Civil Partnership (Opposite-sex Couples) Regulations 2019

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, it is important and indeed incumbent on those of us who are in heterosexual marriages to express our support for the sentiments uttered by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Cashman, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. That is because it is easy for these issues to appear as though they are being pushed by just one section of society. Therefore, I want to say how strongly I would like to see the elements which still need to be resolved here being addressed in the future. I have a feeling that the Minister feels similarly. In art as in social policy, a leap of a mile is often required to gain an inch. In this instance, the Government have gone a long way further than an inch, but I take this opportunity to encourage them to aim for the mile in the near future.

I will add just a note on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. I have enormous sympathy for his point about siblings, but there is a certain sense of Groundhog Day here because I can remember the same noble Lords talking about this. I cannot help feeling that this is a slightly different issue, although that does not mean that it is not one which the Government should tackle in due course.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I am all in favour of civil partnerships for heterosexuals and of them being converted into marriage. However, I am a bit puzzled, because the argument for civil partnerships for heterosexuals is that they want to avoid the patriarchal nature of marriage—but, of course if you enter into a civil partnership, and good luck to you, you will take upon yourself all the financial and other burdens and unfairnesses that come about in marriage if you split your civil partnership; it will be just the same. Still, people should have the choice.

I want to say, in support of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that over the years I too have argued for protection for two people who live together, whether they are sisters, strangers or people in a legal partnership whose financial and social position depends so much on the way the state treats them, through tax law and, especially, inheritance law. I do not accept the argument that to give support to, say, siblings or a father and daughter would in any way undermine the respect due to civil partnerships and marriage.

So I hope that this goes through and that civil partners will be allowed to convert if they want to. I also feel that heterosexual civil partnerships will mean that there will not be any more call for extending the oppressive and unfair law we have at the moment regarding financial provision on split to cohabiting couples. If they choose to cohabit and do not want civil partnerships, which are readily open, good luck to them; they ought to be free of the law.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Barker’s father, my father married a large number of people, although he did so as a Church of England clergyman rather than as a nonconformist minister. I very much support the equality being progressed for opposite-sex partners via this legislation. I also very much support the comments made by my noble friend Lady Barker, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others about it being a shame that the Government did not take the opportunity to go all the way and ensure that there is proper equality.

While we are on the issue of real equality, I will raise an associated issue. When I formed my civil partnership 15 years ago, obviously I did not have the option of a same-sex wedding—but, even today, if I chose to convert it, I would not have the option of that wedding in a Church of England church. My father went to a register office for probably the first time in his life when he came to my civil partnership ceremony. I hope that both the Government and the Church, particularly as it is the established Church, will really reflect on the fact that, not only as a matter of choice by certain members of that Church but by law, a same-sex marriage cannot take place. I hope that they will consider the pain and sorrow that causes and will really think about that position. I recognise that this is not the matter before us, but the amendment expressing regret is about equality, and this is also a matter of equality.

Sibling Couples

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

I am happy to do that. The standard response of all Treasury Ministers is to say that government policy in this area of tax is constantly under review. That has a particular meaning at the moment, because the Office of Tax Simplification is undertaking a review of inheritance tax. The issue of siblings will be within the scope of that. It is due to report in the spring, and we will take its findings seriously, but our position is clear—that this reflects an impact on a very small number of estates for which, with careful tax planning, much of the liability can be mitigated.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Does the Minister accept that there would be no loss to the Treasury because it would be only a question of rolling over the inheritance tax? Can he also explain exactly what it is about a short marriage or partnership of two years that would give its participants tax advantages not given to siblings living together for 50 or 60 years?

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2019

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

It is welcome but belated that this order should be passed. While we have listened to the reservations expressed by the Labour Party and the Lib Dems, it remains the fact, as I am sure they will agree, that if more has come out about a situation, and maybe we were misled or not given the full facts a while ago, it is right to take that step now.

Imagine, if you can, an organisation that marched through London and actively promoted an ideology that—forgive my words—black people should be killed and their lands restored to colonialist oppressors. You would have no doubt or hesitation about banning it. Well, a group called National Action did just that, and it was recently banned—so this is not a new move. That organisation said that non-whites and “sub-humans”—which it implied was the right word—should not be tolerated.

The Mayor of London supports this ban. We should be tough on terrorism and the causes of terrorism. There is no division between the political and military wings of Hezbollah. In fact, little stickers saying “We are the political wing” have been put on the flags carried by these people as they march, precisely in order to exploit that. They have said, “Each of us is a combat soldier. The story of ‘military wing’ and ‘political wing’ is the work of the British”.

The right to peaceful protest, which we uphold, does not extend to the violent and the threatening and the racist. Countries with which we have close relations, including Canada, Holland, France, New Zealand and even Bahrain, all ban Hezbollah. This of course will not stop the necessary co-operation with the Lebanon Government.

The organisation that I hope we will ban today fights for Assad. This is not just a Jewish issue, as has been implied. The beliefs that this organisation expresses are a harbinger of what is to come if you are western. The anti-Semitism is the tip of the iceberg. The organisation expresses a group of beliefs that everything western is wrong, everything white is wrong, everything that might be stigmatised as colonialist is wrong, and war must be fought to bring everyone to heel.

Hezbollah has said:

“Until Israel ceases to exist and the last Jew in the world has been eliminated,”


it will continue to fight. It has said:

“If Jews all gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide”.


We cannot possibly go along with allowing such an organisation to march through London.

Hezbollah is a partner to Iran, for which cause it engages in money laundering, arms sales and drugs smuggling. It is implicated in the Yemen disaster. It has prolonged the Syrian conflict. It has carried out attacks all over Europe. Classifying Hezbollah as “terrorist” would stop it using our banks to transfer money around the world. What it does fits precisely Section 3(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000. It has been involved in Iranian-directed bombings that have killed more than 1,000 UK and US servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. What has changed in the last year is increasing revelation of this and increasing fear. It is by no means a partisan move. I hope that this House will wholeheartedly support the Motion.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, I strongly support the Government on this order.

There can be little doubt that Hezbollah has completely taken over control of Lebanon. It is certainly in the Parliament but it is also in the military—it is everywhere—and Lebanon and its Government can do little without Hezbollah. The deputy secretary-general of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, has repeatedly said that the political and the military wings are as one—they are not distinct. There is little doubt too that Hezbollah is funded and supported by Iran and represents an outpost of that country, with its Shia expansionist policies, and that those policies are not only anti-Israel and anti-Zionist but anti-Semitic; wherever Jews exist, one just needs to see the sorts of terrorist attacks Hezbollah has made on Jewish installations around the world. It is not just Jews—they have attacked and killed British troops in Syria, as well as the poor Syrians.

It is not only Israel that has worries in the Middle East; Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are all extremely worried about Hezbollah’s activities, and we have a good example in Yemen, where it has a role too. Its interests have nothing to do with the plight of Palestinians. They are just pawns in their game, and if a peaceful resolution and a two-state solution eventually emerge, which we would all like to see, it will not stop Iran and Hezbollah in their anti-Semitic activities.

Against this background, it is impossible to believe that the so-called political wing of Hezbollah was unaware of what goes on. How can the political wing not be pulling the strings with Iran to produce 150,000 or more missiles and rockets in southern Lebanon, and digging six tunnels under the border with Israel? How can that possibly be thought of as a purely defensive action? Both wings are as one, both should be proscribed, and I hope we agree.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 1st February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barker]

Having sat through debates on all the relevant legislation, I believe it is not possible to be simultaneously in a civil partnership and a marriage. That is not allowed under either of the laws.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, because there is unfairness to siblings and I do not go along with the rather emotional arguments that it is somehow inappropriate to extend any form of union to them. There is no solid evidence behind that; it is simply subjective. I hope the Government will treat them fairly one day, if not today.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, perhaps I may make a very small but important point. Proposed new Clause 1(7) refers to regulations being made for civil partnerships to be converted,

“into marriage and vice versa”.

This would require quite a bit of consultation with the Church of England and, I think, with the Church in Wales.

Brexit: Economic Forecasts

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

I point out to the noble Baroness that some of the markets in which we are trading most successfully and where growth is increasing are ones that we do not have a formal free trade agreement with and where we operate on WTO terms. But that is not the objective we are setting for the future; we want a good trade agreement with our friends in the European Union and good free trade agreements that we will be able to negotiate with other countries around the world.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, I have had the advantage of listening to the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, speak about the reliability of economic forecasts. In summary it was, “Stuff happens”. No one 11 years ago would have foreseen what would happen in 2008 or the problems with the eurozone ever since. Indeed, the Treasury document that we had to see in private across the road itself fluctuated 5% this way and 5% that. Will the Minister understand if we take the forecasts with a great dose of salt?

[Lord Bates]

We should do, although of course we look at them. We somehow behave as though economic forecasts are some kind of target that we have to meet, when they are not. Our future is entirely in our own hands. What is better news for us is that it is entirely in the hands of British businesspeople, who have shown themselves to be world leaders the world over. I have great confidence in them and their ability to continue.

Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) (Sibling Couples) Bill [HL]

Baroness Deech Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 20th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, ever since I first took an interest in the case of the Burden sisters some 10 years ago, in which two of the barristers were my former pupils, I have wondered why the financial and inheritance benefits of coupling up are confined to sexual relationships. The law is solicitous towards married couples, of the same or different sexes, and towards civil partners of the same sex—and, following the recent Supreme Court decision in Steinfeld and Keidan, it is highly likely that we will soon be legislating for civil partnerships for heterosexual couples, with the concomitant tax and financial breaks. In that case, the Supreme Court found that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to family and private life, was breached, along with Article 14, which states:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status”.


Sibling couples are the subject of Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. If civil partnerships are to be extended to heterosexual couples by virtue of the non-discrimination clause of Article 14, the same must be true of sibling couples, who are being discriminated against in the enjoyment of their private and family life on the grounds of birth or other status. Even cohabiting couples, usually defined as living together as husband and wife, enjoy certain benefits that sibling couples do not.

It is of course true that the creation of marriages and civil partnerships does more than extend financial benefits; it acknowledges publicly the responsibility that each of the pair takes for the other. But, leaving aside the sexual relationship—which, incidentally, is assumed but does not have to exist—why should sibling couples who have lived together for decades, and are co-dependent, not get benefits too?

Heterosexual and same-sex couples have a variety of ways in which to seek public and formal recognition of their relationship—or they may choose to avoid it altogether by cohabiting without entering marriage or a civil partnership. Family members cannot get the benefits—albeit that they would be seeking public recognition of the relationship not as a sexual one but as one where each has decided to take on responsibility for the other.

Now that formal partnerships extend beyond the marriage of man and woman, there is no reason not to grant financial and inheritance benefits, along with parenting and medical and other benefits, to co-dependent family members. Life can be unfair to the single. Those who are fortunate enough to enjoy a formal partnership should not claim a monopoly on benefits that might appropriately benefit others’ different relationships.

The discussion today highlights a pressing social issue. A recent report by the Social Market Foundation estimates that there are more than 7 million carers, who sacrifice careers and freedom to look after family members. As society ages, and while no solution has yet been found to fund social care for the elderly, the number of carers will increase—and increase in importance.

Financial provision laws that apply to married couples and civil partners who dissolve their union have as their aim that disadvantages and unfairnesses arising from the care-giving within the couple-and-children relationship be compensated for. Some of those formal unions may have been very short-lived. But family carers may have struggled on for years without recognition and respite, and without employment policies that support working carers. They are saving the state a fortune in social care. Why should they not enjoy some tax breaks and financial support, especially if they stand to be evicted from their home when the cared-for person dies? Of course, rather than creating a new category of partnership, the Government might just choose in the forthcoming review to extend inheritance tax deferral to family couples, carers or not. That would go a long way to resolving the issues.

The case of the Burden sisters was one where substantial inheritance tax fell to be paid once one of them died, having lived together all their lives in the same house. It would have to be sold. The degree of commitment and stability in the case of the sisters resembles that of any formally partnered couple. We have heard of several examples this morning where they choose to live together, and that is their lifestyle and self-determination. The same may well be true of many daughters looking after elderly parents or other family members for decades; they are at risk of being evicted from the home on the death of the person they have cared for. There is no certainty that a claim by the carer under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act would succeed because the claimant has to show that they were being maintained by the deceased, not the other way round. The Government are fearful of losing tax on inheritance. They need not be because the effect of extending civil partnership benefits to family couples would be only a deferral of the tax until the death of the survivor, not a total loss.

The Burden sisters’ appeal was rejected by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. The judgment was unsatisfactory, however, as it did not address the central question: why should the sisters be liable for inheritance tax on each death simply because the person they want to spend their life with is a sister, rather than a spouse or partner of the same sex? The Government did not dispute that the purpose of the inheritance tax exemption in the case of married people and civil partners is to make provision for the partner left behind, and there was no explanation of why that principle should not apply in the case of two sisters.

I hope the Government will support the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and others speaking this morning. I hope they will show understanding of the unfair position that family members are in at present and take on the gist of his Bill. Being Friday, I cannot resist mentioning once again that the shadow of the noble lyricist Irving Berlin hangs over this Chamber. He wrote:

“Sisters, sisters

There were never such devoted sisters …

Lord help the mister who comes between me and my sister”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure this morning to put on record my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. I do not know him particularly well, but over the years I have watched the many things that he has done, particularly within his own political party, to secure greater equality for LGBT people. I admire much that he has done. It will surprise nobody, least of all him, that today I profoundly disagree with him, but I hope we will continue in future to be allies on other matters.

I disagree with him today because I believe that this proposal has a fundamental and dangerous flaw. I accept that, back in 2004, the people who proposed extending civil partnerships in this way did so to wreck the then Civil Partnership Bill, and they very nearly succeeded. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, very nearly succeeded in doing so. I also accept that today that is not the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. None the less, I believe that the path he has chosen to pursue is wrong. In 2004, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, took her lead from the Christian Institute, one of the first organisations to import into this country a rather brutal form of evangelical Christianity from the United States. I think noble Lords will find it worth reading the documents which the institute produced at that time to see the fundamental underlying motivation for the proposal.

It is wrong to equate the relationship between siblings and family members with relationships between adults which are entered into voluntarily as loving relationships. It is simply wrong. Consanguinity is not something that we can ignore in this matter because it has a profound effect upon relationships. I shall pick up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. He talked about equalising the relationship of siblings with people who have particular lifestyles they have chosen. Being gay is not a lifestyle and, for some of us, it is not a choice. We are who we are and our relationships as gay people are fundamentally different from the relationships that we have with our siblings. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and many other noble Lords made the point that the purpose of the Bill is to end discrimination or to support siblings—although I noticed how many of your Lordships talked about daughters, and I will come back to that in a moment—supporting their family. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is not, I think, proposing that children should enter into civil partnerships with their parents. However, if one accepted the basis of his proposal, one could argue that perhaps they should. I think that that is fundamentally wrong. It conflates two entirely different relationships and complicates them.

Let us get on to the complications. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, has not talked about one particularly important matter: a civil partnership can be dissolved. You cannot dissolve your relationship with your family in the same way. You can become estranged, you can have the most horrible and distant relationship, you can fall out over property, but you will remain in that family. That is why I think the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, was wrong, as was the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to say that this is a wholly beneficial measure which inflicts no harm on anyone. Imagine yourself in the position of a woman in a family with an overbearing, dominant brother or father and a significant property. Noble Lords have spoken this morning about couples they know. The couple who come to my mind—there were originally three siblings but one of them died; I do not know what we would do in a case where there were more than two siblings, but that is another matter to consider—lived on a farm. They were devoted to each other. They were members of my father’s church and wonderful people. If this proposal had been in place and one of those siblings had wished not to remain on that farm but to go away, imagine the pressure that there would have been on that woman. That is the dark side of this that no one has spoken about: the potential for abuse that it opens up. It is why I have maintained in all the discussions we have had that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is wrong. I can see that carers would come under enormous pressure to enter into a civil partnership. Incidentally, as I have said to her before, I think it is really interesting that no carers’ organisation has ever asked for this and, as far as I know, they do not support it. They support carers having much greater support than they do now but not being tied into a legal obligation such as this. I could not disagree more fundamentally with the noble Baroness. I do not for one moment question her motivation but I disagree with her entirely.

The Bill is fundamentally flawed. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, talked about the “curious reluctance” of another place to consider this matter. I think it is a wholly understandable decision not to pursue something that is fundamentally flawed and potentially dangerous.

[Baroness Deech]

On a point of order, why would there be more duress on two family members to enter a civil partnership than on any other two people? Of course if there is duress, it is vitiated. Any contract or marriage or civil partnership that you enter into not of your own free will is invalidated. A civil partnership can be ended just like that, even if two people are family members. Given that there is a dissolution procedure, that would apply. There is an academic output, which I do not know if the noble Baroness has seen, that suggests that the pressure for civil partnerships, which is not just about money, between family members is a way of denying the sexuality of gay partnerships. Some 14 years have gone by and I think that argument is simply not tenable.

[Baroness Barker]

Yet again I disagree fundamentally with the noble Baroness; I think that is exactly what it is about. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that I am not guilty, and I do not know anyone else within the LGBT community who is, of wanting to keep civil partnerships as the preserve of our community. I support the extension of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples, although that debate is for another day, but extending it to people who as adults come together of their own volition, with no baggage and no pressure, is completely different. The noble Baroness dismisses some of the great tensions of family life in her submission.

I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, is right that the Bill is trying to deal with a matter that should be dealt with by the Treasury because it is about fiscal matters. I would warmly support anyone who wished to find some way of addressing those issues of inheritance tax. However, you do not solve an injustice by putting in place something that is equally unjust and open to great abuse. I genuinely believe that this is a wrong and dangerous move. I hope that, just as 14 years ago, we in this House and people in another place will see this for the great mistake that it is and stop it.

Equality and Human Rights Commission: Disability Commissioner

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, to my mind this is a debate not about persons but about the strategy of the EHRC and its handling of disability issues. It is good to note that my noble friend Lord Low is on the Disability Advisory Committee, so it is not without expertise, but the clue to understanding whether the EHRC is living up to expectations lies in the diffusion of that expertise.

I had the privilege of chairing the 2016 report of the Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability. Our first and lasting impression, gained from our own work and strongly from witnesses, was that disabled people regretted the demise of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Disability Rights Commission. That Act introduced the notion of reasonable adjustments and favourable treatment. It was then rolled into the EHRC by the Equality Act 2010 and disability became just one of nine protected characteristics.

However, practice shows that it is not enough to treat disabled people equally with everyone else. There are situations where, to get to a level playing field, disabled people need favourable treatment, a concept with which employers struggle. Witnesses to our committee thought that the inclusion of disability within the EHRC had diluted the focus on disability that had existed and had given rise to a sense of a loss of rights by disabled people. We concluded that it was impracticable to turn the clock back, but that loss of focus and expertise concentrating on disabled people is at the heart of this Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. He is asking, in my view, whether the EHRC is handling disability issues with the emphasis that it should. Mainstreaming is an ideal that has not worked, so far.

I fear that the answer is no, special disability commissioner or not. I say that not only because of the findings of the Select Committee report, which highlighted failings in ensuring disability rights, but because of the strictures in the report on the UK in 2017 by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That report called for the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into English law and drew attention to shortcomings in bringing into force relevant provisions of the Equality Act, especially about transport and leasehold premises, the accessibility of buildings and sports stadia, the availability of legal aid and the provision of health and education for disabled children. The Government’s response has been resistance.

As for the EHRC, it is not clear that having a Disability Advisory Committee which interacts with the board is as good as the previous arrangements. The Select Committee report recommended that the committee should be re-established as a decision-making body with ring-fenced resources. That does not seem to be the case. I give the EHRC credit for funding legal assistance for litigation by disabled persons, providing legal advice and starting judicial reviews. The recommendation it made for a disability action plan to be produced with input from disabled persons seems to have been rejected, as has the need to produce guidance on carers’ rights under the Equality Act, although the EHRC has taken some carers’ cases. Disability issues are swallowed up in the general rights issues that the commission is pursuing.

Also very seriously, it was clear from evidence given to the Select Committee that it was much regretted that the Equality Advisory and Support Service was no longer in-house. Indeed, it has gone to G4S, a result that has been much criticised and which was subjected to judicial review by human rights groups. Disabled people called for face-to-face legal advice, dispute resolution and the restoration of the conciliation service. None of those things has happened. They wanted enforcement functions more than strategy formation. They want a champion, not to be just one of nine protected characteristic groups, and that call has not been answered. The Government should respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, with plans for a more proactive EHRC with a dedicated disability area and a timeline for carrying out all the recommendations of the Select Committee’s report.

East Jerusalem: Access to Emergency Care

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

That latter point is well worth underscoring, but it does not take away from the distress that is caused to people who have to transfer from ambulance to ambulance at the border, with these three distinct medical areas: the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. We think there is a way forward. If the same spirit that has been shown in the offer of medical services by the State of Israel could be addressed to this issue, I am sure that a way could be found.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Does the Minister agree with me that Israel deserves praise for organising a system of volunteers who help the injured people in the ambulances get to Israeli hospitals? Moreover, those hospitals are treating thousands of injured Syrians. They deserve praise for ensuring that there is a safe haven at least somewhere in the Middle East for wounded Syrians.

Gaza: Electricity Supply

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a series of very important points but ultimately, as he and other noble Lords will be aware, we need to encourage a two-state peace-process solution. That is what we, the UK Government, and others are encouraging. Ultimately, however, it is down to the two parties to make sure that they are fully engaged.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister weary of the obsessive blaming of Israel for whatever goes wrong in Gaza and the surrounding area? The failure in electricity appears to be due to Hamas and the PA. If they cannot manage their own electricity and water, what hope is there to expect Hamas, Gaza and the West Bank to run an independent state of Palestine?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Baroness again raises an important point, but the really important point is that we must encourage that the sorts of activities that are taking place are stopped so that we can further encourage the dialogue that needs to take place to bring forward a two-state solution and make sure that Hamas and others do not violate the rights of those who are being badly affected.

Childcare

Baroness Deech Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend will know about the scheme for disadvantaged two year-olds. He might be pleased to know that only one month after launching that scheme 92,000 children have benefited. That is 70% of the deprived children who we wish to reach, which is remarkable in only one month.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Is the Minister aware that in some other countries there is a system of free universal childcare and that the economic case has been made that it is worth funding such a system as it releases so many women to return to the labour market if they want, taking them off welfare and even leading to their paying taxes? Will she please consider the economics of providing free universal childcare and cutting through the Gordian knot of all the complications and difficulties that we have at the moment?

[Baroness Northover]

As I mentioned before, we keep under close review what happens in other countries. I remember visiting Leningrad and seeing its universal childcare when I had three children under five; they were in the UCL nursery which meant, in effect, that I had no salary. This is a long-standing problem but we are acutely aware of the importance of high-quality childcare—which I am afraid I did not see in the nurseries I visited in Leningrad—and ensuring that women are able to work.