, my second question to the Minister concerns this proposed policy—if it is still in place, as there seems to be a great deal of confusion about whether this proposal will be enacted. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that. Does she not fundamentally agree—as put so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port—that charities that are in the front line of trying to respond to human need are best placed to bring before government the way in which policies can help or hinder the meeting of that need, and that bringing this experience and expertise to bear on government thinking is therefore vital and should not be inhibited in any way?

I was very surprised by the bitter criticism of the National Trust expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. As a member of the National Trust—one of its, I believe, 4 million members, the biggest mass organisation in the country—I am deeply grateful to it every time I walk a nice piece of coastal path that it has acquired. The noble Lord particularly supports farmers who want to continue to graze sheep on the uplands. However, his policy is strongly opposed by people with such disparate views as those of George Monbiot on the one hand and Sir Simon Jenkins on the other, who argue that most of the problems of flooding in the Lake District are caused by overgrazing of sheep in the uplands, and that if it is rewilded, as it is called, the water will be able to seep into the ground and the problem of flooding will be greatly alleviated. It is absolutely right that an organisation such as the National Trust should make that view known and, in so far as it is able to implement it on its own property, that it should be able to do so. Of course, there is the point of view of farmers and others but it is right that the National Trust should also be able to express its important point of view gained from its own experience.

However, my main point is that campaigning groups and charities play an essential role in making our democracy vibrant and living and their ability to do this should not be inhibited in any way.

Elections: Campaigning

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to take forward the recommendations of the report Third Party Election Campaigning—Getting the Balance Right by Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his balanced and comprehensive report, which recognises that third-party campaigning must be regulated so it is open and accountable. We are carefully considering the recommendations, which come as a package of measures.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. On behalf of the campaigning organisations, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for taking their concerns seriously. The recommendations in the report reveal that Part 2 of the lobbying Act was a very hastily conceived and ill-thought through piece of legislation and needs radical revision. Therefore, I look forward to hearing from the Minister when the recommendations will come before Parliament, and in particular whether paragraph 2.29 of the report will be taken seriously, in which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, says that the key recommendations must be understood “as a package” because it is a very carefully balanced whole.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I echo the words of the noble and right reverend Lord. I once again thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his work and thank the many organisations for the contributions they made to his report. The noble and right reverend Lord is absolutely right: this is a package of measures and we need to consider it carefully. There are 28 different recommendations, 13 of which require changes to primary legislation. This needs to be seen in the light of other reports on the last general election from the Electoral Commission and the Law Commission. We are looking at all these. I am unable to give a date with regard to what further steps may be taken but we are looking carefully at them.

Charities: Government Grants

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to implement their new policy restricting how government grants to charities may be used.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare a non-financial interest as chair of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, less than 7% of the £130 billion of grants paid each year goes to the non-profit sector. From 1 May, departments will be required to insert the clause in all new and renewed grant agreements unless Ministers decide, in exceptional circumstances, to qualify or remove the wording. Before 1 May, departments are encouraged to engage with any grant recipients who are likely to be affected by the clause. It will be for departments to employ existing financial controls and take appropriate action if they believe a clause to have been breached.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the Minister of his Answer, but would he not agree that charities that are so often at the front line of meeting human need are in the best position to gauge the effect of government policies on those whom they are trying to help? Therefore, they have a duty to bring any concerns to bear to the Government. In the light of that, does the Minister agree with the compact signed by the Prime Minister in 2010 with civil society that the Government will,

“respect and uphold the independence of civil society organisations to deliver their mission, including their right to campaign, regardless of any relationship, financial or otherwise, which may exist”?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

First, I pay tribute to the work that the noble and right reverend Lord does in this area and all his contributions to this debate. I understand that there has been concern about this clause. I assure him, the House and charities that, of course, charities will be able to provide advice and guidance to government if it is part of the work that they are being paid to do. This clause aims to prevent taxpayers’ money being used to lobby politicians and government on all manner of other issues. The Government believe that the new clause is compatible with the compact and does not in any way prevent grant recipients from campaigning and lobbying, using their other funds. It simply requires clarity on what the grant funding can be used for.

Georgia

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the report of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe on monitoring of trials of former officials and political figures under prosecution in Georgia following the change of government at the end of 2012.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Government welcome the report of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights—ODIHR—on the monitoring of trials of former officials and political figures in Georgia. Georgia has made significant progress on judicial and legal reform in the past few years, although, as is noted in the report, there are still many issues to address. Georgia should continue to implement its programme of reforms and to ensure that all prosecutions follow the rule of law and due process.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he not agree that what is revealed in the report is not just the occasional violation of criminal procedure but a systematic abuse of the criminal system against former officials and political figures connected with the previous Government? Will Her Majesty’s Government make it clear to the Government of Georgia that this is totally contrary to European standards and that it can only frustrate—and in the end block—their aspiration to join the European Union? Will they also further encourage the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights to pay a return visit to Georgia, perhaps in a year or 18 months’ time, to see what progress has been made?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am not sure that I would use the term “systematic”, but clearly there have been a large number of weaknesses. I would emphasise that, as the report says, the ODIHR was invited to visit Georgia by the Georgian Government. It has made some very robust criticisms of the failings and weaknesses of the Georgian system, but the Georgians did invite it in, they have accepted the report, and now the question is how far the reforms will be pushed through. The European association agreements have political conditions attached, and we will be watching to see how those conditions are fulfilled by the Georgian Government.

House of Lords: Labour Peers’ Working Group Report

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this report and its recommendations for incremental change in the House. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her extremely clear and balanced introduction to the debate. I was fortunate enough to be a member of the Royal Commission on House of Lords Reform, which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. This contained members of all parties as well as academics. It began with a total division of opinion between those who wanted a fully elected House and those who wanted a fully appointed one, but by the end a remarkable consensus had been achieved.

I intend to look at a few of the recommendations in the report that we are debating today and compare them with the related proposals made by the royal commission, while deliberately not dealing with the question of election versus appointment, because I believe, taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the kind of proposals that we are discussing for incremental change are compatible with a fully elected House, a fully appointed House or a hybrid House. Everyone now agrees that our House badly needs reforming and I believe that we can take significant steps in reform even before a final decision is made about that issue.

First, there is the question of size. The Wakeham commission proposed 450. I am glad that this figure now seems to have emerged as the agreed one and is the one put forward in the Labour Party working group’s report. Secondly, there is retirement. The Labour Party report proposes the age of 80. The problem, of course, is that 80 is the new 60. There is one extremely distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House, who I am glad to say is still very much with us, who was appointed at the age of 79. The royal commission argued against age limitations of any kind and instead suggested that everyone should be appointed or elected not for life but for 15 years, renewable for a further term only under exceptional circumstances, a decision that would be made by an independent Appointments Commission. Fifteen years would enable a person to take a long view but would also enable the House constantly to be renewed without having to get larger and larger, which, as we know, is what is happening at the moment.

Thirdly, there is the Appointments Commission. The Labour Party recommends that it be put on a statutory basis and given greater powers than it has now. That recommendation is extremely welcome. For the royal commission, this was a key proposal, which we discussed in great detail. On the commission’s proposals, its powers would go further than those envisaged by the Labour Party report. It would have responsibility for the proper balance not just among Cross-Bench Peers but for the House as a whole. It would keep in touch with party leaders to ensure that across the House there was the right balance of gender, ethnicity, religion and experience. It would also, of course, attend to the other criteria helpfully set out in the Labour Party report about proven probity, commitment to the work of the House and so on.

This leads on to my fourth point about how a Government’s majority in the Commons should be reflected in this House. According to the Labour Party document, no one party should have a majority in this House, and it is critical of the way in which a coalition Government, such as this one, with a very big majority, can almost invariably get their way without too much difficulty. The opposite view, which I understand is held by the Government and which was put forward by the royal commission, is that the ratio in this House should reflect the votes cast in an election, a view that would, or could, lead to even more appointments to this House.

It is worth looking at the number of times particular Governments have been defeated in this House. The present Government have been defeated 89 times. In the last term of the Labour Government, they were defeated 175 times. In the term before that, they were defeated 245 times and, in the term before that, 108 times. If we go back to the two previous Conservative Administrations, they were defeated 62 times and 72 times. There is quite a big gap between the Labour Party being defeated 245 times at one point and the Conservative Government being defeated only 62 times. I shall make no comment about those figures, because they speak for themselves. What it has meant in practice at the moment is that the Government can be defeated only if a strong body of Cross-Bench Peers combines with a number of members of the coalition Government who are prepared to vote against their own party.

The principles behind any solution to this issue seem to me quite clear and are ones that I think all your Lordships would agree on. First, in the end, the House of Commons must get its own way. Secondly, this House must have real power to force the Commons to think again. Against the background of these two principles, I suggest a third, which is that this House, at least in the interim period, should reflect the Government’s working majority in the Commons without at that point taking into account the Cross-Benchers. Very often when people discuss this, they do not take into account the fact that 20% of this House’s Members are Cross-Benchers, from a whole range of professions and backgrounds, who have a responsibility to think independently of party. That 20% figure has not of course been finally agreed, but in the previous set of proposals there seemed to be a growing consensus on it.

In the Commons, the Government have a working majority of 79 in a House of 650. If that majority were reflected in a House of Lords of 450, it would mean a majority of 53 over the opposition party and, in addition, the House would have 90 Cross-Bench Members. In other words, even if there were a coalition Government, it could not be taken for granted that the Government would get their way, for they would have to convince the majority of the Cross-Benchers. A healthy House of Lords, I suggest, is one in which the Government should not be defeated on a regular basis but would be defeated from time to time. Of course, that begs the question of what is “regular” and what is meant by “time to time”. Finally, going back to a previous point, it would be the responsibility of the independent Appointments Commission, working with party leaders, to ensure that this balance was kept.

I welcome the push that this report has given us to think about incremental changes that could be made, even at this stage. However, the recommendations of the royal commission go further and enable us to achieve more in this direction, whatever we finally agree about whether this House is to be fully elected, fully appointed or a hybrid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs]

Well, he is a Lib Dem. Anyway, I genuinely believe that the House will become unmanageable if it goes on being made larger and larger. We have to find some way to control its size. That is why we on the working group looked at a retirement age of 80, coupled with people who do not play their part in this House no longer being Members. Those two things have to go together. I still think, even if I have to fall on my own sword, that that is at least one option for reducing the size of the House.

My noble friend mentioned that all First Readings of Bills should be in the Commons, even if half the Second Readings then come here. That would ensure that the Parliament Act would bite on all legislation. As for giving only a delaying power for orders or statutory instruments, that seems sensible. All of us when in opposition have wrestled with disliking an order and not wishing, as an unelected House, to actually kill it; we have all had that difficulty. So a three-month delay period would be sensible.

As for reviewing the role of the Lord Speaker, although this is not a debate about that important role, the way in which Questions work in this House means that those who are more pushy—I hate to call my fellow Peers bullies, but those who act like bullies—push out other noble Lords in getting supplementary questions. That is not satisfactory, and we know that it does not work. We know that some of us are reluctant to push in with supplementaries simply for that reason.

I noted what the right reverend Prelate said about robes. His argument would be that we should wear them all the time—heaven forbid. The problem, as my noble friend said, is that whenever there is a photograph of Members of this House, we are always wearing those robes and we look totally out of date for modern times. Frankly, it is just not a sensible way forward. I should like to add to that the suggestion that we get rid of titles. If one is introduced or if one introduces oneself with a title, the other person—if they are a normal human being—looks at us as if we are complete nerds, or they become entirely deferential. Neither is a sensible way to have a rapport with anybody. It stands in the way of our dealing and engaging with ordinary people.

I put forward one suggestion before without getting much acclaim, which was that anyone who wants to stay in this House should drop the title and, if they want to keep the title, they should retire for good. That would sort out those who say that they keep their titles only because their wives demand it, which I have heard on more than one occasion.

I support the idea of a constitutional commission, provided that it is not a long-grass job and that there is a time limit, because there are too many difficult issues that need to be resolved. I wanted the report to steer the constitutional commission towards working out how best to achieve an elected second Chamber, but I was dissuaded from that by my noble friend on the very sensible grounds that, if we tell a constitutional convention or commission what it should do, it will hardly be able to do its job properly. We would simply be ordering what should happen.

Yes, many hereditary Peers make a fantastic contribution to this House, but I think that the time for having them is over.

I shall just tiptoe on thin ice on the subject of Bishops. I believe that many of them make an enormously useful contribution to this House, but they do it because of the individuals they are. If Bishops are to continue to sit in this House, I should like them to be appointed or elected to it in the same way as everyone else.

I fear that my next comment will offend the right reverend Prelate. He criticised lobbyists. That is fair enough. However, I fear that I shall make a lot of enemies by saying that the only paid lobbyists in this House are the Bishops. That is an anomaly.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the noble Lord for that comment which deserves a response. Bishops do not represent the Church of England in this House but seek to represent some of the feelings in their diocese as a whole. As the right reverend Prelate said, he is in touch with all the communities in Derby. The Bishops are not pursuing the interests of the Church of England alone but also representing other faith communities.

[Lord Dubs]

I hear what the noble and right reverend Lord says. However, I stick by my point: we took care to avoid having paid lobbyists in this House, and we should ensure that we do not apply that principle selectively. However, as the group said, we should leave that matter to a constitutional commission. This is not a bad report. I welcome it and hope that the House will endorse it.

Standards in Public Life

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, before turning to the survey in more detail, I would like to make some brief points of a more general nature about the seven principles of public life. First, these principles are absolutely fundamental to the healthy functioning of any society. Without them, a society can only be regarded as sick and it certainly would not function as it ought. Secondly they exist in their own right, valid in themselves, with a claim upon us. They cannot simply be read off or derived from any scientific or economic description of society. That is why, if I am honest, I think the word principle is a somewhat weak term. We could, for example, say things such as, “I am going to run the organisation along the following principles”, as though these were guidelines I had chosen, when I could have chosen others. However, the qualities that we need for public life are not items in a bag that we decide to choose. They are a sine qua non of any ordered society. For example, if a Minister lies in his private life, he will have to sort it out with his family as best he can but if he lies to Parliament, he rightly has to resign. Truthfulness, trustworthiness, integrity and a concern for the wider good are not principles that we just happen to choose. They are the fundamental values which make possible any ordered life together.

So it is very good to know, as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, emphasised, from the introduction of the report, that the public have consistently prioritised these principles across the five surveys. It is clear that the public have continuing high expectations of those in public office and that is very healthy. As the survey indicates, there is an overall decline in standards since the survey in 2008 and this stands in marked contrast to an overall continuous rise from 2004 to 2008. The report was correct to point out that the decline since 2008 had much to do with the financial sector, particularly the banks in bringing about the economic crisis, and the newspaper hacking scandal. So, as is pointed out, if trust can be lost, it can also be regained, as it rose in some areas in the years from 2004 to 2008. That is an important point and we must respond to it.

Nevertheless we cannot get away from the fact that the overall rating of standards has declined very sharply. In 2004, 46% rated them quite high or very high but by 2012 this has fallen to 35%. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, emphasised the importance of educating public office-holders. I suggest that the Government have a responsibility, both through the Department for Education—in citizenship education in schools in particular—and the Department for Communities and Local Government, through its cohesion programme, to try to educate religious communities and, not least, their leaders. Religious communities now have a key role in thickening the moral fabric of our society. Communities of all faiths have a particular opportunity to feed into and strengthen the moral bonds that hold us together and which enable public life to truly serve the common good.

Georgia

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the current situation in Georgia.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, we are encouraged by continuing progress in Georgia in building democracy and embedding reform, including the well conducted presidential election that took place on 27 October 2013 and the initialling of Georgia’s association agreement with the EU at the Vilnius summit.

Following a period of cohabitation, Georgia now has a new President and Prime Minister, both from the same political coalition. The current political situation is calm but it will be important that parties work across the political divide in 2014 to ensure stability and that the rule of law is upheld.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister. As he knows well, under the previous President, President Saakashvili, Georgia was a strongly pro-Europe country with a flourishing economy. The present Government seem a great enigma. Can the Minister enlighten the House with more detail about their political and economic policies? In particular, can he say something about their treatment of associates of the previous Government?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the new Government are becoming a little less of an enigma as we get to know them better. There have been a number of exchanges. Their new Interior Minister was in London last week and a number of British Ministers have visited Tbilisi, including myself last year. We are coming to terms with the new Government, which sustain the European and Atlantic orientation of their predecessors. There are a number of worries about the treatment of former Ministers and officials of the previous Government. We are actively concerned with these and make representations to the new Government about them.