House of Lords Reform Bill [HL]

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Friday 3rd December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, for the way in which he moved his Bill again. I get closer and closer to some of his arguments. As I look down the speakers list, I see that out of the 25 speakers probably six or seven of us believe that the Bill is insufficient. I have spoken from that position on previous occasions when we have had the Bill before us, and I continue to do so, but I shall try to be positive to a degree because I recognise that there is much in the Bill that needs to be addressed by the Government if they intend to move forward with proposals that would remedy the deficiency in the Bill as I see it.

I make the point for the record, so that nobody says that noble Lords have not spoken for an elected Chamber, that some of us still believe in standing by party-political manifestos. I know that that may not be particularly fashionable in some quarters these days, but I believe in that. All the parties went to the British electorate at the last election with the very clear mandate that they wanted to reform the House of Lords and, in so doing, wanted to move towards a more democratic and accountable House than we have at the moment. I stand by that. I believe that if we are to build and restore trust with the public, there are a number of areas in which we can do that—and one in particular is by standing by manifesto commitments. Those who do not will suffer in due course, I believe. I wrote my notes at midnight last night and wrote some rather harsh things about some of our friends on the Lib Dem Benches which I shall not repeat today. But I believe that it is an important factor in the nature of the relationship between Parliament and the public.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, went through the history of how the House has changed. It is worth recalling that there has been a considerable change in attitude in the House of Commons to its relationship with this House since the 1990s. We have seen a whole series of attempts to affect change, but among the major changes that have taken place in the other place has been a move towards a majority in favour of an elected Chamber, although I am not certain whether it is wholly elected or partially elected. But that is a big change. If we believe in the supremacy in the Commons, we should take note of it—but, more particularly, we should take note of the votes that have been taken there, because never has there been anything like a majority vote in favour of a wholly appointed House. There is no indication at all that there is any support for that.

I move to one question that I need resolving fairly soon from the Government. Are we going to have a wholly elected House in the draft Bill that will come before us, or will we have a partially elected House with 20 per cent coming in by appointment and perhaps to the Cross Benches? If we are, that would answer many of the arguments that have been advanced so far against the way in which the quality of the House will be undermined if we move towards elections. I should like to have a response on that.

There is much merit in the major points made in the Bill. Yes, we need to have a change on hereditary Peers, and I believe that a majority here are in favour of that. Yes, we need a change on the leave of absence or retirement policy. Then there is what we do with people who commit certain acts and may be sent to prison. Yes, we need a change on that front.

Then we come to the major issue—the statutory appointments committee. I share the view that we need to move toward one, particularly if we have the 20 per cent appointed under the arrangements that may come this way. Does the noble Lord, Lord Steel, believe that what he has proposed so far is sufficiently open and transparent on the basis of the commission that he has advanced to date? We are now seeing the Commons call into account some of the appointments made to public bodies by the Government of the day. I think that we will find ourselves in a very strange position. We see a change recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now saying of the committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was chair that in future the House of Commons will have a right to veto who is appointed to the committee that will deal with budgetary control. It would be strange if we moved to set up a statutory committee to make appointments in this House that was done like the Star Chamber—in secret, with no access. We made the point about Lord Laidlaw, who made promises. Promises of that nature, when a committee requires people to give commitments, should be made in the public domain and be accessible by the public and be open to question by the public, rather than being done in secret, with debates afterwards about the nature of the exchanges that have taken place between people seeking to come into the House under this commission. Would the noble Lord, Lord Steel, consider the possibility that we might move more towards the kind of arrangements that they have in the United States, where congressional sessions are able to address in the public domain candidates for a particular post? They can see precisely where they stand and what they are prepared to do in future. That would be an important point worth considering and, one would hope, acceptable to most of the people interested in this. That is a positive change that we could look to in future.

I come back to the work that is being done. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, will speak later. He missed the brief Question that we had earlier this week—the discussion on the Lords—when we talked about how the conventions will be addressed. I have been pressing this for quite some time, but I have been told that I must wait. Had I had the opportunity of coming in earlier in the week, I would have asked the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, why if the previous Government under the Prime Ministership of Gordon Brown were able to set up a committee to do work on the conventions that was disbanded only when we came to the general election, and why if the Members of this Government saw the need for that work to be undertaken, are they now arguing that it does not need to be done until we have the draft Bill before us? The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked that question, and as yet we have not had an answer, so I would be grateful if the Minister could give a response today.

Violence Against Women

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Verma on 21 July (HL Deb, cols. 1056-7), what action they have taken to reduce violence against women.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on raising this important Question today, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I know the noble Lord is very concerned that this issue remains at the heart of addressing violence against girls and women. The Government’s ambition is nothing less than ending all forms of violence against girls and women. This is a key priority for us, and we will be setting out our guiding principles in this area over the spending review period. A detailed range of supporting actions will be published in the spring.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. I understand that a Statement may be made in the Commons at 11.30 am. I am sure she will agree, as probably will the whole House, that the assistance of the independent advisers on violence against women and young girls has been effective in reducing the amount of violence and, in particular, in saving public moneys which have been expended in these areas.

I congratulate the Government on extending the funding for them through 2010 to 2011, but we would like to know whether funding will be extended through to the end of this Parliament. The questions are simple: will the money be maintained at the current levels, will it go up or will it go down? Surely, it must go up if the Home Secretary’s ambition is to be realised.

Socioeconomic Equality Duty

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

I thank my noble friend for that. I was not involved in the Equality Act, so I do not know the minute details of it. However, from the start, there was always a clear understanding that the Conservative Party would not proceed with this part of the Act if we got into government.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I regret that the clause is going but, contrary to any contributions made so far, I commend the Government on their honesty in deciding to abandon it for the very simple reason that the other policies that they have announced, particularly in relation to downsizing the public service, mean that, as the noble Baroness said, they would not be able to implement the policy. Is it not true—I look to her for an honest answer—that the bulk of the half a million people whose jobs are to go will be the low-paid and women, and indeed many, particularly in London and the south-east, will be from ethnic minorities?

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

Can the noble Lord explain which part of Section 1 of the Act would in his view be violated in a way that would lead to legal consequences?

Women in Society

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness for initiating the debate and I wish her well with her programme of work in the future. I congratulate those who have made excellent maiden speeches today. I would like to pick up one of the main points that the previous speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, addressed, focusing on the topic of domestic violence within the home and within partnerships. I speak primarily about women, but this in no way understates the violence suffered by men in same-sex relationships or other intimate partnerships or the impact that violence has on the children.

As a society, we know that the cost of domestic violence is high. Violence is not only a human rights violation; it is also a public health issue. Research shows that domestic violence cost the nation £3.4 billion in 2008, but cost is just one factor. The fact remains that, despite all our best endeavours to provide refuges, to legislate to provide protection, to empower women and to educate our children about domestic abuse, women’s safety at home is still a major cause for concern.

Most female victims of domestic violence contact the police only after the 35th attack on them. During these 35 attacks, the women and children are left to deal with the impact of the violence in their homes, while the perpetrators of the violence—in the main, they are men, as has been said—continue to commit atrocities against their partner. Approximately 80 per cent of these men are outside the criminal justice system. However, a substantial number of men among them want to stop their violent, angry and abusive behaviour.

I am pleased to say that I am the patron of the Everyman Project, a charity that provides counselling to men who want to change their abusive behaviour. We also provide advice, counselling and safety planning guidance for the female or male partners of the men undergoing the counselling. The men learn to address their attitudes towards women and to cope with situations without resorting to violence. Their partners in turn learn how to plan for their own and their children’s safety. This process helps partners and family units to break out of the cycle of violence and to move forward and it complements other services available to women.

The work of the Everyman Project and of the Co-ordinated Action Against Domestic Abuse charity—especially through its multi-agency risk assessment conferences—shows that we do not need to wait for violence to reach a stage where the victim is forced to seek recourse through the criminal justice system. We can prevent violence at a fraction of the cost that it takes to deal with its impact. It costs £20,000 to support a high-risk victim of violence through key services such as the police, health, housing and associated children’s services. When all that is added together, an extraordinary amount of money is being spent annually after the event and after violence has been committed. Research indicates that it would cost less than a quarter of this sum to try to reduce violence with the aid of counselling services. The added bonus of that approach is that the violence would not reach such extremes and the women and children would be freed from the violence and its severe impact on their physical, emotional and mental health.

If we are to help to make the homes of women and children safe places in which to enjoy life, we need to reach men and women who perpetrate violence and are seeking to change their behaviour. In my opinion, we can reach these individuals only if we recognise the contribution of the voluntary sector in preventing violence in the home and make better funding available to make its services accessible to the wider community. Perpetrator programmes should not be limited to individuals who have been convicted and face imprisonment. They should not be made available after the event; we should take steps earlier, before the perpetrators are sent to prison.

I recently asked the Minister what action the Government were taking to help violent men who wanted to change their behaviour. She kindly told me that the Government were providing information to enable the Respect charity to run its phone line to offer information and advice to people who wanted to break the cycle of violence. The Government said that, in 2009, 1,234 calls had been made to the Respect line from perpetrators who wished to change their behaviour, of which 1,181 came from men—the calls came overwhelmingly from men. This may seem rather a low figure, but I argue that this is only the tip of the iceberg of those who are trying to seek assistance.

Websites offer a far more revealing insight into the numbers seeking assistance. For example, our Everyman Project runs a website. We are only a small charity but in 2009 we had 73,000 hits on our website, of which 12,000 were from regular visitors. Some 5,300 have had formal exchanges with us about their problems and the need to try to find solutions. We have also analysed their backgrounds. Interestingly, 50 per cent are from white backgrounds and 50 per cent are from mixed-race backgrounds.

However, we as a charity get not one penny piece of public money from the state. We constantly struggle, as do all other charities. I support the big society, of which we have heard so much this week, but many charities have great difficulty maintaining their existing programmes. If they are to grow in the way that the Government want, they will need assistance from the public purse. Will the Government continue to pay out the money that is currently being provided? Is there any prospect of that money being increased in the future?

The multi-agency risk-assessment conferences have been championed by the former Attorney-General, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, for a number of years and are extraordinarily successful. They bring together at local level all the participants in the highest-risk cases and all the agencies dealing with women and children who face violence. The local agencies then get together programmes for the men, who are invariably the perpetrators, and provide counselling programmes for all the parties involved. Research indicates that up to 60 per cent of domestic abuse victims have reported that, since participating in these conferences, they have suffered no further violence. There has been a remarkable saving in the costs that normally arise in the police, health and education services associated with tackling violence. For every pound spent on these conferences, we save at least £5 that would have been spent on the public services required to assist people impacted by violence.

Since 2006, we have rolled out these programmes throughout the country. Some 220 are now operating and there are plans for a rollout of a further 80. We are worried about whether that rollout will continue, let alone whether the money will continue to be provided to support the existing 220 programmes. Will the money continue to be provided to maintain this partnership? This is a partnership—the Government are not simply funding the conferences on their own; they are in partnership with the private sector and charities. A whole range of people are involved. Will the Government continue to support the existing 220 programmes? More important, from the long-term planning point of view, are the Government willing to support the rollout of the additional 80 programmes, which would provide national coverage? These conferences have made such extraordinary progress that officials from the Spanish Government have attended them to see how they operate. They are now being rolled out in Spain, with very good results. Therefore, I would be grateful if the Minister would answer those two major points about funding.