Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow a fellow Orielensis, although I am afraid I have a few years on the right reverend Prelate—several, actually.

I would like to speak directly to the leaders of the Church. As a member of the Church, about which I care deeply and that is why I am speaking, I speak in some despair and in sorrow rather than anger—but with a little bit of anger as well. I join my noble friend Lord Bellingham in regretting the manner in which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury was, frankly, driven out of his post in a sort of witch hunt. Who, even 40 years ago, seeing John Smyth taking young adults to a shed at the bottom of his garden and flogging them, did not know that that was, at the very least, weird and creepy? It was not the most reverend Primate who was to blame; it was a huge number of other people who did not take action.

I saw that the most reverend Primate’s speech was criticised for some levity. I read the speech—I was not here, unfortunately—and I thought he spoke very well. People must move on; he has taken responsibility for the whole Church, and the Church—and we—should be grateful for that.

I turn to the role of the Church in social cohesion, which I would have thought was pretty central and fundamental to the role of the established Church of England. I am speaking here of the Bishops’ Bench, which I note is no longer the Tory party at prayer. I fear that the hierarchy has lost touch with the Church as a whole. It has lost touch with a lot of parish priests, and it has lost touch with people in the pews. I am one of those people in the pews. I can speak only for myself, but I know that a lot of people agree with me.

As I sit in church on a Sunday, I see a Church that is dying on its feet. It is becoming more and more irrelevant. Congregations are dwindling, as we all know, yet, frankly, the Church is to a certain extent fiddling while it burns. Let me quote, if I may, from the most reverend Primate in last year’s debate, when he said:

“You could get rid of the House of Bishops tomorrow and it would be years before anyone noticed the difference, but if you get rid of parish priests, the whole thing would collapse overnight”.—[Official Report, 8/12/23; col. 1704.]


Let me illustrate this with the diocese of Leicester, where I live. A hundred years ago, there was no see of Leicester; every parish had a priest. Now, we have two bishops in Leicester—I am not criticising either of them, by the way; I get on well with Martyn Snow—but we have no priests in the vicarages. Indeed, I live in a benefice of 11 parishes which has not had a resident priest for over five years. There is no local guidance or leadership except by volunteers, and that is not quite the same.

Let us talk about guidance at the highest level. In his speech, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said that institutions play a “vital part” in cohesion. The parish church, which I believe he referred to as well, is an institution throughout this country of England. He also talked about Christian values. He referred to

“values that need to be taught and cherished”.

I could not agree more.

In the Covid pandemic, when society desperately needed leadership, the churches were closed. What was all that about? What about the education of children under the coronavirus restrictions? Perhaps many people did speak out, but I did not hear bishops saying, “This is outrageous. We are damaging the future of our children’s education for, frankly, nothing very much”.

In my diocese, parishes cannot get churchwardens, and one of the reasons is because of things such as faculties. Have noble Lords ever tried to get a faculty through a diocese? It is absurdly bureaucratic, and it seems that sometimes the Church is more interested in bureaucracy than in the mission it should be pursuing.

I rejoined the PCC after several years, and at the PCC meeting last week, the churchwarden—who is a woman who I would guess is in her late 30s, and who has two children—said, “Oh God, the resignation of the Archbishop will lead to yet more safeguarding training”. We all want to be safe but does safeguarding training work? Has anybody done a study as to whether it works? Of course it does not. We knew John Smyth was a wrong ‘un at the very beginning; we did not need safeguarding training for that.

The churchwarden also said, “The only children in the church are my two—why do I need to do safeguarding training?”, which is exactly what my wife said when she was churchwarden some 20 years ago. She had to do safeguarding training, yet our children were the only children in church. So please, do not weigh down volunteers, when there are no priests, with bureaucracy. Let us rely on good values, good judgment and good human nature until we are proved wrong.

Institutions and tradition, of which the most reverend Primate spoke, are part of the cohesion of society. At the 60th D-day anniversary in the cathedral, which was very good, those marvellous words of Spring Rice, “I Vow to Thee, My Country”, to the beautiful music of Holst, were replaced. We had—I am paraphrasing; I apologise—“Let’s all hold hands and dance around and be nice to each other”. I am sorry, but it was “I Vow to Thee, My Country”. I sung the old words, your Lordships will be surprised to hear. If I might say so to the most reverend Primate, we do not need more strategies. We need to return to the Christian mission of a Church based on Christian values. Let us look at the membership of the Church and stand up for it.

I will try to encapsulate what I want to say: let the Church of England look after its own, with parish priests, and not criticise all those, such as myself, who hold conservative views. I sat through the debates on Rwanda and so on, where I was told that, basically, I was being unchristian because I wanted to do what I think most of other countries in Europe are trying to do in offshoring illegal migrants. Let us realise that conservative values, funnily enough, are based in Christian tradition—I am not knocking socialists or left-wing values—so let the Church of England look after the people of England and its congregations and look for a spiritual renewal in society.

Before I close, I will give another illustration. While parishes are desperately trying to raise money through church fêtes—or whatever it might be—the Church is giving £100 million to right the wrongs of slavery. You cannot do that; it was over 200 years ago. To cite something that I wrote previously: I feel no guilt for the actions of past generations, nearly 200 years ago. As an historian, I know the history of slavery: the Arab and tribal raiding parties that delivered slaves to the coast of west Africa; the abolition of the slave trade in 1807; the work and sacrifice of the West Africa Squadron in the 19th century; the total abolition of slavery throughout the Empire in 1833; and the expeditions to prevent slavery in Ghana, Benin and elsewhere, which were costly in British lives as well as African ones. I recommend the book Bury the Chains by Adam Hochschild; he is not a Brit but an American, so he is not particularly pro-British.

Certainly, our ancestors did many wicked things that are totally unacceptable by today’s standards, both before and after 1807. But revisionist history used to be despised as the work of dictatorial regimes in the 1930s, not something associated with a democratic nation that favours free speech, debate and scholarship. I use this as an example of the confused priorities of the Church, of which I remain an active member, while it struggles to exist.

In fact, there is modern slavery. I went to Sudan 20 years ago, where apparently there has been slavery between raiding parties, although that may have ended. Certainly, there is forced labour—aka slavery—in Xinjiang province. I would like to hear more about that, rather than the past wrongs of 200 years ago. I say to the Church: please stand up for the people of England and the people of the Church of England.

Covid-19: Lockdown Costs and Benefits

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Robathan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what initial assessment they have made of the costs and benefits of the enforced lockdowns during the COVID-19 epidemic from March 2020.

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Baroness Neville- Rolfe) (Con)]

As set out in its terms of reference, the Covid inquiry will examine, consider and report on preparations for and the response to the pandemic. We expect the inquiry to explore comprehensively the questions asked by my noble friend, identify lessons learned, and inform economic and other preparations for future pandemics.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, which is why I ask this Question. The inquiry to which my noble friend refers appears not to be looking at the value of lockdowns, which is illustrated by a letter, highlighted in today’s newspapers, by 55 academics, who say that this is what it should do. We all know the costs: devastation of the economy and of education—both of children at school and of those at university—worklessness, backlogs in the courts, mental ill-health, excess cancer deaths and an NHS in chaos. As for the benefits, well, some lives probably were saved, but probably more were lost because of excess deaths through lack of diagnosis and treatment. The Government did very well not to listen to the siren voices of the Opposition, who might still have us locked down in a bunker for ever. Who now thinks that lockdowns were a good idea? Will my noble friend commit the Government to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny of the costs and benefits, including voting on it, before contemplating a policy of another disastrous lockdown in the future?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the pandemic was an unprecedented event, and the UK Government came together very well to deliver an unprecedented response to save lives and livelihoods and keep people safe. It is for the inquiry, with the benefit of hindsight, to determine whether the decisions to lock down were appropriate and timely and to advise on lessons for the future, such as on cost-benefit. I cannot prejudge its conclusion while it remains ongoing, but we are all aware of the impact of the pandemic on individuals, society and the economy.

Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, we have all been contacted by many people about this Bill, so I have been looking at it to understand it. Physical abuse, detaining somebody against their will and assault are already illegal, so what is the Bill about? What is it for?

To explore this further, I read a Times article on 1 February—last week. It should have clarified the situation. Others will raise more points in detail but I will concentrate on the article, which purported to clarify the situation. The headline reads: “Conversion therapy? It must be banned. I should know”. The journalist, Emily Sargent, who is gay,

“went undercover to try it and was shocked by the damage it did”.

In brief, she was paid to write this article and, in pursuit of remuneration, she lied and said to a therapist that she was unhappy about being attracted to women. All the sessions were on Zoom. I quote the article:

“When I logged on to our first Zoom call the woman—whom I will call Carol—appeared to be a harmless-looking, middle-aged lady in a cosy, middle-class home”.


It quickly changed. She says:

“The process … quickly became destabilising. I dreaded the sessions, which were making me feel wrung out and depressed”.


She could have stopped.

Emily was also horrified to be asked about her sexual relationships—these were six counselling sessions about sexual relations—and about her relationship with her parents. That is pretty standard for psychologists, of which more later. She then says that she felt “exploited”. One might ask who was exploiting whom: Carol, whom Emily called “empathetic and gentle” and who had been asked to give counselling, or the journalist who deceived her, was paid for the article and could have switched off Zoom at any time?

Emily Sargent concludes:

“There is no doubt that a ban on these practices is wildly overdue”,


but she does so without any evidence in her article that I can see. Personally, I am against banning things just because someone does not like them—as, indeed, I am against pointless legislation.

We are also told that the therapy does not work. The Library briefing says that, in a government survey of 108,000 LGBT people, fewer than 3,000 had undergone this therapy—presumably all voluntarily. So what is the problem that the Bill wishes to solve? I note the BMA’s briefing, which I will read from now. The BMA says that it “strongly supports” the Bill and that:

“Talking therapy is recognised as a legitimate clinical pathway to those questioning their gender identity or sexual orientation. Such therapy is typically explorative and patient led, and thus cannot be seen as seeking to supress or deny an individual’s understanding of their gender identity or sexual orientation”.


It concludes, rather illogically, that it wishes

“to ban conversion practices in their entirety”.

I ask again: what is the purpose of the Bill? Is it to ban talking therapy, which the BMA calls “a legitimate clinical pathway”, or is it to ban physical assault, which is already banned and illegal? It seems to me, I am afraid, to be purely virtue signalling to placate a very small, outraged minority who think that their choice of lifestyle must never be questioned or discussed, however gently, by parents or anyone else.

I would like to conclude on a lighter note; I find it amusing, although others may not. Some 43 years ago, when I was young, I did SAS selection. At the beginning, Derek, who was running the course, said to me, “Andrew, somebody in the MoD has been persuaded that we can identify potential SAS officers using psychologists. You have been chosen”. So I filled in a long questionnaire, then met a man who asked me lots of questions. I had just trained a dog and had put that down as an interest, so we talked a lot about it. After some 20 minutes, he suddenly said, “You haven’t mentioned your mother”, to which I replied, “But you haven’t asked me about her”. At the conclusion of the selection, Derek told me that the psychologist had said I was totally unsuitable and could not possibly pass selection. The lesson I drew from that was: what do psychologists—or indeed therapists—know?

Homelessness: Veterans

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, everyone regrets anyone being homeless, especially veterans. As a veteran myself, I can say that. When I was the Minister responsible for veterans in the Ministry of Defence, which was immediately after the Labour Government left office, there was a lot of talk about veteran homelessness then. I went to see Veterans Aid, an excellent organisation that operates out of London. The man in charge of it, an ex-RAF wing commander, said, “Not everyone who says they’re a veteran actually is one, but they get better treatment if they are”. Does my noble friend agree that, as she has so rightly said, not everyone who says they are a veteran is one, but they get better benefits if they are?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The way I look at it, we need to help veterans. We have the veterans covenant, to say that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, are treated fairly. It was right that we changed the law in 2012 so that veterans with urgent housing needs are always given high priority for social housing. Of course, local authorities have to make sure that people who say they are veterans are veterans, but we must move forward and not be deterred by the odd difficultly. It is great that so few veterans are homeless; we should celebrate that.

Living in a COVID World: A Long-term Approach to Resilience and Wellbeing (COVID-19 Committee Report)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall of course be brief because I am speaking in the gap. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and her committee for producing this report. I congratulate her on it. Unbelievably, it is now two years ago that they finished it, and things have changed since. I might not agree with everything in it, but I will concentrate on what I think is the most important issue. Sadly, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, has yet to reach this in her inquiry—I suspect that she wonders why on earth she ever took on the job.

The most important issue is whether the so-called cure was worse than the disease. Nobody doubts that Covid was an extremely unpleasant disease and that it kills people—but, frankly, not many people under the age of 60 unless they had some underlying health conditions. In the lead-up to March 2020, we heard from Messrs Whitty and Vallance that we needed herd immunity and to shield the elderly, who were vulnerable, and other vulnerable people with underlying health conditions.

As we heard, huge damage has been done to mental health and education—what good did closing all the schools do?—and other health issues were caused, such as undetected cancers. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about some of those. Of course, we now have higher death rates in other fields than we had from Covid.

We have saddled our children and grandchildren with the most enormous debt around their necks for decades to come. We have crashed the UK economy, as I think everybody knows; the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, referred to the cost of living crisis, which is closely related to the failures of policy during the coronavirus pandemic. I should say on behalf of the Government, although I do not always defend them, that the Opposition, both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, were hounding the Government to go further and further.

Lockdown was an absolute disaster. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, mentioned cost-benefit analysis. I had a debate on that to try to get the Government to give us one, but answer came there none. The heart of the matter is whether the Government knew best. I have always felt that the gentleman in Whitehall never knows best. I was derided and insulted for asking that question and for challenging lockdown policies. Therefore, before I sit down, I ask the Minister and anybody else who wishes to answer: who now thinks that lockdown policies were a good idea?

Nuclear Test Veterans

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The noble Lord was kind enough to mention to me that he had written to the Government on this matter. His letter has been passed to the Ministry of Defence, which will reply to the detailed points that he has raised. However, there is one certainty: the nuclear test veterans can apply to the Ministry of Defence for access to any personal information. That request can be for any relevant health records or blood data within their service record.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, a dozen years ago, when I was working in the Ministry of Defence, the nuclear test veterans’ organisation brought a case against the Ministry of Defence for compensation. It went to the Supreme Court, which included, at the time, our late and much-respected colleague Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. After some deliberation, it found that there was no case to answer. Indeed, our investigations at the time found that, if one had watched a nuclear test in the South Pacific in the early 1950s, against a cohort of one’s peers, one was more likely to be alive than they were, for whatever reason. That was quite extraordinary. I say to my noble friend the Minister: let us respect those who did their work and duty in the South Pacific but please let us not be led down a blind alley by people who, for some reason, believe that they were harmed. Actually, they were doing their duty, but they were not harmed.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that history, of which I was not aware. I point out that any veteran, including those of the nuclear tests, who believes that they have suffered ill health due to service has a right to apply for no-fault compensation under the War Pensions Scheme. War pensions are payable in respect of illness or injury as result of service in the Armed Forces and with the benefit of reasonable doubt always being given to the claimant, which I regard as very important.

Covid-19 Inquiry

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 8th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

It is indeed the case that the Scottish Government are doing their own separate inquiry, and they organised separate arrangements during the pandemic. The inquiry is in the hands of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett. She is doing a very wide-ranging inquiry, and the timing of its results depends on her work, which, as I have explained, we are trying our very best to progress. We are providing a huge amount of support from right across government.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My noble friend will recall that, back in 2020 and 2021, the opposition parties were very keen to lock down for longer and harder than we actually did. Could my noble friend tell us what assessment the Government have made of the efficacy of lockdowns and the costs to the country in social, economic, health and educational terms, and whether anybody now believes that the lockdowns were a good idea?

Out-of-work Benefits

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Robathan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are planning to take to reduce the number of people in receipt of out-of-work benefits.

[The Parliamentary-Secretary, Cabinet Office, and Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, building on all the work that we have done to date, we will continue to support people to move into and progress in work. Unemployment is at a near low of 3.5%, so our efforts have to date been working. Our comprehensive labour market offer gives claimants the best possible chance to be financially independent. We are investing £900 million in each year of the spending review into our work coaches, who are fundamental to help move people from welfare to work. As noble Lords all know, we are raising the administrative earnings threshold, strengthening the support we give to claimants, and setting very clear work expectations of claimants and a very clear outline of what we will do to help them.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

That is helpful, but there is a severe labour shortage in this country. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell me the exact number of people who are on out-of-work benefits within the working age population. Estimates vary but in some areas it is one in five people; in some cases one in four people is on out-of-work benefits. Of course, many people are disabled and need support, but the coalition Government of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats got a lot of people back into work with support. At the moment, the number of people on out-of-work benefits is rising at a time of labour shortage. What more can the Government do?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My noble friend makes many important and accurate points. As of February 2022, 5.18 million working-age adults, or 12.7% of the GB working-age population, were receiving out-of-work benefits, the largest category being UC out-of-work or no work-related requirements. We are trying to reduce the flow into unemployment and inactivity by supporting disabled people and people with long-term health conditions; prevention and retention work, including launching a national information and advice service to help employers, because it is only employers who create jobs so they are the ones we need to work with to move people into work; and our interventions that I have already described, including large-scale trials of additional work coach support for the 2.8 million customers with health conditions.

Extreme Heat Preparedness

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I know that information on the specific number of meetings that have taken place between Ministers and the devolved Administrations has been given to the House on a number of occasions. I can absolutely assure the noble Baroness that in these circumstances we are and have been working closely with the devolved Administrations, and we will continue to do so.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I have been banging on and boring on about climate change for 30 years—at first it was considered a rather eccentric obsession—but the Government’s reaction to this is extraordinary. This is not a nanny state. Does my noble friend think there is anybody who does not understand that if you are getting dehydrated you drink water and if you are hot in the sun you get into the shade? Everybody knows that. We do not need an industry pursuing it. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Forsyth. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the common-sense advice that my noble friend gives. The British people are a wise people, just as they are a generous people, and I think they are perfectly capable of taking common-sense measures. But there is no harm in those in positions to advise, whether in the health service or elsewhere, giving health advice. For example, heat can be specifically dangerous for those with particular cardiovascular conditions. There needs to be a mix but ultimately, we rely on the common sense and good sense of the British people.

Downing Street Parties: Police Investigation

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

Most noble Lords will understand why I am not going to speculate on the timing of the progress of either investigation. I have told the House that aspects of the Cabinet Office investigation will continue. Obviously, there is an independent police investigation. I am sure the noble Lord, with his great experience and great service to the country, will understand that those two inquiries must be allowed to run their course.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I am not, contrary to what people might think, a cheerleader for the Prime Minister. Indeed, when I had the opportunity, I did not vote for him, for a number of reasons. However, I think we should get things in perspective. It seems to me that the great British public are not terribly concerned about—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I am not talking about Members of the House of Lords sitting opposite, I am talking about the British public. I do not think they are very concerned. I care very much whether the Prime Minister lies, as it happens, because I think Prime Ministers should have integrity. However, the instability at the top that has been caused by this furore is deeply worrying when we have geopolitical events in Ukraine. Frankly, I think most people would like to see the Government getting on with it. Perhaps the Prime Minister will eventually have to resign, but I think that what is now happening in Ukraine and elsewhere is more important.

[Lord True (Con)]

I will not agree with every aspect of my noble friend’s remarks, but he does make a point: the business of government must continue. We all know there are very grave matters before the Government, both domestic and international. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister is fully and actively engaged in those and made a Statement on events in Ukraine in the House of Commons earlier. I believe it is important that that factor is recognised.