Third-party Election Campaigning

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth on obtaining this important debate. Throughout the passage of the 2014 lobbying Bill through this House, my noble and right reverend friend was a tireless champion of the voluntary sector, and his having tabled this Motion shows that his commitment has not dimmed.

I was heavily involved in that debate, not least because I was extremely concerned about the effect that some of the provisions in Part 2 of that Act could have on voluntary sector organisations working within the criminal justice system. The aim given to the system by Prime Minister Tony Blair was to protect the public by preventing reoffending. The voluntary organisations play a major part in this, carrying out more than 50% of the work done with offenders. Much of that work is done by small, localised organisations working both in prison and in the community on behalf of the local public. They have nothing to do with party politics; nor are they organised in political constituencies. That is why I and others questioned the demands of the 2014 Act, which seemed to many to be a panic measure adopted by the coalition Government against lobbyists from America and the trade unions before the 2015 general election. For some reason, voluntary sector organisations were swept up in the resulting maelstrom, even though so many of them campaign only to tell the public what they are doing in order to raise funds for their work. This is a 365-day requirement and has nothing to do with general elections.

I can well remember meeting with the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, and accepting his undertaking that the issue would be revisited after the 2015 general election, particularly those sections which have affected the voluntary sector, once the Government had had an opportunity to evaluate their involvement or otherwise. Based on his undertaking, I did not press to a vote an amendment that was debated during ping-pong.

The fact that my noble and right reverend friend felt it necessary to bring forward the Motion suggests that the Government have not taken full account of the recommendations in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, nor listened to the voice of the voluntary sector. The result is that many organisations feel that, far from the sector not understanding the legislation—as is alleged to be the view of many Ministers and officials in the excellent brief provided by the Sheila McKechnie Foundation—too many Ministers and their officials do not understand the voluntary sector. I have felt this to be the case ever since the Ministry of Justice claimed ownership of any organisation to which it awarded a contract. In many spheres of government activity—such as health, justice and immigration, to name but three—voluntary sector organisations are essential partners but not owned by the ministry that employs them. That would violate the aim of any organisation and render its trustees liable to litigation being taken against them.

Therefore, I strongly support my noble and right reverend friend in this latest attempt to ask the Government to think again about the implications of the Act for the voluntary sector, certainly that part of it which has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Electoral Commission. The voices of voluntary sector organisations need to be heard, particularly if they are partners in any government activity, because unless they are allowed to speak out about the problems they face, no Minister or official will be aware of the problems and be able to take action to mitigate them. I suspect that the authors of the Act did not fully realise the implications of what they were doing to the voluntary sector, but they can no longer claim such ignorance in view of what was said during its passage, particularly in this House and in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I plead with the Minister to listen to those voices now, particularly the wise words of my noble and right reverend friend in moving the Motion, and agree to take back the need to revisit the parts of Part 2 of the Act that affect the voluntary sector—particularly those organisations that do not qualify for the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, as was enunciated so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.

Personal Identity Cards

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Monday 4th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I think what you call it is a voluntary system, as opposed to a compulsory one.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is already an identity card in existence and use? Thanks to the initiative of an organisation called Headway, people with acquired brain injuries are issued with a card which not only has on it their photograph but lists the symptoms that the brain injury has resulted in, such as speech defects or movement defects. That has been recognised by the police and is helping a great deal in preventing people with acquired brain injuries being arrested so often. It is interesting that the police, having recognised that card, are now very much in favour of an identity card, on which such information could be included.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am sure the whole House applauds the introduction of the voluntary system which the noble Lord has just referred to. Eighty-four per cent of the people in this country have a passport. That is a perfectly feasible form of identity available to anyone who wants one.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I shall confine my remarks to the prisons part of the prison and courts reform Bill announced in the gracious Speech, the aim of which has already been explained by the Minister. I was very glad that Her Majesty’s script did not include the claim, made in the Government’s notes, that the Bill would bring about the biggest reform of our prisons since Victorian times, of which I am both cynical, in view of past history, and suspicious, because we know so little about what it means. I also agree with the powerful analysis made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, of what needs reformation, and the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf about overcrowding.

All we know about the Bill, other than a trailer from the Prime Minister, is what the Justice Secretary told the Justice Committee in the other place on 16 March—namely, that, inter alia, he intended to give governors greater autonomy and to reconfigure the prison estate, to enable prisoners to “stay put” as far as possible throughout their sentence, and to involve local communities and agencies with them throughout their sentence and through the gate back into the community.

There is no doubt that our overcrowded, grossly understaffed prisons are failing in their duty to protect the public—witness their woeful reoffending rate. The former chief inspector’s characterisation of them as,

“places of violence, squalor and idleness”,

acknowledged as correct by Michael Gove, is coupled with levels of drug-taking and self-harm that should, as the Prime Minister has said, “shame us all”.

What I find even more shaming is that for over 25 years successive Ministers and officials have refused to implement “stay put” recommendations made by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf in his seminal report on the riots in Strangeways and 23 other prisons in 1990, repeated in the only White Paper on prisons, Custody, Care and Justice, published in 1991, and autonomy recommendations made by Sir Raymond Lygo, then chief executive of British Aerospace, brought in by the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, to review the managerial effectiveness and structures of the Prison Service. Both could have mitigated, if not prevented, the current situation. After so many years of determined resistance, is Michael Gove confident that his stay-put policy will be implemented?

In his letter to the Home Secretary of 12 December 1991, forwarding his report, Sir Raymond Lygo wrote that it is very clear that unless,

“there is a preparedness on the part of the Home Office to take its hands off the management of the prison service in its day to day business and allow itself to be constrained by policy”,

it will not be possible to,

“effect the changes which you deem desirable, and which have become very clear to me as being necessary”.

His report contained two other pointers that Michael Gove should consider. First:

“The critical factor, in the success or failure of any new arrangement, will be the ability of Ministers to allow the Prison Service to operate in an almost autonomous mode, while retaining their responsibility to Parliament for overall policy and conduct. To do so they will need confidence in the management structure and reassurance that the organisation is managing itself properly and in accordance with the objectives set out”.

Secondly, the reorganisation does not seem to have addressed a,

“problem to which the Woolf report referred, of the confetti of instructions descending from Headquarters”.

I am 100% behind Michael Gove in his desire to do something about the current situation and his analysis of what needs to be put right. But I warn him that until and unless he accepts such expert advice given by two such distinguished people following their detailed examination of an even worse situation than exists today, nothing will happen because, like every other attempt at reform that I have seen over the past 21 years, it will be stifled by two layers of risk-averse, micromanagement-obsessed, bureaucratic porridge consistently poured on the prison system by the Ministry of Justice and the so-called National Offender Management Service.

There is a degree of urgency to Mr Gove doing so, because the inertia inherent in the current management structure puts two other excellent initiatives at risk—namely his reviews of the youth justice system, due out soon, and of prison education, published last week. The author of the latter review, Dame Sally Coates, said:

“Governors must be autonomous and accountable, but they cannot operate unilaterally. There will need to be some practices that are centrally mandated to ensure consistency”.

This brings me to my final point. I have lost count of the number of times over the past 21 years that I have despaired, to successive Secretaries of State and publicly, that unlike every business, hospital or school, the Prison Service has no one responsible or accountable for any particular function—namely type of prison or prisoner—except for high-security prisons from which an escape would be a political embarrassment. Michael Gove launched his reform prison project last week, with two of the new governors telling me that they are to report directly to the chief executive of NOMS and no one else. When I hinted to an official that with his responsibilities for both prison and probation, he was far too busy to have time for the inevitable minutiae of a trial, I was told that, as I feared, they also came under a NOMS commissioner who was an official and not a member of the Prison Service.

I know that this is a pilot scheme, but is it really sensible to legally separate six of the 117 prisons in this country from the others, in which the bulk of the prison population will be held, without having a competent overall management structure in place? I wonder whether anyone, in either NOMS or the Ministry of Justice, has thought through the practical implications of autonomy.

Like Dame Sally Coates, I plead for a central mandate to ensure consistency, which has been noticeably absent from the post-Strangeways Prison Service. Like Sir Raymond, I fear that without a functional management structure and style, Michael Gove will find it impossible to effect the changes that he, and many others, deem desirable.

Soft Power and Conflict Prevention

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Friday 5th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords who have thanked the most reverend Primate for this very important debate. I also congratulate him on his very thoughtful and masterly introductory speech.

I declare an interest as a very chastened member of the soft power Select Committee, so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. As the son of a bishop, I have been taken to task, quite rightly, twice today—by my wife and by the most reverend Primate—for the fact that the church is not included.

One memory that I have of that committee is the evidence given to us by the high commissioner for Mozambique, who explained why Mozambique applied to join the Commonwealth and laid out very clearly the values which many noble Lords have expressed as being particularly British. However, I do not intend to say more about soft power at the moment; I intend to concentrate on a sentence in a letter that the most reverend Primate sent to me on 21 November. It said that the relationship between overseas conflict and the radicalisation of communities in the United Kingdom, and what we can do to limit that link, is also an issue for him and his colleagues on the Bishops’ Benches.

At the time, I was reflecting on the re-emergence on the world scene of one of the giants of the ending of the Cold War, Mikhail Gorbachev, and what he said in public on the occasion of the anniversary of the falling of the Berlin Wall. I very much agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, when she said that it is essential that we increase our understanding of Russia. Gorbachev said that the world was on the brink of a new cold war and that trust should be restored through dialogue with Russia. He said that America was still intoxicated by its Cold War “triumph”—whatever that meant—pushing everyone to take an anti-Russian position and that triumphalism was the reason why the global powers were unable to cope with the conflicts in Yugoslavia, the Middle East and, now, Ukraine. However, he ended by saying that it was too late to ratchet down the confrontation and that we must go back to the starting line from which we began building a new world both in Europe and elsewhere.

That caused me to go back in my own memories. During the Cold War, I was a soldier. In 1985 I was commanding an armoured division in Germany based on the side of the Möhnesee, which many people will have heard of. It was an extraordinary year. It was 40 years after the end of the war and the Germans have an extraordinary belief that two generations absolves you from any connection with what went on two generations before. The very remarkable mayor of Dortmund, which was a large town very near us, asked whether I would take part in a ceremony where all the political parties would mark 40 years of peace. I did so and said that we had made our contribution. I then asked him whether there was anything that he particularly felt the British should be thanked for. He said that it was interesting that immediately after the war we, the British, as opposed to the Americans, made the Germans responsible for the administration of Dortmund. By giving them something to do, it gave them back their pride, and pride is important in the development of a nation.

I never forgot that. In 1990 I happened to be in Hungary watching a Russian division being taken back to Russia by train. In the first part of the train were coaches of soldiers and then came all the equipment. The back part of the train consisted of trucks on which there were drainpipes, bits of wood, windows and doors. They knew that when they got back to Russia there would be nothing for them. It was quite clear that the pride had gone out of them. In 1993, I was asked by the head of the Russian army to go to Russia and advise on setting up a contract as opposed to a conscript army. I was taken to a place called Tver, which is halfway between St Petersburg and Moscow. I was taken to see a division which had been kicked out of Poland at 24 hours’ notice. The soldiers had been removed to this place and all their equipment had gone missing. They were living alongside families in rooms separated by blankets—there were four families living to a room. They asked what I would do if I were in a division living in Russia. I told them how we would live and how we would assimilate with the community. It was the most extraordinary day because we then went to see the mayor and asked whether he could arrange that. At the end, the general threw his arms around me and said, “Thank you so much helping the Russian army”, and I reflected that I was teaching it how to live in its own country. The tragic thing was that pride had gone. It is very important that we do not do anything to triumphalise over what the Russians are going through. We should remember that they see these sanctions as war.

I was also involved at that time with the United Nations, which picks up on what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was saying. I was co-opted by Kofi Annan into a committee trying to revive the old military committee to give some co-ordination to the peacekeeping operations that were developing all over the world. What was interesting was that we discovered that although peacekeeping operations were going on and contingence was being made, there was no co-ordination of the post-conflict reconstruction or humanitarian effort at all. One of our recommendations was that when a special representative was appointed he should have two deputies—a force commander and a humanitarian commander—and they must be equals. The military was trying to develop wider conflict prevention somewhere else by stopping someone in a country or assisting in the post-conflict reconstruction, because there could be no reconstruction and redevelopment until whatever opposed them had been removed.

I also declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. I was very pleased to hear the most reverend Primate say that soft power must be included in hard power when we are looking at what the national security strategy is. I could not agree with him more. I hope that it does not just develop into a scrap between the MoD and the Treasury, as the MoD is merely one of the players in this. It is desperately important that all the other players should have their say.

I have been thinking about the youth of this country. I took from my bookshelf a very remarkable book written by a godmother of mine, Amy Buller. It is called Darkness Over Germany and it was written during the war. It explains the almost religious grip that Nazism had over the youth of Germany. In it she said:

“If every Nazi were slain tomorrow, we should be left with the deeper and more terrible phenomenon of a German youth in desperate need of a faith … That need must be met primarily by Germans themselves, for it is obvious that, in such a situation, healing must come from within ... That these Germans will need and indeed seek the co-operation of other nations is clear, but the United Nations must show signs that they, in their several countries, know how to meet the needs of their own youth”.

She went on to describe a conversation with one of her students, who asked her:

“‘Didn’t you say that, however well the Nazis had organised, they would never have called forth that dynamic energy and passionate devotion of youth, unless they had somehow given answers, however false, to the more fundamental spiritual needs of youth?’”.

To which Amy replied by saying:

“‘Recognising that these things would not call forth the fanatical allegiance of the youth of this country, we may fail to realise the significance of the spiritual bankruptcy and real destitution underlying it all, for that is something which is evident to the whole of Western civilisation, though in more insidious forms and subtle dress. The real tragedy of the Nazi betrayal, not only of Germany but of Europe, is that it claimed to have given a radical answer to some of the most fundamental problems of our age. It is of the utmost importance that we should understand the problems that they were trying to solve, and then analyse, closely, the fallacious and heretical character of their answers. To a generation without faith, the Nazis gave a brutal philosophy, and millions of lives have been sacrificed to free the world of this false answer to real need, but let us not fail to understand that it was caused by real need. We are now faced with the greater task of bringing healing to the nations including our own. I am convinced this cannot be done without a faith in God adequate to the tremendous task of reconstruction’”.

Of course, we are dealing with different fundamental spiritual needs, but if we are to play our part in trying to provide the answers that our youth require to today’s problems, it is vital that we understand and repair our national strengths and weaknesses with regard to the protection and projection of the values that we as a country maintain. That includes our political masters, who I hope will read, mark and learn from what so many noble Lords have contributed to today’s debate, for which they and the whole House must thank the most reverend Primate.

Egypt: Human Rights

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I was fortunate to be added to the second visit of the all-party group to Egypt two weeks’ ago on the grounds that on the previous visit it was suggested that it would be helpful if someone with a military background joined the delegation.

I was particularly interested to have, first, a two-hour meeting with Mr Sisi—he was very much Mr, not Field Marshal, Sisi. We all came away impressed with the grasp that he had of the issues that were facing the country and some of the ways in which he said he was approaching them. He said that Egypt was embarked on a road map which had three main ingredients—two of which had been completed and the third was to come. The first was the writing of the constitution by the committee of 50. Like my noble friend Lord Hylton, I was extremely interested in the exposition of this by Mr Amr Moussa, a wise man. It was interesting that the scope of the people included in the 50- person committee was very wide. I definitely share the impression he got that the Muslim Brotherhood was not to be excluded from future discussions because it was very much part of Egypt.

The second part of the road map, of course, was the election of the president. Although people think that he had a vast majority in the votes cast, we were left under no illusion that the general feeling was that it was of votes cast and did not represent that percentage of the population of Egypt. I was gratified to hear that, knowing of the number of people who deliberately abstained, particularly from the Muslim Brotherhood, because that meant that he would not claim it.

The third part, of course, is the election of Parliament. Quite a lot of time was spent on that. Not least, we were interested to learn that guaranteed numbers of women and Christians would be appointed to that Parliament. Although it sounded extremely complicated, there was a kind of first past the post representation all over Egypt. There was then the production of party lists, which had to contain a number of people of different kinds. Then there was a presidential addition of 20. It all seems complicated but at least it is based on a constitution. Certainly I came away feeling that the jury was out and we would be unwise to be too critical of everything that is in train until it has actually happened and we can see what part it can play in the development of Egypt.

The second point that President Sisi made to us very clearly—as has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Williams of Baglan—was that Egypt comes first. As far as he was concerned, gender and religion did not matter. Provided that you put Egypt first, then Egypt welcomed you, but if you put something above Egypt, that was where you parted company. That is where—he did not say as much but others mentioned it—the Muslim Brotherhood had appeared to go wrong, because they had put something above being Egyptian. He went on to criticise the British for our involvement in Iraq and in Libya, and for leaving Libya so soon. Others added a little dagger with the two names of Sykes and Picot, who had successfully mucked up that part of the world. Our status was not as high as we would like .

However, President Sisi said several times that task number one was to put food on everyone’s table, so there was a feeling of reality in all these discussions. The person who most concerned me was the Minister of Defence, not least when he suggested that the internal security situation in Sinai was 85% under control. I did not get the chance to ask him about the other 15%. As a soldier, I have never been able to measure internal security situations in that way. I was interested in the co-operation with Israel over this because, not surprisingly, Israel has as much interest in any terrorism based in Sinai as Egypt has.

The other group which interested me enormously were groups of students, in a meeting arranged by the British Council. I was grouped with a wonderful team of about 15 male and female students from the old Egyptian university in Cairo. Had any of them voted in the presidential election? The answer was no. Were any of them going to vote in the parliamentary election? Again, the answer was no, because they were disillusioned with politics. This was rather sad, because they are the coming generation. They were bright and one just hoped that there was more from that.

So what did I conclude from all this? I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. When I look at the world and consider the national security interests, I look at the geopolitical position of Egypt, the junction between Arabia and Africa and that immensely important waterway between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. We have a very long connection with Egypt. Despite all the human rights problems, I think that the attitude of critical friend is the one that we should adopt.

Finally, the most interesting person we met quite apart from the political scene was the Grand Mufti. I had not realised until he spoke to us that when all these death penalties are passed in the courts, that does not mean that they have been passed. Every death penalty that is imposed then comes to the Grand Mufti and he looks at it from the Islamic point of view. It then goes to the appeal court, then back to the Grand Mufti, then to the president. So I suspect that there is quite a long way to go. That is not to say that I support any of this, but I am interested that there are checks and balances in the system. These ought to be allowed to work through before we damage our position in the eyes of a country which is one with which we ought to maintain friendship—albeit a critical one.

[Lord Judd]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I just ask him one question? It would be interesting to hear his research. In this House he is renowned for his stand on the implementation of justice and the penal system. Did he make any inquiries about what was happening within the penal system?

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I did not. I would dearly liked to have done so. However, the 62,000 my noble friend Lord Hylton mentioned are out of a population of 90 million, while we have 84,000 in prison with a far lower population.

The Future of the Civil Service

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Hennessy, not just for our having this debate but for the masterly way in which he introduced it. I admit that I am slightly fuelled by nostalgia in contributing because I had the great fortune to first serve in Whitehall in the 1970s, when the Ministry of Defence was fortunate in having some real giants of the Civil Service in its midst. I learnt very quickly the absolutely priceless value of having an independent, honest, impartial, objective civil servant. The integrity of those people was absolutely incredible.

It struck me then that of course you cannot conduct government, and you certainly cannot have continuity, consistency and stability, without that sort of bedrock. One thing was clear: there was locked up among them an institutional memory which meant that, when issues were raised, they could say not just, “It won’t work”, but, “The last time, or on previous occasions, this and that didn’t happen”. When I look around, I have to admit that, although I fully acknowledge the calibre and quality of those in the Civil Service, I regret that some of that institutional memory is being dissipated by the way in which people are being moved around.

All my foxes having been shot—I am not surprised by this—I absolutely agree with a commission; but I would like to focus on what my noble friend Lord Butler said about the importance of the relationship between Ministers and civil servants. It seems to me that there are two crucial words that are slightly old-fashioned and in danger of being lost in that relationship. One is “leadership”, and we should remember that leadership has to be given both to them and by them—by Ministers and by the Permanent Secretary. The other is “loyalty”. Loyalty is absolutely crucial, and loyalty in the Civil Service will not follow unless civil servants feel that Ministers are being loyal to them. That is hugely important.

If I have one final, lingering regret, it is that the wonderful series on television that we all enjoyed, “Yes Minister”, was not called “No Minister”; because I suspect that if more civil servants had said no to their Ministers, we would not have been plagued by some of the legislation with which we have been swamped in recent days.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

That, in the light of recommendations of the 7th Report from the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee (HC Paper 601–1), the 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights (HL Paper 61) and the 3rd Report from the Constitution Committee (HL Paper 62), and the report on Non-party campaigning ahead of elections from the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, so much of the orders of the House of 22 October and 28 October as relate to Clauses 26 to 35 and Schedules 3 and 4 be vacated, and that those clauses and Schedules be instead committed to a select committee; and that the select committee do report by 13 February 2014.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I should make it abundantly clear from the start, as I have done to the Leader of the House and the Minister, that far from being a wrecking Motion, this is a saving Motion designed to save the Government from doing untold damage to a very precious part of the big society that they claim to champion—namely, the voluntary sector—and to save the vast majority of voluntary sector organisations which have nothing whatever to do with the electoral process. That is why my Motion is confined to a very specific part of the Bill and organisations with which I and, I suspect, every other Member of the House are in regular contact.

I freely admit that it would have been more normal for me to have tabled my Motion at Second Reading, but it was only when the masterly report of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement entitled Non-Party Campaigning Ahead of Elections, under the outstanding chairmanship of my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth, was published after Second Reading that the need for urgent preventive action became abundantly clear. The report accentuated the points made by the constitutional Select Committees of both Houses and the Joint Committee on Human Rights to the effect that there are serious flaws in what is being proposed that the Government need to address. However, these could have been exposed had the Government allowed the three-month consultation period that hitherto they had been so keen to promote. By not engaging with the sector and pressing ahead with the Bill, which essentially addresses political matters, the Government appear to be oblivious to what they claim to be the unintended consequences for what I described at Second Reading as one of the “jewels in our national crown”; namely, the vast number of organisations that have nothing to do with the political process.

Last week, when we debated the unfortunate redundancies imposed on members of the Armed Forces within days and weeks of qualification for pensions, I mentioned the damage that this had done to the all-important mutual trust that there should be between government and people. I fear that the way that this Bill is being handled will seriously damage the trust that the voluntary sector has in the Government, which is something that the alleged champions of the big society can ill afford to lose. Indeed, the very clear exposition of the consequences set out in the commission’s report reminds me of the most succinct but unenforceable instruction that I ever saw in the Army: a note pinned to a company notice board which read, “A breach of common sense is a breach of the rules”. I was therefore glad when the Leader of the House contacted me last night, after I had tabled this Motion, to see whether there was a way of avoiding confrontation—which was, I assured him, the very last thing I wanted.

I hoped that a way could be found to mitigate the damage that had been done and to assuage a voluntary sector that is understandably worried and incensed. As it forms such an indispensable and irreplaceable part of our national infrastructure, I have to admit that I was amazed that the Government did not realise the risk they were running in tabling this part of the Bill. At Second Reading, I asked why the Secretary of State for Justice had not complained about the likely damage to those voluntary organisations that he hopes to engage as partners in his rehabilitation revolution. Like me, many Members of the House are wearing the annual symbol of the Royal British Legion, which, along with countless other organisations helping military veterans, is deeply concerned about these clauses.

During the day today I have had meetings with the Leader of the House, the Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the opposition Chief Whip and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, as well as regular contact with the voluntary sector. As a result of that, the Leader of the House has given me his word that he will alter the order of consideration of the parts of the Bill and instruct the Minister to consult my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries over the composition and terms of reference of an examination of the recommendations of the reports of the two constitution committees and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as well as of the report of the commission, and to produce a report to the whole House before a delayed Committee stage. I know that many in the House and in the deeply suspicious voluntary sector will feel that the Leader’s word is not enough and that what he has offered is less than I was seeking, which was for a Select Committee to be allowed to specify a three-month consultation period to conduct a similar inquiry.

The Leader added that, of course, opportunities still remain for amendment in Committee and on Report. As a soldier, I am accustomed to accepting pledges given by my Government in good faith. Therefore, if I do not press my Motion to a Division, knowing that I shall face the opprobrium of those members of the voluntary sector who do not share my faith, I would be doing so because the word of the Government is on the line. I know that this House and the nation know what to do and to think about those who do not keep their word. If the regulation is felt to need tweaking, by all means tweak it, but not in this way. I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for coming to talk to the Leader of the House and me this morning to set out frankly his concerns about the passage of the Bill to date. Following our conversations, and having taken on board his constructive suggestions, I am glad to say that we seem to have an agreed way forward. I believe that we have come up with a way of delivering a pause in our consideration of Part 2 of the Bill so that there can be wide consultation over the coming weeks and so that the Government can try to address the concerns of those involved and interested in Part 2.

One of the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was that we could revise the order of consideration to delay our consideration of Part 2. I can undertake to return to the House tomorrow with a revised order of consideration Motion, to take Parts 1 and 3 first and Part 2 last. I understand from the Chief Whip that I can also undertake that the two days in Committee on Part 2 will not be scheduled before 16 December, on the understanding that we need to finish Committee this side of the Christmas Recess. That effectively gives a near six-week pause in our formal consideration of Part 2.

In that period, I and my colleagues in Government responsible for the Bill will consult widely with all the interested parties—Members of the House and the many others outside. We intend to draw on the work of the Commission on Civil Society, chaired so ably by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and to build on it so that the charity sector has a proper opportunity to explain to the Government its concerns not only with this Bill but, as we discovered in our conversations, with the current statute electoral law in this area, in particular the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We can also consider the reports generated by the two Houses. I also hope to facilitate further discussions between the Electoral Commission and the Charity Commission about each of their sets of guidance, in the hope of achieving something straightforward and agreed for those who have to work within it.

If the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, could report in three weeks, I am confident that we can find a solution in nearly double those three weeks. I stress that we are listening and that we want to listen. We have already shown willing: we announced this morning that we will bring forward an amendment, the effect of which will immediately be to exempt all smaller charities from the provisions of the Bill. If that listening ultimately proves not to satisfy all the concerns in this House, then there can of course be Divisions in Committee and on Report, as is usual and proper, and the House will have a final opportunity to stop the Bill completely on the Motion that the Bill do now pass at the end of the process. The House will therefore scrutinise the Bill in detail.

I believe that my proposal satisfies the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others hold and offers us a practical way forward this afternoon, one that will better enable the House to go about its scrutiny of the Bill as we all seek to get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I give an absolute assurance that we will take that fully into consideration. If the noble Lord would like to come to talk to me about it, I will be very happy to hear from him as well as from others.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in this short response to the Motion. In particular, I paid great attention to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said. In fact, in preparation for this, I consulted a previous recommendation to a Select Committee, which was made by my noble friend Lord Owen at the time of the Health and Social Care Bill. It was proposed and debated, but it related to a constitutional measure rather that a measure like this. However, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that the processes of the House should be allowed to proceed.

After reflecting on this and, in particular, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and her catalogue of things that need to be addressed, which I did not list, I hope that the Minister will be able to exercise the flexibility that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned, and that if, when this consultation and examination gets under way, it is discovered that the work needed cannot be done in the time before the new date for Committee, rather than rush things through, consideration will be given to pushing the Committee date yet further back to enable all the proper consultation and examination. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others said, this is a hugely important matter that cannot be allowed to go by default.

However, in the spirit of the assurances given to me by the Leader of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has already said that this is a very bad Bill, querying why it is being rushed through without proper pre-legislative scrutiny or scrutiny in the other place, and, I would add, without consultation with an affected contributor to the life of the nation, whose contribution is needlessly and avoidably being put at risk.

The Government allege that the aim of the Bill is to restore trust and confidence in the political system by ensuring that the public are able to see how third parties seek to influence it. Other noble Lords will speak on other aspects, but I intend to concentrate on what I hope are the unintended consequences of what is being proposed in Part 2 for one part of a sector that has never sought to influence electoral law but, rather, works hard to try to protect the public. I will not mince my words, because, given the indecent haste with which the Bill is being processed, there is no point in doing so. I believe that the Government should withdraw Part 2 of the Bill now or, at best, submit it to the consultation that has hitherto been denied before bringing in whatever legislation they then feel appropriate. In terms of the voluntary sector, I suggest that need be nothing more than minor amendments to existing arrangements.

I shall try to illustrate my reasoning by referring to those charitable and voluntary organisations that work in the criminal justice field. At present, the Secretary of State for Justice is seeking to implement what he calls a rehabilitation revolution. At the heart of this, he seeks to reduce the appalling reoffending rate, which is impossible to measure, by awarding contracts to private and voluntary organisations that will be paid by their results. The work that they do with and for offenders will be funded either by social impact bonds, taken out by investors, or the private and voluntary organisations themselves in the hope that they will be successful and so earn payment.

Contracting the voluntary sector is not something new to this Government, but the method is deeply troubling some members of both parts—foundations and trusts, which fund organisations, and the organisations themselves, some quite large and some tiny, which do the work up and down the country, for which they seek funding, either from foundations or trusts or from private donations. The Government call this a partnership, but one ingredient of a successful partnership is mutual trust. The Government must bear in mind that, as at least 50% of rehabilitation work is done by the voluntary sector, they must not do anything that undermines its ability or willingness to contribute to that work. Above all, the Government must avoid giving the impression that they think they own the voluntary sector—nor must they forget that donors do not give money to fund a contracting process; they give it so that the work that they wish to support can be conducted.

While some organisations may involve themselves with policy—indeed, some exist to conduct and publish research and recommendations—that is directed at whichever political party is in power, and in no sense can it be described as electioneering. Even if they were tempted to involve themselves, they are prevented from doing so by the current system of checks and balances, with regulation by the Charity Commission, including a document called CC9—Speaking Out Guidance on Campaigning and Political Activity by Charities, which sets out clear, sensible and balanced rules; guidance by the Electoral Commission on campaigning in the run-up to elections, including rules about supporting candidates and parties; and the fact that all charities must prepare accounts, which they must make available on request. Therefore, I believe that the restrictions on this most important activity by those in support of the criminal justice system that are implied in Schedule 3 of the Bill are not only inappropriate, because they are already more than adequately covered, but potentially damage the protection of the public.

When it is looked at logically, I am amazed that the Secretary of State for Justice did not seek to have Part 2 of the Bill suppressed because of its potential impact on his revolution, not least in the damage that the proposals are doing to the very trust and confidence that the Government seek to promote in the voluntary sector, which has always enjoyed the precious freedom to speak out on key issues, injustices and public concerns. So bad is this part of the legislation that it is unclear which work is classified as electoral campaigning, as opposed to publicising the public nature of work being done on behalf of the public. It is unclear before which election time limits are to be imposed—and there are elections of some sort in different parts of the country almost every year. It is at best difficult to attribute staff costs to different work streams, and small organisations find existing regulations time and money consuming enough now, every penny being spend on bureaucracy being denied to actual work.

I will not go on, because I have no doubt that other noble Lords will add to this catalogue during this debate. Whatever they may feel about lobbyists, I implore the Government to think again before they inflict unnecessary damage on one of the jewels in our national crown, our charitable and voluntary sector.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, no doubt many noble Lords will have read the claim in yesterday’s Times that weapon strikes against Syria following the chemical weapon incident on 21 August were legitimate—one of Thomas Aquinas’s conditions of a just war. The use of the word “war” seemed typical of a media-induced frenzy, on the back of which the Government appeared to be proposing that moral outrage justified unilateral military action, whatever the consequences. Thankfully, the measured introduction to today’s debate by the Leader of the House suggests that Mr Miliband has succeeded in introducing a degree of common sense into the situation, which appeared to be getting rapidly out of control, revved up by unsubstantiated assertions such as Mr Hague’s public statement that President Assad was responsible.

All this reminded me of my thoughts about the invasion of Iraq. In December 2002, I wrote to Mr Blair on behalf of a group that had met at the Royal United Services Institute to discuss non-military alternatives—those intermediate steps mentioned by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury—pointing out the damage that unjustified military action would do to the United Kingdom’s national interests by undermining the relationships that we had built up in the Middle East over many years, encouraging extremist Muslim organisations such as al-Qaeda to take retaliative action against the West in the West, and by causing us to be seen in the Muslim world as a warmonger rather than a peacemaker. Any international action should demonstrate a clear balance between long-term objectives and short-term gains, with regional issues paramount.

What particularly concerned the military members of the group was that this was the first time that we could recollect our Armed Forces being sent to war without feeling that the public was behind them, a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and my noble friend Lord Dannatt. Needless to say, we were not listened to, and in March 2003 I wrote in the London Review of Books that,

“perhaps our involvement in such a deliberate breach of international law will so change the world order that much wider rethinking will anyway be required”—

hence my concern about what our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary seem to be proposing. What is its aim? What evidence is there about exactly what chemical agent was used, and by whom? What moral or other authority do we have that justifies taking unilateral action against one side in another country’s civil war before United Nations inspectors have completed their work?

The United States, and by implication its allies, ought to be very careful about claiming the moral high ground in the chemical weapons era. Although Syria remains one of the five countries that has not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, neither America nor Russia destroyed their declared stockpiles by the 29 April 2012 as required.

Do the Government not recognise the irony of us appearing to support al-Qaeda, which is so strongly represented in the so-called rebel forces? Finally, do the Government think that members of our Armed Forces are impervious to public opinion? Much as I deplore the use of chemical weapons by anyone, with the long-term consequences of our recent short-term interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan staring us in the face, I simply cannot imagine why the Government do not recognise that taking unilateral action is bound to inflame an already burning situation. In terms of national self-interest let alone common sense, I say yes to humanitarian and diplomatic assistance and a contribution to a legal, proportionate and considered international response, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations, but a resounding no to unilateral military action.

Remembrance Day

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I, too, begin by thanking and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk, on obtaining this timely and important debate and on his masterly and moving introduction. In the wording of his debate, he has provided a possible let-out for the Government to extract themselves from an unfortunate position with regard to the Armed Forces covenant, to which I shall return.

Tomorrow uniquely, at 11/11/11/11, like many others I shall be remembering the sacrifice made and the recognition of it not only by citizens in the UK but in other parts of the world. I would like to draw attention to four of those places.

One lovely morning in early January in 1966, with the remainder of B Company The Rifle Brigade, I went to pay my last respects to the five members of my company who had died or been killed in Borneo and would not be coming back to the United Kingdom with us, knowing that they would be looked after by the Singaporean gardeners from that incomparable organisation, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. This has, in fact, happened.

Moving further west, I sometimes lecture at the battlefield of Gallipoli; a place of terrible beauty but also a place of extraordinary magnanimity which I can illustrate by two of the memorials. One witnessed by Lord Casey, later Governor-General of Australia, of a Turkish soldier carrying in a wounded Australian to the Australian lines. Secondly, a monolith beside that extraordinary Anzac Cove, a strip of sand on which the Anzac Corp was landed in error, containing the words of Kemal Atatürk, president of Turkey, who himself gained fame there.

“Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives,

You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country,

Therefore rest in peace.

There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets,

To us, where they lie side by side, here in this country of ours.

You, the mothers who sent their sons from far away countries,

Wipe away your tears.

Your sons are now lying in our bosom, and are in peace.

After having lost their lives on this land,

They have become our sons as well.”

They are wonderfully magnanimous words. And then I move further west to Hermanville in Normandy, where every year there is a ceremony, started by the French in 1946, with the 3rd Division which landed there on D-day. After has boat has gone into the sea and thrown out a wreath, and the French flags are lowered, a party led by the mayor and the general march to the village, where they are joined by the schoolchildren. In the cemetery, after the British flags have been lowered, the schoolchildren put flowers on every one of the 3rd Division graves. They have done that since 1946.

Finally, I move further west to Ocracoke Island on the coast of North Carolina, where I once went for a memorable weekend. My wife and I thought we had found a snow storm on the ground, but it was in fact a cloud of snow geese in migration. There, when having breakfast before going fishing, the man running the restaurant said, “Have you come to see our cemetery?”. I asked, “What cemetery?”. There are four graves of sailors from HMS “Bedfordshire”, which was a trawler sunk in May 1942, that are looked after every year by the United States Coast Guard; and Her Majesty the Queen is sending a new British flag this year to mark the anniversary.

Those examples show that our dead are acknowledged and recognised all over the world. The Armed Forces community this year was given a huge boost by the announcement of the Armed Forces covenant—an enduring covenant between the people of the United Kingdom, Her Majesty’s Government and all those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown, and their families. This covenant is based on trust and goodwill. Each of those three partners has obligations. Among those laid on the Government is,

“special treatment for the injured and bereaved, as proper return for their sacrifice”.

The despicable defiance of the covenants by the metal thieves has been referred to by many noble Lords during this debate. However, to me, much more serious is the continued defiance of the covenant by the Government and, in particular, I name the Secretary of State for Justice in his refusal to appoint a chief coroner—as mentioned by my noble and gallant friend Lord Walker, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Glasman. There were long-standing complaints about the failure of the coronial system to serve families up until the passing of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which appointed a chief coroner. The campaign was orchestrated by the Royal British Legion and the charity, INQUEST. Since then, despite the fact that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voted for the chief coroner, the Secretary of State for Justice has opposed that appointment on grounds of cost. However, the costs he uses are spurious, grossly inflated and have never been compared with the revised proposals made to him. Furthermore, he has produced no supporting documentation or explanatory calculations of cost-benefit analysis. If the costs were as high as he alleges, the Royal British Legion and INQUEST would share his concerns.

I am saying this not just because this is the eve of Remembrance Day, but because I believe that it would be a tragedy if the Armed Forces covenant was discredited before it was introduced. There is great danger of that happening over the issue of the chief coroner. I ask the Minister to say to the Secretary of State for Justice that it is not too late for him to reflect on the devotion of the Singaporean gardeners, the words of Kemal Atatürk, the actions of the schoolchildren in Hermanville and those of the US Coast Guard in Ocracoke. He should draw back before 23 November, recognising the damage that might be done to the trust in the Government’s honouring of the obligation that they owe to those who pay the ultimate sacrifice in the defence of this great realm of ours.