| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I too would express my dismay at any such case. I would be happy to take away any recommendations that the committee has and any evidence given to it. The statutory inspection regime covers private homes, of
8 Mar 2007 : Column 322
Baroness Neuberger: My Lords, much has been made of the Government’s desire to improve the environment of care homes, and rightly so. However, in the light of recent abuse and neglect cases, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, how rapidly does the Minister believe that we can move towards meaningful compulsory training for all care staff that leads to qualification?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important question. She will know that the Government are considering the whole question of the regulation of workers in the care sector. We have emphasised a need to focus on domiciliary care workers. I cannot give definitive date lines for all care workers, but I assure her that we regard the training of staff and professional regulation in a sector that deals with many vulnerable people as clearly of great importance.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we ought to move on. We are well into the 23rd minute now.
Privy Council Office
11.28 am
Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the Lord President will conduct early consultations with privy counsellors, opposition parties, senior members of the judiciary, chartered bodies, universities and other relevant non-governmental bodies about the proposed plan to abolish the Privy Council Office.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, changes to the management of the functions within the Privy Council Office were announced yesterday following consultation with the Law Lords, the devolved Administrations and the Palace. From 2 April, the four ministerial private offices will transfer to the Cabinet Office, and the Privy Council secretariat and support for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will transfer to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I remain Lord President of the Council and Leader of this House.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Lord President for her reply. Will she recognise that, when the Government’s plans were leaked last weekend, there was considerable concern, not least because not so very long ago the Prime Minister tried to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor by a snap of his fingers, without consulting anybody, even the Queen? Was it not high-handed to plan the
8 Mar 2007 : Column 323
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I made absolutely clear, the Privy Council Office has not been abolished. This is about a change in management structures; that is what the review was about. I hear the majority of Members of this House talk about the need for the Leader of this House to sit in Cabinet. The post of Lord Privy Seal is an historic title and has no departmental functions and is often attached to the role of Leader of this House. So I am rather surprised to hear the noble Lord ask about the relationship of that role or the role of the Lord President and my continuing to take a Cabinet salary.
Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, in view of the Government’s determination to pursue public sector efficiency savings through the Gershon report, how would the proposals contribute to efficiency savings in the public sector?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is about utilising synergies by moving a very small government department in management terms into two larger government departments. It is also about ensuring improved development for the staff of the Privy Council Office, which will come through their membership of a larger department.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is this a move towards a coherent Ministry of Justice, which has long been advocated from these Benches? If so, we welcome it.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be aware that there have been ongoing discussions within government about the possibility of creating a Ministry of Justice. This is not part of those proposals.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, is not this constant change—this cultural revolution, where ancient bodies are dismantled, despite the efficacy of the work that they do—a sign of a Government who have lost their way in respect of the big problems such as health, education and so on? Will the Minister consider putting on the desk of every member of the Government a notice that says, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it”?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is not a dismantling; I made it absolutely clear that it is a change in management structures. The functions carried out by the Privy Council Secretariat and the supporting office to the Judicial Committee will continue. I suppose that if I had come to this House
8 Mar 2007 : Column 324
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is not about dismantling the Privy Council Office; it is about looking at ways in which we can improve the development of our staff and ensure greater efficiency in the work of our larger departments.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that over the centuries the Privy Council has always had a fluid structure, taking on staff functions and repatriating them—a bit like a potting shed—wherever appropriate? In particular, will she confirm that the functions of the Privy Council and her own supervisory role will remain unchanged, or that, in the words of the Prime Minister in the Statement, which to my understanding is completely unambiguous:
“The Privy Council and its functions will continue unchanged”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/07; col. 135WS.]?
Is this not simply a sensible readjustment of management support and not, in some grandiloquent sense, an assault on the constitution?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend, and I advise those who have talked about abolishing the Privy Council Office to look at the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. There has always been flexibility in terms of staff coming into the Privy Council over the years.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I have been straining to hear any reasonable justification for this change. The noble Baroness has even accepted that not a single penny of taxpayers’ money will be saved by the proposed change. Why is it that another place was given a Written Statement by the Prime Minister yesterday yet I can find no record of a similar Statement having been made to this House, until the noble Baroness answered the Question a few moments ago? Is it not the truth that this is change for change’s sake, and the sole motive, like the abolition of the Lord Chancellor, is simply to junk tradition?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am surprised at the tone taken by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on this issue. This is not change for change’s sake. Every Prime Minister makes changes. The noble Lord will recall that when he was in power the then Prime Ministers made changes to the structure of the Civil Service. It is something that Governments do as a matter of course in looking at ways in which departments can best be managed. That is the case here.
I sent a Written Ministerial Statement through yesterday. I apologise that it did not appear in our Hansard today, but I understand that it will appear tomorrow.
8 Mar 2007 : Column 325
Business of the House: Debate Today
11.36 am
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of Baroness Gould of Potternewton set down for today shall be limited to five hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Jobseeker’s Allowance (Jobseeker Mandatory Activity) Pilot Regulations 2007
Tourist Boards (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Modifications) Order 2007
Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2007
Social Security Contributions (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2007
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the four Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the orders and regulations be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Business
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it may surprise the House to learn that the list of speakers for next week’s debate on House of Lords reform has grown rapidly over the past week. It currently stands at 110 speakers. To make sure that we have plenty of time for the debate and that the winding-up speeches are made at a reasonable time on Tuesday, the usual channels propose that the Tuesday sitting should start early—at noon. It is proposed that Question Time will remain at its normal time of 2.30 pm. This means that after Prayers at noon on Tuesday, the debate on House of Lords reform will resume immediately. The debate will be adjourned shortly before 2.30 pm to allow Questions to begin promptly at 2.30 pm. The debate will then resume and be concluded on Tuesday afternoon and evening. I hope that that meets with the general approval of the House.
8 Mar 2007 : Column 326
Women
11.38 am
Baroness Gould of Potternewton rose to call attention to the Government’s plans for advancing women’s equality throughout the United Kingdom and internationally; and to move for Papers.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to open this debate on International Women’s Day on the advancement of women’s equality. I start by thanking the Peers’ Labour group for agreeing that this should be the subject of the Labour debate. I am overwhelmed but extremely heartened by the number of Members who are taking part and who have stayed to speak on this important subject. The debate will cover a wide range of subjects as they affect women—far more subjects, I suspect, than my noble friend Lady Andrews can cover in detail, but I am sure that we all await her remarks with interest.
International Women’s Day is the story of ordinary women as makers of history. It is rooted in the centuries-old struggle of women to participate in society on an equal footing with men. That struggle goes back to the ancient Greeks, when Lysistrata initiated a sexual strike against men to prevent war; it goes back to the French Revolution, when Parisian women calling for liberty, equality and fraternity marched on Versailles to demand women’s suffrage; and it goes back to 1857, when women working in the clothing and textile factories in New York staged a protest against inhumane working conditions and low wages. The struggle for women’s rights continued for the next half-century until 49 years later when, on 8 March 1908, International Women’s Day was born. It was the day when 15,000 women once again marched through New York city demanding shorter working hours, better pay, voting rights and an end to child labour. They accepted the slogan “bread and roses”, with bread symbolising economic security and roses a better way of life.
Since those early years, International Women’s Day has assumed a global dimension for women in developed and developing countries. On International Women’s Day, women’s achievements across the globe are celebrated. It is also a day for reflection on advancements made by women in their ability to play a full and active role, politically, socially and economically. It is a time to reflect on the burdens that remain and how they might be overcome—a reflection that must take place against the changing nature of women’s lives. Many of us remember when—it is only 25 or 30 years ago—we accepted that man was the breadwinner, women’s expectations were low and difference was greater. Women hoped for more, expected little and choice was not on the agenda.
To mark the 30th anniversary of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the EOC produced an entertaining document, So, You Think You Had a Bad Day, citing a day in the life of a woman 30 years ago. It imagined a time when a woman could not get a loan for a mortgage or get credit in her own right; she could not follow her dream to be an engineer—the
8 Mar 2007 : Column 327
Today, life is different. Women live in a different world. Women’s lives have gone through a period not of revolution, but of dramatic transformation. Family structures have changed: divorce has trebled, marriage rates have declined and more than a third of parents with children are cohabiting and/or lone parents. This development of new partnerships and the growth in the number of stepfamilies and more intricate family arrangements now shapes the income, working patterns and living standards of families. Life, for both men and women, is now more complex.
Women are professional jugglers; they multi-task. In one day, they may not only do a full-time job, but also be a carer, a mother, a grandmother and a partner. That is something that all women have in common, regardless of background, ethnicity or religious belief. But women also legitimately want to feel personally fulfilled; they want to have good physical, mental and emotional health and an opportunity to take part in wider community life. That is the role that I want to discuss: a women as her own person, and how the Government can support that. I want to pose the question whether women’s equality has advanced—be it women at work, women as carers, women as decision makers or women as victims—and to look at the barriers that remain.
We are an ageing population, with nearly 10 million adults over the age of 65. By 2020, it is estimated that that figure may be 12 million, many of whom will be cared for by working women over the age of 50. More than 301,000 people are taking on a caring role each year, and one in five carers—mainly women—are leaving or turning down a job in order to do so. Over the next 30 years, the number of carers could increase to 9 million. The extension next month of the right to request flexible working will benefit 2.6 million carers, but while the care burden continues to fall disproportionately on older women, it serves to perpetuate the cycle of disadvantage, with those providing care being unable to assure themselves of decent income in retirement and so falling into the trap of underfunding in their turn and the possibility of poverty in old age. The new carer’s credit for those who care for at least 20 hours a week will benefit 85,000 women from 2010, but society is still far too dependent on women’s unpaid labour—work that all too often goes unrecognised.
Between 1971 and today, the number of women in employment has risen from 42 per cent to 70 per cent, and the Women and Work Commission, so ably chaired by my noble friend Lady Prosser, has identified that 1.3 million new jobs are likely to be created over the next decade, a million of which are expected to be taken by women. The Government have produced a package of practical measures to support those working families. I shall illustrate some of the changes that have been made.
Since 1997, the number of registered childcare places has doubled to 1.29 million. All three and four year-olds are now entitled to free, Government-funded early education and from next month they will
8 Mar 2007 : Column 328
The Government’s New Deal for Lone Parents and the changes to the tax and benefits system have given real assistance to enable 300,000 lone parents to move from welfare to work and have contributed to help 700,000 children out of poverty. There are now 1 million lone parents in work. I believe that the majority of lone parents want to work, but need more support, encouragement and opportunity.
The recent equality review found that the group that suffers the most discrimination in the workplace is mothers. To overcome that discrimination, the labour market has to change to suit the needs of families, not the other way round. There has to be a dramatic shift and real adjustment to the pattern of work. The DTI’s second work-life balance survey showed that the majority of employers who provide work-life balance practices believe that doing so has made a positive impact on employee/employer relations with greater employee commitment and motivation, a positive effect on recruitment and a decline in absenteeism. The beneficial outcomes to employers are clearly positive, as they are to the employee.
Almost a quarter of parents with children under six have requested flexible working since the law was introduced in April 2005. Flexible working not only benefits and eases the lives of mothers, but also allows fathers to spend more time with their children. It is estimated that 63 per cent of full-time working fathers want to be more involved in bringing up their children, particularly in the early years. However, comprehensive family-friendly policies are still confined to the public sector and large private sector employers. They remain beyond the capacity of most small and medium-sized enterprises, although an increasing number provides job shares.
However, far too many workplaces follow a long-hours, inflexible model of work, and that inflexibility is creating a massive waste of talent and potential. At a time when graduate skills shortages have been increasing, the proportion of women graduates in low-level jobs has trebled. It is tragic that, according to estimates, one woman in 10 with a degree will work in a low-level job throughout her working life. At all levels, women’s jobs are still profoundly affected by gender and occupational segregation. Irrespective of the fact that girls beat
8 Mar 2007 : Column 329
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |