---

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: it is a very important issue. That base is important to the maintenance and refuelling of our nuclear submarines. It is very important for the strategic nuclear deterrent. We are not going to take any

18 Jan 2007 : Column 778

chances with that capability. We have been concerned about recent developments relating to the ownership of that yard. We are very focused on getting those resolved very quickly indeed.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, welcome as the collaboration with France in the design of these vessels is, will any contract entered into by the French Government have a bearing on any contract that the British Government might enter into?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the advantage of the collaboration with France and of the important step forward in the French using the British aircraft carrier design—and we are working very closely together—is the economies of scale which can be achieved in procuring three aircraft carriers rather than two and the sharing of benefits in savings and efficiency between the two countries. So it has an implication in that sense.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Astor made an important point when he said that we are fighting two wars. Does the Minister recognise this huge expenditure and its consequences for the procurement programme? He recently explained to me that the first Gulf War cost us £2.5 billion, of which we got £2 billion back. The current activities are costing us about £4 billion, but there is very little sign of our getting anything back from anyone. Do the Government recognise fully that before they commit British forces to fighting operations, they must take into account the impact on procurement of crucial materiel for the effectiveness of the Armed Forces?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I can assure the House that all our decisions on equipment procurement take these matters of operations fully into account. They are absolutely central to every decision we take.

BAE Systems: Al Yamamah Contract

11.30 am

Lord Garden asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether discussions with the intelligence services concluded that national security would be in jeopardy if the Serious Fraud Office were allowed to continue its investigations into BAE Systems.

The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, yes. All relevant agencies were clear about the crucial importance of UK-Saudi co-operation in the fight against terrorism and the damage to UK interests—and, potentially, UK lives—if that co-operation were withdrawn. Having been advised of the risk to national security if the SFO investigation continued, the director of the SFO concluded that it was not a risk that could properly be taken in the public interest. I repeat that it was the director’s decision, not mine. I have written more fully to the noble Lord today about the reasons

18 Jan 2007 : Column 779

for the director’s decision and the Government’s continued commitment to tackling international corruption. If he agrees, I will place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his Answer and this morning’s correspondence. I would be delighted if it were placed in the Library. In that correspondence he includes the note to the OECD. Paragraph 9 explains how the head of the SFO made the decision because the views of the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary were conveyed to him. How were they conveyed? By letter or in a face-to-face meeting? Will the noble and learned Lord publish either the correspondence or the minutes of those meetings?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, there were no face-to-face meetings between the Prime Minister and the director of the SFO, although I had direct communications with the Prime Minister, which I passed on to the director of the SFO. The director of the SFO met, on more than one occasion, our ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who was in a position to brief him directly on the threats and consequences. So far as the documents are concerned, I will not commit to publishing them at the moment. That matter needs consideration.

Lord Peston: My Lords, everybody knows that you cannot do business in these countries without bribery and corruption. The problem is not whether everybody knows that but that nobody seems to be able to prove it. What advice are Ministers prepared to give to British companies that want to export to the relevant countries, but cannot get through without bribing the relevant people? Are we to give up all these markets on the grounds of being holier than thou or do we just still keep our heads in the sand and pretend that nothing wrong is happening?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I will not accept the premise of the noble Lord’s question for two reasons. As Members of the House may recall, when I made my Statement on this on 14 December I said something about my views about whether this was a particular case that could have been proved in any event. I do not accept the premise of the question. It is very important to make it clear that dropping this case—which was not an entirely comfortable decision, as I said in my letter to the noble Lord—does not mean that we are backing off in any way from our commitment to tackling international corruption. On the contrary, I am clear that we should redouble our efforts. I have told the director of the SFO that he should vigorously pursue current investigations, including a number of other cases against BAE. We need to do all that we can to make sure that he has the resources in order to do so.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, may I, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, question his last statement? When he gave his

18 Jan 2007 : Column 780

Statement to the House on 14 December he said quite clearly that the heads of the security and intelligence departments shared his assessment that there would be grave damage to the relationship between this country and Saudi Arabia in respect of security and intelligence operations. In his subsequent letter to the OECD, which had questioned that statement, the remarks were very much downplayed to refer only to the benefit of advice from the heads of the security and intelligence agencies, given to him and the Prime Minister. This is, of course, a somewhat different wording. Will he, first, explain the discrepancy between those two phrases and whether they were affected by the decision of Mr Scarlett not to sign any document—as we understand it—conceding that he had taken that position? Secondly, does he agree that security and intelligence assessments by highly trained and expert people should never be changed or exaggerated for political purposes?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, of course I agree with the last statement. Let me be clear about this: the reports earlier this week that there were no national security considerations behind the decision to hold the SFO inquiry were wholly wrong, as the SIS itself said. I said in my Statement—it was not my assessment—that it was the clear view of the Prime Minister and other Ministers that continuation of the SFO investigation would cause serious damage to UK-Saudi co-operation and that that was likely to have serious negative consequences for UK interests and, potentially, UK lives. Indeed, the Prime Minister subsequently talked about the consequences as being “devastating”.

The SIS has made it clear publicly that it shares the concerns of others within government over the possible consequences for the public interest of the SFO investigation. Naturally, it did not say that the Saudis would be bound to withdraw co-operation, but certainly no one disagreed with the overall assessment that the Saudi threats were real. Before the SFO decision was taken, I discussed the matter with the head of the SIS, whose view was that the Saudis might withdraw their co-operation if the SFO investigation continued and that they could decide to do so at any time.

Baroness Taylor of Bolton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, especially in view of recent history, it is understandable that the heads of the intelligence services should be somewhat reticent in what they say publicly on issues of this kind? Does he agree that it is incumbent on us all to be realistic and to accept that, in the fight against terrorism, we need all the allies we can get, and that, in the Middle East in particular, we need to co-operate with people such as the Saudi Arabians? That has to be the first priority of any Government in protecting their citizens, and it is somewhat unrealistic to expect intelligence agency heads to make public statements on one side or the other.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I agree with the substance of what my noble friend has said. As I said in the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Garden, the

18 Jan 2007 : Column 781

judgment was that UK co-operation with Saudi Arabia in the counterterrorism field was crucial. Saudi Arabia is a source of valuable streams of intelligence on al-Qaeda and, if Saudi Arabia were to withdraw that co-operation, the UK would be deprived of a key partner in our global counterterrorism strategy. Saudi also plays a key role in Middle East issues, and this Government have taken the view that those have a real effect on international tension and therefore a real effect on national security at home.

Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords—

Lord Grocott: My Lords, we have had 30 minutes.

Business

11.37 am

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I wish to make a short business statement. With the leave of the House, a Statement on the BBC licence fee will be repeated later today by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham. It will be taken after the first of today’s debates.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2007

Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Amendment of Schedules 3 and 5) Order 2007

Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Order 2007

The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, that the orders be referred to a Grand Committee.—(Baroness Amos.)

On Question, Motions agreed to.

Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Bill [HL]

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lady Ashton.

Moved, that the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,Schedule 1,Clauses 3 and 4,Schedule 2,Clause 5,Schedule 3,Clauses 6 and 7,Schedule 4,

18 Jan 2007 : Column 782

Clauses 8 to 22,Schedule 5,Clauses 23 to 35,Schedule 6,Clauses 36 to 42,Schedule 7,Clauses 43 to 45,Schedules 8 and 9,Clauses 46 and 47,Schedule 10,Clauses 48 to 50,Schedule 11,Clauses 51 to 54,Schedules 12 and 13,Clauses 55 to 78,Schedule 14,Clauses 79 to 83,Schedule 15,Clauses 84 to 98,Schedule 16,Clauses 99 and 100,Schedules 17 to 20,Clauses 101 to 105,Schedule 21,Clauses 106 to 130,Schedule 22,Clauses 131 to 137,Schedule 23,Clauses 138 to 140.—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Care

11.38 am

The Earl of Listowel rose to call attention to issues relating to the social care workforce; and to move for Papers.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, it was an unexpected pleasure to see that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would be replying to the debate on behalf of the Government. It is a pleasure to see him back in his old portfolio.

I tabled this debate on the social care workforce because of the important White Paper, Options for Excellence, published in October last year, which dealt with a strategy for the social care workforce. To my mind, that paper has the potential to make the greatest improvement in safeguards for children and vulnerable adults of any document that I have seen in your Lordships’ House over the past 10 years.

I hope that noble Lords will think that this is a timely debate, given that only on Monday a report was produced into the mistreatment of disabled people in a care home. The report emphasised that an important part of the problem was the inexperience, and the lack of training and support of the staff in that home.

This is also an important debate if we are to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent effectively in this area. Now that we have a strategy rather than a piecemeal approach to improving the workforce, we can be far more confident that the outcomes we pursue will have

18 Jan 2007 : Column 783

a result. The Government have invested hugely in this area, tripling the amount spent on training the social care workforce. In recent meetings, the Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families, the right honourable Beverley Hughes—and, in a separate meeting, the right honourable Hilary Armstrong, the Minister with responsibility for social exclusion—highlighted the increase from £1.3 billion to £1.9 billion in the amount spent on the 60,000 children looked after in public care. Yet although there have been improvements, the improvements do not reflect the increased investment. Taxpayers must see a result for their money. If we are to achieve that difference, we need a more professional workforce.

Hilary Armstrong visited Denmark and Germany to look at the model of social pedagogy which is employed there in early-years care and residential care. She said the quality of care was better. In fact, 94 per cent of staff in children’s homes in Denmark are graduates. Far superior, they are paid a similar amount. As the ratio of staff to children in those countries is half that in the United Kingdom, it is cheaper to have better and more professional staff working in those settings.

Another motive for tabling this debate is that although much good-quality care is provided in foster care and in residential care for children, and many children speak positively of their experience of foster carers and of children’s homes, the turnover rate of staff in children’s homes is 27 per cent. I saw a 12 year-old girl in a children’s home over three days, on each of which she had a different agency staff member caring for her. That can only exacerbate her previous experience of broken relationships. I have also spoken to two managers of children’s homes. They told me that the difficulties which some of their staff have with reading and writing present serious problems to their endeavours.

I spoke to a member of staff working with 16 to 23 year-olds about one of the two tables in the dining room. It wobbled so severely that the young people were unable to eat off it. I came back three months later and the table was still there. Nothing had been done. When I raised the matter with her, she was somewhat upset to be challenged on it. It was not so much to do with her as with how overwhelmed the front-line staff who are working with these vulnerable young people are.

In 2005, 10 per cent of children leaving care had more than nine placements. The Commission for Social Care Inspection identified that 40 per cent of children in care are placed in inappropriate placements because there are not enough foster carers. In the Associate Parliamentary Group for Children and Young People in Care, I repeatedly hear of the turnover of social workers. In a recent meeting, one young man said, “I have had five different social workers in one and a half years”. Staff tell me that in looking after children in respite care and taking them into adulthood, they want to get the right services for the child but the turnover of social workers frustrates the transition process. I have spoken to colleagues about care for the elderly and it is apparent that there are many similar considerations. For instance, at a

18 Jan 2007 : Column 784

recent meeting with the Commission for Social Care Inspection, a user—an elderly woman—talked about her five or six different carers in two weeks. She described people she knew who had more than four carers in one day and highlighted the indignity of having a different person change one’s knickers every day. Such “personal care” and staff turnover are unacceptable.

Options for Excellence highlights the difference that social care makes to the 2 million adults and children whom social care workers provide for. Let us consider, for example, the number of adults and children in custody in this country. It is significantly higher than the numbers in our continental neighbours. There is currently a surge in the number of children being taken into custody. Professor Rod Morgan, the chair of the Youth Justice Board, recently told a meeting that because of the poor quality of staff development in some children’s homes, staff were not adequately managing behaviour, calling in the police, and children were ending up in custody. That is just one small example of how much it costs us not to invest in social care.

The Government have established a number of important institutions: the Commission for Social Care Inspection; the Social Care Institute for Excellence; the General Social Care Council, to register social workers as professionals; the Children’s Workforce Development Council; and Skills for Care. The Green Paper Care Matters appeared at the same time as Options for Excellence and seeks to transform the experience of children in care. I cannot express how laudable I think that work is. The ambition to introduce a pedagogical framework for foster carers and residential childcare workers and a tier of salaried foster carers at the upper level to generate a career progression attracting more foster carers is exactly right and much to be praised.

Options for Excellence speaks of a vision for the social care workforce: a professional workforce who are seen by the public as a positive element. Several means of achieving such a workforce are described, but chief among them is the need to develop learning organisations. I am glad that the report emphasises the importance of good-quality supervision, not only in looking at performance but in helping carers to manage the relationships and emotional baggage that come with this work. The paper talks about continual professional development, giving newly qualified practitioners the additional support they need and ensuring that new line managers get the support they need to settle into their posts. It looks at recruitment and retention issues, and I welcome the innovation of a degree for social work. That is now attracting more young people into social work.

Before we start trying to change the system, however, we must ask ourselves why we are here. Why have we performed so badly compared with our peers on the continent? It is due to some extent to our philosophical outlook. In a BBC interview in the 1970s, AJ Ayer, the late professor of logic at the University of Oxford and a leader of the logical positivists, said that, in the view of the logical

18 Jan 2007 : Column 785

positivists, any statement that was not a formal statement or empirically testable was nonsensical. He went on to say that,

“this tradition is so strong [because] it fitted into the English tradition, right back to the Middle Ages ... This hard-headedness, this empiricism, goes right through English philosophy—through Occam, Hobbes, Locke, even Berkeley in his strange way, Hume, Mill, Russell. Whereas it was all consciously hostile to the German tradition of romantic metaphysics”.

I took a short course on philosophy and politics at the London School of Economics some years ago and our teacher had the same low view of continental philosophy. He said that this was universal across the English-speaking world. One can look at our education system for a manifestation of that. Sir Michael Tomlinson, a former Chief Inspector of Schools, recently said that we have the most assessed children in the world. Of course that has immense benefits, but there are dire consequences when it gets out of balance.

This distaste for that point of view makes us less able to recognise the importance of emotions, imagination, empathy and relationships. The area of the subjective is difficult for us to negotiate. That point lies behind some of the difficulties that we have had in our struggles, even in the past 10 years, to improve matters. Its significance is clear in the history of social care, of which I shall try to give a brief sketch. In children’s homes, social work and care for the elderly, it is important that staff have suffered from poor development. They have often been unsupported in their work, and the result has been failure after failure. I think particularly of the way in which Victoria Climbié was let down. The social worker in her case had a caseload of 19, I think, and the maximum was 14. She was not getting the supervision she needed. One of her colleagues said that they were just doing conveyor-belt-care social work. There was no attention to detail.

Each time these disasters happen, a heavier burden of procedure is introduced and the balance is lost. I spoke to the head of High Close School, an excellent school run by Barnardo’s for children with emotional behavioural difficulties. He gave one of his children a hug while we were speaking. He told me that he could do that because he has worked in that area for so long that he has the confidence to do it. But many staff would not have that confidence, not just because of the history of abuse, but because guidance and procedures militate so much against such relationships.

---