Ros in the Lords: Short Debate on Business and Society

Ros hasn't spoken much in the Chamber lately, focussing more on her Committee work. But when Lord Sacks decided to initiate a debate on the relationship between business and society, she leapt upon the opportunity to highlight one of the ways in which that relationship might be improved...

Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat)

My Lords, perhaps oddly in a debate on business, I am going to focus on the topic of volunteering. I am going to do so because the good news is that more and more people of working age are volunteering, but they are able to do so through the good offices of the businesses and people who employ them and give them time off to do so. Many organisations are going further than this, and are participating in bespoke schemes which enable their staff at all levels to become involved with volunteering. This is perhaps with chosen charities through team activities, fundraising or joining in the work of the charity, or in other cases, giving professional advice such as legal, IT or financial.

The Westminster Volunteer Centre has a very good track record of working with large organisations and corporations to enable this to happen. I recently met a lady called Nikki King. She is the managing director of Isuzu Trucks, and she decided to tackle the lack of aspiration that she sees so often in young people by giving them mentors from the world of business and industry. She started just doing this by herself, but she now works with the Freight Transport Association, DHL, Asda, William Hill and many others to provide mentoring to 14 to 18 year-olds. In my own area, AXA insurance and Willis have both worked with local volunteer organisations.

Academic studies from around the world have shown that creating an employer supported volunteering scheme is a cost-efficient way for business to increase staff job satisfaction, build internal and external networks, contribute to high-quality personnel recruitment, teach new skills to their employees, improve customer relationships and increase shareholder value.

What do we, as parliamentarians, need to do to encourage this trend? First, we need to keep our house in order. I think that it is rather a pity that, as one of the largest employers in Westminster, we do not have a corporate volunteering scheme here. I have raised this with the House, and perhaps other noble Lords will support me in this endeavour.

Secondly, the Civil Service has a very good track record of volunteering and I hope that the Government will remain committed to it. Finally, the Government need to take a look at the funding for volunteer centres. Volunteering does not come free; there is no substitute for the face-to-face expertise and bespoke service provided by good volunteer centres.

My day as a zookeeper: A is for Aardvark

When I discovered that I had been given a 'Keeper for a Day' experience for Christmas, I was presented with a dilemma. Which of the three programmes should I choose? Scheme A had tigers, giant anteaters and inferior African elephants - clearly second best to placid, patient Indian elephants. But I'm not fussed about sun bears and wolves, so I rejected that. Scheme C had penguins and sea lions, but also had chimpanzees, and I've never really been keen on them. And so, it was Scheme B...

And so, bright and early this morning, I left our cottage in the mid-Suffolk countryside and headed for Colchester, one of the country's top zoos, for my day as a zookeeper... But, rather than retell the day in chronological order, I'll tell of my day in alphabetical order.

And here are my new friends, photographed by me inside their enclosure. Adela, the male, is the one lying on his back with his stomach in the air. So placid are they that he was quite content for me to rub his tummy, examine his claws (much bigger than you might think) and rub his ears.

And why let sleeping aardvarks lie?

Aardvarks grow to full size pretty quickly, and Zafira, the middle one in the picture, is only sixteen months old. She decided that my finger might be worth sucking in case it might produce milk (it doesn't, I'm afraid) but took a firm grasp with her tongue. The aardvark snout is surprisingly soft though...

However, there are more aardvarks, thanks to Adela and his partner Oq. Colchester Zoo has the most successful breeding program for aardvarks in the country and, indeed, worldwide, and Oq was in the birthing chamber with the latest addition, still to be named or, for that matter, sexed. I was taken behind the scenes to meet the baby and Oq, as baby aardvarks are quite vulnerable until they've put on a bit of weight. It already weighs over 5 kg, so the keepers hope that it can be introduced to the family group fairly soon.

A baby aardvark at the end of a hard day growing

Curiously, aardvarks don't seem to be very popular with the zoo-going public, which is odd, because you don't often see them in zoos, and whilst even their mothers would struggle to describe them as pretty, they do have a certain charm. I guess the fact that they're nocturnal, rather dull in colour and lacking in excitement, may be the cause, but I rather fell under their spell today. And I dare anyone not to want to pick up a baby aardvark...

Tomorrow, something beginning with B, and something beginning with G...

Equal marriage: an accidental bystander at a historic moment

Life, I am told, is mostly about being there. And, being married to Ros, I am fortunate in being slightly more likely to be there than most. Tonight, however, was one of those moments of pure, delightful, chance.

My visits to London are somewhat infrequent these days but, occasionally, I come to the big city for some social event or other, or to see my family. Today, it was for dinner with Ros and our guest. By sheer coincidence, I arrived just as the Lords divided on the Dear 'wrecking amendment', so I headed over to the rainbow festooned group to wish them good luck, making sure to say hello to the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats there. I then headed into Parliament to meet Ros.

Ros was on her way out though, to spread the news that the vote had been won, and clearly so too. And, soon enough, it was official, and the celebration could begin in earnest. We slipped away quietly, leaving our friends to savour a moment they have worked so hard towards.

It was a special moment, made even more satisfying by the fact that the person I love was able to make her contribution towards making it happen.

Never let it be said that there is no emotion in politics...

The House of Lords: a point or three of general clarification...

As the Liberal Democrat Voice Lords Correspondent (self-appointed and erratic, admittedly), I spend more time than most studying Hansard and perusing the Parliamentary website. And, married to a Member of the House myself, I tend to take a more tolerant view of its 'foibles', for perhaps obvious reasons.

It must be admitted that the Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill has not demonstrated the Lords at its best, but the response of some to the nature and tone of the debate has been equally poor, with some sweeping, and rather insulting, generalisations being sprayed around about those who occupy the red benches. And in reply to them, I would make a few points.

Firstly, the Lords reflects the nature of the people in it. They are, on average, past the age of retirement, i.e. predominantly within the one age bracket likely to be opposed to the proposals, if the polling is to be believed. Just because they're in the Lords doesn't make them any more or less tolerant than the population generally, especially as they're unaccountable. They are a cross-section of opinion, albeit a more balanced one than in the not so distant past.

Secondly, the speakers in the debate do not necessarily represent opinion in the House, as the formal vote will hopefully demonstrate, merely those wishing to express an opinion 'on the record'. If you've been watching the debate live, you'll have noticed that the chamber is hardly full, as some Peers have already heard all the arguments they need to, and have decided how they will vote, or have other Parliamentary business, and will turn up when the votes are taken.

Finally, this is a free vote, and Peers will have been actively lobbied by both sides - I know that Ros has received a lot of e-mail on this subject. Accordingly, individual Peers will vote according to their consciences. They are the very same people who, in recent years, have acted as a restraint on the Executive, particularly on matters of civil liberties, something that many of us have been grateful for. So, setting aside the question of the very legitimacy of an unelected Second Chamber, perhaps some of my colleagues might try to be more restrained in terms of the offensiveness of their language? And if that is too much to ask, could they not direct their unhappiness more accurately against those who are offending them?

All hail to the Chair!

It is a time of great pride on Planet Bureaucrat today, as Ros is debuting in her new role today, that of Chair of the House of Lords EU Sub-Committee D.

Responsible for scrutiny of EU proposals on agriculture, fisheries, environment and energy, it seems to me to be particularly appropriate for a Suffolk peer to be involved, and I suspect that Ros will prove to be rather good.

There is some travel involved, as Chairs of the various national Scrutiny Committees do meet from time to time, so I can expect to see a little less of her, and have more discussions on, for example, how best to travel to Vilnius or Riga (in the case of Vilnius, inconveniently...), as meetings take place in the country holding the six-monthly Presidency of the European Council - Lithuania from 1 July, then Greece, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

And so I can expect there to be lots of talk about fish, nuclear power and trees in my future. Hopefully, there will be reference to the pig industry too. Pork...

UK Uncut - demonstrating that bias need not be consistent

UK Uncut have been a thorn in the side of the Coalition since their emergence from anti-Vodafone demonstrations in October 2010, with their message that spending cuts were unnecessary and evil. And whilst one might agree with that, even if I don't for the most part, their argument has gone beyond politics and into sterile partisanship.

This is demonstrated by their response to the failure of their application for a judicial review on grounds concerning the governance and tax liabilities involved in an HMRC settlement with Goldman Sachs in 2010.

Anna Walker, campaigns director of UK Uncut Legal Action, said;

Obviously, while we are deeply disappointed that this deal has not been declared unlawful, the judge's ruling that top HMRC officials played politics with major tax deals to protect Osborne's reputation is a major victory in exposing the truth behind these secret deals.

Despite not having won the case today, we still feel that this judgment has demonstrated that the government is making a political choice to cut legal aid, public services and the welfare system, rather than take action to make corporate giants … pay their fair share of tax.

This case has exposed the lengths the government will go to to look tough on tax avoidance and has been vital in holding the government to account for its shameful actions.

And yet, a closer look at the judgement in this matter exposes an uncomfortable truth. At paragraph 12, Mr Justice Nicol states;

The Claimant's case is that the agreement on 19th November 2010 infringed this guidance. Contrary to paragraph 14 it was a package deal which traded a promise to pay 100% of the NICs for HMRC's promise to forego interest on those contributions. Principal and interest were effectively a single issue. In county court proceedings against Goldman Sachs which had been issued in 2003 the Revenue claimed both. The 19th November agreement "split the difference", contrary to paragraph 14. Likewise, contrary to paragraph 15, this was a situation where HMRC's case was strong, but it had accepted a settlement for less than 100% of the tax and interest.

Furthermore, Goldman Sachs had gained an advantage over the companies who settled with HMRC in 2005. It had retained the money which was due to the Revenue for another 5 years without having to pay interest. It had done so because of its aggressive behaviour. This settlement did the opposite of encouraging taxpayers to behave positively and was therefore contrary to paragraph 13 of the Litigation and Settlement Strategy.

I highlight one phrase.

Goldman Sachs had gained an advantage over the companies who settled with HMRC in 2005

Yes, this was a case taken out against a group of financial institutions, all but one of whom had settled in 2005, some five years before the Coalition came to power.

So, when Anna Walker says that the case demonstrates that;

the government is making a political choice to cut legal aid, public services and the welfare system, rather than take action to make corporate giants … pay their fair share of tax

she is wrong, and either carelessly wrong, or maliciously wrong to make such a claim based on this one case. The argument put by UK Uncut's barrister makes it clear that HMRC was treating each financial institution the same, the only difference being that Goldman Sachs resisted for rather longer than anyone else, and exposes the fact that the legal argument commenced prior to 2005.

Their argument also suggests that HMRC takes party politics into account in settling cases, yet Mr Justice Nicol confirms that this was not, and should not have been, a factor - despite David Hartnett's unfortunate turn of phrase and apparent misjudgement.

It is, in many ways, unfortunate that her bias obscures a genuinely important question, i.e. what should a tax regime seek to achieve? Are rates of corporate taxation appropriate in the United Kingdom, and what action should be taken to prevent large companies from playing one tax authority off against another, or simply playing the system for personal gain or advantage?

But if UK Uncut want to take a partisan stance, opposing an administration which has done more on corporate and other tax abuse than most in the past three decades, they may not achieve much more than notoriety...

An honourable courtesy?...

In the last Parliamentary session, the Conservative MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, Oliver Colville, introduced a Bill to grant courtesy titles to husbands and civil partners of Peers. I have to admit to having mixed feelings on the subject, acknowledging the equality perspective whilst sceptical of the value of courtesy titles full stop.

However, regardless of my personal view, the Bill never even got as far as a Second Reading in the Commons, and was lost at the end of the session accordingly. And now it's back (although not from outer space), courtesy of backbench Conservative Peer, Lord Lucas.

This time, it comes as part of an Equality (Titles) Bill, which covers the rights of inheritance to a hereditary title as well. If passed in its current state, it would grant the use of the title 'Honourable' to husbands and civil partners of Peers, baronets and Dames.

It could be worse, I suppose. 'Honourable' is fairly irrelevant, and tends not to be used, so could be ignored by those preferring not to conform with the orthodoxy. Frankly, I wouldn't see me using it much, except perhaps in certain unlikely social circumstances where it might be 'useful', i.e. the odd 'county set' event stuffed with Tories.

Taking the Bill at face value though, if you believe that equality is important, a half-hearted reform is as bad as no reform at all. The Bill still reinforces the second class status of husbands of female Peers and civil partners of Peers generally. If the appropriate courtesy title for the wife of a Peer is 'Lady', how does 'Honourable' compare with that? The answer is, it doesn't.

So, if the House of Lords really thinks that this matters, they'll apply genuine equality. And if they don't, I for one won't fundamentally mind if it is lost for lack of Parliamentary time...

A new drink, a sea view, the lizards and me

I've always found that, after a conference, I need a little down time. Given that I'm not overburdened with self-confidence, mingling with other delegates requires effort to relax on my part. It's not because they are intimidating - far from it - but because they are high fliers, and I don't really picture myself like that. It does get easier though, as I have learned over time that it is much easier to be myself than to try too hard. Apparently, I'm quite good at being me...

So, Council finished, I have come into Pula by bus and am having a gentle explore on what has become a rather nice afternoon. The railway station, to the north of the town centre, is in a state of genteel decay, especially now that it is at one end of a completely isolated piece of track connected to a series of small towns and villages across the centre of Istria - the last through train ran in December.

Next stop, the Roman amphitheatre, which held up to 20,000 people in its heyday, and the walls of which are mostly intact. It was, as one might expect, a venue for gladiator fights. Nowadays, it hosts a film festival and pop and classical music contests. The terracing provides a sun lounge for dozens of small lizards who seemed to grow comfortable with my presence.

The Adriatic is just yards away, and is millpond flat, the sun is warm, and I'm slightly more active than the lizards (but only slightly).

Pula also has free public wi-fi in various parts of the city. This means that I can blog whilst sitting at a cafe in a square with a glass of biska (a mistletoe grappa). This I highly approve of, and it is something that I should seek for Creeting St Peter in due course.

I head for home tomorrow, in time to hurl myself back into my studies and be (hopefully) reunited with my Kindle Fire. But there are a few things that I ought to do besides...