House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
As you are aware, Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in the United States on departmental business, representing UK interests. I know that he has already written to you about that, and he sends his apologies to the House.
Last week, the Government launched a consultation setting out the policy framework for agriculture after the UK leaves the European Union. This Command Paper outlined a series of proposals to help farmers invest in their farms and become more profitable, to support new entrants coming into the industry and to support collaborative working in areas such as research and development.
Neil Parish
There was nearly a state crisis this morning: the pedal came off my bicycle at Vauxhall bridge. I managed to get here just in time.
I very much welcome the Command Paper. It talks much about having a greener and better environment for the future, but does the Minister agree that part of that agriculture paper must include the means of production—good-quality production—and our being able to increase, rather than decrease, the food that we grow in this country as we go forward with a new British agricultural policy?
George Eustice
I very much agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes. He and I both have a background in the farming industry, and we recognise the importance of this strategically vital industry for our country. He will know that we have a manifesto commitment to grow our agriculture industry and produce more food. Our consultation outlines a number of proposals, including improving both our productivity and research and development.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
When will a decision be made on the reintroduction of a seasonal workers scheme, so that crops do not rot in the ground this summer?
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is an issue on which the Home Office leads. We have regular discussions with Home Office colleagues on these matters and we feed in the feedback that we get from industry on this matter. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his speech to the National Farmers Union, we are looking closely at the idea of a seasonal agricultural workers scheme, so that we can have the labour that we need after we leave the European Union.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Most of the food produced and processed in my Cleethorpes constituency is reliant on good supplies of fish. Can the Minister give an absolute assurance that the fishing industry will not be sold out in these negotiations as it was in the 1970s?
George Eustice
We have consistently been clear that when we leave the European Union, we leave the common fisheries policy. Under international law—the UN convention on the law of the sea—we then become an independent coastal state, and we will manage the fisheries resources in our exclusive economic zone and manage access to our own waters.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
How will the Minister ensure that farm subsidies after Brexit will remain targeted at food production?
George Eustice
We have been clear that we will maintain the total spending that we have on agriculture and the farmed environment until 2022. We have also been clear—our paper sets this out—that there will be a transitional period as we move from an incoherent system of area payments, which we have now, to one that is focused on the delivery of public goods. We recognise that there will need to be a gradual transition from the old system to the new.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The EU’s common agricultural policy has been a disaster for the British dairy industry, because it has been designed in the interests of French farmers, not British farmers. How can we put that right after Brexit?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The common agricultural policy has all sorts of inconsistencies. Having a one-size-fits-all agricultural policy for the whole European Union makes no sense at all, and as we leave the European Union and take back control of these matters, we will have the freedom to design an agricultural policy that works for our own farmers.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
May I say first how relieved I am that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) made it here today to ask this important question?
When the Secretary of State looks at how best to support food producers, he should be aware that the figures of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that 64% of farmers earn less than £10,000 a year and that eight supermarkets control almost 95% of the food retail market. Recent figures also show that farmers receive less than 10% of the value of their produce that is sold in supermarkets. Can the Secretary of State—or the Minister today—tell me, please, what he is doing to tackle this clearly inequitable and unsustainable situation?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady makes an important point. If we want to move to a position in which farmers are no longer dependent on subsidies, it is important that we support farmers to come together collaboratively, to strengthen their position in the supply chain and ensure that they get a fairer price for the food that they produce. We recently outlined a series of proposals for a statutory code on dairy and a statutory approach to carcase classification for sheep, together with a range of other options.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
I have had regular dialogue with Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy regarding the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and we recently had a call for evidence on the matter. In our response on 16 February to that call for evidence, we set out a range of measures to improve fairness in the supply chain and strengthen the position of farmers and small producers.
Stephen Timms
I am the unpaid chair of the trustees of the Fairtrade organisation Traidcraft. There were high hopes across the Chamber of a stronger Groceries Code Adjudicator to protect suppliers from unfair practices, such as last-minute cancellations of orders and unexplained deductions from invoices. Ministers started consulting, I think, 18 months ago on possible changes. The farming Command Paper last month promised fairness in the supply chain, but hopes were dashed with the announcement last month that there would be no change to the adjudicator’s remit. Why are Ministers failing to take action?
George Eustice
I do not accept that there was no change. As I said a little earlier, we have announced a package of measures. It includes a £10 million collaboration fund to help farmers and small producers to come together, compulsory milk contracts legislation to protect dairy farmers, compulsory sheep carcase classification, a commitment to making supply chain data easier to access to improve transparency and market integrity and a commitment to reviewing whether more grocery retailers should come under the GCA’s remit.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I hear what the Minister says, but given that the vast majority of producers and consumers are very keen for the Groceries Code Adjudicator to be strengthened, why will he not do so? The Opposition are very happy to help if he says that he is prepared to strengthen the code.
George Eustice
When we looked at the evidence, we found that a lot of it concerned particularly vulnerable sectors, such as dairy and some of the other livestock sectors, which often end up becoming price takers because they do not have sufficient strength to deal with large processors. It was less an issue of the supermarkets and more an issue of the processors. We have decided that a better way to take this forward is to introduce other statutory codes that target the problem, rather than trying to change the GCA’s remit.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Last autumn, an independent working group was set up, as part of the litter strategy for England, to hold a call for evidence on measures to reduce littering of drinks containers and promote recycling. That included seeking evidence on the costs, benefits and impacts of deposit return schemes. I have recently received the report, and I am considering the recommendations.
Jeff Smith
We know that in this country, 15 million plastic bottles a day are not recycled. We also know that a deposit return scheme can increase recycling rates, and I hope that the Government will introduce such a scheme after this report. May I urge them to introduce a scheme that applies to all drinks containers, of all sizes and from all sale locations, rather than a scheme that applies only to on-the-go containers from kiosks and vending machines?
Dr Coffey
Part of the evidence that was submitted reflects the fact that councils offer a comprehensive recycling service at the kerbside. I am delighted to say that Rotherham has finally agreed to start collecting plastic bottles. We need to consider the approach carefully. I think that there is an appetite for a DRS, but the schemes that we have seen in other parts of Europe are very different, and we need a scheme that works for this country and achieves the outcomes that we all seek.
Chi Onwurah
Like many colleagues, I have pledged to “pass on plastic”. For too many of my constituents, doing so is impossible because their streets and their lives are inundated with a flood of plastic bottles, bags, food trays and crisp packets, turning their environment into a dumping ground. Will the Minister take action urgently and stop denying local authorities such as Newcastle City Council the powers and the resources to tackle the problem? Frankly, right now on the environment, this Government are rubbish.
Dr Coffey
I think that question was a complete waste of space. The hon. Lady refers to powers. The Government have given councils the powers that they have been asking for to tackle littering and waste crime, so I think she is being rather ungenerous about the progress that is being made. Plastic has a role in safe packaging, but it has become endemic. That is why we are considering it carefully in the resources and waste strategy, which we intend to publish later this year.
Liz Twist
We have litter-picking groups across my constituency, and we see loads of areas where plastic bottles and glass bottles are dumped. Will the Minister commit now to introducing a deposit return scheme for plastic and all other containers, so that we can avoid this plague of plastic?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
Let us be clear: the people who drop litter are litter louts. I reiterate my phrase, “Don’t be a tosser!” because it does not help society to drop litter anywhere and everywhere. Let us get real about how we need to tackle that. I commend the work that Keep Britain Tidy does in encouraging litter collections. However, the hon. Lady is right: we need to sort this issue out in the first place. That is why DRS is being considered very carefully as part of our resources waste strategy.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
On International Women’s Day, I would like to be a bit more consensual and ask the Minister to applaud the campaign by our female colleagues to give up plastics for Lent and the Church of England’s initiative on practical suggestions for something that we can do on every one of the 40 days. Has the Minister given up something plastic for Lent? Will she join us in writing to manufacturers for whom there is no alternative to plastic to encourage them to find a sustainable solution?
Dr Coffey
Of course a Church Commissioner would call upon God and the Church of England to inspire us. I am also one of the people who has taken the pledge to try to give up something plastic for Lent. I pledged to carry a water bottle around in my handbag—I am not going to produce a prop, Mr Speaker—and I have had to sacrifice my Marmite in the Tea Room because it is only sold in plastic sachets. We are all looking forward to the proposals from Parliament, because this does matter. The campaigns on passing on plastic and giving up plastic for Lent are partly about behavioural change among consumers. I believe that companies are starting to respond and we are starting to see changes, but the more consumers demand this, the quicker action will happen in the marketplace. I assure the House that this Government will take action.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
A deposit return scheme is not just about raising recycling rates; it is also about educating and raising awareness among the public about the need to be responsible. In that vein, will the Minister join me in praising the many towns across Cornwall—Newquay, Falmouth, Penzance, Bude, and many others—that have declared their aims to become single-use plastic free? Does she agree that Cornwall is leading the way in raising awareness of this issue?
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that in Ashbourne over the past four days, tens of thousands of plastic bottles of water have been handed out by Severn Trent because of its failure to reconnect the water supply? At the moment, the compensation level is £30 a day, which is woefully inadequate. Will she look at the specific case surrounding Ashbourne?
Dr Coffey
As I announced to the House the other day, I have asked Ofwat to undertake a review. I have also encouraged water companies to improve the compensation that they could discretionally offer. I expect that Severn Trent is already responding to the call from my right hon. Friend.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The plastic that we see on our beaches and at our roadsides is what brings this to people’s attention, but in fact the plastic particles that we do not see should be of the greatest concern. A recent BBC report found that in 1 litre of melted Arctic sea ice there were 234 plastic particles. Surely, that should be why we treat this urgently. If the Minister is consulting on this, it should be about how we do it, not if.
Dr Coffey
This Government have taken strong action on banning microplastics from certain products. We are still waiting for the other nations, but they have committed to making sure that that happens by June as well. On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the Arctic ice, this is indeed a global matter. That is why we work hard with other nations through different forums, whether the OSPAR Commission on the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic, the G7, other agencies such as the United Nations, or of course our Commonwealth countries, which will be visiting the UK next month for the summit.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Our approach to future environment policy was set out in our recently published 25-year environment plan; our approach to future agriculture policy was published in our consultation last week; and our approach to trade negotiations with the EU was outlined in a speech by the Prime Minister last week. All these policies are being developed at the same time.
Angela Smith
I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he agree that there should be a common framework for environmental standards across the whole United Kingdom after Brexit?
George Eustice
As the hon. Lady will be aware, through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we are initially bringing across all existing EU legislation as it pertains to the environment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also outlined plans for a new environmental body, and we are in discussion with the devolved Administrations about their involvement and a UK framework in these matters.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Park keeper or food producer—whatever the future for farming is going to be, does my hon. Friend agree that it must be possible to earn a living out of farming?
George Eustice
I very much agree with my hon. Friend, who has a lot of experience in these matters and an understanding of the industry. He is absolutely right. There will be parts of the country where some farmers choose to do more by way of delivering environmental outcomes, and in other parts they may focus more on food production. Either way, we want a vibrant, profitable farming industry across our country.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
In the Prime Minister’s speech last Friday, she said that there would be no compromise on environmental standards and animal welfare standards, which was welcome. What guarantees can the Minister give to Welsh and UK farm producers that they will not be disadvantaged by lower-standard food entering the UK market following post-Brexit trade deals?
George Eustice
Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have always been consistently clear that we will not lower our high animal welfare standards and high food standards in this country in pursuit of a trade deal.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Our seas and oceans are an integral part of our history, economy and way of life, and the “Blue Planet” series drew attention to how they are under threat. The UK marine strategy, which was reinforced in the 25-year environment plan, shows what we are doing to reduce harmful pressures and manage activities that have an impact on the marine environment.
Douglas Ross
Our fishermen are strong custodians of the marine environment, and fishing communities in Moray such as Buckie, Burghead and Lossiemouth—to name but a few—are looking forward to this Government taking us out of the disastrous common fisheries policy. Does the Minister agree that leaving the European Union will provide fishermen in Moray, Scotland and the UK with a sea of opportunity, part of which will be protecting the marine environment to ensure that it supports the fishing industry for many years to come?
Dr Coffey
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reinforced in the Mansion House speech, we will be leaving the common fisheries policy next year when we leave the European Union, and that gives us an opportunity as an independent coastal state to manage sustainably the fisheries that we have.
Alan Mak
The Final Straw Solent is a new community group in my constituency whose objective is to reduce plastic use and clean up our local coastlines. Will the Minister join me in congratulating that group on its work and encourage more community groups like it to continue protecting and improving our marine environment?
Dr Coffey
I commend the organisers of the Final Straw Solent. It matters that we have local action. Of course, we want to have wider action to stop people dropping their litter in the first place. On International Women’s Day, we should also look across the other side of the Solent to Dame Ellen MacArthur, who is best known for her wonderful sailing record but should also be known as a true champion for the environment. Through her foundation, she is doing a lot of work to make sure we reduce our use of plastics and improve the circular economy.
Dr Coffey
Not many people know this, but we have some of the most spectacular cold-water coral reefs in the world in these fair islands. They are a protected feature of the Canyons marine conservation zone, and the Scottish Government are also protecting coral in some of their marine protected areas. We have re-engaged with the international coral reef initiative and will seek ways to promote its importance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting next month.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I beg the Minister not to be too parochial? This is a global challenge for all our lives. We have a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting coming up in London. Is it not about time that she and her boss went there to make common cause across the 52 nations to do something on a global scale that is meaningful?
Dr Coffey
There are now 53 Commonwealth nations since the Gambia rejoined last month. We are working together with other Commonwealth nations through the Commonwealth Secretariat to have an ambitious blue charter that will focus on the challenges the hon. Gentleman sets out.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is right that the threats to our oceans are international, not national. It is good to take action on plastics locally, but plastics in the sea, the acidification threatening coral reefs and many other things call for international action. What leadership will this Government give at that level?
Dr Coffey
I would like to think that the UK is the international leader on these issues. As I said to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), this is an international matter: all this literally moves around the world. I have recently been to the United States and Canada, and we are working on this with Canada, which has the G7 presidency this year. We are leading the way on dealing with ocean acidification, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is very much at the top of the agenda for this Government.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
At the last EFRA questions on 25 January, I said to the Secretary of State:
“the question for fishing, given all the tonnes he will take from the European Union, is this: where is it going, and when?”
The Secretary of State answered:
“On to the plates of people from the Western Isles to the south-west of England, who can enjoy the fantastic produce that our fishermen catch every day.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 396.]
I said, “Good dodge”, and he replied, “Thank you.” Today, I wonder whether we can get an answer to the question with no dodge. Given all the tonnes the UK Government tell fishermen they will take from the European Union, where is it going, and when?
Dr Coffey
The Government are, of course, still seeking a trade deal, but the hon. Gentleman should also be aware of the fact that countries such as Norway and Iceland, which are independent states, have control of their waters and grant access to them. There are annual negotiations for shared stocks, and we will continue to be part of those negotiations.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Leaving the European Union provides the UK with an opportunity to improve the profitability of the agriculture sector. In our consultation document, we set out an approach to support that objective, and we are seeking the views of the industry on a range of measures to improve the competiveness of the farming sector.
Since it is International Women’s Day, may I take this opportunity to congratulate Minette Batters, who has recently become the first ever woman president of the National Farmers Union?
Hannah Bardell
I join the Minister in that sentiment.
Brexit is by far the greatest threat to Scottish farming. Given that Scotland has proportionately higher rates of common agricultural policy funding than elsewhere and that the types of farming that can take place in Scotland are very specific, will the Minister commit here and now to making sure that no subsidies to Scotland are cut after Brexit?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady will be aware of our intention that agricultural policy and the design of individual schemes will be very much a matter for the devolved Administrations. I look forward to seeing some of the proposals and suggestions that may come from the Scottish Government. We have offered to share our proposals with them so that they can learn from some of our analysis.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I am proud that Vale of Evesham asparagus has been granted protected geographical indication status by the EU, which will help to boost its brand recognition and sales. Will PGI status still be recognised post Brexit?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Vale of Evesham asparagus obviously has a fantastic reputation across our country and, indeed, around the world. On protected food names, our intention is that the existing legislation will come across through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Third countries can already seek designations for the EU market, and the designations we already have in the UK will be protected through our domestic legislation.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is surprisingly shy and self-effacing this morning. We are unlikely to reach Question 12, so if the hon. Gentleman wants to favour the House with his thoughts on this question, which is not dissimilar to his own, he is welcome to do so.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Mr Speaker
The House will be most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as will the hon. Gentleman’s brother.
George Eustice
We recognise the importance of our small family farms, and we also recognise that some of them may face more challenges in a transition from the old system to the future one. In our paper, we set out detailed proposals on a gradual transition to give them time to prepare, and we also set out a number of measures to help to support productivity, add value and get a fairer price for their products. We would of course be more than happy to share our proposals with the Scottish Government.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
George Eustice
I thank my hon. Friend for that invitation, and either I or another Minister would be delighted to attend the Shropshire show, which will be part of this year’s agricultural show programme. It will be an important opportunity for us to engage with the industry.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
We are firmly committed to maintaining and improving our world-leading animal welfare standards. Our consultation paper sets out the options we are considering as we leave the EU, such as pilot schemes that offer payments to farmers delivering higher welfare outcomes. We are also producing improved animal welfare codes for meat chickens, laying hens, and pigs.
Luke Hall
I thank the Minister for that answer. There are currently circumstances in which someone who has been charged with serious animal welfare offences is able to acquire new livestock, under the guise of it belonging to a partner, in the run-up to their trial. That can result in serious cases of neglect and cruelty, and there has been such a case in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that anybody charged with the most serious type of animal welfare offences should not be allowed to acquire new livestock in the run-up to their trial? Will he meet me and the leader of South Gloucestershire Council to discuss that matter?
George Eustice
The Animal Welfare Act 2006 gives courts the power to impose a disqualification order on anyone found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to animals. That can disqualify someone not only from owning or keeping animals but, crucially, from having any influence over the way in which an animal is kept. If someone is suspected of breaching the terms of a disqualification order, the matter should be reported to the relevant authorities. My hon. Friend will understand that there is a difference if someone has been charged but not yet prosecuted, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware of long-standing public health concerns about the routine overuse of antibiotics on UK farms, yet we now hear that such use is five times higher on American farms, particularly for US beef production. What conversations is he having with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that opening the markets to US beef does not happen, and that we do not have a public health crisis in this country?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady makes an important point. We have made good progress in the UK on reducing our use of antibiotics in agriculture. There have been notable successes in the poultry industry, and the pig sector is also making improvements. In our future agricultural policy, we want to support approaches to livestock husbandry that will enable us to reduce the use of antibiotics further and, as I said earlier, we will not compromise our food and animal welfare standards in pursuit of any trade deal.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Game is an important part of our food heritage, and it is a draw on menus across the UK and served in many establishments. Exports of game meat were worth £9 million in 2016 and £7 million in 2017. We have no specific plans to promote UK game meat, but we continue to raise the profile and reputation of UK food and drink overseas through the Food is GREAT campaign.
Jim Shannon
The Minister will be aware that the game sector is worth £114 million to the industry back home. I suspect he will also be aware that the European market, in particular in France, has decreased. Is he prepared to consider introducing and promoting game in the far east, especially in China, because that market is just crying out for game for people’s plates?
George Eustice
I regularly take part in trade delegations with the UK Government, and a couple of years ago I attended the Anuga food conference in Cologne, where there was a producer and exporter of UK game meat. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and consider his proposals in this area.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Since the last DEFRA questions, the Department has continued to work on plans for our departure from the European Union and we have published our Command Paper on future agricultural policy. We have laid legislation to introduce mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses, taking forward our agenda to enhance animal welfare. Parliament has also recently debated and passed legislation to strengthen laws on combating litter.
Mr Hollobone
Remainers and leavers agree that one of the very worst aspects of our EU membership is the common fisheries policy. Can the Minister confirm that we are leaving it on 29 March next year, that the British fishing industry can be relaunched as a result, and that he will not trade away our newly re-won sovereignty over fishing in the interests of a wider trade deal?
George Eustice
We have always been clear that when we leave the European Union, we leave the common fisheries policy and become an independent coastal state under international law. There are, of course, always annual negotiations—even for countries outside the EU—to agree an approach on the management of shared stocks, and we envisage that such meetings will continue. I can confirm that the UK Government’s view is that there is a trade discussion to take place. We want a free trade agreement and a fisheries discussion to take place, and we want to take back control of our waters.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Last week’s freezing temperatures caused chaos to water supplies this week. Households in London were among those hardest hit, with customers widely reporting a systemic failure by Thames Water to comply with its legal obligation to provide 10 litres of water per person for every day that a customer is disconnected. Will the Minister confirm that that was the case and, if so, when the Department was notified, as is the requirement? What actions does she intend to take against companies that fail to meet that obligation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
As I said in my recent statement to the House, I have ordered Ofwat to undertake a review of what has been happening. I have asked for a report to be made available—there might be an interim one by the end of this month—and I will be able to update the hon. Lady after that.
Holly Lynch
I hope that we can ensure that water is getting to customers who are still without connected water supply this week. Given that executives at the top nine water and sewage companies in England earned a combined total of nearly £23 million in 2017 and those companies have paid out £18.1 billion in dividends since 2006, but that Ofwat has already said that taking action on pay, dividends and tax structures is not in its current thinking, what is the Government’s plan to rebalance executive pay with investment in infrastructure and resilience and to get a grip on our water companies if Ofwat has said it does not intend to do so?
Dr Coffey
As we set out in our strategic policy statement to Ofwat, there is an expectation of the increased investment that needs to be made by the industry, and the price review is under way. Water companies will be coming out with their consultation, but when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke to the water industry at Water UK a few weeks ago, he read it the riot act. He has said that he will give Ofwat whatever powers it needs so that the water companies will up their game.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Dr Coffey
Absolutely. As a child I lived in Formby, so I visited Southport many times. My hon. Friend is right that plastic does not belong on the beach or in the sea. I commend the work that has been done, but he will be aware of our ongoing measures to reduce the amount of plastic entering the ocean and, therefore, being left on our beaches.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
George Eustice
The hon. Lady will be aware that this issue is shared between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The former leads on folic acid and we lead on labelling issues. It is the case that there is a complexity in EU law. EU regulations now require that all products that have flour must include labelling. That creates burdensome problems for the industry, but if there is a recommendation, we will look at it sensibly. Once we leave the EU, we will have an opportunity to adopt a slightly different approach.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Dr Thérèse Coffey
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. We are part of an international convention on migratory species. Illegal trapping in Cyprus has been a long-running sore. I commend the Ministry of Defence, police and the armed forces at the sovereign base in Cyprus for working so hard to tackle this issue. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has shown that there has been a 70% fall in the amount of illegal poaching.
Mr Speaker
I am so glad that the right hon. Gentleman does not represent a migratory species, and I doubt that proposition would be the subject of a Division of the House.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
Customers can choose to keep paper bills. Water companies, like many other companies, tend to offer a discount if people choose to switch to electronic communication, but I am sure that customers can take this matter up directly through the Consumer Council for Water if it is proving to be a problem.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Dr Coffey
Officials have been in regular touch with the water companies, and on Tuesday, I convened a meeting of water company chief executives, Ofwat and Water UK. As I announced to the House, I have asked Ofwat to undertake a review to look into the practices that happened.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
George Eustice
The point that we are making is that in the long term, there may be opportunities in certain sectors, particularly for food that we are unable to produce in this country, to have lower prices for certain products. However, the hon. Lady makes an important point. Generally, we have low and stable food prices in this country, and countries that are fully dependent on importing all their food tend to have higher prices and less choice.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point—as a former fruit and vegetable grower, I should perhaps declare an interest—and she is absolutely right. We believe that our future policy, in so far as it supports innovation, will be open to the horticulture sector so that it can invest in its future, and we also talk about the importance of promoting nutritious food.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Government said in court that they considered it sufficient to take
“a pragmatic, less formal approach”
to areas of poor air quality. Portsmouth has consistently breached World Health Organisation guidelines, with 95 premature deaths each year attributed to air pollution. Does the Minister therefore consider it appropriate to take an informal approach to preventing deaths and protecting the health of my constituents?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I think that the hon. Gentleman is selectively quoting from the judgment. However, this Government take air quality very seriously. Portsmouth is expected to be compliant within the next two to three years. The Government have been using the benchmark of a charging clean air zone, which would take at least four years to come into place. The hon. Gentleman might well be shaking his head, but he needs to be working with his council on what it is doing to improve local roads and what it is working on regarding public health. I am sure that he will work alongside Councillor Donna Jones, who is making great efforts to improve air quality.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The EU Commission’s position on fisheries has been widely reported in the last 24 hours. It states that
“existing reciprocal access to fishing waters and resources should be maintained”.
It also seems to suggest that any future trade deal will be heavily dependent on EU fishermen maintaining the current unfair access to British waters. Agreeing to this position is clearly unacceptable to fishing communities around the UK. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government consider the EU’s position to be just as unacceptable?
George Eustice
Yes. I simply say to my hon. Friend that this is an EU position. It currently benefits considerably from access to UK waters. At the moment, the UK fleet accesses around 100,000 tonnes of fish in EU waters, but the EU accesses 700,000 tonnes of fish in UK waters, so it would say that, wouldn’t it? That is not a position that the UK Government share.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I draw the Minister’s attention to the very serious oil spill stretching from Pymmes brook in my constituency right down the River Lea to the Olympic Park. This has happened for the second time in two years. Is it not time for the Environment Agency, the Canal & River Trust, the local authorities and Thames Water to get together, once they have cleaned up the spill, to see what they can do to prevent such spills?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I have already replied to the right hon. Gentleman about this point through answers to written questions. The Environment Agency has traced the waste oil to a potential polluter, but I cannot give further details due to the ongoing investigation. I assure him that the Environment Agency carries out pollution prevention visits at industrial premises along that area and, of course, we are still working to clean it up.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Last week’s Brexit paper referred to the availability of food, but made zero reference to the scandal that one in 12 British adults had gone a whole day without it. Why do the Government not care about people going hungry?
George Eustice
We do care about people going hungry. We have a number of initiatives to support food banks and ensure that food is redistributed. We are also reforming and improving the benefits system to help people back into work, which is obviously the best option.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware of the concern expressed by Northern Ireland farmers and other food producers about cross-border trade. Does the Minister agree that we need an arrangement that will accommodate everyone?
George Eustice
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. I met him and a number of others yesterday to discuss the particular challenges of the Northern Ireland border, and I can reassure him that the Government are fully apprised of that concern.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)
The National Audit Office takes environmental commitments very seriously. Since 2011 it has operated an environmental management scheme certified by the International Standards Organisation, which includes setting challenging targets to reduce or eliminate waste in a number of areas. The NAO has already taken several steps to minimise the use of single-use plastics. For example, it does not use single-use plastic bottles or water cups, and encourages the use of reusable coffee cups in its staff café by offering a discount on the cost of hot drinks.
Mr Hollobone
Will my hon. Friend encourage the NAO to be an exemplar for all public bodies by eliminating the use of single-use plastics?
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend is an exemplar of an assiduous Member of Parliament, and I will certainly encourage the NAO to be an exemplar as well. Let me say in passing that the NAO’s catering team has made a deal with one of its main suppliers to collect and reuse packaging from catering deliveries. Cardboard and single-use plastics have been replaced by reusable plastic crates. Isn’t that marvellous?
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The Church Investors Group manages a total fund of £17 billion, approximately £8 billion of which represents the Church Commissioners’ assets. The commissioners have discharged their stewardship responsibilities for a long time by voting on issues including executive remuneration and climate change, and, most recently, adding to the criteria gender diversity on boards, the disclosure of company pay ratios, and the payment of at least the living wage to staff.
Diana Johnson
Will the right hon. Lady set out in a little more detail the approach that the Church Commissioners are taking to ensure that businesses take the issue of climate change very seriously?
Dame Caroline Spelman
That is one of the stewardship responsibilities, and commissioners will vote against chairs of companies if they are assessed as not having made sufficient progress in addressing climate change. I am pleased to be able to share the good news that when a resolution was filed by the Church Commissioners and the New York State Comptroller asking Exxon to report on how its business model would help to tackle climate change, 62.3% of shareholders voted in favour of it despite opposition from the board.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The Church of England recently signed an accord with the Government to enable churches to improve broadband and mobile connectivity, particularly in rural areas. It sets out how the Church can collaborate with providers to help to achieve that.
Victoria Prentis
The tower of St Peter in Drayton, for example, could really help with connectivity in an area that suffers from a lack of connectivity. Could my right hon. Friend give my constituents some guidance as to how best to find their way through the planning system, to help them make an application in relation to the church?
Dame Caroline Spelman
My hon. Friend’s constituency has seen a significant improvement in broadband coverage, which is currently at 95.5%—up from 19% in 2010. However, there are undoubtedly not spots, and I encourage her to get churches to contact Church House to find out how they can avail themselves of this new opportunity. In this accord, the Church has reached agreement with broadband providers to provide a standard contract to make that easy. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lord Gardiner, for this initiative on working together to get our rural and urban mobile and broadband not spots covered.
Michael Tomlinson
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her part in securing the accord. On International Women’s Day, it seems appropriate to mention Lady St Mary church in Wareham, in my constituency, which is already installing telecommunications equipment in its—or her, I should say—tower. What more can my right hon. Friend do to encourage others to follow where Wareham and Dorset are leading?
Dame Caroline Spelman
My hon. Friend is doing a good job of demonstrating to the whole House the difference it can make when we, as Members of Parliament, make our constituents in not spots aware of this new agreement. If Members have churches with tall towers or spires, these can be used to bounce the broadband signal into existing not spots. The example, on International Women’s Day, of the church he refers to gives encouragement to all. I know that the Isle of Purbeck suffers from poorer coverage, and I would encourage him to get the churches in his constituency to apply too.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I hear what the right hon. Lady says, but will she include in the work that the Church is doing churches that have been closed? They are often in the most rural and isolated areas, and their status is sometimes unclear. This could be a very important way in which we could make use of these buildings.
Dame Caroline Spelman
The Church of England has put its entire assets at the disposal of the Government to help crack the problem of the not spots—that includes its churches, its schools and its land, where necessary. For example, we can beam a signal from a church spire to the brow of a hill—the land may belong to the Church—down into the next village, which does not have a signal, and thereby get coverage. Those assets are all bound up in this accord.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her responses. It is really good news that the Church of England is making its buildings available for this purpose. However, does she agree that it is equally important that historical artefacts, which can be displayed tremendously in small parishes in rural communities that have dedicated Royal British Legion facilities, could also be displayed in buildings owned by the Church of England across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Dame Caroline Spelman
This new accord on wi-fi and mobile coverage will make the churches a hot spot, not a not spot, in communities. That may well bring in people who want to have the benefit of a good signal and, by the way, to discover the wonderful heritage and artefacts that the churches offer. I should add that although this accord has been signed with the Church of England, the Government want to offer the same opportunity to other denominations, because the aim is universal coverage.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South)
The Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to monitor the political finance rules and take all reasonable steps to secure compliance with them. The amount of money spent on compliance measures fluctuates and tends to intensify around electoral events. The full range of this activity includes creating comprehensive guidance for parties, campaigners and candidates; engaging with parties directly; monitoring campaign activity; checking and publishing financial returns from parties; and the enforcement of the rules. In the 2017-18 financial year, the commission’s budget for its political finance and regulation directorate is £2.66 million.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that answer. Will she make the point to the Electoral Commission on our behalf that it is all very well to put these substantial extra compliance costs on to the political parties, but the commission is fully funded by the taxpayer, while political parties have to raise their own finances?
Bridget Phillipson
I am sure that officials from the Electoral Commission will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. The commission provides year-round advice and regularly engages with political parties, as he doubtless knows from his many meetings with the commission in his previous role as Chairman of his party. I am sure that it would welcome the opportunity to discuss any such suggestions with him again.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Following the disgraceful decision by the Government yesterday to keep secret the source of the £425,000 donation to the leave campaign via the Democratic Unionist party, meaning that the public have no idea where that money came from, what more can my hon. Friend and the Electoral Commission do to ensure that we have full transparency in our electoral and democratic system?
Bridget Phillipson
The commission welcomes the existing order, which will for the first time provide information about donations and loans received by parties in Northern Ireland. However, the commission also wants to see transparency in donations going back to 2014, as Parliament envisaged, and it would support the Government in laying a further order to provide for full transparency going back to 2014.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Charities and academics are warning the Government that the trials for compulsory voter ID this May could risk disenfranchising large numbers of vulnerable people. How will the Electoral Commission monitor these pilots, which are a disproportionate response to the scale of electoral fraud?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend makes an important point on the pilots that the UK Government are carrying out in the forthcoming elections. No one wants to see voters turned away from polling stations, but the extent to which voters in pilot areas are unable to vote on 3 May, and why that is the case, will be key elements of the commission’s statutory evaluation of the pilot schemes. I am sure that the commission will want to hear directly from anyone who finds themselves affected as a result.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The national Church institutions provide advice to churches and cathedrals on what funding is available. The Church Buildings Council is also able to advise parishes on a number of other funds that are available besides the landfill communities fund, which is the principal source, such as the new plastic bag tax fund.
Mr Sheerman
Many of the churches and other religious buildings that I am aware of are relatively ignorant about the large amount of money from landfill tax that Entrust controls. If the Churches and religious institutions are engaged in broader community activities, they will qualify for such funds. Could that be made more widely known?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The fact that the hon. Gentleman has made us aware of that fact in the House, and that it will be recorded in Hansard, is extremely helpful. The landfill communities fund has spent £106 million on the restoration of places of worship since it was created, but the relatively new plastic bags tax fund is another source of funds for places of worship in our constituencies and goes beyond the 10-mile radius from a landfill site, which is a constraint on the landfill fund.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
We have a large number of church buildings in Scotland, and the burden of maintaining them is onerous for the Churches that own them. Will those Churches be able to apply for similar funding north of the border?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I am not responsible for the Church in Scotland. The Church Estates Commissioner is responsible only for the Church of England, but I am perfectly prepared to make inquiries on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf with the Church of Scotland.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Dame Caroline Spelman)
The Church of England has many local parish-based initiatives to support the homeless. The Church also partners with organisations nationally, including Crisis. I think it will be of interest to Members to know that 3,000 people took shelter in churches last winter. That was 53% up on the year before, and I strongly suspect that that number will increase, given the severity of the winter that we have just experienced.
Rachael Maskell
I quote:
“For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me”.
We cannot wait until 2027 to see homelessness eliminated, and I would like to know how the Church of England will use its estate more to ensure that people have shelter in the coming year.
Dame Caroline Spelman
The hon. Lady reads that verse, which always challenges me. One day, when I meet my maker and he asks me, “When I was homeless, did you shelter me?” I have to be able to answer, and the best answer that I can give relates to the remarkable growing initiative within the Church for night shelters. During the recent cold snap, churches were often mentioned in the news as places where homeless people could shelter from the conditions, and I pay tribute to my former headmistress, who helped to set up a night shelter at Holy Trinity, Bishop’s Stortford. I went to see for myself how the church had been adapted, with a toilet and shower to make the accommodation suitable, and how volunteers prepared hot meals and were trained to look after the homeless people who came to take shelter.
Mental Health Services: Children and Young People
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make a statement on the Care Quality Commission’s review of children and young people’s mental health services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
Not enough scripture is quoted in this House, but I cannot match what was just said. However, I can tell the House that the Care Quality Commission published its “Are we listening? Review of Children and Young People’s Mental Health Services” report this morning, and, yes, we are listening. It was the second piece of work commissioned by the Prime Minister in January 2017 to look at this area of services, and the findings include examples of good or innovative practice and of dedicated people—we thank every one of them—working in every part of the system and a number of areas with strong practice ensuring that patients and families are involved in planning care, but there are also concerns around the join-up between children’s services. We thank the CQC and Dr Paul Lelliott for their work.
The Government have already committed to making available an additional £1.4 billion to improve children and young people’s mental health services to deliver on the commitments in “Future in mind” and NHS England’s five year forward view for mental health, and the CQC welcomes that progress in its report. I know that the hon. Lady and others have worries about this, but spend is reaching the front line. By 2020-21, we have committed to ensuring that 70,000 more children and young people each year will have access to high-quality NHS mental healthcare when they need it. However, there is so much more to do. Claire Murdoch, the national mental health director for NHS England, said in response to the report:
“CAMHS services are now improving, but from a starting point of historic underfunding and legacy understaffing, relative to rapidly growing need”
We see those things across the service.
In December, the Department of Health, jointly with the Department for Education, published “Transforming children and young people’s mental health provision”. That Green Paper responds to a number of the problems raised by the CQC in this report, and sets out a range of proposals to strengthen how schools and specialist NHS mental health services work together and to reduce the amount of time that children and young people have to wait to access specialist help. The proposals are backed by an additional £300 million of funding. We have carried out extensive face-to-face consultation on the Green Paper proposals and have received a high volume of responses to our online consultation, and we thank everyone for that. We will respond to this CQC review, alongside the Green Paper consultation, in the summer.
The report calls for the Secretary of State to use the inter-ministerial group on mental health to guarantee greater collaboration across Departments in prioritising mental health. We agree, and that recommendation is already in hand. The IMG has already contributed to the development of the Green Paper and will continue to provide leadership on the issues that the report raises. The CQC also recommends that everyone who works, volunteers or cares for children and young people is trained in mental health awareness. We are already rolling out mental health first aid training to every secondary school and have committed to rolling out mental health awareness training to all primary schools by 2022. The Government and Ministers remain wholly committed to making mental health everyone’s business and building good mental health for our children and young people.
Barbara Keeley
The report is the latest piece of recent evidence revealing systematic failures in our mental health services. It follows similar reports of the past few weeks that call into question the Government’s claims to have made mental health a priority equal to physical health. In this report, we see evidence of services actively putting up barriers to treatment, resulting in children and young people having to reach crisis point before being able to get access to the right treatment. Children are suffering because of those high eligibility thresholds. We know that 50% of mental health problems develop before the age of 14 and that 75% develop before the age of 18. Does the Minister recognise that imposing high eligibility thresholds means that children and young people are treated only when their condition becomes more serious? These high thresholds are even prompting GPs to tell children to pretend that their mental health is worse than it is. Will the Minister agree to look into referral criteria as a matter of urgency, so that children and young people get the proper treatment at the right time?
The report links these excessively high eligibility thresholds and reductions in access with funding reductions and not enough capacity for services to respond to local needs, so, whatever the Minister says, clearly not enough money is reaching the frontline. Can the Minister tell us how he plans to address that? The report, like the CQC’s recent report on rehabilitation services, raises concerns about out-of-area placements, which we know are a barrier to recovery. Will he tell the House what action is being taken to increase the number of in-patient beds available locally?
Finally, what will the Minister do to address the clear problems, highlighted in this report and others, associated with the rigid transition at age 18 from child and adolescent to adult mental health services, which is also a barrier to accessing care?
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady rightly raises the issue of spend reaching the frontline; I said in my opening remarks that it is doing so, and she asked what evidence there was of that. Last year, there was a 20% increase in clinical commissioning group spend on children and young people’s mental health, rising from £516 million in 2015-16 to £619 million in 2016-17.
On the broader issues raised in the hon. Lady’s response, I said that we have made up to £1.4 billion available over five years to support transformation of these services, and there is the additional £300 million that I mentioned. I want to touch on waiting times, referral routes and workforce. We are the first Government to introduce waiting time standards, and that is relevant to children and young people’s mental health, too. We are meeting, or on track to meet, both targets. We will pilot a four-week waiting time for specialist children and young people’s NHS mental health services, as was outlined in the recent Green Paper. As I say, we are considering responses to that.
On referral routes, our Green Paper proposes senior designated leads and mental health support teams—a new workforce—based on the findings of the Department for Education’s schools link pilot. They aim to improve the join-up with specialist services and to result in more appropriate referrals.
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady shakes her head; I can only tell her the facts. Health Education England’s workforce plan recognises new ways of working as a cornerstone of delivering these improvements. HEE will also work with our partners to continue the expansion of these newly created roles in mental health services, and to consider the creation of new roles, such as that of early intervention workers, who would focus on child wellbeing as part of a psychiatrist-led team.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, but I remind Members that there are business questions immediately after these exchanges, followed by an important statement by the Home Secretary. Thereafter, the debate on International Women’s Day is heavily subscribed, so there is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike, and I want to move on, whether we have incorporated everybody or not, no later than 11 o’clock. Single-sentence questions are much to be preferred.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I commend the Government for promoting the Emotionally Healthy Schools project, which, in my constituency, is working well and engaging not just children who have challenges, but their families. Does the Minister agree that helping children with their mental health challenges needs to involve, wherever practical, their families, family relationships and inter-parental relationships, as recommended by the Early Intervention Foundation?
Steve Brine
As ever, my hon. Friend makes a point about families. I said that we are already rolling out mental health first aid training to every secondary school, which is of course important, and we are also committed to rolling out mental health awareness training to all primary schools by 2022, but to coin a phrase, it takes a village. This is about the state—of course, schools are part of that—but also the third sector, which has an important role to play. It is also absolutely about the love, support and Christian embrace of families.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
This is a very important issue, especially given that half of mental health problems are established by the age of 14. It is therefore particularly shocking that some children are receiving assistance only after attempting suicide. Claire Murdoch, the national mental health director of NHS England, has stated:
“Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services are now improving, but from a starting point of historic under-funding and legacy under-staffing”.
This report is surely an example of the latest reports in recent years demonstrating the impact of this Government’s austerity-driven agenda on public services. By comparison, in Scotland, which had the UK’s first ever dedicated mental health Minister, we have seen staffing for Scotland’s psychology and children and young people’s mental health care services at a record high, with a 79% increase since 2006. Surely as part of the Minister’s response to these findings he will wish to look at the actions being taken in Scotland and learn from them.
Steve Brine
We always look at the actions being taken in Scotland and in all the devolved Administrations. The hon. Gentleman is right to touch on prevention, which was the first point he made. The proposals in the Green Paper are focused on providing significant support for schools to develop the work they already do on prevention and early intervention. Today’s report talks about the many good things that are going on and, as I said, some of the things we have already taken forward with the Green Paper. While we are kicking this about, let us just remember in these exchanges that this is about the health of young people in England, whom we all represent.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The CQC has recommended that Ofsted should be charged with looking at what schools are doing to support mental health. Will the Minister take that up with his ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education?
Steve Brine
I am sure my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who is responsible for mental health, will be taking that up as she considers responses to the Green Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) is absolutely right to raise that issue and I thank him for doing so.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
With increasing numbers of university students having mental health problems, what action will the Minister take to ensure better joined-up care, with better communication between home and university GPs and student welfare services?
Steve Brine
As a former student union president, I think that is a very good point. One key proposal in the Green Paper is about the new mental health support teams, which will be very important in that. The hon. Lady is right to say that they should work across higher education as well as the earlier forms of education.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
In the next few weeks, work will begin on the construction of a new mental health residential unit for young people in Cornwall, which is long overdue and much anticipated. It is a clear sign that this Government are investing in young people’s mental health. However, we continue to have a problem with our clinical commissioning group in delivering frontline services, even though the Government are providing more money, so what steps will the Minister take to ensure that CCGs allocate the money provided to those services?
Steve Brine
I do not know the specific example that my hon. Friend raises, but he may wish to take it up with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock. I did say that there was a 20% increase in clinical commissioning spend for children and young people’s mental health between 2015-16 and 2016-17. We have all been frustrated about spend reaching the frontline, and we have made it very clear that we expect it to do so. I am pleased to see progress in the right trajectory.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
These damning findings come three years after we secured £1.25 billion extra over a five-year period. We know that that money has fallen well short of what was committed to three years ago. Will the Minister absolutely commit to make good the shortfall of money getting through to children’s mental health services?
Steve Brine
I thank our former ministerial colleague for that. We have not exactly been shy in investing in this area, both when he was a Minister in the Department and now. We have made £1.4 billion available over the five years to support the transformation of services—and the extra £300 million. He says this is a damning report, but we must remember that it is a report we commissioned. We do not hide from these things. The last time I responded to an urgent question from the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) it was on a CQC report on social care. We must not hide from these things and we do not want to bury our heads in the sand. We must recognise and build on the examples of good person-centred care that are taking place in our country at the moment, and that is why we are putting the money behind it. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I welcome the priority and funding that are coming from my hon. Friend. What is he doing to co-ordinate and support the devolved nations in this regard, such as Scotland where adolescent mental health waiting time targets were actually missed? We want to make sure that no British child is left behind, no matter what part of the UK they live in.
Steve Brine
That is an excellent point. I will make sure that my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, is talking, as I know she is, to the devolved Administrations as she considers the responses to the Green Paper, which I am sure include responses from them.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Care Quality Commission’s review found that children were waiting up to 18 months to receive treatment for their mental health conditions. In Lewisham, the Government are cutting the budget for child and adolescent mental health services by 5%. The Green Paper will not help children currently waiting. What will the Government do to address this?
Steve Brine
We will put the money in, publish a sensible strategy in a Green Paper, consider the responses and then take it forward, backed by the investment we think we need to deliver the strategy. That will be the same in Lewisham as in Winchester.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I am sure that both sides of the House will welcome the commitment to 21,000 more personnel in mental health service provision by 2021, but can the Minister assure me that this will lead to more children accessing mental health services within the four-week target period?
Steve Brine
We talked about testing the four-week target in the Green Paper—it was one of its key pillars—and we hope to pilot the idea to test the impact of our additional investment on reducing waiting times. We will then assess the benefits and challenges and provide information on how the waiting time standard should be adapted to avoid perverse incentives—around thresholds, for instance.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
The Minister’s description of mental health provision will not be recognised by anyone providing or using services. Does he think that cutting the funding for the north west boroughs partnership year on year since 2011 has led to improved services for young people in St Helens?
Steve Brine
I do not know about the issue in St Helens. I will look into it, or ask my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, to do so, and get her to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to mental health workers throughout England’s schools. Will my hon. Friend update the House on its timely roll-out?
Steve Brine
As I have said, we will be considering the four-week pilot as part of the Green Paper. We want to see these mental health first-aiders in schools, and as soon as we can give my hon. Friend an exact timetable on the situation Crawley, as well as elsewhere, I am sure that my colleague the Under-Secretary will do so.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Some 75% of mental health problems start before the age of 18, but less than 10% of funding goes to young people. What can the Minister do to prioritise more funding for CAMHS?
Steve Brine
As I have said, the overall budget is the money we have promised in the Green Paper, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Green Paper has at its heart a focus on prevention and significant support—in early years, through schools and, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) mentioned, through higher education—to prevent issues from snowballing in the first place.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
With the understaffing of mental health services and the recent Health Select Committee report on the nursing shortage, does the Minister accept that the Government’s decision to remove nursing bursaries, which has particularly affected the number of students training to be mental health nurses, was a mistake?
Steve Brine
No, I do not accept that it was a mistake. We need to increase the number of people coming into nursing, and we were turning away far too many who wanted to come into it. The workforce is obviously a huge challenge across the NHS, in primary care—my area—in secondary care and, of course, in mental health, which is why the Secretary of State has said we will create 21,000 new posts by 2021 to support one of the biggest expansions in mental health services in Europe.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Minister will know from his own background that primary care does not always have the necessary expertise in mental health. How will he guarantee that every GP surgery will have the necessary capacity to deliver excellence in mental health services for our young people?
Steve Brine
That is a good point—and one that sits at the centre of my portfolio. GPs are generalists. As the Minister for cancer, I know that there is always criticism of their specialism in that, but, by their very nature, GPs cannot be specialists in everything. That is why the mental health support teams, which are at the heart of the proposal in the Green Paper, are a key part of our strategy, and we expect them to work closely with GPs and the Royal College of General Practitioners to upskill GPs, working within the multi-disciplinary teams, to help young people when they need that help.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Tomorrow, I am meeting the chief executive of my local mental health trust because we are so desperately worried about the mental health provision for young people in York. We are not only short of staff but short of resources. It takes time to train mental health staff, so what are the Government going to do in the interim to ensure that we have staff in the service?
Steve Brine
I hope that when the hon. Lady meets that person in her constituency tomorrow she will recognise the good work that is going on and the number of people who are going over and above to deliver the services to children and people. I should also say that one of her responsibilities as a Member of Parliament, as it is ours as Ministers, is to see to it that the sustainability and transformation partnerships in her area collaborate with all the various organisations in her constituency and that the traditional health and social care services are joined up with schools, police, probation services and mental health services, because ultimately it is one NHS.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister listen more carefully to the voice of parents? All my experience as chair of the Westminster Commission on Autism tells me that if parents think there is something wrong with their child—whether it is a mental health challenge or autism—they want early diagnosis and treatment, and they want it at the standard that they have in Sweden.
Steve Brine
I am very aware of the hon. Gentleman’s work on the Westminster Commission on Autism—he has a big event coming up in the next few weeks that I hope to go to. I completely agree with him, which is why it was so welcome that the CQC report highlighted Government proposals such as establishing dedicated mental health support teams in schools.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Phase 1 on the CQC review noted that there were unacceptable variations in quality. How can quality be provided more consistently throughout the country?
Steve Brine
That is an excellent point. The NHS is very good at sharing best practice; the challenge comes in implementing it. The report rightly says that there are very good examples of good person-centred care throughout the country. The challenge is to make sure that is rolled out everywhere. I suppose the answer is to focus on the workforce and the investment, and to make sure that we have in place the agreed strategy to take the sector with us and do that.
Business of the House
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week will include:
Monday 12 March—Remaining stages of the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 13 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his spring statement, followed by debate on motions relating to universal credit, children and young persons and social security.
Wednesday 14 March—General debate on European affairs (day 1).
Thursday 15 March—Conclusion of general debate on European affairs (day 2).
Friday 16 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 19 March will include:
Monday 19 March—Second Reading of the Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill [Lords], followed by debate on Welsh affairs.
Today, Parliament is flying the flag for International Women’s Day. This year is particularly special, as we mark the centenary of some women getting the right to vote. We will be celebrating women’s achievements throughout the year. I hope that all Members will host an Equalitea party in their constituencies during the summer, to celebrate democratic equality and, yes, the opportunity to have cake and eat it. We have achieved much, but there is a long way to go. Today, the Home Office has launched a consultation on our proposals for a new domestic violence Bill, which will tackle the plight of the nearly 2 million people—mainly women—living with violence.
Today, as we think about opportunities for women, I feel lucky to have not one, not two, not even three but four brilliant female apprentices in my private office and parliamentary office. I know many Members are marking National Apprenticeship Week; speaking from my own experiences, I encourage any Member, and every business, to offer the valuable experience of an apprenticeship to talented young people.
Lastly, this week sees the birthday of our own resident rock star: the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I hear that he is 21 again, although I might be confusing that with his majority. [Laughter.] I am sure he is not much older than that. I hope the whole House will join me in wishing him a very happy birthday for tomorrow.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business and also for her speech—I wonder whether that will happen every time. I am pleased that, despite telling me that statements would not be announced in the House, she has actually announced the date of the spring statement. It is an important statement, and it is business of the House. Is there any reason why the Leader of the House is announcing the business just one week and a day at a time? That seems to be a change, too.
I asked last week about the legislation on restoration and renewal—when is that likely to come to the House? There was a good turnout for the debate on the issue, and every day that goes by when we do not do something, further costs are incurred. I also asked when the Trade Bill was likely to come back to the House, and she did not answer. It seems like all the important legislation is delayed. Is this Government-lite—is this basically a no-business Government?
I do thank the Leader of the House for finding time for a debate on the statutory instruments that the Opposition have prayed against. The only one that is outstanding is on early-day motion 937, which deals with the regulations on abolishing nursing bursaries for post-graduate nursing students.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 136), dated 5 February 2018, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6 February, be annulled.]
There has been a 33% fall in applications for nursing degrees. That helps women returners, but perhaps the Chancellor might make a concession on bursaries in the spring statement. Immediately after that, when we debate the statutory instruments, people will see that they include cuts to free school meals; an end to childcare vouchers; an end to free childcare for all two-year-olds and families on universal credit; and universal credit regulations that will affect self-employed and disabled people. Perhaps that is what we get with a woman Prime Minister!
May I ask for some other debates? The Liaison Committee has nominated for a debate the Environmental Audit Committee’s reports on plastic bottles, published on 22 December, and on disposable coffee cups, published on 5 January. Can the Leader of the House find time for that debate, and for a debate on the announcement by the President of the United States on tariffs on our steel and aluminium?
We have a sitting Friday on 16 March. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware that, on a previous Friday, a closure motion was moved after only two hours of debate, actually stopping the Opposition spokesperson speaking. If she looks at the Official Report, she will see that she was stopped in mid-speech. Can the Leader of the House confirm whether that will be the norm, in which case we will need to warn the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), who is second on the list, that his Bill will come up much more quickly than it would have done before?
The Leader of the House promised the list of ministerial responsibilities in March. It is now 8 March, so can we have that, please?
We have two days of debate on the UK’s exit from the European Union. Will there be further allotted days, or can the Opposition dare to dream that we will have our Opposition day? We have not had one since January.
Despite the fact that the Prime Minister’s speech to the Mansion House was 6,800 words, she gave only 2,000 words to the House. I feel robbed, Mr Speaker—I do not know about you. We will need a third allotted day as we come up to the year of triggering article 50 on 29 March and the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement on 10 April. The Prime Minister said to the House on Monday that the Government are looking at customs arrangements around the world, including on the border between the United States and Canada, but the Irish Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, who has actually visited that border, said that that
“is definitely not a solution that we can possibly entertain.”
What about the former Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Heseltine, who has criticised the Prime Minister’s speech? He said:
“Why is it that after 18 months since the referendum we have not got any closer with these issues? The answer is simple: because no one has got any answer about how to do it.”
If the Prime Minister’s speech were a recipe for a cake, you would not be able to bake it—even if it was a cherry Genoa cake, or a double cherry Genoa cake. If it were a road map, it would be a road map to nowhere.
I join the Leader of the House in wishing everybody a happy International Women’s Day. Mr Speaker, you have been absolutely fantastic, because you have your reference group. In 2010, before I came to this House, I watched the evidence at the Speaker’s conference on parliamentary inclusion, and I think it made a huge difference. On this International Women’s Day, I must say that women consultants in the NHS have earned on average nearly £14,000 a year less than men. The House of Commons Library briefing said that women were paying a “disproportionate” price for balancing the Government’s books—86% of the burden of austerity has fallen on women. There may be a woman Prime Minister, but the Leader of the Opposition is a person of deeds. His shadow Cabinet is 50% women, whereas the Cabinet is only 26% women. The Opposition are leading the way with the representation of women; we make up 45% of the parliamentary party.
As it is International Women’s Day, may I ask the Leader of the House to make representations to the Foreign Secretary about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe? If France can provide an exhibition to Iran, please will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to make representations on the release of Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as he could have done before Christmas? In addition, more schoolgirls have been kidnapped in Nigeria.
On the day on which the National Audit Office has published a report that talks about cuts of almost 50% to local government services, I want to thank all the public services for their hard work over this period of inclement weather. They have protected us and made sure that we are all safe.
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly join the hon. Lady in thanking all those who worked so hard during the period of really difficult and challenging weather, as well as those who had to bear the brunt of it when they were sitting on trains that could not move because of the weather. Everyone should be congratulated on their efforts and community spirit.
The hon. Lady raised a number of legislative issues. I am glad that she did so, because she often asks about policy issues, which are not technically a matter for business questions. She asked about legislation on restoration and renewal. As she knows, because she is on the House of Commons Commission, which I updated only last week, we will be introducing legislation on the establishment of a delivery authority and a sponsor body as soon as possible.
On the Trade Bill, we discussed last week the fact that several amendments have been tabled. The Government are considering them carefully, as it is right to do. As I have always said in this Chamber, we will always consider amendments that are tabled to try to improve legislation as we enter into the important decision to leave the European Union and take steps to prepare ourselves in the best possible way. I am glad that the hon. Lady is happy about the statutory instrument debates. We will be having them next week, as she requested last week.
The hon. Lady asked about nursing training places. She will be aware that there will be an increase of 25%—the biggest increase ever. She also raises the question of plastics and what we are doing about them. I hope that she has signed up, as I have done, to plastic-free Lent. That is an attempt to minimise the use of single-use plastics during the Lent period and an opportunity for us to highlight the importance of reducing our use of plastics. Of course, the Government’s record on that is very good, with the determination in our 25-year environment plan to be the first generation that leaves our environment in a better state than we found it in.
The hon. Lady asks about the talk coming out of the United States on tariffs on steel and aluminium. We are very concerned about that. As she will be aware, we in the UK have made social and economic factors part of the consideration for public sector procurement of steel. We have commissioned research to identify high-value opportunities for UK steel worth up to nearly £4 billion a year by 2030, and we have taken great steps since 2013 to support our steel sector with the costs of renewables and climate change policies. The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns about US policy in this area, and the Prime Minister spoke with President Trump recently and raised our deep concern about his forthcoming announcement on steel and aluminium tariffs. The Prime Minister has noted that multilateral action is the only way to resolve the problem of global overcapacity in all parties’ interests.
The hon. Lady asked again about ministerial responsibilities. I can tell her that the list will be forthcoming as soon as possible, once the positions have been confirmed and clarified with all Departments.
The hon. Lady asked about the debates on the European Union, and I think she is happy that we are having them. They are, of course, in response to the request from many right hon. and hon. Members to be able to talk in general terms about their ideas and proposals for how we should leave the European Union. We had a very important speech from the Prime Minister last week, and the EU Council, where we hope to secure an implementation period, is coming up soon. Now is a very good time for all hon. and right hon. Members to put forward their thoughts and views.
Finally, the hon. Lady asks for representations about Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe. She is absolutely right to raise that case, which we are very concerned about. She will know that the Foreign Secretary raised it with the Foreign Minister of Iran when he had the opportunity to do so, and the Foreign Office continues to do that at every opportunity.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I associate myself with the birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whom I regard as an hon. Friend.
On 2 February this year, my private Member’s Bill, the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, received its Second Reading thanks to support from the Government, the official Opposition and the Scottish National party, for which I am obliged. However, the Bill cannot proceed any further until a ways and means motion is tabled. Will the Leader of the House speak to our mutual friend the Patronage Secretary—the Chief Whip—and hopefully agree with him that it should be tabled sooner rather than later?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. The Government have expressed support for a number of private Members’ Bills so far this Session, and we continue to work with the Members in charge. That will include bringing forward money resolutions on a case-by-case basis in the usual way.
Mr Speaker
In offering my best birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for tomorrow, perhaps I can borrow the legendary observation to me from the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and apply it to the hon. Gentleman: fortunately he is not yet at the age at which the cost of the candles exceeds the cost of the cake.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Thank you very much for that, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and for her very kind birthday wishes. Birthdays nowadays are more to be noted than celebrated—as are majorities of 21.
I, too, wholeheartedly welcome International Women’s Day and pay tribute to all the incredible women throughout history who have contributed so much to progress in our communities, while acknowledging that we have still so much to do to reach the truly equal society to which we should all aspire. I am sure that the whole House, like half the world, saw the incredible speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) yesterday on misogyny: a powerful, profound personal account of some of the misogynistic abuse that she has suffered just for being a young woman in politics. On International Women’s Day, will the Leader of the House at least consider making misogyny a hate crime and proactively legislating to ensuring that we could start to make this part of the history of the women’s movement in this country?
On Saturday, the Scottish National party is having a day of action against Royal Bank of Scotland branch closures—an issue that continues to upset and concern communities we represent. The Scottish Affairs Committee, which I chair, has finally secured RBS’s chief executive officer, Ross McEwan, to come before us to answer questions about this closure programme. However, the one group of people we have not heard from and who still refuse to speak to us are the majority shareholder—this Government. The Government are the stewards of the public interest in this. Will the Leader of the House therefore join me in insisting that Treasury Ministers agree to come before the Scottish Affairs Committee to answer questions about what they are doing to represent our interests?
We need a statement on the emerging constitutional crisis on Brexit. The Government now say that they will push ahead with amendments to clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill without any agreement from the Scottish Government, who are still progressing their continuity Bill. The BBC says that it has a letter in which the Government say that they cannot counter the “power grab” claims. Perhaps they cannot do that because a power grab is exactly what it is.
Andrea Leadsom
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I am very appalled, as I think all hon. Members are, to hear of the experiences of his colleague, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). I sincerely apologise to her, on behalf of everybody here, for the appalling abuse she has received: it is utterly unacceptable. Of course, in my role as Leader of the House of Commons, if she wanted to come and talk to me I would be very happy to do so to see whether there is anything specific I can do for her.
As the hon. Gentleman knows and as you know, Mr Speaker, we have worked tirelessly, cross-party, to put in place our independent complaints procedure. I am not sure whether, if that were up and running today, it would have gone some way towards improving the hon. Lady’s situation. However, I certainly hope that our commitment across this House and in the other place to stamping out abuse and making our Parliament one of the best places to work and be employed in will stand us in good stead for the future.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, about RBS, I am very aware of the grave concerns about bank closures expressed on a number of occasions by Opposition Members. He will be aware that these are commercial decisions. There are procedures to go through before a bank decides to close, such as consultation with local communities. I point out that one of his hon. Friends has an Adjournment debate on banking in Scotland next week, on 14 March, and I am sure he will want to take part in that.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman raised the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the Scottish National party’s continuity Bill. It is the Government’s position that the EU withdrawal Bill will provide consistency across the UK to ensure that all parts of the UK are ready for our departure from the EU. We are still hopeful that we can reach agreement with the devolved Administrations on the Bill in the coming weeks.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
In a recent debate in the Lords on the family test, which is perhaps better called the family impact assessment, there was good cross-party support for Lord Farmer’s private Member’s Bill promoting a more satisfactory application of the test than currently appears to be the case, from several questions I have asked of Departments recently. Will the Leader of the House facilitate the safe passage of that Bill in the other place by liaising with the Leader of the House of Lords, so that it can be brought to this House for consideration as soon as possible?
Andrea Leadsom
First, I would like to commend and congratulate my hon. Friend for the amazing work she does across the parties and the Houses on supporting families. I totally share her desire to see the strengthening of families of all types. In particular, I know that she shares my concern for the importance of early attachment and giving every baby the best start in life. I absolutely support her desire to see the family test carefully applied and would be delighted to meet her to discuss how I can specifically help her.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I note from the Leader of the House’s statement that the Backbench Business Committee has been given a holiday from days for Backbench Business debates. We have a number of outstanding applications waiting for time allocation, and I therefore hope that we will get some time before the Easter recess to get some of those unheard debates timetabled.
I am afraid that the chickens have come home to roost with regard to the membership of the Backbench Business Committee. Despite the fact that we had three members present on Tuesday, that is not quorate for our Committee. We require four, although we currently only have six members. We hope that the cavalry will come over the hill from the Conservative party, as there are two members missing at the moment. Will the Leader of the House look again at the quorum of the Backbench Business Committee? On a Committee of eight, a quorum of four seems excessive.
Andrea Leadsom
I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is Government time next week for a Welsh affairs debate. As he will recall, we were all disappointed on St David’s day when, owing to the awful weather and the need for Members to get home before the train stations closed and so on, the debate was cancelled. I was at the No. 10 reception for St David’s day and we sadly missed out on the Welsh school choir, who could not get there. That was a great shame. We were delighted to offer Government time for that debate to continue to take place, notwithstanding that it is not under the hon. Gentleman’s Committee, but in Government time. I will of course ensure that I make representations where necessary for his outstanding applications.
I have discussed with colleagues what we can do to facilitate extra Conservative Members on the Backbench Business Committee and will continue to press for that. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me on the quorum, I am happy to look at that matter seriously.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
You will know, Mr Speaker, that this House only works if conventions are followed. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) mentioned a private Member’s Bill. My private Member’s Bill passed its Second Reading on 1 December, and another one about constituencies passed its Second Reading on that day. Both were unopposed. Unfortunately, more than three months later, no money resolutions have been forthcoming. There can be only one private Member’s Bill in Committee at any one time. There is none in Committee because of this. This looks to be an obstruction of the private Member’s Bill system by the Government. I am sure that that is not the case—well, I am not sure that that is not the case. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement next week, so that this can be discussed?
Mr Speaker
Earlier, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) asked a question about migratory species, and in the course of the delivery of the question from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), a number of Opposition Members noted that he has migrated from his usual seat to his new seat. I do not think any particular significance need be read into that, and I should assure the House that even if it is thought to be unusual—
Mr Speaker
I do not think it suddenly means that the hon. Gentleman is pro the European Union. If the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said that outside the Chamber, I rather imagine that the hon. Member for Wellingborough would be consulting m’learned friends. His behaviour is perfectly orderly.
Andrea Leadsom
I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend is a bit suspicious. How could he possibly think that, especially of me, since we are very much honourable Friends? I can say to him, as I did to our right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), that the Government have expressed support for a number of private Members’ Bills so far this Session—and the Government do support the Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill, which my hon. Friend is taking through as a private Member’s Bill—and we will bring forward money resolutions on a case-by-case basis in the usual way.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I really appreciate the right hon. Lady’s comments about President Trump’s announcement on steel tariffs, but I am deeply concerned and I think we need the Secretary of State for International Trade to come and make an urgent statement next week. Some 10% of UK steel is exported to the US and 15% of the output of our automotive industry goes there, so this has huge implications, particularly post Brexit, and I would really appreciate the opportunity to debate it.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a very important issue. As I mentioned to the shadow Leader of the House, the Prime Minister has spoken to President Trump and raised our grave concern about his proposals. I can also tell the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is speaking with Wilbur Ross, the US Commerce Secretary, about this matter. She may be aware that there has been an overnight briefing that tariffs may not apply to allies and so on. This is a moving issue, and we will continue to take every step to protect the UK steel and aluminium sectors.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government made a welcome statement on housing and planning in this country. Sadly, it coincided with a meeting of the Select Committee on Housing, Communities and Local Government, so those of us on both sides of the House who have a degree of expertise in this area were unable to question him about the new policies. Equally, the estimates day debate on homelessness was heavily over-subscribed, so colleagues could make only very short speeches. Will the Leader of the House find time for a general debate in Government time on housing and planning, so that Members on both sides of the House can express their views and tease out some of the policies that the Government are proposing?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister has been very clear that sorting out our broken housing market is one of the top priorities for her premiership. She is determined that young people should be able to aspire to a home of their own, and that means building more houses and changing planning, and it also means protecting tenants and sorting out things such as leases on new homes. All those are among the new policies of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
I just want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. The Government have implemented it, and it is part of our determination to deal with the problem of homelessness and rough sleeping in this country.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Cancer Research UK says that obesity is the second most preventable cause of cancer and the Government are reviewing their childhood obesity strategy, so may we have a debate on stopping junk food adverts before the 9 o’clock watershed to help to reduce childhood obesity?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about childhood obesity. It really appears that we have a massively growing problem in this country. He may well want to seek an Adjournment debate, so that he can talk directly to a Minister about his own ideas.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
As we are aware, we have just approved more housing to be built in this country, and we can all say, “Yes, that’s good.” However, I could name councils—I will not do so this time—that have used private companies and estate agents to further their aims. My council, West Somerset Council, is being dragged into such a situation. May we have a debate on making sure that there is a clear understanding between developers, estate agents, planners and companies? If we do not have such an understanding, situations are going to arise that will not help any of us in our future deliberations.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of keeping good boundaries. Ultimately, the aim is to produce more homes, so that more people can aspire to owning a home of their own. He may want to raise his specific concerns during questions to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, which will happen on Monday 12 March.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
As one of my very favourite feminists, Mr Speaker, may I wish you and everybody else a happy International Women’s Day? Will the Leader of the House consider a debate or Government statement on gender pricing? We now know that consumers have to pay on average 31% more for goods that are marketed or aimed specifically at women. That is not limited to toiletries; it could be toys, stationery, clothes—a whole host of things. We need to put pressure on retailers and manufacturers to stop the pink tax.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an issue that many of us are equally concerned about, and it is obvious with toiletries, for example, that men get their face care products much cheaper than women do—let us be honest about that. I would support the hon. Lady in seeking an Adjournment debate, so that she can raise the issue directly with Ministers.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Following the recent band of storms there has been another significant cliff fall on to a beach in Newquay, just a short distance from a site that has recently been granted planning permission for the development of houses. That is causing great concern among local residents, so will the Leader of the House arrange for a ministerial statement to make clear to local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate the position on coastal development, particularly in areas that are prone to coastal erosion?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear of the incident in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he is right to raise it as a real local champion for St Austell and Newquay. Local plans determine the allocation of land for development, and planning permission should always take account of the risk of erosion. The national planning policy framework sets the expectation that local planning authorities will establish coastal change management areas and encourage development that is suited to an area’s changing coastline. The planning rules are probably there, but my hon. Friend might wish to seek an Adjournment debate to discuss his concerns.
Mr Speaker
I heard what the Leader of the House said about facial products and differential costs and so on, but I am not experienced in such matters because I concluded long ago that I am well beyond redemption. I bear my fate with as much stoicism and fortitude as I can muster.
Mr Sheerman
On International Women’s Day, may I remind the Leader of the House that worldwide there will be about 1.5 million knocks on doors, and families will be told that their mother is dead, or their daughter or their son, and the family will be totally destroyed? There is a Commonwealth parliamentary meeting in the next few days in London, but may we have a debate in the Chamber to focus on this scourge? It is the greatest epidemic of our time, and there is not enough concentration on how to reduce these avoidable deaths.
Andrea Leadsom
I think the hon. Gentleman is speaking about violent deaths—
Andrea Leadsom
Deaths on the road—I beg his pardon but I did not hear that. He raises an incredibly important point, and across the world every day there are tragic and avoidable deaths. In the United Kingdom, our track record is good and improving, and numbers of road deaths are reducing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to seek a Backbench Business debate to talk about road safety, or an Adjournment debate to raise that specific issue.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows well the serious concerns of the people of Redditch regarding the centralisation of paediatric emergency services from Alexandra Hospital to Worcestershire, because I have raised the issue so many times in the House. Will she join me in calling on the clinical commissioning group and the trust to speed up their plans to bring forward the GP-led urgent care centre? May we have a debate about the future of health services in Worcestershire?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a strong voice for her constituency, and I commend her for raising this matter in the Chamber. Local commissioners are currently reviewing the national guidance issued on urgent care centres, prior to commissioning a revised model for the Alexandra Hospital. I understand that they expect to implement the new service in the next 12 months as planned, and she might like to seek an opportunity to raise the matter directly with Health Ministers.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The “beast from the east” brought red danger weather warnings to life for the first time last week. I welcome the fact that organisations such as Renfrewshire Council, the local McDonald’s franchisee Peter O’Keefe, and, as of one hour ago, Swissport at Glasgow airport are paying their employees who were unable to travel to work. May we have a debate on employers’ responsibilities for the safety of their staff and in ensuring that no worker is left out of pocket during severe weather warnings?
Andrea Leadsom
I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating all those who put in extra effort to keep people safe and transport open. All key transport operators, including airports, local authorities, train operating companies, Highways England and Network Rail, have winter contingency plans, as I am sure do their equivalents in Scotland. We pay tribute to all those who put in extra work. It is for their employers to ensure that they take the right decisions in securing the right balance between keeping services open and protecting their employees at all times.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I still hear way too many stories from constituents who are in battle with landlords or house builders about the condition of their homes. May we have a debate on the review of the housing complaints system?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for an excellent question. It is vital that consumers have swift, effective routes through which to complain when things go wrong. People need to know where to go and to be clear about what they can expect. He is right that existing routes can be confusing, so I am sure that he is pleased, as I am, that on 18 February we published a consultation on strengthening consumer redress in the housing market. We are looking at options about how to ensure that people, whether tenants or owners, can have access to quick, easy and effective redress, including at whether a single housing ombudsman could simplify that access.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I would like to raise the issue of volunteer drivers who receive reimbursement for patient transport. The present UK taxation rules hit those with high mileage very hard indeed. In my constituency, people have to travel huge distances—well over 200 miles—to get a patient to hospital and back again. Does the Leader of the House agree it would be helpful to have a debate on this issue in this Chamber?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very particular issue, which I can well understand is a real concern to his constituents and others where there are long distances to travel. I suggest that he raises the subject in an Adjournment debate so that he can hear directly from a Minister what they can do for those who have to travel particularly long distances.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
May we have a debate on local businesses that are also global brands? That would allow me to highlight the fantastic Walkers Shortbread company, which has been subjected to unacceptable and despicable abuse this week from nationalists in Scotland because just one of its many products features a Union Jack. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should condemn those attacks and instead celebrate the success of Walkers Shortbread, which has been established in Moray for 120 years, employs hundreds of local people and is a great credit to our area?
Andrea Leadsom
As ever, my hon. Friend raises a very significant issue for his constituency. He is a great champion for Moray. I absolutely agree that Walkers Shortbread is delicious. It is a vital UK brand and a fabulous Scottish brand. Many of its tins are marked with “I love Scotland”, while others, very often for export, are marked with the Union Jack. It is a fabulous export and a delicious snack. It should be eaten in moderation—we do not want to encourage the overeating of shortbread or any other sugary product—but nevertheless we love Walkers. It is a great UK and Scottish product.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Leader of the House was quite right to say, in her answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and the shadow Leader of the House, that the threat by the US Administration to put huge tariffs on steel is a moving issue, but the very fact that it is a moving issue underlines the need for a statement in this House on what the Government are doing. When will we have a statement on that, and when will the official Opposition be again granted an Opposition day debate?
Andrea Leadsom
I think that I have said as much as I can about the Prime Minister’s determination to protect UK interests. She has made her views very clear to President Trump. As I have already mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has raised the matter with US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and overnight, the White House has indicated that there may be exemptions from tariffs for allies of the United States. It is very important that we continue to work to look after global trade. As we leave the EU, the United Kingdom wishes to be a world leader in promoting free trade around the globe, so that is what we will be doing. In terms of Opposition days, as I mentioned to the shadow Leader of the House, they will be brought forward in the usual way.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
European Union structural and social funds have benefited local authorities across the United Kingdom. May I request from the Leader of the House some parliamentary time to debate what will replace those funds post Brexit?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. He will be pleased that we have committed to replacing European structural funds with the UK shared prosperity fund after we leave the European Union. The new fund will be designed to raise productivity and reduce inequalities between communities across all four nations of the Union. We will consult on that later in the year.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Every year, 20,000 elephants are slaughtered simply for their ivory. When can we have a debate about the results of the consultation that finished a couple of months ago on the Government’s plans to ban the sale of ivory as soon as possible?
Andrea Leadsom
I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman raises this issue because it is absolutely vital that the UK continues to be at the forefront of clamping down on the illegal wildlife trade and, in particular, the poaching of ivory. When I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I was very proud to be progressing that consultation, which is now completed, as he points out. It received more than 70,000 consultation responses—one of the largest numbers in the Department’s history—and it is quite clear that an overwhelming majority support a ban. We will have a conference on the illegal wildlife trade later this year, and I absolutely assure him that we will do everything that we can to bring forward legislation as soon as possible.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, Babcock announced that 500 defence jobs would be lost at Devonport dockyard. With the uncertainty about the possible cuts to our amphibious warships and the Royal Marines, and the sale of HMS Ocean to Brazil, may we have a statement from Ministers about what support the Government can offer to the dedicated Babcock workers who are losing their jobs in Plymouth?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry to hear about the prospective job losses. As the hon. Gentleman points out, Babcock International has announced 500 job losses. As he will no doubt be aware, 100 of those posts are unfilled, making the reduction in actual headcount potentially 400. Although the restructuring is a commercial matter for that company, a consultation period with staff and trade unions is nevertheless under way, and is expected to conclude in mid April. In the meantime, the Government are closely monitoring the situation, and the Department for Work and Pensions is on stand-by to provide support for those affected via Jobcentre Plus’s rapid response service.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
May I also wish a happy birthday to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)? Indeed, he shares it with somebody who has every intention of continuing to be 21 again.
On Friday 2 March, several busy Southeastern trains were stranded for hours outside Lewisham station due to severe weather conditions. Many passengers self-evacuated from the trains, and we were extremely lucky that no one died. May we have a debate on updating the guidance for stranded commuter trains to keep our passengers safe?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a really important and topical matter, as she so often does, and I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate to discuss this directly with Ministers. We are all very concerned to hear about the risks that people pose to themselves and to the train system when they decide to self-evacuate from trains, and we need to put a stop to that. She will be aware that safety plans are in place, but it is vital that people abide by them for their own safety.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the House will join me in wishing me the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) a happy birthday tomorrow. I was her age once, but I must admit that I do not remember it—it is too long ago.
Mr Speaker
Oh! Such kindness and generosity of spirit from the hon. Lady, who makes an analogy with a fine wine. You say all the right things.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I pursue the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft)? Given last week’s serious travel disruption, may we please have a debate about putting passengers first? When trains are cancelled, for example, passengers should automatically be entitled to use other train services. We have experienced severe disruption in Hull, and it has come to my attention that the East Coast main line company has not been willing to automatically allow Hull Trains passengers who cannot travel all the way to London to use its service.
Andrea Leadsom
As the hon. Lady will know, train operating companies are beginning to give automatic reimbursements to people who have experienced train delays and so on, but she is right to raise the issue of whether they automatically allow passengers to use other transport. We are all aware that although there tends to be an announcement at some point, it is often made when people have already turned up for a train that is not there, and they then have to move to a different station. I sympathise entirely with the hon. Lady’s point, and encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate on the subject.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I, too, wish my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) a happy birthday. I am sure that he will be celebrating with a slice of shortbread or two.
Patrick Grady
Chlorinated shortbread, from the United States.
May we have a debate on the relationship between personal independence payment reviews and the Motability scheme? I have a constituent who faces losing her car for the second time while she waits for her PIP appeal to be heard. When will a Minister come to the House and explain why the system punishes people and takes away their cars even before their appeals have been heard?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an important and worrying constituency issue. As I always say, if he wants to raise it with me in writing, I can take it up with the Department on his behalf. In the more general context of policy, however, I can tell him that we spend more than £50 billion a year on benefits to support disabled people and those with health conditions. We are trying to enable more disabled people to work, and we are seeing a significant increase in the number of people who are able to get away from their disabilities and into work, which is a great way into a more productive and enjoyable life. That is the policy that the Government are trying to pursue, but if the hon. Gentleman has particular concerns, I shall be happy to take them up on his behalf.
Salisbury Incident
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the incident in Salisbury that has been unfolding over the past four days.
Let me first pay tribute to the continued professionalism, dedication and courage of the emergency services. They have handled the incident with their customary attentiveness, alacrity, and sense of public duty. First responders put themselves in dangerous situations on a day-to-day basis, and this incident has underlined that fact—to which, sadly, I shall return later in my statement.
I shall now update the House as far as is possible on the basis of the current facts of the case. At approximately 4.15 on Sunday afternoon, Wiltshire police received a call from a member of the public who was concerned for the welfare of two people in a park in Salisbury. Emergency services were called, and the two were admitted to the A&E department of Salisbury District Hospital. They were a man in his 60s and a woman in her 30s, with no visible signs of injury. They are understood to be Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Both remain unconscious, and in a critical but stable condition.
I regret to inform the House that a police officer has also fallen seriously ill. The officer was one of the first responders on Sunday, acting selflessly to help others. The latest update from the hospital is that the officer’s condition remains serious but stable, and that he is conscious, talking and engaging. Officers from Wiltshire police are providing support for the officer’s family and colleagues. Our thoughts are with all three victims, and their families and friends, at what will be an incredibly difficult time for them.
Wiltshire police began an investigation on Sunday to determine how the individuals had fallen ill, and whether a crime had been committed. They declared a major incident on Monday. On Tuesday the Metropolitan police decided that, given the unusual circumstances, responsibility for the investigation should be transferred to the National Counter Terrorism Policing Network. Samples from the victims have been tested by experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, who are world-renowned experts in the field. As Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley announced yesterday, that forensic analysis has revealed the presence of a nerve agent, and the incident is therefore being treated as attempted murder. I can confirm that it is highly likely the police officer has been exposed to the same nerve agent.
I spoke only this morning with Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, and he confirmed that we remain in the midst of a fast-paced, criminal investigation. As such, I will not comment further on the nature of the nerve agent. We must give the police the space they need to conduct a thorough investigation. All Members will recognise that an investigation such as this will be complex and may take some time.
Public safety continues to be the No.1 priority for this Government. Professor Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, stated yesterday that, based on the evidence we have, there is a low risk to the public. The UK has a world-leading emergency response. It is regularly tested and exercised to ensure we can deliver an effective response to a wide range of chemical, biological and radiological incidents. The three emergency services are well supplied with state-of-the-art equipment to respond to such threats.
The frontline response is supported by world-class scientific research and advice. This ensures that decision making on the ground, by all agencies involved, is firmly based on the available evidence. This will also support the decontamination activity needed to return the location to normality.
The police are working closely with Public Health England, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the DSTL. They have cordoned all known sites in Salisbury that were visited by the two initial victims before they became unwell, and are taking the necessary measures to protect public safety.
I want now to turn to the speculation—of which there has been much—around who was responsible for this most outrageous crime. The use of a nerve agent on UK soil is a brazen and reckless act. This was attempted murder in the most cruel and public way. People are right to want to know who to hold to account. But, if we are to be rigorous in this investigation, we must avoid speculation and allow the police to carry on their investigation.
As the assistant commissioner said yesterday, the investigation now involves hundreds of officers, following every possible lead to find those responsible. Some of those leads have come from members of the public. I would like to thank the people of Salisbury for their help and for the calm they have shown over the last four days. I encourage anyone who visited Salisbury town centre and surrounding areas on Sunday afternoon, who has not yet spoken to the police, to get in touch.
We are committed to doing all we can to bring the perpetrators to justice—whoever they are, and wherever they may be. The investigation is moving at pace, and this Government will act without hesitation as the facts become clearer. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear on Tuesday, we will respond in a robust and appropriate manner once we ascertain who was responsible.
I would like to close where I began, by expressing my sincere thanks to the emergency services and hospital staff for their tireless efforts over the last four days. They have acted with utter professionalism both to minimise the risk to the wider public and to care for the victims of the attack, for which I know we are all very grateful. Our thoughts will be with the victims and their families over the coming days.
Finally, I thank Members for their understanding that there will clearly be limits on what we can say as this investigation continues. As and when information can be made public, it will be. I commend the statement to the House.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. May I start by paying tribute to the courage and dedication of the emergency services that responded to this horrendous incident? In particular, may I say that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the officer who has been hospitalised following this attack? I also pay tribute to the people of Salisbury. Can the Home Secretary confirm that the great cathedral city of Salisbury remains open for business?
The apparent poisoning of Yulia and Sergei Skripal and the police officer who suffered serious injury must of course be fully and completely investigated. I wholeheartedly concur with the Secretary of State that the investigation should be allowed to take place free from speculation, conjecture or interference. At best, these can be a distraction; at worst, they can hamper the investigatory efforts. Hon. Members and right hon. Members should be equally cautious and guarded in their comments. Idle or ill-informed speculation is not helpful. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that all the necessary resources are being made available to the investigation? Clearly, it is vital that there should be no speculation about the conclusions of the investigation, and that it is allowed to take its course, but will she ensure that she continues to keep the House updated?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), the shadow Foreign Secretary, asked the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday about the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that the Government have all the necessary sanctions available to them? A number of proposals are currently being debated in Committee. Will she look at them again to ensure that we have the necessary tools?
This case raises broader and extremely important issues. These include how we prioritise the fight against crime and terrorist crime in this country. There is, after all, no greater priority for the state than to secure the safety of all those who are resident here. Today is not the day for discussion of those priorities, or divisions over them, in the fight against crime and terrorism, or for a discussion on budgets and how they are allocated. We will return to those matters at another opportunity. For now, let us be clear that we on the Labour Benches are appalled at the idea that anyone might be poisoned on the streets of our towns and cities, and we offer our full support to those seeking to investigate the matter. We commend the professionalism, dedication and bravery of the emergency services, and we share the Government’s determination that this case should be brought to a speedy and just conclusion, and that similar incidents should be prevented in the future.
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his carefully thought-out and considerate comments. I am delighted to hear such unity of purpose across the House on this matter. He referred to the great cathedral city of Salisbury, and I share his views on that city and on the people of Salisbury, who have reacted so well. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is with me here on the Front Bench, for his consideration and support over the past four days.
Yes, I can reassure the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and the House that the police and the emergency services have the necessary resources. That is always one of my first questions, and they have been reassuring on that matter. On his point about keeping the House updated, of course I will do that. I thank him for his consideration and understanding that there might be limits to that, but when I can, I will of course take the opportunity to come here to discuss the matter with the House. Partly because of the severity of the situation, I recognise the need to do that whenever possible. Members are rightly keen to find out what is happening.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. We are of course engaging with the Members of Parliament who are proposing additional amendments. There have already been amendments to the Criminal Finances Act 2017 that reflect the sorts of initiatives he is asking for. There are additional proposals relating to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, and we will be considering them carefully.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The circumstantial evidence against Russia is strong—who else would have the motive and the means?—and I will put the same question to the Home Secretary that I put to the Foreign Secretary earlier this week. Those of us who seek to understand Russia know that the only way to preserve peace is through strength. If Russia is behind this, it is a brazen act of war and humiliates our country. I echo the remarks of the junior Defence Minister last week: defence is the first duty of the realm and spending 2% on defence is now not enough.
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. My first concern must be the incident in hand and the safety of the people in the area around the incident. There will come a time for attribution, and there will be further consequences and further information to follow. Now, however, I am concerned about the incident and its consequences.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. The circumstances surrounding these attacks are extremely worrying, particularly the fact that they constitute a potentially serious threat to public safety—although I am relieved to note that the chief medical officer considers there to be a low risk to public safety now. The emergency services have done a fantastic job, putting their safety on the line to ensure that Mr Skripal and his daughter were stabilised as soon as possible. We are pleased to hear that the police officer’s condition has improved and that he is now able to communicate. Our thoughts are with his and Mr Skripal and his daughter’s family and friends at this time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) put questions to the Foreign Secretary on Tuesday that I want to put to the Home Secretary today. How do we protect human assets such as Mr Skripal in this country? Will this type of scenario lead to a review of how we best protect such people across the United Kingdom? Considering Mr Skripal’s background, he was at high risk of being the victim of an attempted assassination, so does the Home Secretary know how the planning of such an attack was able to slip through the net of the UK intelligence services? What steps is she taking to ensure that those who are at risk living in the UK are properly protected?
Earlier this week, the Foreign Secretary stated that the Government would respond appropriately should evidence emerge that implies state responsibility. Will the Home Secretary therefore confirm that she has had, and is continuing to have, discussions with her counterparts from across Europe and further afield to get to the bottom of the matter? Reports that as many as 14 deaths on UK soil could have occurred in similar circumstances is very worrying. Will there be an inquiry into those incidents and the frequency of such attacks?
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Lady for her support for the general tone of the Government’s approach, and I of course join in her admiration and support for the emergency services, which are doing such excellent work. I must repeat to the hon. Lady that the investigation is ongoing at pace, and the police and the other services involved appreciate the urgency. It does not help their work, which must be our priority, to speculate about what might happen when we make an attribution. When we are ready to bring more evidence to the House, I reassure the hon. Lady that I hope to be able to go further in answering her questions. For now, she must allow me to say that we will not be drawn any further as we allow the investigation to complete.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Whoever the culprit, it is just as well that we are currently reviewing our defence capabilities, so that we can increase them—can’t we?
Amber Rudd
As far as our security at home is concerned, I reassure my right hon. Friend that we have already put in substantial extra funds. The security services are recruiting 1,900 new people between now and 2020, and I am reassured by them that that recruitment is proceeding at pace and with success.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to our remarkable emergency services, which have responded with such professionalism to this awful attack. All our thoughts will be with the brave police officer and with Sergei and Yulia Skripal.
I have written to the Home Secretary to ask for a review of 14 other cases, and she will know that there are many ways in which that could happen and precedents for doing so. As for the immediate investigation, has she considered going to the UN Security Council to ask for a statement calling on all nations to provide assistance, including willingness to extradite suspects if necessary?
Amber Rudd
I thank the right hon. Lady for that. I have her letter, and will respond, but gently say that now is not the time to investigate what is, at the moment, only rumour and speculation; now is the time to focus on the incident at hand, and the investigation that is proceeding. She makes a suggestion regarding international activity; at some stage, we will come back to the House with our proposals, but for now, we are merely preparing, and concentrating on the incident.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
I share the sentiments of my right hon. Friend about the bravery of our police officers and the people in Salisbury who witnessed this terrible tragedy; it was an awful thing for them to have to see in their town. Will she assure the House that all appropriate support will be made available, not just for the police officers, but for any witnesses who might come forward?
Amber Rudd
Yes. That is a very good point. Quite a number of individuals in Salisbury have been concerned about their health, and have wanted to report concerns about the incident. They have been coming forward and receiving the appropriate treatment and support.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I commend the Home Secretary on her statement, and on the calm and cool way that she has approached the immediate response to the incident. She will be aware, however, that many Members on both sides of this House have for several years warned of the growing threat of the terrorist Russian state under President Putin, whether we are talking about money laundering in the City of London, the targeted murders that my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spoke about, or interference in our political and democratic system. Will the Home Secretary please assure the House that when this immediate crisis is over, she will work with other Secretaries of State in a joined-up way across Government not only to listen to concerns, but to take meaningful action to tackle this threat?
Amber Rudd
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I reassure him that this Government have not been asleep at the switch, in terms of where our international enemies are. He refers to Russia. Separately from this incident, we have been very clear about our disagreements with Russia, particularly on Ukraine and Syria, and we have been outspoken in our criticism and our determination to take action—hence the amendment to the Criminal Finances Bill, and the considered amendments to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. We will go further, should there be need to do so.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Will she reassure the public that our renowned, world-leading facilities at Porton Down, where amazing scientific work is done, have the resources and capability to continue with the work that they have rightly been doing? They have been getting good results in the last few days.
Amber Rudd
Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to do exactly that: reassure the public that our facilities, support, scientists and expertise at Porton Down are world-class. I hope that gives the public, and her, the comfort that they need.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and the calm leadership that she is showing on this issue. I associate myself and my party with her comments on our amazing emergency services, and pass on our thoughts to the victims.
Following on from the questions from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), whether or not Russian agents are shown to be responsible for this incident, is it not time that we got more realistic about Russia? Will the Home Secretary confirm whether the memorandum of understanding between the UK and Rosatom—the Russian nuclear power company so strongly championed by the former Prime Minister, Mr Cameron— has formally ended? She may not know that today, but will she write to me when she finds that out? If it has not been ended, will she make sure that it is ended, so that the love-in with Russia that we saw a few years ago is completely finished?
Amber Rudd
I cautiously welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I do not recognise his description of our relationship with Russia over the past few years, but I will indeed write to him on the matter that he raises.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for her approach. Clearly, Members across the House will be calling for investigation of unexplained deaths that may be connected to this incident. Equally, a number of individuals out there will fear for their life as a result of their activities with Russia and other such countries. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to review the security arrangements for those brave individuals, so that they can live their life in this country in the way that they have chosen to, in a free society?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend makes a good point. In this country, we want to make sure everybody is protected and everybody is free, in a free society, as he rightly says, to go about their family life and their work life. He makes a particular point about keeping a certain group of people safe. I gently say to him that that is a matter for the police and the other services, but I am confident that they know what they are doing and we will keep that in hand.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I join all those in the Chamber, including the Home Secretary and Opposition Front Benchers, who have praised the emergency workers and hospital staff. My thoughts and condolences are with the families involved.
The Home Secretary has made a commitment to ensure that the safety of those at risk is looked at again and reviewed once this investigation is completed and we know exactly what has happened. Will she commit to ensuring that the police have the resources necessary to properly implement any improved security procedures once this investigation is out of the way and we know what we need to do?
Amber Rudd
We always make sure the police have the resources they need to keep this country safe. On this particular incident, on this attack, I have made it absolutely clear to the police and the emergency services that they have our entire support to do whatever is necessary to get to the bottom of this investigation. I understand the hon. Lady’s willingness to raise the issue of resources, but I reassure her, this House and this country that the police have the resources they need and are full tilt on this investigation.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I wish to add my tribute to the Wiltshire police force. My best friend from school serves in that force, and I know how dedicated he and his colleagues are to the security of the county. How are Wiltshire police working with national teams collaboratively to progress this investigation? What lessons will be shared with police forces throughout the UK?
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his support in this important incident, on which it is very important to see local leadership as well from Members of Parliament. I reassure him that the local police and the national police are working well together. I spoke this morning to Mark Rowley, the deputy commissioner who is in charge of counter-terrorism, and he has of course been in regular contact with the Wiltshire police, because local knowledge is just as important as expert knowledge.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
I commend the Home Secretary and the Opposition spokesman for the calm but clear statements they gave. No Member of this House would seek to compromise an ongoing criminal investigation by speculation about motives or perpetrators. However, given the circumstances and the huge level of public concern, will she consider the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to review the 14 cases to which my right hon. Friend referred?
Amber Rudd
I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that that is a series of rumours and speculations, and it is for the police to decide what to investigate. I understand that it is reasonable to want to raise it at this moment, but our focus must be on the serious event that has taken place over the past four days. Now is not a time to follow up on some other allegations.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I add my voice to those that have congratulated our emergency services and the Home Secretary on the way she is handling this serious event. Following the call from the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) to examine other unexplained deaths, the Home Secretary will be aware that this is not just confined to this country but can be seen in the international arena. Perhaps it is not the time right now, but will she assure the House that she will work internationally, so that when we find out “who”, “how” and “when”, we will be able to hold those people to account, even in the international arena? Will she join me in regretting the fact that Russia is disengaged from the Council of Europe, and therefore the European Court of Human Rights, which is not a good signal for good international relations?
Amber Rudd
I share my right hon. Friend’s disappointment with that situation. Russia plays a role internationally, although the Prime Minister has been very clear, calling this out at her Mansion House speech in 2017, that she has concerns about its behaviour. Russia does have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and we do engage with the Russians up to a point, but there is no “business as usual” here. We need to make sure that we are very clear-eyed about their role and their intentions, so I do join my right hon. Friend in that matter, and I hope we will be able to work internationally should the situation arise and this be needed.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. Has it been necessary to issue revised guidance to frontline police officers on what to do if they are concerned that such circumstances might arise again? If it has been revised, has she seen it, and is she satisfied with it?
Amber Rudd
As the hon. Lady will know, we have been operating at a “severe” terrorism level for a while now—five terrorist attacks got through last year, of course—and we did therefore review police guidelines on unusual substances last year, so I believe that the police have all the right information and tools available to them.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
This country is rightly praised around the world for the dedication of our police and our determination to follow proper process to ensure we come to the right conclusions before then acting with calm deliberation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in these most awful and appalling of circumstances we need those attributes more than ever?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the professional approach we need to take to this incident. We must support the police, who have such a strong and rightly earned reputation internationally, to make sure they have the space and time to make the inquiries, collect the evidence and then proceed.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Can the Home Secretary tell us more about the work of Wiltshire public health officials to keep local people safe?
Amber Rudd
The chief medical officer has told us, given the information we have now, that she thinks the threat to the public is low, which I know will reassure local health officials in Wiltshire.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I agree we should be cautious about attributing guilt at this stage, but does the Home Secretary share my and my constituents’ anger about the cruel nature of this crime, which could so easily have resulted in considerably greater collateral damage, and will she therefore assure me and my constituents that eventually the full force of the law will be brought down upon the perpetrators?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Just because we want to approach this with a cool head in order to collect the evidence, it does not mean we do not share the outrage that he and his constituents clearly feel. When we have the evidence, I will return to the House.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
As the proud husband of a serving police officer, I welcome the comments from the Home Secretary and Members across the House in support of the brave men and women in our emergency services. Should this not also serve to remind us, however, of the pressures on their families, who every day do not know when their loved ones leave for work what they will face?
Amber Rudd
That is such a good point. It is not just the individuals who are affected but their families, and I know that the thoughts of everybody in the House will go out not just to the victims but to the families around them, who must be having such a worried and anxious time right now.
Points of Order
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you advise me on the correct course of action when a private company gives commitments and assurances to Parliament and its Select Committees on issues that affect national security and public safety and then fails to meet them? There is widely available on YouTube this week a banned illegal propaganda video from the extremist proscribed organisation National Action, despite the fact that the Home Affairs Select Committee has raised this video with YouTube and Google seven times over the last 12 months, and despite the fact that they have promised us that the video is illegal and will be taken down and that they have the technology to prevent it from being put back up. Have you had any indication that the Government will look into this, Mr Speaker, and do you share my immense concern that one of the richest companies in the world is failing to meet its basic responsibilities to tackle extremism and protect public safety in this country?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order and share her intense concern about the matter. As I am sure everybody in the House will agree, National Action is a despicable, fascist, neo-Nazi organisation. My understanding is that it was proscribed by the Home Secretary. If those commitments have been made by those companies, they must be honoured. The right hon. Lady suggested that commitments have been given by those companies, not merely to her as an individual, but to the Home Affairs Committee. If that is so and those commitments have not been honoured, it is open to the Committee, although it should not be necessary, to demand, as a matter of urgency, the appearance of representatives of one or more of those companies before it to explain themselves. This matter must be sorted sooner rather than later. My strong sense is that that would be the will of the House, but the will of the House can also be expressed, and the public order considerations can most appropriately be articulated, by the Home Secretary, who thankfully is in her place.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) is absolutely right to raise this issue. As you rightly said, Mr Speaker, National Action is a proscribed group—I proscribed it myself—and it is a terrorist organisation. The fact is that internet companies have made good progress in taking down Daesh-focused material. We have demonstrated that with our own system, which we showed them, they can take down 94% of material that goes up from Daesh-type terrorist organisations. We need to see much more effort put into the particular area of extreme right-wing groups, like the one the right hon. Lady has raised. We need to see more effort made using artificial intelligence. I hope that the right hon. Lady and I can work together to make sure that we hold internet companies more to account.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the Home Secretary. We would not want a situation to arise in which the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) felt it necessary to write to me to allege a contempt of the House, although that is of course a recourse open to her if people do not comply and honour their undertakings. We very much hope that that will happen very, very soon.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today, there are reports in the media that one in 10 councils could follow Tory Northamptonshire into technical bankruptcy, according to the National Audit Office. The main causes are the relentless 50% cuts in central Government funding to councils and the increasing pressures on children’s and adults’ services, which have resulted in the cutting of other vital services, unsustainable one-off sales of assets and the use of reserves.
Given that this is the worst crisis to face local government in the sector’s 170-year history, and given that the Government are unwilling and unprepared to give time to the Opposition to debate matters such as this, has the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government given you, Sir, any indication that he will come to the House today to make a statement, so that Members can question his disastrous slash-and-burn strategy and the findings of this most devastating NAO report in the fullest manner possible?
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State has given me no such indication. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State is a very willing fellow, but we would not in any way or case want to countenance the idea of him interfering with the time available for the debate on International Women’s Day. However, the hon. Gentleman has registered his concern, which will have been heard on the Treasury Bench.
I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the current absence of Opposition days, which would be a normal mechanism by which such matters could be aired. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues want such matters to be aired in the Chamber, he can rest assured that they will be aired. They can be aired on the terms of the Secretary of State, in the form of a statement, which it would be open to him to volunteer. If they are not aired in that way, they will be aired in another way.
Bills Presented
House of Peers Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Christine Jardine, supported by Tom Brake, Tim Farron, Layla Moran, Jamie Stone, Wera Hobhouse, Jo Swinson, Sir Vince Cable and Norman Lamb, presented a Bill to provide for the renaming of the House of Lords as the House of Peers.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June, and to be printed (Bill 179).
Forensic Science Regulator Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Chris Green, supported by Vicky Ford, Damien Moore, Maggie Throup, Andrew Bowie, Mr William Wragg, Jack Brereton and Stephen Kerr, presented a Bill to make provision for the appointment of the Forensic Science Regulator; to make provision about the Regulator and about the regulation of forensic science; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed (Bill 180) with explanatory notes (Bill 180-EN).
Vote 100 and International Women’s Day
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Amber Rudd)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Vote 100 and International Women’s Day.
This House welcomes International Women’s Day as an occasion to come together to celebrate the achievements of women, while also recognising the inequalities that still exist. Around the world, International Women’s Day is being marked with arts performances, talks, rallies, conferences, marches and debates like this one. It is a great honour to lead today’s debate.
This year, 2018, is a particularly significant year to be having this discussion in the UK, as we mark 100 years since some women won the right to vote after a long and arduous struggle. In 1919, Nancy Astor became the first woman to take her seat in this House. Can Members imagine walking into this Chamber as the lone woman among a crowd of men? It would not be until 1979 that we would get our first female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.
I am pleased to say that the Parliament that I joined in 2010 was a place very different from the Parliament of Nancy Astor’s day. There were 142 other female MPs on these Benches, and we had a female Home Secretary—a trend that I am proud to continue. We now have a more diverse Parliament than ever, with 208 female MPs. A third of the Cabinet are now women and, of course, we also have our second female Prime Minister.
Nevertheless, getting women into Parliament is not simply about changing the faces on these Benches; at its heart, it is about how we use our positions here to make meaningful change to women’s lives throughout the UK and the world, because from here we can bring about real change.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I join the Minister in welcoming International Women’s Day. Does she also welcome the fact that the UN Commission on the Status of Women is meeting again in New York next week? Does she agree that it is really important that it comes up with strong policies so that women in rural communities are adequately supported?
Amber Rudd
I am delighted to agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of that meeting of the commission. Her emphasis on making sure that we get real policies for women in rural communities is essential.
I am proud to be part of a Government who are wholeheartedly committed to improving the lives of women and girls. Since 2010, we have made significant progress in accelerating gender equality at home and abroad, whether by empowering women in the workplace, tackling violence against women and girls or improving girls’ education around the globe.
We all know, though, that there is more to do, with sexual harassment scandals, stories of debauched dinners, one third of women worldwide experiencing physical or sexual violence, and the fact that it will take an estimated 118 years to close the global gender pay gap. As the theme for this year’s International Women’s Day makes clear, we must continue to “press for progress”. This effort must span countries and continents, policy areas and political allegiances.
I wish to kick off today’s debate by talking about three areas in which I think women are still losing out to men globally, and what we are going to do about it. The first is violence: too many women and girls face harm and abuse. The second is money: many women still earn less than their male counterparts. The third is influence: around the world, men still occupy the majority of the top jobs.
Let me start on the first point, violence. A truly equal society is one in which everyone is free from the threat of gendered violence. Today, I am proud to announce the launch of the Government’s consultation on tackling domestic abuse, which will help to inform the introduction of the domestic abuse Bill. Domestic abuse affects approximately 2 million people in England and Wales every year, and the majority of the victims are women. The Government are determined to do all we can to confront the devastating impact that such abuse has on victims and their families, and in doing so to address a key cause and consequence of gender inequality.
Our consultation seeks to transform our approach to domestic abuse, addressing the issue at every stage from prevention to early intervention to bringing more perpetrators to justice. It reinforces our determination to make domestic abuse everyone’s business. This comprehensive consultation will last for 12 weeks, and I encourage every Member of the House to engage with it and share it with those in their networks who have, or who should have, an interest in this area. This is a critical opportunity to bring these crimes out of the shadows.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that, last week, the United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women said that the way we treat women in Northern Ireland, denying them access to abortion in their home nation, is a form of violence against women. Today, 135 parliamentarians from throughout the House have written to her asking her to commit to providing an opportunity to put that right in the legislation she is talking about. Will she give us a right to vote to give women in Northern Ireland equal access to abortion rights?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady will know about the limitations on my announcing any such statement, but may I nevertheless take the opportunity to thank her for the good work that she has done in this area, including in ensuring that, for the first time, the women of Northern Ireland have access to abortions? We now have a new system—a centralised system—for those women so that they find it much easier than ever before to access the health support that she, like me, thinks is so vital.
The consultation will last 12 weeks, and I urge every Member of the House to engage with it. Domestic violence is not the only type of violence that demands our urgent attention, though. Internationally, too, we must continue to combat violence against women and girls. Globally, one in three women are beaten or sexually abused in their lifetime. We are generating world-leading evidence through our £25 million “What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls” programme. This year, results from 15 innovative interventions being evaluated across Africa and Asia will provide new global evidence about what works to stop violence before it starts. We want this evidence to be a game-changer in supporting more effective UK and international support for ending violence against women and girls globally, and it is essential that we put what we learn into practice.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement that the Minister is making about the international dimension to protecting women against violence. Will she assure the House, as part of the consultation on tackling violence against women here at home, that refuges will be properly resourced? Many have closed down in recent years, including in my constituency. Women need proper support when they have to go to refuges because they face violence. Can she assure the House that she will make sure that happens?
Amber Rudd
Quite simply, I can assure the House that ensuring that women have the right support at refuges is an essential part of the support that we will provide women when they become victims of domestic abuse. I know that there are concerns in the sector about funding, and there is a consultation ongoing, but we will not oversee a reduction in beds. We are looking for the most efficient, effective way of delivering that support, and nothing is off the table.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Probably all of us in the House were shocked when we heard the reports of sexual harassment and abuse in the aid sector. When we are looking at what happens to women internationally, it is important that we hold our charitable organisations’ feet to the fire to tackle the abuse that has been reported. How does my right hon. Friend propose that we can ensure that those organisations will deal with the allegations of sexual exploitation in the aid sector?
Amber Rudd
My right hon. Friend will have heard, as I did, the absolute conviction and determination of the Secretary of State for International Development to make sure that, as my right hon. Friend says, she holds the charitable sector’s feet to the fire. It is wholly unacceptable that anybody going abroad for a charity should take advantage of vulnerable girls and women. I am confident in the activity of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this area.
The second area that I wish to discuss is money. A truly equal society is also one where women and men are equally economically empowered. Globally, women earn less than men, have fewer assets, and still do 60% to 80% of unpaid domestic work. One in 10 married women in developing countries are not consulted by their husbands on how their income is spent, and although in the UK we are enjoying record female employment, we are also grappling with a national gender pay gap of 18%. Therefore, although as women we might think we have equality in the workplace, our pay cheques tell a different story. That is why this Government have introduced world-leading legislation.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a matter not just of social equality, but of economic equality, bearing in mind the estimate this week that, if we closed the gender pay gap, it would mean an extra £90 billion going into women’s income? That is a staggering figure when we reflect on what that means about women being kept poorer as a result of the pay gap.
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is bad not just for the economics of the individual woman and the individual family, but for the country as a whole. As she says, if we can raise pay in a fair way, it would be good for the economy of the country. That is why we have introduced world leading legislation requiring organisations with more than 250 employees to publish their gender pay gap by the end of the tax year. I want businesses to have their pay gap laid bare and then do something about it.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
On that point, my right hon. Friend will have read in the press some speculation that organisations may be flouting the gender pay gap reporting regulations that the Government have rightly brought in. Can she outline to the House what action the Government will take to ensure that businesses take this requirement very seriously indeed?
Amber Rudd
I thank my right hon. Friend, who has done such important work in this area. She will know that it was a manifesto commitment to bring this requirement forward. It is the law, and we will make sure that companies stick to it, abide by it, deliver on it and then, hopefully, make changes on it.
Equality is not just about getting women the same pay as men, but about getting women the same jobs as men. I have lost track of the number of meetings that I have sat in where I am the only woman at the table— I expect that I am not the only one to have found that. Women are still under-represented in a whole range of fields from politics to business, and we are particularly under-represented at the top.
We have made good progress since 2010, and have eliminated all-male boards in the FTSE 100, but only a quarter of directors in the FTSE 350 and only 4% of FTSE 350 chief executive officers are women. That is simply not good enough, and it is bad economics, too. We know that organisations with the highest levels of gender diversity in their leadership teams are 15% more likely to outperform their industry rivals, so we must think long and hard about what we need to do to improve those statistics.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I endorse what the Minister says about being the only woman in meetings; that still happens. Does she agree that when women reach senior levels in business and in work, they must be paid equally to men? Sadly, today, there are still many women doing the same work of equal value and not achieving equal pay.
Amber Rudd
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Women must be paid the same as men. It has been illegal, for many, many years not to give equal pay for equal work, but we are trying to take that one step further with reporting on the gender pay gap. Hon. Members will know that there has been quite a lot of reporting on substantial banking and media companies, which has shown the scale of the gender pay gap. Managing directors and senior directors are having to take action as a result, which is very welcome.
I am pleased to support the Hampton-Alexander review’s targets of achieving 33% of women on boards and 33% in executive committees. It is not just about getting in; it is about getting on, and women deserve to get to the top of all the professions and to get as far as their aspirations will take them.
I end by reminding the House of the aspirations of Emmeline Pankhurst, who famously said of the campaign for suffrage that the suffragettes had to
“make more noise than anybody else”
for their cause to be heard and to enact the change that they wanted. Man or woman, we must continue the legacy of the suffragettes, suffragists and their supporters. We must all make enough noise so that the agenda that I have talked about continues to be realised. This is an important debate, and I urge everyone here to continue to “press for progress”, as the International Women’s Day slogan suggests, to finally achieve the true gender equality for which women have been fighting for so long.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I am so pleased that we are making time available today to continue the important tradition of marking International Women’s Day. I thank Mr Speaker, because he has done it again—he has made history. He helped me to raise the International Women’s Day flag over the Parliament buildings for the first time in history, and for that, I salute him.
This year’s International Women’s Day has been a bit of a rollercoaster of emotions for me. Reading about the struggle that led to some women gaining the right to vote in a general election 100 years ago has highlighted how far we have come, but also just how far we still have to go. It led me to reflect on the persistent inequalities that relate to class and ethnicity, as well as to gender. Working-class men were denied the vote until 1918, and their enfranchisement paved the way for working-class women. But our demand for equality goes beyond the vote, vital though it is. We are interested in the advancement of equality, on a broad front, and we cannot ignore the fact that class and race often go hand in hand in the struggle for equality.
There is little doubt that 2018 is turning out to be a landmark year for women. The decades of campaigning that led to women’s suffrage a century ago highlights what women can achieve when we unite and organise. If all women had been granted the vote in 1918, we women would have been the majority, but it was another 10 years before full electoral equality for women was enshrined in the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. That legislation was the result of decades of struggle by famous and not-so-famous people.
I remember hearing the saying, “If you hold the pen, you write the history.” That is hard to understand until we start reading history and realise that there are bits missing. My theme today is taken from the writer Virginia Woolf, who said that for most of history, Anonymous was a woman. At the march on Sunday, I was asked who I was marching for. I said that I was marching for the hidden history of women—for the women whose campaigning zeal did not make them famous, and for the women who suffered, and still suffer, in silence.
The role of women of colour in the suffragette movement has often been overlooked. I am so grateful to the Commons Library for unearthing the case of Sarah Parker Remond, the only known woman of colour to have signed the first petition for women’s suffrage in 1866. She was a prominent African American lecturer, abolitionist and agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society. Sarah was an educated, independent woman of wealth. Why would she be hidden from the history of the suffragette movement? There can only really be one answer: the colour of her skin. Today, I salute Sarah Parker Remond in Parliament so that her name will live on in perpetuity in Hansard. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you.
A better-known woman of colour and suffragette is Sophia Duleep Singh. She is rightly celebrated even though she was born after the original suffrage petition. She campaigned for women nationally as well as locally. She has been the subject of a BBC documentary and a Royal Mail commemorative stamp. I treasure the photograph of me with a poster-sized version of that stamp—a small one would not have been very good, would it? The part played by the vast majority of black, Asian and minority ethnic women in the suffrage movement has been lost. They are basically a hidden history—a story that might never be told.
I am proud of the Opposition’s 50:50 shadow Cabinet, and I am truly proud of the fact that 45% of Labour MPs are women. One more heave, and we will have parity. All we need is a general election in the next couple of months. It is also notable that across the House, the number of women MPs is at a record high of 32%. We welcome women MPs from all parties in this place. If we could clap, I would say that we should give ourselves a round of applause—but not too loudly, because we still have persistent problems that will not go away unless we take a radical approach. We should applaud the Conservatives for electing a woman leader—
Dawn Butler
Twice, as the hon. Gentleman says. We should, however, note that for eight years the right hon. Lady has sat at the table of a Cabinet that has sanctioned £80 billion of tax and benefit changes, as a result of which more than 86% of cuts fall on the shoulders of women. So I say this: a round of applause, but not too loudly.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech and the way in which she is reflecting on International Women’s Day. Will she join me in recognising the fact that for the past 66 years we have had a female Head of State? Will she send congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen, who has presided so well over this country through smooth times and rough?
Dawn Butler
I will congratulate the Queen on the dignity and poise with which she has held her position over the years. I hope that we might see the new generation coming in and taking that place in the future. [Interruption.] Long may she reign—absolutely. We do not want to see the end of her reign, but I understand that she is scaling back her duties to make way for the next generation. I am in no way advocating her quick demise.
Let me offer a cautionary tale from 100 years ago. Just as women were getting the vote, male misogyny struck a blow at women’s sport. Teams of women were playing football in front of large crowds and making big money, but the Football Association banned women from its grounds. The FA said that
“the game of football”—
this was probably said in a more pompous voice—
“is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged.”
At a stroke, the FA destroyed women’s football. I bet that if Eniola Aluko is watching, she is probably thinking that not much has changed.
Women football players have been making up for lost time, however. Sadly, the England team lost narrowly last night to the world champions, the United States, but I wish them well on their continued journey. I would like to acknowledge the first real international women’s football star, Michelle Akers. In the 1991 women’s world championship, she was the winner of the golden boot, and she even appeared on a cereal box.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I want to highlight the work that Lewes football club does in the world of women’s football. It was the first club in this country to give equal pay to the men’s and women’s teams.
Dawn Butler
That is excellent news, and I hope that it will be reflected nationally as we encourage the game of women’s football. I would also like to note Briana Scurry, a goalkeeper who was the first black woman to be elected to the US hall of fame.
As women, we know that we have to break down structural barriers, but sometimes we forget just how deep the roots of those structural barriers are. We have to break down centuries-old traditions to get into places such as Parliament, which were designed to keep us out. Today, too many groups still face discrimination and disadvantage. We must look forward and tackle the structural barriers facing all women and those with protected characteristics so that we can achieve true equality for all.
The official theme of International Women’s Day is “Press for Progress”. I want to set out Labour’s priorities in the areas where the need for change is most pressing. There is a long list, and it includes tackling violence against women and girls, tackling domestic violence and abuse in the workplace, and, of course, tackling the enduring gender pay gap. I am proud of the role that Labour has played in ensuring progress in the UK by breaking down structural barriers that have long held women back. Labour brought in the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equality Act 2010. We introduced the minimum wage and Sure Start. We extended maternity leave and doubled maternity pay, thus valuing women.
Now, Labour believes that we will make a real difference in closing the gender pay gap only with a combination of sticks and carrots. We will mandate all companies with over 250 employees to produce action plans to close the gender pay gap. Companies would be accredited for their progress and issued with certification, and only companies with certification would be able to bid for lucrative Government contracts. This is a win-win situation—it is the right thing to do. The workforce will be loyal, and companies will make more profit, as the Minister mentioned, and will be rewarded for good practice. We will also benefit as a country. According to a study by PwC, the closure of the gender pay gap would give a £90 billion boost to the UK. Globally, the boost would be trillions of dollars—trillions! In the developing world, it is widely recognised that empowering women is an important step in driving economic growth, and that should be part of our sustainable development goals.
Between 2015 and 2016, the UK fell from 14th to 15th place in a ranking of 33 OECD countries based on five key indicators of female economic empowerment. Our country deserves better. Our country needs a Labour Government and our policies to put people and progress at the heart—
Maria Caulfield
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. I hear with interest the proposals that the Labour party has on the table. Does she see a time when there will be a female leader of the Labour party, and if so, why has that not happened so far?
Dawn Butler
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. This policy, whether introduced by a male or a female, is important to address pay inequality for women and to ensure that the gender pay gap is not just audited but closed. That is the important factor.
The near parity between women and men in the parliamentary Labour party has not come about by chance. The introduction of all-women shortlists promoted a change of culture. When the election was called at short notice and we had no time for all-women shortlists, we still selected and elected more women than any other party.
The test for any party is, “Are you helping or hindering?” I am afraid that many current Government policies fail that test. We in the Labour party are determined that we will be a help, not a hindrance, to women. I do not have time to go into all the elements of our key policy strands, but they form an acronym—AHELP. That covers access to justice; health and wellbeing; economic equality; leadership and representation; and protections for women. With this, we will see a real transformation.
Women make up 51% of the population, and without that 51%, the other 49% would not be here. So let this be the year that change happens. I will not wait another 110 years for real equality.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
This is the first time in many years that the International Women’s Day debate has been held in Government time. I thank those on the Front Bench who made that happen—we know who they are—and hope that this is a trend for the future as well.
Today is a very special day indeed: International Women’s Day in the year that we celebrate 100 years since women first won not only the right to vote, but the right to stand for election to this place. It has also been, for a long time, a day of celebration in my household, because today is my youngest son James’s 16th birthday. I think there might be other Members on the Front Bench who also have children who were born on International Women’s Day. This is a day when men and women can and should come together to celebrate, whether it is for their children or for other reasons.
Equality affects us all, and persistent inequality disadvantages us all. That is why, in the work of the Women and Equalities Committee, we look at all strands of equality. We have a particular interest in women’s equality, but we are not frightened to look at the issues that face men too. Our latest inquiry has been into dads in the workplace. I thank all my colleagues who are here today—the hon. Members for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), and others who serve on the Committee—for their dedication to the work of the inquiry. We will be publishing the final report in the next two weeks.
The Government have, as outlined by the Minister, shown their huge commitment to gender equality in this country, but also abroad. Today’s announcement on the proposed tough new laws on domestic abuse indicates that that commitment is showing no sign of diminishing. The Government’s record needs to be put on record, because it is so striking: the criminalisation of forced marriage, two new stalking laws, the roll-out of domestic violence protection orders, new offences on domestic abuse relating to coercive control, shared parental leave, equal marriage, making revenge pornography a crime, and making sex and relationship education compulsory for all children. All those things show that this Government understand the very wide nature of the policies that they need to put in place to address equality issues for women.
Today’s theme is about pressing for change. The role of the Women and Equalities Committee, which I chair, is to make sure that we continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire, not just on their existing legislative work but on that for the future. I will talk about three areas of our work in the Committee that I gently suggest require further work in future. Maternity discrimination, despite some of the strongest laws and a clear determination by the Government to outlaw it, continues to blight the lives of too many women. The use of non-disclosure agreements in many of the arrangements that are put forward to encourage women to leave the workplace means that it is difficult for us to see the full scale of the problem. That is why the Committee will be looking carefully at how we should reform non-disclosure agreements for issues not just like sexual harassment, but maternity discrimination as well.
Another area that I am sure the Committee will want to continue to scrutinise is the role of women in this place. We produced a very important report shortly before the last general election calling for the implementation of aspects of the Equality Act to make it transparent how many women are standing for election at various points in the parliamentary calendar. It was disappointing that the Government did not agree to go forward with the part of the Act that would require all political parties to be transparent about the data on their gender split of candidates at that time. I hope that I can encourage those on the Front Bench to continue to look at how we might be able to use that legislation to throw transparency on to this issue.
As our previous leader David Cameron said, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and that is still the case today, particularly when it comes to the work of parties in the selection of their candidates. While there may be more women sitting on the Labour Benches today than on the Conservative Benches, I am sure they would agree that the selection procedure can stand in the way of women coming into this place. We need to ensure there is transparency of the data.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
I praise the work that my right hon. Friend does as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee. I loved the list she gave of what we have done in government; that is an important message, because both parties have something to contribute. Does she agree that we must put forward a very positive view of women’s role in this House? The most important thing is to encourage young women to look at being an MP as a potential career. If we are always complaining and pointing out the downsides of this job, that will not be very encouraging. I encourage her Committee to look at those positives, so that young women know that this could be a job for them, and that it is one of the most fantastic jobs they could ever do.
Mrs Miller
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The best thing that we are doing at the moment to encourage young women to be interested in politics is having a female Prime Minister. It was when I saw Margaret Thatcher become leader of the party and then Prime Minister of our country that politics became relevant for me. It turned politics from, frankly, a lot of old men in grey raincoats to something technicolour and relevant to me as a 14-year-old girl living in south Wales, where there were not too many Tories around. I could see an amazing role model on the television who was not only a fantastic female politician but was turning our country round from the crisis of the ’70s, when we were—
Seema Malhotra
Does the right hon. Lady agree with me about the value of teachers and the role they can play in encouraging young girls to come forward? I want to tell a slightly different story that I have not often shared. One of the reasons I got involved in politics was that, for our homework one day at school, we were asked to go and work ourselves up about something, and I managed to work myself up about Margaret Thatcher. I can honestly say that the rest is history.
I want to acknowledge the work done by teachers in my schools, such as Cranford school, which has started Cranford Parliament and will be holding International Women’s Day events today and tomorrow. Those initiatives have an impact by making people feel involved in political debate and are important in connecting Parliament with education.
Mrs Miller
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Inspiring people to get involved in politics is such an important part of our job.
I want to talk about inspiring women. I might have been the first woman to be elected to Parliament in North Hampshire, but I am now joined by five other female Conservative Members of Parliament in Hampshire, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies). Where one woman treads, others will follow. I am very proud indeed that 60% of my borough councillors in Basingstoke are female, led by the incredibly impressive Councillor Terri Reid. It is important to recognise that as Members of Parliament, we can inspire others to become involved in politics through our work.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
On that point about inspiring women, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that as Members of Parliament, we get into our schools to speak to young women and show them that being an MP is exactly the sort of job they should be aspiring to do, as is being the leader of a company? As a male MP with two female bosses, I know that women are at least as good at this job and probably better. Does she agree that a woman’s place is not, as some old-fashioned people might say, in the kitchen, but on the Front Bench?
Mrs Miller
What we are trying to say is that a woman’s place is in the House, which is a similar thing. I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is absolutely right that we need to recognise the importance of encouraging more young women into politics.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is important that we in this House take responsibility for inspiring other women, including our daughters, but we should also remember on this day that many of us owe our inspiration to our mothers, our grandmothers and important women in our lives. My own grandmother did not have the right to vote when she was born. I wear her wedding ring to this Chamber every day, and occasionally it serves as a reminder of what we owe to generations past.
Mrs Miller
The hon. Lady makes such a poignant point, and I am sure all of us will reflect on the role of women in our own families in getting us here today.
There are other women in our communities whom we need to celebrate. We are incredibly privileged in Hampshire to have one of only four female chief constables in the country, Olivia Pinkney, who is doing an incredible job of running one of the largest police forces in the country. The chief executive of my local hospital in Basingstoke, Alex Whitfield, succeeded another female chief executive, to make sure we have some of the best health services in the area.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is right to point out the need to have more women in senior policing positions and to encourage more women police officers to rise up through the ranks. Will she join me in paying tribute to the woman Met Commissioner, the woman head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the woman head of the National Crime Agency? To have Cressida Dick, Sara Thornton and Lynne Owens all in those top positions is a huge tribute to them and the work they have done to rise through the profession.
Mrs Miller
Coupled with a female Home Secretary, they make a formidable team.
I also want to point out the role of women in business. I represent one of the top 10 centres of business in the south-east, and it is local businesswomen in smaller businesses who I find incredibly inspiring—people like Beryl Huntingdon in my constituency, who runs a business to support other businesses. When I look at my local charities, I see it is often women who are not just helping to run existing charities—people like Evelyn Vincent, who was a founder member of Headway Basingstoke—but setting up new charities. I think of women like Charlie Porter, who set up the Muffin’s Dream Foundation to support families with disabled children, Catherine Waters-Clark, who founded Inspero to help children understand where their food comes from and how they can cook it, and Mary Swan, who is the artistic director of my local producing theatre company.
It does not stop there. If it was not for the women, I do not know what the Church of England would be doing. It is people like Jo Stoker of St Michael’s Church who keep our churches running. We were talking earlier about football teams. Basingstoke Town ladies football team plays in the FA women’s premier league south-west division, and I am hugely proud of the fact that they are doing extremely well—in fact, better than the men’s team.
Dame Cheryl Gillan
May I add to my right hon. Friend’s list someone I am going to see tomorrow in my own constituency? Sally Preston runs a company called Kiddylicious, which she has started from scratch. It is producing fantastically healthy children’s food and is now a multimillion-pound international business.
Mrs Miller
By recognising women who are doing things in other roles and walks of life, we can help to ensure that young women in our schools realise that the only thing that limits them in this world is their imagination and the support they get from their families and their schools to realise their ambitions.
In talking about women in my constituency, I could not fail to refer to the most famous daughter of Basingstoke, Jane Austen. Until very recently, almost nobody in Basingstoke knew that she was born and bred in our borough—the most famous novelist in the world, and we had failed to recognise her. I do not know whether that was because she was a woman, or maybe it was just that people did not like reading her books—I love them, but some people do not; it is an acquired taste. When we commemorated the 200th anniversary of her death, I was immensely proud to be part of a programme to make sure she was better remembered, which culminated in the first ever sculpture of her being put in place in the centre of my town. I would like to put on record my immense thanks to the sculptor, Adam Roud, and Amanda Aldous MBE, who made that project possible. I want to celebrate women now, but also the women who have made my town a great place to live.
Women in Basingstoke are no different from those in the rest of the country—there is prodigious talent—so why are women still paid less than men? In my constituency, women are paid 25% less than men, and we are in the bottom 4% in the UK. Despite the fact that there is no difference in the levels of education of men and women in my constituency, women are consistently being paid 25% less than men, because they cannot find the sorts of jobs they need to use their experience and talent.
Organisations are working hard to try to reverse this worrying trend of our not using the skills of our people in the way we should. The local borough council has focused on this, and it now has a positive gender pay gap of 2.16%. Of local employers, AWE has a programme to increase female apprentices and clear targets for increasing female management, and Fujitsu has a programme to attract female apprentices. Companies are waking up and realising that they are not using female talent in the way they should.
I very much support the Government’s work on gender pay gap reporting. Such reporting provides the sort of transparency that companies in my constituency need if they are to focus more on this problem. There are about 900 businesses in Basingstoke with more than 250 employees, and I will be looking very closely at gender pay gap reporting to ensure that we capitalise on the skills and talents of women that are otherwise lost to the economy.
I particularly want Ministers to reflect on the availability of flexible working. I was very pleased that the Prime Minister has pointed out the need for flexible working right at the start of somebody’s time in employment. Research by Timewise has shown that at the moment just 6% of job vacancies pay the annualised equivalent of £20,000 a year or more, leaving many women with no option but to take low-paid jobs—often poorly paid jobs with little progression—if they need the flexibility that many require to balance work and family life. I hope that the Prime Minister’s announcement on flexible working last year will be just the start of a much broader set of work that the Government will do to make flexible working a reality from day one for everybody in this country.
As was asked earlier, is this a turning point and a landmark year? I am sure that people at the time of the first and second world wars and in the 1960s and 1970s, when so much of the legislation we enjoy today was put in place, felt that those were landmark years. The reason why we may do better in calling this a landmark year, following all the revelations of sexual harassment in Hollywood and Westminster, is that we have record numbers of women in work, and economic empowerment is such an important part of cementing the changed attitudes that we are all looking for in the debate today.
I hope that the establishment of the Women and Equalities Committee has helped to keep equality issues, particularly those that relate to women, at the top of the agenda, and that it has added to the momentum for change. We started our series of sexual harassment reports in 2016 with one on the sexual harassment of schoolgirls. At the time, I was told that we were expecting children to accept something that had been outlawed in the workplace, but how wrong we were about that. Sexual harassment blights the lives of 50% of women in this country, and we must tackle it. I am pleased that the Select Committee is doing two reports on it at the moment: on sexual harassment in the public realm, and on sexual harassment at work.
There really is more that unites us than divides us when it comes to issues of women. I think that the women—and the men—sitting in the House and taking part in this debate today can make sure that if we work together, this turning point does create the lasting change we want.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). She is of course the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee—the first of its kind—on which I have had the honour of serving for the past almost three years. It is a great honour that we have the whole afternoon to debate International Women’s Day. It is also an honour to follow the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who rightly put it on the record that many women are not recognised in history. It is great that that will be corrected today.
As we mark 100 years since women first secured the vote, we have an opportunity in this place on International Women’s Day to put on the record some of the great successes. However, we must not forget that the reason why we still need an event such as International Women’s Day is that we have had to fight for so long for much of what we have achieved, and we still have a long way to go. Today, as we mark Vote 100 and the progress made by women on the centenary of women’s suffrage, we must also note that this year’s theme for International Women’s Day is “Press for Progress”.
In the past 100 years, we have seen incremental advances in women’s rights. In 1928, women were granted universal suffrage. In 1945, the Family Allowances Act introduced child benefits. In 1967, the Abortion Act was enacted in the UK, but this has still not been extended to Northern Ireland. In 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act made it illegal to discriminate against women. In 1985, the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act made female genital mutilation a crime. In 1986, statutory maternity pay was introduced. In 1994, rape in marriage was made a crime. In 2014, shared parental leave was introduced, and that year also marked the introduction of equal marriage. The year 2015 witnessed the introduction of coercive control as a crime. In 2017, thanks to my hon. Friend the former Member for Banff and Buchan, we witnessed the ratification of the Istanbul convention, and I thank the former and the present Home Secretaries for their work in that regard.
This year, the Government will introduce a Bill on domestic violence and abuse. Yet this year, on average, 40% of women will report that they have experienced some form of sexual harassment in the workplace. In Scotland, 58,810 incidents of domestic abuse were reported last year. Rape and attempted rape account for 17% of sexual crimes, and 35% of women have experienced either physical or sexual intimate partner violence or sexual violence by a non-partner at some point in their lives. An estimated 200 million women and girls have undergone female genital mutilation, and the majority of them were cut before they were five. One in five girls in the world are said to be married before the age of 18. One in five lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender women have said that they have experienced a hate crime or incident due to their sexual orientation or gender identity, of whom one in four have not reported this to the police.
While we recognise that there is still a long way to go, today is an opportunity to celebrate the fact that women have achieved a great deal in the past 100 years. I want to turn around the rather bleak view I have presented and celebrate some of those whom Sky News recently called “Britain’s most influential women”—marking those who have made achievements historically as well as the trailblazing women of today. The list rightly includes suffragettes, to whom we owe a debt, such as Emily Wilding Davison and Emmeline Pankhurst. It also includes great writers such Virginia Woolf and Zadie Smith, and women in the public eye who rightly use their voice to advocate political activism, such as Annie Lennox, Vivienne Westwood and M.I.A.
The list covers prominent female politicians, including of course my own First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and my colleague and friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). I might add that my hon. Friend made a brilliant speech yesterday on misogyny, only to be met by further online abuse, which exactly proves the point. I should say that she did get some support, but the point is well made.
While we rightly recognise these extraordinary women and acknowledge the struggles they face in striving to make the world a better place, it is worth recognising the extraordinary women who live otherwise ordinary lives. I therefore wish to pay tribute to some of the truly inspiring women in my constituency of Lanark and Hamilton East. I pay tribute to Carol Clarke, Mary McGowan and Christine Emmet, who have been passionate in promoting Fairtrade and making Hamilton a Fairtrade town. I pay tribute to Donna Barrowman who established the Hope Cafe in Lanark—a charity that supports mental health. I also pay tribute to each member of staff, past and present, of Women’s Aid South Lanarkshire, who do incredible work each day to support women who have suffered from domestic violence, abuse or sexual violence. I also take the opportunity, as always, to put on record the plight of WASPI women, including my constituents Nancy Rea and Lorraine McColl. They continue to fight for the right to a fair pension, although they feel that their voices are largely unheard.
I pay tribute to Loraine Swan, chair of the Lanimer Committee, who plays a key role in keeping the traditions of Lanark alive, and to Liz Wilson, chair of Uddingston Pride, who ensures that the environment and community lie at the heart of her local area. Sheena Campbell, chair of Larkhall Community Council, fights to make her community a better place, and Mavis Daniels of Sivam Hair and Beauty in Hamilton is a pioneering businesswoman who was recently shortlisted for the Black Beauty and Fashion Awards 2018.
Those women are all exceptional, as indeed are women such as Anne Barrett, Josephine McVey, Paula Sullivan, and Margaret McAllister. These women are administrators, teachers, and kitchen staff and have worked hard throughout their adult life, supporting their families, caring for children and aging parents, while also fighting for pension justice, equality, and equal pay. Their voices deserve to be heard just as much as those of every woman on Sky’s list of influential women.
The recent “Time’s Up” movement against sexual harassment, as well as the scandal in this place regarding sexual harassment and the established patriarchy, served to highlight that women in all sectors experience patriarchy, misogyny and bullying in their workplace every day. However, not all women have a voice. We have a long way to go, and we in this place have an opportunity to make a change. Let us make a real change over the next 100 years in closing the gender pay gap, tackling maternity and pregnancy discrimination, and encouraging more fathers to take shared parental leave. We must continue to tackle systemic inequality in institutions such as this place, and we must lead by example to create the change we want.
Today, I launched a petition calling on the Government to scrap the 4% tax on claimants of child maintenance for those who have experienced domestic violence in their relationship and who rely on that vital service. Parents should not be penalised for protecting their families, and the Government should not seek to balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable in our society. Once more I call on the Government to consider using the opportunity presented by the domestic violence and abuse Bill to address that inequity. It is not fair to ask women to pay tax on a service that they ultimately rely on and have no other choice but to take.
I will end with a quote from a truly inspirational woman, Maya Angelou, who said:
“Each time a woman stands up for herself, without knowing it possibly, without claiming it, she stands up for all women.”
Let us make our voices heard this afternoon. It is International Women’s Day, and all of those women’s voices deserve to be heard.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
It is a privilege to contribute to this hugely important debate. Gender inequality represents the biggest waste of talent on our planet right now, and closing that gap is not only a moral imperative but an economic imperative for us all. The figures on gender inequality are striking. Evidence produced by the McKinsey Global Institute in 2015 estimated that tackling gender inequality, and achieving gender parity across the global economy, would be worth $28 trillion to global GDP. Put in context, that is essentially the economies of China and the US combined. That is probably the biggest economic lever that could be pulled to support jobs and prosperity in our global economy.
I am proud of the work done by the UK internationally, and following the sustainable development goals agreed in 2015, for the first time the world has a to-do list that includes achieving gender equality. Not only is it a long list, it is a comprehensive list that specifically covers areas such as FGM and health inequality. Achieving gender equality is mainstreamed through all the sustainable development goals in a way that is vital if we are to have real change.
The impact that gender equality could have on countries around the world is stark. That impact would be positive not only for economic performance, but for underlying stability and outcomes in society more generally. Gender equality is a good, positive thing that all countries should be striving for, not because it is a nice thing to do, but because it is crucial for us all. Some of the most inspiring people that I met in my time at the Department for International Development were amazing women who were fighting for women’s rights in places like Afghanistan, fighting against child marriage in places like Zambia, or tackling Ebola. Frankly, nurses on the frontline often gave their lives to save others and help to treat those suffering from Ebola. They were absolutely inspiring, and achieving gender equality is a shared responsibility. If it is shared, however, we must take collective action, not just as individuals but in the organisations and institutions of which we are part.
I would like to speak briefly about what such collective action really means. First, it means working in our communities. We can all think of amazing groups in our communities that are leading the way. I remember some of the young people I have met during my time in politics, such as the girls in Bristol who set up Integrate Bristol, which has shaken up that city and drawn attention more broadly to tackling FGM. There was wonderful work by long-standing institutions such as the Girl Guides, and there are fantastic international development charities, such as Restless Development, that focus on gender equality.
I say a huge thank you to teachers around our country who are in our classrooms right now inspiring and educating a brand new generation of girls and young women to aim high and have high expectations for themselves. They must also have a sense of how they need and deserve to be treated by others, and what relationships—including stable relationships—look like. The reforms that the Government are introducing on relationships and sex education are long overdue and crucial to ensuring that this is not just about women aiming high, but that men and boys understand the positive role that they can play in helping to deliver gender equality in our country. The work happening in our classrooms, especially in encouraging girls to study science, technology, engineering and maths, and to go into industries and sectors that they have not perhaps entered traditionally, is important if we are to crack some of the statistics that we all mention, such as the gender pay gap.
That brings me to the world of business, and how important it is for the change in the workplace that has steadily begun across our country over recent years to continue. Hon. Members have mentioned the gender pay gap, and the transparency that the new regulations, simple as they are, have brought to the reporting of the pay gap is hugely powerful. We are at the beginning of a journey, and when I spoke to companies that were considering the reporting that lay ahead of them, I found that many wanted to make progress in advance of reporting their statistics. Focusing on those numbers for the first time simply told them what they needed to know, which was that they needed to make a change.
There are three to four weeks left before eligible companies must submit a report on their gender pay gap, and my advice to them is: don’t be late. People will spot who is missing, and if a company is missing it will never be able to go back and correct the fact that it had a year to get its house in order and ensure that its reporting was on time, but it failed. All companies and employers must understand that young people growing up in the United Kingdom now have different expectations and attitudes on gender, culture and diversity. They expect those attitudes and values to be shown in the organisations they interact with on a daily basis, particularly organisations that want to sell them goods and services. The sooner businesses understand that and see the opportunities in responding to it, the better not only for them but for our broader society.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) mentioned the broader workplace reforms that all Governments, including this one, have brought forward to make flexible working a reality. In the end, if we really are to see a difference we have to go beyond laws: attitudes need to change in companies. We all saw what happened at the Presidents Club dinner. I think that is symptomatic of a clear point, which is that change needs to be led from the top. All leaders in all the many companies and organisations that employ people need to realise that they, individually, have to show leadership. They have to drive it through their senior management teams and evidence it not just through their people but in their processes, their systems and the data they collect to ensure they are moving in the right direction.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend like to give credit to Northern Power Women, who this week have been winning awards in Manchester for the great change they have been making in driving forward engagement as role models and agents of change to transform the culture of organisations?
Justine Greening
I very much welcome all the work they are doing, and I hope the awards ceremony goes well. Achieving gender equality is down to all of us. It is a million-piece jigsaw. It is about millions of people around our country and around the world all doing things that add up to something big. “Don’t wait” is my advice to people who want to see things change—get involved and be a part of the change yourself.
We know that gender diversity is good for business. Research from McKinsey showed that companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 21% more likely to outperform others on profitability and 27% more likely to have superior value creation. Companies in the top quartile for ethnic and cultural diversity on executive teams were 33% more likely to have industry-leading profitability. Equally, there is a penalty for dropping out. In other words, it is not just that the companies doing this are better performing, but companies not doing this are poor performing. The clear steer is that if someone cares about their business’s growth, they should do it simply for the economics, even if they have not, for some obscure reason, already bought into why this is the right thing to do.
This issue applies to our institution of Parliament. Everything we talk about being good for businesses and employers applies to all of us too. I know that all Members in the Chamber, and many colleagues who are not here, feel as strongly as I do about that. It is up to us to continue to ask ourselves the difficult questions about how our own parties need to change. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke that transparency is crucial. The Conservative party should leave no stone unturned in continuing to play a role—indeed, a stronger role going forward—as one of the parties in this House helping to make sure that we have a 50:50 Parliament. We should be out there working with other parliamentarians on the 50:50 Parliament campaign #AskHerToStand. That is absolutely crucial. It is 100 years since some women first got the vote. Frankly, although we have made a lot of progress, it has not been enough. We have to recognise that unless we work together there is a real danger that the House of Commons will flatline on about a third of us being women parliamentarians. We need to go above and beyond that.
We should never lose sight of the culture and diversity element of everything I have spoken about today. We should recognise that too many women growing up in our country, often black and minority ethnic women, face a double challenge in being able to make their way. None of us should be prepared to accept that. Whenever we talk about gender equality we should be explicitly clear that there are groups of women who face even greater challenges, dare I say, than some of the rest of us. Fixing this for every woman is our challenge, and we should not stop until we have achieved it.
Finally, it is 100 years since we got the vote, but the suffragette movement actually began back in the 1860s. I am so pleased they did not give up after 40 years. If there is one message we can all take from that, it is that this is long-term. But I do not want it to be long-term—I want change to happen faster. I do not want to be looking at what we can achieve over the next 100 years; I want us to be looking at what we can achieve in a generation, or in the next five years, 10 years or 15 years. We need to do that, because lives are ticking by. I had the chance to meet too many girls in too many countries with bags of talent but no opportunity. Their clock is ticking. Every single day that we do not see change fast enough, for them and for the rest of us, is a day of opportunity lost and a day of talent wasted.
I do not accept that our world needs to be like this. I do not accept that our country needs to be like this. We have made a lot of progress, but we have to go further and we have to go faster. I am really proud that all of us here can be a strong voice for women, not just in our country but around the world, to articulate the challenges they often face when they have no way of talking about them themselves. We know, looking back over recent years and over the last century, that things can be different. We also know, however, that we have to choose to make them different. If nothing else, this debate is showing that as far as the UK Parliament is concerned, we are making that choice for things to be different. All I can say is that I am going to be part of that change and part of the effort to see the next 100 years deliver much, much more than the last 100 years did.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I rise today to keep my promise to every year remember the women killed by male violence since the previous International Women’s Day. As always, I owe the research of this list to Karen Ingala Smith and the Counting Dead Women project, which works in partnership with the Women’s Aid “Femicide Census” report. Women like Karen face a backlash for undertaking such research. After today, I will to be told that I do not care about men who have died, which is obviously ridiculous. Such a thing is never said to those who stand up and honour the men of this country. I am grateful that Karen Ingala Smith ignores this and remains on the side of the women who died, not the forces who want to ignore them.
All these stories are in the public domain. As always, the women are of all ages and were killed in violent episodes at the hands of men. Violence against women and girls is an epidemic. If as many people died every week at a sporting event, or because they had a specific job, there would be a national outcry. These women deserve the same. We must all do better to hear their stories and to end the culture of male violence that killed them.
The names are: Anne-Marie James; Sabrina Mullings; Sheila Morgan; Tracey Wilkinson; Kanwal Williams; Vicki Hull; Hannah Bladon; Carolyn Hill; Katrina Evemy; Megan Bills; Karolina Chwiluk; Jane Sherrat; Tracy Kearns; Concepta Leonard; Gemma Leeming; Emma Day; Mohanna Abdhua; Marjorie Cawdery; Sobhia Khan; Romina Kalachi; Arena Saeed; Alyson Watt; Sarah Jeffrey; Karen Young; Jean Chapman; Janice Griffiths; Joanne Rand; Ellen Higginbottom; Julie Parkin; Molly McLaren; Vera Savage; Celine Dookhran; Vanessa James; Florina Pastina; Olivia Kray; Farnaz Ali; Elizabeth Jordan; Leanne Collopy; Rikki Lander; Alex Stuart; Leah Cohen; Hannah Cohen; Beryl Hammond; Quyen Ngoc Nguyen; Karen Jacquet; Asiyah Harris; Jessica King; Tyler Denton; Emma Kelty; Jane Hings; Linda Parker; Nasima Noorzia; Katherine Smith; Leanne McKie; Jane Sergeant; Moira Gilbertson; Shaeen Akthar; Teresa Wishart; Anne O’Neill; Elizabeth Merriman; Janet Northmore; Jillian Howell; Mary Steel; Chloe Miazek; Simone Grainger; Michele Anison; Patricia McIntosh; Lisa Chadderton; Monika Lasek; Susan Westwood; Ella Parker; Janine Bowater; Suzanne Brown; Rebecca Dykes; Jodie Willsher; Beverley Bliss; Nicole Campbell; Iuliana Tudos; Jayne Reat; Jillian Grant; Pauline Cockburn; Julie Fox; Anne Searle; Melanie Clark; Elizabeta Lacatusu; Terrie-Ann Jones; Claire Tavener; Julie Clark; Amelia Blake; Cassie Hayes; Claire Harris; Cheryl Gabriel-Hooper; Ruksana Begum; Saeeda Hussain; Danielle Richardson; Jill Sadler; Lynn McNally; Charlotte Teeling; Crystal Gossett, who was killed with her son, who was 16, and her baby daughter; Diane Gossett; and Laura Huteson. Karen texted me this morning, after she had sent that list, to add three more women to the list from over the weekend: Laura Figueira de Farida; Angela Rider; and Fiona Scourfield.
I also want to read the names of the women murdered at the hands of terrorism in the UK in the last year. It may seem to some that this pattern of violence is different from violence against women and girls, but we in this place must recognise that the patterns of violent behaviour and the perpetration of violence against women and girls have been seen in the history of many of those who go on to commit terrorist atrocities. Their names are: Aysha Frade; Christine Archibald; Kirsty Boden; Sara Zelenak; Angelika Klis; Georgina Callandar; Saffie Roussos; Kelly Brewster; Olivia Campbell; Alison Howe; Lisa Lees; Jane Tweddle-Taylor; Megan Hurley; Nell Jones; Michelle Kiss; Sorrell Leczkowski; Chloe Rutherford; Eilidh MacLeod; Wendy Fawell; Courtney Boyle; Elaine McIver; and Andreea Cristea.
I want to finish my remarks by saying that all of these women mattered. So many people want to use their political persuasion to assume that perpetrators of this violence look and think in a certain way. I care about all women and want to pay tribute to the All Women Count lobby that is taking place in Parliament to recognise the advanced barriers to support and, if I am honest, our national sympathy—
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Lady for the passion and experience with which she speaks in the House about domestic violence and, sadly in this case, murder. She spoke of Alyson Watt, a constituent of mine who was murdered by Gary Brown, who pleaded guilty just a few weeks ago. That horrific crime was compounded by the fact that Alyson’s son was caught up in the act and was critically ill in hospital. He has huge, life-changing injuries. In a bitter irony, Alyson was a senior domestic abuse project worker with Barnardo’s. Her friends said that she dedicated her life and work to helping others. Politicians like us are here today and gone tomorrow, but does the hon. Lady agree that we owe it to Alyson and everyone else she just listed to be much more proactive in our schools and communities to try to end male entitlement and violence?
Jess Phillips
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I thank him for coming here to listen to the name of his constituent and for recognising that just because someone is in the know about domestic violence, as his constituent was, that does not protect them from male violence. I have met women who, on the face of it, people would never think would be victims. We want to cast victims as being one way and it is simply not the case.
We in this place need to recognise our commitment to ending the barriers faced by every woman in this country. We must never, ever forget that that includes refugee women, who face multiple disadvantage in our country and have often suffered before they arrive here—and suffer while they are here—multiple forms of violence, both sexual and domestic. Our test should always be: did we do everything that we could to protect all women? For too many women in this country, the answer to this is still simply no. We must do better.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
It is a huge privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), whom I served with on the Women and Equalities Committee. People say, “Do we still need an International Women’s Day?”, and I think that her speech sets out exactly the reasons why we do.
It is a huge honour to speak on International Women’s Day, which is a huge opportunity for us all to share in the achievements, particularly in this anniversary year of suffrage. One hundred years ago, some women were first given the vote, but this is also an opportunity to set out our ambitions for the next 10 years, as we come to celebrate the centenary of all women getting the vote, and for the next 100 years, so that the women who will be sitting in this place then can look back and list what our generation has achieved for women. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening): it is important to get on with that, so that they have a long list of achievements to read out in the years to come.
There is still so much to do in this country. We have heard many hon. and right hon. Members set out the issues that women in this country still face around equal pay and the gender pay gap. We just heard the list of names of women who have died by domestic violence. We still have to get 50:50 representation in Parliament, and we also have the ongoing issue of sexual harassment.
Women across the world still face burning injustices. Women in this world are still living in absolute poverty. Women experience rape as a weapon of war on a daily basis. Women still cannot access education, even just to learn to read and write, and as a result, it is not just them but their families who suffer. Women are still being used as sex slaves and trafficked across the world. There is also the issue of female feticide—female babies are valued less than male babies and are often dumped, abandoned or even murdered in some parts of the world because men and male children are valued so much more. We have a huge amount of work to do.
In this anniversary year, to tackle the issue of getting more women into this place, Conservative Members of Parliament have set up a series of “Her Stories,” where we highlight our personal history and how we got into this place. In my new role, when I ask women, “Why don’t you stand for Parliament, for local government, for your local assembly or as a police and crime commissioner?” one of the most common comments I hear is that they do not think that they have what it takes to make a difference. Highlighting our individual stories shows that we have such a diverse mix of people in this place from all parties—people have done different jobs, come from different backgrounds and are of different classes or faiths—and we all have a right to be here.
Listening to the individual personal stories of how women got into this place will hopefully encourage other women out there to think, “Yes, I can do that.” I say this to women: “If you are coming here because you want to be the third female Prime Minister of this country, you are probably coming here for the wrong reason. If you are coming here because you care passionately about an issue and you will not stop until you have achieved your aim, you are exactly the right person to come here, regardless of your background or experience.”
Mrs Miller
I want put on record the extraordinary work that my hon. Friend does, the experience as a former nurse that she brought to the Women and Equalities Committee, and the experience that she brings to the House as a whole, which provides an example for us all. She is absolutely right to highlight the importance of those stories in inspiring other women to come here.
Maria Caulfield
I thank my right hon. Friend for her kind comments. She herself is an absolute inspiration to women throughout the House as a result of the work that she has done as the first Chairwoman of that Select Committee in not only highlighting issues that are important to women, but pushing those issues.
I want to reflect on my personal and family story. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) mentioned her grandmother. A hundred years ago, my own grandmother did not have the right to vote. My family were Irish Catholics, and it was not until 1922 that women in southern Ireland—and men—were given the vote. In Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, many Catholic women and men could not vote in local elections until the Electoral Law Amendment Act 1968 came into force, mainly because the Irish Catholic community were neither home owners nor ratepayers and were therefore disqualified. I welcome our celebration of what happened 100 years ago, and I shall welcome our celebration in 10 years’ time, but I think it was a travesty that there were women in the United Kingdom who could not vote simply because of the community from which they came.
In the next generation of the family is my aunt, who came over from Ireland to work in this country. She actually worked in this place—in the dining rooms, serving Members of both this House and the other place. She has many a tale to tell about her time working here, although you will pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will not reveal any of them today. One of her abiding memories is of being able to pay tribute to Winston Churchill when he was lying in state. I am honoured to follow in her footsteps by also working in this place, although in a different role.
We all have family stories to tell that would make a difference, and we should be loud and proud about our history. It concerns me, however, that although we are achieving equality for women, we are not achieving it for all women, in this country or in the world. It is important that when we fight for equality for women, we do so for all women, and those in the most vulnerable communities often need our help the most.
I am also slightly nervous about the discord in this country that makes some women more equal than others, and gives some a greater right than others to speak out on women’s issues. We are a broad church of women in this place, and within our own political parties there is a broad church of women who have come here with different experiences and values, and different issues on which they want to campaign. My message is that there is no right or wrong issue on which to campaign. We all have different views about the NHS, education and the economy, and we all have a right to express those views. It is important for us, as a group of sisters, to respect each other’s views: we may debate them and, perhaps, argue against them, but we must respect the fact that we all have the right to express them.
Let me pursue that point by highlighting the person from whom I take inspiration on the political scene. You would of course, Madam Deputy Speaker, expect Margaret Thatcher to be one of my political heroines. I grew up in a working-class area of south London where there was little or no aspiration for a working-class kid like me, but on television I saw a woman who—although she had a posh accent, often wore a string of pearls, and carried a handbag at all times—told me from that television screen that it did not matter where I came from; it was what I wanted to do and how hard I was prepared to work for it that was going to make the difference.
You would expect Florence Nightingale to be high on my heroine list, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a nurse I worked at St Thomas’ hospital, and did courses at the Nightingale training school. She transformed not just nursing but healthcare in this country. You would also expect Marie Curie to be high on the list, Madam Deputy Speaker. As someone who worked in cancer care, I know that she put her life on the line to increase scientific advances and make a difference to cancer treatment. My greatest respect, however, goes to someone in a political sphere very different from mine. She sat on the Opposition Benches, but she is my absolute political heroine. She has, I believe, been underrated and underestimated in the history of women in politics.
We often talk about Northern Ireland nowadays. We talk about issues related to Brexit and a frictionless border; about the lack of an Executive and the lack of an Assembly; and about the Good Friday agreement. We highlight the work of John Major, Tony Blair and George Mitchell, but we have airbrushed the work of Mo Mowlam. I think that if she were still here, we would completely disagree on issues of health, education and economics, but I hold her absolutely in respect for the work that she did in bringing the nationalist and Protestant communities together in one room. At a time when there was not a female leader of the Democratic Unionist party or a female leader of Sinn Féin, she was in a room full of men and had to knock heads together. She was a straight-talking woman, she was a feisty and funny woman, and she got things done that other people could not do. She was the first female Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I think that her efforts should be recognised.
I absolutely take on board the advice that we should never meet our heroes in life because we will only be disappointed, but I had an opportunity to meet Mo Mowlam when I was working as a nurse in Brighton and she was giving a talk at Sussex University. I had never been to the university before, and I did not really “do” political talks. I was not into politics; I just voted in elections. I went to see Mo Mowlam and hear her talk because I was so inspired by the work that she was doing for the Irish Catholic community in Northern Ireland and, indeed, for all communities by bringing them together. Her talk was funny and witty, and she was everything that I had expected her to be. I went up to her and asked her to sign a copy of her autobiography for my other half, who was working overseas at the time. She refused to do it. She said, “I am not going to sign a book and dedicate it to him if he could not make the effort to be here. I will sign it to you, as a woman—and you must keep up the good work of being interested in becoming politically aware.”
I think that Mo Mowlam was one of the great politicians of our time. She was a fantastic woman, and we must remember her and all the work that she did. She was a woman you could do business with, whichever side of the political divide you came from.
This is a an opportunity and a time for us to recognise that equality is not about everyone being the same. We can have differences and still strive together for equality for all. Calling someone less of a sister because she is on a different side of the argument does not really promote our cause of achieving equality for all women. We have fought so hard to get freedom for women, and we have fought so hard to get freedom of speech and freedom to vote, but we still have so much more to do. So let us celebrate our differences and embrace them. One of my favourite sayings from Mo Mowlam was, “You are never terrified when you say what you mean,” which is something to which I still aspire. With that in mind, let us celebrate today. Let us remember the women who have made this country great, and let us work together to tackle the issues that still exist.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I am very proud to be sitting on these famous green Benches on International Women’s Day, surrounded by other women representing constituencies in all four corners of the United Kingdom.
Since the Representation of the People Act 1918 and the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918, both of which celebrate their 100th anniversary this year, significant advances have been made in ensuring that Parliament represents more accurately the country that it serves. Since those Acts, 489 women have been elected as Members of this House— a milestone that must have seemed so distant to women such as Mary Smith, who delivered the first women’s suffrage petition to Parliament in 1832. Currently, there are 208 female MPs, and I am honoured to be the first female MP for Coventry North East.
Alongside those Acts, great changes—including the industrial revolution and both world wars—successfully challenged the notion that a woman’s role was solely domestic, and opened up possibilities for women economically, politically and socially. Despite this progress, the battle is far from won. Yes, it is fantastic that we have 208 female MPs in the House, but that equates to only 32%. At the last general election, only an additional 12 women were elected; at the current rate it will take 50 years to achieve gender equality in Parliament. One hundred years after some women won the right to vote, and some were afforded the opportunity to stand for election as an MP, the fight for political equality must continue.
I am proud to come from a party that has such an impressive record on striving to achieve these things. Labour has more female MPs than all other parties put together and is the only party to advocate the use of all-women shortlists to address the inequalities still present in the current system.
I have seen many, many changes from when I first started work—in a job where I did not get equal pay. I was happy to see the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Work and Families Act 2006, which extended the right to statutory maternity leave for a full year. When I had my children, I was back at work after six weeks and 12 weeks respectively. I needed the money, and I needed to keep my job.
As we have heard in previous contributions, there have been many other advances in the cause of women’s equality. However, more still needs to be done, especially regarding maternity rights and the gender pay gap. In Coventry—the city I represent—a recent survey found that fewer than 20% of female respondents felt they are treated equally to men. A further 42% believed they have experienced gender discrimination in the workplace, and nearly 60% felt that women are under pressure to look good at all times.
It is clear that significant advances have been made since the Representation of the People Act and the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act. However, the results of that survey are alarming and remind us how far we have yet to go. Women are still paid less than men in many fields, and gender stereotypes surrounding certain degree subjects and industries still exist. Women are still objectified in the media, and for many, politics remains a man’s world, with many women feeling this glass ceiling will never, ever shatter. We have come so far, but the fight for gender equality is not over. With cuts, especially to tax credits, the NHS and social care budgets, it is often women who are hit the hardest.
Before I conclude, I would like to pay tribute on this special day to a great, strong and formidable woman, who was elected and who swept to power on 3 May 1979. She was to inspire a young woman who watched her every move—a young woman who, because of that woman’s inspiration and very presence, would become the 414th woman ever to be elected to this place. She is probably not the person Members are thinking of: this great woman lived in Coventry, and in her kitchen there was a plaque that said, “A woman’s place is in her trade union”. Her name was Dorothy Dalton; she was my mother, and she was elected to Coventry City Council on that very night—a night when the Labour party swept to power in Coventry.
Great women inspire other women. Women of influence give other women confidence. Thinking about all women around the world, I hope the Minister will join me in honouring International Women’s Day with not only a reflection on what we have achieved so far, but an acknowledgment that more can and must be done for gender equality.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
It is a great delight to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher). As other Members have said, we may disagree when we are in this Chamber, but there are occasions when we agree. The hon. Lady and I have had some good conversations and discussions in all-party parliamentary groups, and we agree on many other issues, so I thank her for her words in support of ladies in Coventry.
I am delighted to be able to speak in this important debate, partly because the issue, as so many other hon. Members have said, is very important, but also because, even in 2018, too many women are not allowed a voice.
What are we celebrating? We are celebrating 100 years of the Representation of the People Act 1918. We are celebrating 60 years of the Life Peerages Act 1958, under which life peers of both sexes can be Members of the Lords—that was not possible before that Act. We are celebrating 90 years since the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928 was passed, which gave women electoral equality with men—in 10 years’ time, we will have even more celebrations, which is fantastic. It is 100 years since the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918. Later this year, on 14 December, it will also be 100 years since the 1918 general election, when finally women over 30 and virtually all men over 21 could vote in a general election for the first time.
In Erewash, we have had female representation since 1992, when Angela Knight was elected. She was followed, in 1997, by Liz Blackman; in 2010, by Jessica Lee; and, in 2015, by me. That is 26 years of Erewash being represented by women. I know for definite that, for half of those years, women were selected to fight the seat because they were the best, not because they were women. It is important that women feel able to put themselves forward for positions as Members of Parliament or on boards of directors, or for whatever role they want.
Let me talk about what else is happening in Erewash. Our current mayor is Councillor Mary Hopkinson, and the leader of Erewash Borough Council is Carol Hart. No one can doubt the excellent reputation Erewash has for female representation.
In previous debates on International Women’s Day, I have highlighted the great women in my constituency who are active today. I am always fearful that I will miss someone out, so today I recognise them in general for all the work they do. I also want to look back 100 years, because that is really what we are celebrating. I want to extol the virtues of another Erewash lady, who was alive 100 years ago. Dame Laura Knight was born in 1877, and she passed away in 1970. She was a highly acclaimed artist, who really embraced English impressionism. In her long career, Dame Laura was among the most successful and popular painters in Britain. She was created a Dame in 1929, and in 1936 she became the first woman elected to full membership of the Royal Academy—the Royal Academy was established in 1768, so it took a long time for the first woman to become a member.
During the first world war, Dame Laura was prohibited from painting her beloved coastal scenes, in case the artwork posed a security risk when it was displayed. Her husband Harold was a conscientious objector during the war and was required to work as a farm labourer as a result. They lived through a time when women were not represented and many men did not have representation either.
When we got to the second world war, Dame Laura was asked to produce a recruitment poster for the Women’s Land Army—once again, she played an important role in getting women involved and playing their part. In the aftermath of the war, Dame Laura was famous for her oil painting “The Nuremberg Trial”, which was reportedly greatly praised by those who had witnessed the trials, but not by those in the art world.
Dame Laura Knight—no doubt without realising it—broke many of the rules and the barriers put up by men. I am sure she has been a great role model to many people since, particularly in the art world. I am known in this House for pushing science, technology engineering and maths— STEM—subjects, yet I have just extolled the virtues of an artist. To me, however, this is all about breaking down barriers wherever they might be.
Growing up, I was an active girl guide, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to that organisation and all other youth organisations, whether for girls or boys, for the work that they do in our communities and for the real difference that they make. Each year, Girlguiding puts out an attitude survey, and the 2017 girls attitude survey shows some disturbing data. It shows that 64% of 13 to 21-year-olds have experienced sexual harassment in school in the past year. Sadly, that figure has gone up by 5% since 2014. The survey also shows that 55% of girls aged seven to 21 say that gender stereotypes affect their ability to say what they think, and that 30% of girls aged 11 to 16 think that computing is more for boys. In addition, 76% of girls aged 11 to 21 feel confident in their IT skills, but just 37% would consider a job in technology. There is a huge mismatch in that information, and it is really worrying. The survey shows that we have much more to do, and I hope that debates such as today’s will play a part in breaking down those barriers and letting girls know that they can do whatever they want.
We all want equality, and we all want the barriers to whatever we do to be removed, but it is also important that we have choices. It is important that we recognise the contribution made by those women who take the decision to dedicate many years to raising our future generations. My mum was one of those women who stayed at home to bring up her family, and I want to finish by repeating something that she said to me as I was approaching 18. Her words have stayed in my mind, and I remember them every time we get near to an election. Her words were more of an instruction. She said: “Women died for us to have the vote. Always vote.”
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and to hear so many inspirational speeches across the House today. In particular, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for her moving tribute to the victims of violence in our country.
It is fitting that we should mark International Women’s Day alongside the 100th anniversary of the Representation of the People Act 1918. My constituency has a proud history of women being pioneers and fighting for women’s rights and workers’ rights, going back to the matchwomen’s strike of 1888 and to the establishment of the East London Federation of the Suffragettes, led by Sylvia Pankhurst, which was based in Bow and had branches all over the east end. The suffragettes grounded their campaign in the everyday reality of working women’s lives and fought for a living wage, decent housing, equal pay, food price controls, adequate pensions and much else. They saw the vote as just one aspect of the struggle for equality, and while it was an important step towards equality, it represented a partial victory rather than a complete one. We owe a huge amount to them for giving us the opportunity to stand here today and speak in this debate, and to make a contribution to public life in our country and internationally. Much progress has been made since then, but we have so much more to do in relation to women’s status, safety, rights, pay and representation.
I am incredibly proud of the fact that I am one of the three Muslim women elected to Parliament in 2010, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). I am also proud of the fact that many other Muslim women and women from other faith backgrounds and from black and minority ethnic backgrounds have entered Parliament, but there is much more to be done to increase the number of women and those from other backgrounds in our Parliament. I want to pay tribute to the women in Parliament who enabled us to get here. They were the pioneers who first arrived here, and I want to single out two in particular.
The first is my Labour predecessor, Oona King, who is now a member of the House of Lords. She was only the second black woman to be elected to this House. The other is the former deputy leader of our party, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has done so much for us and for our country, and who commands the support of women across the House. I certainly would not be here were it not for the encouragement and support from her and from many other women in public life.
I hope that we can continue to build on that by ensuring that women have the confidence, the encouragement, the support, the networks and the back-up to enable them to charge ahead and to stand for positions in public life. That is why I took the step of setting up the UpRising leadership charity, which has cross-party support. It supports women and men—particularly women—from white working class and ethnic minority backgrounds to enter public life in the professions and, particularly, in politics. We work in different constituencies so that the next generation can have the support it needs and does not have to struggle in the way that previous generations have done.
I have heard many stories of people deciding to stand for Parliament and being told, “You can’t do that because people won’t support a woman.” Having the audacity to stand is still a challenge for many women. Too often, they are told that they cannot make it because they will not have the support of the people in their communities or that they will not have the support of the men. It is when women push forward and stand, as I and many others have done, that those preconceptions and prejudices are shown to be wrong. That is why we must continue to encourage young women to stand for public life and for positions in politics locally and nationally, despite all the online abuse and all the stories of abuse and injustice that we have heard in the past year. I hope that we can all continue to work together on that effort.
We have achieved a great deal, as we have heard today, but the focus on progress must continue. Progress comes with pressure. Over the past year, we have seen the #MeToo campaign and other campaigns relating to the plight of women emerging in countries where we do not expect women to suffer in this way, and that tells us that we still have much to do. Around the world, women continue to bear the brunt of poverty, of war, of sexual violence and of climate change. There are 130 million girls not in education, and 15 million girls of primary school age who will never get the chance to learn to read or write in primary school. Globally, more than a third of women are subject to violence, and 750 million women and girls are married before the age of 18. Far too often, women still bear the brunt of the conflicts around the world. They are exposed to brutal attacks, often as deliberate tools of political and ethnic violence. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, women are far more likely than soldiers to be victims of violence. In Sudan, rape has been used as a weapon of war by Government and opposition forces. A report published by the International Rescue Committee last year stated that the scale of violence against women and girls in South Sudan was double the global average.
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady is making an important point. A longer-term consequence of children in those communities growing up with violence around them is that domestic violence rates, even after peace is secured, are way higher than in other countries. It is vital that she makes that point, and she is quite right to do so.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention and for her work when she was International Development Secretary. As a former shadow International Development Minister, I cannot stop being affected by the experience of women in conflict zones and other parts of the world. The ongoing crisis in Syria has forced the displacement of women, who have fled to other countries in the hope of finding safety. However, as the right hon. Lady points out, women continue to experience violence long after they have fled the instability in their own countries. The women living in temporary refugee settlements in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere have limited access to support and live in constant fear of further violence and forced marriage.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. Does she agree that much more should be done to encourage more women to take part in making peace? There should be greater recognition of the valuable role that women can play in creating peace agreements and trying to end conflict. In Northern Ireland, very many women helped to bring about the peace that we enjoy today.
Rushanara Ali
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. We have seen the important contribution that women can make, but they are too often left out of the negotiations. Our Government must continue to push forward and ensure that women have a strong voice in peace negotiations.
Many girls whose lives have already been devastated by conflict in their own countries are being forced into situations that no child should have to face. They are living cycles of abuse, exploitation and trauma. Some 70% of the Rohingya who have fled to Bangladesh from conflict in Myanmar are women and children, and the United Nations has identified what has happened in Myanmar as a textbook example of ethnic cleansing and that genocide cannot be ruled out. It is increasingly apparent that the Burmese military has systematically used rape and violence against Rohingya women as part of their campaign of terror. They have torched villages and tortured civilians, particularly women. According to a UN report, girls aged as young as five or seven were raped, often in front of their relatives and sometimes by three to five men taking turns, all dressed in army uniforms. The report goes on to detail accounts of summary executions, torture and disappearances. I have visited the region several times in recent years and have spoken to refugees who have fled violence and who have shared stories of rape and violence against them. As the world watches on, our Government must ensure that those who have perpetrated the violence—the Burmese military—are held to account and that a referral is made to the International Criminal Court.
Violence against women is a violation of human rights, and we have a collective responsibility to protect women here in this country and around the world from the appalling suffering that they face and to address the implications of that suffering for their children. Britain has a proud history as a leader in international development, and we must continue to press for progress. As other hon. Members have pointed out, the millennium development goals galvanised efforts from countries around the world to meet the needs of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, particularly women. We must also continue to support the sustainable development goals and encourage other countries to do the same. The 2030 agenda for sustainable development, which has gender equality and women’s empowerment at its heart and which was adopted by world leaders in 2015, offers a significant opportunity for progress. The first SDG aims to end poverty in all its forms everywhere, and the fifth seeks to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. I urge Ministers across Government to champion the need to achieve those goals and to continue to support our aid effort.
In conclusion, I want to share a personal story. I was born in a country, Bangladesh, that was born out of a conflict in which millions of people lost their lives. Rape and violence were used as weapons of war, and that continues to be the case in many other countries today. We must all continue to work hard to ensure that we bring an end to sexual violence in conflict.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
It is an honour to follow a moving speech by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). One of my faults is usually overconfidence, but I confess that I begin to speak in this debate with a degree of nervousness. So much often goes wrong when men try to talk about issues related to women and their rights, and I could too easily end up saying that women need to step up when the truth is that grotesque imbalances at a senior level often mean that it is men who need to step up and work with women to deconstruct the obstacles that stand in the path of female progress. We need more men from all sides of the political debate to step up and speak up about that in this place.
I could also easily end up being one of those men who says that simply because we have a female Prime Minister, a female Home Secretary and more female MPs than ever, this debate should be over. However, just because suicide is a disproportionately young, male problem that does not mean that a gender pay gap, whereby women effectively work for free for 63 days a year, is okay. We need to work on both those issues, not pretend that one cancels out the other. Worse still, the deeper one goes into such issues, the more likely it is that one will be accused of mansplaining, and then one will hear from the Prime Minister. I hope to avoid most of that, and I want instead to make three points.
I could not go on the women’s march on Sunday, but I was sorry to miss it, so I tweeted as much, saying:
“A better gender balance will make parliament stronger for everyone.”
For just a few hours, I subsequently received if not the torrent of abuse that women often receive on Twitter, then a small flood of abuse. Twitter is not an equal opportunities abuser, but users were certainly keen to tell me what equal opportunities would look like. Users told me that a meritocracy would produce the best Parliament, never mind if it was a balanced Parliament. The more I explained that I am not in favour of positive discrimination—I had not said that I was—the more I realised that Twitter was showing me what being mansplained to feels like. While it seems self-evident that, in an equal society, a balance in Parliament or the workplace is an obvious consequence of equality of opportunity, to too many it is not. Likewise, it seems obvious that if an equal Parliament better reflects the population it serves, it better represents that population and acts more instinctively in the whole country’s interests.
In saying all that, I cannot help thinking that I am preaching to the converted here, but I was shocked to see that what felt obvious to me was interpreted as an attack on men, and that is the second thing that I want to talk about. Too many people still seem to think that men have to lose for feminism to succeed. The reality is surely that a society that draws without discrimination on the talents of all its members is better for all its members. When women are treated better, men and women are the winners. A fairer division of labour both in how people bear the burdens of childcare and in the pressure of earning the money that pays the mortgage would benefit everyone. Men have nothing to fear from the shards of glass that fall after the shattering of the glass ceiling.
Finally, I want to talk about what men might do to create a society that is so equal that nobody would bat an eyelid at the idea of a man having the same aspirations to equality as a woman. Here are a few tiny ideas: should men—still more often the senior people at work—do more to promote the flexible working that might promote equality? Should the Government incentivise that? Should teacher training include more on the casual use of language, which shapes children, whereby boys are good if they are strong, and girls are praised for being pretty, but somehow “pretty boy” doesn’t always ring true as a compliment? Should toy manufacturers think more carefully, as they increasingly do, about whether blue is always for boys? Should we not consider that if we make catcalling a hate crime, we are treating the symptom, when all of us here should be committed to treating the causes of sexist behaviour wherever it starts? Should we not all do all of that, because when the country is better for all women, it will be better for all men, too?
I wanted to speak not because I am some paragon of right-on virtue—
Gavin Newlands
I have no knowledge of the hon. Gentleman’s virtue, but I thank him for giving way. I praise him for a good speech so far. May I add to his list? He should join the white ribbon campaign and the all-party parliamentary group for the white ribbon campaign UK, so that we can try to end violence against women and girls. He is most welcome at our meeting next Tuesday.
Matt Warman
Not least because the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is nodding vigorously on the Front Bench, I take it that the white ribbon is a good campaign to join. It is obviously a weakness that I do not know a huge amount about it. I will do my best to join the hon. Gentleman on Tuesday.
I am not pretending that I am a paragon of virtue on this matter, or indeed on any other; I wanted to speak because I know that I am not. The more we are conscious, across this House, of where we are weak, the stronger we can be. I know how often I have failed to step up, at home, at work and in this Chamber—it is not always possible to do so, for a whole host of very real reasons—but personally and professionally, inequality is the loss of all of us. Now more than ever, we need men to stand up with women for fairness, because we will all be better off for it.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I feel immensely privileged to speak in this debate to mark International Women’s Day, 100 years after some women first got the vote. I represent the borough of Lewisham, where, I am proud to say, 100 years after women got the right to be Members of Parliament, we have three female MPs. I am delighted to serve alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), and for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who have given me immeasurable support before and after my election to this place. The borough of Lewisham has been pioneering in gender equality. In the 1970s, the council set up the Lewisham women’s rights working party. I am proud to say that we have no gender pay gap on Lewisham Council, and we have more women in senior council roles than men.
So much has been done over the last 100 years to promote gender equality—the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, and the Equality Act 2010 to name but a few—but there is still a great deal more to be done. Having worked as an employment rights lawyer for many years, I all too often saw women demoted or dismissed after returning from maternity leave, and employers putting up unnecessary barriers to flexible working. I saw women being paid less than men for work of equal value, and women who were too afraid to speak out when they were discriminated against, for fear of losing their job.
Those experiences motivated me to try to make a difference. Two years ago, on International Women’s Day, after I had become a mum, I launched my business providing affordable legal advice to women who faced maternity and sex discrimination at work, which I ran until I was elected to this place. I wish there was no demand for such a business, but there was, and that is borne out by the statistics.
In 2016, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Equality and Human Rights Commission undertook a major piece of research on the prevalence and nature of maternity discrimination at work. The results, based on survey interviews with more than 3,000 mothers and 3,000 employers, are quite shocking. More than three in four mothers—77%—said that they had a negative or discriminatory experience before, during or after their maternity leave. One in five mums reported experiencing harassment or negative comments from colleagues or their employer relating to pregnancy or flexible working. Ten per cent. of mums said that their employer discouraged them from attending antenatal appointments, and 11% said that they felt forced to leave their job after having a child. Scaled up, that amounts to 54,000 women a year being forced to leave their job simply for becoming a mum.
According to the Fawcett Society, the mean aggregate gender pay gap for part-time and full-time workers stands at 18.4%. At the current rate of progress, it will take more than 100 years to close the gap, which is just not acceptable. There is a huge amount more that should and can be done to end gender inequality at work. The Select Committee on Women and Equalities has made strong recommendations in this area that have yet to be enacted by the Government.
To start with, all jobs should be advertised as flexible by default, unless there is a strong business case for them not to be. In the age of technology, being sat behind a desk in an office from 9 am until 6 pm, five days a week, is rarely necessary, yet the culture of presenteeism—of staying late in the office but not necessarily being productive—persists. A cultural shift is needed in the way that we work, with compressed hours, home working, staggered hours or term-time working becoming the norm, so that families—both men and women—can better strike a work-life balance, and so that having children does not diminish prospects at work.
We urgently need proper paid paternity leave to be introduced. Shared parental leave has been a step in the right direction, but take-up has been low—it is only at an estimated 2%—and the statutory rates of pay mean that it is only really an option for those in high-income families or those with savings. In addition, the model of transferring leave from mum to dad does not work for all families. Instead, non-transferable paternity leave, paid at a rate closer to actual earnings, should be implemented. Only then will we get the cultural shift at work needed to end stereotypes about women being a burden on business, and the assumption that they alone will be responsible for childcare duties. That would go a long way towards ending the gender pay gap sooner rather than later.
Laws on maternity discrimination and enforcement of breaches also need toughening up. To start with, it should be made harder for women to be made redundant after their maternity leave. Regulation 10 of the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999 gives women some protection against being made redundant while pregnant or on maternity leave, but the protected period ends when the woman returns to work. That does not make sense, given that very often it is exactly when a new mum comes back to work that they begin to feel pushed out. To strengthen our discrimination laws, the period of protection against redundancy should be extended to 12 months after a women returns to work following her maternity leave.
We also need stricter sanctions against employers who breach discrimination laws or fail to publish details of their gender pay gap. I welcome the Labour policy launched today by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). It would help to close the gender pay gap by ensuring that all private and public employers with more than 250 staff had to audit their gender pay gaps—and, furthermore, prove that they were taking action to close the gap—or face strict penalties. If employers risk losing money, they are more likely to comply with their legal obligations.
Finally, rights are often far too difficult to enforce. According to the charity Maternity Action, the introduction of employment tribunal fees led to a reduction of 40% in maternity discrimination claims. I am alarmed that there have been suggestions by Conservative Members that fees might be reintroduced, albeit at a lower level. Tribunal fees are a clear barrier to access to justice for women who have been discriminated against at work.
The time limit for bringing a claim for maternity discrimination in the employment tribunal is three months from the act complained of. Both the Women and Equalities Committee and the Equality and Human Rights Commission have said that this is not long enough. Those with a newborn baby at home are likely to be having sleepless nights, not to mention feeding round the clock and endless nappy changes. New mums also often go through a huge period of readjustment, physically and mentally, so the notion that they will engage with a complex legal process is simply unrealistic in many cases. It is likely that far more women would assert their rights if the time limit was increased from three months to six.
Later today, I will be proud to mark International Women’s Day by speaking at an event in Lewisham alongside some of the original members of the Lewisham women’s rights working party. We will reflect not only on how much has been achieved over the past few decades, but on how much more we still have to do: ending the gender pay gap once and for all; making flexible working the norm rather than the exception; and promoting shared caring responsibilities. Only then will we achieve true gender equality at work.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is huge honour to be called to speak as the first woman Member of Parliament for Chelmsford on this, the International Women’s Day in the 100th year since women won the vote. Yesterday I became a member of the Women and Equalities Committee and attended my first meeting. There are a number of mothers on that Committee, and we were looking at the challenges faced by the parents of a newborn baby. We came up with a long list of recommendations, every one of which is to help fathers, because it is only by working together that we will achieve equality. I want to thank the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and, especially, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for their contributions in this debate.
I am also a member of the Science and Technology Committee. As this is also the Year of Engineering, I want to focus my words on issues that affect women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. EngineeringUK estimates that the demand for graduate engineers outstripped supply by 20,000 people last year. We aspire to be a world-leading, 21st-century, innovative economy, but to achieve that we will need to double the number of engineering students at our universities. We will succeed only if we inspire the next generation of young women in our schools to take up the opportunities of science and tech.
Before coming to the House today, I attended an assembly at Barnes Farm Junior School in Chelmsford. I met Ada Barnes, who is in year 3. Ada told me that she is named after Ada Lovelace, who was the pioneer of computing. She invented the first algorithm that was run on a computer. She was the world’s first computer programmer and the mother of the digital revolution. We all know about Charles Babbage. He invented the machine, but she discovered what the machine could do. Ada Barnes asked me which woman in history had inspired me, so who do I choose? Do I choose my own daughter’s namesake, Elizabeth, our great Queen today? Do I choose Elizabeth I, who stood at the dockside at Tilbury as the Spanish armada was approaching and explained that she had
“the body of a weak, feeble woman; but…the heart and stomach of a king”?
She defended our country. Do I choose my namesake, Queen Victoria, who not only ran the huge British empire, but was mother to nine children? Or, at a time when I said I want to focus on women in science, do I focus on Margaret Thatcher, not only our first woman Prime Minister, but a scientist, too?
In areas of science we are doing really well, as 50% of those studying to become doctors at our medical schools are women.
Maria Caulfield
Does my hon. Friend recognise that Margaret Thatcher was also the scientist behind the Mr Whippy ice cream?
Vicky Ford
Absolutely, which goes to show how interesting science is. Women in science make great leaders, and women doctors have already broken though the glass ceiling in so many ways. Last year, the chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges brought together the presidents of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons, of Physicians, of Pathologists, of Radiologists, of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, of General Practitioners and of Paediatrics and Child Health. They were joined by the outgoing president of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists for a photo call. Every one of the nine people present was a woman. Our chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, is a phenomenal woman, leading the world with her campaigns on antimicrobial resistance and now focusing on air quality. Those who are interested in technology, tech ethics and artificial intelligence should go and meet our Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, as she is inspirational. She has degree in history and a masters in informational science.
However, there are other areas of science in which we are not doing at all well. Fewer than one in 10 of the engineers in this country are women, and we have the lowest level of female engineering professionals anywhere in Europe. Not only are we behind Germany and France, but we are way behind countries such as Latvia, Bulgaria and Cyprus. We must do better. Increasing the number of pupils taking maths at A-level is key. In November, the Government announced that schools would get an additional £600 for every additional pupil taking A-level maths. That has the potential to be transformational, so I thank Ministers for that. I hope that it will dramatically increase the number of pupils studying maths, but it will not necessarily solve the problem. That is because already nearly four out of 10 of the people doing maths A-level are girls, so that is not where the issue lies. The problem is in physics.
To become an engineer, one needs to do not only maths but physics. Girls are really good at physics. At GCSE, the classes are 50:50; some 64,000 girls passed physics GCSE last year, with nearly half of them receiving a top grade—an A or A*.That is brilliant, but at A-level the level drops from 50:50 to girls making up just one in five students. That ratio has not changed in 20 years, so we must encourage young women to do more in physics.
I need to declare an interest: I did physics A-level and I did win a prize. I won a silver medal in the physics Olympiad. I still have the book I was awarded, and inside the front cover is an inscription that is addressed to “Mr Victoria” and congratulates “him” on “his achievement”. I gave up physics—let us just say that I did not think that this was a career that valued me. That is ancient history, and a generation later much has changed, but we do need to encourage girls and to give them the evidence of why that career wants them.
I told the primary school assembly at Barnes Farm today three reasons why the girls might wish to consider a career in engineering. The first was that they are wanted. One third of companies say that they cannot find the STEM skills they need, so if girls do science and technology, they will find jobs. The second was that they will make money, because those jobs will be well paid. The evidence shows us that girls who have studied maths and one other science at A-level earn, on average, 30% more than their peers—an extra 30p for every pound. The third was that they will be happy. A recent study of more than 300 women engineers found that more than 80% of them said they were happy or very happy with their career choice. How many people can say that?
Taking a degree in engineering is a passport to work all across the world. Engineering gave us flight and helped to break through the frontier of space. Just last month, I was at CERN in Switzerland, where our engineers are uncovering the secrets of the universe. Taking up a career in engineering does not mean giving up all the glitz and the glamour. Just 10 days ago, at the catwalks in Milan, they had got rid of the models and instead the handbags were flown down the catwalks and paraded by a squadron of drones.
Today is International Women’s Day. It is a century since women got the vote. It is also the Year of Engineering. May I ask that we encourage all the women and men in this House to use that opportunity to go out and inspire the young women in our schools and classrooms to consider a career in engineering?
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is an honour and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), with whom I shared that memorable trip to CERN last month—it was a joy. I was particularly moved to come across not one but two of my old school friends, both female, working on the large hadron collider—I very nearly understood what they were doing.
In the 21st century, is it not time to say, “Job done. We don’t need International Women’s Day any more”? I say that we need it as much as ever, as many others have today, and not because I look backwards, refusing to accept progress. In fact I celebrate our progress, which is one reason why International Women’s Day is so important: we get to celebrate our achievements. I say that we still need it not because I want women in the role of victims—quite the opposite—and not because the job is done, because it is not. International Women’s Day has the power to focus women’s and men’s minds not just in this place, but across the country and the world, in really productive ways, and there are benefits for men and women of doing so.
One of those ways is the domestic stocktake—others have already mentioned some of this, but I will give a few more examples. The date of 8 March gives us a nudge to ask how we are doing on different dimensions of gender equality. We can look at the affordability and availability of childcare, at gender pay gaps, as others have mentioned, and at the impact of public sector finance cuts on women’s lives. All those give us a sieve for sifting out the stubborn aspects of economic and other inequalities.
Another value of today is that it nudges us to lift our gaze to the rest of the world. We should be asking how the millennium development goals and now the sustainable development goals have benefited women and girls. How might women’s lives be improved by better, more inclusive and more transparent processes for trade negotiations, for example? Those things matter, yet women get left out of those questions and processes. What is the availability—or otherwise—of water, sanitation, healthcare, education, finance and technology doing to limit or assist women’s and girls’ routes to learning and employment across the world?
A third value—the one I want to focus on—is that of imagining. What would a world free from gender inequality look like? How would we recognise it, how would it be better for women and for men, what more do we need to do to get there, and how will women’s liberation truly change the world? Well, it would be a world in which no woman would ever be fearful or uncomfortable walking down a city centre street or into an office, whatever the time of day or night, wherever they are and whatever they are wearing. It would be a world in which it was unthinkable that my nieces would ever be sexually harassed, or even have to think about the possibility. It would be a world in which it was impossible that my mother could be made nervous by big groups of loud men shouting stuff.
It would be a world in which no one would even dream of paying to have someone else’s body at their disposal for sexual gratification, objectification or abuse, whether in a so-called sexual entertainment venue, in prostitution or pornography, or in an intimate relationship. In a world of gender inequality, or even equality—see; it is difficult to imagine, but we are getting there—in which there was women’s liberation, no man would even want to do any of those things. They would choose. They would know the benefits of and how to have intimate relationships, professional relationships, and social and wider public relationships with women based on respect and, in the case of intimate relationships, shared mutual enjoyment, rather than something that is enforced. In that regard, I pay tribute to Bristol Fawcett Society, Bristol Women’s Voice and the many other women in Bristol who are working and campaigning specifically on changing the landscape of sexual objectification and gratification, and on challenging our rules and processes for making decisions about so-called sexual entertainment venues.
It would be a world in which young girls were just as likely as young boys to consider jobs in technology, engineering, particle physics or business management; as likely to take up apprenticeships in building trades or in catering; and as likely to get those jobs as their male peers—and, most of all, without any comment, nudging, eyebrow raising or sexual harassment at work when they did. It would be a world in which all employers, not just the really good ones—they do definitely exist—saw all men, not just women, as potentially needing time off to care for babies, children or vulnerable older relatives; and then, as some employers already do, worked with employees and trade unions to value those qualities in men and women, instead of discriminating against them, and worked out how to manage the employment structures needed. That is a big job for all of us in the 21st century.
It would be a world in which rape was not used as a war crime. In fact, in my head—this is a big imagine—it would be world in which rape was not a part of any woman’s life. Just saying that out loud, I am struck that that seems really difficult to imagine, which is a marker of why International Women’s Day is still so important. To me, it should be unimaginable that any man would ever think it was an option or something they would want to do. It would be a world in which rape was a part of history. It would be a world in which refugee women were not trafficked, abused or imprisoned, with their talents refused to be recognised. It would also be a world in which the end of violence against women and girls meant that not only the use of rape as a war crime, but the abuse of women in other areas of conflict, was over. It would be a world in which women and girls were not forced to flee their homelands in the first place, but in which, if they were, we would welcome them and make them safe.
So how do we get there? Government, business, education and so on all have their roles, as we do in this place, but I want us—men and women—to start right here in this room. We can all help to bring about, and benefit from, true gender equality. Women in this place and beyond, I ask you a series of questions. Can you advise, guide, support and encourage other women and girls? Can you be the person who spots a woman’s potential and tells them, because they might not have realised it? Can you take part in any of the many schemes to give women a chance to shadow or be mentored by you? Can you speak out against injustices that are holding women back and keeping women fearful, and stand by your sisters who are affected by those injustices even if you are not—in fact, especially if you are not? Can you recruit male allies and talk to them about why it matters that we live in a world of gender equality and how they, too, can speak out?
Will you always thank those women who have mentored and helped you? Will you let them know, years later, how their advice worked out for you? I want to say thank you to my maths teacher, Mrs Morley, who years and years ago helped me to see that maths was for girls. I also want to thank the many women MPs—too many to mention—particularly my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who I am delighted and slightly nervous to say is just in front of me, and Baroness Jean Corston, the former Member for Bristol East, both of whom showed me just how much women MPs can do for women, and in ways that many of those women will never know about. They showed me that that does not matter, because we should not expect a “thank you” note from all the women we might benefit—we should just be glad to have the chance.
While I am at the thanking stage of my speech, I might as well thank all the women in my family, particularly the young women, who challenge me so much, inspire me and make me question my beliefs and think again about my particular form of feminism. I thank all the sisters in the violence against women movement who have helped us to make so much progress from where we were when I started out as a teenager, to where we are now.
I ask all Members to look around our constituencies to see whether we can spot where we are making progress towards that truly great, gender-equal world, and where progress is still stalling—and we need to be honest about that.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The hon. Lady is my near neighbour—her constituency is almost in Somerset—and she is making such a passionate case. May I say in the spirit of cross-party relations that one of women’s great strengths is that they are very good at working together. I know that we have our differences, but when we get together—for example, on the Jo Cox campaign—we do great work. Perhaps we should highlight that more. On a day like today, we should give particular credit to the women who work together in so many areas and who can indeed do so much great work.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. She almost predicted what I was about to say next, which was to ask us all in this place whether we can do more to work across party lines. For example, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and I have worked together on an issue that is very dear to, as well as physically close to, both our hearts. That is a really good example for me, and a personal one. In our different ways, everyone in this place finds their route to cross-party working.
As Members, can we visit more schools, youth clubs and businesses, and show more women and men that women are capable of political leadership, and that it is for us, too? Can we speak out, ask questions, use our positions for good, expect—nay, demand—answers, and hold others and ourselves to account, while always providing for improvement rather than just blankly assuming that things will never get better? Can we show women and girls that there is potentially another #MeToo—one that says, “Me too, I can be politically active, I can take a leadership role, I can study maths, I can work on whatever it is that matters to me, not held back by my gender but perhaps even helped by it”? Can we always give out that hope? My hope is that everyone present today can take forward some of the suggestions that have come from Members from all parties, and those yet to come. Can we take with us some of the spirit of International Women’s Day, here in this place, and help us all to get ever closer to a world in which gender equality and women’s liberation are a reality for us all?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to follow that wonderful speech by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for which I thank her.
On International Women’s Day, there is certainly cause to celebrate women who have achieved great things, as well as remembering the women who are still striving to change the world. For example, there is cause to celebrate the career of Anne Glover, a biologist who was Scotland’s first chief scientific adviser and later became chief scientific adviser to the President of the European Commission, again being the first to hold the position. Professor Glover is about to become the next president of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) would be interested to hear about Victoria Drummond, who was the first woman marine engineer, the first woman to serve as a merchant navy chief engineer, the first woman to hold a Board of Trade certificate as a ship’s engineer, the first woman member of the Institute of Marine Engineers, and the first woman to receive the Lloyd’s War Medal for Bravery at Sea for her courage under fire in world war two.
Or, we can talk about Roza Salih, Amal Azzudin, Ewelina Siwak, Emma Clifford, Jennifer McCarron, Toni Henderson and Agnesa Murselaj. As schoolgirls, they shook the country, demanding better treatment for child asylum seekers and an end to dawn raids on families. They got movement—the UK Government stopped the policy of detaining children for immigration removal purposes in 2010—but none of them would claim total victory, I think. Those “Glasgow Girls” are all young women now, and it is to be hoped that they will continue to make a difference in their lives and the lives of others. They are already impressive and I hope we hear much, much more about them.
There are legions of women who have proven their ability in many, many fields, and there are many more who are proving that now. Being a woman is not a design error; nor is it a blessing without measure. Women are, quite simply, human beings. All around the world, though, there are examples of women being treated unfairly for the simple crime of being a woman, and we have heard some examples today. I think, though, that we can be too smug in suggesting that that is something that thrives elsewhere and has no foundation here. The “Time’s Up” and #MeToo revelations have shown that sexism is deeply embedded in our culture—that it is seen as simply a part of life and that women are expected just to deal with it.
We see it in this House: a juvenile, grinning idiocy that is sometimes so offensive; the smugness of a minority of men who think that supposedly clever point scoring proves something; an anti-intellectual nonsense that makes this continuing debate so tiring. There are men in this House who have a record of opposing progressive politics, without substantive argument but with plenty of bluster and filibuster, opposing equality as a playground joke. Like others, I am sure, I am tired of engaging with men with so little—so very little—to offer and am pleased that they represent a tiny percentage of the men I encounter.
I encourage all Members to watch the video of the debate on misogyny as a hate crime in Westminster Hall yesterday. If they do, they will see an intervention that illustrates very well what I have just described, but they will also see several excellent and important contributions that are really worth digesting. In particular, I recommend the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). The direct manner of her speech added a clarity that makes a harsh point so much more effective.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said in that debate, we seem to have come to a point where very often it is women, rather than men, who are expected to address misogyny. I hope that this year turns that around. I do have hope for Scotland’s politics in that regard. We have a woman First Minister, who is an extremely effective politician, a woman leader of the Opposition in Holyrood and a woman head of our civil service. We have a gender-balanced Cabinet in the Scottish Government already, and a large number of very good women in local government. It is not so much a case that change is coming, more that change is already happening, and Scottish politics is being rebalanced.
In this world where the President of the United States excuses juvenile offensiveness by claiming that it is just the talk in which men indulge in the changing room at the gym, and where Members of this House are falling short of decency, leaving the staff of this place feeling unable to raise complaints, it is surely time to clean the stables. I ask all Members to take that on board, as I know that they will.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock).
It is an honour to speak today in this extremely important debate on International Women’s Day. I hope to raise awareness in this House of the significant challenges that still face women in politics in this significant year celebrating 100 years since some women got the vote.
On arriving in Westminster last June, it was quite extraordinary how a group of us became friendly, having realised that we were all in very similar situations. Just one of the common denominators was that we were single parents, elected to Parliament; and the other was that we were women. At least five of us found ourselves thrust from being working single parents to Members of Parliament, practically overnight, but, every day, we are proud to be working-class women standing up for our communities.
I am very proud to be a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, and to be part of the all-party group on single parent families, which will be officially launched on International Single Parents Day on 21 March. In one of my very first conversations with the chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq), she said that she had never discussed being a single mother before. It seemed that, in our company, she felt comfortable enough to speak about it. Being a single parent is not a status that people necessarily want to share, as it brings with it a stigma. It would be interesting to know, across this House, how many Members are single parents. It is imperative that we stand together to recognise the challenges that lone parents face every day. In the media, Stacey Solomon has championed being a single mother and taken a lot of criticism for it, but she speaks plainly and openly about the “mummy guilt” that goes with working away from home and with being in the public eye.
There are many challenges that I have experienced since becoming an MP. Balancing family life is not easy. It can be impossible to maintain a relationship and, unfortunately, that is one of the sacrifices that I have had to make. Throughout my working life, I have seen at first hand how many women are juggling balls—I have always been proud of the fact that that is something that I can do, but I have always known that even the most talented jugglers drop a ball. When someone is on their own, when they are the provider, the organiser, the mother, the daughter, the person who people depend on, where do they turn when that ball drops? Sadly, many women return to abusive relationships, go further into debt, or turn to alcohol, drugs or anti-depressants.
A report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in July last year shows how single parents on low incomes are being hit so hard by rising living costs and the benefits freeze. How they cope with the impact of low pay and insecurity is of great concern to me and my colleagues, because, although we have been working in relatively well-paid jobs, we know at first hand that the cost of a divorce or separation is not only financial, but emotional. Only last night, when I should have been preparing this speech, I had chats with two friends who I studied A-levels with—unfortunately, not maths. They are both ambitious and talented women—we have shared a life journey—and both are happily married with three children. One battles daily in her place of work to have her hard work and dedication recognised, and she is too scared to ring her union because she fears a backlash and being seen as a troublemaker. That is not the sort of working environment that we want for women, or for anybody in society, in 2018.
I was telling my friend, in contrast, about our other friend, who lives in Melbourne, Australia. The friend I was speaking to said, “Please don’t tell me about her perfect beach life down under.” Unfortunately, I had to tell her that our friend suffered something similar to a stroke two months ago and has been told that even after intensive physiotherapy, a full recovery is unlikely. Regardless of that, I said to her, “I am sending you strength and love on International Women’s Day.” She told me that her 15-year-old daughter is doing a presentation today to 600 students in her middle school about inspiring women, and that she was going to talk about this famous woman—a teacher, a single mother and a family friend—who followed her dreams so that she could influence change.
On International Women’s Day, I can tell Members that women from all walks of life are fighting a daily battle and desperately trying to hold it together. It is great that the dynamics of this House are changing. Being a female Member of Parliament is incredible, and I am still, and always will be, full of awe and wonder at the privilege. Every woman faces a challenge every day, and the challenges that we face reflect the challenge that our society puts on women every day, from harassment in all its forms to putting food on the table and providing a home for our children.
We have many challenges in getting more women into politics, and we need to identify the barriers in order to make careers in politics more accessible to women. It is at the grassroots of politics that we need to look. I read in The Guardian yesterday that Sarah Childs from Birkbeck, University of London argues that political parties need to think again about how they assess women’s contributions. If long service is a condition of selection, for example, it automatically discriminates against women with caring responsibilities. She called for a rethink of what constitutes a good party member, because the way that is viewed often excludes women. It is well known that I am a latecomer to politics—a relative newbie in the party—and I am glad to say that in my short time in politics, my potential and talent have been recognised in my selection by Welsh Labour.
I often draw comparisons from my time playing rugby. Obviously, I believe that rugby is the best team sport in the world. Rugby union provides a platform for a wide range of players, and that, for me, is the key to a successful team. A successful political team has its forwards and its backs. It draws from a wide range of skills, but, more importantly, it represents society. We have to strive to be a political team that reflects our communities—50:50. The new Labour intake and the new intake across the House in 2017 have brought a new dynamic not just to the Labour party, but to this Parliament. I look forward to us continuing to make a difference to the lives of women in the United Kingdom and across the world.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
We have had an excellent debate so far, with some very inspiring speeches about International Women’s Day. I want to spend the time available to me doing some womansplaining. I want to take stock of how far we have come in gender equality and look back at some amazing ordinary women who have achieved extraordinary changes in our society, but who have often been ignored or written out of history.
I want to tell Members three stories. The first is from July 1888, when 1,400 women at the Bryant and May east end factory went on strike against bullying, low pay and dangerous working conditions, which resulted in many of them developing phossy jaw. The second story is about the June 1968 equal pay dispute by 187 women machinists at Ford in Dagenham. My third story, which is also from 1968, is about the campaign by the Hessle Road women’s committee in Hull, which was led by four great local women: Lily Bilocca, Yvonne Blenkinsop, Mary Denness and Christine Jensen. They campaigned to improve safety at sea for trawlermen.
In 1968, Hull was one of the world’s largest fishing ports, but there was a dark side to the industry. A trawlerman was 17 times more likely to die in an industrial accident at sea than the average worker. It was the most dangerous occupation on earth. Six thousand men had died at sea in the years before 1968. When a further 58 trawlermen were lost on the St Romanus, Kingston Peridot and Ross Cleveland trawlers between January and February 1968, it became known as the triple trawler disaster. Those lost were the husbands, the sons, the brothers, the uncles and the nephews of the women in Hull. After the triple trawler disaster, Lily Bilocca said, “Enough is enough”, and started a campaign to improve safety for their menfolk.
All three of those stories of determined working women getting organised and taking a stand share three similar characteristics. First, all these women took action that shocked the society of their time and offended some. Each went against the view that women should not have views of their own or the will to take action. At this point, I am thinking of the maxim, “Well-behaved women rarely make history.” In 1888, in late Victorian England, matchwomen were dismissed as little more than ignorant young women, largely of Irish immigrant stock, who were easily led astray by outside militant forces.
The 1968 Dagenham women machinists fought as much against the TGWU establishment of the time, tepid at best in any support for equal pay, as much as they fought against the Detroit bosses of Ford. Hull’s headscarf revolutionaries shocked the nation and knocked the Vietnam war off the front pages of newspapers with their 10,000-name petition, their local marches, and their picketing of the dockside. They took the fight to Westminster and met Harold Wilson. They threatened to picket his private home if their demands to improve safety were not met. They did this in the face of death threats, actual violence, and insults from trawler owners and others. They were described as “hysterical women” and told that they should not get involved in men’s business. This was, of course, all before social media. We know now how threats and insults are used to try to put women down and stop them standing up for the issues that they care about.
Secondly, all these women achieved far more in a very short period of time than men, supposedly campaigning for the same causes, achieved over decades. The 1888 Bow strike lasted only about 14 days, but it resulted in more progress than the men had achieved in decades before. The ripple of change throughout the wider labour movement was even more profound from the matchwomen’s strike, because in the following year we had the 1889 dock strike in east London, spawning more politically active new unionism. As such, I believe that the matchwomen can be described as the founding mothers of the Labour party.
The 1968 Ford Dagenham strike lasted just 21 days. Like the matchwomen and the headscarf revolutionaries in Hull, the women brought their case to Westminster and won. As a result of this strike, Labour’s Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity—the wonderful, the marvellous Barbara Castle—introduced the Equal Pay Act 1970. Although we all know in this House that the battle for equal pay goes on, the Dagenham women overturned decades of stalling on pay equality.
In Hull, as one of the headscarf revolutionaries, Mary Denness, said, they had
“achieved more in six weeks than the politicians and trade unions have in years.”
Their campaign persuaded the Government to adopt their demands in the fishermen’s charter, which meant full crewing of ships, radio operators on board every ship, improved weather forecasting, better training, more safety equipment, and a mother ship with medical facilities to accompany the fleet. Those ordinary yet extraordinary Hull women, led by Lily Bilocca, a cod skinner on the docks, saved thousands of men’s lives by their short campaign of direct action.
Thirdly, all the victories won by those women were then obscured in the history books for decades and even written out. The 1888 Bow matchwomen, though recognised by leading trade unionists at the time, were soon written out of history for the entire 20th century. Bow 1888 was downplayed in its significance. Many claim the strike was led by a more establishment figure, Annie Besant, who I think people would describe as the Polly Toynbee of her day.
The real names of the strike leaders—Alice Francis, Kate Slater, Mary Driscoll, Jane Wakeling and Eliza Martin—were finally published in Louise Raw’s brilliant book published in 2009, “Striking a Light”. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) first read those names out in Parliament in 2013. The story of the 1968 Dagenham Ford women slipped from view for decades, until the 2010 film “Made in Dagenham” raised its profile again. It is a delight that some of those original women have now had the recognition they deserve in their lifetime.
I want to conclude by returning to the story of the headscarf revolutionaries. Events in 1968 in Hull faded from popular culture, partly due to the post cod war decline of the local fishing industry, but also because of some frankly very outdated views about women in the city. Lily Bilocca, who led the headscarf revolutionaries, was sacked after the campaign, blacklisted and told she would never work in the fishing industry again. She was out of work for two years, eventually finding work in a nightclub cloakroom. She died at the age of 59 in 1988, and there was no public recognition by the people or the city of Hull of the pivotal role she had played in helping to protect the lives and improve the safety of trawlermen.
Despite that huge victory for safer working conditions, before today Lily Bilocca’s name has only ever been mentioned in this House once, on 25 March 1969 by a local Hull MP, James Johnson—no relation—and, sadly, just in passing. There was no proper recognition of or tribute to what she and those other women did, so it was great to see the story of the headscarf revolutionaries brought back to life in Brian Lavery’s 2015 book “The Headscarf Revolutionaries” and more recently the excellent BBC 4 programme based on his book, as we this year mark the 50th anniversary of the triple trawler disaster.
Interestingly, Hull has granted freedom of the city to many notable citizens over the years, but I have discovered that since 1885, when that honour could first be bestowed, of 47 recipients only two have been women—that is 45 men and only two women. Regrettably for the pioneering city of Hull, one of our most famous daughters, Amy Johnson, did not make that list and did not receive freedom of the city. In fact, we waited more than 100 years for the first woman to receive the freedom of the city of Hull. Janet Suzman, a wonderful anti-apartheid campaigner, received the award in 1987, and then we waited another 30 years before Jean Bishop, a lady in her 90s who has raised more than £100,000 for Age UK, was given the honour of freedom of the city at the end of last year.
Today, along with the other two Hull MPs, I am calling on Hull City Council to honour the leading women of the Hessle Road women’s committee by making them all freewomen of Hull. Fifty years after the triple trawler disaster, Hull needs to properly recognise these women. We have had wonderful theatre plays and murals for the women in the city, but we need to make sure that they get the tribute they really deserve.
As the headscarf revolutionaries achieved change both locally in the fishing industry and nationally in health and safety practices, they should be recognised nationally too. That is why all three Hull MPs are backing Ian Cuthbert’s campaign for Yvonne Blenkinsop, who is sadly the only surviving member of the headscarf revolutionaries, to receive an honour. It is just not on for these wonderful heroines from Hull to be overlooked any longer. In Lily Bilocca’s own words, “Enough is enough.” It is time to act now.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), and to have heard about the work that very ordinary woman can do in changing the world. It is a privilege to join right hon. and hon. Members in celebrating International Women’s Day, the first of which was celebrated in 1911. I want to start by reflecting on the progress in rights and opportunities for women across the United Kingdom since then.
I was delighted to join Members from across the House to mark the centenary last month of the Representation of the People Act 1918. Not only did the legislation give some women the vote in parliamentary elections for the first time, but it enabled Nancy Astor to become the first woman to take her seat in this House 18 months later. This goes to show that, even 100 years ago, when opportunities are opened up to women, they take them and succeed. From then on, a whole range of possibilities opened up for women—from the first female Cabinet Minister in 1929 to our first female Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in 1979 and the first female Speaker in 1992. Although such achievements are to be celebrated, the fact is that there are still Cabinet positions that have never been held by a woman, and this shows that progress is still needed.
When I was elected as the MP for Cheadle in 2015, I became the 445th woman to take my seat in this House. I welcome the fact that, since we celebrated International Women’s Day last year, the number of female MPs has risen yet further—to a record 208, or almost one third of this place. The ratio of female representation here is often compared with that of Parliaments around the world, but it is worthy of note that last year’s general election saw this House overtake Germany’s Parliament in the representation of women. I am honoured to be the second woman to represent Cheadle, and I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the role of Patsy Calton, who in 2001 became the first woman to represent Cheadle. Even though it is 13 years since she passed away, she is still mentioned on the doorstep and remembered for her hard work.
At a local level, women in councils up and down the country do a great job and are inspirational role models for others. I particularly want to note the wonderful example set by the Mayor of Stockport, Councillor Linda Holt. Linda has represented the community of Bramhall for 10 years, and has used her time this year as Mayor to support a variety of causes, such as local animal welfare charities, as well as the historic Plaza theatre, of which she is a board member. Indeed, she began serving as a board member of the Plaza before even becoming a local councillor, and was delighted last year when the Prime Minister was able to visit the theatre and meet some of the dedicated volunteers who support and sustain this vital community asset. I am sure Councillor Holt would be the first to acknowledge that she is privileged to enjoy the support of brilliant female councillors in her area, such as Lisa Walker and Alanna Vine; all three of them are Bramhall councillors.
As a former local councillor and as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, I know how important it is to have such strong representation in local councils across the country. I warmly welcome the progress of recent years that has resulted in almost one third of local councillors across the UK being women. Sadly, however, there remains much more to be done. To achieve equal numbers of male and female councillors, 3,028 more women will need to be elected—an increase of over 50%—and, at the present rate of progress, that will take 68 years.
Unfortunately, we face an even greater task with respect to council leadership. Just 17% of council leaders are women, and of the new mayoral combined authority boards only 4% of constituent members are women and all six are led by men. Indeed, in Greater Manchester, all 11 cabinet members of the combined authority board are men. That is particularly disappointing when I reflect that 62 Nelson Street, Manchester, was the birthplace of the suffragette movement. Today it houses the Pankhurst Centre, and it was the home of Emmeline Pankhurst and her family, who led the suffragette campaign for votes for women. It was also the place where the first meeting of the Women’s Social and Political Union was held.
During last year’s debate, Members rightly highlighted the perennial problem of male dominance in STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—at A-level and university, and subsequently in the jobs market. Right hon. and hon. Members will therefore be delighted to note that the number of women graduating in a core STEM subject has grown for another year. These women are talented individuals who are qualified to take up the exciting opportunities available in STEM subjects, and they help to address persistent skills gaps across the UK. However, owing to more rapid growth in the number of men graduating in those subject areas, the percentage of female graduates dropped slightly from 25% to 24%, so there is still work to do.
Not only do we need more girls studying STEM subjects, but we need more women with STEM qualifications to become teachers and inspire the next generation of girls. We need women such as Jo Lowe, headteacher of the Kingsway School in my constituency. She went into education from engineering and she inspires her students. As a result of that inspiration, I was delighted to present Kingsway School with an award for engineering excellence last year—one of only a handful of schools in the country to receive such an award. I strongly agree with Alun Jones, head of the Girls’ School Association, that girls can be encouraged to “think like a scientist” in the right environment and through exposure to scientific roles. As he said:
“We’re dealing with centuries of gender bias and what people and parents think and say, often without realising it, does influence children’s expectations of themselves.”
However, although progress is undoubtedly needed in many areas, we have a huge amount to be proud of from the past 12 months alone. Since last year’s International Women’s Day, we have witnessed the appointment of the first ever female President of the Supreme Court, Baroness Hale, and the first female Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick. Women have enjoyed similar progress in our armed forces in the past 12 months: last April the first female Army officer was commissioned into a close combat regiment, and last September the RAF lifted its ban on women serving in close combat roles. Those are a few key examples of women flourishing in roles that were once the preserve of men, and that bodes extremely well for the future.
Before I conclude I wish to mention an initiative in Stockport, where the 100th anniversary of women gaining the vote is being marked by naming the town’s newest public area Suffragette Square. The council asked the people of Stockport to come up with a name for a new square, and after reviewing more than 1,500 entries from the public, the panel decided on Suffragette Square to celebrate the achievements of four Stockport women. Elizabeth Raffald, Gertrude Powicke, Elsie Plant and Hannah Winbolt were all Stopfordian women who were active in the suffrage movement, and they were nominated by members of the public in the light of this year’s commemoration. I firmly believe that although progress is still needed, we must move on and welcome the achievements of all women, and help them come forward and be recognised for the work they do.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and to take part in this debate. As a proud member of the Labour party in a Parliament where 32% of MPs are women—the majority of them, 57%, from my party—I know that we still have work to do to achieve true equality in gender representation, but the Labour party is heading the right direction. I am pleased that some male MPs have been, and still are, in the Chamber. I have enjoyed their contributions, particularly that of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), who regrettably is no longer in his place.
International Women’s Day is for everyone to celebrate, and it is important that men have an understanding of inequality in our society. I welcome their thoughts, and most certainly would not dream of accusing any one of them of mansplaining.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On that point—[Laughter.] I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. Does she not agree that it is the collective responsibility of all of us—not just women, but men too—to ensure that we have equality in all senses of the word? With regard to Parliament, she rightly says that the Labour party has managed to get 45% of the parliamentary Labour party as women. For the House of Commons as a whole to have only 32% of Members as women is just not good enough.
Liz McInnes
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which he has made very well. He is absolutely right: this is our collectively responsibility, and 32% is not good enough. We also need to look at equality in other representations in addition to gender balance. He makes a very good point, which I would in no way ever describe as mansplaining.
It was heartbreaking today to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) recite the names of all those women who have died at the hands of men. Sadly, one of them, Linda Parker, was from my constituency. My heart goes out to her friends, family, children and grandchildren. I dream of a future International Women’s Day when my hon. Friend no longer has a list of the names of murdered women to recite, and when the figure of two women murdered every week by a current or former partner has become history due to better investment in women’s refuges, women’s safety and a complete change in attitudes.
Today is International Women’s Day. It was my pleasure yesterday to attend the launch of a report commissioned by the all-party group on population, development and reproductive health, of which I am an active member. The report is entitled, “Who Decides? We Trust Women” and concerns abortion in the developing world and the UK. I pay tribute to the chair of the all-party group, Baroness Jenny Tonge, for her tireless work. As a retired GP, she really knows her subject and demonstrates the value that can be brought to the other place by experts in their field. The report makes the important point that from 2010 to 2014, one in four pregnancies worldwide ended in an abortion. Abortion rates have been declining in the developed world since 1990, but the rate in developing countries has remained fairly constant.
An estimated 56 million abortions occur worldwide each year, with three quarters taking place among married women. Significantly, abortion rates are roughly the same in countries where abortion is legally restricted and those where it is liberally available. Restrictive abortion laws do not prevent women from seeking abortion; they only endanger women’s health and lives as women seek unsafe procedures. There is a clear correlation between restrictive abortion laws and higher rates of maternal morbidity and mortality. In the group of countries where abortion is completely banned or allowed in very narrow circumstances, three out of four abortions are unsafe. Lack of money prevents women and girls from accessing safe abortions in the private sector. In addition, fear of being reported to the police prevents women and girls from seeking medical attention when they are faced with life-threatening complications due to unsafe abortions.
The report makes the important point that more family planning will reduce abortion worldwide. Family planning is one of the most cost-effective strategies to prevent maternal deaths and suffering from unsafe abortion. Indeed, the lowest rates of abortion in the world can be found in Germany and Switzerland, where family planning is widely and easily available. Yet only last week I heard from Marie Stopes International that due to President Trump’s global gag, which blocks US funds going to any organisation involved in abortion advice and care overseas, its funding has been cut drastically, severely restricting its ability to provide contraceptive services to women and girls in the developing world. The international campaign SheDecides says that every girl and every woman has the right to do what she chooses with her body. She must have access to education and information about her body and her options, modern contraception and safe abortion. Only when women are in control of their own fertility will they have control over their own lives.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her very thoughtful speech, and she is absolutely right. Those of us who, many years ago, marched and took to the streets to protect the Abortion Act 1967 and ensure that it was not in any way interfered with did so because we knew about the extremely important point that she is making. It was not because we wanted people to have terminations of pregnancies; it was all about women having a right of control over their bodies. That is about empowerment, a lack of prejudice, their freedom and a lack of discrimination.
Liz McInnes
The right hon. Lady makes an excellent point. We have to allow women the world over to control their own bodies and therefore their own lives. However, there is still much work to be done, both nationally and internationally. Today, on International Women’s Day, I call upon our female Prime Minister to call on President Trump to reverse the global gagging order. A woman Prime Minister who is prepared to stand up for women around the world would do that.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—it is wonderful to see the number of men who are in the Chamber for this debate growing exponentially as we continue, in whatever role.
So many Members have made fantastic speeches, talking about the past and what we have achieved, but I want to honour International Women’s Day in the way that I feel is best. I consider International Women’s Day to be feminist Christmas; it is about what goodies and actions are coming. I want to talk about that because we need to learn from what the suffragettes drummed into all of us: deeds, not words, make a difference. Even when there were men who claimed to care for women’s rights and for the future of women, they knew that it was not enough to have them speak for them. The true deed was to have true and equal representation.
We must learn that lesson today as we continue to look at the inequalities in our world. It is simply not enough to pay lip service to equality. It is not enough to march and to use the hashtag. I am struck when I go in to shops such as Hennes that people can now buy plenty of t-shirts that say, “Female Equals Future”. But we will only have a more equal future when we have deeds, and when we actually tackle the barriers to discrimination and the inequality that holds 51% of our population back.
In perhaps being the Grinch of feminist Christmas, I am inspired by Mary Wollstonecraft, who said:
“My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood, unable to stand alone.”
When we view the world as it is and are rational creatures, we see that if the call is to push for progress, we are not making the progress that we think we are and its pace is agonisingly slow. We are celebrating 100 years since some women got the vote, and we have talked about the fact that we have now achieved a 30% share of this Parliament for women. A whole 12 extra women were elected at the last general election. If we carry on at that trajectory, we will need another 14 general elections to achieve parity. I know that we have been having elections more frequently than we used to, but we need more appropriate action.
It is not just national Government where we fail to make the progress that we want. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) rightly pointed out the progress in local government. I am proud that we have one of the few female leaders in local government in my borough, Clare Coghill, the new leader of Waltham Forest Council—the first woman to be elected there. Only 17% of council leaders in this country are women. We would need 12,000 women to stand for election if we were to achieve the extra 3,000 who would give us parity in local government.
We know that this country continues to fail what I shall now call the Piers Morgan test. This morning, Piers Morgan tweeted that the fact that there were six women in positions of responsibility in the country meant that the country was run by women. Job done: we can all go home. The point is that such women are still too often the exception rather the rule. That is why we can name them. True equality will come when there are so many women from so many backgrounds in those positions that it is simply the norm, and the fact is that we are nowhere near the norm. Only 11% of surgeons in this country are women—it will take 100 years to achieve parity—and only 24% of judges are women. Why do we never hear about all this? I would wager that it is because only 34% of people in senior roles in our press are women.
Too often we tell ourselves that because we have seen one woman, there must be more behind her, but the truth is that this country is still agonisingly behind where it needs to be to realise the potential of all its people. We see that not least in the arguments that we are having about equal and, indeed, fair pay. The equal pay legislation is older than I am, but we still have to explain to the young women coming into our workforce that there is a 14% gap—and, yes, it is growing for their generation. This is not just about women having children. Women ask for pay rises just as often as men, but men are four times as likely to get them. We are starting at lower salaries, and that inequality is continuing and is not being reduced.
Companies facing gender pay gap reporting are now hiding behind each other. I welcome the legislation: we all fought for it, and we can see the cleansing effect that it is starting to have. However, we know that only 1,200 of 9,000 companies have declared their data so far, and we know that the deadline is fast approaching. That tells us that plenty of companies are waiting until the very end, hoping that they can find cover in each other. Let us send a strong message today, on International Women’s Day: “ It does not matter whether you publish today, or whether you all publish together. We will look at every single set of data, and we will hold to account every single company that does not offer equal pay.”
We must also, as a House, speak up for the right to talk about equal pay. As we have seen at the BBC, when women start asking questions, they get shut down. Freedom of speech in the workplace is a fundamental human right, and the legislation relies on the principle that we can start to have such conversations. We must not give an inch on the idea that it is acceptable for managers to tell employees that if they start asking those questions, they will be labelled difficult and it might harm their chances of promotion. It is what we might call the John Humphrys test.
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems is the fact that we do not have as many trade unions operating in as many workplaces? I used to be the mother of the chapel when I worked at Central Television, which was obviously a very long time ago. One of the things that shop stewards do is to act on behalf of all their members when, as sometimes happens, they are fearful of stepping up to say the sort of things that the hon. Lady rightly identifies. If we had better, more democratic, more open trade unions, that would go a long way towards advancing the cause of women.
Stella Creasy
I completely agree. Let me put on record that if I were ever to face problems in my workplace, I would certainly hope that the hon. Lady would act as shop steward.
Stella Creasy
I know that the hon. Lady would fight the good fight. She is absolutely right: this is about representation and voice, and we see the impact of women not having that voice.
This is not just about gender; it is also about ethnicity. We know when we talk about inequalities in pay that our sisters from the black and ethnic minority communities face even higher differentials, and we, as a country, are a long way from knowing how to tackle that. I welcome the initiative from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), who said, “It is not enough to have data—we need to see what you are going to do about it.” It is clear from the data that we have already seen from only 1,200 companies how far we have to go.
This is also not just about the major companies. We know that 62% of people earning less than the living wage are women. It is about persistent poverty pay, and what it does to families around the country. It is little wonder that one of the themes of the debate that we have started to have in 2018 is period poverty. All too often, women are trying to pick up the pieces of a failing economy in an institutionally unequal society. What does that mean? It means that women are often the ones trying to make the difference, and it is the men who, like Piers Morgan, simply say, “I’ve seen one of you do it. If one of you can do it, all of you can do it.”
We see that nowhere more than when we try to tackle violence against women. The writer Margaret Atwood said:
“Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) set out so clearly, that is still a challenge for us in our society. Violence against women is endemic; the #MeToo movement has started a conversation about something that has been part of our society for generations. It is just a conversation, and we have not yet seen the real change—the real progress—we know we need to make. When 85,000 women report being raped, and 400,000 report sexual assaults, we know that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Then there are the 12,000 honour-based violence crimes and the 135,000 women and girls living with female genital mutilation. That only 15% of these crimes get reported is not about the women, but about the society we are right now; and about our failure to understand these crimes and prosecute them, and to support the people affected by them.
As part of dealing with that, I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to ratifying the Istanbul convention, but one of the things I want to do today is to hold the Government to account for deeds not words. If we are going to ratify the Istanbul convention, we have to right a long-standing wrong. I pay tribute to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who made a powerful speech about the importance of women’s reproductive rights, because women’s reproductive rights are human rights. I want to put on record my gratitude to every one of the parliamentarians who has signed the letter to the Minister for Women and Equalities calling for us to give equal access to abortion for women in Northern Ireland.
Members may say, “A year ago, we decided to provide funding to help women from Northern Ireland to travel to England to have an abortion.” The figures we have today show that 600 women have taken part in that scheme—clearly, there is a demand. But it is little wonder that the United Nations says very clearly that the way we treat Northern Irish women—by making them travel, and by putting that restriction on their access to a basic human right—is degrading and inhuman. We cannot ratify the Istanbul convention unless we right that wrong. That treatment is inhuman. Not everybody can travel. We are treating women in one part of the United Kingdom differently—the women who cannot travel, the women in coercive relationships, the women who have small children and the women who are undocumented.
We cannot leave this to chance. We cannot say, “Because we can give you some ability to travel, that means you have equal access.” We cannot let whatever deal the Government may have needed to do with the DUP allow us to get away with arguing that women’s rights are devolved, especially when the Government have committed to giving us a vote on same-sex marriage. Equality cannot be selective. It is right that people should be able to love who they love and to record that in the way they want to, and it is right that women should be given control over their bodies and not be forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy.
I say to Ministers that these things are there in the Istanbul convention. We are treating citizens of this nation with contempt and in a way that the UN called degrading. If we are not going to have a free vote on the domestic violence Bill, which is supposed to ratify the convention, when will we have parity? When will we treat equality as what it truly is—about solidarity? If we want to show solidarity with our Northern Irish friends and their right to marry who they want, we should show solidarity with our Northern Irish sisters in giving them back control over their bodies.
I also want to echo the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton on the global gag rule, but I would go further. On International Women’s Day, the deed that we need is for this Government to commit to contribute to the SheDecides fund. It is one thing to face Donald Trump and his decision to withdraw funding—we know that women have died in the last year because they have not been able to access maternal healthcare following the funding cut he made to stop abortion services—but it is another thing when other countries step up to the plate and say, “We will bridge the gap.” However, this country shies away from being part of that fund.
This is not just about the money; it is about the message of solidarity it sends when we are part of the SheDecides fund. I call on the Government not simply to tell Donald Trump that he is wrong to cut this funding, but to put our money where our mouth is and to stand with our sisters around the world who need the services that his withdrawal of money has cut.
We have also today had the wonderful Women for Refugee Women organisation in Committee Room 10. I am sure that they are still up there singing, and I hope that Members will go up and join them. They are singing for their sisters who are in Yarl’s Wood. In 2018, we in this country are not making the progress we think we are if we are still locking up women who have been the victims of violence, sexual abuse and torture in conflict, yet that is exactly what we are doing in Yarl’s Wood. The fact that 75% of the women in Yarl’s Wood are set free, sometimes to be detained again and then set free again, tells us that the system is broken. This expensive system enshrines inequality in the way in which we treat the most vulnerable women in our society, and I urge Ministers to rethink their determination that this is the only way to manage our immigration system.
Like many of us, the lessons that I take on International Women’s Day are from my constituents, and I want to share two quick stories. In 1962, Beryl Swain was the first woman to compete in motorbike racing on the Isle of Man. The men were so horrified that they changed the weight categories to prevent women from taking part, and that continued until 1978. Karpal Kaur Sandhu was the first Asian female police officer in the world, and she proudly served Walthamstow. She was murdered by her husband in 1973 because he disapproved of her job. What that tells us is that the backlash, the power, the abuse and the violence will always mutate.
We have to keep fighting the patriarchy, and in that sense, that is why I am proud to see so many men here today, including the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). In creating these deeds, men have a vital role to play. As we have all tried to remind Piers Morgan, we do not think that all men are violent. This is about standing up for the reputation of men and for the better world that men and women working together as equals can create, and we ask men now to be our allies and to show solidarity. This is also about cold, hard economic logic. More equal societies are more prosperous, more resilient and more diverse. The right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that the equal employment of men and women would create $28 trillion in growth, from which we could all benefit.
That is why I say to the men in this Chamber and the men in Britain: do not leave it to the women of Britain to resolve these problems. Do not expect us to lead this fight on our own and to come up with all the solutions and the deeds. Do not tell us that you do not think that quotas work or that you do not think that turning misogyny into a hate crime is a good thing. Tell us what you will do to create an equal society. We all have a responsibility to come up with deeds, not words. I will end with the words of Millicent Fawcett, who said:
“What draws men and women together is stronger than the brutality and tyranny which drive them apart.”
I will champion the contribution that every one of my constituents, male and female, makes to this country, but I know that only a truly equal society will realise that for all of them. On International Women’s Day, I call on every man and woman in this country to ensure that we have not just one day of fighting for that better world, but 365 days of fighting for it. Truly, it is worth it for all of us.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a real honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who has a fantastic record in this place of standing up for women. I particularly thank her for her comments on Mary Wollstonecraft. I understand that as a result of her campaigning and that of other Members on both sides of the House, there is now a plan to have a statue of Mary Wollstonecraft. Well done to my hon. Friend for putting on record the proud history of that woman in our tradition of freedom and equality.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. May I draw the attention of the House to another great hero? Eleanor Rathbone was probably the most important Back-Bench Member of this House since William Wilberforce. She was a towering figure on all fronts, and an early-day motion has been tabled proposing that we should name a Committee Room of the House after her. That motion also bears the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). In the light of the speech that we have just heard, naming a Committee Room is perhaps a small thing, but this is about keeping alive the memory of people who, in their own lifetime, made a real mega-difference.
Catherine West
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), whose name appears on that EDM, has done such amazing work in this place, and I read her fantastic book when it was hot off the press. I also enjoyed the book of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who somehow found time to write a book while being an MP. Both of those stories, histories or records remind us about the struggles. So much in politics just appears to happen, but we understand just how hard the struggles are.
As I mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, I want to thank her for mentioning Iuliana Tudos, who tragically lost her life in Finsbury Park, which is on the borders of Hackney, Haringey and Islington. She was my constituent and lost her life in a terrible way, and we think of her family, because things must be terrible for her parents, brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles and so on. Not only do they live abroad, but they know that that young woman lost her life in a violent way.
The seat of Hornsey and Wood Green has been held by women since 1992. Many Members here will remember Lynne Featherstone, who is now in the other House and continues her campaigning for women. Barbara Roche, who I am sure Mr Deputy Speaker remembers, represented my constituency from 1992 until 2005. She won the seat from a Tory Member, Hugh Rossi, and is therefore very famous in Hornsey and Wood Green. She is a barrister and a great advocate for newly arrived communities. When chair of Metropolitan, the housing association, she was a great advocate of affordable housing, and that goes to the heart of the housing crisis, which has worsened since her time as a Member.
It is of course fantastic to be giving this speech with the lovely plaque that the House put up for Jo Cox MP just behind me, and we must not forget our dear friend on a day like today. She would have been hopping up and making an important speech, and we would all have been listening because she was extremely eloquent.
Not wanting to make this a counsel of despair—I have certainly talked about many sad things in the past couple of minutes—I want to note that it has been 100 years since the vote was given to certain women, and suffrage for women was so beautifully depicted in the film directed by Sarah Gavron, whose family is famous in Hornsey and Wood Green. Nicky Gavron is a former deputy Mayor of London and is still on the London Assembly, and she and her daughter are both great feminists.
I want to refer to the recent work in the creative arts sector following the terrible Weinstein scandal and the lurid tales that have emerged since the extent of the sexual abuse within that industry was uncovered. I am wearing a badge that was given to me by my great-aunt, who ran the Italia Conti Academy in London for many years and passed away at the age 101 two years ago. She knew some suffragettes in her time, and the badge has “AFL” on it, which stands for the Actresses’ Franchise League. At drama schools in those days, many talented youngsters—this is not just about women, but young people as well—were put on the stage, but their welfare was not particularly considered and they were not particularly well looked after. Young children who loved dancing, acting and so on would often end up on stage in the west end, and my great-aunt noted that they needed much better welfare and protection. Italia Conti and others introduced several positive schemes for the welfare of children in the arts, and I wonder whether we should have stuck a little closer to some of the schemes that forward-thinking women introduced around 1900 to 1930, and even on into the ’60s and ’70s. The creative industries seem to have lost their way slightly, and that needs to be looked at again in the light of the Weinstein tragedies.
The wonderful thing about speaking at the end of the debate is that one can enjoy listening to others. I was so pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) talk about her experience, and how Bangladesh was born out of conflict. She managed to get across the feelings of all of us in the House about the terrible sexual violence in the Rohingya community, and the importance of highlighting subjects that it is difficult to discuss in this House.
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) talked about the women in Yarl’s Wood. I am very aware of the issue, having spoken with Baroness Corston in the other House about the experience of women who are not subject to immigration detention, but are detained in our prisons, which are often not up to scratch; they face very difficult conditions. On International Women’s Day, it is fitting that we remember those women and what they go through.
Before I came to the House this morning, I was at Woodside High School, which has given me badges to pass on to the Speaker’s Office. The school is run by two fantastic women, who job-share the post of headteacher. It is a miracle school; it was, once upon a time, famous for not being so great, and now it is one of those fantastic schools. I will give the badges to you shortly, Mr Deputy Speaker. My favourite one says: “I run like a girl—try to keep up”. I thought you might like that one. It was fantastic to see so many young women asking about politics, being interested and wanting to get involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) talked about the trade union culture. When I was a council leader, it was always easier to protect the rights of the bin men than to promote the rights of our dinner ladies and others who worked in traditionally female roles. I could not get away with not mentioning Mary Turner, whose memorial service was held in no less a place than St Paul’s cathedral. She broke every single glass ceiling, and she was a huge inspiration to many of us here. Her first battle in the workplace was to get Marigold gloves, so that women did not have to do the washing up without them. She said that that was one of the hardest battles; after that, she became quite battle-hardened. She went on to be president of a union and to play an extremely important role in promoting equality in the trade union movement, and of course in Parliament; that is one of the fantastic ways in which people come into Parliament.
Mr Dhesi
It is so important for young women to have inspirational role models, particularly women from ethnic minority backgrounds—people such as Sophia Duleep Singh, one of the original suffragettes and, in my Slough constituency, Lydia Simmons, who was the first ever lady mayor of African-Caribbean origin. It is important that we in Parliament celebrate those individuals, so that they can continue to inspire others. Would my hon. Friend agree?
Catherine West
I would indeed. I should also like to mention the important contribution that so many women from all over the Commonwealth in particular have made to our NHS over the years. Even now, we see the importance of that workplace. One of the debates that we are having about Brexit is, of course, about the workforce. I was in the Whittington hospital this morning, talking to staff there about their important roles, not just as obstetricians or specialists, but even at the level of our cleaning staff. The NHS does such a fantastic job of promoting women and bringing them through; it is a truly equal workplace where many women from different backgrounds manage to get to the top.
I will conclude, as time is short and people are keen to get back to their constituencies. We heard about equality in sport. It was a fantastic occasion when the Arsenal ladies won and were given the freedom of the borough back in 2008. That was a favourite speech that I got to make at borough level. I will hand those badges over to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, so that the girls at Woodside High School know that you have those for the Speaker’s Office; you can pass them around.
This has been a fantastic debate. There has been nobody sat at the back moaning. On previous occasions, we have had to make the case for a debate—on, for example, the Istanbul convention. It is lovely that this time, it has been in Government time, and that we have got to an accepted level of equality.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
I am delighted and proud to be making my debut at this Dispatch Box to close this debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. We have heard today about how we have record female employment in this country, but, as the Secretary of State rightly said, this is not just about getting in—it is about getting on. I could not agree more, which is why I am so pleased to see Labour’s announcement that we will ask business to take a more proactive approach. Under a Labour Government, the onus would be on employers to close the gender pay gap, and provide action plans or face fines. We have heard agreement from Members from across the House that while we all celebrate the centenary of women gaining the vote, there remains plenty more to be done. It is reassuring to hear the Secretary of State’s pledges to tackle the gender pay gap and to make sure that funding for women’s refuges is protected.
The first Back-Bench speaker, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who chairs the Women and Equalities Committee, is a determined, passionate advocate for equality. She has worked extremely hard to open doors and discuss issues that have never been tackled head on. I was inspired by her as a member of that Committee and continue to follow its work closely. The right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said that gender inequality represents the biggest waste of talent. She also mentioned the sustainable development goals—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali)—and our need to help stop FGM and health inequality, reminding us of the ”International” in International Women’s Day. We have to help our sisters across the globe, while continuing to ask ourselves difficult questions about our own gender balance in this place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) spoke powerfully and moved the House with her list of murdered women. Every one of those women should be here today and it is our absolute duty to make sure they are never forgotten. The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow talked of the horrors of war, and women facing rape or being trafficked and sold as sex slaves. The first female Member for Coventry, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher), told us that although we now have 208 women in Parliament, that is still only 32% of the House. It was also lovely to hear about her mother, who inspired her to enter politics.
Other Members spoke about the girl guide movement. We heard further great contributions from the hon. Members for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), for Erewash (Maggie Throup) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) talked about maternity leave, and we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Mother of the House, who has tirelessly battled for our rights in this area for decades.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi)—my good friend—spoke about the new all-party group on single parent families, which a few of us have set up. I am a proud founder member. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) told us of those amazing working women who helped to forge the union movement and the Labour party. We also heard further contributions from the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) and for Cheadle (Mary Robinson), and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) who spoke of the dangers of restricted abortion laws leading to serious and life-threatening harm to women.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) called International Women’s Day “feminist Christmas”, but called for “deeds” not “words”. She said that the course of progress is agonisingly slow. She also mentioned period poverty, a cause on which we are fighting on this side of the House. We finished by hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who were calling for us to commemorate those women who gave so much to our fight for equality.
What a year it has been for women! We have seen the #MeToo movement, the fabulous Megan Markle, the inspiring Jacinda Ardern and more recently—last week—Maisie Sly showing us that being deaf does not stop someone winning an Oscar. As we know from even those few examples, women young and old continue to push boundaries, challenge expectations and work hard, not because they are women, but simply because they are brilliant.
As my friend, the shadow Minister mentioned earlier, the International Women’s Day flag is now flying proudly as the sun begins to set over Westminster. However, events celebrating the day are continuing, and this evening I will be speaking at an event with the incredible Frances Scott, championing her campaign to get a 50:50 Parliament: equality in representation on these very Benches.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I commend the hon. Lady on her first outing at the Dispatch Box, and I will be joining her to speak at that event. Will she say a word about the importance of campaigns such as the 50:50 Parliament and, in particular, its #AskHerToStand campaign, which I understand is partly what led us to having the hon. Lady in this place? It is a brilliant campaign, and everyone in this House and outside it can do this, in order to improve the representation of women. When they see women who are doing a brilliant job in the community and who would be amazing elected representatives, they should ask them to stand.
Rosie Duffield
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I know that she is also an ambassador for that campaign. I would not be in this place without the encouragement of Frances and the #AskHerToStand campaign, which encourages women from all walks of life to stand for local politics and positions of leadership in all sorts of areas. We know that there is just not enough representation, as she said. Every time I retweet a 50:50 tweet, at least one or two men—I am afraid to say—always ask why we need equal representation. The answer is simple: women make up 51% of the country’s population, and we need to see that here on these Benches. It is that simple as far as I am concerned. I will be attending that event later on, and I am an ambassador for that campaign.
We need women in the home and in the house—this House. We need to stand up and say, “I am proud of my gender, I am proud of my mother, I am proud of my daughter, I am proud.” With that, I will say a very simple happy International Women’s Day to men and women.
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
It is a genuine pleasure to be here for today’s debate, and may I follow in the excellent footsteps of my shadow number by wishing everybody a very happy International Women’s Day? If I may say so, that was a very good speech from the Dispatch Box, and I am now worried that she is my shadow—that’s all I’m saying! I would like to thank everyone who has attended the debate and contributed. We are fortunate to have so many great advocates for gender equality in the Chamber. They have all done so much, in their own ways, to improve the lives of women and girls.
This debate has, of course, had its serious—indeed, its heartbreaking—moments, and I will address those in due course, but before I do let us reflect on the reasons to celebrate. Many Members highlighted the notable women and women’s charities in their constituencies both today and in history. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) gave a fascinating and detailed speech on the history of women protesting to improve working conditions and mentioned Lily Bilocca as someone who had been named only once before in this House—well, I have now named her at the Dispatch Box, which I hope goes some way to addressing that inequality.
This year being the centenary of women’s suffrage, many Members focused on the women in the House before them and on other political role models. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) told us that her political hero was Mo Mowlam because of the valuable work that great lady did to bring Protestants and Catholics together in the cause of peace. The hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) told us about her mother, who swept to power on Coventry Council in 1979. Then we had a little competition. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) told us that her constituency had been represented by women for 21 years, but I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) was able to boast that her constituency had been represented by women for 26 years. The more of these competitions that go on, the better.
We have also heard from many Members about the role that the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has played in inspiring so many women to stand for Parliament. In her role as the Mother of the House, she will this year be celebrating many moments in the history of women’s suffrage. It will be a joy to celebrate those with her.
I would also like to add to the list, however, because I am not the first female Member of Parliament for Louth and Horncastle. I was preceded by a lady called Margaret Wintringham, who was elected in 1921. She was the second-ever female Member of Parliament and the first-ever female MP born in this country. I feel privileged to follow her, albeit many, many decades later. In 1921, she was talking about equal pay, and of course, depressingly, several decades later we are still talking about equal pay. There is, though, one way in which we have moved forward since Mrs Wintringham campaigned to become a Member of Parliament, and that is in the way we conduct general election campaigns: apparently, Mrs Wintringham did not utter a word on the election trail in 1921. I must say that I have taken a very different approach to running my campaigns.
I have been really impressed by the determination in all parts of the House of Commons to encourage women to stand for Parliament and in local council elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) highlighted the fact that only 17% of council leaders are female. We must improve that figure, because we know how valuable female councillors can be throughout the country.
The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) used a phrase that very much caught my attention when she talked about “having the audacity to stand”. We should all be more audacious in that regard.
This morning, I was asked by a journalist about challenges I have faced in politics. I had to tell him about one occasion in 2015 when I was canvassing on the doorstep. I knocked on the door and said to the lady, “May I count on your support?”, and she said, “No.” I said, “Why’s that?”, and she said, “Because you’re a woman.” I did not really know what I could do to change that, so quickly moved on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes set out her ambitions for the next 100 years; they are ambitions to which I am sure we can all subscribe.
Of course, no discussion of a determination to improve equality in this place could pass without my mentioning the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). Not only as a Member of Parliament, but as a Cabinet Minister and now as Chairman of the Women and Equalities Committee, she has done an incredible amount to ensure equality, and not just for women but for same-sex couples, too. I hope I am correct in paraphrasing her speech as, “Being a Member of Parliament is the best job in the world.” I hope that this year we will all encourage women to think about standing for Parliament.
The award for avoiding mansplaining must go to the only man who made a speech in this debate, as opposed to intervening: my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). I must say, echoing the comments made by others from all parties, that we are lucky to have male colleagues like him in the House, supporting our cause.
Let me turn to the serious aspects of the debate. Of course, I must start with the contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who, as she has in years past, read out the names of women who have been killed since last year’s International Women’s Day. I join others in wishing fervently that we will be able to have a day of celebrating women when the hon. Lady does not have to read out that list.
Home should of course be a place of love, support and safety. No one should have to suffer violence or abuse, which is why we have today launched the consultation on domestic abuse. We are seeking to transform the country’s approach to domestic abuse. We are widening the definition so that we understand that abuse is not confined to physical violence, but can include psychological violence and economic abuse. We are addressing at every stage, where we can, the fact that we need to intervene earlier, to support the women and children who are victims of this terrible abuse and, where possible, to break the cycle of violence with the offender. In short, we want the question to change from, “Why doesn’t she leave him?” to “Why doesn’t he stop?”
I very much hope that Members from all parties will contribute to the consultation and use their networks to encourage others to contribute, too, so that we can ensure that the Bill that follows, and all the non-legislative measures, are as ambitious and brave as we can make them.
We have heard much discussion about women in work. The stand-out statistic for me today was the one put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) who, with all her considerable experience in the Cabinet, has done so much to further the cause of equality, not least as the preceding Minister for Women and Equalities. The fact is that, if we were to encourage gender equality and achieve it across the world, it would add £28 trillion to our global GDP, which is a startling fact.
We, the United Kingdom, are doing our bit, because we have the highest rate of employment of women ever, and we are working hard to support women in work so that they can fulfil their potential and achieve their ambition. We are taking strong action in this area. I hope that 4 April is ingrained in every chief executive’s mind, because that is the deadline when every large employer will have to tell us their gender pay gap. Contrary to the suggestions that may have been made, we are doing that not just because we like collecting figures, but because we want to establish where there are pay gaps and then work towards closing them down.
We have also heard about flexible working, and we are very much working towards normalising that practice. Indeed, 97% of UK workplaces now offer flexible working, but of course there is more to do. We know that there are schemes for shared parental leave and for encouraging people who have taken time out for caring to return to work. In fact, we are investing a great deal of money to increase opportunities and support for those who are returning to work, but we cannot do this alone. We need employers to take bold action to ensure that women are just as able as men to fulfil their potential and use their talents and skills. This country cannot succeed fully if one half of its population is held back.
Flowing from work is, of course, education. Several colleagues have emphasised the importance that education plays in setting up girls to flourish in the workplace and to having equal access with their male counterparts to more productive and higher paying sectors. We have invested in programmes to encourage take-up in STEM-related subjects and courses, including maths and computer science. We are also raising awareness of the range of careers that STEM qualifications offer, through initiatives such as STEM ambassadors, and we continue to deliver high-quality apprenticeships, which provide choice for young women and men as they consider their future careers. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) about Ada Lovelace, which was absolutely fascinating. We even heard about the scientist behind Mr Whippy ice cream—a certain Margaret Thatcher. I have to say that I have learned something new today.
We must of course reflect on the fact that this is not national women’s day, but International Women’s Day. Several Members spoke about that, mentioning the Rohingya and Bangladesh in particular. It is not only at home where this Government have made real progress to improve the lives of women and girls. We are respected globally for our world-leading legislation and policy, and we continue to play a key role on the international stage to press for change. We are committed to ensuring that all women have the same opportunities and choices, no matter where they live.
UK aid has a huge impact on the lives of millions. It has supported more than 6,000 communities across 16 countries and made public commitments to end female genital mutilation. That represents 18 million people—more than twice the population of London—and it has enabled 8.5 million women to access modern methods of family planning over five years, empowering women to make choices about their own bodies.
We want to build on those achievements. As we have heard, the Secretary of State for International Development launched her strategic vision for gender equality yesterday. This recognises that gender equality cannot be treated as an isolated issue, but must be embedded in everything that we do. It sets out how we plan to continue our global leadership role. I am proud of this Government’s ambition to improve the rights of women and girls globally; we need to be ambitious if we are to continue making progress in areas such as education, economic empowerment and violence, and if we are to create a world in which all women and girls can have equal rights, opportunities and freedoms, as described by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire).
In conclusion, today’s debate has highlighted what we all already knew: that we have achieved some things, but there is still a way to go. There is much more to be done before we achieve gender equality in the UK and around the world. I want to end the debate on a positive note, because this is the one day of the year on which we get to celebrate women. I want to highlight brilliant women and the social, economic, political and cultural contributions that they make.
We have heard from the Home Secretary that the United Kingdom has its second female Prime Minister—that is particularly apt given that we are celebrating the centenary of suffrage—and that we sit in the most diverse Parliament that we have ever had. In the past year, we have seen women breaking barriers in public life and industry. Last year, Cressida Dick became the first ever female Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and Dany Cotton became the first ever female commissioner of the London fire brigade. Already this year, Sarah Clarke has made history as the first female Black Rod, and the Royal Mint has appointed Anne Jessopp, who is its first female chief executive in its more than 1,000 years of existence. I have no doubt that the first female President of the Supreme Court, Baroness Hale, will be doing all she can to improve equality in the judiciary.
We must not forget that three of the four medals that team GB took home from the winter Olympics were won by women. Lizzy Yarnold became Britain’s most decorated winter Olympian, taking a second gold in the women’s skeleton. Anyone who hurtles down ice chutes at 80 miles an hour on what I can only describe as a tea tray deserves all our respect.
We want the celebration to continue beyond International Women’s Day. This year, we are celebrating our history, but I hope that we also see this year as the start of the century of women. I urge every Member of this House to take part in any way they can, whether it is by supporting women’s organisations, speaking at events, going into schools to speak, or asking women whether they will stand. We will have a whole package of celebrations during the year, and they will be revealed as the year goes on. One example of how we are going to celebrate is with the holding of EqualiTeas in June and July across the country, to share, debate and celebrate our right to vote over a cup of tea and a slice of cake. They are often the answer to many problems in life, and I am delighted that we are celebrating our suffrage in that way.
When my grandmother was born, no woman had the right to vote. Fast forward two generations, and I am here at the Dispatch Box and a female Prime Minister is leading the celebrations. I leave the House with this question: what more can we achieve in another two generations? That is our challenge.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Vote 100 and International Women’s Day.
Business without Debate
Rivers Authorities
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
We have very long memories in the west country, so I want to take Members back in time. It was said that some 400 years ago, in 1607,
“huge and mighty hills of water”
poured across the county, moving at a speed
“faster than a greyhound can run”.
Water covered the Somerset levels and moors, and it devastated the land—but not, I am afraid, for the last time. Members will remember that the winter of 2013-14 was the wettest in Somerset for 250 years, and 150 sq km of land was completely submerged for weeks. The Environment Agency said that 100 million cubic metres of water covered Somerset’s fertile soil. By my reckoning, that means that we were up to our necks in 40,000 Olympic swimming pools-worth of water. One hundred and sixty-five homes were flooded, 7,000 businesses were affected, and 81 roads were closed. I will never forget making visits to the village of Muchelney not by road, but by boat. I stood in people’s homes that were not only destroyed by waist-deep water but had been flooded only 12 months before. Livelihoods were driven to the brink, and people were understandably driven to despair. The cost to Somerset was estimated at £147 million.
As those waters receded, more than just the bare earth revealed itself. We saw also that perhaps one or two things had been neglected. Local people rightly argued, fairly strongly, that not enough contingency planning had taken place. “By definition”, they cried, “we’ve been living with insufficient flood management schemes, catchment planning and so on.” We felt like Deucalion, the son of Prometheus, who, as we all know, saw after the great mythical Greek flood the extent of the destruction and felt grief so great that tears kept pouring from his eyes. His wish was to create a new form of humanity. Our wish was to create the Somerset Rivers Authority.
The people of Somerset are no strangers to local action, so local people tipped out their wellies, gathered themselves up and summoned various flood risk authorities: Somerset County Council, our five noble district councils, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Wessex Regional Flood and Coastal Committee, and our inland drainage boards. Then, with £1.9 million stumped up by the Government, they coagulated all these into a new body—the Somerset Rivers Authority. This body sprang from the 20-year flood action plan that had been put together following the floods at the very sensible request of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who was then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I well remember wading through water to meet him to discuss the need to keep a lid on the severity, duration, frequency and impact of flooding. I have also talked to him about that more recently.
I must point out that the SRA was not, and is not, a usurper. It does not diminish the roles of the other flood management partners or, indeed, of landowners; it acts to improve the joint working of all those bodies. In essence, it gives us an extra level of flood protection and resilience. It raises extra money, does extra work, and provides extra information and co-ordination. Without wanting to go into the minutiae of its daily grind, it oversees the flood action plan across five areas: dredging, river management, land management, infrastructure, and building local resilience.
The SRA has overseen some 90 projects, with 22 more planned for 2018-19. Some of them have dozens of different elements, so hundreds of areas have benefited. This year the SRA is maintenance dredging 4 km of the River Parrett; it is monitoring silt in the Parrett and Tone rivers for a future dredging programme; it is designing and implementing a variety of flood management capital works to hold water in the upper catchment and reduce peak flows; it is rolling up its sleeves and undertaking pumping station repairs and improvements; and it is carrying out a highway flood risk reduction scheme, with desilting of structures and gully jetting.
Fiendishly clever schemes have been developed, such as injection drilling, which is now used on the Parrett and Tone rivers and can achieve in one week what used to take four months, and at a small fraction of the cost. Such things are qualitatively better for farmers, residents and our splendid Somerset environment. I could go on all day about soil management, cropping techniques, channel clearances, housing planning analysis, drain enhancements, the tidal barrier—that is a big one—and the endless flood management schemes, but I am sure that people get the picture. For the SRA, its cup runneth over, essentially so that our cup does not run over. Such river authorities are obviously essential to the continued enjoyment of life in low-lying areas, but they face a problem. As is so often the case, it comes down to money, although this time it is more of a structural issue.
The SRA has ploughed on, silently and deftly managing our waterways to keep our feet dry. So far, we have paid for that by coughing up a small shadow precept on our council tax bills, plus a bit of money from drainage boards and spot of growth deal funding. I should explain that the term “shadow precept” refers to the extra flexibility that was granted to Somerset councils in 2016 as part of the local government finance settlement. Many in Somerset, myself included, would like to see the shadow precept put on a permanent statutory footing. Understandably, the SRA itself has also been calling for legislation to put its finances on the same stable long-term footing as a precepting body.
At the moment, because the SRA receives annual funding on a voluntary basis from local authorities, it has a hand-to-mouth existence. It is unable to coherently plan ahead, which means it is not in a position to enter into longer-term contracts or undertake longer-term financial planning. A stable funding arrangement, in the form of a local precept, would allow such river authorities to plan more effectively and efficiently, locking in improved protection for the good people of Somerset in the future.
The original 20-year flood action plan included the aspiration to allow Somerset’s rivers authority to become a statutory body, but we always knew that that would involve legislation. We knew that we would need to create a power for the Secretary of State to create statutory rivers authorities and to add them to the precepting authorities listed in the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
I hope we can achieve that, but before I come on to that, I must talk briefly about internal drainage boards. That may not be a phrase you want to hear every day, Mr Deputy Speaker, but internal drainage boards are a vital part of the landscape of flood risk management. In Somerset, our three IDBs beaver away for us, almost literally, maintaining the watercourses, draining the land and reducing flood risk. I am very much aware that one or two areas of England are not fortunate enough to be in Somerset. Many of those less favoured parts of the country do not have the benefit of an IDB, and technical problems with the legislation on these bodies prevent them from being established. In essence, that is down to an anomaly in the valuation of land under legislation that is getting a bit long in the tooth.
That is very much the case in Cumbria, for example, where the local flood action plan drawn up by the community after the 2015 floods calls for the establishment of a new IDB, but they are stuck and cannot do it. We in this place should address that as soon as possible, so that all parts of England and Wales that desire an IDB can have one. Who would not want to reap the benefits that my constituency enjoys? Quite frankly, who would not want to be in my constituency?
It would be remiss of me at this point not to commend the Government for the action they continue to take to reduce flood risk and the significant new investment that has been provided. In fact, between 2016 and 2021, the Government are putting £2.6 billion into flood defences and building 1,500 new flood schemes that will better protect almost a third of a million homes. Those kinds of initiatives continue to improve the protection of people right across the country. There is also a need for local action to reduce flood risk. As I have set out, in Somerset we have the rivers authority and three internal drainage boards, but we need to understand their future.
In January 2017, the Government’s response to the report by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on future flood prevention made clear the intention to introduce precepting legislation as soon as parliamentary time became available. I would like to draw the House’s attention to the Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill, which I introduced this week and which would enable the Government to deliver on that commitment. I am delighted to say that the Government are fully supporting the Bill, as are many Members of the House, including the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).
I very much look forward to the thoughts and remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister. As she is aware, not only would my Bill allow the Secretary of State to establish the Somerset Rivers Authority as a statutory and precepting body, thus placing its feet—and ours—on safe, dry land, but it would remove the hurdle faced by other parts of the country in setting up or expanding inland drainage boards. Lastly, I put on the record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend for her and the Government’s support in this process. I think I speak for much of Somerset when I say that we all hope this will soon mean that nothing can leak over the tops of our wellies for some years to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) on securing it. He spoke powerfully about, and eloquently described, the devastation caused by flooding.
As all hon. Members are aware, flooding can have a devastating effect on people’s lives, not only due to the immediate pressures they face at the time, but because of some of the mental health problems caused, particularly when heavy rain pours down again and they worry about possible future flooding. Indeed, I have supported my own constituents in Suffolk Coastal following flooding in recent years, so I have experienced this at first hand. The Government continue to invest in better protecting communities from flooding, and I know that you are very keen for us to invest in Lancashire, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is also important, however, that we empower those communities to take further action. I am very pleased to say that my hon. Friend is correct that the Government support his private Member’s Bill on rivers authorities and land drainage. That modest Bill could, if successful, deliver real change.
As my hon. Friend will be all too aware, the Somerset levels and moors are a complex environment of highly managed lowlands that are often susceptible to flooding. The flooding in 2013 and 2014 was some of the worst experienced in living memory, especially for the people of the Somerset levels and moors. Many homes, businesses and farmlands were affected, with whole communities cut off as the main roads and railways became impassable. Alongside that, there was significant flooding over the Curry and Hay moors, a site of special scientific interest. This unique area is susceptible to flooding from rivers, because of the artificial raised banks they flow along, and from the coast and the Bristol channel’s tidal range, which is the second highest in the world. Not only does that cause tidal flooding, but it holds back floodwater and makes river flooding worse. Added to that, the low lying land acts as a reservoir holding back the floodwater.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, following those floods, there was a strong political desire for co-ordination across the county to devise a bespoke new initiative. That was why, in January 2014, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), the then Secretary of State, asked Somerset County Council and the Environment Agency to work with the local community to come up with a flood action plan considering the various options for how flood risk could be managed on the Somerset levels and moors over the next 20 years.
That flood action plan led to the concept of a new body—a rivers authority—and recommended the creation of such a body in Somerset. This was done with the aim of creating a way for the different bodies that have a responsibility or interest in flood risk management to work together better. The Somerset Rivers Authority was formally established in January 2015. It is a partnership between 11 of Somerset’s existing flood risk management authorities: Somerset County Council, the five district councils, the Axe Brue and Parrett Internal Drainage Boards, the Environment Agency, Natural England, and the Wessex Regional Flood and Coastal Committee.
I understand how important this issue is to the people of Somerset. Like my hon. Friend, I support the work of the Somerset Rivers Authority, which I had the opportunity to see for myself when I visited Somerset last year. The SRA’s role is to co-ordinate the local flood risk management authorities, utilising the expertise of individual partners. It also supports additional flood risk management works that may not otherwise have been possible, such as enhanced river maintenance, including on ordinary watercourses. It does not seek to replace existing flood risk management authorities or their funding mechanisms.
As my hon. Friend said, the Government supported the Somerset Rivers Authority in the beginning with £1.9 million of start-up funding, and a review into the long-term funding options was commissioned. The review recommended giving the Somerset Rivers Authority precepting powers to raise funds for additional flood risk management. To secure the SRA’s future, we would need new legislation to give the Secretary of State power to create rivers authorities and add them to the category of major precepting authorities under the Local Government Finance Act 1992. I am pleased that that is provided for in clause 1 of my hon. Friend’s Bill.
Not only do the Government want to bring forward these measures, but they are what the local community in Somerset has been calling for. I therefore hope that the Bill will make progress through Parliament. However, such a decision is not made lightly. The Government recognise that any precept will be funded by taxpayers, but that is already the case under the interim arrangements. The existing funding arrangements for the SRA are far from ideal and a permanent solution is required. Making the SRA an autonomous precepting authority would make it more transparent and ensure that money is ring-fenced solely for its important work. Adding the SRA to the category of major precepting authorities will also mean it is covered by the safeguards set out in the 1992 Act, including the requirement for a referendum if the precept exceeds a set amount.
The Bill also sets out how, through regulations that Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise further, the governance of a rivers authority should be established. Although my hon. Friend is right to say that a new category of major precepting authorities will be created, the situation in Somerset is unique, because the complex interplay of water means that such matters are self-contained within the county. Were the Bill to be enacted, the Government would implement the necessary regulations promptly.
My hon. Friend mentioned internal drainage boards. As he pointed out, three of those are included in the Somerset Rivers Authority: Axe Brue, North Somerset Levels, and Parrett. He will recognise how effective they have been in their ongoing work with the authority. IDBs are among the oldest forms of democratic decision-making structures in the UK, with their history going back to the 13th century. Their main focus then was the drainage of agricultural land in low lying areas, but they have since evolved to play a much wider role, and they remain to this day a key partner in local flood risk management. That includes playing a major role in the identification and delivery of capital projects in local communities.
That model has worked well around the country, including in Suffolk Coastal with the East Suffolk IDB. However, as my hon. Friend said, not everywhere has such a body, and many of those that already exist would like to expand their boundaries. One place without an IDB that has suffered devastating flooding in recent years is Cumbria. It has requested new IDBs, in particular for Lyth Valley and Waver Wampool. As with the SRA, those requests have arisen from a flood action plan that was devised after significant flooding. However, a combination of issues is stopping the creation of those bodies. There are missing or incomplete valuation lists from 1990, and existing legislation does not allow for any other valuation lists to be used. That prevents IDBs from being able to value the land and determine the special levy they charge. That applies to the creation of new IDBs and the expansion of existing ones, so a change in legislation is required.
My hon. Friend has been generous in the Bill that he presented to the House for First Reading on Monday. He has ensured that such a change will be achievable through three additional clauses that will help to create new internal drainage boards where there is local consensus. The measures will also enable existing boards to expand, again where there is local consensus. In short, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to establish an alternative methodology for calculating the value of other land in an IDB, and it will enable the Valuation Office Agency to share the most up-to-date information. Finally, it will enable the Secretary of State to establish an alternative methodology for the calculation of the value of chargeable property, agricultural land and buildings in an internal drainage district. All three clauses include regulation-making powers that will be subject to the affirmative procedure, thus providing Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise them further. I restate that such changes will go ahead only if local communities want them.
The Government support my hon. Friend’s Bill and what it is trying to achieve, and I am aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there is appetite for the creation of an internal drainage board in Lancashire. The SRA and IDBs play an important role across the country, and in particular they play a crucial role in local flood risk management. I hope that the debate has demonstrated that to the House.
The unique challenges of the Somerset levels and moors make it necessary and appropriate to create the Somerset Rivers Authority, and to put it on a secure footing to allow it to co-ordinate and manage flood risk into the future. This important body could do even more with secure funding each year. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for using this debate as a way to discuss his Bill. I am confident that this good debate will continue and that hon. Members will want to debate the Bill further in Committee once it receives, as we hope, its Second Reading a week on Friday.
On International Women’s Day, I want to place on record my thanks to the permanent secretary in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Clare Moriarty. She still in a minority across the civil service as a permanent secretary, but she shows great leadership in our Department. I also want to point out not that I have not found time to buy a card for Mother’s day, but that for many people in this House, their woman of the year will always be their mum. I want to wish my mother the best for this Sunday. I promise, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I shall go out and buy a card straight away after this important debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Make sure you do.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
backbench business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Energy Efficiency and the Clean Growth Strategy
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I thank colleagues for being here today. There are some terrible weather conditions across the country, which I think will suppress attendance at this debate. Some colleagues had to get back to their constituencies before they got cut off, or the rail links got cut off. I call Antoinette Sandbach to move the motion.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered energy efficiency and the clean growth strategy.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I am grateful to the many of my colleagues from both sides of the House who helped me to secure this debate, not least to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe).
This is an important debate, and I hope that it will spur Members to action, not just today but in the future. This is the first debate of its kind in several years, and it is important to ensure that we keep energy efficiency at the top of the political agenda. This week the energy price cap Bill, the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill, received its Second Reading. The Bill is a vital step to protect consumers while we reform the market in the short to medium term.
I want to propose a long-term solution for energy efficiency improvements and suggest how to make best use of the time we will have bought with the energy price cap Bill to address energy efficiency. In my remarks, I will outline how far we have come and discuss the challenges we face, before proposing a couple of solutions to return us to a better low-carbon path. I plan to talk generally about the state of energy efficiency, but where I am more specific I shall be addressing domestic energy efficiency. Other Members, I am sure, will focus on other areas, but I shall leave that contribution to them.
It is important to outline how far we have come in building a low-carbon economy and in improving energy efficiency over the long term. That is testament to the commitment of successive Governments, and I am proud to say that we are now a world leader in the green economy. Since 1990 we have cut emissions by 42%, faster than any other G7 nation. We have outperformed the first carbon budget, of 2008 to 2012, by 1%, and we are on course to outperform the second and third carbon budgets by 5% and 4%, respectively.
All that achievement has not come at the cost of economic growth. Emissions dropped by 42%, but the economy grew by 67%. In 2016, 47% of electricity came from low-carbon sources, which was twice the rate of 2010. Household energy consumption has fallen by 17% since 1990, despite a rise in the number of home appliances. More than 430,000 people work in low-carbon businesses and the supply chain. All that work has resulted in bills being roughly £490 lower than they would have been without the energy efficiency improvements made since 2004.
Clearly, significant progress has been made over the past three decades. I applaud Ministers and Members of all parties for their commitment to tackling climate. What is more, we have taken those steps without damaging our economy, the idea of which was originally dismissed by some as simply not possible.
Despite such progress, there is still more to do. Progress on energy efficiency has slowed. Between 2012 and 2015 the annual investment in energy efficiency fell by 53%; and in the same period there was an 80% reduction in improvement measures, with the Committee on Climate Change warning us that that will decline even further by 2020. Fuel poverty remains a stubborn problem that we must continue to address. It is all very well giving assistance with bills, but a long-term solution—insulating houses—is surely the way forward.
As of 2014, 2.3 million households in England were in fuel poverty and 41% of the households in the lowest income decile were fuel poor; 56% of fuel-poor households lived in properties built before 1944. To my mind, those issues make it an urgent requirement of the Government to do a housing survey in England: 60% of fuel-poor households lived in inefficient properties with an E, F or G energy performance certificate rating, and 14% of households in rural areas were in fuel poverty, which is higher than the national average. Those rural households cannot access the efficiencies of dual fuel billing, and that is important, because many are off grid. Many cannot access the warm home scheme measures, which often involve whole streets. The low-hanging fruit has been picked, but the more challenging households, in particular in rural communities, have not been addressed.
The clean growth strategy is a welcome addition to the debate. I support its proposals to combat fuel poverty and to promote energy efficiency, but I hope that the Minister can be more specific about the Government’s plans today than they were six months ago. The Committee on Climate Change assessment of the clean growth strategy found that three actions were expected to deliver, six actions had delivery risks, or were rated amber, and seven proposals were without firm plans, or rated red.
It has never been more important to tackle climate change and to decarbonise the economy. However, the potential rewards have never been so great. A building energy performance programme could save households £270 a year on bills. Over the long term that would save even more than the current proposed cap on energy bills, and it would also make a large contribution to hitting our climate change goals. Bringing every household up to an EPC band C by 2035 would save 25% of the energy used by the UK, which is the equivalent of six nuclear power stations the size of Hinkley Point C. The net economic benefit of such a programme would be between £7.5 billion and £8.7 billion, according to macro- economic analysis by the UK Energy Research Centre, and that figure does not include the wider secondary benefits in growth, jobs or health. With cold homes in England costing the NHS an estimated £1.36 billion, such a programme would have a considerable impact on health budgets, as well as on the wider economy.
The economic and social case for increased energy efficiency measures seems unarguable. We must focus on how to deliver them. Throughout recent history, we have seen that the fight against climate change is most effective when Government and private industry work together. The Government can lead the charge, but we need to harness the innovation and energy of the private sector to truly succeed. That is why I want to suggest one way in which the private sector can step up. It is one way for the Government to make a change that can expedite energy efficiency improvements. Mortgage providers should give people more incentives to purchase energy efficient homes.
In essence, if people make savings on their energy bills they will have more money to service a larger mortgage, and that should be taken into consideration when banks make their lending decisions. We know that in 2014, 51% of fuel-poor households were owner-occupiers, with only 33% in the private rented sector. Were the EPC rating of a house to be included in a lender’s affordability calculation, people could borrow up to £4,000 more in many cases. Under such a system, an EPC A rating would allow people to borrow £11,500 more than an EPC G-rated house. I recommend to hon. Members who are interested in this proposal a report by the Lenders group, which said that energy bills were a sizeable part of borrowers’ essential expenditure, and were therefore a component of the affordability calculation that warranted being made more sophisticated.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making such a good point about how we can challenge mortgage lenders to revisit affordability, based on how much it costs to live in a house. Crucially, it demonstrates to developers who have pushed back against higher energy efficiency building standards on the basis of affordability that lenders understand that reduced operation costs are a good thing, because borrowers can borrow more to pay more for a house that costs less to live in. It slays the developers’ argument against more stringent building regulations.
Antoinette Sandbach
I completely agree, and those houses would be more easily resold, too. The energy efficiency measures that had been introduced in a property would have a market value, and that would be taken into account in the ability to resell—particularly the increased borrowing capability. Furthermore, it would give real value when looking at the EPC rating for the future. It is a simple step that could be taken with relatively little Government interference—a simple statutory instrument so that energy efficiency could be considered as part of the mortgage affordability criteria would be very persuasive, particularly for those companies specialising in green finance.
Despite that, I also agree with my hon. Friend that we have to look at the criteria that we impose on house builders. It is simply not acceptable that in this day and age we are building houses that are likely to need retrofitting in future. By increasing the build standard, people would learn how an energy efficient home can have an impact on their life. I sat and shivered in my own home in London during the freeze last week; I found myself sitting in my sitting room in my coat because the house was so cold and inefficient. I now realise that I have a relatively fuel efficient home where I live in Cheshire, which makes a difference mentally, to comfort levels and to bills. Merely including the energy efficiency measures in affordability calculations would be enough to drive people towards more energy-efficient homes even if buyers do not borrow extra money, because they would be attracted by the perception of value implied by the higher borrowing limits.
My second suggestion is one that the Minister may be able to assist with more directly. When Members talk about infrastructure spending, one is put in mind of boys with their toys: big trains, roads, railways and power stations. However, I suggest that the Minister designate energy efficiency measures as infrastructure spending, bringing it under the purview of the National Infrastructure Commission. The rationale for that is simple: energy efficiency spending is a one-off cost, so it is closer to capital than revenue expenditure. By reducing energy consumption, those investments free up energy sector capacity. That reduces, or at least delays, the need for new capacity to come online. That new capacity—in the form of generation plants, networks and energy storage—would be considered infrastructure spending by the Government, and potentially would involve a large amount of Government expenditure.
Why invest in the big plant if we can roll out energy efficiency measures across the country, as part of an infrastructure project? Energy efficiency measures provide a public service: they insulate consumers—literally—against the volatility of energy markets. Likewise, they provide health and wellbeing benefits, by enabling consumers to heat buildings more effectively, and they have the knock-on consequences of reducing our carbon emissions and contributing towards our overall aim of clean, green growth.
Research by Frontier Economics found that a building energy performance programme would meet the Treasury’s criteria for determining the top 40 infrastructure priorities. The National Infrastructure Commission has said that it will consider
“an ambitious programme of energy efficiency improvements”
and that it
“is examining ways to make the UK’s building stock fit for the future.”
I hope that Ministers will pave the way by committing £1.1 billion to a programme of energy efficiency improvements, under the auspices of the National Infrastructure Commission. It is estimated that that would leverage £3.9 billion of private investment by 2035. That additional capital spending, alongside the £0.6 billion already spent, would dramatically improve energy efficiency, bringing all the benefits I have outlined.
With the £1.3 billion of savings that have been highlighted in the health budget, these measures would effectively fund themselves out of savings to other parts of the Government’s expenditure. The starting step is to recognise that this is capital spending on infrastructure—not revenue spending. Members might like to look at the Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group report, “Affordable Warmth, Clean Growth”, where they will see a detailed plan to take forward this suggestion.
I look forward to hearing suggestions from other hon. Members of how to renew our energy efficiency drive. The case for pushing forward seems indisputable: it would make significant inroads into fuel poverty and carbon emissions, as well as create jobs and secure clean, green growth for the future. Mine are just two suggestions of how to approach that, but I hope that the Minister and her Department will take them on board. I am also keen to hear the suggestions that the Minister has brought with her; there is a lot of potential in the clean growth strategy, and I know that she is as keen as I am to see that potential realised.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach)—I call her my friend because we serve on the same Committee and I have the utmost respect for her and her work. She gave a very impressive speech and I thank her for introducing today’s debate.
I want to focus my comments on the clean growth strategy—I am sure that other colleagues will do a far better job than me in talking about energy efficiency. I welcome the clean growth strategy; it sets out strong commitments to cut our carbon emissions in the UK and to improve energy efficiency. I thank the Minister for her recent visit to Teesside and I am grateful that she recognises the opportunities that we have there as one of the most energy-intensive areas in the country, as well as the huge potential to do something quite transformative.
The Committee on Climate Change has cautioned that there are policy areas where the Government need to flesh out the detail of how they will deliver on those aims of cutting our carbon emissions. We all know that there is no path to meeting our carbon emission target that does not involve the decarbonisation of industry. I want to focus on that in particular.
In 2016, industrial emissions fell, but largely due to the closure of the SSI steelworks in Redcar. Actually, energy prices played a huge role in the 2015 steel crisis. In the UK, our steel companies were paying 80% above the EU median cost for energy—that is a huge factor in one of the challenges that our steel industry faces—but we know that we cannot meet our emissions targets without looking at industry. No one wishes to see a repeat of the 2015 closure of the SSI steelworks in Redcar, which ended 175 years of a major industry that built the world by providing the steel that forged everything from the Sydney harbour bridge to the new Wembley stadium. The loss of 3,000 jobs had a devastating impact on an area with a proud heritage and a proud history of driving the industrial revolution through steel production and its many other energy-intensive industries. We do not want to reduce our emissions through that kind of crisis. Industrial decarbonisation, done in a properly sustained, managed and strategic way, is the way forward, and it is a clear priority in the Government’s strategy.
We already have good energy efficiency action plans for several sectors, including cement, ceramics, oil and chemicals. That is a really positive start, but we need to go much further to meet the challenge. One of the easiest and most cost-effective solutions is carbon capture and storage. As the Minister knows, Teesside is hugely ambitious about becoming one of Europe’s first clean industrial zones and using CCS to drive that. The Teesside Collective in my constituency is ready and waiting to start decarbonising UK industry.
Teesside is home to nearly 60% of the UK’s major energy users in the process and chemicals sectors. To keep those industries thriving and to retain jobs, investment and growth in our area in a low-carbon world, we need to be serious about cleaning up their emissions. The internationally renowned North East of England Process Industry Cluster represents chemicals-based industries across the region, but it is concentrated in Teesside. The sector generates £26 billion of sales and £12 billion of exports annually, and is the north-east’s largest industrial sector.
The chemicals sector is up against strong international competition. NEPIC estimates that CCS could create and safeguard almost 250,000 jobs in the next 30 to 40 years. The Committee on Climate Change has shown that CCS could virtually halve the cost to the UK of meeting emissions targets. The UK is especially well placed to be a leader in the industry, not least because of the storage space in depleted oilfields just off our coast. The Library estimates that CCS could sustain up to 60,000 jobs and deliver a £160 billion economic boost by 2050 if it were delivered along the east coast.
The Government have promised a CCS demonstration project, which I really welcome. Of course, I sincerely hope that it will be in Teesside, but wherever in the UK it is based, the most important thing is that it comes to fruition. We cannot lose another opportunity. The new £100 million commitment is a significant downgrade from the £1 billion of funding that the Government pulled from CCS in 2015. It is a cautious investment in a crucial technology, but I welcome it as an important step forward.
On Teesside, we are taking a couple of other approaches to improving energy efficiency and decarbonising. District heating has huge potential. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the role that it can play in reducing bills for both homes and businesses, and we are keen to deliver it on Teesside. We want to use our vast renewable energy resources, which the wind turbines off our coast make very visible, to support our energy intensive industries, and we want to continue to innovate, as we have done for more than 200 years. We want to use the carbon dioxide that is produced for useful projects, such as replacing oil with bio-resource. We have a huge number of plans afoot in Teesside. We are looking to work positively and constructively with the Government, and we welcome all the positive signals we have had from them so far.
The former SSI site in my constituency will be the focus of much of that work. Ben Houchen, the Tees Valley Mayor, issued a press release this week previewing an upcoming Government energy announcement about the site. We do not know any more than the details that appeared in the media, but they sound positive, and I welcome and support this. As the Minister knows, the former SSI site has huge potential for that kind of investment to help to fulfil our ambition of being a world leading clean industrial zone, and I do not hesitate to back it.
However, I am slightly concerned that we are racing ahead to make an announcement without necessarily having the means to follow it through. I would welcome more detail about that from the Minister. As she knows, the former SSI site is still in the hands of the Thai banks, and I am concerned that a premature announcement on what will happen on the site might push up its value and make it harder for us to negotiate with the banks and get the site out of their hands to enable us to carry out all our wonderful plans and projects. Any further information from the Minister would be gratefully received.
Finally, let me say something about our potential. Energy efficiency and clean growth are not only priorities for tackling climate change and poverty, but offer huge economic potential in jobs and investment in the UK. In areas such as mine, which lost 3,000 jobs overnight, every job is critical. We desperately need investment and growth. The UK energy efficiency sector already turns over £20.3 billion, employs 144,000 people and sells exports worth more than £1 billion. We are in a prime position, particularly in Teesside, further to increase the market and to export our skills and technology to the world. This is a chance to future-proof our industries, protect our jobs and create new ones, and ensure that areas such as Teesside can play as big a role in the industry of this country and the world in the future as they did in the past.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who has become the leading champion in this place for energy efficiency. She is at risk of being overtaken by the Minister, who is celebrated in all quarters of the energy industry. That is very welcome indeed.
This is a very important debate. I chuckled to myself at my hon. Friend’s reference to infrastructure projects being like boys with their toys. It is tempting when talking about energy policy to start with the wind turbines the size of the Eiffel tower in the North sea, the big nuclear power plants we are building or the transmission system. It is much less glamorous but no less important to talk about the other end of the system, where we can make huge differences in the amount of energy we use.
I happen to believe that six networks drive productivity in this country: road, rail, air, broadband, mobile and the energy system. The first five are discussed all the time in this place, but the energy system is talked about very rarely indeed. Energy got a rare outing this week, but in a consumer-focused debate about capping bills rather than in a debate about the wider energy system and potential productivity advantages.
A more energy-efficient system is important to our energy security. It was grimly predictable that, when National Grid released its warning about a squeeze on the gas supply last week, the headlines would scream stuff like, “Blackout Britain!”, and that the proposed solution would be more thermal generation from coal and gas. I argue that the solution is actually a more efficient energy system that allows demand to be shifted when those sorts of times come.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
Let me clarify for the record what happened last week. I was extremely concerned that consumers might be alarmed and worry about whether to cook their tea or turn their heating on. What happened was an entirely normal signalling: “Can anyone who is consuming lots of gas sell it back? We’ve got a spike, because we’ve got the coldest weather for a decade.” That system worked. Sufficient gas was provided. That is a tribute to our very flexible energy system.
At no point was domestic supply under threat. I have worked closely with National Grid to ensure that, should that ever happen again, those messages are put out much more quickly, because I do not want people to be worried about making those choices in their homes.
James Heappey
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she knows that she has my full, enthusiastic support on that point. The answer to what happened last week is not that we need more gas: actually, the system worked and demonstrated that there is flexibility. That more efficient, more flexible system brings with it energy security, and we should make that point robustly.
We should also be clear that a more efficient energy system brings with it reduced costs for consumers. Transmission and distribution costs are a not insignificant part of energy bills, so designing a more efficient system should be a priority. I will come back to that point shortly. It is not just price capping that can bring down bills for consumers: we could also find pretty significant savings in the costs of operating the energy system.
The other reason why we need a more efficient system is that, over the next 15 years or so, we will increase by an order of magnitude the demand we place on our electricity system. As we decarbonise heat and electricity, we will find ourselves significantly increasing the load, and the answer to that increased load cannot exclusively be more generation. We must seize the opportunity to create a more efficient energy system to meet that increased demand. For that, we must recognise that all of the clean tech coming along that allows for decentralised generation allows us to generate locally and use locally.
Rather than conceiving the national energy system as we see it at the National Grid control room in Wokingham, with its big map of the UK and its worrying about getting power from Hinkley Point to someone’s toaster, we should start to see it in terms of: what the net energy use is in someone’s home and whether they are putting energy back into the system or drawing down; and whether a community can service its energy needs and whether it is drawing from or exporting to the system.
The system would constantly balance upwards and, crucially, the distribution network operators would become distribution system operators, balancing the flows within their region. The national grid—if we need one in the future—would be left simply to balance the net flows of energy between the regions. If energy is generated and consumed locally, that must bring a significant reduction in distribution and transmission costs.
Of course, I recognise there will always be a requirement to socialise among all consumers the underpinning energy security that comes from a system that backs up when local systems fail. Such a system would bring huge reductions in bills and huge reductions in carbon—and frankly it would be an embracing of progress, given that all of this clean technology is coming down the tracks.
There is another area in which we could make the energy system more efficient: we should recognise that we waste a huge amount of energy in the form of heat. Remarkably few organisations that produce huge amounts of heat as a waste by-product yet understand their ability to monetise that heat. There are some brilliant pilot schemes that should inspire. London Underground has huge amounts of heat moving around its tunnel system underneath our capital city, and there are examples of it trying to get that heat out of the system and into heat networks on the surface. That is great, but such examples are relatively few and far between.
There are examples from heavy industry, where waste heat is being put into a heat network. Also, and this is a shameless plug: the shadow Minister and I—I will also demonstrate the non-partisan nature of the debate by referring to him as my hon. Friend—are both vice-presidents of the Association for Decentralised Energy, which told me the other week about a sugar factory in East Anglia, where waste heat and carbon is taken from the factory to greenhouses, where a prodigious amount of tomatoes are grown. That understanding of the value of the waste product and making energy usage more efficient should be an inspiration to companies all over the place.
There is also the electricity system itself. I understand from some of the distribution networks that the waste heat from the transformers when energy comes from the national grid into a distribution system is huge, and at the moment it goes out into the ether. Surely there is an opportunity to look at how that could be connected into heat systems.
At the Conservative party conference in Birmingham last year, a number of us were invited to go down to a combined heat and power plant beneath the library in Birmingham city centre. What is amazing in Birmingham is there is a network of CHPs—one underneath the library, one under New Street station and a couple of others in the city centre—that generate heat that is sold commercially to the hotels concentrated around the city centre at a cheaper rate than the hotels could get for themselves. The hotels therefore get a good deal and Birmingham business gets a good deal. However, Birmingham City Council, which put the network in place, also gets to sell cheap heat into the social housing immediately beyond the city centre. What I love is that the system is not just more efficient and therefore bringing down costs for business, but allowing for social justice by delivering far cheaper heating into the homes of those who can least afford to heat themselves.
That brings me to the domestic energy efficiency market, and first to those who are fuel-poor and unable to pay. Clearly, when it comes to our intervention, we must look at two types of energy efficiency to support those who are fuel-poor: barrier technology to avoid waste, putting stuff into windows, walls and roofs so that less electricity is required; and putting clean tech into homes, so that they have more efficient boilers and smart appliances, which also use less power. This is a completely non-partisan debate, but I adore the scheme in Scotland—and not just because it is called HEEPS, which was my school nickname. All power to the Scottish Government, who have one of the world’s leading domestic energy efficiency mechanisms—the home energy efficiency programmes for Scotland—in place. I hope we can be inspired by learning about what has been done north of the border.
There are opportunities to intervene. Yes, we can make the point that it is socially just to do so, but I hope the Treasury realises that it is financially sound, too. In the eight weeks of 2018 thus far, the Treasury has shelled out £56,282,500—roughly—in cold weather payments to those who live in fuel poverty. If we were to intervene aggressively to make those in fuel poverty live in better insulated, more energy-efficient homes, arguably that 56 million quid could have been reduced significantly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said, there are huge savings to be passed across to the NHS system and adult social care by ensuring that those who are fuel-poor, those most vulnerable and those living on the lowest incomes are in homes that are comfortable.
There are productivity gains to be had, too. If people live somewhere they can heat and they do not have to choose between heating and eating, they will be much more able to go out and get work, be motivated to be productive and get promotion, which will stop them being in a position where they are fuel-poor.
I have three more suggestions. The first is about the winter fuel allowance. I am aware that it is probably a bad idea to talk in the House of Commons about a universal benefit to pensioners, especially when as a result of this suggestion there is a chance that some will not get a payment any more. However, we might start to look at whether to set aside those who we class as being fuel-poor—those who have qualified for cold weather payments in the past couple of weeks, for example—and make sure they still get a winter fuel payment.
For the remainder, however, instead of giving cash to be used against an energy bill, could we start to give vouchers for that value with which they can improve their homes with energy efficiency measures? They would get the same amount, and I would argue passionately that over time they would be delivered a saving from their energy bills far in excess of what they currently get with the extra cash of the winter fuel allowance. More importantly still, whereas that allowance is given, spent and gone, with vouchers we would upgrade the housing stock of all the houses currently lived in by pensioners that, at some point in the future, will be lived in by people who are not pensioners. We would make an intervention using the existing universal benefit in an ever-so-slightly different way, which would stimulate economic activity—all these people would move into the supply chain to deliver those energy efficiency measures—and upgrade our housing stock permanently. We should consider that.
We also need to look at how we do EPCs and the standards we set for new homes. In hindsight, I think we on the Government side made a mistake in reducing the carbon standards for new built homes. However, even if we leave the standards as they are for the moment, please let us ensure that developers are building houses at the EPC level they say they are. There is too much discussion in this place of charities worrying about energy efficiency—they say that developers can say, “Everything we build that is ‘The James’ is an EPC band C. Therefore, wherever we build it, it is an EPC band C, even if we cannot guarantee those properties were built to the exact same standards as the type tested.”
We need to ensure that all of the hundreds of thousands of homes that the Government are commendably committed to building are built to the very highest standards—at the very least, to the standard it says they are built to in the brochure the developer provides at the point of sale.
Instead of EPCs simply being a mechanism for judging how efficient a property is in terms of its barrier technologies, or how well insulated the walls, windows, doors and roofs are, I wonder whether the Government might also consider how we might start to value the clean tech that might also have been put into the home. Clearly, some clean tech is removable; smart appliances may well be moved with the owner when they move house. But we have asked the energy companies to commit to having offered every consumer in the UK a smart meter by the early part of next decade, and by 2025, I think, we want all properties to be at band C. I wonder whether a requirement for reaching band C by 2025 should be that a band C house has a smart meter within it. That would catalyse the uptake of smart meters quite quickly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury has already mentioned the importance of getting energy efficiency, and therefore operation costs, factored into the affordability studies done by mortgage companies. Nothing will bring the value of energy efficiency to the attention of homeowners more. I declare an interest here, insomuch as I am on the phone to my mortgage broker quite often at the moment and spend a lot of time scouring Rightmove, but nothing motivates homeowners more than when they are going through the affordability study and the mortgage company or broker is asking about the bills.
There is a hugely frustrating moment when the mortgage broker asks, “And what do you spend on your household utilities at the moment?” and the homeowner says, “Probably about £200 a month, but within the house I am building there are solar panels on the roof, or solar PV on the roof, or I want to put those things on to the roof or to put in a heat pump,” and the mortgage broker just moves on to the next question and shows no interest whatever in what they have just been told.
Antoinette Sandbach
I have been converted, having installed an air source heat pump in a very old property in north Wales, with 75 mm of internal insulation. I can virtually heat the house on a candle—it is not quite that efficient, but it is close. What is more, I get money back in renewable heat incentive payments, which means that my total energy cost has gone from approximately £1,200 a year to about £600 a year. It is extraordinary. It is comfortable to live in; I know that if I walk through the door, it will be warm. It is incredibly efficient. There is a gas boiler that gives hot water on demand with no wastage and no heating up water unnecessarily. It makes a huge difference.
James Heappey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I suspect that we need collectively to convince our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that we can value energy efficiency and clean tech within buildings in a much better way. We must shift them away from an analysis that says that the affordability of a property is exclusively about what that property costs to own or rent. It is not; it is what that property costs to own, rent and then live in during the month that follows. With energy efficiency measures, we can significantly bring down what it costs to live in a house, and therefore make it more affordable, by more than the smaller savings we might have got from cutting a few corners with energy efficiency when the place was constructed in the first place.
I have now unloaded all my bright ideas into Hansard. I believe that we must embrace this agenda and see that the renewal of our energy system is about not just building big zero-carbon generation, but making an energy system that is more efficient, that sees the value in waste heat and looks at how we use that more efficiently, and that is re-geared so that it is localised and decentralised and we are balancing upward rather than downward.
We must see domestic energy efficiency as an opportunity to save consumers money in a far more meaningful, lasting and organic way than the price cap intervention, which we necessarily had to make this week, but which must only be short term. If we do all those things, we create economic activity and save money for both the Exchequer and, crucially, bill payers too.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) on her efforts to secure the debate. I find myself in agreement with many things that she and the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) have said.
We can hardly claim that our country has been a model of consistency in its approach to energy policy and energy efficiency over recent years. Changes from one Government to the next, and even significant changes within Governments, have come thick and fast, all of which has led to a rather unsettling period in our approach to the subject. I recall a series of parliamentary questions that I tabled only to try to ascertain when and how the Government would publish and then respond to the Bonfield review. It was as if I was trying to get blood out of a stone.
The review was finally published in December 2016. While I acknowledge that this Government seem set to embark on a particular course of action on energy efficiency and clean growth, there has been a lot of time lost and it is still not clear to me how the Government will achieve some of their ambitions. To the best of my knowledge, there has not yet been any real opportunity properly to scrutinise the proposals set out in the clean growth strategy. That is one reason today’s debate is so welcome.
The recent report by the independent climate change think tank E3G has highlighted the fact that public investment in energy-efficient homes in England has fallen; I think the figure I saw was that it had fallen by about 58% since 2012. That seems to flow from the coalition Government’s decision to end the Labour Government’s Warm Front scheme, which offered support to poorer households for better insulation and things such as boiler upgrades. Of course, we also experienced what I can safely call the disaster that was the green deal. According to E3G, Wales now spends twice as much as England per person on insulation, Northern Ireland three times as much and Scotland four times as much.
In my own region of the west midlands, fuel poverty is particularly acute. We have the highest level of fuel poverty in England, with about 13.7% of households—roughly 315,000 homes—classified as fuel-poor. The newly appointed Metro Mayor for the West Midlands combined authority has recognised the importance of carbon emission reductions and clean growth in his aims and objectives for the area. I am interested to see what he will do, when he comes forward with his plans, to translate those into tangible results.
My understanding—I am grateful to the Sustainable Housing Action Partnership for a very helpful briefing—is that there are a number of encouraging activities, especially at local authority level, attempting to build on previous initiatives in the west midlands, with the aim of achieving a breakthrough in demand for wholesale investment in high energy-efficient housing stock and other energy improvement and retrofitting schemes. I think the hon. Member for Wells referred to some of the things he had seen in Birmingham on his recent visit. However, SHAP is clear that, for real progress to be made in this area, there needs to be a strong promotion of housing as infrastructure, which is the very point that the hon. Member for Eddisbury made in her fine speech.
Indeed, SHAP actually looks favourably on some of the things that the hon. Member for Wells said he had seen in Scotland that had impressed him. It points out that that is exactly what they do in Scotland: energy efficiency is considered as infrastructure. A long-term commitment to energy efficiency schemes there seems to be leading to improved, high-quality planning, design and delivery schemes. There are things around that we could learn from, but they require some obvious courses of action: clear messages from the Government, access to investment, a long-term commitment and the seeing of these projects as infrastructure projects.
Energy efficiency is obviously a key part of the Government’s wider decarbonisation plans, as well as being one of the better ways to tackle fuel poverty. I hate to think what will happen when fuel bills land after the recent cold snap, and I wonder what we will learn in the coming months about the people who suffered during that period because of their fears over fuel poverty. I was grateful to the Minister for her clarification on the gas scare story, but one thing it exposed is how reliant we in this country have become on gas and how much of a need there is for greater diversity in our energy supply.
Other hon. Members and I are pleased to see the Government reaffirm their support for the EPC band C target for fuel-poor homes, and indeed their proposals to extend that to all rented homes. It is also good to know that the energy company obligation—ECO—will continue until 2028. However, we would all be helped immensely if the Minister put a little more meat on the bones. Is there an implementation plan to ensure that the band C target for all homes by 2035 will actually be achieved? What particular steps will the Minister take to achieve the band C target for social housing and private rented homes? What are her thoughts on phasing out high-carbon heating systems in homes? I would also like to know what is to be done to incentivise able-to-pay homeowners to make the necessary energy efficiency improvements to their homes; other Members have mentioned that issue.
James Heappey
I did not talk about the able-to-pay market, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has heard about companies that are starting to look at providing heat as a service? The consumer defines comfort, and the company then delivers that comfort, but the company takes responsibility for delivering energy efficiency into the consumer’s home because that is how it makes its margin when providing heat as a service.
Steve McCabe
I have heard about a scheme of that nature, but I have to confess that I do not know very much about it; I would be interested to learn a bit more. We definitely need to think about how we both improve energy efficiency and make it affordable for people who can afford it on paper, but who we know in practice can often find it difficult.
Antoinette Sandbach
One of the big problems is that many of those measures need to go in when back-to-the-brick restoration or work is done in the home, because putting in solid wall insulation internally requires re-wiring, re-plastering and many other things. There is therefore a need to incentivise homeowners who are making changes to their home to do so at the right time. I am not certain that I see that being incentivised by the Government at the moment.
Steve McCabe
I certainly agree. A lot of the low-hanging fruit has been picked and we are moving to a different level of problem, which I think gives us all the more reason to come up with practical, realistic incentives for that purpose.
As I say, it is good that ECO will continue until 2028. However, it is estimated that, to meet the 2030 fuel poverty target, the scheme requires funding of about £1.2 billion per year, as opposed to the current proposal to keep funding at about £640 million per year. I am curious to know how the Minister thinks she can meet that target with a projected funding shortfall of roughly 50%.
A further concern about ECO is that it is essentially a regressive funding mechanism. It pays for installing efficiency measures in fuel-poor homes by increasing energy bills across the board, which negatively impacts low-income customers who do not themselves benefit from the scheme. It seems analogous to the arguments about the cost of the smart meter programme, in that the cost of that is spread across all bills but without all people gaining the same benefits. That is something I have been looking at with some interest for a while now.
The hon. Member for Wells was looking for a way to vary the funding, and he talked about what might be done with the winter fuel allowance. I agree with the UK Energy Research Centre, whose recent report recommended that the environmental and social levies, including ECO, should be funded through general taxation rather than increased energy bills, which they claim would save the poorest 10% of households £102 per year while the vast majority of people would see no change to the amount they pay for environmental and social levies.
Claire Perry
This is a very interesting question, and I intervene to address things that I am not sure I will have time to come to at the end. This point has come up a couple of times, and I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, bill payers and taxpayers are generally the same people; we pay out of our pockets for both. Secondly, the problem we all have, as he will know, is that, regardless of which party is in power, it is difficult to hypothecate taxes for particular measures.
Some might argue—I mean no disrespect to our wonderful civil servants—that the Government are not the most efficient deliverer of such schemes. I will talk in closing about the reforms to ECO that we want to bring forward. However, getting energy companies, which know who the customers are, to target that money effectively and to commission and deliver what are often very valuable energy-saving measures for our poorest and most fuel-poor people seems to me a far more efficient way of delivering what we all want, which is people not living in fuel poverty.
Steve McCabe
I will certainly not argue with the Minister that the Government might not be the most efficient deliverer of schemes. I obviously concur with her on that.
My point to the Minister is that general taxation is usually graduated to some extent, whereas a figure applied to bills across the board is effectively a flat-rate tax. In that way, it has a regressive impact, which is the point I was making. I am certainly open to other ways of looking at this, and I hope we will hear from the Minister—I hope there will be plenty of time to hear it—that there are other ways that this can be looked at, and that the Government are open to them.
In its response to the clean growth strategy, the UK’s Committee on Climate Change said that an ambitious energy efficiency action plan for able-to-pay households is urgently needed, as well as a robust policy framework including incentives and firm commitments. It also recommend that we need some concrete proposals in place by 2019 if we are going to make real progress. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to those points.
I want to mention a couple of other things. The committee also says that action is needed in the private rented sector and that stronger regulations are needed. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury says, we need to find ways to incentivise homeowners to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. Fiscal incentives could include council tax rebates, cutting VAT on energy efficiency measures or a stamp duty rebate. As early as 2005, the Energy Saving Trust published research on the use of fiscal incentives involving council tax and stamp duty, and since then many other organisations have developed thinking on how fiscal incentives for energy efficiency could work, so there is not exactly a shortage of potential levers. I agree with the Minister that the process is not straightforward, but quite a lot of things could be considered and it would be good to hear where the thinking is going.
I would recommend that, alongside the fiscal incentives, the Government start to encourage other schemes. We should look again at the idea of zero or certainly reduced-rate loans, taxpayer-funded grants and mortgage-linked cashback schemes, to which I think the hon. Member for Eddisbury referred.
Something in which I am interested and that requires exploration is equity release schemes. They might be a promising vehicle for energy efficiency, because they would allow homeowners to withdraw some capital from their home for improvements that they would need to pay for only when or if they sold their home. Those schemes are considered suitable in particular for older, equity-rich homeowners—perhaps the kind of people the hon. Lady had in mind when talking about the scale of work that would be done.
Those people own quite a significant proportion of the country’s housing stock. Of course, they do not necessarily have money readily available for improvements, but they do have considerable equity. The Government should build on the work being done in Scotland. I would like to see an attempt at least to pilot an equity release scheme in England, and I would be interested to know whether the Minster is thinking about that.
The private rented sector has some of the worst properties for energy efficiency in the UK. Despite targets being introduced seven years ago to bring all rented properties up to EPC band E by 2020, 6% of private rented homes are estimated still to be in bands F or G. That equates to about 280,000 residences, which are often occupied by the poorest families—people who are forced into choosing between eating and heating. Shockingly, cold homes were found to be a bigger killer across the UK in 2015 than road accidents, alcohol or drugs.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is introducing new minimum standards—from April, I think—stating that no home can be rented out if it is below EPC band E. However, the regulation includes a “no cost to the landlord” principle, meaning that if the landlord says that they cannot afford to make improvements or that they cannot get access to the energy company obligation scheme, they do not have to do that. I do not understand the rationale for that loophole. I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter, especially in the light of the questions about the availability of the ECO scheme.
As well as setting targets, the Government need to provide effective legislation and regulation, ensure that the financial frameworks are in place to incentivise able-to-pay households and ensure that private landlords are obliged to invest in their properties. It seems to me that there is a degree of agreement across the House on these matters. If we saw some progress on them, we could have much greater confidence that the Government would achieve their ambitions, and the twin aims of decarbonisation and energy efficiency, with the knock-on effect on the fuel-poor, would be things on which we could realistically expect to see significant progress.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I, too, commend my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for securing the debate. Many contributions have focused on domestic energy efficiency, and I will touch on that, but I also want to broaden the debate and talk about energy efficiency in the commercial and industrial market, which is crucial if we are to meet our emissions targets.
The clean growth strategy was introduced last year by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy with the express intention of accelerating the pace of clean growth, allowing the UK to meet its greenhouse gas emissions targets while ensuring that we maintain the strong economic growth that has been a key success of the Conservative Government during the past eight years. It is worth noting that the clean growth strategy has been introduced not to address an issue, but to improve, accelerate and maximise an already successful set of Government policies.
Since 1990, the UK’s GDP has increased by 67%, while emissions have gone down by 42%. In comparison, the G7’s GDP has increased by 61%, but its emissions have gone down by only 3%. That shows that the UK has led the way in growing the economy without jeopardising the environment. To put that another way, protecting our environment need not undermine our economy.
The argument that environmental protection is incompatible with a thriving economy holds little water. Our success in creating more jobs while reducing emissions shows that we need not choose between economic growth and environmental measures. The UK is therefore clearly right to seek to maximise the economic benefits of our transition to a low-carbon economy.
With regard to Scotland, energy efficiency was of course devolved in 2016, but energy policy is still a reserved matter. Particularly important for Scotland is the recognition of the importance of carbon capture and storage to decarbonising UK heat, industry and power. That has been mentioned by Opposition Members. For Scotland, CCS is a vital tool to reduce emissions, and the Minister should be commended for putting it firmly back on the Government’s agenda.
In the UK, we have world-leading oil and gas skills and infrastructure—predominantly based in the north-east of Scotland—which could be perfectly suited to CCS. However, the opportunity to repurpose many of those assets before decommissioning is diminishing. That is why putting the clean growth strategy into action now is vital for the UK as a whole. The economic benefits of CCS to Scotland and the east coast of England combined have recently been estimated at more than £163 billion during the next 60 years, making it imperative that we maximise this opportunity.
It is therefore worth considering the Caledonia Clean Energy Project, which could be well placed to kick-start the UK CCS industry. The Caledonia Clean Energy Project would see the development in Scotland of crucial low-carbon infrastructure that not only provided clean, reliable power to up to 1.3 million homes, but facilitated the decarbonisation of Scotland’s major industrial hub, Grangemouth. If that were not enough, the project could also produce enough clean hydrogen every day to power about 500 hydrogen-fuelled buses.
There is not a strict definition of energy efficiency at industrial level, but surely a helpful one would be the sort of energy efficiency that not only helped the UK to lower its emissions and meet emissions targets, but put the UK at the forefront of economic innovation in the energy market.
It is clear that Scotland specifically has the exciting potential to be a major part of the clean growth strategy, but if there is one criticism that can be levelled at the strategy, it is that it does not provide the sufficiently clear policy signal that investors in CCS need to justify what could be multiple billions of pounds of inward investment in the UK and Scotland. It is important to remember that although energy efficiency is devolved—we have heard here today examples of best practice in England and in Scotland—energy policy is still a reserved matter. That is why having a joined-up strategy that goes across the UK is so important—to ensure that we can pool our resources.
Where we have large energy assets such as nuclear, wind—we have world-leading wind farms in the North sea—and oil and gas, we can pool our resources, but we can also leverage some of the research and innovation that the UK is so famous for to promote micro energy efficiency and energy generation schemes and decentralised projects across the UK. The clean growth strategy seeks to promote that and it is a UK-wide strategy, which I very much welcome.
I would like the Minister to comment on how the clean growth strategy could deliver commercial-scale carbon capture to Scotland and other parts of the UK, before the oil and gas infrastructure is decommissioned and our best offshore engineers move abroad to work in other markets. Will she meet me and other Scottish Conservative colleagues to discuss the matter further?
As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), we should be looking at a number of different energy measures. As a strategy, it is right that we look at both the top level and the micro level. I will not repeat some of the points so articulately put by my hon. Friend when talking about decentralised energy schemes and micro energy schemes, but I will just add some of the geothermal schemes. Certainly in my constituency, in Clackmannanshire, we have been looking at former mines and whether it is possible to use them as sources of geothermal heat.
Claire Perry
As a matter of principle, it would be a pleasure to meet with anybody. As everyone knows, my door is open. Secondly, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and I had that conversation only this week. I suspect that many people know about this whole geothermal mine water thing. I am really interested in this technology. If there are groups out there that are interested in promoting this and suggesting what can be done in a cost-effective way, bring it on. Let us look at what we have actually done—we have already dug the holes—and see whether we can get some more benefit for those communities.
Luke Graham
I thank the Minister for her intervention. Fortuitously, Clackmannanshire is up for a city deal, so there would never be a better time for her to come and get involved in these energy projects. I will definitely be following up with her on that as soon as we leave Westminster Hall.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
As we are all getting on this afternoon, I should like to invite the hon. Gentleman to come and see me in Southampton, to look at its geothermal energy scheme, which has been going since 1984. Unfortunately, it is still the only one in the country, but I trust that, with the Minister’s good offices, the geothermal schemes that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned could shortly get under way to join Southampton in its geothermal pioneering position. I really do commend what he is thinking about for geothermal. I think a lot of development is possible in terms of both mines and aquifers. I hope he will continue on his path of supporting that.
Luke Graham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and will gladly take up his invitation.
Antoinette Sandbach
Given the new Thornton campus in Cheshire, which is specialising in geothermal, may I suggest that on the way to Southampton from Scotland my hon. Friend call in to see some of the leading research that is being done at the University of Chester on the opportunities for geothermal and how we can roll that out much further across the country?
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Mr Graham is now going to make some progress.
Luke Graham
I thank my hon. Friend for her kind intervention and, again, invitation. I would certainly be keen to visit both places, as my constituency arrangements allow.
Scotland has been at the forefront of every major industrial development in the UK, from the industrial revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries, to oil and gas in the 20th and 21st, so it has undoubtedly contributed to the UK’s emissions over the years, but it has fantastic potential, through infrastructure and existing expertise, to be the leader on the clean growth strategy in the UK, and to drive the UK as a global leader in economic growth through emissions reductions. I urge the Minister to put the entire UK at the centre of the Government’s clean growth strategy in the months and years ahead.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. We should all be friends in this Chamber today. I warmly welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) has initiated this important and overdue debate. It is something of a scandal that the subject has not been debated for so many years. In this warm debate, I will give the Minister only a couple of bits of heat, which have actually been generated by the contributions of others, while I try to go through the constructive discussion we have had.
First, the hon. Member for Eddisbury rightly raised the issue of fuel poverty. She talked about the fact that this is an issue for many people, particularly in rural areas where lower incomes are more common and costs are higher. The weather is often less favourable and less warm. That is especially true for off-grid customers. In the highlands and islands, distribution charges mean 4p per unit more for customers than other parts of the UK, which is a particular additional problem. I call on the UK Government, as we have called on Ofgem and energy companies, to end this inequality without—importantly—increasing the cost for others: it can and should be done.
The hon. Lady also mentioned energy efficiency and the massive strides that need to be taken towards climate change goals. I was interested in her proposition about mortgage providers providing an incentive. That merits investigation, but I would insert a word of caution there. The measures used would have to be carefully thought out, because we do not want to see the unintended consequence that people who are trying to get on the housing ladder and get their first home are effectively priced out of the market by measures that may not be appropriate for their area and its housing stock. It is worth investigating, but I urge some caution.
The hon. Lady was quite right in saying that the onus should be on new developments to provide more efficient properties. Developers should take that up. I was caught by her comment that she was shivering in her home in London. I think it is quite unusual for people in London to find themselves shivering in their houses. When I was down in my flat last week, although we benefit from a district heating scheme, the insulation is so bad that it was actually very cold in the flat, because the heat was flying out of the windows. That is a good example of what happens. Is it not also the case, however, that that gives us an insight into what people in fuel poverty have to put up with throughout pretty much the whole of the winter? It is a good lesson for us to take away: we should be aware of the genuine suffering that people face through cold.
The hon. Lady, in her very good speech, said that energy efficiency measures should be thought of as infrastructure. I think that is a good idea, which is overdue for consideration. The Minister should take that into account, particularly in the light of the great heat challenge that we will have in the coming decades. It is an important suggestion, which should be taken forward. Of course, investment in energy efficiency creates jobs. That is a great thing to do not only socially and morally but for the economy. I think that is an important point to make.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) talked about not being able to meet emissions targets without taking on the industrial effects, and she was absolutely correct. Industrial decarbonisation has to be accelerated. The whole strategy needs to be given a lot more—if Members will pardon the pun—energy, and the attention that it needs.
The hon. Lady quite rightly talked about carbon capture and storage, and about the Teesside Collective and the investment that is required. She should be commended for fighting for her constituency in that way, particularly given the issues over steel. Happily, in Scotland we were able to save the steel industry, with the Scottish Government working with Liberty Steel to take over the plants in Lanarkshire. It dramatically affects the wellbeing of industrial neighbourhoods if they lose that significant number of jobs, and they should be prioritised for reinvestment. However, we should be wary—this is one of the points of contention with the Minister—of promises of investment in carbon capture, because in Peterhead the Chancellor said that we would invest £1 billion in carbon capture and storage, but the rug was pulled away from underneath that project and it was left without that funding. It will be interesting to see the Minister not only make those commitments but follow through on commitments for the different projects. I will return to that point when I respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham).
The hon. Member for Redcar talked about district heating, which has to come through far more importantly and strongly to support communities. There are great benefits to district heating schemes if they are got right. She and the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) also talked about renewable energy, which is very important in both industrial and domestic energy in taking the challenge forward.
Another bone of contention that I have with the Minister —perhaps she will tell us what she will do about it—is the shabby treatment of the solar industry. Energy efficiency in commercial and industrial properties could have been greatly enhanced by supporting the solar industry, yet Government policy has withdrawn that support. Investments in new solar projects have dramatically declined—they have fallen off the scale—so I hope that the Minister will have an answer on how it can be supported.
Heeps—sorry, the hon. Member for Wells—said that big infrastructure was “toys for boys”. On International Women’s Day, it is worth pausing to reflect on that and say to the Minister, as I and others have before, that we need to encourage more girls and young women into the energy industry so that, large, small or however the infrastructure is designed, it is no longer “toys for boys” but “toys for boys and girls”. It is important we continue to challenge the language that we use, although I know that was meant in the best possible way.
The hon. Gentleman also discussed whether the domestic supply was near to crisis. I know the Minister answered that point; but I will pose the slight warning that, owing to capacity, people in off-grid areas came perilously close to running out. Some in my constituency of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey actually did run out of liquefied petroleum gas during that period. It was not job done. I appreciate what the Minister said, but there needs to be more focus on off-grid gas customers to ensure that we support them. I would welcome a comment on that either now or later.
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman and I, and I suspect others in the Chamber, share exactly the same off-grid problem. It is a problem of effective supply. At the moment, heating oil is relatively cheap, but a couple of years ago the price was going through the roof, so we end up with unmanageable spikes in demand, although we have many collective buying schemes. He knows that one of the ambitions of the clean growth strategy is to phase out fossil fuel heating for new build in off-grid areas—it is simply ridiculous that we continue to put oil boilers in—and to look at how we create a cost-effective technological pathway. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) has installed a heat pump, which, as she mentioned, can require a lot of reworking of a home, which may not be cost-effective. We are all collectively determined to solve this problem. To me, the answer lies in investment, innovation and creating some good routes to market.
Drew Hendry
I thank the Minister for that intervention. I understand that she wants to create solutions, but the proof will be in the pudding. I look forward to seeing what tangible measures come forward.
The hon. Member for Wells also talked about comfortable homes improving productivity. It is absolutely true. Studies have shown that in cold homes, children’s educational attainment is held back. He is right to point out that people are more productive when they have reasonable places to live in, and we give our children the best possible start in life when we give them warm homes to live in and have their education in.
The hon. Gentleman made very salient points, which I was delighted to hear. The voucher scheme for fuel-poor households is a really good thing to follow up—it is another idea that has merit and deserves further investigation. If something could be produced on that level, it could help a number of people and, as he said, improve housing stock. A measure that could improve things right away is the rapid acceleration of the programme to put the latest generation of smart meters into homes. A lot more needs to be put in to ensure that that happens much more quickly.
James Heappey
The key to getting smart meters into people’s homes is not only that the technology will allow all sorts of smart solutions that will bring down energy bills for people who are using less, but that the new tariffs being brought forward by the insurgent energy companies and based around half-hourly settlement will allow people to access cheaper bills because they will be in a better market. The more that we can all, on both sides of the House, encourage smart meter deployment, the better job we will be doing for our constituents.
Drew Hendry
The hon. Gentleman makes a very salient point. It is important that we encourage these measures, especially for people living in poor households, because they are less likely to take this up off their own backs. A focused programme and looking at how we incentivise this rapid uptake for poor households is very important.
Steve McCabe
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and others about the potential of the smart meter programme. Does he concede that at the moment the problem is that it costs households? They do not know how much it is costing them, because the Government will not release those figures, and we do not know how much the Data Communications Company is costing. At the moment, while the potential is there, we have a programme that looks as though it is not on track and could lead to an inflation of energy bills, rather than savings for people.
Drew Hendry
That is something to be aware of. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and look forward to the Minister’s response.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned home insulation, which must be taken forward much more rapidly—I know I am using that word a lot today, but it is important because this is somewhere where we can make a real difference very quickly. In Scotland, as he pointed out, there is four times the progress on insulation. I make that point because it is important to thank the people, in particular in organisations such as Warmer Homes Scotland, who have been on the ground, working with consumers and making the breakthroughs by talking to people and persuading them to take on the new measures. If any hon. Member in the Chamber or anyone else wants to look at that, they will see the fantastic work being done.
Luke Graham
The Warmer Homes scheme was a fantastic initiative. I know that some of the terms changed in 2017 because a number of constituency cases were brought to me, with people sometimes being disadvantaged. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in working on addressing some of those issues to ensure we are still reaching as many people as we can?
Drew Hendry
I will come in a moment or two to what the Scottish Government are doing.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) talked about energy efficiency schemes, and in Scotland some of those are changing the housing landscape. I want to point out one of the commercial companies, a private developer from the north of Scotland: Springfield Properties. It is not only looking at more energy efficiency measures in its buildings, but in Perthshire, where it has a new development of thousands of homes, it is putting in electric vehicle charging points for every single house. That is a very innovative thing for a private developer to be doing, adding to the fact that Scotland is leading the way in electric charging for vehicles.
James Heappey
The hon. Gentleman is making another important point. At the moment, when new houses are built in England, I think they are being built with 2 kV or 3 kV fuse boards, but an EV requires an 11 kV fuse board. I do not understand why we are building hundreds of thousands of houses with electrical connectivity that is insufficient to charge at full flow cars that are very likely to dominate the market in future. I hope that our friends at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will amend that part of housing policy quickly.
Drew Hendry
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I share his hope that people are listening to the need to adjust those things. To achieve the outcome of improving homes, making them ready for the future through energy efficiency and tackling the clean growth challenge, it is important to take a holistic view.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak about introducing grants, loans and measures to help people to gain energy efficiency but, again, it is always good to look at those kinds of ideas with real caution. His talk about an equity release scheme should give us pause for thought about its unintended consequences. It is a good idea that merits investigation, but we need to reflect on whether it is a position that only people with assets could access and whether we would be forcing people to release those assets, instead of promoting it as a core policy across the board.
I hoped that I would not have any heat from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, as is usual in exchanges between near-neighbours in Scotland, but he bravely brought up the carbon capture and storage challenge. I will not repeat my words to the Minister earlier, but in a positive sense, I ask her whether she will support the Scottish Government’s commitment to developing carbon capture in St Fergus. What will she do to put real weight behind that Acorn project?
My cheeky word of caution, which is in fact not cheeky but factual, is that in the vast majority of city deals in Scotland, the UK Government have failed to match the Scottish Government’s funding. If a city deal comes forward, I hope the hon. Gentleman’s constituency gets its fair share, unlike Aberdeen and Inverness.
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman and I debate Acorn and St Fergus frequently. I will double-check the numbers, but my understanding is that the UK Government have put in £1.6 million and the Scottish Government have committed a welcome £100,000. We are absolutely keen to support those projects and we continue to be a major investor in all sorts of levels of carbon capture and storage; I will address CCS and its future in my closing remarks. I will double-check those numbers and write to him, but I am confident that we have already committed several multiples of what the Scottish Government have to that project—and quite rightly.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
We are all looking forward to the Minister’s closing remarks.
Drew Hendry
I have not even got to the bulk of my speech, but I will try to speed up. I was getting to the end of my responses to hon. Members’ comments, which I was certain we had time for.
I will finish on a positive remark about the comments made by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire. I am pleased to say that geothermal investigation has been embraced around the Chamber. I am sure that he will support the delivery of the Scottish Government’s ambition for accelerated clean growth in Scotland.
To aid the debate, I will cast aside some of my notes. As we have heard in this debate, much more needs to be done on energy efficiency. In my meetings with energy companies and climate change activists, they all agree on one principle: not enough is done for energy efficiency in our homes and businesses across the nations of the UK. Old housing stock is part of that huge challenge.
On new housing stock, I was struck by the comments in an intervention about new heating systems and new ways of looking after buildings that can reduce costs for people. When I was the leader of the Highland Council, I was pleased to be involved in a Highland housing fair, which adopted a housing development model from Finland. Some houses on that scheme were so innovative that it was reckoned that they would have average energy costs of about £2 per year, so it can be done with the right will. They have been sold now, so someone who wanted to see them would probably have to knock on the householder’s door. It was a good project, and the Minister might want to consider more innovation like that.
I will skip a page of my notes. We welcome the industrial energy efficiency accelerator, but we look for more detail from the Minister. We want to see how that will move forward.
My conclusion will not be too lengthy, but I will touch on some things that are happening in Scotland. Energy efficiency has been mentioned several times; it is fundamental to Scotland’s meeting its ambitious climate change targets. The Scottish energy efficiency programme route map—I am sorry to tell the hon. Member for Wells that its name is now SEEP rather than HEEPS—will be published in May 2018.
Last December, the Scottish Government published their energy strategy, which will strengthen the development of local energy projects, empower customers and support Scotland’s climate change ambitions, while tackling poor energy provision. Our ambition to improve the energy efficiency of Scotland’s buildings is central to our efforts to tackle fuel poverty.
On 28 February, the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform published the “Climate Change Plan, Third Report on Proposals and Policies 2018-2032”, which details how the Scottish Government will meet their emissions target of 80% by 2032. With the Climate Change Bill, Scotland is sending a message that it is the place to do low-carbon business, which seems to be endorsed around the Chamber.
Energy efficiency is fundamental to Scotland. Heating and cooling Scotland’s homes and businesses costs £2.6 billion a year, and accounts for just under half the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. In June 2015, the Scottish Government announced that they would take long-term action to reduce the energy demand of residential services and industrial sectors by designating energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority. Again, something that has been called for in the debate has already been done in Scotland. That was subsequently confirmed in the Scottish Government’s “Infrastructure Investment Plan 2015”.
Would you believe, Mr Walker, that I am going to cut my remarks considerably short? I wanted to go into a lot more detail about what is happening in Scotland, but given the response in the Chamber today, there is plenty of incentive for the Minister to look at that in detail.
As the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, it would be remiss of me not to mention a wonderful development: the Scottish Government’s dualling of the A9 between Perth and Inverness. The A9 is set to become the world’s—well, Scotland’s—electric highway because of the Scottish Government’s investment in ensuring that it has rapid charging points all the way along. It will be a real boon for the electric vehicle proposition in Scotland, and it is just the start of much more work that will be done there.
The debate has been very constructive, and I thank the hon. Member for Eddisbury for introducing it. There is still an awful lot of work to be done, but hopefully the debate has given the Minister a bag full of ideas to take forward and develop in future.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
We have had an excellent debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) on securing it and on her excellent contribution, which was a superb setting-out of the imperatives of securing energy efficiency in homes and what flows from that.
What happens to fuel poverty, if we systematically insulate our homes to an acceptable standard? What happens to bills in the future, and what happens, as the hon. Member for Eddisbury pointed out, to the amount of fuel that we are consuming in our homes? She estimated that a 25% or so reduction in gas as a result of insulating our homes to an acceptable standard has all sorts of knock-on effects for the wider climate change debate. As she also said, that is reflected in the clean growth strategy ambition and targets that ideally we should be aiming for as far as insulation in all homes is concerned, and in the earlier target of insulation up to band C for homes in fuel poverty.
I very much commend the target in the clean growth plan, but how do we get to that target? That was also a part of the hon. Lady’s and other hon. Members’ contributions this afternoon. We ought to dwell on that as something that we can all sign up to and aspire to. There is a long gap between that aspiration, where we are now and what has happened in recent times with energy efficiency and what we now have to do to close that gap. Among other things, we must make sure that we fulfil our climate budget obligations and make sure that what comes into those climate budgets from the energy efficiency contribution is as good as it can be.
Having congratulated the hon. Member for Eddisbury on her contribution, I want to add a slight note of sadness. Perhaps we should have all sat on one side of the Chamber this afternoon and addressed our comments to all the rest out there who did not turn up to the debate and who quite often do not engage with this issue. We might have collectively addressed the importance of energy efficiency not only in domestic buildings but in commercial and industrial buildings. It is important to work together to address climate change, fuel poverty and all those other targets to make sure we sort them out. Today’s debate has reflected the collective and consensual activity that we ought to organise among all of us, provided all those other people along the road support the Minister in what she is doing for energy efficiency. The Opposition party must have the very best policies so that when our turn comes to govern, we have a clear understanding of where we need to get to, what we have to do and how we support and fund it. That is a job of work for all of us in this Chamber to get ourselves involved in.
The elision of energy efficiency and the clean growth plan in this debate highlights one of the central issues that will make or break our approach to making sure that our obligations under the fourth and fifth carbon budget can be met. I have said on various occasions that the really good news about the clean growth strategy is that it encompasses all of those things. The bad news is that the clean growth plan itself does not get us to where we need to go in terms of our obligations under the fifth carbon budget. I think the Minister accepts and understands that and has, I hope, substantial plans to add to the measures in the clean growth plan to get us to the fifth carbon budget target. However, I do not think we need to come up with a lot of brand new ideas to do that. We need to make sure that what is in the clean growth plan is funded and sorted out at the earliest possible stage and on the widest possible canvas so that when we come to put the sums together we will see that they add up as we go down the line.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough, along with other hon. Members this afternoon, what we need to do to meet the target for energy efficiency in homes. The hon. Members for Eddisbury and for Wells (James Heappey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) all emphasised the components of the action that we need to undertake with regard to energy efficiency. The hon. Member for Eddisbury emphasised how clear-eyed we need to be about what it will cost us and how it will be financed, but, once that cost has been met, there will be benefits in the end. We need to understand that that is a pretty good cost-benefit analysis over the long term.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak reminded us not only about how the cost will be borne, but by what parts of Government it will be borne. He drew attention to how matters stand under the clean growth plan of action. I believe that there is shortly to be a Government publication on the plan for the next phase of ECO and how that will have its impact on energy efficiency. We have to be clear that even if ECO is extended out to 2028, at its present level of funding that will get us nowhere near to the numbers that we need to be energy efficient. There are still 7 million homes out there—the non-cavity wall and hard-to-treat homes—that have a far higher unit cost of treatment than what we might call the lower-hanging fruit of loft and wall insulations, a lot of which have already been done around the country.
Since some of the measures taken by the previous Labour Government on area-based schemes, including the enveloping of some hard-to-treat homes, there has been a 58% drop in treatments related to energy efficiency. I do not blame the present Minister for that drop. I know that she is committed to turning that around and getting a far greater number of treatments undertaken, but we have to face the fact that that is what has happened in recent years. We are starting our road back towards energy efficiency from a fairly low and, in some senses, rather dispiriting base.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak reminded us that when it comes to funding the changes it is extremely unlikely that we will be able to do it by heaping obligation on obligation in customers’ energy bills. I want to go further and remind hon. Members that we are assuming at the moment that action will be taken in a range of areas by means of obligations on companies, which will be passed on to customers in their bills. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we assume that the cost of the smart meter roll-out will go on customers’ bills, because the obligation on energy companies to fund them will be passed on. The capacity market for procuring standby energy supply and new forms of conventional energy supply is, effectively, an obligation that is passed on to customers in their bills. The contracts for difference that we have already are also based on such an obligation—the renewables obligation—and the additional £557 million that is in the budget for further offshore wind. The warm home discount is in the same boat. If, as I understand the present plan to be, the energy company obligation is extended to 2028, that will also be based on a continuing obligation—it is in the name—that will go on to customers’ bills. Recently what was effectively a grant from Government to energy-intensive industries was converted to an exemption, which is to be funded by a levy on customer bills. There is a raft of such levies, and the number is increasing.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury set out some recent figures from, I think, Frontier Economics, and said that they were the likely real annual cost of getting us to an acceptable level, close to the target in the clean growth strategy. Her figure was £1.1 billion. From recollection, although I do not have the Frontier Economics report before me, that figure is a net one, arrived at after taking into account other contributions, including local authority and, as other hon. Members have mentioned, landlord contributions. The hon. Member for Wells—perhaps in future we can refer to him as the hon. Member for HEEPS—mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak emphasised, the fact that landlords may make a contribution, but if they say they cannot afford it or get into ECO, they will effectively be given a free pass.
There should be a minimum merchantable standard for property for rent. Although it is true in theory that at the moment the landlord should not be able to let property below that standard, which would be band E in this instance, the remedy is enforcement at local authority level. We know what the situation is as to enforcement at the moment, given local authority resources.
Landlords do not necessarily have to stick at band E if they have spent, I think, £2,500. If they cannot get on ECO, they get a free pass. I do not think that that should be regarded as acceptable in the next 10 to 20 years. The landlord contribution should be doubled—and, indeed, the Frontier Economics report suggests a landlord contribution of £5,000 being factored in to the figures mentioned by the hon. Member for Eddisbury.
However, the issue is not only about that. If someone said, “I am letting out this hotel room, which has no glass in the windows, has cockroaches all over the place and has no sheets on the bed, but is quite cheap,” trading standards and various other people would be all over it. We need to get into the idea that a house being let in the rented sector with poor energy efficiency is a non-merchantable product and should be seen as such. A key part of a drive to make firm progress on energy efficiency is making sure that rentals in that sector are made on the basis of merchantable properties with good energy efficiency.
The figure that the hon. Member for Eddisbury mentioned can be upped a little in view of all the contributions. It comes to a round total of, I think, £1.8 billion. That is certainly what our party would commit to as the sort of expenditure needed to get to the level in question. I cannot see that that can be found by increasing obligations on bill payers over the next period. It must come from central taxation.
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman is a sensible, intelligent man, but what he is saying presupposes that the prices never change. However, the reason we no longer have to invest so much of the £557 million in offshore wind is that prices tumbled precipitously, giving us more bang for our buck and enabling us perhaps to buy technologies that are further in the market.
Part of the clean growth strategy is trying to take that investment spend—the innovation spend that the Government are setting out—so that we can drop the prices of technologies significantly, and so that they no longer require a burden on the bill payer or the taxpayer, because they are sufficiently cheap. The benefits in reduced energy costs that my hon. Friends described mean they pay for themselves. Please would the hon. Gentleman get out of the world of equating the amount of money that the Government spend with the result that we need? It is actually a matter of how we deliver the most homes, well insulated and cheap to run, most affordably.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister is right, in that, obviously, area-based efficiency measures that uprate an entire area lead to economies of scale. Far more houses can be treated in that way than by cherry-picking individual houses in different places and dealing with them one by one.
Claire Perry
That is true, but surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that other people’s money will be better used if the underlying price per installation has fallen because of a completely different approach to cavity wall insulation or investment in solar-reflective paint, which is a technology being rolled out in other parts of the world—in other words, if we are looking at more cost-effective and innovative ways of doing things, so that the same amount of money buys far more installations on a per-unit basis.
Dr Whitehead
I surely do. On the basis of what the Committee on Climate Change says, the current ECO commitment falls way short of the levels of treatment we need if we are to get anywhere near our 2035 targets. Even the £1.8 billion figure that has been cited will not cover a complete series of treatments for houses in the UK. I suggest that making our treatments much more efficient—by doing them on an area basis, for example—would allow us to get much closer to our target for the same money. We can probably agree that £1.8 billion will be the sort of money that will get us there, but an efficient approach could get us so much further, which I would completely support.
As the hon. Members for Eddisbury and for Wells and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak emphasised, enveloping energy-efficient homes area by area needs to be funded from the infrastructure budget. It may not look like big boys’ toys, but it is absolutely an infrastructure project and ought to be treated as such by the Government. That would have a number of advantages for costs of capital, borrowing and all the rest of it; as the Minister says, we could make even more houses efficient for the same investment.
I appreciate that I have gone on rather longer than I intended, but let me briefly say a few words about the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham). They both drew attention to the role that CCS can play, as did the hon. Member for Wells—or rather for HEEPS. I thoroughly endorse that line of thinking on CCS, but I must point out that as far as the clean growth strategy is concerned, £100 million will not get us anywhere near our CCS target, just as our ECO commitment will not get us anywhere near our energy efficiency target.
I congratulate Teesside on its comprehensive approach, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar has been centrally involved. Teesside could be an absolute exemplar for the rest of the country in its combination of intensive industry with CCS and its by-products. That is very important for realisation of the clean growth strategy and we need to incorporate it in all our future clean growth plans.
I congratulate all hon. Members on their contributions to the debate. They all faced in exactly the same direction, acknowledging the importance of energy efficiency in homes, for a variety of reasons including climate change and fuel poverty, and the prominence that we need to give it in our policy debates. If this afternoon’s debate has hastened that process, we will have done a very good job between us.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I have let speeches go on longer than is conventional because we have had plenty of time. We have had two mammoth speeches from the SNP and Labour Front Benches. I know the Minister could speak for 55 minutes if she wanted to, but if she felt that she could just match them at 25 minutes, I am sure we would all appreciate it.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. You tempt me, but I will say what I had planned to about this excellent debate.
May I wish everyone a happy International Women’s Day? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am so proud to represent my constituents on this marvellous day—a great day for discussing boys’ and girls’ infrastructure investment preferences. It is a bit like blue and pink jobs, but we all need better roads, railways and power generation as well as warm and well-insulated homes. That is certainly my focus.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) on securing this fantastically important debate and on her characteristically thoughtful, knowledgeable, well-balanced and well-researched speech. She is an extremely important member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which has done such good work on the matter. It is striking that this is our second debate this week—after the Second Reading of the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill on Monday—in which there has been an outbreak of consensus. Long may it last.
Hon. Members across parties understand the vital need for action and the potential difficulties. A lot of sensible suggestions have been made about prioritisation, but ultimately we all share the ambition to secure clean growth for the UK at the right level and the right cost; maximise productivity under our clean growth strategy and our industrial strategy; and create a secure, diverse energy supply at low cost for our consumers. This has been a really thoughtful debate and many good ideas have been suggested.
Let me recap where we are. Based on 2017 data, the last time emissions in the UK were this low was in the year the Forth bridge was opened and “The Picture of Dorian Gray” was published, which was the year before penalties were introduced in football. I hope hon. Members from north of the border will already have got it, but in case not, it was the year 1890. When we consider the scale of the challenge, we should take a moment to think about just how far we have come: in a couple of decades, we have dropped our emissions to a level last seen in Victorian times. That has been achieved through cross-Government support for the Climate Change Act 2008, impressive work done by successive Governments on decarbonising parts of the economy, sustained investment and getting the costs of intervention to a market level, as we have seen so recently in offshore wind.
To be slightly partisan for a moment, I am very struck that it was Margaret Thatcher who made the first speech to the United Nations on the impact of human activity on the climate. She referred to sulphur emissions and acid rain, but since then we have realised the impact of chlorofluorocarbons, started talking about carbon and methane, and become far more informed. Only two countries in the world are considered to be doing enough to meet a 2° target: China and the United Kingdom. I would be the first to acknowledge the scale of the challenge ahead, but we should feel reasonably good about getting there and about speaking to colleagues and constituents about what we have done.
Before I plunge into my attempt to answer the many questions asked in the debate, let me refer to a couple of speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury opened the debate and the next speech was made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). It has always been a pleasure to work with her and it is so wonderful to see her back in her place, standing up very ably for the concerns of her constituents. The opportunity to create a new industrial cluster on the SSI site that sequesters rather than emits carbon is incredibly exciting. Unfortunately, the hon. Lady was not there when I visited, but I was pleased to go up to see the site, work with some of her colleagues and celebrate a really good interaction between national Government and local government—having a Mayor for the combined authority is making a huge difference—and some incredibly effective cross-party working. That is a really important model for how we should be going forward.
Let me briefly address carbon capture, utilisation and storage, which is not the topic of this debate but is important none the less. We have a triple test for spending taxpayers’ money on technology. First, can we get the carbon down? Secondly, can we get the cost down? Thirdly, can we create a competitive innovation that we can then export around the world to improve productivity? I was not in my current post when the decision was taken on the council. I can say that the money that was not spent was recycled into the research and development budget, which has allowed us to have £2.6 billion to spend on energy innovation that is bearing fruit all over the place.
By the way, there are only 21 at-scale CCS plants working in the world today, 16 of which rely on capturing the carbon and using it for enhanced oil recovery. This is not a cost-effective technology that other countries are embracing with gusto. Even our friends in Norway, who are a little further along than us in building up the infrastructure, are struggling with precisely this point, which is, how much do we burden taxpayers or consumers to fund these projects? That is a real challenge. However, we are not going to bow down before it; we are going to embrace it.
That is why I have set up the carbon capture, usage and storage council—literally the best minds on this problem in the UK, and indeed around the world—to consider how we build strategically the case to carry out CCS in a more cost-effective way. We have also set up the CCUS cost reduction taskforce, emulating what was done in offshore wind, to drive prices down, not only in terms of the technology, but in terms of the financing, risk analysis and risk-sharing, which was one of the problems we had in the last project structure.
As the hon. Member for Redcar mentioned, I have set aside £100 million for CCUS innovation. That is not a subsidy and it is not putting money into a contract for difference; it is trying to create the innovation that we need. There are enormous opportunities to work with the hydrogen economy and with heating systems, to try to bring this work together. I accept that that news was a disappointment, but I would like colleagues to be reassured that we understand completely the need to decarbonise these industrial pools and to decarbonise further our heating system. Without CCS and CCUS, I do not believe that we can do that, which is why they are such vital technologies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) displayed his characteristic vision and knowledge of this sector. He said that we have been too focused on inputs, not outputs, when we talk about energy and efficiency. He also talked about the distributed energy future, which is absolutely what is happening both in our minds and the minds of the commercial world.
Of course, we already have solar. We do not often see a lot of solar generation on the very helpful national grid app, because it tends to sit behind the distributors and make its contribution there. However, we also know that we need to keep investing in this industry, which is why the smart systems plan has tried to set out the framework for doing that.
My hon. Friend also alluded to Birmingham combined heat and power, demonstrating that there are some fantastic examples out there, whereby not-for-profit or community-owned entities have already been set up. Robin Hood Energy in Nottingham also comes to mind, as does the White Rose Energy project. In those projects, there is real innovation and local leadership, which we welcome. We have been supporting those things. I have just put another £7 million into working with UK100 to try to build capacity at a local level.
For me, most of this activity works when it is delivered in a particular place. It is very easy to sit in Whitehall and push out suggestions, but if they can be pulled through by a local authority, a local council or a local company, we can start to think about transport. How does transport plug in? And how do we deal with heat? That was an excellent set of suggestions.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) also spoke. I will try to reassure him that these things are not just warm words; they are actions. I think we are all apprised of the need to deliver and to continue to maintain the UK’s leadership position in this area, which is genuine. Now, when we go around the world and talk to other countries about what we are doing, people listen. There were 70 people at the event on this issue in Germany yesterday, according to my officials, who said people are really hungry to learn. That is because the strategy is not just a piece of lovely paper; it is trying to set out a cross-Government set of actions that we have to take. They are not optional, if we want to meet our targets, which we must do by 2032 and beyond to decarbonise.
The hon. Gentleman and I share the aspiration around energy company obligation and fuel poverty. As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) mentioned, shortly I will publish some of the ECO consultation and consider how we pivot ECO to focus on fuel poverty, while also making it a conduit for more innovation, so that we can reduce the costs and target it better. That is because I get invitations to join ECO through my front door. Why? Because I live off the gas grid, so I clearly fall into some category that says there will be some fruitful mining out there. I do not want to respond to those invitations; I want ECO to be targeted at the people who need it most. They may not be the ones who are currently in the frame; they may not be known. We know that local authorities know where they are, so we want to target the ECO system much more at those who need it. I will return to mortgages when I wind up.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) again made a powerful case for CCS and its importance. I think he also referred to the “win-win” of clean growth. We are not looking forward, as some campaigners might want to look forward, to a kind of deep green “lights off” future, because we all know that recessions are the greatest thing for cutting carbon emissions. We want the economy to grow. As he said, we already have 400,000 people working in this sector, which is delivering jobs from Aberdeen to Aberystwyth to Cornwall, and to many places in between. People have only to go to the Humber area to see what is happening with the support and the manufacturing of the offshore wind turbines for the wind industry, which is hugely transformational.
Of course, I also enjoyed receiving my hon. Friend’s invitation to all; we have had many invitations. Perhaps a Select Committee would like to produce a report on this subject, because its members could then travel around and take advantage of all these great opportunities.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry)—I normally never get a chance to say the full name of his constituency—gave a typically well-informed speech. We exchanged views on off-gas grid. I think that in both his constituency and mine, 15% of households live off the centralised grid, and we have to find cost-effective ways to provide them with more heating solutions in particular. Of course, all those people will benefit from the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill. Again, we exchanged views on CCS.
The hon. Gentleman also made a strong point about the Scottish Government’s plan. We should all be willing to learn from each other. There are so many good people out there who are coming up with good ideas, whether that is at a local level or a national level, and we will be stronger if we pool all those ideas. Then we would not replicate what we are trying to do and spend.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test again talked about clean growth being a strategy, which is important. It is not a plan; it is a longer-term strategy, deliberately for that reason. He also emphasised that there is strong cross-party support for these measures and, frankly, we will need that support. If we are asking for this issue to be a spending priority or a national priority, we will need as many voices as possible from all parties to make these points on behalf of our constituents.
Have I covered everyone? I think I have.
I now turn briefly, Mr Walker, to some of the plans that we have to implement this agenda. I was very interested—indeed, excited—to hear the conversation about whether this issue should be a national infrastructure priority. I know that the National Infrastructure Commission will report shortly. I will follow that closely and I undertake to meet the commission, because the case that was made for demand-side as well as supply-side infrastructure investments is powerful. However, I caution colleagues that that does not automatically turn on a new funding tap. There is no packet of money under the Chancellor’s desk marked “Infrastructure”, so this all has to be put through a similar hopper.
Nevertheless, the point about energy efficiency is excellent; energy efficiency is not only a strategic imperative, but an economic imperative. If we improve energy efficiency, we reduce people’s bills, create value, and create opportunities and investment for new forms of technology. We lead the world in many of these spaces, but we have never provided a really good route to market. I am interested, for example, in the Government’s commitment to new home building, which is absolutely vital. We should try to make those homes as affordable to run as they are to buy, using that as a route to market for so much of this technology.
I have talked a bit about what we have done, and of course we have seen household energy consumption fall by 17% since 1990 and the energy efficiency of non-domestic buildings has also improved substantially. Actually, the Government’s minimum energy standards, which we have put in place for appliances and for boilers, have had a measurable effect.
I would like to reassure right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber on one point. People have asked, “Does coming out of the EU mean any weakening of these efficiency targets?” Absolutely not. Of course these targets have a meaningful impact on energy efficiency and they reduce bills. As a result of more energy-efficient products being used, the average annual bill for dual fuel households in 2020 will be £100 lower than it might otherwise have been, and the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill, which we introduced this week—I was pleased that it received cross-party support—will also help to cut bills, as will the record low capacity cost of the energy that we are now buying in the market, as indeed will Ofgem’s announcement yesterday of further investigations into network company returns. We have to find a way to reduce the cost of energy right across the board.
This work does not just stop in the home or in the business environment. In the public sector, enormous efforts have been made, using the Salix programme, which has been highly successful in lending money for these energy efficiency measures. We anticipate a saving of about £1.5 billion for us all—for taxpayers—between 2018 and 2020.
So, we are moving in the right direction, but we have to go a lot further and faster. I completely accept that, which is why I set out the band C objective for 2035. That is the first time we have done that, saying, “That’s what we think ‘good’ looks like in housing stock.”
There will always be homes that are cost-inefficient to treat. There will also be homeowners who do not want that and will deny access. We cannot forcibly upgrade someone’s home if they do not want it.
Dr Whitehead
Can I tempt the Minister to have a look at a particular private Member’s Bill that is going through the House at the moment promoted by one of her colleagues, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron)? The Bill suggests that the 2025 aspiration should be made a statutory target. Does she have any thoughts on that?
Claire Perry
Indeed. I have met my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and some of those who support the Bill. I think it is an extremely interesting suggestion. I was able to reassure my hon. Friend that, given the work we are doing on ECO—I will come to that—and other measures, we will get there without legislation. That is always the preferred route, although having the overarching legislation of the Climate Change Act 2008 has meant that we have to deliver on these promises right across the economy.
I started to have the conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire about it ultimately being a win-win to upgrade people’s homes or buildings because it saves money. Someone upgrades their home and they save money on their bill. There is a commercial proposition there. I served on the Energy Bill Committee—the Bill provided for the green deal—and I had great hopes for it, but it did not deliver. There is an economic value to doing those upgrades, however. Some of it may flow straight to the homeowner. Some may flow to a landlord, in which case there is the opportunity to rent the flat at a higher rate or to have a different sort of tenant who has a bit more money. There are opportunities there.
We talked a little about the co-benefits of better health for the country from warmer homes. We do not cost those things, and we cannot necessarily capture the money in the silo of BEIS, but we all know that they intrinsically make sense. As well as supporting what is already happening through spending, which I will talk about, we are focused on trying to build a better market for long-term delivery of much better solutions. That is absolutely where we want to go.
James Heappey
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will certainly not make such a commitment immediately today, but may I check whether she will take away the suggestion I made about smart meters becoming a requirement for band C and above EPC ratings? Perhaps she and I and colleagues might discuss that as an option at a later date.
Claire Perry
It was an excellent suggestion, and I have already clocked it as one to take away. Indeed, I will be attempting to turbocharge the smart meters roll-out later this year, because we have done some excellent work that needs to be continued.
I reassure colleagues that the money we are spending on ECO, where we aim to improve more than 1 million homes, the money we are spending on the warm home discount and the money that we are already putting into the problem of fuel poverty will be spent in a way that tries to drive more effective solutions. One of the things I want to do with the ECO project is targeted at fuel poverty, which is a hugely important aspiration for all of us. I also want to try to have much more of it targeted at research and development and innovation. Technologies qualify in a very formulaic way, and I think we could do a lot more on that.
To reassure colleagues who have said the clean growth strategy is just warm words—I know they have far better things to do—on pages 132 and 133 of the document I have clearly set out the next series of things that we will do. People say that just bringing consultation forward is not action. I want to make decisions that stick over the long term because they have been widely thought through and bottomed out analytically. On pages 132 and 133 is a long list of things we have already done, are doing or are planning to do this year—so I am not getting away with a long target—to drive forward the ambitions on the band C rating.
We are also working hard with business and industry. While we have a real challenge in our homes, the biggest pool of emissions in the UK come from—it fluctuates a little bit between them—industry and transport. We have always found it difficult to decarbonise businesses. Part of that is process decarbonisation—as the hon. Member for Redcar knows, that is difficult to do without fundamentally changing the feedstock or heat source for a particular manufacturing sector—but a lot is just business premises. All the same issues we have in the homes sector absolutely apply to business premises.
Antoinette Sandbach
If energy efficiency measures have been rolled out in the home, surely common sense dictates that those people who have experienced them go into work and see how similar measures could affect their work environment. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree that tackling the home energy efficiency market would inevitably assist with the business market?
Claire Perry
My hon. Friend is absolutely on the money, but I would like to do both. I do not want it to be sequential. I cannot remember which of my hon. Friends talked about energy as a service. I thought it was my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, but as I say that, I think it might have been HEEPS—my hon. Friend the Member for Wells. He is never going to live that down.
If someone running a small business is trying to do payroll and deal with potential changes in the regulatory structure for export, are they really going to sit down and think about energy efficiency? They might—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury that if someone has installed an energy efficiency measure in their home and has seen a material change, they might do that—but they might not. What incentives can we create and what market structures are already there that can help those businesses to focus on their energy efficiency? Many of the challenges in the rented sector that apply in the homes market also apply in an even greater way in the energy market. It is a real challenge that many firms occupy premises where energy is just part of the service bundle they receive, so it is not within their control to install such measures.
We are consulting later this year on a package of measures to help businesses improve how productively they use energy. We are focused on trying to do things that work, and that work locally.
Many Members referenced green mortgages and finding a way to finance such initiatives. There has been some excellent work, such as the “Levering economics for new drivers to energy reduction and sustainability” project. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells talked about being asked about utility bills. Actually, the way the market works now is that, whether someone is in a home rated A or G, they input the same number, which is crazy.
Work is already under way on mortgage lenders who might pick up on the fact that someone could save £700 on their energy bills by having a better energy performance certificate. The green finance taskforce that I set up with the Treasury last year will be reporting shortly. One of its strands of work is how we get green mortgages to be a proper retail offering. Some lenders have taken steps to support energy efficiency improvements. Last November, Barclays launched the first green bond from a UK bank, on the back of the work that the taskforce was doing. That is being used to fund domestic assets, which it plans to use to refinance mortgages for the most energy-efficient properties. That is a testament to the data available and the bank’s desire. It is common sense to reward that sort of behaviour.
I have talked a little about the savings and what we are doing. Now I will mention briefly the most vulnerable households, which have come up often, especially given the recent cold snap. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said, it was really cold in many homes. Turning up the heating was an option for many of us, but we might not have realised that others who do so feel extremely worried about what their bills will look like.
I want to reassure colleagues that the warm home discount programme—£140 a household—continues to operate. Winter fuel payments are being paid, and the cold weather payment was triggered by the cold snap. It is absolutely right for the Government to continue to support the most vulnerable and to help them make improvements to their homes. Such people do not necessarily have financial choice. I was therefore pleased that we committed £3.6 billion to ECO. Going forward, that will upgrade more than 1 million homes. We will extend that out to 2028 with funding at least at current ECO levels.
I take the point about the landlord challenge. The problem, frankly, is that 95% of landlords have four properties or fewer—they are us. We asked them to sign up to something that at the time we had underpinned with a green finance offer, but now they are potentially required to raise capital to do it. We have to do things that are fair and proportionate if we want the country to come with us. The measure is still incredibly important. We do not want people living in the least fuel-efficient homes and we are determined to do something about that. In fact, compared with 2010, there are 835,000 fewer homes rated E, F or G in the UK, so we are making progress at the least efficient end of the market.
I hope that I am not trying your patience, Mr Walker, but I have two more quick points to make. The first is on smart meters. I think we are on the cusp of something really exciting with smart meters. We are absolutely in the world’s vanguard by offering every household a smart meter by 2020. I accept the concerns about technology. People say, “Why would I install one of these when I’m going to get a better one?” The point is that if someone installs one now, they get all the benefits immediately of understanding what their energy consumption looks like, and can work out ways to cut their bills. Furthermore, they will automatically be upgraded through the technology that we are putting in place to the next generation, so when they switch suppliers they will not lose any of that functionality. That is a vital step forward.
More needs to be done to work on the consumer proposition. I am desperate to put in a smart meter, but not to take a morning off work to do so. It is really difficult to find the time, which is a problem that many people face. We will be working with industry and the organisation rolling the meters out to see how we can make them more consumer flexible, and how we provide incentives, because plenty of money is being spent on advertising them. We are on the cusp of something very exciting.
I also wanted to mention fundamentally changing the way in which we build and think about homes in the construction process. It is astonishing that the way in which we build homes has not changed much since the 1890s: we build the foundations, and then get the trades in. We can build really high-quality modular homes—homes that are built off-site and installed—in a far more effective and resource-efficient way. We are working closely with the construction sector to see what we can do to turbocharge that.
We can also do retrofits in a modular way. Nottingham City Council and Melius Homes are taking a prefabricated approach to retrofit homes to 2050 standards, and improve their energy performance. A lot of innovation is happening in this area that I am extremely keen to support. That is how we create a new market for what needs to happen, while rightly focusing on building regulations. All colleagues will be aware of the challenge in the post-Grenfell world of ensuring that there are no unintended consequences to what we do with building regulations. We are working very closely with our colleagues in the relevant Department, and have reconstituted the inter-ministerial clean growth group, because so many of these challenges span across Government.
There is a huge amount more to do. We have heard lots of sensible ideas today, many of which are extremely attractive and that we want to take away. All of us want to get the costs and consumption of energy down, reduce carbon emissions, make our homes warmer, and make the transition to low-carbon energy less risky. This is not an either/or question; in order to meet our carbon targets, and to create a housing stock that is fit for the future, we absolutely need to do this. That is why the clean growth strategy is so important, and why the industrial strategy has clean growth as one of its four major pillars: things that we know that we can lead the world in, and that have to be done.
It has been a pleasure in today’s debate, as in so many others in this area, to work with colleagues across the House who are so committed to this agenda, and have so much knowledge and interest in it. It will really help us to accelerate the work going forward, so I thank hon. Members for the opportunity to respond this afternoon.
Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)
I think colleagues were almost heading for the door, but we have up to two minutes for the proposer of this great debate to wind up.
Antoinette Sandbach
I thank colleagues from across the House for participating in the debate. We have now had three Front-Bench speeches that have referred to colleagues’ contributions, so I will not go over them again. I reiterate that there has been agreement across the Chamber: if the Government invest in this area now, that will lead to huge savings—£1.3 billion in the health sector alone, as well as productivity gains. In addition, it would generate a huge amount of jobs, and save consumers £290 on their bills every year.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to go to the National Infrastructure Commission, as she has promised. It is due to make its decision in April, which is why I asked for this afternoon’s debate to take place today. Given the cross-party consensus, I suspect that there may well be a cross-party letter winging its way elsewhere to Government, encouraging them to take up the infrastructure challenge and the opportunities that innovation in this area offers the UK economy. I thank again all hon. Members who have contributed today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered energy efficiency and the clean growth strategy.
Written Statements
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
General Affairs Council
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council in Brussels on Tuesday 27 February. The items on the agenda were: presentation of the priorities of the Bulgarian presidency; annotated draft agenda for the European Council on 22 and 23 March 2018; and rule of law in Poland I article 7(1) treaty on European Union (TEU) reasoned proposal.
A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2018/02/27/.
Presentation of the priorities of the Bulgarian presidency
The presidency set out the four priorities for its tenure: the future of Europe and young people; security and stability; the western Balkans; and the digital economy.
Annotated draft agenda for the European Council on 22 and 23 March 2018
The presidency presented the annotated draft agenda for March European Council, which includes: jobs, growth and competitiveness (and possibly trade); and the western Balkans. Leaders would also discuss migration and digital taxation.
On the jobs, growth and competitiveness agenda item, the Council welcomed a discussion on the single market, digital single market and social issues. I intervened to call for any tax discussion to focus on digital taxation, reflecting progress at international level. I also highlighted the UK’s publication of a position paper on corporate tax and the digital economy last autumn.
Under the western Balkans agenda item, Ministers welcomed the adoption of procedural conclusions on the EU-Western Balkans summit in May. I intervened to welcome the focus on the western Balkans region. I highlighted the UK’s close co-operation with the presidency and the Commission ahead of the Berlin Process Western Balkans summit in London in July, which will seek to deliver on regional priorities identified at the May summit.
On migration, the Commission highlighted the need to reach agreement on internal asylum reform.
Rule of law in Poland/article 7(1) TEU reasoned proposal
The Commission presented its reasoned proposal under article 7(1) TEU, concerning the rule of law in Poland. The Commission referred to the improved levels of dialogue with Poland but emphasised that it wanted to see action taken to address its concerns. Poland acknowledged the improved dialogue and stated that its forthcoming paper on this issue would place its judicial reforms into their wider systemic context.
I intervened to emphasise the importance the UK places on the rule of law and judicial independence, and that the UK expects its partners to respect international norms. I affirmed the UK’s view that responsibility for constitutional issues lies primarily with national Governments and welcomed the improved dialogue between the Commission and Poland. I highlighted that a solution is most likely to be found in this dialogue leading to a common understanding on how to resolve the issue in a way which aligns with international norms.
[HCWS522]
Domestic Abuse
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Justice and I are today launching a consultation which seeks to address domestic abuse at every stage from prevention through to rehabilitation.
Domestic abuse is an inexcusable and devastating form of abuse that can have a lifelong impact on its victims and their families. There are approximately two million reported victims every year, and domestic abuse accounts for over 10% of all police recorded crime and nearly 20% of all police charges.
This Government have taken strong action to tackle domestic abuse. We are the first country to criminalise coercive and controlling behaviour, and we have introduced domestic violence protection orders and the domestic violence disclosure scheme. We have made legislative changes to legal aid to make it more accessible. Last year we also amended electoral law to make it easier for survivors of domestic abuse to register to vote, while keeping their name and address private.
In addition this year we have introduced a Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Bill that will maintain the status of survivors living in social housing with an existing lifetime tenancy when they move to a new social property. We have provided £20 million for accommodation-based services such as refuges, which is already providing 2,200 additional beds in refuges and safe accommodation benefiting 19,000 victims. The best available data shows bed spaces have increased by 10% since 2010 and we are committed to supporting refuges and providing stable funding in the future.
We are reviewing the way in which refuges and supported housing are delivered and have heard the concerns about how our proposals will work in practice. We are working with all the charities and organisations working on the frontline, asking them to come forward with their ideas on how best to deliver this. That process is ongoing—and we have been clear no options are off the table as we work with them to ensure women requiring support in their time of need are not let down.
However we know there is more to do and that is why this Government are committed to transforming how we think about and tackle domestic abuse. We want victims to feel supported so that they can seek help and to rebuild their lives, safe in the knowledge that their perpetrator will be pursued and prosecuted.
The consultation seeks views under the four main themes set out below with the central aim of prevention running through each.
Promote awareness—proposals to help put domestic abuse at the top of everyone’s agenda, and raise public and professionals’ awareness.
Protect and support—proposals to enhance the safety of victims and the support that they receive.
Pursue and deter—proposals to ensure an effective response to perpetrators from initial police response through to conviction and management of offenders (including rehabilitation).
Improve performance—proposals to drive consistency and better performance in the response to domestic abuse across all local areas and agencies/sectors.
The Government welcome responses from victims and survivors, charities, specialist organisations, experts and professionals across policing, criminal justice, health, welfare, education, social services, employment and local authorities who deal with these issues on a daily basis.
We are seeking a combination of legislative and non-legislative solutions for delivering the proposals set out in the consultation. Where primary legislation is required, the responses to the consultation will inform the content of the draft Domestic Abuse Bill announced in the Queen’s speech.
The consultation will run for 12 weeks to 31 May.
A copy of the consultation paper will be placed in the Library of the House and will be available online at www.gov.uk.
[HCWS525]
National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
The National Crime Agency (NCA) Remuneration Review Body has made recommendations on pay and allowances for NCA officers designated with operational powers, and observations on the NCA’s proposals to reform pay arrangements. I would like to thank the chair and members of the review body for their careful consideration of the evidence from the NCA, the Home Office, HMT and the trade unions.
The Government are committed to the delivery of world-class public services, and ensuring that public sector workers are fairly remunerated for the vitally important work that they do. That is why we ended the across-the-board 1% pay award policy for public sector workforces in September 2017. We recognised that some flexibility would be required in certain areas.
Each workforce is different and pay awards should therefore reflect the particular circumstances faced by those public workers and their recruitment and retention levels. It is also vital that our world-class public services continue modernising to maximise the contribution of our public servants, so they can continue to do their incredible work, improving our lives and keeping us safe.
Previous review body reports highlighted the need for reform to NCA pay arrangements and I welcome the review body’s support for the NCA’s proposed changes as an important step in that direction. There are two main elements to the pay reform: officers in two grades performing intelligence and investigator roles can opt into a new spot rate pay structure; and for the remaining workforce existing pay bands are being compressed. These changes are highly targeted, focusing on roles where there is evidence that pay has fallen significantly behind the market rate, and critical to the agency’s ability to improve productivity and transform to meet the rapidly evolving threat from serious and organised crime. This targeted pay reform will support the NCA’s ability to recruit and retain highly skilled staff to continue to fulfil their vital role.
To support implementation of these changes, the 2017-18 award will be backdated to 1 August 2017 and the 2018-19 award implemented on 1 August 2018. The award is as follows:
A varied award for staff in two targeted operational grades choosing to opt into the new pay structure and move onto new terms and conditions, including an increase in contracted hours;
A minimum 1% award for all officers not eligible for the new pay structure and not already receiving the pay range maximum for their grade;
A 1% award made up of consolidated and non-consolidated elements for officers not eligible for the new pay structure and already in receipt of the maximum for their grade or reaching it;
A 1% increase to the London weighting payment in 2017-18. 2018-19 will be determined following a formal review of the allowance.
These awards will be fully funded within the NCA’s existing budget. The small number of officers electing to remain on the terms and conditions of pre-cursor organisations will remain on their 2016-17 pay rates.
Copies of the NCA Remuneration Review Body’s report are available in the Vote Office and at gov.uk.
[HCWS526]
Finances
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
During the course of the past 13 months, in the absence of an Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland, the UK Government have worked tirelessly to facilitate the restoration of devolved Government. It had been my firm hope that a new Executive would be in place to set a budget. That will now not be possible in time for plans to be put in place for the forthcoming financial year.
Yet there are acute pressures across public services to be addressed in 2018-19, and clarity is required now to enable planning to proceed for the year ahead. It is now imperative, therefore, that the UK Government provide clarity and certainty around Northern Ireland finances for 2018-19.
2018-19 Budget allocations
I set out below the resource and capital allocations which I consider to be the most balanced and appropriate settlement for Northern Ireland Departments. It would be open to a restored Executive, of course, to consider and revise the position I have set out.
In deciding on these allocations I have engaged intensively with the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) to understand the needs of Departments as they continue to work to deliver the draft programme for Government. I have reflected too on the response to the budget briefing published by the NICS before Christmas, and discussed the budget situation with the main parties in Northern Ireland.
In the absence of local Ministers, and given the proximity of the next financial year, it would not be appropriate for the UK Government to seek to take fundamental decisions about service delivery and transformation at this time. Yet we must act to secure public services and enable NI departments to meet urgent pressures in health and education. That is what this budget settlement will do, by protecting and preserving public services within challenging fiscal constraints.
On the resource side, it delivers real-terms increases for health and education from their 2017-18 opening baseline. It also delivers cash terms increases for the Departments of Justice; Infrastructure; and Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Elsewhere, Departments would either be cash-flat or see small decreases, with notable reductions only for the two central Departments (Finance and the Executive Office). For capital, it provides a strong basis for investment and enables key flagship projects to progress.
Confidence and Supply funding
This settlement also delivers £410 million in financial support arising from the financial annex to the confidence and supply agreement between the Conservative Party and the Democratic Unionist Party.
This includes £80 million in support for immediate health and education pressures; £30 million to support programmes to address issues of mental health and severe deprivation; £100 million for ongoing work to transform the health service in line with the broad-based consensus fostered by the Bengoa report; and a £200 million boost in capital spending for key infrastructure projects. Furthermore, in recognition of the lack of opportunity for more fundamental service reconfiguration over the last 12 months, this Budget position allows for £100 million in flexibility to enable existing capital funding to be used to address public services resource pressures in 2018-19. This additional funding will be transferred in due course only with Parliament’s full authorisation, in line with the long-established estimates process.
Transformation
But, as the NICS budget briefing made clear, transformation is needed in a number of areas to make services sustainable in the long term. The urgent work to prepare for this must proceed. To that end, the budget includes a £4 million fund to prepare the ground for transformation, alongside the £100 million set out for health transformation above. I also recognise that this budget only allocates resources for 2018-19 and the NI Departments will need urgently to plan for future years. In that context, it is right that the NICS should continue to take forward preparatory work which could assist with balancing the budget in 2019-20. This will ensure that options are kept open for a restored Executive to consider as part of future budget processes.
Regional rate
As part of setting a budget, it is essential that the UK Government provide clarity on the regional rate. This budget position has been constructed on the basis of an increase in the domestic regional rate of 4.5%. I consider that this is a necessary and important step to continue to support public services, particularly in health and education. The non-domestic rates would rise only at 1.5%, in line with inflation. Conscious of the interest of many stakeholders in the scheme, I can also confirm that this budget settlement would provide the basis for the small business rate relief to continue.
Implementing decisions within the overall allocations
This statement outlines overall allocations, based on my assessment of the options currently available to the NI Departments. To the extent possible, the consequent prioritisation of resources within NI Departments will need to be undertaken by permanent secretaries, as has been the case during the past year. The position will be monitored throughout the year and, where possible, resources reallocated to the highest priority areas in the normal way.
Permanent secretaries cannot, of course, take the full range of decisions that would be available to Ministers. In that context, the UK Government shall continue to support the Northern Ireland Administration, and to do whatever is necessary to meet our responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland.
Annex of tables can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-03-08/HCWS527/.
[HCWS527]
Wheelchair Spaces on Buses
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Government believe that where people live, shop, go out, or park their car should not be determined by their disability and recognise the importance of accessible transport networks in supporting disabled people to live independent lives and fulfil their potential.
In January 2017 the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of Paulley v. FirstGroup plc, concerning the “reasonable adjustments” which must be provided by bus operators to enable wheelchair users to access the on-board wheelchair space.
The Supreme Court judgment states that FirstGroup’s policy with regard to use of the wheelchair space was insufficient to meet the requirements of the Equality Act 2010, and that bus drivers should be required to do more than simply request that a person vacates the wheelchair space, including suspending the journey if needed. The judgment did not provide clarity on precisely what action a service provider should require its drivers to take or how the needs of both passengers in wheelchairs and other bus users, disabled or otherwise, should be taken into account.
In order to understand the implications of the judgment for disabled people, the bus industry and other passengers, and to identify actions for Government and others to take to ensure that required adjustments can be provided on buses we established a stakeholder “task and finish group on the use of wheelchair spaces on buses” (the group).
The group’s report to Ministers stated that:
“Our view is that drivers need to play an active role in ensuring that the wheelchair space is made available for passengers in wheelchairs, which includes requiring other passengers to move where necessary, but that drivers also need more powers than they have currently to enable them to do this effectively”.
The group agreed that while wheelchair users should be granted access to the on-board wheelchair space they may not be the only passengers who rely on using it, but that where other passengers do not have such a need they should be expected to vacate the space in order that it can be occupied by a wheelchair user.
The group made four specific recommendations:
That the Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 (the Conduct Regulations) are amended to enable drivers to remove passengers from the bus who unreasonably refuse to move when requested from the wheelchair space;
The associated guidance is amended to better reflect the behaviours expected from drivers and passengers with respect to use of the wheelchair space;
Further work is conducted to consider how best to raise public awareness of the behaviours expected from passengers with respect to the wheelchair space, for example a public awareness campaign, or improved signage on buses; and
That conditions of carriage and disability awareness training best practice guidance are updated to reflect the fact that passengers will be required to move from the wheelchair space should it be required by a passenger in a wheelchair.
I am grateful to the group for their careful consideration of this complex issue.
Government agree with the group that the wheelchair space should be available to those who need it and that the balance of measures proposed, supporting bus drivers to facilitate access to the wheelchair space, and creating an environment where the needs of disabled passengers are recognised and respected should help to overcome the barriers still faced by some disabled people when using bus services.
In accepting the group’s recommendations in principle we will begin a process of further engagement to understand the specific experiences of a range of stakeholders affected by the wheelchair space issue, including wheelchair users, parents travelling with young children, and bus drivers—with a view to bringing forward a package of measures in 2018, informed by the group’s recommendations and our further consideration, to support access to the wheelchair space.
Disabled people make 10 times as many journeys by bus as by rail, and it is essential that the services they rely upon to access education, employment, social and leisure activities are accessible to them. We hope that in supporting access to the wheelchair space for those who need it we will help many more disabled people to travel with confidence.
Copies of the task and finish group’s report to Ministers and accompanying letter have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-03-08/HCWS523/.
[HCWS523]
Universal Credit
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther McVey)
On 8 February 2018, the Work and Pensions Select Committee, published a report into the universal credit project assessment reviews. From this publication, the House will be aware that my Department has been involved in a request under the Freedom of Information Act, for the release of the project assessment reviews conducted between March 2012 and October 2015 on the universal credit programme.
Project assessment reviews are an assurance tool used to assess major projects and programmes. The reviews are conducted by project professionals and subject matter experts drawn from across the public and private sector. The effectiveness of the reviews relies on confidentiality: information within the reports is non-attributable to encourage candour and a frank exchange of views. The reports act as advice to the senior responsible owner on the delivery aspects of their programme—they are not advice to Ministers. They are intended to give the senior responsible owner a project delivery perspective on their programme, independent of the programme management function. They represent perspectives for the senior responsible owner to consider and not absolute truths. The senior responsible owner, not the review team, is accountable to Parliament.
It should be noted that the reviews I will place in the Library are historical, conducted between March 2012 and October 2015. Come 2018, the universal credit programme is in a very different place since those reports were written. Universal credit is in every jobcentre and we are rolling it out safely and securely to all categories of claimant. We are focusing on the continued safe delivery of universal credit, so people continue to be helped to improve their lives.
In recognition of the confidential nature of these reports, the Work and Pensions Select Committee viewed the full set of project assessment reviews up to 2017 and published a report on 8 February 2018. The Work and Pensions Select Committee agrees that the historical issues have now been addressed and “substantial achievements” have been delivered since 2013. In the Committee’s report, they commended the Department for running the universal credit programme
“more professionally and efficiently with a collective sense of purpose”.
The universal credit programme does not lack scrutiny as the ongoing Work and Pension’s Select Committee inquiries demonstrate. Given the Select Committee has seen the reports subject to the freedom of information challenge, and commented upon them publically I can see no point in continuing to argue that case. Accordingly my officials will be writing to the Information Commissioner and to the first-tier tribunal to advise them of my decision to release copies of the requested project assessment review reports to the requestor.
With regard to future reports, I emphasise that the steps I have decided to take today, to disclose the material subject to proceedings, are exceptional. I remain of the view that it is critical to the effectiveness of the Infrastructure and Projects Authority assurance framework for participants to be confident that their comments will be non-attributable and that review reports will be treated as confidential.
I accept that this House and the wider public have significant interest in major Government projects. I support the principle of transparency, and the universal credit programme regularly publishes independent research and analysis into the effectiveness of universal credit. I believe that there are better ways of addressing this concern, rather than undermining the mechanism that provides senior responsible owners with an independent external perspective on the programmes they are responsible to Parliament for.
Universal credit is a flexible benefit, which has simplified the welfare system and ensures that people are always better off in work. We know that the legacy system trapped people in benefit dependency. We needed a new approach to reflect the 21st-century work environment. The evidence shows universal credit is working, with people getting into work faster and staying in work longer than under the old system.
I am sure this House joins me in recognising the great progress we have made since 2010, with 3 million more people in work and unemployment at a near record low. Universal credit builds on this success, delivering welfare reform that works for everyone.
[HCWS524]
Grand Committee
Private Sector Pension Funds
Lord Freeman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the condition of private sector pension funds.
Lord Freeman (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for my sore throat, which I assure your Lordships will improve with the lubrication of my speech. I declare a historical interest in the subject as the chairman for 20 years—it seemed to go in a flash and has just concluded—of the UK pension fund of a company called Thales, a very large, state-owned French defence and electronics group that is very active in this country.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott for stepping in at the last minute for my noble friend Lady Buscombe, who is unavoidably detained. I pay tribute to the contributions of my noble friend Lady Buscombe, particularly over this past year, which has been very busy for her. I hope she will be back at work very quickly. I also thank those noble Lords who are taking the trouble to listen to and participate in this debate, particularly my noble friend Lady Altmann, who probably knows more about pension funds than all of us put together. I understand from her that she intends not only to speak but to maintain her very impressive contribution to your Lordships’ Chamber in the future.
The timing of this debate is fortunate because the Third Reading of the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill—its final stage—is planned for consideration in the Commons on 12 March. This debate is very relevant, perhaps not only to informing what will happen in the other place but, in particular, because it has prompted a number of noble Lords to consider the issue.
My starting point is the Green Paper of February 2017, Security and Sustainability in Defined Benefit Pension Schemes. It seems like yesterday that it was published but it is getting on for just over a year. That has triggered a much wider debate on the whole pensions industry, which has been largely well informed and very timely. About £1.5 trillion is held in defined benefit schemes and the average pension provided is £7,000 per annum. There are about 6,000 defined benefit schemes, with, I estimate, well over 11 million members. As a result of very low interest rates for a great number of years, the liabilities of these schemes have been driven up because of the low rate of return on investments. Inevitably, for defined benefit schemes, the obligations increase automatically. Therefore, there have to be substantial deficit contributions. In January 2017, the aggregate deficit of DB schemes was, I believe, of the order of £200 billion—a staggering sum.
The Pension Protection Fund is there as a modest backstop for default but, as noble Lords can see, it has a very daunting task in protecting those schemes. PricewaterhouseCoopers—I declare an interest as a former partner— have warned recently that the deficit could rise significantly. I understand that the government White Paper is due shortly—this year—to give the Pensions Regulator more power to take over DB schemes at risk. This is a most urgent matter. We await the White Paper and hope that it will steady matters. We hope that the Government can give us, in due course, a better indication of timing, if that is possible and appropriate. We await the White Paper.
I turn to defined contribution schemes—that is, where the pension depends on what is invested by the company sponsors and, of course, the enrolled employees. Royal Mail closed its defined benefits scheme to new members in 2008. Apparently, the Communication Workers Union saw that the old scheme was unsustainable. I understand that Royal Mail awaits secondary legislation to introduce a collective defined contribution scheme where independent trustees decide investment policy. I look forward to a White Paper examining such a proposal, the exact role of the Pensions Regulator and the nature of the closure of future accruals.
Turning to other issues briefly—I do not expect an answer on these from the Minister today—the use of the consumer price index, rather than the retail price index, has been discussed in the industry for better protection for pensioners and pensions. That debate continues, and I hope there will be some conclusions on it. Secondly, I turn to cold calling, which came out of pension freedoms—people’s freedom to release their pension pots. The trustees should shoulder more responsibility in dealing with this. It is one thing to provide the freedom; it is another for sensible decisions to be taken.
Automatic enrolment is excellent. It began in 2012 at 2%—shared equally between the employer and the employee—for defined benefit pension schemes and for employees earning more than £10,000 a year. By 2019, I understand that this will have gone up to 8%: 4% each for the employer and the employee. I welcome this very much.
Another issue is the possible merger of the regulators. The Department for Work and Pensions sponsors the Pensions Regulator, and the Financial Conduct Authority, under the Treasury, controls financial advisers. I wonder whether it would be sensible at some stage—it is not urgent—for those two organisations to be merged together.
Finally, still more regulation is to be enacted. The Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, as your Lordships will know, is in the Commons. I believe that Report and Third Reading will be on 12 March, in just a few days’ time. That will create the pensions financial guidance and advisory body, which combines—as your Lordships will know—the Money Advice Service and the Pensions Advisory Service. I hope it will be open for business soon—certainly this year. If possible, some indication of timing in the Minister’s response would be extremely helpful.
Finally, my future wishes—I think I am allowed those in the remaining minute—include a pensions dashboard so that people can look online at an individual’s pension position and an effective ban on cold calling. I mean effective; I know some members of my own constituency have suffered from cold calling, so I have first-hand experience, although I no longer represent that constituency. Finally, I wish for extra powers for the Pensions Regulator. I look forward very much to my fellow Peers participating in the debate and to the Minister winding up.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Freeman on securing this debate on an issue that noble Lords probably know I am rather passionate about. I also welcome my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott—it is a pleasure to see her here—and I send my best wishes to my noble friend Lady Buscombe, who is equally doing an excellent job for us.
Pensions in the UK have a specific characteristic. Our system has always been structured as one that offers an exceptionally low state pension. The recent OECD figures showed that the UK state pension, even with the new state pension, was the lowest for average earners in a developed world, with a replacement rate of just 29%. Within our country the system has relied on private pensions to top up what is a rather low state pension. In the EU, by contract, most countries have a much more generous state pension and have relied less on private pensions. So private pensions are crucial to the financial well-being of the UK population in retirement. Indeed, we have had a very successful defined benefits system and we now have the success of auto-enrolment.
Today, I will spend a few minutes, given that it is International Women’s Day, talking about pensions for women. Women have been—and in many ways still are—second-class citizens. There have been a number of studies and there are a number of ways one can express the disadvantages that women face in pensions. For example, Zurich Insurance looked at four years, from 2013 to 2016, and found that men were estimated to receive an annual average pension contribution from their employer of some £3,500 a year, compared with £2,500 a year for women. That suggested that women, on average over their lifetime, would have £47,000 less in employer contributions than an equivalent male. Prudential has published figures that show that, on average, 21% of women are saving nothing for their retirement, compared with just 9% of men. The Centre for Policy Studies looked at women aged 60 to 65, whose pension pots were less than half those of men. So there clearly is an issue.
Women are losing out for many reasons. Obviously there is the gender pay gap. We have made significant progress but typically women earn less than men. They also tend to work in industries with lower employer contributions than men’s, such as the health sector, social work and education, compared with more men in financial services, for example. This is also compounded by career breaks. So women have a triple whammy: smaller salaries, lower contributions and fewer years of working.
The Government are embarking on auto-enrolment to try to ensure that pension coverage is spread much more widely, and this has so far been a tremendous success. However, there are issues that still affect women. Auto-enrolment does not cover the lowest earners, who tend to be women. Even low-earners who are covered unfortunately are losing out in an issue that I feel needs far more attention across the country.
I hope that your Lordships might join us in highlighting this issue and that my noble friend the Minister might look into it on behalf of so many women—and indeed men—who currently earn less than £11,500 and are entitled to basic rate tax relief on their pension contributions of the equivalent to the 25% government bonus, but are being denied it without their knowledge, often because their employer has chosen a scheme that even the employer does not realise has this impact on them. If their pension operates what is called the relief at source administration system, these workers will get the 25% to which they are entitled, but if the pension provider chosen by their employer is administered under a net pay system, they cannot get that money. They have to pay their own pension tax relief. The taxpayer does not pay it, so they are forced to pay 25% more for their pension than they should.
This scandal has been going on for a long time and sadly the Government have failed to address it. I have tabled numerous Written Parliamentary Questions asking what the Government plan to do about it, but I have received no answer. I have asked who would be responsible for the losses that these women are facing, but I have received no answer. It seems that they are falling through the cracks.
At the moment, the answer that I typically receive is that it is not a lot of money, but we are about to quadruple contributions under auto-enrolment by next March, and the amount of money that these women, and low earners in general, are losing will keep rising as the number of people potentially affected keeps rising. The failure to take this issue seriously means an ongoing risk of undermining the success of auto-enrolment if there is a scandal about these people being denied the money and there being nobody to take responsibility for it. I urge the Minister at least to speak to the Treasury and ask whether a system could be put in place whereby at least the scheme could claim the tax relief on behalf of these people. It knows who they are because it knows their earnings.
Having said that, if we can sort out the problems, we want to focus on making auto-enrolment an even greater success than it currently is. I congratulate the Government on the pension freedoms that have been introduced and the new arrangements for pensions that have the potential to make the system even better than it currently is. I urge my noble friend to ensure that we get default guidance embedded in the system so that the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill will automatically direct people to get the free guidance guarantee which the Government rightly have set up specifically for them. I hope that we will get proper measures that will effectively, as my noble friend Lord Freeman said, ban cold-calling and the use of leads obtained from cold-calling. That is critical so that the companies that might try to use those leads face the risk of being put out of business.
Then, of course, I eagerly await, as, no doubt, do all of us in the Room, the White Paper that we are expecting by the summer, I believe—perhaps my noble friend could update us on progress—on the sustainability of defined benefit pension schemes. I hope that we will look seriously at increasing the regulator’s powers, consolidating pension schemes and merging them so that we can cut costs, and perhaps giving trustees more responsibility for assessing the strength of their employer covenant in a professional manner, perhaps bringing in outside expertise to assess the company. Such outside expertise could have warned trustees and the regulator about the problems looming at Carillion. A number of hedge fund analysts spotted them just by looking at the report and accounts, but they were not apparently something of which the trustees were aware.
My wish for the future is that we help the pensions industry live up to its responsibility to promote pensions and to explain to the public why pensions are so brilliant. It is free money. We want the pensions industry to stop continually calling for the Government to bring it more customers and for the Government to make those customers pay it more money. The pensions industry is getting enormous amounts of taxpayers’ money from the tax relief. It needs to start serving its customers, making the product attractive, explaining why somebody wants to buy a pension and making them more user-friendly by getting rid of the jargon. One of my pet hates is the jargon that says that every pension scheme must have something that people who do not want to choose their investments should use. What do they call that? A default fund. What is the last thing that most people would want to do with their money? Default. Yet that is what everybody is supposed to have. Why not call it “experts’ choice”, or “specially designed for you”? Get people engaged with pensions: have apps; gamification; and user-friendly and popular investment options that are environmentally and socially responsible. Those are all opportunities that we can take.
I congratulate my noble friend on the debate. I look forward to listening to the other noble Lords who will be speaking and to my noble friend’s response.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, with the leave of the Committee I will speak in the gap about two specific issues related to private sector pensions, both of which are fairly current and have raised their heads in the last few days. The first relates of course to the GKN/Melrose acquisition battle. I call it a battle because it looks, sounds and feels like one. The issue of those who work for, or have retired from, GKN is a live one. Just two days ago the chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in the other place wrote to the chief executive at Melrose Industries following the committee’s meeting with them, in which she set out a requirement to inform the committee of Melrose’s plans for applying for clearance from the regulator prior to acquiring the company. That was a result of the company itself having come under scrutiny from the Pensions Regulator, which asked whether it would apply for the voluntary clearance that is all that happens under the current powers of the regulator. The question that arises—given that this is about a principle, not just that specific matter—is, when will the Government be bringing forward the promises they made in their manifesto? To quote the Financial Times, the,
“party pledged to boost the Pension Regulator’s powers so it could veto deals which could harm pension scheme members”.
That is the question that arises in principle about mergers and acquisitions for the future.
The second point is very much about mergers and acquisitions in the Brexit context. Your Lordships may know that the European Union Committee produced a report last month, Brexit: Competition and State Aid. I am a member of the internal market sub-committee. In evidence we heard about the importance of European Commission Regulation 1/2003—that means that it was the first regulation undertaken in 2003—in which the UK is able to co-operate with competition authorities, other member states and the Commission when mergers and acquisitions are being contemplated. The regulation allows co-operation on detecting anticompetitive conduct; sharing confidential information; facilitating cross-border access to evidence; avoiding dual notification of mergers; alignment of national leniency programmes; and mutual recognition of enforcement remedies and court rulings. The committee was further told in evidence that,
“without these information flows, ‘the quality of UK enforcement would very likely deteriorate’, and that information-gathering and monitoring activities would place a significant additional burden on … sector regulators”.
As we know, many acquisitions and mergers do not wholly relate just to companies inside the UK, but also within the European Union. The issue is whether the Government are minded—and how they are minded—to put the free flow of information for regulators very much on the agenda in the negotiations that are taking place, so that whenever there is a potential threat to pension scheme members there is protection and information available in the way that it is now.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for facilitating this debate about the condition of private sector pension funds. It is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, in her place; I detect that she is getting some enthusiasm for this role. It is surprising that this important and topical issue has not attracted more engagement; perhaps these are early signs of fatigue induced by Brexit.
In preparing for this debate, it has been assumed that the focus would be largely on the health of DB schemes, notwithstanding that the world of pensions is moving inexorably from DB to DC. Indeed, in evidence to a recent Work and Pensions Select Committee, one of the witnesses, a pensions lawyer, bemoaned the fact that young people coming through her business are likely to be experts in advising when a scheme is to be wound up, closed down or closed to future accrual, but claimed that no one of her generation knows how to set one up. That is possibly an exaggeration but it is perhaps a sign of the times. However, we should not write such schemes off, and I shall come to that in a moment. Before I do, I shall just range over the broader pensions canvas to illustrate its complexity and what is changing beneath our feet; the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has been involved in much of this.
Many recent pension policy changes, for both state and private pensions, have their origins in the recommendations of the Pensions Commission. These include: increasing the state pension age; simplification and restriction of pensions tax and tax relief; the new state pension; and, of course, auto-enrolment, the latter coming with mandatory employer and employee contributions; and the basic state pension coming with the triple lock. Along the way are further reforms to public sector pensions.
More recently, we have seen the demise of the default retirement age; abolition of the obligation to annuitise; the introduction of so-called pensions freedoms; and, notwithstanding the launch of Pension Wise, the rise in pension scams—but, thankfully, not a secondary annuity market, or not yet. We are on the cusp of a further exercise to embed the recommendations of the 2017 auto-enrolment review as we enter the era of increased employer and employee contributions and, along the way, the pensions dashboard. I very much join and have common cause with the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on the tax issues that she raises. It has been an anomaly outstanding for far too long and should be fixed.
Many of these changes have fuelled the rise of DC schemes. So, among all these changes, how have private sector DB schemes fared, and what is their future? We have the benefit of the recent Green Paper, referred to by several noble Lords, and insights into the Government’s thinking. There are around 11 million members of DB schemes, more than 50% down on the position 10 years ago. Most schemes are only small; only 4% have more than 10,000 members and these hold over 60% of the assets and around 70% of the members. Around £1.5 trillion is held under management.
From the 2017 Purple Book we learn that the proportion of schemes open to new members has fallen slightly in 2017 to 12%, although the decline since 2012 is slowing. The proportion of schemes closed to both new members and future accrual rose by some 4% in the period to 35%, while 21% of members were in open schemes and 55% in schemes that are closed to new members but open to new accrual. The number of active members has been declining over the past decade, and the total membership comprises 47% who are deferred, 40% who are pensioners and 12% who are active. Although continuing to be volatile on a full buyout basis, the aggregate deficit of such schemes fell to £736 billion and funding levels improved to 68%. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, mentioned, PWC Skyval, which sounds a bit like a Bond movie—I guess I must also declare an interest as a former partner of what was then just PW—points out the limitations of using the buyout basis for much, and prefers a gilts-plus method, which it says is widely used by actuaries. On this basis, it says that aggregate deficits rose by £40 billion to £450 billion at the end of November.
So although there is a clear direction of travel, the sector continues to provide secure retirement income to millions of people. We suggest that this is not the time to write off private sector DB schemes, notwithstanding that, as the Purple Book records, many members of DB schemes are choosing to transfer out for a variety of reasons, including a hitherto buoyant stock market. We should recognise that the switch to DC schemes is likely to accelerate under the 2015 pension freedoms and as schemes continue to de-risk, not only by closing to new accrual but by diversifying investments—moving away from equities towards bonds.
The Green Paper asserts that DWP modelling considers that scheme deficits are likely to shrink for the majority of schemes if promised levels of employer contribution are sustained. Smaller deficits have led to shortened recovery periods; the mean recovery period length is seven and a half years, although the spread is from 12.5 years to those schemes in surplus. We should not overlook that some 1,000 schemes are in surplus.
Some have suggested, particularly given the antics we have seem from some high-profile individuals and their corporate manoeuvring—the noble Lord, Lord German, touched on this—that there is a fundamental problem with the regulatory and legislative framework for DB schemes. The Green Paper concludes that, while not optimal, there are no major structural problems with the framework. It asserts that available evidence does not appear to support the view that DB schemes are generally unaffordable for employers. In this regard, we note the manifesto commitment of the Conservative Party to introduce punitive fines alongside a TPR contribution notice, and to make certain corporate transactions subject to mandatory clearance. That would help the noble Lord, Lord German. I am not sure whether that should be done by the regulator. We would support this approach, but perhaps the Minister will confirm that this is still the Government’s position. Could she put some flesh on the bones of the type of transactions the Government have in mind? Indeed, when will we see the White Paper that will spell this out? I think we were promised it in the spring, although I think spring has sprung.
My noble friend Lady Drake, when giving evidence to a recent Work and Pensions Select Committee, suggested improvements to the regime that included strengthening the duty and requirements on the sponsoring employer to consult and inform trustees, which is important where there is a sponsoring employer who does not want to engage. She further suggested a tougher regime on recovery plans, as well as the need for the regulator to be more proactive and focused on the use of information, albeit recognising that this has resource implications. How do the Government respond to these suggestions and are they satisfied with the level of resources available to the regulator?
The issue of corporate dividends has of course featured in recent cases and the potential conflicts between properly funding the pension scheme and supporting the share price of an enterprise on which executive bonuses may well be based. How do the Government consider the regime can be improved to prevent the deliberate enrichment of shareholders at the expense of the pension scheme? We were told recently by the Minister’s colleague that the regulator does not have the power to stop businesses paying bonuses to executives or dividends to shareholders. Could the Minister say what the alternative mechanisms are that can be used to substitute for the lack of such powers?
We should acknowledge the important role of the Pension Protection Fund in helping to sustain confidence in DB schemes. Given that its payments are met from levies on other DB schemes, it is doubly important that others are not allowed to escape their obligations by dumping schemes into the PPF. This is notwithstanding that the PPF has developed a robust business model that has enabled it to take on major schemes as well as a stream of smaller ones. We are told that 43 schemes entered PPF assessment last year—a declining number—with 130,000 members in receipt of compensation. This has been a major success and important in helping to sustain the DB sector.
In considering whether the existing regulatory arrangement is appropriate, it should be borne in mind that it is a scheme-by-scheme approach and its effectiveness depends on the strength of the employer covenant in each case. As has been said, there are a number of large schemes but also many smaller schemes, often covering older, industrialised, sometimes family-owned, businesses. Smaller schemes may struggle to obtain benefits of scale for their investment strategy and, in terms of governance, to readily attract independent and member-nominated trustees. The possibility of consolidating smaller schemes has been raised, although one can see that this would bring considerable challenges. How might this be helped?
Private DB schemes continue to make a significant contribution to the UK savings market and to help alleviate poverty in retirement. But there is a growing move away from them towards DC arrangements, particularly from the success of auto-enrolment. This changing environment requires alternative approaches to regulation but does not negate the need to strengthen the DB regime. We look forward to the White Paper and follow-up legislation in due course. As others have noted, the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill now wending its way through the Commons should provide some key and necessary safeguards to help members of DC schemes, or of DB schemes switching to the DC market, build better protections. It is right that we proceed on both fronts.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Freeman for tabling this Question for Short Debate on the assessment of the condition of private sector pension funds. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his comment about my enthusiasm for this subject. I got enthusiastic when I started to take interest in my own pension scheme, so I must declare an interest in that I have a pension. I will also give your Lordships’ best wishes to my noble friend Lady Buscombe.
The nature of retirement has changed dramatically over the past decade. People are living longer and working more flexibly. It is important that government encourages and supports people to save for their retirement, to provide security later in life. As a result of recent reforms, millions of people look forward to a more secure retirement. We are continuing to improve the pension foundation for all pensioners, through a fair and sustainable state pension system. To achieve greater security, choice and dignity, we have introduced the new state pension. We continue to provide benefits such as winter fuel payments and have given those not eligible for the new state pension the opportunity to increase their state pension through a top-up.
We have already taken a number of important steps to strengthen the private pensions landscape: more than 9 million people are now automatically enrolled into an occupational pension scheme, and we have given people aged over 55 greater choice in how to access their private pension pots, which noble Lords have referred to. The new single financial guidance body will provide savers with more information and guidance on their retirement options.
We all know what a great success automatic enrolment has been in reversing the long-term decline in pension saving, and 2018 is a particularly important year, with the beginning of work to take forward and build support for the proposals we set out in our review of automatic enrolment, Maintaining the Momentum, published in December last year. This work highlighted some remarkable progress since 2012 in workplace pensions coverage. The workplace pension participation rate for women is now equal to that of men among eligible employees in the private sector, with around three-quarters of men and women participating in workplace pensions. Total annual contributions into workplace pensions were at a 10-year high of £87 billion in 2016. Automatic enrolment is normalising pension saving.
We will keep this movement going with two planned increases in contribution levels for automatic enrolment, in April this year and April 2019, at which point people who have been automatically enrolled will be saving 8% of their qualifying earnings. As a result, by 2019-20 we expect that an additional £20 billion will go into workplace pensions annually.
The increased number of people saving through automatic enrolment has led to a considerable expansion in the master trust market, from around 200,000 in 2010 to around 9.2 million by January 2018, with the majority of employers choosing to use a master trust pension scheme rather than setting up their own pension scheme. We will ensure that members of master trust schemes are provided with similar protections for their savings to members of other pension schemes through the authorisation and supervision regime set out in the Pension Schemes Act 2017.
Defined benefit pension schemes provide an important source of income in the retirement plans of millions of people. In the private sector alone, nearly 10.5 million members rely on such schemes with around £1.5 trillion of assets under management. They help to fuel the UK economy through investment in UK government bonds, corporate bonds and equities. News of increased deficits combined with a number of recent high-profile cases have led some commentators to declare that there is a fundamental problem with the funding and regulation of these schemes. While it is true that the defined benefit pensions landscape is evolving, as these schemes continue to close and be replaced by other forms of provision, it is not the case that fundamental change to the underlying legislation and regulation is needed. There are indeed new challenges for trustees and employers, but the Government are committed to improving the powers of the Pensions Regulator so that the defined benefit system continues to work in the best interests of those involved; that is, for members and pensioners, for today’s workforce, and for employers.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the private sector defined benefit scheme and its future. The Government’s position on defined benefit pensions is clear: where employers can, they must continue to meet their responsibilities. The noble Lord, Lord German, asked whether the Government would meet their commitment to boost the Pensions Regulator’s powers. The Government’s manifesto further signalled our commitment to protect private pensions and indicated a number of areas in which they will bring forward, or will consider bringing forward new powers for the Pensions Regulator. In our upcoming defined benefit pension schemes White Paper, to be delivered in the spring—I know that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said that spring has sprung; I am a little behind him on that, but we live in hope—we will explore the Government’s manifesto commitment to take action to prevent and punish those whose deliberate actions put pension schemes at risk. The White Paper will also set out the steps being taken to deliver new measures and build on existing measures to strengthen the regulator’s anti-avoidance framework and information-gathering powers.
There is a well-established legislative framework that provides protection for members. The Pension Protection Fund was set up by the Government to pay compensation to members of defined benefit schemes where the sponsoring employer is insolvent and the scheme’s funding level is not sufficient to secure pensions at least equal to the level of compensation that the Pension Protection Fund would pay. It is also important to note that the Government are acting in a joined-up way to ensure that all parts of the business, legal and governance framework are considered.
I shall now answer some of the questions that noble Lords have raised, and within the timeframe I have, I shall do my best to go through them. The noble Lord, Lord Freeman, talked about the Green Paper. I should say that the Green Paper has considered the powers of the Pensions Regulator and has encouraged a debate on striking the right balance between the needs and aspirations of sponsoring employers and members. As I have said, the Pension Protection Fund operates in the wider economy to ensure that no one in any group is unfairly disadvantaged. I think I have covered the publication of the White Paper. However, I have to say that the pensions dashboard mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, sounds like a good idea. I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could write to help me understand it.
My noble friends Lady Altmann and Lord Freeman both talked about a cold call ban. We are committed to introducing a pensions cold calling ban as swiftly as possible. We tabled an amendment to the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill to enable us to make regulations to implement the ban. If we have not made these regulations by June, we will publish a statement explaining why and outline a timetable for delivering it.
My noble friend Lord Freeman mentioned CPI and RPI. In the Green Paper we discuss schemes that still use RPI and will set out our position in the White Paper.
My noble friend asked about Royal Mail and the CDC scheme. Royal Mail will close its defined benefit pension scheme and open a defined contribution scheme from 1 April this year. It is working hard with the Communication Workers Union to develop a collective defined contribution scheme, which both parties believe will better meet their needs. This is expected to replace the defined contribution scheme when and if the Government make the necessary changes to the legislation. We expect details of Royal Mail’s proposals imminently. Ahead of that, it is too early to say exactly how the Government will respond. It is also not possible to be more specific about the timetable.
My noble friend also asked about the timing for the introduction of the single financial guidance body. After Royal Assent, we will need time to get the body up to speed, so it will not be before the autumn of this year.
I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann for her contribution to this debate. In the Chamber the other day I mentioned that around the House there are giants on certain subjects. That met with an interesting response but I consider her a giant in the pensions field. I am pleased to have her here today and I hope to learn much from her. I shall be very happy to meet her along with officials, who I am sure will set up that meeting.
On the issue relating to women that my noble friend raised, automatic enrolment was designed specifically to help groups who historically have been less likely to save, such as women and low earners. The workplace pension participation rate of women is now equal to that of men among eligible employees, with, as I said, 73% of women now participating. In the words of, I think, the good man General William Booth, “That and better will do”.
My noble friend Lady Altmann asked what independent trustees can bring to the role. A professional independent trustee can help to ensure that the scheme is run professionally and avoids some of the governance and financial risks inherent in a less experienced and less professional approach. My noble friend spoke about the promotion of pensions and “free money”, which we do not hear about too often. The Government agree that pensions are a fantastic product, which is why noble Lords will have seen posters and TV commercials promoting automatic enrolment.
My noble friend also asked what the Government are doing about default guidance. The Government tabled further amendments on this on Monday. These will be debated in the Commons next Monday, when the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill reaches its Report stage.
The final point that I will make in the time allowed is about GKN and Melrose, raised by the noble Lord, Lord German. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to comment on individual cases. They are a matter for the independent regulator, and therefore we cannot discuss the specifics of this case. The regulator operates a statutory clearance procedure to provide greater certainty for those who are considering transactions involving companies with defined benefit schemes. If clearance is not applied for and granted, the regulator may exercise its powers up to six years after a transaction has taken place if it considers that the transaction was aimed at avoiding a debt for the pension scheme.
I have tried to answer as many of your Lordships’ questions as possible. If, on reading Hansard and talking to the officials, I find that I have missed any, I will ensure that all noble Lords are written to. I end by thanking everybody for their preparation for and contributions to this debate on a most important subject.
Inland Waterways
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the future of United Kingdom inland waterways.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have joined us today for this debate. I declare my interests as a member of the Inland Waterways Association and honorary president of the Monmouth, Breconshire and Abergavenny Canals Trust.
There are currently 4,700 miles of navigable waterways across England, Scotland and Wales—plus, of course, the waterways in Northern Ireland—and a further 1,800 miles of unusable waterways, 700 miles of which are proposed for restoration. The ownership and control of these thousands of miles of waterways rests with more than 100 navigation authorities. The largest manager is the Canal and River Trust, which looks after 2,000 miles, followed by the Environment Agency, which manages 650 miles.
Our inland waterway network is a unique and precious national asset, which has the potential to transform places, enrich lives, improve mental and physical health, support communities and promote economic development. More than half of the population live within 10 minutes of a waterway. Because of their historical role as the motorways of the past, waterways pass through not only wondrous countryside but also the heart of our conurbations. Take a few steps from Paddington station or the Birmingham International Convention Centre and you are immediately on the canal and towpaths of a country-wide waterway network. Unlike the grand places that are among the primary assets of the National Trust, which are often tucked away in some glorious piece of countryside, our waterways pass through some of the most deprived communities in our land. My purpose in this short debate is to shine a light on the value of our waterways, to examine the economic potential that they can unlock and to put to the Government a range of issues where government action can make a difference to realising the waterways’ full potential.
I start by concentrating on the economic potential that waterways provide. Analysis and research of this impact are somewhat sketchy, but they suggest that the value of land and property alongside a navigable canal is some 10% greater than comparable land alongside a disused canal; so values rise where working waterways exist. This rise in value is a vital tool for local authorities up and down the country where there are disused canals. The potential for planning gain should be of great interest to local authorities seeking to promote economic development. Planners have long used development potential to fund public goods such as roads, schools and other forms of community infrastructure, so applying some of this development gain to the restoration of the canal would be a wholly appropriate use for the public good.
The question I pose to the Government is: where is the economic planning policy that would drive this enhancement to our communities, and what steps are the Government taking to encourage local authorities to think carefully about the link between economic development and canal restoration? Another consequence of restoring canals is increased tourism spend. I know that my noble friend Lord Lee will expand on this later. My challenge here is to ask the Government what they are doing to encourage this economic potential.
Like other noble Lords, I should like to have a better understanding of the recent decision by Ministers to put on ice the transfer of the Environment Agency’s navigable waterways to the Canal and River Trust. Perhaps the Minister can tell us where these discussions are at the moment. Has the Minister met with the CRT to explore its offer to take over the operation of these waterways? Can the Minister tell us whether the department is looking for an improved offer from the CRT? If that is the case, can the Minister tell us what more the CRT can do to improve the merits of its offer?
There is some speculation that this is related to the large structures on the waterways that are controlled by the Environment Agency. Of course structures of that size also bear a risk of failure or decay. The Government presently stand behind the Environment Agency as the guarantor for dealing with any damage or consequence of an event to those assets. If an asset of that sort were to be passed to the CRT, there would obviously be a need to either crystallise the risk into a form of payment or to back it with some form of guarantee. Can the Minister let us know whether this issue is one that needs to be resolved and, if so, what is the timescale?
The Canal and River Trust can leverage funding in a way that the Environment Agency cannot. As Environment Agency budgets are squeezed, so its ability to maintain structures and the assets that it manages for government becomes equally restricted. Its ability to restore and repair is reduced. These were precisely the reasons why the CRT was established, and why there was always an expectation that the Environment Agency waterways would eventually be included in the transfer to the Canal and River Trust. The CRT has guaranteed government funds through to 2027, which enables it to borrow and lever additional funds and invest in the longer-term future of our waterways. It produces a return which far exceeds that which the old British Waterways could provide. The sad state of canal closures in Scotland demonstrates the value of the trust structure that we now have in England and Wales.
If our waterways are to maximise their full potential, the Government must engage and appreciate their worth. There is some feeling—I have experienced it—that the Government, having passed on much of the work to the Canal and River Trust, have stood back from promoting the worth of our waterways which, after all, is not necessarily an economic issue for government but it is something that government can promote. It would be reassuring if the Minster could tell us the number of visits that he and other Ministers have made in their official capacities to see our waterways in action. It is not just Defra Ministers who need to engage. Waterways provide access to millions of people; they touch many of our most deprived communities; they can address health inequalities; and they reduce physical inactivity, obesity, diabetes and poor mental health. Through adoption by local people, they can help to build strong, resilient communities—more than 200 community groups have now adopted a stretch of waterway and that number is rising by 20% each year. Beyond that, waterways support learning and skills, covering such diverse areas as natural science, engineering, heritage, arts, technology and mathematics. They help to restore natural habitats and protect endangered wildlife species—and so the list goes on.
Waterways play a role that spans so much of the life of our country, be it in education, health, leisure, sport, local government, tourism or the environment. In reality, this spans many government portfolios. What role is the Minister’s department playing in co-ordinating the government overview of the impact of our waterways on life in our country? It is so important for joined-up action in the promotion of the role that waterways can play. Our waterways are our asset on the doorstep. They need to be nurtured, treasured and—most importantly—used to the full, and the Government have a major role to play in providing that support.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord German, on having obtained the debate. I make it clear at the outset that I agree with almost every word that he said, which is a novel experience for me. I also declare an interest: I have been interested in waterways—in fact, I have been on them, mainly in the English Midlands—for the last 20 years. I am on my second narrowboat; as you buy them they get more and more expensive, so I do not think I will go further than that. Like the noble Lord, I congratulate the Canal and River Trust on its successes. I know that there were worries when it was formed as to whether it would be successful, but it has been very successful. Like him, I am disappointed that we have had the hiccup with regard to the Environment Agency’s waterways coming into the CRT, but in the long run that must happen; if it does not, the problems will increase.
The noble Lord also mentioned the way in which the CRT can continue to help with the restoration and recovery of canals, and I want to highlight a couple of important measures on that point. One would of course be to put in place the link that has been talked of for some time between Milton Keynes and Bedford, which would make access to the Environment Agency’s waterways in the east much easier and would considerably extend the opportunity for leisure use there. I give a more immediate welcome to what is proposed with regard to Daventry. The noble Lord mentioned that it is open to local authorities to use the planning system to generate the money that will create a canal. In Daventry we are talking about only something like a mile and a quarter, but it would enable people who currently go past Daventry on the Grand Union to go in and take advantage of the town itself. That is one of the great advantages that we see from the waterways.
We are dealing with waterways in the United Kingdom, which enables me to bring in those in Northern Ireland. The problem is that there are not that many of them, unfortunately. There were a number of canals but none is active at the moment. The railways in Ireland never made any money, nor did the canals; it has to do with the way in which the population is distributed and the absence of large industrial sites outside the Greater Belfast area. We have a problem there. We have the Fermanagh lakes, the Lower Bann and its great lake, which is problematic in some ways. However, I draw attention to two potential developments in Northern Ireland. The first is the Lagan Navigation, which is this year starting a process of restoration to one of its locks. In fact, it is the first lock that you encounter in Belfast, because the Lagan Navigation goes from Belfast to Lough Neagh. We are starting with what will be the most expensive lock to restore, which is a good first step forward. In that connection, I have to mention that my wife is the deputy chairman of the Lagan Navigation Trust, so I am slightly prejudiced.
I also mention the Ulster Canal, which starts and ends in Northern Ireland but, in between, it meanders through large parts of the Republic of Ireland. That enabled us to choose that to develop as a cross-border co-operation project. I was well aware of the extent to which the Government of southern Ireland had taken a strong lead in the restoration of canals, and have succeeded in putting in place the two major canals that go from Dublin to the Shannon, thus extending greatly the area that can be cruised. I knew that officials in Belfast did not have the same enthusiasm and it seemed to me that, if we put together a cross-border body and exposed them to the broader horizon that their southern counterparts had, that might have a positive result.
I do not know whether what I am going to say is absolutely true, because I am dealing with what other people have said to me, but they have told me that there is an annual meeting under the aegis of Waterway Irelands between the people representing north and south. In the course of this annual meeting, the folk from Dublin said, “Here’s our money for beginning the restoration of the Ulster canal”, and the Northern Ireland representatives hummed and hawed and got uncomfortable as they had not got anywhere. They had not got past the idea that was prevalent nearly 40 years ago that there was no significant market for leisure activities based on canals and had not realised that huge leisure opportunities are developing on canals. From the point of view of Northern Ireland tourism, this adds another niche. Tourism in Northern Ireland is always going to be a matter of niche markets, because we do not have sun and the temperatures that people get in the Mediterranean and elsewhere, but this is an important niche to add. I hope that sooner or later the penny will drop and we will some steps being taken on the Ulster Canal. As it links Lough Neagh with Lough Erne, that would give an integrated waterways network in Northern Ireland, which would generate more leisure activities.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate. In my short contribution today, I want to focus primarily on the tourism aspects of our inland waterways. I declare an interest as chairman of ALVA—the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions. It has 70 members, all of which receive more than 1 million visitors a year, and a very important member is the Canal and River Trust. It manages 2,000 miles of historic navigable waterways, which is 70% of our national network. When I was Tourism Minister in the later 1980s, inland waterways were regarded very much as a lost tourism opportunity. Many waterways were overgrown, full of debris and unnavigable. The Thames was then regarded as a hugely underdeveloped tourism and national asset. However, even then improvements were starting. In my Pendle constituency, significant work was done in cleaning and upgrading the Leeds and Liverpool Canal.
In recent years, mainly thanks to the work of the Canal and River Trust, formerly British Waterways, huge strides have been made. Many waterway networks within and around our older industrial towns, such as Birmingham and Manchester, have been transformed and restored. The Canal and River Trust licenses and supports 33,000 boats on our waterways, and in a typical two-week period the waterways welcome 2 million walkers and 180,000 fishing visits and facilitate 600,000 joggers, 700,000 cyclists and 150,000 canoeists, rowers and paddle boaters. The trust’s waterways are home to 63 SSSIs and the third-largest collection of listed buildings in the country, including significant individual attractions such as the Anderton boat lift. It is estimated that 2,500 jobs are sustained by inland marinas and boat hire.
Turning from the macro, a couple of years ago we had the privilege to move from south of Manchester to Richmond, Surrey and now live 200 yards from the Thames. This section of the Thames is a major tourism and sporting draw. On the river there are moored boats, canoeing and rowing—it is marvellous to see youngsters participating—as well as small boat building and repair operations, fishing, the very occasional brave swimmer. There are paddle steamers and larger boats taking passengers through the Teddington lock to Kingston and Hampton Court and in some cases to Westminster. There is wonderful birdlife, with a wide variety of ducks, gulls, herons and cormorants. Given the number of herons and cormorants, it is quite clear that the Thames is host to a very substantial fishing stock. I judge that there is a much greater fishing opportunity than people realise.
I fished the Thames locally on three occasions with Warwick Salzer, a Thames fishing guide, in his converted landing craft and caught a number of nine-pound and 10-pound pike. A couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity of seeing a seal in action, taking a fish for itself just off the towpath. All this activity brings substantial tourism footfall and spend to Richmond, obviously benefiting the wider economy—cafés, pubs and restaurants. Most tourists walk the riverbank. I describe this as “towpath tourism”, for jogging, walking and cycling, but I have to say that it is not ideal, in many respects, to see walkers and fast cyclists so intertwined—though fortunately, I have seen no serious accidents yet. Of course, Richmond is somewhat special, given its history, with the Turner view, the park, Kew Gardens, Twickenham Stadium; but the river is the number one draw for most visitors. Many other communities up and down the country benefit from tourists and visitors engaging in water pursuits or just walking the towpaths.
I want to ask the Minister about pollution and prosecutions. In a Written Answer to Question 515 on 21 June last year in the other place, the Minister— Dr Thérèse Coffey—gave details of successful prosecutions in England, with Wales having been devolved over the past 10 years. In each year, between 2007 and 2010, there were over 100 successful pollution prosecutions. However, since 2011, that number has fallen steadily. In 2015, there were only 22, and last year, only 14 in the first half of the year. Of course, since 2011, enforcement undertaking offers have been available, which are legally binding voluntary agreements containing proposals for the restoration of any environmental harm. They have been available as an alternative to formal prosecution. Does the Minister think that the fall in prosecutions is perhaps because of the aforementioned alternative? Does he have any numbers on agreed enforcement undertakings? My concern is that, perhaps because of manpower reductions or cost-cutting, the Environment Agency is not able to police our rivers and inland waterways and investigate reports of pollution incidents as speedily and thoroughly as would be ideal. Obviously, I totally understand if the Minister would prefer to write to me on that specific point.
In conclusion, I hope and expect that our inland waterways will be steadily improved and expanded further in future for the benefit of residents, communities, tourists and—of course—future generations.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the debate of the noble Lord, Lord German, UK inland waterways and the opportunity to take part. I have nothing to declare: I am not an associate and I do not own a longboat, unlike my noble friend, but I enjoy walking along our many waterways with my two friends, Daisy and Ted, who are my dogs. I enjoy them and they enjoy it, too.
Bringing our waterways into the big society puts decision-making into the hands of the thousands of people who love the waterways—like me—and have the pleasure of living near them. Therefore I welcome the Government’s commitment to invest and support local communities and volunteers helping to shape the future of our much-loved waterways.
Importantly, the main and overriding issue is that of safeguarding the safety and structural integrity of water infrastructure and the safety of users and neighbours. One of the main issues must be improving water quality and managing flood risks, as well as enhancing and supporting our heritage while respecting the character of our landscape, creating ample space to develop leisure and commercial activities—as previous speakers have alluded to. Of course, there are many challenges but I always think that challenges bring new ideas.
Waterways are our history; demonstrating their individuality and uniqueness is important. We may not be Holland, with many miles of waterways, but our network of 200 year-old canals and rivers is valued and therefore must be preserved. Our landscape, too, is very precious, so both have to be supported for long-term sustainability, highlighting the opportunity to welcome our visitor economy.
An important issue to raise today is our waterways’ connection to our health and well-being. They are integral in encouraging and supporting physical and healthy outdoor activity. They are an opportunity for someone who may feel isolated and lonely; they can be a lever to begin volunteering, resulting in creating long and lasting friendships, particularly as we are all living longer and healthier lives.
It is also the time to value the environment. Almost 50% of the population live within five miles of a waterway and nearly 1 million people live within a 100-metre catchment. Attention must be drawn to improving physical access to canals and to introducing creative signage, with up-to-date public information to keep awareness and interest for people. As I have stressed, securing the long-term future of our managed waterways is a given, as well as resolving the best outcome for the public purse. Lots of work is also needed to rid our canals of the scourge of the many types of microplastics entering the environment via sewage and sewage sludge.
From soft landscape to commercial opportunities, there are huge opportunities for businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises which want to relocate and stimulate a community, bringing work and jobs. It is particularly important to our rural areas which are situated in an idyllic setting.
Finally, it is important just to be able to enjoy the ambience as well as valuing our natural environment; to discover the pleasure of just being there beside our canals, for everyone who wishes to preserve our heritage. They, too, want to make a better place for our future generations.
Once again I thank the noble Lord for tabling this debate and look forward to the Minister’s response in encouraging the improvement of our canals and waterways. I hope there is support, so that canals and waterways will have a future.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for bringing us here today. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, that one of the best scenes I have seen in my life was on the shore of the lake by Enniskillen, where the hotel is. When we opened the curtains in the morning and looked down to the water, at the cattle with their feet in the water, it was absolutely magnificent. If those sorts of things are not exploited, somebody needs to do something about it, because they are eminently saleable.
My history goes back a long way, I am afraid. I was present at Reading Town Hall at the initial meeting of those who were determined to stop the Government abandoning the Kennet and Avon Canal, and at the start of the restoration of that canal, alongside which I lived for a long time, at Bradford on Avon. My history is on the railways. I want to bring to the Minister’s attention the huge input that is now achieved on the railways from the community rail partnerships, of which there are a very large number. Those people do a variety of things in terms of looking after buildings, gardens and making sure the station is pleasant. Much of that encouragement has come from the train operating companies and Network Rail putting seedcorn down to encourage people, giving them training where necessary, and tools and accommodation that they can use. Thousands of people are fascinated by railways; I think they are even more fascinated by canals.
What I really want to draw attention to is the fact that, although there are a lot of willing, and increasingly skilled, volunteers—I believe that a lock at Stroud in Gloucestershire has been restored almost entirely with volunteer labour—that must never be seen as a means of government washing its hands. If volunteers ever got the idea that the efforts they put in meant that the Government would withdraw their support, that would be almost pernicious. Whatever problems there might be with funding—and there will always be such problems—supporting those volunteers is vital to the Canal and River Trust and to the railways. Volunteering and the allegiance that people feel to their railway lines and canals is a strange thing. It is not something that I think motorways suffer from at all—people want to get away from those.
I wanted to speak in this debate to say to the Minister, “Look at what the community rail partnerships are achieving and make sure you give at least equivalent support to the volunteers”. There are many ways that can be done—through training and dealing with buildings and gardens, and even just picking up rubbish, which is very important in many of these places. I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say when he replies.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for tabling this debate and to all noble Lords for reminding us of the joys of participating in the nearly 5,000 navigable miles of inland waterways. We in the UK are very privileged to have access to such an abundant network of canals, rivers and lakes, with all the opportunities they bring for leisure and work. As noble Lords have said, they provide enormous opportunities for recreation, whether fishing, cycling, walking or simply messing around in boats. They also continue to provide inexpensive and environmentally beneficial opportunities for moving freight around the country—something I am sure we could exploit more than we do at the moment. They even provide affordable alternative living space. At least one of my noble colleagues resides on his canal boat in London when the House is sitting—even during the bad weather, he told me, although he also told me that the increased mooring charge is finally pricing even him out of that lifestyle.
Boat ownership is now more prevalent than it was at the height of the Industrial Revolution, and we have heard a little about the joys that it brings. Canals also provide significant wider environmental benefits. There are benefits to wildlife from restored waterways, including improved biodiversity in flora, fauna and habitat, and they play their part in reducing CO2 emissions and improving drainage and flood alleviation. As a number of noble Lords have said, the restoration projects that have taken place have provided enormous community benefits and opportunities for volunteering, as well as improved health and well-being, which goes along with that.
Therefore, it is important that we do everything we can to maintain the quality of the water and the surrounding pathways to ensure that the highest environmental standards are maintained. I pay tribute to the work of the Canal and River Trust and the Environment Agency for their hard work in protecting these valuable natural assets. However, clearly more needs to be done, as we have heard today.
We still face huge challenges from water pollution—a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lee. The Environment Agency recently said that England’s water companies are still responsible for an alarming number of pollution incidents each year—at least one a week. As its chair, Emma Howard Boyd, pointed out:
“This pollution can lead to the death of wildlife, major environmental damage and, in the worst cases, puts the public at risk”.
Last year, Thames Water received a record £20.3 million fine after it admitted dumping 1.4 billion litres of raw sewage into the Thames between 2012 and 2014, leaving people and animals ill and killing thousands of fish. Although the fine was the biggest in the Environment Agency’s history, it represented just 10 days’ operating profits for the company. Therefore, we need to ensure in the future that fines are proportionate and that they truly act as a deterrent. So I ask the Minister: what further action is proposed to ensure that water companies take their environmental responsibilities seriously? Meanwhile, I was pleased to read that Michael Gove has also laid into the water companies and has threatened to give Ofwat greater control over what he described as their “opaque” finances. I also have to say that I visited the Thames tideway super-sewer project a few months ago and was pleased to see that the company was finally taking positive action to clean up the Thames.
Although we think of canal boats as being environmentally friendly, we cannot avoid the fact that they contribute to the air pollution caused by nitrogen oxides. Particularly in residential areas, they are responsible for the pollution caused by wood-burning and solid wood stoves, and boat engines used for propulsion and electrical generation. Of course, canal boats typically have diesel engines. So there is a need to accelerate the search for alternative fuels and energy storage, including the wider use of solar panels and hydrogen- and battery-powered engines.
Farmers owning adjoining farmland also need to play their part in cutting back on river and canal pollution. Although there is much greater awareness and education of landowners these days, more than half of our rivers have been found to have unacceptable levels of phosphorus caused by sewage effluent and contaminated run-off from farmland. Can the Minister update us on the steps being taken to ensure that farmers are compliant with environmental standards? How many prosecutions have there been of farmers who wilfully ignore their responsibilities?
Canals and rivers also play their part in harbouring non-native invasive plants and animals. We know, for example, of the destructive impact of non-native crayfish, but people are also guilty of disposing of plants intended for garden ponds and aquariums in our rivers and waterways without realising the harm they can cause. Can the Minister remind us what steps are being taken to educate the public about the threat these pose, and also to educate volunteers, who do so much to clean up our waterways, about what they should look out for in terms of non-native invasive plants and animals, and what action they should be taking?
We have debated the negative impact of plastic on our rivers and waterways several times recently. All too often single-use plastics are dumped or washed into rivers and flow out to sea, creating huge marine pollution as well as unsightly shorelines and beaches. As we know, nearly half of all single-use plastic bottles are currently not recycled. Instead, they are discarded or put into regular bins, and end up in landfill. Once there, as we all now know, they take hundreds of years to break down. We urgently need to cut back on their use by implementing a bottle-deposit scheme, as well as improving recycling rates. Perhaps the Minister could remind us of the outcome of the recent consultation on this issue and tell us what action the Government now propose to take on single-use plastics.
Finally, I am aware that many of these issues are addressed in the 25-year environment plan. When the plan was published, we expressed concern at the lack of urgency and the need for more measurable targets. There was intended to be follow-up on this issue. Can the Minister update us on the progress of that action?
I am conscious that my contribution has focused on some of the challenges facing our waterways, rather than celebrating them. They are a much-loved part of British life and my concern is only that that should continue to be the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord German, on securing this debate, particularly given his contribution as president of the Monmouthshire, Brecon and Abergavenny Canals Trust. Protecting those very important canals is a great achievement. I have listened with great interest to noble Lords, given their considerable interest in and experience and knowledge of our inland navigation system.
As your Lordships will know, the first canal system dates from Roman Britain and was used largely for irrigation or to link our rivers. Many of our canals were built at the height of the Industrial Revolution, which demanded an economic and reliable way to transport goods and commodities in large quantities. I am always struck when one travels up the M1 that one can see the motorway, the railway and the canal and note how beautiful the canal is. However, I had better not go down that line too much.
That highlights how our canals and rivers have played a significant part in our country. Of course we treasure the tangible connections with the past, and probably even more equally, if that is possible, we realise the benefits of the waterways not only for today but for the future. They encapsulate a history of growth and then decline, and from the 1970s onwards a story of regeneration and increasing commercial and recreational use. I am thinking of some of our urban centres. My wife is a sculptor and the foundry she uses is in Limehouse. If one visits Limehouse today, or indeed Birmingham and Leeds, we can see that in many of the towns and cities that were the hub of the Industrial Revolution, the canals and rivers are the open door because of their development potential, as the noble Lord, Lord German, highlighted. Moreover, when we think of heritage it is obvious to move on to tourism, as the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, emphasised in his remarks.
A great many listed buildings line our canals and rivers: scheduled ancient monuments, heritage structures ranging from small iconic milestones as well as working structures such as lock gates and swing bridges. We can marvel at the Caledonian Canal cutting through the Great Glen or the 29-lock Caen Hill flight on the Kennet and Avon Canal. I recall in a previous life the valiant work of the late Admiral Sir William O’Brien with the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust. We also have the architectural splendour of the grade 1 listed Pontcysyllte Aqueduct carrying the Llangollen Canal over the River Dee. That structure alone is a UNESCO world heritage site which attracts 300,000 visitors a year.
Apart from their traditional role as a system of travel and transport, our inland waterways serve the many purposes to which noble Lords have referred. The noble Lord, Lord German, talked about regeneration and growth, as well as the contribution they make to water supply and transfer, drainage and flood management, and as a means of commercial transport, a point highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. From the fishing point of view, the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, raised the importance of angling and how the angler often is the person to notice when there is pollution in the water and thus is part of the early warning system.
We said in our manifesto and in our 25-year environment plan that we want to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than the one we inherited. We want everyone to be able to enjoy ready access to our blue spaces—that is, the towpaths of our canals and our riversides which provide great benefit. I was struck by the words of my noble friend Lady Redfern when she spoke of the sheer pleasure derived by the large number of people who live close to our waterways. We could describe that as the green and blue prescriptions that the waterways provide.
The significance of the formation of the Canal and River Trust is that it was the first major transfer of a public body into the charitable sector and it has acted as a flagship. As has been said, the trust has ownership of more than 2,000 miles of waterway. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, will not mind me emphasising this, but providing the trust with £800 million under a legally binding 15-year grant agreement in what I would call stretched times is an indication of the appreciation of what the trust is doing now and can do in the future, which is a very strong endorsement. The funding has given the trust financial certainty so that it can plan for the long term as well as achieve value for money and attract funding from other investment and commercial income such as boat licensing—I heard what the noble Baroness said about that—and donations.
I will highlight the words of my noble friend Lady Redfern and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. One key objective in creating the trust was to increase the involvement of local people in the waterways. I would recommend to noble Lords the Library pack, which set out the annual report of the trust. I was impressed that, in 2016-17, the trust harnessed 540,000 volunteer hours. I so agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said about invasives—I spent a really enjoyable day pulling Himalayan balsam with volunteers in the river catchments of the New Forest National Park. Not only are the volunteers doing great environmental work but, when I said, “Thank you very much”, they said, “Don’t you realise how much pleasure we derive from doing this work?” It is bearing fruit, because there is less Himalayan balsam in these upper reaches causing damage.
The noble Baroness also mentioned raising awareness, which is why our Check, Clean, Dry campaign is so important, with its message not to bring back anything with your sponge bag. I will be having a meeting on floating pennywort, which is also causing great problems to watercourses because, at some point, a member of the public took it from their pond and put it in the watercourse. We need to raise awareness of that. The trust has also increased community involvement—which was also raised by noble Lords—including in arts and education projects. Last year, 43,586 children took part in its waterways education programme.
The Environment Agency is the second-largest navigation authority in the country, with the majority of the length of its waterways accounted for in the Fens and Anglian waterways, the River Thames and the River Wye. The agency manages more than 3,000 assets for the benefit of more than 26,000 boat users and the wider public. These waterways also provide a significant contribution to the UK economy and are an intrinsic part of the urban and rural landscapes through which they pass. The Government are providing funding of £13 million to the Environment Agency to support the maintenance of its navigation assets from 2016-17 to 2019-20. Additional income is raised from boat licensing charges and commercial income.
I turn to the Broads Authority, because I have responsibility for national parks and the Broads Authority is in that family. They are wonderful waterways; I spent a wonderful day on them in my ministerial capacity and a number of other days in other capacities. The authority undertakes a vital role in looking after the 120 miles of navigable waterways in Norfolk and Suffolk. This beautiful waterscape alone attracts 8 million people a year, bringing in around £550 million to the UK tourism economy. I raise that, because I think it is a small example of what the waterways bring in terms of tourism, and indeed what tourism brings to our national economy and to our reputation.
All of the many other navigation authorities take very seriously their stewardship role. Both Natural Resources Wales and the trust are responsible for a number of the waterways in Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland manage their respective inland waterways. I was particularly interested in what my noble friend Lord Trimble said about Waterways Ireland, which is one of the six north-south implementation bodies established under the British-Irish agreement in 1999. The funding currently reflects the current distribution of waterways in each jurisdiction—the Northern Ireland Assembly accounts for 15% and the Irish Parliament for 85%—but capital development programmes are funded separately by the jurisdiction where the works are carried out. My noble friend highlighted the collaboration and co-operation in the restoration of the waterways that serve both parts of that island, which is a key example of a force for good.
I pay tribute to the Inland Waterways Association, its 16,000 members and the many volunteers who—as I have said—work tirelessly in helping to safeguard and enhance our waterways. It is a very strong partnership.
The noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lord Trimble raised the issue of the transfer of Environment Agency navigations to the trust. The Inland Waterways Association and many in the boating community have welcomed this, and we are working on it. My honourable friend Thérèse Coffey has met the trust, and they are working on this; she has instructed officials in Defra and the Environment Agency to work with the trust on a revised proposal which fully accounts for which assets could be transferred and the timings for that. If I have any further details, given the hour and time, I shall write to the noble Lord.
I shall also have to write to the noble Baroness about some of the examples of pollution. I have a lot more to say on pollution, which is a scourge. It is something that we need to deal with, whether it emanates from farming or boats—wherever it emanates from—because we need to bring down pollution rates and improve water quality. That is a key part of the 25-year environment plan.
I am sorry, but I have been at the equine forum this morning, so I shall say that this has been a very brisk gallop through a very important subject. I conclude by saying that my honourable friend spent a very interesting visit to the Birmingham canals, and I have over my time visited many canals. The trusts are right to celebrate this year the 50th anniversary of the Transport Act 1968. I wish them, and all those who have the responsibility for navigation and inland waterways, all success, because the future is very much one where, whether it is an enhancement of quality of our green or our blue environment, the waterways have a key role to play in the fulfilment of a better life for the people of this nation. So I am most grateful to the noble Lord for this opportunity.
Buses
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bradshaw
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they propose to take to reverse the decline in the use of buses in England outside London.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I think this is the third debate in Grand Committee about bus services. One was tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and one by my noble friend Lady Randerson. Having read the debates, I thought that the conclusions really meant almost nothing at all; the words went into the air but the actions did not follow.
Much time is spent by politicians discussing the bus industry. Unfortunately, most of them talk about ownership. This has little to do with the major issue that confronts the bus operators: congestion. The use of buses in England outside London has been on a downward trend for about nine or 10 years. Congestion affects private and public sector operators regardless of ownership. I often travel on buses in Reading, which are run by a municipal company, and in Oxford, where the companies are privately owned. In both cities there are fairly effective partnership arrangements, modern vehicles and enterprising ticketing systems, which are improving. Nevertheless, they are suffering declining levels of patronage caused by congestion, which is felt throughout Great Britain. This subject will form the core of my remarks. I hope that the Minister, in her reply, can give some positive answers.
First, I draw attention to the fact that the bus industry has suffered a significant decline in financial support relative to the car. Fuel duty for road transport has been frozen since 2011. The bus service operator’s grant, which the bus industry has traditionally enjoyed, has been reduced by about 20%; that means that, relative to the car, its costs associated with fuel have increased. Wages in the bus industry have to be competitive to attract and keep drivers, because bus driving is not a very nice job, and have risen well in advance of general wage levels, particularly in the cities.
Another fiscal measure that needs close examining is the availability of concessionary travel to young people. These people have a high propensity to travel and will make more and more journeys if they can afford it. Making young persons’ railcards available on trams and buses—as well as trains—would stimulate travel, and serious consideration should be given to this measure. It might not be very expensive because of the high propensity to travel. It would also be a disincentive to car ownership. It really is time we stopped talking about this and moved on to some action.
However, bus operators must shoulder high fixed costs. They have to provide vehicles of higher and higher standards because the engines’ emissions have to keep improving; they pay wages that rise faster than average; and they must operate to high standards of reliability and punctuality to retain or increase market share—and indeed to continue to enjoy the privilege of a licence to operate.
The efforts of operators to maintain standards of punctuality are frustrated by increasing traffic congestion. It has been shown that efforts by the bus industry to maintain punctuality by increasing the number of buses operating on a route increases operators’ costs by an average of some 8%. However, it provides no additional revenue, and if costs are passed on through higher fares, passenger numbers decline further and we are in a vicious circle. One is forced into a situation where government, either nationally or locally, must take action if effective remedies are to be found for the problems of bus punctuality. Almost any initiative the companies can make without tackling the problems associated with congestion is likely to fail.
That brings us to the fundamental question of why so much is done in cities to encourage car use and so little to facilitate bus operation. Is it because of the intense pressure from the motoring lobby or the cowardice of politicians nationally or locally—local authorities vie with each another to attract cars to their shops with offers of highly subsidised parking, often ignoring the land values attaching to city-centre car parks—or is it because of an unwillingness to get tough with obstructive parking? When all these advantages are weighed in any objective assessment, what advantage does the bus have and who speaks for the bus user? In this situation, should not government, local or national, try to redress the balance effectively?
What ambitions are available apart from effective road markings and effective enforcement? Obviously, the simplest is the introduction of road user pricing. This can be made fiscally neutral by adjustments to vehicle excise duty but it would mean that those who chose to drive on the busiest roads at the busiest times would pay more and those in the country would pay less or, more likely, nothing at all. This use of the pricing mechanism is the way that markets work in almost every other field, and I believe it is the policy of the Government. Pricing would be time-related so that small charges would be made between the peaks and none at all at night. The whole process could be conducted automatically, so there would be no need for vehicles to stop. The technology is essentially the same for policing low-emission areas and can be expected to operate reliably.
The Traffic Management Act 2004, brought into force by the then Labour Government, provided for some measures to deal with congestion, including decriminalisation of certain offences such as abuse of parking regulations. These may be enforced by local authorities, which are enabled to retain the proceeds from penalty notices to defray the costs of enforcement. Most local authorities elected to apply to take up these powers, although some still have not. In fact, the area in which I live in South Oxfordshire has not done so and has tried to rely on police enforcement, which does not exist. The police have far greater priorities—we have only to look at what has gone on in Salisbury.
The result is that dangerous and illegal parking is rife in the area, which has undesirable consequences in terms of congestion. It also brings the law into disrepute. Because people see offences routinely not being prosecuted, they push further and further and ignore other regulations. However, local authorities which have adopted these decriminalised powers wish to go further to eliminate some other offences which aggravate congestion, such as illegal right turns and the abuse of yellow box junctions. Powers for Her Majesty’s Government exist within Schedule 6 to the Act but have not been brought into effect outside London, despite huge pressure from the Local Government Association. I urge the Minister to agree to do this right away and to impress on those local authorities that have not adopted the decriminalised powers to do so quickly.
Access to the highway for roadworks, mostly by the utilities, causes delay. Under the same Act, we were supposed to see “highway management”, which would see some control exercised over the utilities by the introduction of things such as lane rental. What has become of this, and why does the Minister think that the co-ordination of roadworks, which was promised at the time, does not work? Highway maintenance causes delays for which the supposed remedy of lane rental has not been an effective response, while the unresolved problem of potholes goes from bad to worse. It is no good berating the bus companies about punctuality, as Transport Focus does, unless the root causes are tackled by the Government. Buses, unlike the railways, have no control over the highways on which they operate. That control belongs to government, both local and national, as does the enforcement of their operation.
Partnerships work well in some areas such as Brighton, but even there some 13 buses have been added since 2012 to the fleet of 200—
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I am sorry, but the noble Lord’s time to speak is up.
Lord Bradshaw
I am sorry, but I have almost finished. Those buses have been added because of the effects of congestion. In Oxford, in 1996 the journey from Abingdon to the city centre took 70 minutes but now takes 96. Within the city, a trip to Kidlington which in 1986 took 60 minutes now takes 80. I have many other examples from elsewhere around the country. The single issue I want to hear more about from the Minister is what the Government propose to do about congestion.
The Earl of Arran (Con)
My Lords, some of your Lordships will remember the cuts made in the 1960s to train services following recommendations made in the Beeching report. The effects of that still haunt many rural areas, particularly in the south-west peninsula and in my own county of Devon. Regrettably, there is evidence that we are suffering a similar decline in our rural bus services. This has accelerated rapidly since the Cameron Government slashed grants to operators and funding for councils. The situation we face is that UK bus coverage has now hit a 28-year low, down to levels of service last seen in the 1980s. In the past 10 years alone, we have seen the loss of 134 million miles of coverage. Further evidence of the speed of decline is stark. In 2016, some 248 services in England were reduced or altered, with 124 being withdrawn. The worst affected that year was my county of Devon, where 58 services were affected.
In 2017, cuts to local authority funding support for the south-west were 10%. In that year, for example, Dorset County Council slashed £1.85 million from its subsidy scheme, cutting the number of bus services it assisted from 35 to a mere seven. In 2018, the decline looks likely to continue. We have just heard that Northamptonshire County Council has voted to remove its entire bus subsidy. Local authorities have historically been at the forefront of subsidising unprofitable routes, but this proud and worthy record now seems destined to quietly slip away. It will leave gaps in whole swathes of our rural areas covered either by commercial operators, which are becoming more risk-averse and therefore investing only in profitable routes, or by community and charitable groups.
The only area where services have increased is London, which now accounts for 25% of all the bus miles travelled in England, and where you can see bus after bus with scarcely anyone in them. It would be easy to blame this situation on a lack of demand and an increasing rise in car use. In Devon, the third biggest county in England, with a population of around 750,000, around 150,000 people—19% of the county’s population—are without the use of a private vehicle. Also, many of those with cars are struggling because of the lack of service facilities outside urban centres. The decline in rural garages has been dramatic. Since 2000, some 4,000 out of a total of 7,000 independent operators have closed down.
The further isolation of our rural communities is something that this Committee should deplore, but why? In addition to social mobility, many people are now struggling to reach the basic services most of us take for granted, including shops, education and health. It is estimated that 400,000 people are in work or in a better job because of the availability of a bus service. Fifty per cent of students are frequent bus users for access to education and training. Our economists calculate that bus commuters generate £64 billion of economic benefit per year, with bus users making shopping and leisure trips worth £27.2 billion per year.
So how are the Government going to address these issues? Although the Bus Services Act 2017 was designed to get local authorities and bus companies working in partnership to improve services, clearly it did not take into account continuing cuts to local authority budgets. The Transport Secretary has suggested a change to demand-led services, Uber style. I remind him of the enormous value of our community and charitable organisations. In Devon, for example, rural community transport charities provide a ring-and-ride service on a wheelchair-enabled minibus for shopping, a volunteer car service for people requiring transport to important appointments at hospital and so on, and a community minibus hire service. Similar services are being provided in other cut-off communities in Wales and north-west England.
What can be done? I shall make a few suggestions. First, more noise is needed to prevent a Beeching-style repeat. Secondly, assuming that local authority budgets will be slashed further, local authority budgets should be ring-fenced or top-sliced for the continued provision of rural services. Thirdly, there should be a review of the method of funding, revenue support being more helpful than capital. Fourthly, there should be an urgent review of the effects on rural bus services of the English national concessionary scheme, which provides free travel for those aged over 65. Fifthly, we should consider making rural bus services a statutory provision, as with education and health, rather than optional. Sixthly, we should establish a national connectivity fund. Seventhly and finally, we need a total transport scheme which can use the power of the digital world to provide integrated networks.
The Transport Secretary needs to get to grips with this as there is much anxiety and aggravation out there. Mr Reg Varney from the TV series “On the Buses” will surely be after the Transport Secretary unless something happens.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
I thank my noble friend Lord Bradshaw for tabling today’s debate and for being so effective in keeping the woes of the bus industry on the agenda because buses tend to get overtaken by railways.
Like the noble Earl, I shall use my time to speak about rural bus services in England, where there is a particularly intractable set of problems. Last year, when the Bus Services Bill was going through this House, rural issues were raised quite a number of times. The Minister, to his credit, was forced to admit that not enough attention had been paid to the potential benefits that could come from the Bus Services Act if it was implemented in the right way. I know we are not so far on, but it would be very interesting to hear from the Minister what work is going on in the department to make sure that rural areas are not forgotten. During the passage of the Bill, we talked about the way in which the commissioning process could use the Public Services (Social Value) Act criteria to level the playing field with social and community providers of transport. That was something the Minister was quite responsive to, so I would like to hear a little more about that.
I shall make two points which at one level are rather obvious, but which are not always well understood. First, there are different sorts of rural areas. The village I live in in Suffolk is tiny. There are about 200 people in the parish, and it has never had a regular bus service. People stay there only if they have access to a car, and community transport plays an important part for a very small number of people with particular needs. A mile away is a village 10 times the size, which is a completely different kettle of fish. It has always had a very good bus service. People moved there knowing that they had access to the nearby market town and then onwards to Ipswich and Bury St Edmunds. The service has undergone successive contractions and it is now getting harder and harder for people to use the bus to get into work, or to hospitals and other places. These are both rural communities but they have very different expectations and needs.
The second point is that it is convenient to think about rural and urban areas separately, but of course they are inextricably linked. The overall health of the bus industry, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, is very bad, and if it is bad overall, it is dire in rural areas. We have to understand that they are linked. Also, there is the congestion problem: given that most rural journeys might originate in a rural area but are going to an urban area, they are also impacted.
The CPRE has recorded that supported mileage by local authorities has fallen by 24%. It is using the term, “the Beeching of the buses”. Many of them are in rural areas. It is quite illuminating that the Campaign for Better Transport worked out that the total of those lost grants is £225 million in England. That is a lot of money for local authorities, but in government terms, it is the cost of a single bypass. It represents 17% of bus journeys but the ones that are the most socially necessary for some groups.
In 2016, this House published a report on the way in which the Equality Act is being delivered. There was a particular strand of evidence from users about the way in which local authorities fail to do proper impact assessments when they are making decisions about bus provision. As a consequence, a number of groups now face very real problems, which are bad enough if you are in an urban area—in a rural area, it is hopeless. Many older people are unable to drive and depend on public transport. Reimbursement of the bus pass is not keeping up with the costs and, in any case, in many places there are no services on which to use a concessionary pass. In some areas, including my own, a switch to community transport schemes is all very well, but the local authority has used the licensing regime of the buses used to deny passengers the use of their concessionary fares pass.
We know that younger people are taking fewer journeys. In an urban area, that is probably quite a good thing, but in rural areas the only practical way for younger people to look for work or attend higher education—or even have some sort of social life—is running a car. I was talking to providers running the Government’s flagship National Citizen Service; they told me that rural transport is a real barrier to participation for many young people and—because the NCS is provided on a county basis—there was a ridiculous situation where students on the Cambridgeshire border were expected to get to Ipswich, which was just impossible by public transport, but could not go to Cambridge, where there is a bus. The delivery of some of these other services really needs looking at.
For jobseekers without access to a car, just getting to job centres is a real problem. There is the iniquity of people being sanctioned when the system lets them down. Then, of course, there are people on low incomes, who are very dependent on buses. In rural areas, because there are no buses, it is more likely that people who really cannot afford to do so are having to run one or even two cars just to get to work and so on. The irony of all this is that collectively we are actually spending quite a lot of money on buses. Between the bus operators grant, concessionary fares, home-to- school transport, the voluntary sector and health and social providers, there is a lot—but it has never been joined up.
I know that the Government have created some pilots under the Total Transport scheme, covering 37 local authority areas. It would be really useful to know a bit about the outcome of the pilots and what lessons were learned. On a linked point, the Campaign for Better Transport and the Passenger Transport Group are keen to see a connectivity fund, which would bring together this expenditure. I look forward to the Minister’s answer and I hope that she understands the very real concerns that are being expressed today about the overall state of the bus industry, particularly in rural areas.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for bringing this important question before us today. The topic is close to my heart: I have spent much of my life and ministry working in rural areas. I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Given that I, too, am going to talk about particular challenges to do with rural bus services, which the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, have spoken about, I also declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition.
As a former Bishop of Shrewsbury and the current Bishop of St Albans, when I was looking at the statistics I was deeply alarmed to discover that Bedfordshire, in my diocese, and Shropshire, in my previous patch, have seen the second and third-greatest reductions in bus services in terms of miles lost in the country in the past four years, beaten only by Bracknell Forest. Even worse is the decrease in the quantity of subsidised bus miles in those two areas, which has decreased by 77% and 81% respectively. This has a huge impact on a whole variety of groups, particularly vulnerable people in our rural areas. I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will not ignore it. Indeed, as we are wanting, longing, hoping and working for a flourishing, thriving rural community and countryside, this is a really vital aspect.
Age UK’s 2010 Loneliness and Isolation Evidence Review found strong evidence that physical isolation is still the single factor most closely associated with feelings of loneliness. Lack of a good rural bus service has an impact on a large number of groups: those who are too elderly or too young to drive, who cannot drive due to a disability or who simply cannot afford to drive at all. In those cases rural transport, particularly buses, is a vital lifeline, as well as providing important social interaction. A lack of transport is a barrier to community and to flourishing in the countryside.
As more and more services become available online and local services close or amalgamate, those without good internet connectivity or digital skills must travel even further to get the help they need. That is one of the reasons why I have been particularly passionate in talking and working with the whole issue of rural connectivity: it is fundamental if we are going to see our rural areas continue to thrive. Not everyone can use online banking. A trip to the hospital for a regular appointment can be a huge endeavour if you live in a rural area—less than one-fifth of those in rural areas have access to a hospital within a reasonable time by public transport or walking. That is not to mention the problems people can have enrolling for universal credit when they do not have a computer at home and the nearest job centre is miles away, as we have already heard, or the challenge of looking for work when people cannot drive to interviews or have young children at home to look after.
I am sure it will not surprise noble Lords that surveys show that people in rural areas express significant levels of dissatisfaction when it comes to issues of public transport. According to an analysis produced by the Department for Transport this year, more than 70% of people living in London are satisfied with their bus service compared to only 24% of those in the most rural areas.
The 2012 decision to cut the bus service operators grant, which central government gives to local authorities to subsidise socially necessary bus services, continues to bite, and has bitten especially hard in more rural parts of my diocese. Community groups, charities and church groups do extraordinary work to serve their communities by providing transport. Last week I was visiting a parish where all sorts of people use cars and minibuses to collect a whole lot of young people together for a youth group. A few weeks ago I was at a church where people were describing their weekly lunch for the elderly; they manage to ensure that everybody gets their lift in. This is, of course, informal and voluntary; it is not the same as a consistent bus service so people are able to get to places when they need to. In 2014, the Transport Select Committee of the other place concluded that:
“Central Government and local authorities are being unrealistic if they expect voluntary community transport projects to compensate for decreased bus services. Although community transport has an important role to play, in practice it does not serve all sections of the community and therefore cannot substitute for bus services”.
Young people in rural areas in particular suffer when they do not have access to consistent, timely, affordable bus services. I would therefore like to know from the Minister what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to make rural bus services a priority. What assessment have they made of the appropriateness of current access to services, and what analysis has been made of the impact of cuts, both centrally and to local government funding, on service provision? What are the Government doing to ensure that the worst off, particularly the young, have reasonable access to bus services? Will the cross-governmental strategy on loneliness be doing any work on rural transport?
As I travel around, I hear this issue raised time and again and I cannot overstate its importance. Bus services are a lifeline for rural communities and are becoming increasingly important in a digital age. I hope that today’s debate will spur Her Majesty’s Government, and indeed all of us, on in this important area.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, 5% of all journeys are made by bus and buses are the most popular form of public transport. It is interesting that you do not meet many bus enthusiasts; you meet lots of train enthusiasts, but trains are in fact far less important to the day-to-day life of our nation. Some 4.5 billion journeys a year are made by bus but, as the noble Earl, Lord Arran, stated, the bus network is now back at 1980s levels and has shrunk by 8% in the past decade—or by 134 million miles—with 2,000 services affected. North-west England and Wales have been hardest hit, with a 40% reduction in rural areas in the past decade. Yet, ironically, in England at least, the number of passengers has increased slightly. It is just that there is no bus for them to go on and nowhere for them to go. The demand is clearly there. The analogy with the Beeching era and the cuts to trains in the 1960s is a very good one.
The cause of all this needs to be examined. The key issue is certainly local government finance. Local authorities face financial constraints and they have cut discretionary subsidised bus services. Councils have a statutory duty to fund concessionary travel by pensioners and disabled people. This is very popular with the public, but councils estimate that there is a shortfall of at least £200 million for the funding of concessionary fares. This has meant that they have diverted money to make up this shortfall, taking it from previously subsidised routes, concessionary fare schemes—which, in many cases, they had set up themselves, very often for young people—and community transport.
Although I am hopeful that the Bus Services Act will encourage better working between operators and councils, I believe that the Act missed opportunities. There were things that could have been done that were not done. For example, it could have been made easier for councils without elected mayors to establish franchising and there could have been stronger incentives or requirements for environmental improvements. I am very pleased that the Government are giving nearly £40 million to retrofit buses, which is going to 20 local authorities as part of the clean bus technology fund. That is great, but in some areas there are no buses to retrofit, and £40 million is certainly not going to solve the emissions problem. The Government could have created the bus passengers of tomorrow with mandatory concessionary fare schemes for young people, who need buses to get to jobs and education and for their social lives.
The Minister has heard time and again this afternoon concern for rural areas. I am aware that there was a phone-in programme recently where a man from Devon rang to say that in his village there were only three buses a week. He explained that if he wanted to go to the doctor, which was in the nearest town, he had to stay overnight because by the time he had had his appointment, the bus had returned home for the day. That is really dysfunctional and it makes it almost impossible to live in some rural areas without a car. A colleague of mine in the Welsh Assembly talked about seeing hitch-hiking pensioners in her rural constituency. I am worried enough about the concept of hitch-hiking pensioners; the idea that teenagers might be tempted to hitch-hike worries me even more.
The irony of all this is that one of the reasons why buses are struggling in urban areas is increasing traffic congestion, which leads to unpredictable journey times, and yet congestion is one of the main reasons why we need more buses to encourage people out of their cars on to more environmentally friendly forms of transport. A further irony is that another threat to our bus services is the fact that some councils, in attempting to set up ultra-low emission zones, are targeting buses—diesel buses—first. That is totally topsy-turvy. I realise that a diesel bus is polluting but you can get dozens of car owners on a diesel bus and save dozens of car journeys and therefore prevent those emissions. The establishment of ultra-low emission zones must be done in a balanced and sensible manner.
I end by asking the Minister: can she assure us that the Government will put more resources into supporting low and zero-emission initiatives for buses? Will the Government work with local authorities to ensure that buses are not primary targets in the establishment of ultra-low emission zones? Can she give us even a glimmer of hope that the Government are prepared to evaluate the potential benefits of youth concessionary fares? I emphasise that this is an issue of intergenerational justice. Older people such as me can have a bus pass but in many areas young people are not able to get that bus pass for themselves. Finally, will the Government review the grants to local authorities and the refunds for concessionary fares with a view to reforming them to create a better and fairer system for local authorities’ financial support for bus services?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for tabling this Question for Short Debate. It is very good to be able to discuss this important issue. I also draw the attention of the Grand Committee to my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As we have heard, buses are an important lifeline for people, and the decline in bus use outside London is a serious problem that is affecting the viability of communities, particularly rural communities and those areas in our towns and cities less well served by other modes of transport, as they strive to be sustainable.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, referred to the cuts in funding to bus schemes by local authorities and the effect that this has had on rural communities. I agree with him. I also agree with his comments about the need for effective bus services to enable people to get to work. Rural areas will suffer further decline if working people cannot live there and get to work—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, also spoke about rural areas and the dire problems experienced there with the decline in bus services. The risk of course is that they become places where people in cities have second or weekend homes, and that further exacerbates the problem until an area becomes unsustainable and dies. The right reverend Prelate spoke about the need for thriving communities, and I agreed with his comments about loneliness. Bus use and the provision of bus services have to be part of integrated services to make communities viable. Their decline is doing huge damage. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke about car use and car parking. Work is going on to deter this but, as he said, it is not matched by a good bus service being in place to encourage people to get out of their cars and on to buses.
As we have heard, about half the bus journeys in England are made outside London, and, since bus deregulation in 1986, these are largely delivered by private operators. The Bus Services Bill was passed into law in 2017 and generally it is a good piece of legislation. It certainly seeks to help reduce the decline in bus use outside London. It has been on the statute book for only a year, which is probably too short a period to see whether it is having the desired effect.
However, generally there has been a downward trend in bus use over a number of years in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas. Bus deregulation may have played a part in that, as operators have sought to work on the more profitable routes without the constraint of the routes, timetables and fares being set for them, as has been the case in London for many years. I agreed with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made about congestion. That has been a real issue affecting bus use in recent years.
Of course, the decline in bus use could be attributed to other forms of public transport coming on stream in addition to the railways. I have certainly noticed light rail and modern tram services in some of our major conurbations, such as Greater Manchester, the West Midlands and Nottingham. There may also be other issues affecting bus use. We have heard about the reductions in spending as local authorities have had to take account of their resources, and that has had a knock-on effect on the money spent on buses.
Car use is still high in rural areas and, as services have declined, the reliance on car journeys has increased even more. One bus in and one bus out a day from a town to nearby villages five days a week does not deliver the required level of service. You then get a self-fulfilling prophecy of decline, which has a huge impact on communities.
There are also issues with bus fares, operator revenues and government grant schemes, which, again, have had an effect on bus numbers and need to be taken account of. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, made a point about the effect of bus punctuality. We in London are very lucky with the number of buses that we have but in fact London has the worst punctuality rate in the whole of England. There is always another bus coming along, so no one knows whether it is late or not.
Earlier, I mentioned the Bus Services Act 2017. As I said, this was an attempt if not to increase bus use then certainly to halt its decline, and I wish that legislation every success. Work being done to make buses more user-friendly is to be welcomed. I was particularly pleased to hear that audio-visual services on buses outside London are to be improved. That should help to make disabled people more confident about getting on buses. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, can update us on that when she responds to the debate.
We have had various partnership schemes between bus operators and local authorities for many years. These have not stopped the decline in bus use but they may have slowed it. The enhanced partnership schemes introduced by the Bus Services Act are a further extension of that. If the noble Baroness can say what has happened since the Act was brought forward, that would be helpful, although I appreciate that it has been in force for only a year. I am aware that there is a procedure to go through, including consultation and the issuing of notices, but anything that she can say will be helpful and I look forward to hearing from her.
One thing introduced in the Act, of course, was bus franchising, which was very welcome. But one thing that I was unhappy about was the obsession of the Government with metro mayors. You got these powers by default rather than having to apply to the Secretary of State only if you had a metro mayor. That is a regrettable decision and not very localist. I am aware that Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, Steve Rotheram in Liverpool and Tim Bowles in the West of England have all pledged to use the powers. I am not sure how far they have got yet in establishing a scheme, but I was surprised that Andy Street, the Conservative metro mayor for the West Midlands, had not made any pledges at all. I actually know the West Midlands really well. I lived there for many years, and that certainly is one area that could do with a system where a bus franchise could have its timetable, fares and routes regulated much more by the metro mayor. I hope that he changes his mind. If the Minister has any more information, I would be pleased to hear it.
We have heard about open days, which would be useful to make things more helpful for bus users. I was particularly interested to read the briefing from Age UK about the problems older people have in getting to, for example, hospital appointments. As I said, having one bus in and one bus out a day really is not helpful to get you to hospital appointments. The quality of the buses, uncomfortable journeys and inconvenient times are all issues. Of course, what happens then is that people either have to have very difficult journeys or they revert to cars or taxis, which cost more money. I think that is a shame. Perhaps the Minister could say something about what we can do to ensure that there is better non-emergency transport for patients, either through better bus services or through other schemes. That, again, is one of the regrets we had in the Bus Services Act. I won an amendment here to delete that ridiculous clause about no more municipal bus companies, but then it was reversed. We never intended to have a stampede of bus companies, but it was a shame that councils could not now do something in little local areas to deal with the problems there.
I think my time is up, so I will cut my remarks there. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for securing this debate and allowing us to talk about buses and the hugely important role that they play in our transport system.
Buses connect our communities to the workplace and to vital public services such as healthcare and education. For many, particularly those in rural areas—which I think all noble Lords spoke about today—the bus is an absolute lifeline, as over half of those who rely on buses outside London do not have access to a car. They play a vital role in our economy, with some 4.5 billion journeys a year, and remain the most popular form of public transport, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, highlighted.
Under-21s make up a third of bus passengers, and the use of buses by older people is increasing as a result of the national concessionary pass. As all noble Lords have highlighted today, the picture of bus usage across the country is mixed. While bus patronage has increased in some areas, other areas have seen a significant decline in passenger numbers.
The benefits of a reliable and innovative bus service are clear: greater productivity, and communities that are connected rather than apart. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that heavy traffic makes buses less reliable, less prompt, more costly to run and more polluting—and obviously less attractive to use because of that. They operate along fixed routes and cannot use any alternatives. It is not really a good advertisement to use buses when you see one stuck in traffic.
What is the answer? The best answer is encouraging more people to use buses. It is still the best form of regular high-capacity transport that we have. Unlike rail, a bus can go virtually anywhere, and a bus service can be set up very quickly and at a fraction of the cost of rail. But buses need help to achieve this. One solution is to improve traffic in the key corridors used by buses, and one of the most effective ways is to give them priority over traffic. The sight of a bus cruising past lines of stationary cars or getting ahead of the queue at a junction is a much better advertisement and certainly sends a clear message to motorists. Priority measures offer good value for money, and we are funding many bus projects up and down the country through the Local Growth Fund. There are rapid transit schemes in Slough, Reading and Swindon and bus priority corridors in Manchester and Birmingham, which are genuinely innovative projects that are making a big difference in some of our busiest towns and cities. Busways, which provide dedicated corridors only to buses, such as in Cambridge and Luton, are also extremely effective and have the ridership to prove it.
The Government introduced the Bus Services Act 2017 to help local authorities and bus companies work together to make bus travel more attractive. Together they can identify congestion hotspots that disrupt bus journeys and, through partnership commitments, do something about them. Bus operators have to up their game by making using the bus an easier option. We discussed the secondary legislation relating to the Bus Services Act 2017 earlier this week. The Act contains a range of options to improve local bus services in England. In addition to franchising, there are new and improved options to allow local transport authorities to enter into partnership with their local bus operators to improve services for passengers.
Local authorities can provide bus priority measures or do other things to make buses more attractive. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, touched on, this can include reducing car-parking provision, increasing its cost or better enforcing existing parking restrictions, introducing park-and-ride schemes, altering traffic light phasing and establishing bus lanes. There are lots of tools. The Act also allows local bus operators to improve their services by introducing multi-operator smart ticketing, using more environmentally friendly vehicles and providing comprehensive timetable and fares information. The partnership can also co-ordinate bus timetables and ticketing with other modes, such as rail services, to provide a seamless journey.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned the bus open data powers in the Act, which will go further than the partnership provisions to require all bus operators in England to open up real-time route, timetable, fare and ticket information to passengers by 2020. Since the Bus Services Act came into force last year, around 30 local authorities up and down the country have expressed an interest and we are working with them to roll out the scheme.
On the bus services operators grant—BSOG—which many noble Lords mentioned, commercial bus operators receive 43% of their income from the public purse. Each year the department provides £250 million in direct revenue support for bus services in England via the BSOG. Of that, more than £40 million is paid directly to councils outside London to support buses that are not commercially viable but which they consider socially necessary. The rest goes to commercial bus operators. Without this support, fares would increase and marginal services would disappear. The BSOG is currently paid on the basis of fuel used, but we are looking at ways of reforming it to make it even more effective in supporting bus services.
On local authority funding, I fully appreciate that local authorities are making very difficult choices as a result of ongoing financial pressures. The right reverend Prelate and others were correct to point out that BSOG funding was reduced in the 2010 spending review. A decision was made to reduce it by 20% to reflect the economic climate of the time. Since 2012 the Government have continued to maintain the BSOG at current levels and we are very aware of the importance of bus services to local communities. In recognition of this, we were able to protect BSOG funding as part of the 2015 spending review. We are looking at reforming the way the BSOG is paid to make it more effective in supporting bus services.
Noble Lords mentioned the advantages of more young people using buses, and I entirely agree. The level of fares is a complex area. There is no statutory obligation to provide discounted travel to young people, and I am afraid there are no plans to introduce it. Many commercial and publicly funded reductions are available. We are working to deliver significantly discounted bus travel for apprentices to ensure that no young person is deterred from taking up an apprenticeship by travel costs. I listened with interest to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, about the National Citizen Service, which is an excellent programme. I will take that away and have a look at it.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke about road user charging for vehicles as a solution to congestion. While I listened with interest, there are technical costs and privacy challenges and, not least, the importance of public acceptance of it, so I am afraid the Government have no plans to introduce such a road-pricing scheme. I am afraid there is more disappointment for the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, as the majority of English local authorities have taken on civil parking enforcement powers, but obviously not in the area in which the noble Lord lives. We think that CPE represents the most effective way for local authorities to manage and enforce parking. While we continue to support the rollout of CPE, we think it is up to each local authority to consider the financial and operational implications of taking on parking enforcement duties. For that reason, we let local authorities freely choose whether to apply for these powers, and have no plans to force the remaining non-CPE authorities to adopt them. But as I said, if they wish to do so, we will work with them. I am afraid I must also disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on the extension of civil enforcement powers to moving traffic offences, such as the yellow box. We have no plans to extend them. It is important to recognise that congestion has a wide range of causes. Obviously, there is that enforcement in London and Wales. Although we still have congestion here, we think there are better ways to address it and we are working on those.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Earl, Lord Arran, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans all raised the important issue of rural areas. The noble Baroness is quite correct that different areas have very different needs and expectations. Of course, extra pressures are placed on local authorities to provide services in more isolated areas. The Minister for Local Government is intending to increase support for the most sparsely populated rural areas by more than quadrupling the rural services delivery grant from £15.5 million to £65 million by 2019-20.
The right reverend Prelate also made the important point that bus services are relied on by many different groups in rural areas. It is important that the lack of provision does not further exacerbate any issues of loneliness. I will certainly go and see whether we can address the issue of transport.
Baroness Randerson
Since this is International Women’s Day, we ought to note in this debate that bus passengers are much more likely to be women than men. There is an issue here not just of intergenerational fairness but of gender equality.
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I was thinking about whether I could say something about women, given that it is International Women’s Day. I was not aware of that fact, so I thank her.
Providing transport solutions across wider geographical areas requires the effective use of all available options, whether it be traditional fixed-route bus services, community buses, dial-a-ride—as the noble Earl mentioned—or other services, such as social care or non-emergency patient transport. At present, the Government provide over £2 billion each year in funding for those services. That is spent by different bodies which are often providing transport for the same people at different times; for example, someone using non-emergency patient transport to get to a routine hospital appointment one day can be using a local dial-a-ride service to go shopping or visit friends the next day.
The funds do need to be spent in a more joined-up way. The noble Earl raised the issue of Total Transport. Two years ago, we launched our Total Transport pilot schemes across England to explore how councils, the NHS and other agencies can work together. The results of those pilot projects are still being analysed, but it is already clear that there is considerable further scope for public sector-funded transport to work together, whether it is provided by local authorities, community groups or the NHS. We will be publishing those results shortly.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about lane-rental schemes. The Government have trialled lane-rental schemes, encouraging utilities to work together at weekends and in the evenings. There is good news: that has proved successful. We are now encouraging local authorities to set up schemes in other areas across England. We laid a statutory instrument last week with guidance for local authorities and I look forward to the impact that may have on congestion.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked about the environment. She is quite right that buses emit fewer air pollutants than the equivalent number of car journeys taken by road, but on urban routes, where the majority of buses operate, with the stop-start conditions, the slower speeds and the traffic, as we have discussed, there are obviously issues. That is why we are trying to clean up the bus fleet. As the noble Baroness recognised, we invest in green buses. There is more that we can do: we will shortly be publishing our strategy towards zero-emission vehicles. Emissions have not yet been calculated on a per-head basis, partly because that would impact on decisions on bus purchasing, and we want to encourage the purchase of clean buses. But we are looking at further developing our transport energy model, possibly including emissions per head.
There is no single solution that will work everywhere, but the Government have a commitment to local transport, and the powers in the Bus Services Act will help reverse the decline in bus use and drive up patronage. However, central government can go only so far to encourage bus use. Buses are not provided by the state: outside London, some 80% are provided by commercial bus operators. Most of the roads that buses use are the responsibility of local authorities. Much is in the hands of local politicians, local authorities and the bus operators themselves. We all need to work together to make sure that buses can provide an effective way of tackling congestion.
Again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for introducing this debate. Buses are a key part of our transport system and perhaps we do not discuss them enough in your Lordships’ House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, often our emphasis is on rail. However, with the SI this week, the debate today and the Question on rural buses from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I am pleased that we have been given the opportunity to do so. Very appropriately, after waiting so long for a debate on buses, we have now had three come along at once. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that the Government are committed to maintaining and improving local and public transport in all areas, whether in the largest cities or the most rural villages.
Gypsy, Traveller and Roma Communities
Baroness Whitaker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address health issues in the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I first want to give Her Majesty’s Government credit for commissioning the Traveller Movement to produce the report, Impact of Insecure Accommodation and the Living Environment on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ Health by Professor Margaret Greenfields and Mr Matthew Brindley. On International Women’s Day, it would be right to say that the report makes clear that it is the women who are most likely to report poor health, including mental health. My questions for the Minister are, now that it has been published for more than a year, what has been done to implement the recommendations, and how is progress being monitored?
The main findings were that the physical conditions of their environment were a key element of social determinants of health and thus had a measurable effect on the physical and mental health outcomes for Gypsies and Travellers. Sixty-six per cent of the sample reported bad, very bad or poor health, mental as well as physical, with those with the worst self-reported health living on unauthorised roadside sites, followed by those living on poor quality local authority sites. Thirty-nine per cent of the sample reported anxiety or depression, and the majority of those lived in conditions where they felt insecure because of planning status, threat of eviction or poor site conditions or had reluctantly accepted to live in bricks and mortar because there was no pitch available on a Traveller site. It is also notable that the majority of respondents rated their health as bad or very bad by their mid to late 30s and by their 40s a steep decline had begun.
Asthma and repeated chest infections, particularly among children, were noted in about half the interviews, but it was difficult for many at insecure sites to be registered with a GP. Chronic conditions, such as diabetes or kidney problems, were therefore inadequately treated and exacerbated. This was in contrast to those on secure sites, who were all able to access a local GP. Gypsies and Travellers who lived on private sites with planning permission felt that they had the best health. The experiences of racial harassment recounted to the interviewer are particularly heart-breaking, especially when the Gypsies and Travellers concerned had deep-rooted family connections to the area and had lived there for many generations.
The more secure a site, the fewer incidents there have been. It is not as if many Gypsies and Travellers did not engage in their local neighbourhoods when they did have stability through schools, councils and service providers. Respondents at two-thirds of the sites gave chapter and verse about this. Since they did much more caring for immediate household members or the wider family than the general population do, I think they did indeed have something valuable to contribute.
It is pretty well evidenced that improving the environmental health factors of existing sites and providing stability of tenure would improve health outcomes considerably. This would, of course, be cost effective in terms of reduced spend on ill-health and disability, as well as having a positive effect on children’s education, and it would deliver a measure of justice to those so heavily and unfairly penalised by the shortage of authorised sites.
Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, commissioners of healthcare services have a duty to reduce health inequalities in access to services and outcomes. This, combined with the equality duty under the Equality Act 2010, should oblige local authorities responsible for accommodation to work with healthcare commissioners and health and well-being boards to sort out a fairer deal for Gypsies and Travellers. Will the Minister tell the committee how many local authorities have taken this role on board?
As local authorities have in the past been so slow to assume their responsibility for fair standards for their Gypsy and Traveller citizens, the report says, the duty once placed on local authorities to provide sites where a need has been identified should be reinstated. If the Welsh Government can do it—with a consequent drop in expensive disruption and protests—why cannot we?
At the very least, more robust data should be gathered by the MHCLG on the provision of new pitches on Gypsy and Traveller sites explicitly linked to health outcomes for people on insecure sites, monitored under Health and Social Care Act 2012 duties. Such monitoring should include the impact of the August 2015 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ change of definition, which can so damage the capacity of Gypsies and Travellers to obtain reasonable planning permission.
Non-governmental organisations, such as Friends, Families and Travellers, of which I have the honour to be president, also ask for the data to be disaggregated for Gypsies, Roma and Travellers. The amalgamation of data has skewed statistics for the different communities, who have different characteristics. There is no systematic monitoring because they are not yet included in the NHS data dictionary, so how can health outcomes be understood and resources properly targeted? Friends, Families and Travellers has asked Jeremy Hunt to include accommodation status in NHS data collection, so as to present a clearer picture of how homelessness impacts on health. Will the Minister tell me what is happening about this?
Time prevents me listing all the sensible recommendations of this report, but your Lordships’ Committee and the Gypsy and Traveller communities themselves are owed a progress report by the Government on what they are doing about them. I remind your Lordships that the inequalities of health among Gypsies and Travellers result in significantly decreased life expectancy—up to 12 years less for women and 10 years less for men—a miscarriage rate of 29% as opposed to 16% for the mainstream population, the highest maternal mortality rate of any single group and 17.6% of them having experienced the death of a child as opposed to 0.9% of their low-income peers, quite apart from increased chronic illness, a marked increase in incidence of mental ill-health and a lack of support in bereavement and suicide.
These are dark days for our cherished diversity. Gypsies and Travellers have never shared much in our much-vaunted tolerance, but now that the alarming increase in the racial harassment they experience is so clearly documented, what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to show that all our citizens are of equal worth?
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for securing the debate and for her passion and leadership on this very important issue. I will make a contribution about Roma people, of whom there is a significant community in the city of Derby, where I am privileged to serve. I chair the Multi-Faith Centre, which brings together different faiths and cultures, and we have a particular project working with Roma people in the city. I will draw on that experience to highlight this element of the Question and to point to some things that we might want to consider more deeply.
My colleague the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has published a book, Reimagining Britain. One of the tables in it shows that Roma people and other groups are a barometer of many of our problems as a civilised society. That is what I want to explore. Your Lordships will know that Roma people are a migrant, unsettled people. They are reputed to have come from northern India more than 1,000 years ago and migrated into the Balkans and parts of Europe. What has been highlighted in our experience of trying to work creatively with Roma people in Derby is that while we have developed a way of handling society and health issues through what I would call settled systems, it is difficult for people who do not have a settled lifestyle to fit into such systems. Rather than thinking that they are old-fashioned people who need to settle down and fit into our settled systems, I think that they bring with them an important challenge that the Minister might like to comment on. My wife lives with me on the edge of Derby and works in London; she is a mobile, modern person. It is very difficult for her to make an appointment with the doctor, for instance, because the system is settled but she has a flexible lifestyle. Many of the Roma people are testing our systems, so we need to be creative. We need to be pushed towards greater flexibility in dealing with these people, not simply making them conform to things that might be too tight for them.
In my experience and that of my colleagues, the scale of deprivation among Roma people is enormously high. Literacy rates are low. There is a history of discrimination, so there is a mentality of not being confident about fitting in. There are high levels of unemployment and smoking. There are low rates of child immunisation and high infant mortality. In 2014 the European Commission said that poor health among Roma people is closely linked to social, economic and environmental factors. People such as the Roma are a barometer of the health of our society, and that is why it is worth taking them seriously and learning from them.
They come with difficult cultural norms. As a long-oppressed people with no real sense of home, there is fatalism and a tendency to live in the moment. We run a youth club for young people because they tend to congregate in open spaces, which is their lifestyle, and it is sometimes difficult to hire somewhere for those young people to meet. There is such an explosion of energy and engagement in the moment and we have somehow to see how that can be a part of our civilisation, something that can be seen to be creative rather than anti-social and not fitting in with our norms.
At our multi-faith centre we run the Roma Community Care project in partnership with Derby City Council. The Minister might like to reflect on how we can encourage local authorities to partner with voluntary energy to reach out and be alongside people to help with integration and to offer health services. We try to use Roma people. We train them within the project and try to develop self-help and development skills. Some things need to be done to put some flesh on engaging creatively with people who bring unsettlement into our settled system. First, as I have said, we need voluntary energy and local authority funding to bring schemes together. Secondly, we need mediators and champions, people who will engage with these communities and raise up people who can come back and engage with us. We need to make home visits, not just to meet people in our territories—our surgeries, our hospitals and in A&E departments—because in Roma culture, people will talk about their health only within the privacy of their own home. They are nervous about talking in what they think of as a more public place. We need to train and equip people from the Roma community as workers and volunteers, and we need outreach programmes.
One of the most interesting things we have learned is that in a culture with low rates of literacy, it is no good producing leaflets to help people access healthcare. Roma people communicate through conversation. Quite honestly, in a civilised society, is it not better to communicate through talking rather than by leaflet? That is why we need advocates—people to make the connection. There is an interesting challenge. Do our systems have enough space for conversation? You have to fill in a form online or ring up to make an impersonal appointment with some sort of machine. Roma people present a challenge that is not just a problem to be overcome but should make us think about our systems slightly more creatively. We have to encourage our professional services to engage with people such as the Roma more on their own terms, with proper cultural awareness.
Finally, the Roma are a very vulnerable people and we have high levels of trafficking in our city of Derby. We have had cases of child trafficking, sexual exploitation and forced labour where there have been prosecutions and Roma people are victims, because they are so vulnerable.
I hope we can look at our systems of housing and health—of connecting with these communities—to see how we can reach out to meet them. We should not just expect them to conform, but should look for a cultural engagement where we give a bit to bring people in and reach out, and they have to learn to give a bit to participate in what we are offering for a healthy society with healthy Roma people within it.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I very much thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for giving us the opportunity of this debate. I have to mention this: I always enjoy listening to the right reverend Prelate because he always speaks with the authority of engagement. He is not just telling people what they should do or theorising about it; he is actually involved in doing it, which is very challenging.
I put the record that I deeply appreciate the information I received from the Traveller Movement, which produced a very helpful briefing for the debate. I should also like to put on the record my appreciation of our Library. I always like it there. It does first-class work in making available helpful information on the issues before us. I just wish that more of us in the House would look at what it produces and value it, because it is of a very high standard.
It is a difficult time for a whole host of reasons. The shortage of money and the reduction of money for local authorities, when they are on the front line, is a real worry—yet another. My time in the Council of Europe—just short of 10 years, which I enjoyed tremendously—offered another illustration, on the issue of Gypsies and Roma, of how, to work satisfactorily, we had to look at it strategically as well. Therefore, there is a great need to work closely with our friends in Europe. Whatever happens as a result of all our late nights here on the legislation to prepare for leaving Europe, we will need to go on working closely with our friends and colleagues in Europe. We need to understand each other; of course, in some countries in Europe there are still situations that lead to more Roma and Gypsies coming to our country. In a way, that is a credit to this country.
My other point is that I am sure that we have—the right reverend Prelate already talked about this—an immense amount of work to do with our community in terms of understanding. Some schools are doing very imaginative work, but much more needs to be done. It should not just depend on an inspired teacher who happens to be interested in the subject and is therefore doing something about it. It should be integrated because this is part of our community; it should understand what being part of that community is. I never hesitate to make what could be said to be a rather idealistic point; I am glad it is said to be so. One of the things we must get right in British society is learning to celebrate and enjoy diversity. There are always situations and pressures from the unfamiliar by which people can feel threatened, but that is essentially because people are not well informed. Therefore, there is a terrific job to be done.
As the right reverend Prelate said so wisely, we need—he said “champions”; I would say emissaries—people who go out and help the Roma and Gypsies. The challenges for the Gypsy community are huge, but the challenges for the Roma are terrific. We must help them to better understand the society they are living in and to find their way about in it. We must help them to integrate, to the extent that they are in dialogue with the society of which they are a part, and help that society to understand. I would be lying in this Committee if I did not say that I sometimes feel quite distressed when I am going through a beautiful part of the country, or a very attractive country town, and suddenly see a mess. It is not nice and people can react in a host of ways. I do not believe that if we really had the right kind of communication we could not tackle that issue together with the Roma and Gypsies: we would help them to understand how other people see their lifestyle and what it is doing to them.
This debate is supposed to concentrate on health, and health issues are huge. Life expectancy is 10% below that of the general population; that is, 10 to 12 years less than the general population. Infant mortality is still deeply worrying, as is the high maternal mortality rate. There is low child immunisation. There are issues around levels of mental health problems, substance misuse and diabetes. There are very disturbing statistics on all these conditions on which we need to concentrate. If we are talking about what can be done and what the Government should be doing, my noble friend has asked very specific questions and I support her in saying that I hope we get specific answers to those questions. Information sharing is tremendously important, not just between the long-established settled community and Gypsies and so on, but between different parts of the settled community, which often react in isolation from each other. There needs to be much more integration.
We also need community engagement and to find ways to make mainstream services relevant and accessible. I liked what the right reverend Prelate said about his wife. Most of us have the same kind of experience with our GP at home, wherever we live, and our lifestyle here. Poor living conditions need to be addressed. I am very glad that my noble friend has given us the opportunity to concentrate on this issue for a few minutes, but we are good at talking about the issue; it is when things are actually happening that we should worry. At the moment, if viewed as history, or looked at from another planet, we do not have a very good story to tell about these underprivileged people and the kind of challenges they are enduring. We need to wake up and do something about it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for securing this important debate and setting out the issues so clearly. We all take healthcare for ourselves, our families and our children extremely seriously and want it to be available when we need it. This right has to be extended to the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.
When elected to Somerset County Council, I was persuaded in 1995 by a colleague to chair a small working group looking into the needs of Gypsies, Roma and Travellers in the county. There was widespread support for the deliberations of this working group, including from the Traveller Education Service, social services and the various district and parish councils. We talked to many Gypsies and Travellers and found that it was all but impossible for them to access healthcare, due mainly to the need for a permanent address in order to register with a GP, as the noble Baroness said. There was also some suspiciousness on their part about having contact with officialdom and filling in forms. The county council at that time had a strong Gypsy and Traveller department, which looked after the six sites for Gypsies in the county’s ownership. Gypsies and Travellers arriving in the county from outside and camping in unregulated sites were provided with water bowsers and visited to ensure that their needs were met, especially if there were children present. We take the provision of water as a given, but many have recently realised just how difficult it is to live if their water supply is cut off.
Although the report of the working group was welcomed by some, this was not the case for everyone. I had the extremely unpleasant experience of attending a public meeting in part of the county where one vociferous gentleman stood up and said that the only thing to do with Gypsies was to stand them up against a wall and shoot them. Mercifully, his extreme and irrational hatred was not replicated by others in the room.
I wind the clock forward 13 years to 2008-09 when, as a member of the local district council, I took part in a piece of work run by the Centre for Public Scrutiny. A group of councils looked at health services available to communities on the margins. Two councils, of which mine was one, looked at the provision for Gypsies and Travellers, while two others looked at provision for sex workers and two others looked at provision for ethnic communities.
During our work in south Somerset, we visited two Gypsy sites. We talked to the teenagers, young women and mothers on the site. We found they had good access to maternity services, and midwives visited the site to do antenatal checks. They were all pleased with the level of support they got. As they lived on a permanent site, the young mothers and more mature women were registered with local GP practices and got good support, not only for themselves but for their children, although this did not seem to extend to dental care.
There was, however, little health support for Travellers who were often camping in woodland sites and on the corner of farmland, usually with the support of the local landowner or farmer. These were not permanent arrangements and, therefore, access to health care was very limited. Their children were unlikely to receive the usual inoculations that we take for granted for our children. Although Gypsies and Travellers need to access healthcare, they rarely, if ever, wish to access social services. It is part of their culture that they look after their own elderly relatives, while we in the settled community tend to call up services to help us with our infirm and elderly relatives.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission, in its report in March 2016, found that Gypsies and Travellers, compared with the general population, were more likely to suffer bad health, as has already been referred to. This includes lower life expectancy, high infant and maternal mortality rates, low child immunisation levels, chronic cough or bronchitis—even after smoking is taken into account—asthma, chest pains and diabetes. They also have higher rates of smoking. This is exacerbated by the fact that many Gypsies and Travellers remain, as I have indicated, unregistered with GPs.
Although variability in general health among different ethnic groups can sometimes be explained by an older age profile, this is not the case for Gypsies and Irish Travellers, of whom only 6% were aged 65 or above in 2011, and who had a low median age of 26. Improved life expectancy for Gypsy and Traveller communities appears to be associated with the availability of established site provision and access to medical care. Having a pitch on a permanent site is vital to accessing healthcare, to which every speaker has referred.
A recent report from the Department of Health noted that accommodation insecurity, the conditions of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ living environment, low community participation and discrimination all play key roles in exacerbating these poor health outcomes. It is suggested that these factors also hold the key to effectively addressing and improving health and well-being. The report calls for long-term, joined-up working at both local and national levels to address the wider social issues of Gypsies’ and Travellers’ ill health. Similarly, emerging evidence shows that the health inequalities of Roma people are close to those among Gypsies and Travellers. These include a high prevalence of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, premature heart attacks, obesity, asthma and mental health issues.
Poor familiarity with healthcare provisions and language barriers may make it difficult for this group of marginalised people to access services. Their culture may prevent some Roma people using support services for mental health issues, sexual health and drug and alcohol misuse. However, it is known that Gypsies and Irish Travellers have low rates of GP registration. While somewhat out of date, in 2004 16% were not registered, compared with 1% of comparators.
I have been looking at and involved in this subject for more than 20 years. We do not as a society appear to have moved forward in ensuring that this marginalised part of our nation has equal access to health care. What will the Minister do to allow these people to have access to the healthcare services the rest of us take for granted?
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to her strong advocacy and campaigning work with the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities over the years, most recently as the president of the Friends, Families and Travellers organisation, which plays such a key role in the network of community organisations fighting hard against injustice, discrimination and poor health outcomes suffered by Gypsy and Traveller communities across the UK.
It is timely, one year on from its publication, to seek a clear and unequivocal response from the Government to the key recommendations and call for urgent long-term and joined-up working contained in the excellent work undertaken by Professor Greenfields and Matthew Brindley on the health impact of insecure accommodation and poor environmental conditions, so ably summarised by noble friend in her speech. As the foreword to that document states:
“This report makes it clear that the conditions in which members of this group are born, grow, live, work and age contribute significantly to their poor physical and mental health outcomes … Tackling these wider determinants is crucial to breaking this cycle of deprivation and health inequalities”.
Noble Lords have today painted a bleak picture of this cycle of deprivation and poor health. Gypsies and Travellers have poor access to healthcare generally, with difficulty in registering with GPs and poor access to services as a result, including health screening, home visits, dental services and access to secondary health care. We have heard about the life expectancy of over 10% less than the general population, with other health issues such as high infant mortality rates, high maternal mortality rates, low child immunisation take-up, mental health issues, substance misuse and diabetes, which are all prevalent in the Gypsy and Traveller communities.
The Care Quality Commission report in 2016 on end-of-life care came to the stark conclusion that, overall, health commissioners and services in most areas have done little to reach out to the Gypsy and Traveller community. Can the Minister tell the Committee what the Government are doing to address this? Should not each clinical commissioning group have a lead or champion, as we have heard, for all the four groups vulnerable to poor health that were identified by the National Inclusion Health Board, which includes this key group we are discussing today?
As the debate has clearly demonstrated, there is much for all of us to learn and understand about the history, values, traditions, culture and vibrancy of the Gypsy and Traveller community—for example, its strong family networks and relationships and their carer responsibilities and commitments. The Greenfields study showed that 42% of respondents were carers involved in helping to care for immediate household members or wider family onsite or in the immediate vicinity. That is significantly above the rate found in mainstream populations and, as the study underlines,
“reflects cultural values common to Gypsies and Travellers and significant cost-savings to local authority and health services who would otherwise need to engage with delivering care to vulnerable individuals”.
Like the wider communities, many of the adults and disabled being cared for within Gypsy communities will have comorbidities, particularly relating to high levels of respiratory disease and diabetes, as we have heard, resulting from poor care and accommodation, all of which make life more challenging and difficult for the carer and the cared-for. On International Women’s Day, as has been said, it is right that we underline the key role of carers, the majority of whom are women, as well as the importance of the role that women play in the communities that we are talking about.
Like other noble Lords, I am very grateful for the expert and comprehensive briefings that we have received from the Traveller movement and the FFT and for the thorough House of Lords Library research brief. They not only set out the problems and the challenges that individuals and communities face but address the myths and assumptions that lead to the health inequalities and widespread discrimination that we are discussing today. Most prominent among such misunderstandings is Gypsies’ and Travellers’ long-established roots in their local communities—yet they are so often wrongly labelled by the local community as newcomers.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on the issue of local authorities’ duty of care to Traveller communities and the Greenfields report’s call for the reinstatement of their responsibilities to provide Traveller sites where a need has been identified, an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Whitaker. Does the Minister agree that that would address one of the root causes of unauthorised sites and encampments, which not only have an adverse and negative impact on the health and well-being of Traveller communities but stoke up local community resentment and misunderstanding and deepen community risks? The Government are not usually very fond of giving praise to the Welsh Government on health and related issues, but the application of such a duty in Wales has had very positive effects, as speakers in the debate have pointed out. Indeed, the Welsh Government’s updated 2016 delivery plan for the Gypsy and Roma community, Travelling to a Better Future, is an excellent strategic and cross-service approach to raising awareness and providing the joined-up services across health and social care and accommodation that are being called for today.
I referred earlier to the CQC report on end-of-life care support, A Different Ending. I am currently undertaking a fellowship with the Industry and Parliament Trust on the hospice and end-of-life care movement, so I was particularly concerned at the CQC findings on the huge barriers to good end-of-life care faced by Gypsy and Traveller communities. The cultural misunderstandings that we have heard about throughout this debate are often at the heart of the poor care that they experience, such as the failure by hospital services and staff to recognise the importance of extended family being able to visit a dying person while they are still alive, and as a family or a group in large numbers, not just filing in one at a time in accordance with hospital single-visitor rules. There are also negative experiences around parking caravans in hospital car parks while visiting for long periods, often met with aggression and threats to call the police, and the failure to recognise the need for the quick release and burial of the body in Traveller culture.
Case studies under Professor Greenfields’ research work on the bereavement experience of the Gypsy and Traveller communities highlight the appalling lack of appropriate psychological follow-up care provided to families, particularly in relation to post-natal bereavement or stillbirth or following on from the suicides of close relatives. By contrast, good end-of-life care experiences cited by the CQC included both hospital and hospice support for the person being able to die at home in their trailer and the welcoming of the whole family into one room on hospital or hospice facility sites. The CQC cites a project in Suffolk where hospices and Gypsy and Traveller communities work together to raise awareness of Gypsy and Traveller culture. There is much to learn here. What plans do the Government have to help to raise awareness among health and community services of the end-of-life care needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities?
No debate on the health and well-being of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities can pass without reference to Rodney Bickerstaffe, the former UNISON general secretary who sadly died last year. He was president of the Labour campaign for Travellers’ rights in the 1980s and 1990s, spearheading the adoption of some key policy initiatives that were subsequently taken forward by the Labour Government in office. The most important of these was supporting the drive for more Travellers’ sites through the inclusion of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment needs in regional spatial strategies, sadly later abandoned by the coalition Government. As a former employee of UNISON, I can testify to Rodney’s heartfelt and indefatigable campaigning and commitment to working to improve the lives and health of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities, which he carried on through into his presidency of the National Pensioners Convention after his retirement from UNISON.
This has been an excellent debate on a crucial issue that needs urgent attention, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for initiating it. It is exactly the sort of debate that we should have in this House, and I have certainly learned a lot along the journey of my briefings.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, mentioned, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities are among the most disadvantaged in British society. They experience some of the poorest health in the UK, with life expectancy up to 10 to 12 years less than the general population. Some 39% of Gypsies and Travellers have long-term illnesses, compared with 29% in a comparison group. At the same time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said, they tend to be younger than the average population.
The situation is exacerbated by so many Gypsies, Roma and Travellers not being registered with GPs, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and other noble Lords mentioned. Poor familiarity with healthcare provisions and often language barriers may make it difficult for people to access health services. Other factors that have an influence are accommodation insecurity, the living environment, low community participation and discrimination.
So what have the Government done about it? All noble Lords talked about healthcare, and the poor health outcomes faced by Gypsies, Roma and Travellers are in many ways entrenched and difficult to resolve, but the Government have supported a number of focused developments to improve the system. The Inclusion Health programme published a number of resources from 2013 to 2016 on key issues affecting this group of people. These included guidance for services on planning and commissioning inclusive services and a report on the impact of insecure accommodation and the living environment on Gypsies’ and Travellers’ health. This was published in January 2016 and made a series of recommendations to government.
While there is still much to do, good progress has been made in the last two years in meeting some of these recommendations—for example, improved joined-up working between central government departments and between local authorities, police forces and Police and Crime Commissioners. Among other points, the National Inclusion Health Board emphasised the importance of identifying the health needs of these vulnerable communities, particularly through local joint strategic needs assessments, which could be met by the local authorities or by clinical commissioning groups; providing leadership at local level, including through joining up health and local authority interests, where public health has a pivotal role; and commissioning for inclusion, including by strengthening local arrangements and protocols to ensure services are accessible and welcoming.
Many noble Lords have mentioned good practices in that area. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned a particularly interesting project going on in Suffolk and the right reverend Prelate mentioned what was going on in his area as well. There is another very good area practice taking place at the moment, in the Market Harborough medical practice in Leicestershire. Through local NHS funding arrangements and GP contract levers, it has delivered an enhanced care model for Gypsy/Traveller communities. This met the needs of people on two large Traveller sites close to the A6 motorway. The focal point, after registration of patients, was a nurse-led minor illness clinic. The medical centre takes a more relaxed position on appointments with Travellers; if they turn up without an appointment, rather than forcing them to make an appointment, staff will see them at the end of the clinic—an arrangement that works well and suits both parties, according to staff. Gypsy/Traveller engagement was costed into the design and delivery of services at this practice, which in turn built confidence with the GRT community through a named trusted professional. As the right reverend Prelate said, that is so important. They felt safe talking to a particular person, and, equally, that person was able to visit them in their communities.
The National Inclusion Health Board has produced practical advice for the professionals responsible for service design and provision. This is to support efforts to facilitate the social inclusion of these groups, notably around the lack of data, and to support local health staff to take account of the often complex needs of vulnerable groups when they are commissioning services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, talked about registration difficulties experienced by Travellers. An Inclusion Health training guide was published in 2016. In November 2015, NHS England produced guidance for general practices to clarify the rights of patients and the responsibilities of providers in registering with a GP practice, and to facilitate better understanding about the process of registering with a GP. This guidance has now been complemented by the publication of a leaflet for members of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities on how to register with a GP. I know that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby said that it was not always the answer to hand out leaflets but in this case the leaflet was co-produced in March 2017 by the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities for them to hand out within their own communities.
On accommodation and planning, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, talked about the problems with roadside sites, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. The Government are committed to reducing the number of unauthorised sites by ensuring that local planning authorities plan and make provision for affordable, good-quality accommodation for Travellers, while recognising their distinct cultural lifestyle. Local authorities are best placed to make decisions about the number and location of such sites locally, having had due regard to national policy and local circumstances. However, a proposal has been made to implement more widely the negotiated stopping policy which is currently operational in Leeds and seems to be working very well. This allows unauthorised encampments that do not cause trouble to stay for a fixed period of time. The authority works with the unauthorised encampments and the local settled community to set out ground rules on noise, fly-tipping or on issues that some people in rural communities have experienced with unsettled communities such as problems with their dogs. The encampment is tolerated for a short period of time. This policy has also been found to increase community cohesion. Leeds has estimated that it has saved it £240,000 a year.
We expect that local authorities should identify a five-year—ideally a 15-year—supply of deliverable and developable sites for Travellers against locally set targets. This should be annually updated. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said in a speech earlier this week, for the first time all local authorities will be expected to assess housing need using the same methodology, which will be a big improvement on the current situation.
Many noble Lords talked about educational problems. We have invested £137 million in the Education Endowment Foundation to identify what works to raise disadvantaged pupils’ attainment and to communicate this to schools. Between 2012 and 2014 the Department for Education funded two local authorities to trial a virtual head teacher for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils, with responsibility for supporting schools to promote better pupil outcomes. The effective practice identified was disseminated to every local authority in 2017. In 2017, the Department for Education held a conference for local authority Gypsy, Roma and Traveller leads to identify and disseminate best practice in this area. The Department for Education has produced good practice case studies for schools working with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils, and Ofsted has released a report specifically on the education of Roma pupils, which has recommendations for schools and local authorities.
What are the Government doing now? The noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and other noble Lords mentioned joined-up thinking. The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government maintains close contact with Gypsy, Roma and Traveller stakeholder groups, while the Department for Education has established a Gypsy, Roma, Traveller stakeholder group. The DHSC, the Department for Education and the MHCLG—I hate acronyms—held a trilateral ministerial meeting to discuss Gypsy, Roma and Traveller issues in November 2017, and we plan to continue holding regular cross-government meetings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, asked about the NHS data dictionary and how we will cope with it. We are scoping out with NHS England and NHS Digital the development of a unified information standard. This would mean that, if it were possible for the NHS data dictionary to identify Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities as separate groups for the first time, the dictionary would set out standards for data collection in the NHS. If that standard was implemented, we would fully understand the extent of the inequalities experienced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities by making it easier to determine their health outcomes and uptake of health services. It is in the scoping process; until that is done, it has not been decided how we will view the housing status of this group. We also have the added possibility of taking it from the 2011 census, which we obviously have at the moment, or waiting for the 2021 census to get a proper update of what is going on.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, working with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, is funding up to six community-led pilot groups. These projects will improve educational attainment, health, and social integration for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and will be delivered in 2018-19. These projects will be reported quarterly and there will be a full report at the end of the year. The Department of Health and Social Care has commissioned research to investigate which approaches to community engagement are most likely to be effective at enhancing trust between Gypsy/Travellers and mainstream health services. This project is due to report back in 2018.
I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for bringing forward the debate and all noble Lords for taking part. We all need to work with this community to enable it to have good healthcare, good education—particularly as far as girls and women are concerned—and the availability to keep their culture, which they should be able to celebrate and which has been honed over several centuries. As always, I will write to any noble Lords whose questions I have failed to answer and, as always, I seem to have run out of time. I thank noble Lords again for having taken part.
Antimicrobial Resistance
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Greengross
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risks of antimicrobial resistance.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the CEO of the International Longevity Centre-UK, which has done quite a lot of work on the issues that we are discussing. Antimicrobial resistance poses an unprecedented threat to human health. As bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, even minor infections have the potential to become serious and indeed fatal. The rise of drug-resistant infections is estimated to account for around 700,000 deaths per year worldwide, with 50,000 of those deaths occurring within Europe and the United States.
I am sure that noble Lords will be familiar with the review of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, on antimicrobial resistance, published in 2016, which projected that by 2050 global mortalities due to this could reach 10 million a year and cost the global economy £66 trillion in lost productivity. The Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, has also shared her concerns that the recent era of material mortality improvement will give way to many years of material mortality worsening if drug-resistant infections continue to develop at current rates. Willis Towers Watson’s head of mortality and longevity has calculated that a “plausible” worst-case scenario for the development of antimicrobial resistance will,
“largely zeroise or even negate”,
the longevity improvements made since the mid-20th century.
Fortunately, there have been some developments in the global effort to reduce the spread of AMR. The Access to Medicine Foundation’s 2018 Antimicrobial Resistance Benchmark report found that nine life sciences companies are active in antimicrobial resistance surveillance programmes covering 147 countries between them. There are also currently 28 antibiotics for high-priority pathogens in late-stage development. However, in other areas there is cause for concern as progress seems to have stalled.
A freedom of information request issued to Public Health England in 2017 found that prescriptions of colistin, the last line of defence in antibiotic treatment, rose by 40% between 2014 and 2015, from 346,000 doses to 485,000. Antimicrobial resistance was common in the more than 1 million urinary tract infections caused by bacteria identified in NHS laboratories in 2016. Some progress was observed in reducing rates of prescribing in secondary care in 2015, but there has not been a sustained reduction in total antibiotic prescribing in this care setting. While antibiotic prescribing reduced by 5% overall between 2012 and 2016, when measured as defined daily doses per 1,000 inhabitants per day, significant regional variation in antibiotic use continues to occur.
Unfortunately, there is also significant regional variation in the uptake of a crucial means of preventing the spread of antimicrobial resistance—I am talking about vaccination. The review by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, noted that vaccine programmes can reduce antibiotic consumption by preventing secondary infections and that, in addition, they often save society more than 10 times their original cost by protecting against vaccine-preventable diseases.
A study conducted jointly by the Department of Health and Social Care, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health and the South African directorate of health estimated that universal coverage with pneumococcal conjugate vaccine could avert up to 11.4 million days of antibiotic therapy annually worldwide in children younger than five years of age. A separate study published in the Journal of Clinical Infectious Diseases and Practice found that the introduction of a universal influenza immunisation programme for everyone aged six months and over in Ontario in the year 2000 resulted in a 64% decrease in influenza-associated respiratory disease antibiotic prescriptions relative to other regions.
However, despite the demonstrable impact of vaccination on antibiotic prescription, there is significant regional variation in immunisation uptake rates. Uptake targets set by the Department of Health and Social Care are sadly being missed. Between September and December 2017 flu vaccine uptake among GP patients aged 65 and over varied from a high of 74% in Greater Manchester to only 64.9% in London. Between September 2016 and August 2017 shingles vaccine coverage in the routine cohort—those aged 70—declined 13.5% since the start of the programme to 48.3%. I can speak personally about that vaccine. With shingles about to descend into my eye, it was so quick in getting rid of it. It was extraordinary and I am very wedded to this.
The coverage rate for the infant pneumococcal vaccination programme is now sadly below the 95% national target adopted by the Department of Health and Social Care. Given that the coverage level in the UK is already falling, it is worrying that the Government might deprioritise pneumococcal immunisation following a recent proposal to remove a dose of the vaccine from the infant pneumococcal immunisation programme. This advice has recently been consulted on, so it is to be hoped that in the interests of public health, the Government will consider the views of stakeholders closely, including the potential impact of a reduced schedule on antimicrobial resistance before making any policy decisions. The Government could also consider how they can ensure that the NHS benefits from future vaccines targeted at preventing hospital-acquired infections such as MRSA and C. difficile, which are of particular relevance to AMR. The Government should consider how tackling AMR can be incorporated into decision-making processes about the introduction of vaccination programmes.
Finally, given that the Civil Contingencies Secretariat 2017 national risk register categorises antimicrobial resistance and climate change as long-term trends that pose severe risks to the UK, I would urge that each of us should approach the problem of antimicrobial resistance with the same urgency and vigour as the threat posed by climate change.
Lord Colwyn (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate on the risks of antimicrobial resistance, or AMR. Although it is last on the list of the short debates this afternoon, this debate follows quite nicely on from the debate we had on 22 November last year when we discussed the same sort of problems. The standard of wound care was the main subject then.
The global threat of AMR, in both human and economic cost, has been well documented. I will not repeat the statistics of the grave consequences that are predicted if we do not act. I shall have to read what the noble Baroness said. It sounded terribly complex, but I will catch up with it tomorrow.
As noble Lords will know from past debates, I have been a champion of research and development to create new treatments so that we can get ahead of the superbugs. I have been greatly impressed by the work of Matoke Holdings. This small British biotech firm has pioneered reactive oxygen technology, a novel antimicrobial, initially as a treatment for serious infected wounds. This could be ground-breaking in tackling antimicrobial resistance. I do not have any financial interest to declare, but I have an interest in that my younger brother recently lost a leg from MRSA and the remaining leg was successfully treated with reactive oxygen technology. Professor Davies has warned in the past of apocalyptic consequences if antibiotics stop working. Overuse of antibiotics is speeding up the rate at which bacteria evolve, making common infections much more difficult to treat. With a lack of significant investment in antimicrobial R&D from big pharma companies, it falls to small and medium-sized enterprises, such as Matoke, to put in the leg work to develop new products to meet the global AMR challenge. However, for SMEs in particular, the cost and timescale of the R&D process is a significant challenge.
I was pleased to see in the Government’s response to the Accelerated Access Review at the end of last year the announcement of a new accelerated access pathway to support R&D for the most innovative products. The pathway will designate around five breakthrough products a year, which will receive bespoke support from government to take new innovations from lab bench to bedside. Given that there have been no new antibiotics in the past 30 years, the pathway is an excellent opportunity to speed up the development of new antimicrobials and to get ahead of the AMR threat. Will the Minister confirm whether the pathway will prioritise novel antimicrobials when allocating breakthrough product status? Will the Minister join me in meeting Matoke to get a first-hand account of the challenges faced by SMEs on the front line of the struggle against AMR?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for securing this extremely important and timely debate. I begin by declaring an interest as vice-chair of the APPG on Global Tuberculosis, and I refer noble Lords to my interests as set out in the register and my work with the Global TB Caucus. I will, perhaps not surprisingly, concentrate my remarks this afternoon on tuberculosis and multidrug-resistant TB.
The review on AMR by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, estimated that one-third of all AMR-associated deaths are currently caused by drug-resistant TB. In 2016, an estimated 600,000 people developed drug-resistant TB. While rates are going down gradually, drug-resistant TB rates continue to rise in some parts of the world. This situation is particularly true in Europe, which has seen the fastest growing rates of multidrug-resistant TB of any world region. Although it has the lowest TB incidence, it has the highest rates of MDR TB. Of the almost 300,000 cases of TB in Europe last year, more than 120,000 were drug-resistant. I should say at this point that this is the European region as defined by the World Health Organization, which includes the central Asian countries of the former Soviet Union. In other words, well over one-third of all TB cases in Europe last year were drug-resistant.
Of the 30 countries identified as having the highest rates of drug-resistant TB, nine are in the European region and the countries of the former Soviet Union. The reasons for the particularly high levels of TB and MDR TB in the countries of the former Soviet Union are complex: steep economic decline and the sharp rise in poverty in the 1990s, when the Soviet Union collapsed; the disintegration of the Soviet healthcare system; an HIV epidemic; very high prison populations and dilapidated prison facilities; and the excessive hospitalisation of patients who are no longer infectious as they have been taking their medication. In addition, since independence, many of these countries have seen significant deregulation of pharmaceutical provision and the ready availability of antibiotics to buy in privatised kiosks, often without a doctor’s prescription, throughout the cities of the former Soviet Union. In some countries, there are also difficulties in securing newer drugs available to treat MDR TB, from which patients could greatly benefit.
With the Global TB Caucus I have been visiting many of these countries over the past 18 months to try to raise awareness of multidrug-resistant TB and its causes among parliamentarians in the countries of the former Soviet Union, to encourage them to set up parliamentary groups like APPGs in their own Parliaments and to work with civil society organisations and their health ministries to take action against drug-resistant forms of TB. Clearly, the APPG in this department has very similar aims.
The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, in his review of AMR, recommended as a first intervention that there should be a global public awareness campaign. Will the Minister say how successful he thinks this public awareness campaign has been up until now, and what further measures the Government intend to take to achieve this goal? Drug-resistant strains of TB are more expensive to treat because of the cost of medicines, the length of treatment and the amount of additional support required by each patient to manage side effects. I have spoken to many patients with drug-resistant TB in Ukraine and central Asian countries, as well as here in the UK, and they have told me of the difficulties of swallowing up to 20 pills a day, along with painful injections and the side effects to their mental and physical health of having to cope with such a harsh regimen, often for a period of 18 months or more. Considerable support networks are required to ensure that patients continue with their treatment and, clearly, not continuing with the treatment adds to the risk of developing a form of TB which is even more drug-resistant.
There have been relatively few advances in finding new treatments which work more effectively and more quickly against drug-resistant TB, which leads me to my second question to the Minister. What measures do the Government intend to take to incentivise the production of new and more effective antibiotics for TB, and multidrug-resistant TB in particular? The Global TB Caucus estimates that $1 trillion will be lost to the global economy between 2015 and 2030 if no major steps are taken. Increases in rates of MDR TB can put a massive strain on healthcare systems and national economies. KPMG predicts that Europe could be due to lose nearly 0.02% of its economy between 2015 and 2050 due to MDR TB alone should urgent action not be taken.
In autumn this year the United Nations will hold a high-level meeting on TB. This represents a significant opportunity to adopt a concerted international effort to tackle multidrug-resistant TB. Will the Minister say what preparations the Government are currently making to prepare for this high-level meeting?
I will end with a quote from the review by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill:
“The burden of TB is too great, and the need for new treatments too urgent, for it not to be a central consideration in the role and objectives of a global intervention to support antibiotic development”.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Greengross for securing this short debate. It may be short but it is of tremendous importance globally. AMR is widely recognised as the biggest threat we face.
Many years ago I was the first person in your Lordships’ House to have a debate on MRSA, after the late Lord Gerry Fitt’s wife died from MRSA in the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. After that, along with a group from the Science and Technology Select Committee, I went to America to look at the problems around antimicrobials and infection. One of our recommendations was that there should be quick tests for infections so that the correct antibiotic can be prescribed. This is now happening in some places, and that is good news.
The famous physician, Sir William Osler, who is sometimes described as the father of modern medicine, said in 1892 that there are three phases to treatment: diagnosis, diagnosis and diagnosis. In modern times, diagnostics are vital to guiding clinical decision-making, determining whether a patient should be treated with antibiotics, and if so, which ones will be effective.
Sepsis is a bigger killer in the UK than bowel, breast and prostate cancer combined. With the increasing challenges of antimicrobial resistance, it is more important than ever for hospitals to diagnose accurately and rapidly so that patients with sepsis can be treated. The lack of consistency across UK hospitals in their diagnosis of sepsis has been highlighted. Research has found that 56% of hospitals are using only one set of blood cultures where sepsis is suspected rather than the recommended two sets. This leads to much less chance of the successful identification of the bacterium involved.
World Tuberculosis Day is approaching, so I thought it appropriate to remind your Lordships that TB remains the world’s deadliest infectious disease, with 10.4 million people infected and 1.7 million dying from the disease in 2016. In his review on AMR, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, estimated that around a third of all AMR-associated deaths are caused by drug-resistant TB. The UK itself struggles with TB and has been known as the drug-resistant capital of northern Europe. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in her remarks on this very important subject.
Until recently, doctors relied on the microscope to identify TB and it took months of growing cultures in laboratories to determine if the strain of TB was drug resistant. However, things have changed for the better with the production of the GeneXpert TB testing machine, which can analyse DNA. The test can identify whether someone has TB and can detect whether there is resistance to one of the main TB drugs, rifampicin. The UK Government have been central to advancing this technology by making a significant investment in it through the Ross Fund. Scientists and policymakers are working to improve this diagnostic tool and ensure that it is used as widely as possible.
The availability of a rapid diagnostic test is vital to fighting AMR and will ensure that those who need antibiotic treatment urgently receive it. It will also ensure that antibiotic drugs are not misused or prescribed inappropriately, thus driving further drug resistance. This is also important to animal health and farming. Exciting research in this field is going on around the world and certain new technologies are now able to determine antimicrobial resistance in as little as 30 minutes. We must invest to drive forward the research and development that will protect patients and the public.
Concern has been expressed about outbreaks of multiresistant hospital bacteria among newborns in hospitals, including in neonatal intensive care and special care baby units. Controlling MRSA has been improved due to hard work, but in high dependency care units where patients are more vulnerable to drug-resistant infections, the risks are great. Is anything being done to systematically collect the data, identify improvements that can be made and fund the emerging diagnostic and monitoring technologies that enable a rapid infection control response?
Another problem that needs addressing is the epidemic of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea in hospital patients, largely attributable to antibiotic overuse. Good work is being done, but it is translation into practice that seems all too slow.
Finally, does the Minister agree that the European Vaccine Action Plan is of great importance? With more and more infections becoming immune to antibiotics, it is vital to prevent conditions such as gonorrhoea, which is resistant to antibiotics and needs a vaccine, as do norovirus, Clostridium difficile, HIV and many others, and a better vaccine is needed for TB. That would make the world a safer place for everyone.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for introducing this debate on such an important matter.
The seriousness of this issue was stated starkly by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, who said that if we do not act, it is possible that we will return to 40% of the population dying prematurely from infections that we cannot treat. The sad fact is that overuse and misuse of antibiotics and other antimicrobials in humans, animals, including farmed fish, and crops have been major contributors to an acceleration in the emergence of drug-resistant strains of bacteria, viruses, parasites and fungi. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred very powerfully to the role that better diagnostics can play in enabling us to use antimicrobials with circumspection. I concur with her completely.
When the review on AMR, led by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, was published in May 2016, it generated a much-needed urgent focus on the issue, leading to a commitment to act by world leaders at the high-level meeting of the UN General Assembly on AMR in September 2016. Countries reaffirmed their commitment to develop national action plans on AMR, building on the blueprint developed in 2015 by the World Health Organization, the FAO and the World Organisation for Animal Health.
The fact is that common and life-threatening infections such as pneumonia and gonorrhoea, and post-operative infections, as well as HIV, TB and malaria, are increasingly becoming untreatable. Very worrying is the fact that cases of completely untreatable gonorrhoea have been recorded in the last year in developed countries.
I shall concentrate the rest of my remarks on international development, which is the brief on which I speak for my party, the Liberal Democrats. TB is a disease that kills 1.8 million people a year. My noble friend Lady Suttie has already spoken passionately about the rise of multidrug-resistant TB globally. Last August I was in Liberia and, courtesy of RESULTS UK, I visited a clinic where patients with multidrug-resistant TB were being treated. As my noble friend Lady Suttie said, the treatment is complex, very costly and toxic. It can last from six to 30 months and can consist of more than 14,000 pills and daily injections for six months. What was clear to me was that the patients I met were the lucky ones and that many more in the community potentially carried MDR-TB because the resources to carry out comprehensive tracing were just not there.
What is urgently needed is a vaccine for TB. Prevention would obviate the need for treatment with antibiotics and give us a chance to eradicate the disease. However, the development of vaccines is a lengthy process, so recent progress is at risk unless vital investment is provided with a long-term commitment to give developers—in particular, product development partnerships—the confidence to plan for the future with certainty. I fully echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, on that. The UN high-level meeting on TB this September offers a rare chance to turn the tide against TB and I hope the Government will take the opportunity to drive the vaccine agenda forward.
Malaria is another long-time scourge of the developing world and now the problem is compounded by the discovery of drug-resistant mosquitoes in Myanmar, Thailand, Lao PDR, Vietnam and Cambodia. I draw the Minister’s attention to the extremely dangerous situation that exists in the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh, as identified by the Malaria Consortium—I declare that I am a trustee of that organisation. The monsoon rains are due next month and these, coupled with the combination of poor sanitation and emergency, substandard housing, will provide perfect breeding conditions for malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. The danger to the refugees is obvious, but what also needs to be considered in the mix is that the refugees have come from Myanmar, where malaria resistant to artemisinin-based antimalarials has been detected, including in the nearby Sagaing region. The native population of Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh is highly vulnerable to malaria because the people have not been exposed to the disease recently. We can see the dangers inherent in that situation. We cannot risk the further spread of drug-resistant malaria and I ask the Minister to relay these concerns as a matter of urgency to the appropriate personnel. DfID is well placed to take action as a world leader in the fight against malaria and is already in place, combating diphtheria and cholera in the camps.
Prevention is always better and cheaper than cure. In its March 2016 report on limiting the spread of drug resistance, the AMR Review Board estimated that improved water and sanitation in middle-income countries could reduce the volume of antibiotics used to treat diarrhoea by at least 60%. We need to apply common sense and ensure that good housekeeping takes precedence over popping a pill. The availability of antimicrobials is shifting action away from prevention and the good practice of investing in basic sanitation infrastructure.
Previous speakers have spoken about market failures. We see that investment in developing new antibiotics has gone into reverse. We need new ways of stimulating innovation and to do that we must find a way to delink the cost of research and development from the price and volume of sales. How will the Government ensure that new antibiotics and other innovations are affordable to the NHS and health systems around the world? In the same vein, will the Minister comment on the progress of the UK and China Global AMR Research Innovation Fund?
To conclude, considering that we are in a global space where it is easy to spread AMR infections through trade and travel, and that resistance has been observed in terrestrial and aquatic environments, where wind and currents take them out of our control, we begin to see the scale of the problem we face. The fact is that we know what we have to do. Political will and leadership is what is needed now.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to wind up for the Opposition and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for an excellent contribution, which other noble Lords added to. I want to raise two issues. One is about the use of antibiotics in animals and the other is about incentives for developing new drugs and vaccines. First, I refer to the wide-ranging speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in which she referred to immunisation uptake, which is a very worrying issue for health in this country, let alone in other countries. I have seen various reports that there is ever more misinformation out there undermining people’s confidence in vaccines. We saw with the MMR issue the problems arising when this gains ground. Is the Department of Health and Social Care exercised about this and is it developing a strategy?
On the use of antibiotics in animals, I know that the Government made a progress report in 2016, commented on this and particularly referred to compliance with Red Tractor assurance scheme standards and to the work of the task force Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance. My noble friend Lord Grantchester, to whom I have referred on this, has made the point to me that, alongside this and influenced by various suppliers, farm assurance schemes are having a positive impact in reducing the use of antibiotics in animals. Will the Minister comment on this and give a progress report in that area?
On how better incentives can be used to promote investment in new drugs and vaccines, the report by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, was very clear that the current pipeline of new antibiotics shows that there is a mismatch between the drugs that the world needs and the number and quality of new antibiotics that are being researched. He recommended,
“a global system of market entry rewards for antibiotics and alternative therapies”.
He suggested that the challenge really is,
“to ‘de-link’ the profitability of an antibiotic from volumes sold, reducing uncertainty and enabling reward without encouraging poor stewardship”.
This arises from the fact that it is very difficult in the current model for the industry to see how it can get any return on the development of new antibiotics, and because of that, we have this very big problem.
I know that the Government have acknowledged the principle of de-linking, particularly in their endorsement of the 26th UN declaration on AMR but, just to reflect on the problem, STOPAIDS, which is a UK network of agencies which have developed a global response to HIV and AIDS, set out the de-linking issue, stating that the incentive to innovate is still tied to the price that pharma companies can charge for the products they create and therefore there is still a risk of continuing this problem of high price. The ABPI, the trade association for the pharma industry, is continuing to work with the noble Lord’s department on this to explore reimbursement and evaluation models, which could perhaps be piloted in the UK, but I wonder whether the noble Minister can say a little bit more about whether progress is being made.
I refer noble Lords to a recent—2018—report by the Access to Medicine Foundation, which is an international NGO based in the Netherlands. Very recently it produced an anti-microbial resistance benchmark. The report states that despite some progress being made by some companies, there are still too few in the pipeline and we need to strengthen that pipeline. I wonder whether there are other actions that now need to be taken to provide the right incentives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and congratulate her on securing this debate on an incredibly important topic, which definitely performs above the graveyard slot it has been given on a Thursday afternoon. It has been a very useful and informative debate, and a good opportunity for us all to reflect on an important—indeed, vital—area of medicine and health, not least because it highlights the potential risks we face as humankind in dealing with this issue, but also to set out some of the things that are being done to deal with it. It is also worth our taking the opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord O’Neill, who is not here. In so many ways, the work that he has done has set the tone for the work that we are all doing together now. I will not rehearse the risks that have been set out very clearly by others, but I think a word the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, used was “unprecedented”, which is the scale of what we face if we do not get this right.
I thought it would be useful to rehearse a little of the action that the Government have been taking over the last few years—if nothing else, to emphasise the seriousness with which we take the issue. Noble Lords will know that the Chief Medical Officer used her annual report in 2013 to highlight the risk of antimicrobial resistance. Later that year, a five-year antimicrobial resistance strategy across human and animal health was published. Following that, my noble friend Lord O’Neill was asked to forward a globally facing independent review, which was published in 2016. That report produced the truly alarming figure we have heard of 10 million extra deaths a year, with a potential economic impact of $100 trillion. A very powerful point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, namely that up to one-third of those statistics is driven by drug-resistant TB. I did not realise that until she said so. It is truly alarming, hence the focus on TB in this debate. AMR was also added to the national security risk assessment in 2015 as a tier 1 risk for our country: that is how important it is.
As for what the UK’s strategy includes, we have an acronym of the three Ps: prevent infection occurring in the first place; protect the antibiotics we have through good antimicrobial stewardship; and promote the development of new drugs, which, as noble Lords have said, is incredibly important.
On prevention, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned urinary tract infections. They are a huge driver of both the use of antibiotics and the development of antimicrobial resistance. There are very interesting, and very simple, things going on such as the good use of catheters, which can have a profound effect both on infection occurring in the first place and the knock-on impact on the benefit of the antibiotics that we still have now. All this work is underpinned by our world-leading R&D base in this country.
The Government’s response to the review by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, set out new ambitions, including halving healthcare-associated gram-negative bloodstream infections and inappropriate antibiotic prescribing by 2021. We welcomed the emphasis in the review on the use of diagnostic tests, which was brought to the fore by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, in her speech.
I do not know whether noble Lords had a chance to see it, but only last week Public Health England published details of the modelling work it has done to look at inappropriate prescribing. The work found that, using a conservative approach, around 20% of current antibiotic prescribing is inappropriate, and therefore the ambition should be to reduce that by 10% from a 2016 baseline. Between 2012 and 2016, we had already reduced our use of antibiotics by 5%. Clearly, though, to some extent that was the low-hanging fruit, and now we need to take on the more difficult areas. In doing so—I think back to debates we have had about wound care and sepsis—we must never forget that these drugs are vital. Although we want to reduce inappropriate prescriptions, we also have to make sure that people who need them are not being restricted access to them. It is not just about gram-negative bloodstream infections but other health-acquired infections. I was sorry to hear the story of my noble friend Lord Colwyn’s brother. That shows the horrible impact that can happen.
I have talked mainly about humans but, as other noble Lords have pointed out, we also need to set an ambition to reduce antibiotic use in livestock and fish farmed for food. The good news is that we have met our ambition two years early: sales of antibiotics for use in food-producing animals dropped by 27%. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that is good progress. Perhaps it is an answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, about whether awareness campaigns work: it is evidence that they do. New sector-specific targets were published in October 2017 and we will be reporting against them in the months to come.
As all noble Lords pointed out, AMR is ultimately a global issue. This Government helped to secure the UN declaration on AMR in September 2016. We are committed to working not just with the global health community but with the finance community to create a system that rewards companies that develop new, successful antibiotics and, critically, make them available to all who need them.
Noble Lords will, I hope, know that the UK has been a leading advocate at the G20 for the piloting and rollout of global solutions that incentivise new antibiotic development. We continue to promote the need for global action. Noble Lords will also be aware that our Chief Medical Officer is a driving force in these efforts; she really is a wonderful and zealous advocate of this agenda. They will also know that she is totally unbending in her desire to keep this at the top of the global agenda.
AMR is embedded in all relevant strategies, particularly the sustainable development goals agenda. I also want to point out that the UK has helped to create the Fleming Fund, which is a £265 million commitment over five years, as a development project dedicated to AMR globally. It focuses on increasing capacity and capability for diagnosis and surveillance of AMR in low and middle-income countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, made a very important point that the people who are most likely to suffer from the consequences of AMR, although spread across the world, are focused on those communities that are likely to be the poorest.
Noble Lords have asked about that incentivisation and pulling through the new drugs. There is the £50 million Global AMR Innovation Fund, which looks to develop neglected areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked about China; a new partnership is soon to be launched on that although I do not have details now. When I do, I will certainly write to her. In the UK, we are channelling investment through the National Institute for Health Research, Research Councils, Innovate UK and so on to attract high-quality research proposals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, there is some cause for cautious optimism on drug development in this area. Not only do we need to get the drugs developed but we need to find ways to pull them through. My noble friend Lord Colwyn talked about the accelerated access pathway; that could be one route by which these drugs come through.
I want to spend a little time talking about vaccination, because it has been mentioned by all noble Lords. I absolutely agree that it is an important part of reducing the need for antimicrobials and a key weapon in slowing down antimicrobial resistance. We have a world-class vaccination service that reduces the overall burden of disease in this country. Uptake is among the best in the world: about 90% of the population get childhood vaccines, for example. However, it is fair to say that we need to do better, not only in making sure—in this era of fake news—that rumours and false information about the dangers from vaccines are firmly rebutted, but in using every opportunity and channel we have to promote the uptake of vaccines in families and other groups. That is something that the health family, as we sometimes describe it, is working on, to better understand local variation; there is huge variation from area to area, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.
It is worth saying that, from an R&D perspective, we have a great strength in this country in the development of vaccines. It was a major focus of the life sciences industrial strategy. Research Councils have just invested just over £9 million in five new vaccine networks, and the Government have invested £100 million in focusing on vaccines of epidemic potential. A lot is being done but, as noble Lords have pointed out, the task is growing because antimicrobial resistance is growing.
Specifically on pneumococcal immunisation, our expert group—the Joint Committee on Immunisation and Vaccination, as noble Lords will know—has been consulting on its advice on the number of doses. It would not be appropriate for me to pre-empt that decision at this stage. My honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Public Health and Primary Care, will, of course, give its advice due consideration, but I will pass on the concerns that have been expressed in this debate about that, so that they understand—as we do—that there is deep concern about any dilution of our vaccination programme.
I want to quickly deal with the issues I have not dealt with. My noble friend Lord Colwyn asked whether the AAP will focus on antimicrobials. It will suggest a new suite of products in April. I have tried to leave the expert group to it; it will come to us, but that is certainly a route forward, and I would be happy to meet with the company that he mentioned to talk about its work.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked about the UN high-level meeting, which marks an important moment to secure a political commitment to TB control. She will be pleased to know that the Government are engaging closely with the WHO and taking a lead on that. There is some benefit coming from raising awareness, but clearly there is more to do to ensure that the UK is fully engaged. On the development of new anti-TB drugs, DfID is contributing to the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, which I hope is to some extent a reassurance that we are playing our part.
I should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who is a woman of many firsts. She led the first debate on the issue of MRSA in the House. We have made some really good progress on controlling MRSA and C.diff in hospitals but, of course, that is the only part of controlling infection. We are making some progress and better diagnostic techniques now exist. She also asked about the diagnosis of TB. I made a fascinating visit to a Find & Treat service in Camden which was doing on-street work. Unfortunately, it is one of only a few services of this kind, and we certainly need to do more of that sort of work.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked about the Rohingya community. I am not familiar with those issues, but I shall certainly take her concerns to DfID and I understand the seriousness of them.
The final and very major point to make is to ask how we break the link between price and the cost of drug development, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. The truth is that this is not an issue that faces drug development in this area alone; it concerns drug development in every area, as drugs and medicine become more stratified. The answer lies in partnership but, to be honest, we do not yet have the model for doing that. However, we are developing it, and we have a good relationship with industry to help us to do that.
In conclusion, once again I thank the noble Baroness for initiating this fantastic debate and all noble Lords for their contributions. I think that we are making good progress, but there is a long way to go. The lodestar here is Sweden, which has succeeded in reducing antibiotic use by 40%, although it has taken the country 20 years to do that. We are a few years down the track in the process, and I hope that we can learn from Sweden and others to accelerate our progress. I finish by wishing to make sure that noble Lords understand that keeping antibiotics working lies at the heart of the Government’s strategy, and our job is to keep the issue at the forefront of everyone’s mind.
House of Lords
Domestic Violence: Women
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bertin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are giving to women who are victims of domestic violence.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we have already committed increased funding of £100 million to support victims of violence against women and girls, and today have launched a wide-ranging consultation working towards a domestic abuse Bill which seeks views on a suite of proposals to do more still to support victims and target perpetrators of these terrible crimes.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. While we need to change the narrative on domestic abuse from “Why didn’t she leave?” to “Why didn’t he stop?”, all women fleeing abuse must have a safe place to run to. However, there have been many deeply worrying reports and accusations that the number of spaces for women in refuges is being reduced. Can my noble friend reassure the House that this is not the case? Can she also acknowledge how crucial it is to take early and preventive action, particularly when it comes to supporting the thousands of children who witness abuse on a daily basis?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for her question. I can reassure her that the provision of bed spaces has increased by 10% since 2010. We want to be very clear that the current level of refuge provision will not reduce—she may have heard my right honourable friend the Home Secretary state that this morning. We have heard the need for sustainable funding for refuges, which is why we are reviewing the way in which refuges and supported housing are delivered. We have asked all the charities and organisations working on the front line to feed in their expertise and come forward with their ideas on how best to deliver this on the ground. The process is ongoing. We have been clear that no options are off the table as we work with them to ensure that women requiring support in their time of need are not let down.
My noble friend was absolutely right when she talked about early intervention to prevent domestic abuse, which is why the domestic abuse consultation is coming about. Children, as she mentioned, are at the forefront of this work. Today, we have announced £8 million of funding to support—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Today, we have announced £8 million of funding to support children who witness domestic abuse and to help with their recovery. I am sorry if I have taken too long, but this is an important subject.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, a major difficulty in some of these appalling cases, in which I have been involved judicially, is that there are no witnesses other than the participants. That is one of the problems of proving the cases. Do I presume that the same standard of proof will prevail nevertheless?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right that, quite often, there are no witnesses other than the participants who mete out such abuse on women; quite often, there are no physical signs of abuse where it involves coercive control and, as the Home Secretary mentioned this morning, economic control of women. That is why we are strengthening the law and why we have gone out to consultation: so that such things may be pursued. It is also why the domestic violence protection order is being introduced.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, from what the Minister has already said it is clear that she fully understands and accepts that domestic violence is a real threat to the well-being and proper development of children. In this consultation, can further consideration be given, in cases where police are called to a home because of an instance of domestic violence and children are present, to requiring that the police automatically contact the safeguarding unit of the local authority to ensure that that the children’s needs are considered as well as those of the adults involved?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for that question; he has extensive experience of this area. We have allocated additional funding to the College of Policing to improve training for some of those first-line responders, who in the past may not have been aware of children’s needs, Children who suffer even one incident in which they witness domestic abuse can sometimes be affected for their entire lives.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, in welcoming the Government’s latest initiative on controlling and coercive behaviour, I would highlight the study by the charity Refuge, which found that one in four 16 to 21 year-olds—young people—thought it perfectly normal that coercive and controlling behaviour took place. It is growing, and we know that it is a precursor to physical violence in the end. Will the Minister say a bit more about what is being done to educate young people, and indeed the public—women in general—that coercive, controlling and psychological abuse is not acceptable and that they can seek help?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that point. Coercive and controlling behaviour may not even be seen as that by the victim—I think that is the point the noble Baroness is making. We can do much through PSHE and educating girls in self-respect. Education in the use of social media and the internet is crucial in this area. The statistics cited by the noble Baroness do not surprise me, and we have much to do to educate our young women.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
Will the Minister consider making severe facial trauma a notifiable condition? These men smash up their wives and then take them to a hospital to be treated. The next time they take them to a different hospital, and the third time yet another hospital. If it were a notifiable condition all this would add up and prosecutions might well take place.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will certainly take back my noble friend’s suggestion. He touches on a very important point: not only might these women be taken to different hospitals each time, but the woman might feel too frightened to report what she has gone through. The whole purpose of some of the Government’s initiatives is that women should no longer feel frightened to come forward and get the support they need through these terrible traumas.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, am I right in thinking that in February 2017 Theresa May announced a domestic violence and abuse Act? We have seen no moves towards that Act, as far as I know. A consultation was promised; more consultation is now being promised. What does this consultation consist of? Do we need more consultation, or should we just get on with it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can assure the noble Baroness that the VAWG commitments that Theresa May made, both as Prime Minister and previously as Home Secretary, are still firm. It is not an either/or in terms of the commitments that the measures in the Bill will cover. They will enshrine a definition of domestic abuse; they will introduce a new domestic abuse commissioner and a domestic abuse protection order that I talked about earlier; and they will include proposals for ensuring that the sentencing in domestic abuse-related offences duly recognises the devastating impact that these offences have on children, as I explained to the noble Lord earlier. Moreover—the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, will be interested to hear this—we will introduce measures to adopt extra-territorial jurisdiction over remaining sexual offences so that we can advance towards ratification of the Istanbul convention.
Brexit: Employment Protection for Women
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they will ensure that employment protections for women currently provided by European Union law will be maintained when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, in her Lancaster House speech, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a clear commitment that all workers’ rights will be protected in negotiating Britain’s exit from the European Union. We will not roll back on employment protection for women.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for his reassurance, but is he aware of research carried out by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that documented the extent of pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the UK? It found that 50% of mothers of young babies indicated that maternity had impacted negatively on their opportunities, status and job security. What will the Government do to ensure that current employment law, which includes lots of EU law, is enforced and that women are protected from maternity discrimination in the workplace? This is of grave concern to many women who have suffered this discrimination. We have laws in place, but we have to make sure that they are carried out.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for referring to that research, which of course I am aware of. We are also aware of the EU minimum standards and of where we are at the moment. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear, we will continue to meet those standards, but we will also be quite clear that we are ahead of European Union standards on a whole host of different areas, whether that is paternity leave or shared parental leave. We are doing our bit and will continue to do so; it is a matter for the UK Government to then decide in future.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that, when we have left the European Union, we will be able to enhance women’s rights in the workforce and not have to seek the agreement of 27 other member states and the Commission to do so? If the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, wishes to see improvements, it will be this Parliament that decides, and that is why we are leaving the European Union.
Lord Henley
My noble friend makes a very good point. There was an intervention in the debate on Monday from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, when she asked exactly this point about why we could not meet European standards and so on. She ended up by citing me and saying that I had replied,
“that the Government would take note of what the EU does in the future but that the whole point of Brexit was that we could make our own decisions”.
She went on to say:
“That is exactly what many of us are extremely concerned about”.—[Official Report, 5/3/18; col. 949.]
But as my noble friend has made clear, it is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and for the United Kingdom Parliament to decide these matters in the future.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, we have listened with varying degrees of patience to the Government’s assurances that they have no intention of diminishing the rights of women post Brexit. I understand what the Minister says with regard to our current level of provision. Nevertheless, the Government have built a get-out-of-jail—through the back door and without primary legislation—Henry VIII card into the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. Will the Minister guarantee that such power, should it ever pass in your Lordships’ House, will never be used to diminish the hard-won rights of women either in EU legislation or elsewhere?
Lord Henley
Surely the noble Baroness accepts my right honourable friend’s statement that we will continue to maintain rights. Thereafter, it will be a matter for the United Kingdom, and for the United Kingdom alone, to decide on these matters. That is what we are going to do. Surely, the noble Baroness accepts that that is far better than these matters being decided elsewhere.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that we follow European directives regularly—for example, on pregnant workers’ issues. Will we continue to examine directives and fall in with them, or will we not?
Lord Henley
My Lords, obviously we will take note of all EU directives and look at them, but again would not the noble Baroness far prefer it that this Government and this Parliament decided these matters for themselves?
Lord Cormack (Con)
Will my noble friend agree that the very last thing we should refer to Henry VIII clauses is women’s rights?
Lord Henley
My noble friend makes a very good point about women’s rights: two of his wives lost their heads. I will think about that.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Will the Minister tell the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that we can go beyond EU standards now as far as women’s rights are concerned, while we are still a member of the European Union. This Parliament remains sovereign, which is why we are not instructed by an advisory referendum.
Lord Henley
I do not think that the noble Lord listened to my noble friend Lord Forsyth as he should have done. My noble friend Lord Forsyth made exactly that point. This Parliament is sovereign, and we are ahead of what happens in Europe on many things. Can the noble Lord look very carefully at what my noble friend said?
Undersea Cables
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to improve the security of undersea cables linking the United Kingdom with the United States and other countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, submarine fibre optic cables play an essential role in the ecosystem of a successful internet-based economy. That is why, as part of our programme to protect the UK’s communication infrastructure, the DCMS is working closely with industry to improve the security and resilience of the UK’s submarine cable network. This includes assessing the physical, personnel, and cyber risk to subsea cables, and offering recommendations to cable operators to mitigate them.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I think his department has got some way to go, though. He may recall that, about a month ago, a journalist from the Sunday Times walked into a farmhouse in Cornwall through an open door and photographed all the connections to one of the main submarine cables. Last summer, a ship dropped its anchor on a cable between the Isles of Scilly and the mainland and cut the cable, and nobody has bothered to prosecute it. Will he explain whether the Government really are taking seriously the issue of security on these cables, and what will they do ensure that the two instances I have just exemplified will not happen again?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord raises an important point. As far at the Sunday Times report is concerned, I can say that the reporter was unable to access any secure section of the facility. The essential point about this is that there is resilience in the system. There are 11 landing sites, for example, for transatlantic cables, in different places. Because of the resilience of the system, when one particular cable is broken the system continues. As far as prosecution is concerned, most of the breaks in the cables—and there are a considerable number each year; about 30 to 40 each year—are as the result of accidents. That is why it is not normally necessary to prosecute. However, these are civil actions because the cables belong to individual companies. It is up to them to seek damages.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, the DCMS is a wondrous part of our governing system; within it, so many amazing things come together for consideration. I had not realised until looking at this Question that 97% of global communications come via cables, when I had fondly imagined that satellites took up a lot more than that. But my question is to ask why a Question that relates to security is being handled by the DCMS at all. I have come to enjoy the company of the Minister and to admire his competence across such a wide range of fields of interest, but perhaps he can reassure the House that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will indeed be in the closest possible relationship to the Department of Defense to reassure us on the questions of security as maintained in this Question.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am speechless. The reason why DCMS is answering this Question is that we are responsible for co-ordinating the resilience of the telecoms sector in the UK. Telecoms is one of the UK’s 13 critical sectors and we are in close touch with other departments, particularly the Home Office, which is responsible for GCHQ, and the Ministry of Defence. I am not the only Minister who has answered on this; in December my noble friend Lord Howe answered a similar Question.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, is it also not worth remembering that we are building up a substantial system of undersea electricity cables as well—interconnectors with other countries, up to about 15 gigawatts, which are a major part of our daily supply of power? This issue therefore becomes doubly or trebly important when it comes to the security of that kind of undersea cable as well.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
There are many things on the seabed, not only electricity and fibre-optic cables but pipelines as well. The National Security Council looks at all these threats to our infrastructure, and we advise all the parts of the infrastructure estate regularly and keep an eye on all of it.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister was right in saying that there is resilience in the system, and he pointed out that the system is owned by a disparate group of business people. In the event that there is a successful attack on some elements of the transatlantic bandwidth, what plans are now being put in place to deliver that bandwidth to the most important traffic that has to happen? In other words, it is all very well having resilience, but if that resilience is not available for the most important transactions then it is no good. What plans are being put in place to ensure that that response would be available?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That is a good point. It is not just transatlantic cables that are important here; the Policy Exchange report gives examples of other areas in the world where cables have broken. I am not going to say exactly what the mitigation measures are but that is what the national risk assessment is for, and the National Security Council looks at that.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that we first became very concerned about our cables in the 1970s; indeed, we built HMS “Challenger” at great cost to work on these cables and look at where there had been attacks and what had been done. We got rid of her when the Cold War stopped. The Russians have now started investing very heavily in nuclear submarines that can go deep and carry out attacks on these cables. At the end of the Cold War we had probably the best antisubmarine warfare and undersea warfare capability in the world, but that has slowly been eroded. What are we planning to do to look at the cables that are in deep water? The Type 26 programme is late and slow, with only a small number of ships coming, while the MPAs are still not with us. What are we doing to have ships and platforms that will enable us to go and check these lines, repair them and do the necessary work?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
As far as repairing them is concerned, the individual companies are responsible for that. The noble Lord asked roughly the same question in December last year, and my noble friend said that, although he could not go into details about the UK’s antisubmarine capability, any threat to the UK infrastructure is taken extremely seriously. Nowadays it is not just submarines, of course; any so-called civilian vessel that can have drones on board can do the same. The main defence is resilience and lots of different cables, because there are just over half a million miles of cable to monitor in the world.
Russia: Threats to Individuals in the UK
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of Russian threats to individuals residing in the United Kingdom, following the suspected poisoning of Sergei Skripal.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I hope the House will understand that I am reluctant to be drawn on specific threats to specific individuals, but I assure noble Lords that the Government take very seriously their responsibility to protect the UK, UK interests and citizens and those living in the UK. A Statement on the events in Salisbury will be delivered this morning in the other place by the Home Secretary and repeated in this House this afternoon.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will remember—because she took the Criminal Finances Bill through this House—the concern expressed around the House about the torrent of dirty money from Russia into this country. Beyond that, BuzzFeed estimates that there have been up to 14 suspected murders involving Russia. Now we have the incident of Sergei Skripal. These represent outrageous violations by Russia of the rule of law. Can the Minister tell the House what she thinks is the appropriate diplomatic response?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, my noble friend is slightly straying into Foreign Office territory in relation to the diplomatic response. He is also jumping several stages ahead, because this is an ongoing investigation to which conclusions have not yet been reached. My noble friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of the torrent of dirty money: he was very vocal on this during the Criminal Finances Bill, and that Bill—now an Act—was meant precisely to ensure that criminal assets could not be hidden in, for example, dwellings or property in this country.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I will stick to something for which the Home Office is responsible, so that the Minister cannot shift it elsewhere. Have the Home Office, the Home Secretary and the Ministers yet replied to the letter that they received from the Home Affairs Select Committee in the other place, relating to the BuzzFeed reports about the 14 suspicious—or not so suspicious—deaths, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
In relation to BuzzFeed’s stories—that is precisely what they are, media stories—I cannot answer the noble Lord; I do not know the answer to that question, but I will find out and let him know. If people have concerns around the BuzzFeed story, they should put those concerns to the police, because they are dealing with this.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in the last few years, a number of Conservative Ministers have insisted that the greatest threats to British sovereignty came from Brussels, Paris and Berlin. In the light of the consistent Russian incursions into British sovereignty, does the Minister not agree that Russia provides a much greater threat to Britain’s sovereignty, and that it might make sense to co-operate rather more closely over the long period with Brussels, Paris and Berlin in order to combat that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I repeat my assertion that this Question is about the death of two individuals. No conclusions have been reached by the police as yet. Clearly we are treating it very seriously indeed, but I cannot comment in the early stages of this investigation.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Should it be the case that the hands of the Russian state are all over this attack, can my noble friend assure me and the House—and indeed the nation—that Her Majesty’s Government will ramp up sanctions and other measures against Russia?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Again, we need to establish the facts of this case. The police have not reached any conclusions; there is an ongoing investigation and clearly any actions against this country by other states will be dealt with in the strongest possible terms.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend referred to the death of two people. Was that a slip of the tongue or have these unfortunate individuals now died?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As far as I know, the individuals have not died. The policeman in question is showing evidence of slight improvement this morning.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, I am sure that everyone in the House would condemn this outrageous and cowardly attack. While I recognise that the Minister cannot speak about the diplomatic measures that might follow if the evidence leads conclusively back to Moscow, does she agree that, in terms of deterring future attacks, one of the most powerful actions would be to show that there can be no impunity from this kind of attack, and that, therefore, bringing the individuals responsible for this to justice would send a very powerful signal?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I repeat that anybody who carries out an attack on a citizen of this country in such a way will be dealt with severely.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there might be merit in having a relationship with Moscow rather than the current sub-zero arrangements, whereby no agencies have any communication that constitutes a relationship?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Again, I cannot speak for the Foreign Office on what relations are currently like, but I can certainly take the noble Lord’s point away.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, are we engaging in any dialogue with Putin to point out that the things going on, such as threats to undersea cables, new nuclear weapons and missiles that can strike accurately all parts of our nation, and hunting down and trying to find our ballistic missile submarines, are not the actions of a modern state in this globalised world, and that this behaviour is just not appropriate?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord will know that I speak for the Home Office and not the Foreign Office.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I can take all the comments away but at this point in the investigation I cannot comment on some of the things the noble Lord talks about.
Business of the House
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That Standing Order 40(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Wednesday 14 March, Wednesday 21 March and Wednesday 28 March to enable the Committee stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to continue before oral questions on those days.
Children and Young People: Mental Health Services
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat as a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Steve Brine, in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“This morning the Care Quality Commission published its report Are We Listening? Review of Children and Young People’s Mental Health Services. This is the second piece of work commissioned by the Prime Minister in January 2017 to look at this area of services. Findings include: examples of good or innovative practice, and dedicated people working in every part of the system; a number of areas with strong practice, ensuring that patients and families are involved in planning care; and concerns around join-up between children’s services.
The Government have already committed to making available an additional £1.4 billion to improve children and young people’s mental health services, to deliver on the commitments in Future in Mind and NHS England’s Five Year Forward View for Mental Health. The CQC welcomes this progress in its report.
Spend is reaching the front line. Last year we saw a 20% increase on clinical commissioning group spend for children and young people’s mental health, rising from £516 million in 2015-16 to £619 million in 2016-17. By 2021, we have committed to ensuring that 70,000 more children and young people each year will have access to high-quality NHS mental health care when they need it. But we know there is still much to do. As Claire Murdoch, the national mental health director for NHS England, said in response to this report, CAMHS services,
“are now improving, but from a starting point of historic under-funding and legacy under-staffing, relative to rapidly growing need”.
In December, the Department of Health and social care, jointly with the Department for Education, published our Green Paper Transforming Children and Young People’s Mental Health Provision. This Green Paper already responds to a number of the problems raised by the CQC in its report, and sets out a range of proposals to strengthen the way schools and specialist NHS mental health services work together, and to reduce the amount of time that children and young people have to wait to access specialist help. These proposals are backed by an additional £300 million-worth of funding. We have carried out extensive face-to-face consultation on the Green Paper proposals and have received a very high volume of responses to our online consultation. We will respond to the CQC review, alongside the Green Paper consultation, in the summer.
The report also calls for the Secretary of State to use the inter-ministerial group on mental health to guarantee greater collaboration across government departments in prioritising mental health. This recommendation is already in hand. The inter-ministerial group has already contributed to the development of the Green Paper and will continue to provide leadership on the issues that this report raises.
The report also recommends that everyone who works, volunteers or cares for children and young people is trained in mental health awareness. We are already rolling out mental health first-aid training to every secondary school and have committed to rolling out mental health awareness training to all primary schools by 2022. We are also set to launch a campaign to raise awareness among 1 million people around mental health and are a major funder of the Time to Change campaign, which has shifted public attitudes on mental health.
This Government remain committed to making mental health everyone’s business and building good mental health for all our children and young people”.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response and Statement. What emerges from the Care Quality Commission’s review of children and young people’s mental health is the glaring finding, to which he has not referred, that children are suffering because of high eligibility thresholds. We know that 50% of mental health problems develop before the age of 14, and 75% develop before the age of 18. Does the Minister recognise that imposing high eligibility thresholds means that children and young people are treated only when their condition becomes very serious? Will he look into the referral criteria as a matter of urgency so that children and young people are getting proper treatment at the right time, thereby preventing a crisis that brings greater suffering for those children and their families, and greater expense for the health service?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. On the issue of high eligibility thresholds, we are grappling with a need to expand the amount of mental health services that can be provided. Currently, about one in four children with a diagnosable mental health condition accesses NHS services. That is clearly not enough and the intention is to get that figure to one in three by 2021. Again, that is not enough but it would be progress. There is a need to move along the path, dealing first with those in the most acute trouble and then rolling out to those with less acute conditions. I agree with the noble Baroness’s point and recognise the issue. However, this cannot achieved overnight, not least because a huge number of new staff are needed to be trained in order to deliver that. We are looking at the issue of referral criteria. I should also point out to her that we have made big steps forward on waiting times and new standards for early intervention in psychosis and eating disorders. We are piloting a waiting time for access to specialist help and hope that that will start to move things along in terms of more children being seen more quickly, which is what we all want.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that more work needs to be done on finding out what the early warning indicators of mental health breakdown in young children are?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I absolutely agree. This is why the changes that we are making to mental health awareness training in primary schools is critical. Most primary schools, through nurseries, take children from four—and even two or three—years old to make sure that staff can spot the signs in school and signpost to specialist services, where required.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Answer to the Question. I am sure that he will agree that mental health support teams will be critical in making all this work. However, CAMHS teams had huge problems in getting the workforce—and in getting it up to speed. What measures are being put in place to guarantee the resilience of these new teams?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I agree that that is a challenge. There is a plan to create 21,000 new medical and allied posts by 2021, which would be the biggest expansion in mental health services that has ever taken place—certainly in this country but even in Europe. How we are going to achieve that is set out in the draft workforce strategy that Health Education England has published. A big part of that is the creation of mental health support teams in schools. That will take time—we need to be realistic—but it is an ambitious goal and we know that that support is wanted and needed.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I am interested on two fronts. Motability over the next three years will be getting a quarter of a million people coming into the scheme and a large number of them will be children. This will put a major strain on the service they require. I am interested also on a personal front. I have a marvellous young grandson who is on the upper end of autism, so I take a deep interest in both. I thank the Minister for what he has read out from the other place but I disagree. I am afraid that we are lacking hugely in this country. Basically, we are short of educational psychologists. I am no expert but, as any doctor will tell you, the earlier you can identify mental health problems—at three, four or five—gives an opportunity of treating them generally. The Green Paper is interesting but could the Minister do some more work on the ground to find out whether what he is being told is actually happening in practice in local authorities?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank my noble friend for that. I think it is a fair challenge. I hope he will be reassured that of the 21,000 more mental health professionals we intend to recruit, 1,700 are therapists—including psychotherapists, educational therapists and others.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, 17 % of children excluded from school in England have learning difficulties. Will the review the Government are talking about take account of that and see whether we should be doing more, because it could well be a cause of children’s mental ill health?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
These are interconnected but separate issues. Anyone can suffer from mental health problems, including a high propensity of children with learning difficulties. A separate line of work led solely by the DfE is providing specific educational support for children with learning difficulties. The point of having specialist staff in all primary and secondary schools is to spot any child, whatever their vulnerability, and signpost them to services.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, have the Government done any analysis of the numbers? My daughter is a child psychiatrist working particularly with younger children. She points out to me that there is little attention given to the needs of nought to two year-olds and their mental health in the Green Paper. We know that interventions are important in those early years. For the prevention of adverse childhood experiences and interventions after adverse childhood experiences, does the noble Lord consider it wise to ring-fence funds to support prevention and early intervention at that stage?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness makes an excellent point about the importance of that age group. I will write to her giving the specifics of the support available to children and families with children of that age. A significant amount of funding is going into specialist perinatal and mental health services for mothers, which is a big part of the picture, but not the whole. Health visitors are being trained in mental health support. I will write to the noble Baroness with more details but I am sure there is more to be done.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, have the Government made any analysis of the number of children living with parents who are suffering with mental illnesses more widely? Given the good projects that I have seen in primary schools, it is clear that this issue affects the whole family. It is not the child or the parents sitting in isolation but a family issue. I welcome the Green Paper but can we ensure that families know that it is for them to come forward, that they are in a safe space free of stigma, and that it is not just a child sitting in a box in a policy team?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My noble friend is right. Some of the schemes that are already active in schools—I am sure she knows about and will have seen schemes such as Place2Be—not only provide support for children but invite families in to provide family therapy where it is required. It is rare that these issues are isolated; they often affect, in one way or another, all members of the family. That is what we are trying to do and deliver through the schools.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the Green Paper. Last November I conducted a seminar in Portcullis House of European parliamentarians, children, NGOs and academics. The most important thing there was the voice of the young people. Their concerns have been expressed already—joined-up thinking, early intervention and well-trained professionals. Does the Minister agree that these are important? Does he further agree that the voice of the child in all this is absolutely paramount?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I know that the noble Baroness speaks with deep experience and passion on this subject and I completely agree; it is about making sure that those children’s voices are heard. We recognise that the picture of fragmentation described in the CQC report is not good enough and that is one of things we are trying to fix. It is a historic issue and it cannot be done overnight but we are working on it.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the awareness is very important. Will the Minister ensure that mental health awareness is part of teacher training and part of the qualification of special needs co-ordinators? I have to correct him: psychotherapists are not the same as school psychologists and there has been quite a substantial reduction in the number of school psychologists who are available and able to identify mental health problems.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I will take the issue about the specifics of teacher training to colleagues in the DfE. I was talking about therapists in the broadest sense of the word: I think there is a recognition that we need more therapists of all kinds in all settings as we expand these services for young people.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Thursday 8th March 2018
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2018 View all Finance Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 21 February 2018 - (21 Feb 2018)
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Bill before the House today is a mere 187 pages long, which compares favourably to the more than 600 pages of the previous Finance Bill. In part, this reflects the Government’s move to a single, annual fiscal event but it also represents the fact that in December the Government published a document setting out how future Finance Bills will interact with the new tax policy-making timetable. The new cycle carves out more time for consultations and commits the Government to publishing as much of the Bill as possible in draft. Even so, in this Bill some 111 of the 187 pages were published in draft form last September. The Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee takes an understandably close interest in the process by which tax legislation is developed. I hope that it will find very much to welcome in this new approach.
Before I turn to the important tax changes enacted in the Bill, I shall set out the broader economic and fiscal context in which we find ourselves and which this Government have helped to create. The UK economy has now grown for 20 consecutive quarters: that is five years of continuous growth. Manufacturing grew by 1.3% in the fourth quarter of last year and has grown for the longest consecutive period in 30 years, with high-tech sectors such as cars and aerospace growing particularly strongly since 2010. Total exports of goods and services grew by 5% in 2017, up on the previous year, and manufacturers remain optimistic as surveys show high export orders. Employment has continued to rise—by 3 million since 2010. Crucially, these figures do not reflect prosperity just in London and the south-east: since 2010 all nations and regions of the United Kingdom, up and down and across the country, have experienced higher employment and lower unemployment.
At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor reported that the deficit has been reduced from 9.9% of GDP in 2009-10 to 2.3% of GDP in 2016-17. Borrowing is set to fall even further in the coming years, reaching 1.1% of GDP in 2022-23, the lowest level since 2001-02. The plan to get back to living within our means is on track. The Government’s fiscal rules take a balanced approach and the OBR forecasts that the Government are going to hit our fiscal targets. Our debt will start falling from next year. The Budget stayed true to our commitment to fiscal responsibility to improve the health of our public finances. However, at 86.5% of GDP, we recognise that public debt is still far too high. Although productivity growth has shown signs of improvement lately, we want to foster the environment to allow it to accelerate. The tax policies in this Finance Bill support that strategy.
The Bill is an important lever in this Government’s legislative programme. A focus on helping young people get on to the property ladder, improving productivity and business investment and continuing our robust efforts to prevent tax avoidance and evasion is at its heart.
Home ownership is a near universal aspiration. However, it is a dream that is increasingly difficult to realise for many of our young people. Affordability is the underlying problem. Consequently, at the Budget, the Chancellor announced a housing package designed to boost supply to put the housing market on a more equitable footing in the longer term. On Monday, the Prime Minister reiterated her commitment to meeting the housing challenge and announced an overhaul of the planning system to deliver more homes in the right places.
However, the Government also want to act in the short term. That is why the Finance Bill permanently scraps stamp duty for first-time buyers purchasing properties worth up to £300,000. On average, first-time property buyers will save nearly £1,700. This means that 80% of first-time buyers will not pay stamp duty at all, and 95% of all first-time buyers who pay stamp duty will benefit from the changes. Over the next five years, this relief will help over 1 million first-time buyers.
Last year, productivity grew by 0.7%, as measured by output per hour. At the autumn Budget, following weaker than expected growth, the OBR downgraded its estimates for the trend of productivity growth to 1.2% per year. Productivity is the best way to sustainably raise and maintain higher living standards and grow GDP. Since 2010, the Government have introduced a set of reforms intended to bolster the dynamism required from our modern and international economy. This includes unlocking over £0.5 trillion in capital investment—funding the biggest rail modernisation programme since Victorian times and major infrastructure projects such as Crossrail and the Merseyside Bridge, supporting businesses by cutting corporation tax to 17% in 2020, increasing access to finance through the British Business Bank, and improving skills through investment in apprenticeships and the introduction of T-levels.
However, we must go further. The Finance Bill does precisely that, encouraging additional business investment by supporting the UK’s dynamic, risk-taking businesses. The Government are a committed partner of the business community. We are, and will continue to be, a world-leading place to start a business. However, due to the lack of finance, some of the UK’s potentially most innovative new businesses are struggling to scale up. That is why we conducted the patient capital review, which reported on these barriers to growth. It concluded that knowledge-intensive companies, which are particularly R&D intensive, often require considerable upfront capital. In response, the Government set out a £20 billion investment and tax incentive action plan. As part of the plan, the Finance Bill works to make more investment available to higher-risk, innovative businesses by doubling the annual limit on how much investment these knowledge-intensive companies can receive through the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts scheme to £10 million, and doubling the limit on how much investors can invest through the EIS to £2 million, providing that anything above £1 million is invested in knowledge-intensive companies.
Within a decade, these changes will produce £7 billion of new and redirected investment into growing companies. On top of this, the Government are stimulating productivity growth by increasing funding in research and development. At the Budget, we extended the National Productivity Investment Fund to £31 billion, and increased the R&D investment element of that by a further £2.3 billion. To complement these and other efforts, the Bill will also increase the rate of the R&D expenditure credit from 11% to 12%.
To achieve a balance in the tax system, the Bill narrows the scope of the bank levy, so that, from 2021, UK and foreign head-quartered banks will only be taxed on their UK operations. Crucially, this provision works in conjunction with the broader package of reforms to bank-specific taxes announced between 2015 and 2016, which includes an 8% surcharge on bank profits over £25 million. The package is forecast to raise an additional £4.6 billion from banks over the current forecast period.
Finally, the Bill continues and strengthens the Government’s work clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion. Since 2010, the Government have introduced more than 100 avoidance and evasion measures. We have secured and protected over £175 billon of extra tax revenue that would otherwise have gone unpaid. As a consequence, the UK’s tax gap stands at just 6%—one of the lowest in the world.
At the Budget, the Chancellor announced a further package of measures expected to raise £4.8 billion by 2022-23. The measures in this Bill constitute part of that Budget package and include provisions to make online marketplaces more responsible for the unpaid VAT of their sellers, close loopholes to ensure individuals with offshore trusts cannot avoid paying UK tax on payments or benefits taken from that trust, extend disguised remuneration rules to include close companies, and clamp down on waste crime by bringing illegal waste sites into scope of the landfill tax. These measures and others like them demonstrate the Government’s enduring commitment to ensuring that taxes are paid.
Although relatively short, this Bill is significant in both ambition and substance. It supports young people buying their first homes, drives productivity by encouraging business investment and ensures tax is paid where it should be—all of this without stifling competition, encumbering the market or hindering growth. This is a Government committed to prosperity and committed to the future. I commend the Bill to the House and beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I suspect that nearly everybody sitting in this House will struggle to recognise the extraordinarily rosy picture of the economy that the Minister just described. Just about every single one of the markets to which we export and to which our economy is usually tied are absolutely going gangbusters, with extraordinary levels of growth. Normally, even by doing nothing, we would be pulled forward into high growth numbers by that alone. Instead, we are struggling at around 1.7% to 1.8% growth, and if the Government are not worried by and anxious about that, then frankly I wonder where the captain has gone—he is certainly not on the deck.
Investment numbers in this country have fallen off a cliff. Obviously a large part of that is driven by Brexit uncertainty. We get the occasional investment that hits the headlines, but overall the numbers are down very significantly, and if the Government are not worried about that, I am even more concerned.
The OBR has readjusted its trend forecast for productivity down to 1.2%. That is extraordinarily bad news and reflects a set of very fundamental problems, which this finance Bill does not begin to tackle. I accept that it is an extremely deep-seated problem, but if the Government do not recognise the consequences of that for our economy at large, again I am very concerned. If the Minister thinks of this in terms of ordinary people and talks to them about the squeeze on their wages, which have remained stagnant as they see prices consistently increasingly, he will begin to understand that this is not an economy firing on all cylinders and racing ahead. In fact, it is almost inexplicably behind where anyone would have expected it to be in general global circumstances.
Obviously, a good part of this is about the ticking time bomb of potential Brexit. I also fully understand that, because of that, the Chancellor did not use this finance Bill to take major steps forward: it is not a visionary finance Bill but very much a tinkering at the edges finance Bill, because he knows he is sitting with an unexploded bomb and has absolutely no idea of when it might go off, how it might go off and which part of the economy it might hit first or second, and is therefore trying to give himself as much flexibility as possible to react spontaneously as all of those things begin to hit. I suspect that we will have much more extensive discussion of this next week in the debate on the Spring Statement, when we will also have some new figures from the OBR to underpin that discussion.
I will address just two things today, both very briefly. One is the absolutely core issue of funding for the NHS. The Minister will remember that, prior to last November’s Budget, the NHS basically came forward and said that it needed an additional £6 billion a year just to be able to sustain the system—£4 billion for the NHS and £2 billion for social services. Whichever way you add it up, the Government came forward with only £2 billion out of that needed £6 billion.
An amendment to this finance Bill proposed by my right honourable friend Sir Vince Cable asked the Government to task the OBR with looking at a hypothecated, dedicated tax to support the NHS—particularly around the issue of 1p in the pound on income tax that we, as a party, have proposed—to see what the yield would be. There is also a much more fundamental issue. We are running into a long-term crisis and this bullet cannot be dodged unless the Government are willing to take action. Will the Minister take on board and pursue this absolutely vital issue?
The second area is tax evasion. Yes, the Government have made some improvements and I am always pleased to hear that. But frankly, until the coach and horses of an absence of public registers of beneficial interests in our overseas territories is taken care of, we are allowing an avenue that constantly provides the transit route to money laundering in this country and therefore to tax evasion and all the other kinds of evils that go along with it. They are moving to central registers, but those are not going to be public. I hope that the Government will one day realise that they must bite the bullet on this issue, rather than looking the other way. I understand that they feel that there are constitutional problems in dealing with the overseas territories, but the consequence of that is that all the other measures are basically piffling by comparison.
This was a tinkering at the edges Budget. I know that the Government talked about significant changes to housing, but they are going to be very much at the margin and the edges. We know from previous stamp duty holidays that they do not change the pattern of buying in any way whatever. They may be popular but they do not change either supply or demand. In none of their programmes are the Government tackling the fundamental issue of the lack of affordable housing. If they do not allow local authorities to go ahead—whether alone or in partnership—and build the new, needed, affordable houses where they are required, we will not begin to see an end to this particular set of problems.
I look forward to the Spring Statement next week to see whether it makes some radical change that enables us to move forward significantly. This is a small Bill, making small, fringe changes in a set of circumstances where new vision and radical action are required.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, Lloyd George should be living at this hour. Here we have a Finance Bill introduced by the Minister where the only contributors are the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. This is an indication of how limited the House’s role is in relation to Finance Bills, and justifiably so. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, pointed out, we will have the opportunity to have a serious debate about the economy next week, when I anticipate there will be greater participation from all parts of the House.
The Minister put an extraordinarily optimistic gloss on the state of the economy at the present time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, also pointed out. In circumstances where so many countries are showing real and rapid growth and the world economy is benefiting from that, this Government are still watching their levels of economic growth bounce along at the bottom of the OECD countries. What this low level of economic growth indicates is that there are limited resources for the wider society and also for the Government to meet their obligations.
In the other place, Ministers were so concerned about the possibility of penetrating opposition amendments to this Bill that they introduced a procedural Motion restricting opportunities for critical amendments—a procedure which we have normally only seen either in the exciting times immediately before a general election when the decks are cleared or when warfare is approaching. What is the crisis on this limited and pathetic little Bill that causes Ministers to run for cover under a procedural Motion? The only crisis is the obvious one that this Government lack confidence in handling the other place.
The Government’s lack of confidence, of course, derives from their exiguous majority, which is dependent on another small party. That underpins so many of the Government’s actions. It certainly underpins their whole approach to Brexit, and that is why we fear that the negotiations will not produce the effective Brexit that we all want. The Government are in hock partly to the fact that they do not have a majority in the House of Commons and partly to the fact that a determined section on the right wing of the party do not really care about the terms of Brexit—in fact, they seem to exalt in the possibility of our having the hardest of hard Brexits, and the economy is meant to cope with that. We shall see.
Let me be absolutely clear about this Bill: it does not in any way, shape or form measure up to the significant needs of the economy or do anything to repair the damage done to the economy by the actions of previous Conservative-led Governments. As we all know, their record on economic growth is poor and their record on productivity is almost negligible. I have seen the noble Lord join the considerable list of Treasury Ministers since 2010 who have taken up their post expressing considerable optimism about the role that they can play in this regard. Yet even the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, who we all know has vast experience of productivity issues, was still trapped by the fact that productivity under this Government is showing no significant improvement at all. What the Minister referred to as an encouraging development is just a marginal movement which we can scarcely credit.
We also recognise, of course, that the Minister slides very carefully past the targets which the preceding Chancellor used to have for clearing the deficit in 2015. That has long since been buried as a potential successful objective, and we are now in a miasma of somewhat changed definitions of the deficit we are tackling. We all know that the Government, because of their limited progress on the economy, are struggling to meet targets on reducing the deficit.
The Bill’s failure to address any real issues relating to the economy and society means that crucial issues remain completely unaddressed. How can the Minister talk optimistically about a society in which the average basic pay is below the level it was in 2010? That means there has been no pay rise for large numbers of working people since 2010, and yet the Government have the arrogance to suggest that things are showing considerable improvement. It is quite clear that we have had decades of lost earnings growth. We have not had an issue with regard to wages for 200 years that matches the record of this Government in that respect over the last few years.
That is how serious the situation is, but you would not have detected that from the Minister’s gloss on what this Bill is meant to represent. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned earlier, no attempt has been made to address—what everybody recognises in our society—the crisis facing the National Health Service. Look at the limited amount that the Government set free for the health service when informed opinion was quite clear just what was necessary. The Government did not meet even half that.
Related to the National Health Service is the great problem of social care for the elderly. We all recognise that the changing demographic of our society is putting greater weight on the health service and on care for the elderly. Yet the Government seem quite incapable of addressing these issues. What greatly upset my colleagues in the other place was that, when a clause was tabled there for the Bill to contain an equality impact assessment, because the Government need to carry out a thorough analysis of the nature of the challenges faced by so many people in our society, the Government made sure that that was not passed. Therefore, an essential building block for the analysis of the problems in our society was not even contained in this Bill. At least if that assessment of the nature of the problem had been there, it would have been something to save the Minister’s face in introducing such a forlorn exercise. But it was turned down and rejected in the other place.
When it comes to productivity, I recognise certain aspects of where the Government are making some progress. We recognise the value of developing apprenticeships, although it is quite clear that we have got to be very encouraging towards that development. It is still the case that the vast majority of young people in education who are aspiring and have good results think overwhelmingly of university and in academic terms rather than of the needs of our economy for skilled manpower.
Alongside that, the Government have produced a devastating onslaught on the further education colleges that provide training. In addition, opportunities for part-time education have fallen almost completely by the wayside. One thinks back to the days when institutions such as the Open University were at their prime. Part-time education is now unsupported by public resources and, consequently, the opportunities have declined. A vigorous economy would keep open opportunities for people as they mature, irrespective of their achievements at any one level. People can change both in their aspirations and their abilities, and it is important to have systems that are open and flexible. With regard to education, I am afraid the Government have done exactly the opposite.
We may not have had the full equality impact assessment, but we all know the nature of our society. Even the Government are beginning to recognise that women come out of this Finance Bill more poorly than men. It is part of the pattern of our society. We have had a great deal of publicity about the issues of discrimination against women by the BBC, and we all recognise the challenge with institutions like that, but the whole question of equality for women needs to be addressed at a much more basic level. On this International Women’s Day, it is only right that we should have a debate—as will take place after this one—on the issues confronting women. It is important that the Government recognise that so much needs to be done to change the levels of discrimination that are plain at the present time.
It is not just about women: young people also feel heavily discriminated against. You cannot talk to those between the ages of 18 and 25 without recognising that the possibilities for them in our society are, in so many respects, inferior to those which their parents faced. If ever there was one clear objective that the vast majority of parents have always had, it is to try to make sure that their children have greater opportunities than they had—to improve society and the economy in such a way that their children’s opportunities are greater. We are now facing a situation where exactly the opposite is occurring. That is why this Bill should have paid some attention to tackling that crisis.
I welcome the fact that on Thursday next week we will have an opportunity to debate the economy and our society, and I am sure there will be a large number of participants. This miserable little Bill scarcely gives us any opportunity for that, but what it did do was crush opportunities that could have been taken under a more confident Government with clear objectives in pursuing their policies in the country. This Bill does not look like that to the average citizen or to the vast majority of our people. That is why the Government need to address themselves more satisfactorily to the economic situation than they do in this rather miserable little Bill.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I may have overshot the mark in my opening speech by being a little optimistic. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on having well and truly rebalanced that perception. There are two potential reasons why there was not a long list of speakers for the debate. One could be a lack of interest, but the other reason could be that there is broad support across the House for the measures in the Bill before us —the House itself can judge whether or not that is true.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, could it be perhaps that noble Lords wish to speak in the next debate, which they see as more important?
Lord Bates
That is one possible explanation, but your Lordships have always been assiduous in their attention to matters such as the Finance (No. 2) Bill before us.
Let me try to address some of the points that were raised. The first point was on the argument about growth. We were the joint fastest-growing major economy just as recently as 2016. Of course, there has been a level of uncertainty as a result of the British people’s decision to exit the European Union; that is understandable and most people would recognise it. However, I do not see 1.7% as being a miserable or pathetic rate of growth, or that other OECD competitors with rates of 1.9%, 2% and 2.9% are experiencing extraordinary rates of growth. We entered into this cycle of growth out of the recession of 2008-09, much earlier than others. Therefore, we are at a different stage of growth. But to be able to say that we have grown for 20 consecutive quarters—five years of growth—and that manufacturing has grown for eight consecutive months, which is the longest continuous streak for 30 years, is surely reason for a degree of optimism.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about NHS funding. The Budget provided an extra £6.3 billion of new funding for the NHS, and we are committed to increasing the NHS budget by a minimum of £8 billon in real terms over the next five years. This is a significant first step towards that. The NHS is seeing over 2.9 million more A&E patients every year compared to 2010 and treating 57,000 more people every year for cancer, giving the UK its highest ever cancer survival rate. The noble Baroness asked whether we would have a hypothecated tax for health. Of course, we have such a tax in the sense that 20% of NIC receipts go directly towards the National Health Service.
On the point about housing provisions not bringing about changes, if the measure on stamp duty were taken alone, that might well be true, but it will help a million first-time buyers. Surely that has to be welcomed. In the wider context, the fact that employment is at almost record levels, with 3 million more people earning a salary than in 2010, must also be helpful for the housing market, because it means they have a salary with which potentially to buy. But that is not enough, and it is why we said that stamp duty was one element of that. Another element was to go towards our aspiration of building 300,000 new homes each year.
Let me turn to investment—I think the noble Baroness said that business investment had “fallen off a cliff”. Again, that might be overstating it a little. Business investment contracted by 2.6% in the year to the EU referendum, but grew by 2.5% in the year since. The OBR forecast is for business investment to grow by 2.5% in 2017 and 2.3% in 2018-19, which is a different approach. A key element of that was extra funding of £31 million for the productivity investment fund. That will make a significant contribution, as will businesses investing in themselves, which is the most successful form of business investment. The corporation tax rate has fallen from 28% to 19%, which means that small, medium-sized and large businesses have more money to invest in their own businesses and their own futures.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to the equality briefing. It was under this Government that we became one the first countries to introduce gender pay gap reporting. The gender pay gap for full-time employees is at a record low. Building on this, the Budget announced steps to boost female enterprise and innovative trials to support women returning to work. The number of women in work is at a record high of 15 million, an increase of 1.4 million since 2010, of which 80% were full-time. The gender pay gap for full-time employees is at a record low of 9.1%.
There are reasons to recognise that we need to be prepared to strengthen the economy to make more it competitive internationally so that we make a success of Brexit for Britain. The people who do that will be the workers and businesses of this country. This Bill strengthens measures to help them by reducing their taxes, increasing incentives to invest—especially in knowledge-intensive industries—and helping young people to achieve their aspiration of getting on to the housing ladder. These are all reasons why I am happy to commend this Bill to the House.
Incident in Salisbury
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the incident in Salisbury that has been unfolding over the last four days. First, I would like to pay testament to the continued professionalism, dedication and courage of the emergency services. They have handled this incident with their customary attentiveness, alacrity and sense of public duty. We rely on their response to keep us safe. In doing so, first responders put themselves in dangerous situations on a day-to-day basis. This incident has underlined that fact, which I will sadly return to later.
I will now update the House as far as is possible based on the current facts of the case. At approximately 4.15 on Sunday afternoon, Wiltshire Police received a call from a member of the public who was concerned for the welfare of two people in a park in Salisbury. Emergency services were called and the two were admitted to the A&E department of Salisbury District Hospital. They were a man in his 60s and a woman in her 30s with no visible signs of injury. They are understood to be Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Both remain unconscious and in a critical condition.
I regret to inform the House that a police officer has also fallen seriously ill. The officer was one of the first responders on Sunday, acting selflessly to help others. Officers from Wiltshire Police are providing support to the officer’s family and colleagues.
Our thoughts are with all three victims, their families and friends at what for them will be an incredibly difficult time.
Wiltshire Police began an investigation on Sunday to determine how the individuals fell ill and whether a crime had been committed. They declared a major incident on Monday. On Tuesday, the Metropolitan Police decided that, given the unusual circumstances, responsibility for the investigation should transfer to the counterterrorism police network. Samples from the victims have been tested by experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, who are world-renowned experts in this field.
As Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley announced yesterday, that forensic analysis has revealed the presence of a nerve agent, and the incident is therefore being treated as attempted murder. I can confirm that it is highly likely that the police officer has been exposed to the same nerve agent.
We remain in the midst of a fast-paced criminal investigation, and I will not comment further on the nature of the nerve agent. We must give the police the space they need to conduct a thorough investigation. All Members will recognise that an investigation such as this will be complex and could take some time.
Public safety continues to be the number one priority for the Government. Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, stated yesterday that, based on the evidence we have, there is a low risk to public health. The UK has a world-leading emergency response. It is regularly tested and exercised to ensure we can deliver an effective response to a wide range of chemical, biological and radiological incidents. The three emergency services are well supplied with state-of-the-art equipment to respond to such threats.
The front-line response is supported by world-class scientific research and advice. This ensures that decision-making on the ground, by all agencies involved, is firmly based on the available evidence. This will also support the decontamination activity needed to return the location to normality. The police are working closely with Public Health England, Defra and Dstl. They have cordoned all known sites in Salisbury that were visited by the two initial victims before they became unwell and are taking the necessary measures to protect public safety.
I want to turn to the speculation, of which there has been much, around who was responsible for this most outrageous crime. The use of a nerve agent on UK soil is a brazen and reckless act. This was attempted murder in the most cruel and public way. People are right to want to know who to hold to account but, if we are to be rigorous in this investigation, we must avoid speculation and allow the police to carry out their investigation. As the Assistant Commissioner said yesterday, the investigation now involves hundreds of officers following every possible lead to find those responsible. Some of the leads have come from members of the public. I thank the people of Salisbury for their help and for the calm they have shown over the last four days. I encourage anyone who visited Salisbury town centre and surrounding areas on Sunday afternoon, and who has not yet spoken to the police, to get in touch.
We are committed to doing all we can to bring the perpetrators to justice, whoever they are and wherever they may be. The investigation is moving at pace and this Government will act without hesitation as the facts become clearer. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear on Tuesday, we will respond in a robust and appropriate manner once we ascertain who was responsible.
I would like to close where I began—by expressing my sincere thanks to the emergency services and hospital staff for their tireless efforts over the last four days. They have acted with utter professionalism to minimise the risk to the wider public and care for victims of this attack, for which I know we are all grateful. Our thoughts will be with the victims in the coming days. Finally, I thank Members for their understanding that there will clearly be limits on what we can say as the investigation continues. As and when information can be made public, it will be. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for repeating the Statement given by the Home Secretary in the other place earlier today. I join with the noble Baroness in paying tribute to the continued professionalism, dedication and courage of our emergency services. They handled the incident with their usual dedication and, as she said, with their sense of public duty, putting themselves at risk to protect the public.
The two individuals, who we now believe to be Sergei and Yulia Skripal, are, as we have heard, in a critical but stable condition. The police officer who was also taken seriously ill in the line of duty is conscious and talking, and we all know that the staff of the NHS treating the three individuals will do everything possible to help them. We hope they all make a recovery and our thoughts and prayers are with all their families and friends at this terrible time.
The investigation is, as we have heard, under the control of the Metropolitan Police counterterrorism policing network. The safety of the public must be the number one priority for the Government. We fully support them, the police and the other agencies in what they are doing to keep us all safe. This crime is an outrageous act committed on British soil and we all condemn it. I entirely accept that we must always avoid unhelpful speculation, and that a thorough investigation is the only way to get to the truth and bring the perpetrators to justice. If the Minister could comment on and confirm the determination of the Government to do just that, we on this side of the House will fully support them in that aim.
I again express my thanks to all the dedicated professionals in the police and other emergency services, and the staff in the hospital taking care of the three victims. Time and time again, our emergency service workers go beyond the call of duty to help others and this is another example of the great debt we owe them. I am sure the Minister will keep the House further informed, if she can, in this fast-moving investigation.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and pay tribute to the emergency services, an issue I shall want to return to shortly. We are also concerned for the police officer and the other victims, their families and friends.
I appreciate that the investigation is ongoing, but can the Minister confirm that one of the victims was a Russian citizen who was a British spy or double agent, and that President Putin has in effect made death threats against such individuals? The Government should be telling Parliament as much as they can about such incidents, not as little as they can get away with while hiding behind the fact that there is an ongoing investigation.
The Statement talks about well-rehearsed CBRN procedures, but these are deployed when it is a known CBRN threat. What reassurance can the Minister give that such procedures will be reviewed so that first responders are not put in danger, as the police officer who first attended this incident has clearly been put in danger? The Statement talks about protecting British citizens, but what risk assessments are carried out on Russian citizens living in the UK, particularly those who may have risked their lives to assist the UK in the past?
We on these Benches have repeatedly expressed concern about reductions in Border Force, with reliance placed on electronic gates and remote ports and small airfields not having sufficient protection—a situation that is likely to be made worse if we continue to Brexit.
I understand that hostile foreign powers might produce very convincing fraudulent documents to get their assassins into the UK, but can the Minister speculate how on earth a highly toxic nerve agent was smuggled into the country, assuming it was not stolen from a government facility in this country? Is the Minister satisfied that Border Force is properly funded and that our borders are secure?
I pay tribute to the emergency services but I also pay tribute to the security and intelligence services. In the interactions that I have had with those services, I am confident that we have among the best security and intelligence services in the world. Clearly, however, in an arms race with hostile foreign powers, we need to ensure that those services are properly funded.
I pay particular tribute to the police service—as in this case, they are often the first to arrive at the scene of incidents, never knowing what dangers they face. I wish the officer in this case a speedy recovery. The Government have continued to say that we need fewer police officers because crime is falling, but this incident is just one example of the police being the service of last resort. They have to deal with people in distress and, as we saw last week, respond to people trapped in the appalling weather—nothing to do with crime. These brave police officers never know the sorts of dangers that they are facing and can end up, as this officer has, seriously ill in hospital. Sometimes they give up their lives in order to protect us, as Keith Palmer did nearly a year ago in this place. Yet the Government appear in the eyes of operational police officers to be treating the police service with contempt—freezing their salaries, cutting their pensions and reducing police budgets in real terms. Will the Minister tell the House when the Government are going to reverse their anti-police agenda?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
First, I echo the words of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Paddick, in praising our emergency services in the highest possible terms for what they risked to help these two individuals, which of course led to one of the policemen being taken ill. He is still in hospital. It brings into play the question of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the danger to our emergency services and whether all risk assessments are done to mitigate such injury to the police.
Certainly I can say that in the CBRN area these procedures are constantly reviewed and people are trained to the highest possible level—but in an emergency like this we can all appreciate that sometimes people’s lives will be at risk. People are put in danger, and that is why we have the highest regard for the police. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about police budgets. The police told us last year the number of additional police officers needed to do their job. We feel that in the budget they can attain this year they will have those police numbers—and more—to do the job that they do. That does not detract from the fact that the injury to this police officer, and indeed the death of PC Palmer some months ago, bring into sharp focus the dangers that police put themselves into.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked me to reiterate the Government’s determination to bring the perpetrators to justice. I said that in my Answer to the Question earlier and I repeat it now: we are absolutely determined to bring the perpetrators to justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether I could confirm that one of the individuals was a Russian spy. I am not in a position to comment further on the victims, other than in the Statement where I confirmed their names.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked about borders, how the substance came into the country and how sure we are of effective border control. I am not prepared to comment on an ongoing operation; I know that the House got slightly exasperated with me earlier, but I cannot. We adopt a rigorous approach to border security, and agencies work together at the border to manage a range of threats, including those posed by terrorism and serious and organised crime. This includes carrying out 100% immigration and security checks at the primary control point, advanced checks where available and intelligence-led targeting at ports. Border Force has at its disposal a range of capabilities to detect, target and identify substances and materials that could cause harm.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, Porton is a very famous laboratory and works very closely with the US and other countries. Could the Minister assure us that there are already comparisons and supportive investigations of that sort?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise; did the noble Lord say “Porton”, as in Porton Down?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Obviously Porton Down is very close to where the incident took place. We co-operate in various areas but I do not know whether we are co-operating with the US on this particular issue. I can find out for the noble Lord.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I think the House will understand why the Minister has to be very circumspect when answering questions about the ongoing investigation, and will appreciate that she has told the House that it is a matter of the utmost priority that the perpetrators will be sought out and justice will be served. However, the incident involving the death of Litvinenko does not provide a happy precedent in terms of the time that elapsed between his poisoning and a High Court judge finally concluding that it was the result of deliberate Russian activity. Could the Minister reassure us that, quite apart from the criminal investigation, the Home Office will take responsibility to ensure that all matters surrounding the very serious injuries—we hope that they are just injuries—to these two will be investigated, and that all the lessons from Litvinenko and other questionable incidents will be learned so as to reduce the possibility of recurrence?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can confirm to my noble friend that all matters surrounding this will be investigated thoroughly. I cannot stress that enough, actually. On the question of Litvinenko and lessons learned, the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was a blatant and unacceptable breach of the most fundamental tenets of international law and civilised behaviour. At the time, the Government responded robustly and, following the publication of the report, we made representations in the strongest possible terms to the Russian Government and put in place asset freezes against the main suspects. For my noble friend’s information, we have demanded and continue to demand that the Russian Government account for the role of the FSB in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, while appreciating that the circumstances are very similar to—indeed, a carbon copy of—what occurred in the case of Litvinenko, does the Minister agree that, if that be the case, it is not just an attack on a person, but an attack on the sovereignty of this land?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I have said on quite a few occasions this morning, that is jumping the gun as to the conclusion of the police, and I will not do that, as this is an ongoing investigation. I hope the noble Lord will understand that I cannot answer his question fully.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Will my noble friend, in due course, when more information is available to her, consider the risk of such substances, not so much coming in with a spy through a small port or airport, but coming in on a wide-bodied jet into a major UK airport under diplomatic immunity? If that proves to be a possible route, will she take a very firm look, however inconvenient it might be in terms of reciprocity with other countries, at what might come in through our major airports in that way?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I understand my noble friend’s question and completely appreciate what such an event might lead to, should toxic or noxious substances come in through our major airports. The security and detection arrangements at our airports are stronger than ever before, so I hope she is comforted by that. We assess risk at the border all the time. In fact, my noble friend points to the changing risks at the border—risks that perhaps were not there years ago now are, in terms of the various ways in which people can bring things into this country.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, returning to the Litvinenko case, many Members of your Lordships’ House, including me, were involved in the updating of the public health laws that we had in this country, some of which dated back to the previous century. Will the Minister, along with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, report to the House in due course whether those legislative changes were sufficient to deal with what seems at this stage to be a somewhat similar incident?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Certainly, Public Health England worked in conjunction with the police in the immediate aftermath of this event. It is clearly involved in the ongoing recovery of the individuals concerned. I will take that point back and provide an answer for the noble Baroness if I can.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, there appears to be a difference between the Litvinenko case and this case in that, in the former case, a substance was used that left a very clear track and it was very easy to follow through on it. In the current case, however, it appears from what has been said that the nerve agent that was used does not appear to have left a trail, or if it has done, there has been no comment about it so far. It might be that lessons were learned by the perpetrator in the current case from the Litvinenko case. I hope that we will also learn—or have learned—the lessons from our handling of the Litvinenko case, where the initial response, lasting for quite some time, was quite inadequate. Commentators have said that it very clearly left the perpetrators with the feeling that we were a soft touch. Therefore, we will have to be even more robust in our response this time than might have been the case if we had not had that not-so-good example before us.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I know that I am going to disappoint my noble friend when I say that the cause of the two individuals’ illness is currently subject to investigation. It is not appropriate at this time to comment or to link it to other cases, but what I can say to my noble friend, in concurring with him, is that there are always lessons to be learned on how we respond to emergency situations and situations of this nature.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, when it comes to state-sponsored murder, Russia certainly has form. It was not that long ago that Bill Browder’s lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky, was killed mysteriously in jail because he had been defending Browder against the Russian Government. As a result of that, Browder had Magnitsky’s law brought on to the American statute book, stopping known enemies bringing their money and themselves into that country. Other countries have followed. This country has not implemented Magnitsky’s law in full. I wonder whether at this stage, given the impunity with which the Russians seem to treat us—not just our referendum but those living here—my noble friend might be inclined to revisit that today.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we are absolutely committed to promoting and strengthening universal human rights. We talked about this case at length during the passage of the Criminal Finances Act and in debates on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. We want to hold to account states that are responsible for the worst violations. We already have a range of powers similar to those in the US Magnitsky Act which we regularly deploy to protect national security and our financial system.
International Women’s Day: Progress on Global Gender Equality
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House takes note of International Women’s Day and the steps being taken to press for progress on gender equality globally.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I hope your Lordships will bear with me one second as I move to my next job, which is a much nicer one.
What a privilege it is to open the International Women’s Day debate. On this important occasion, we come together to recognise and celebrate the achievements of women and girls across the world. This year, International Women’s Day is particularly significant for all of us in this country and in this Parliament. In 2018, we celebrate the centenary of the first British women getting the vote. There is much to celebrate: 100 years on, women are represented at every level of public life; almost a third of all government posts are filled by women; in my own department, the Home Office, over half the Ministers are women, including the Home Secretary; and of course, we have our second ever female Prime Minister.
Just last year, Cressida Dick was appointed the first woman Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police in London, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, became the first woman President of the Supreme Court. To add to this, Sarah Clarke was chosen to be the first female Black Rod in 650 years and Dany Cotton became the first female commissioner of the London fire brigade. We also saw Jodie Whittaker regenerate to become the first female Doctor Who; are we soon to see the first female James Bond? But although this is a day to celebrate the achievements of women, we must also recognise the challenges and prejudice which women and girls face, both at home and across the world. In the spirit of this year’s International Women’s Day theme we must continue to “press for progress” to accelerate gender equality. We must not be complacent and believe that this struggle has been consigned to the past.
Just as the Suffragettes, Suffragists and their supporters stood side by side in solidarity to fight for the right for women to cast their ballot 100 years ago, we have witnessed in the past year a global movement of women once again coming together to call out injustice. Women from all walks of life have issued a rallying cry, calling time on sexual harassment, violence against women, unequal pay and discrimination. We must capitalise on the momentum of campaigns such as the #MeToo movement to accelerate the drive towards equality for all.
The Government have been making great strides to build on the work of countless Members on all sides of both Houses. The UK has a proud history of playing a central role in securing change for women and girls. We are well respected internationally for our world-leading policy and legislation on equalities. However, outside the UK many women and girls still do not have the opportunities and choices they deserve, whether due to cultural expectations, poverty, conflict, or a combination of all three.
We know that there is a crucial role for us to play to end injustice both at home and abroad, and this country already does great work internationally to ensure gender equality reaches all corners of the globe. The UK was instrumental in securing agreement for dedicated targets on gender equality and women’s empowerment within the sustainable development goals. Right now, as I speak, UK Aid is having a significant impact on the lives of millions of women and girls across the globe. To name but a few examples, UK Aid has supported over 6,000 communities across 16 countries to make public commitments to end female genital mutilation, representing 18 million people. UK Aid has also enabled 8.5 million women to access modern methods of family planning over five years.
Yesterday, the Department for International Development launched its new Strategic Vision for Gender Equality. This sets out the UK’s global leadership in securing, with our partners, the rights of all girls and women around the world, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected states and in humanitarian and protracted crises. These are all great achievements but there is still more to be done to achieve gender equality and improve the lives of women and girls around the world.
Globally, one in three women are beaten or sexually abused in their lifetime. We hear so many statistics in this Chamber every day, we risk becoming desensitised to the horrific facts; we must do everything in our power to ensure we do not. Imagine looking at a class of young girls, knowing that one-third of them will face physical or sexual violence over the course of their lives. That cannot go on. Protecting women and girls from violence and supporting victims is an absolute priority, whether they suffer violence in their communities, in relationships or online.
The UK is leading the way internationally but we know there is more to do. That is why we have today announced that we are consulting on our programme of work to tackle domestic abuse. This consultation will shape the response to domestic abuse at every stage, from prevention through to rehabilitation, and reinforces the Government’s aim to make domestic abuse everybody’s business. By consulting, we aim to harness the knowledge and expertise of victims and survivors, charities, specialist organisations and experts, and professionals across policing, criminal justice, health, welfare, education and local authorities—those who deal with these issues every day.
Part of what we are consulting on is a domestic abuse Bill that aims to better protect and support victims, recognise the lifelong impact domestic abuse has on children and make sure that agencies effectively respond to domestic abuse. The Bill will create a domestic abuse commissioner in law to stand up for victims and survivors and hold the system to account. It will also create a new domestic abuse protection order regime to create a clearer pathway of protection for victims; and it will make sure that if abusive behaviour involves a child, the court can hand down a sentence that reflects the devastating lifelong impact that abuse has. The Government have also announced today how additional funding for domestic abuse will be spent. This includes £8 million to support children who witness domestic abuse, £2 million to improve the health response to domestic abuse and £2 million to support female offenders, who are often victims of domestic abuse.
Internationally, we are generating world-leading evidence on what works to prevent violence before it starts through our £25 million What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls programme. We are also contributing £8 million to the UN Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women. In 2015 alone the fund reached over 1 million people.
Another threat facing many women around the world is unsafe pregnancy. Every two minutes a woman dies in pregnancy or childbirth—that is five women during the time I have been speaking. The majority of these deaths are preventable. What is more, hundreds of millions of women in developing countries do not have access to modern contraception. In the summer of 2017, this Government hosted a family planning summit to accelerate global progress and reinforce the UK’s global commitments to give 120 million more women and girls access to contraception. Our ambition is that all women around the world can access quality care, and we will continue to provide bold and brave leadership by developing important strategic relationships and international summits, and generating world-class evidence and research.
To make progress on these important issues, we need to continue the fight for women’s voices to be heard. Equal political representation ensures that parliaments globally represent the needs and issues of their citizens. We support women’s political representation around the world through a number of programmes. For example, in Pakistan, our support to the 2013 election helped many more women to register as voters, with many going on to vote for the first time ever. It also brought national attention to the 8 million women missing from the electoral roll.
Education is crucial if we want to ensure that women and girls are engaged and active in political and public life. In this country, girls tend to perform well at school. In fact, they regularly outperform their male counterparts. However, around the world, 65 million girls aged between five and 15 are not in school—the equivalent of almost the entire UK population. Education is a critical tool to tackle injustice and build a more equal society. It provides girls with the space to develop their own thoughts and opinions, and most importantly their voices. This Government have championed girls’ education across the world. The Foreign Secretary has made girls’ education a foreign policy priority and appointed a special envoy on gender equality to lead this work. Moreover, our country programmes between 2015 and 2017 supported at least 3.3 million girls around the world to get a good education.
Education is important but we know it is not enough in itself to ensure gender equality in the workplace. For women to have equal opportunities to men at work, employers need to take action, and we all need to challenge harmful social norms that can hold women back. We want the UK to lead the way for gender equality in the workplace. Research has shown that companies with more diverse workforces perform better than their counterparts. The employment rate for women is at a joint record high of 70.8%, and we need to build on this to make the most of women’s skills, talents and potential. To tackle the gender pay gap we have introduced world-leading regulations requiring organisations with 250 or more employees to report their gap. These regulations will not only drive employers to calculate and report their gender pay gaps but shine a light on the factors driving the gaps, thereby encouraging and enabling employers to take action to close them.
Working with our international friends is essential in making progress. Over the past year we agreed a roadmap for gender equality with the other G7 countries. We have taken extra steps to strengthen our collaboration with Canada, following the Prime Minister’s visit in Ottawa last September. The Government Equalities Office signed a memorandum of understanding with the All-China Women’s Federation. Next month, women’s empowerment and girls’ education will be among the key issues to be discussed at the Commonwealth summit in London.
I conclude by thanking everyone who will speak in this debate and I look forward to hearing some of the contributions.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this debate before us and for her opening remarks, which show that we have made progress in many fields but still have a way to go yet. We all look forward to the day when a woman who gets a top job does not make headlines because that has become the norm.
The theme for International Women’s Day is “Press for Progress”. Making progress on what has so far been achieved for women is something we should all be looking to accelerate in all walks of life. Be it women in politics, in the workplace or at home, or young girls at school, or young women in further education, we need to press for more and faster progress.
When one look at young women and girls starting out in life, what can they expect? The Women and Equalities Select Committee carried out an inquiry into sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools, and published its report in September 2016. It showed that 29% of 16 to 18 year-old girls say they have experienced unwanted sexual touching at school; and that in 2014—I am sure that nothing has changed since—59% of girls and young women aged between 13 and 21 said that they had faced some form of sexual harassment at school or college in the past year. Young people told the committee that sexual harassment has become a normal part of school life—it is sad that sexual harassment at school has become normal. Laura Bates of the Everyday Sexism Project has described sexual harassment and sexual violence in school as:
“A widespread, regular and common problem… something that the majority of girls are experiencing”.
The committee’s report found inconsistency in how schools deal with sexual harassment and violence, and a lack of guidance and support for teachers.
The UK Feminista and the National Education Union published a report in 2017 on sexism in school. It reported that sexism in school is endemic but not inevitable. Consistent and ongoing action is required from schools, government and education bodies to tackle it. Its findings and conclusions were similar to the Women and Equalities Select Committee’s report. These two reports show us that there are many problems in schools. What action are the Government taking on the recommendations of the Women and Equalities Select Committee? They responded positively and, hopefully, they have actioned the measures suggested in their response.
One recommendation was the setting up of an advisory group to look at how the issues and recommendations can be best reflected within the existing DfE guidance for schools, including KCSIE—Keeping Children Safe in Education—and behavioural and bullying guidance. Can the Minister say what progress has been made and whether the advisory group is working? A change of culture in our schools is required, and this can be achieved provided the resources are put into it. Only then will the next generation of girls be able to attend school without fear of sexual harassment in a place that should be one of safety.
On educational achievements, as the Minister said, girls are outperforming boys at school, but they are not going on to be higher earners than men or to be equally represented in leadership positions. There are a number of reasons for this, but school and the education system have their part to play. Young women experience gender norms and stereotypes which prevent them from reaching their full potential. Only one in three girls who take maths and science at GCSE level go on to take a STEM subject at A-level or its equivalent, compared to eight out of 10 boys. The Education Policy Institute has found that there is a large gender gap in entries to arts subjects, with girls far more likely to enter them than boys. This has been the case throughout the last decade and it is widening.
There are more women than men starting apprenticeships. However, men are dominating the apprenticeships with higher earning potential. We are seeing the way in which gender stereotypes move from school subjects, to apprenticeships, to the workplace, and that male-dominated work is valued more highly. According to the House of Commons Library figures, in 2016-17 some 54% of apprenticeship starts were by women and 46% by men. The number of women starting apprenticeships in England has been higher than men every year since 2010-11, but men continue to dominate apprenticeships with the best earning potential. In 2014-15, nearly 17,000 men started engineering apprenticeships while only 600 girls did. That is not good, and more needs to be done to ensure we make better progress. What action are the Government taking to encourage more women to take up jobs such as engineering?
We are marking the centenary of women getting the vote and being allowed to stand for Parliament—we had a good debate on this on 5 February—but we all know that progress is slow for women who want to get into politics. Since 1918, 489 women have been elected to the House of Commons, but would it not be wonderful if it was the reverse and 4,801 women had been elected and only 489 men? I imagine there would have been quite a row about that. However, this is where we are. Out of those 489 women, only 45 have been Cabinet Ministers and there have been two women Prime Ministers.
According to the Inter-Parliamentary Union global ranking table for women parliamentarians, the UK is 39th on the list. The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2017 findings tell us that gender parity is more than 200 years away. That means it will happen neither within the lifetime of everyone living on the planet today nor for several generations to come. For women, that is very slow progress and we need to do much better going forward.
Progress in this field will not happen unless there is action similar to that which the Labour Party has taken by having all-women shortlists since 1997. This process has been used in all types of elections, not only to the Commons, and it works. I know other parties are taking action within their own ranks, but if we could all make similar progress, we would be well on our way to achieving the aims of the United Nations campaign “Planet 50-50 by 2030: Step It Up for Gender Equality”.
More than 130 countries have adopted some type of legal electoral quotas to deal with the underrepresentation of women in political life. Perhaps we could look at this in the UK and have a serious discussion about it. Otherwise, it will take 200 years to get there. Gender parity will not just happen; action has to be taken. We owe it to future generations of young women who want to go into politics and make their contribution in public service.
In February 2017, the Prime Minister announced that the Government were working towards a domestic violence and abuse Act, to which the Minister referred earlier. Last month, she confirmed that there would be a further wait for legislation. I am pleased to see that the consultation has been launched today. This is welcome because we have been waiting a while for it. However, there is concern that the scope of the Bill will be too narrow and focus solely on domestic violence and the criminal justice system, missing out vital wider issues such as sustainable funding for refuges. Will the Minister give a commitment to ensure that that this new Bill will address the full range of issues affecting victims of domestic violence?
On average, every week two women are killed by their partner or former partner. We all know this statistic and we all quote it. As the Minister said, we have perhaps become too familiar with it and need to consider how horrific that statistic is. But with austerity and cuts to funding of women refuges, many women have no safe place to go and there are stories that many of those who seek refuge are turned away as there is no place for them where once there was. This is an essential service for the protection of women and girls who are caught up in domestic violence, and more action and funding is required in order to see this happen. I hope that the consultation will allow different organisations to feed in, which is its purpose, and hopefully many good things will come out of it. I hope the new domestic violence and abuse Act will address these problems and make life perhaps a little better for women who suffer from domestic violence and abuse.
We will need to continue to “Press for Progress” for some time yet, but if the will and determination are there it will happen—I have no doubt about that. I look forward to the contributions of noble Lords and to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for introducing this debate in this key year when we mark 100 years since women first secured the vote in the United Kingdom. We sorely miss Lady Turner as we debate the issue today. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, will have access to a very large file—if she does not have it in front of her—from the wonderful but overstretched Government Equalities Office so that she can best cover the wide range of areas that we will no doubt raise. I know that because I was, during the coalition, in the fortunate position of being where she is, responding to this debate. When I look back to those days, it is stunning to see what has changed since then.
Who would have thought then that we would face the prospect of leaving the European Union, which has brought such benefits for women into UK law, and that we apparently plan to leave even though the Government’s own analyses show that it is the poorest in our society—and women are poorer than men—who will be disproportionately affected by Brexit? Who would have thought that we would have Donald Trump in the White House, despite all the abuse he has meted out to women, and currying favour with the right wing over the rights of women? Who would have thought that he would defeat Hillary Clinton, who made the phrase “women’s rights are human rights” her own, and who made sure that women in Afghanistan, for example, were not pushed aside for so-called cultural reasons in a country where perhaps all that has emerged from allied engagement is an improvement in women’s rights?
On the other side of things, who would have thought that Harvey Weinstein and others would have been brought low, and that the world would listen when women shouted #MeToo and Time’s Up? Who would have thought that Oxfam would be on the ropes over the sexual exploitation of women in countries where they are most vulnerable? Wherever there are inequalities of power and in the relations between men and women—in other words, globally—such exploitation has long been a fact of life. We knew that in many developing countries girls were not safe even in school, because their teachers demanded sexual favours. We knew that peacekeepers could not be trusted not to abuse the female population whom they were supposed to protect. So I guess it should not have come as a surprise that in aid there could be abuse, even by those who should fully have understood their responsibility.
It is clearly the case, as the Minister outlined, that we have indeed secured greater equality in the West and in Britain. That we are all here, in this House, playing the parts that we do, is testimony to that. But women in Britain, as we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, are still far from equal in terms of pay, responsibility for domestic work, and caring for children and older relatives. I was shocked today to read that women are five times more likely to be donors of kidneys to their husbands than the other way around. How about that for what is expected of you, and gender inequality?
Nor are we on the boards of companies in the numbers that we should be, or governors of central banks. I heard last night that only 6% of central bank governors worldwide are women. I met one last night, courtesy of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who was in his place just now, at OMFIF. She is the governor of the central bank of Serbia—but even she emphasised that she must also play a full part at home with her family; cleaning, cooking and, as she put it, having a smile on her face when her husband and children come home. This is the governor of a central bank.
We know that if equality is far from achieved here in Britain, it is miles away from being achieved worldwide. We see a sharp reminder of how things are elsewhere with the debate over the visit of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, though I welcome the shifts being made in his country and applaud the women who have helped this along. I recall visiting the country a few years back and seeing for myself the inequalities there: women boxed away in a small part of the university while the men ranged through the rest, including the library, which was barred to women. In my hotel, in a break between meetings, I decided to take advantage of the swimming pool. As I headed in, I was told “You can’t swim. This isn’t the women’s hour”. Disappointed, I asked when the women’s hour was. “There isn’t one”, came the reply.
It is because, worldwide, we see inequality that I am such a supporter of quotas and positive action in parliaments, including ours. I have seen how much was achieved in Pakistan, for example, by those elected to the women’s places. In the last Parliament there, 70% of the legislation was taken through by women, who made up less than 30% of the parliament, working across and deep into their own parties. Their focus was on improving the lot of women: for example, by criminalising acid attacks. It is also why, in terms of development, it is right to put the overwhelming emphasis on women and girls and to invest in girls’ education. The longer a girl is in school, the fewer children she has and the better she is able to be independent and provide for and educate her family. She, her family, her community and her country all benefit. It is also why emphasising family planning is vital, so that all women who wish to access family planning can do so.
We should not ignore the challenge of abortion. I welcome the report on abortion by the All-Party Group on Population and Development and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, in that regard. The report recognises that abortions will occur, and that so often deaths result where they are not legal and medically assisted. It estimates that the proportion of maternal mortality in developing countries resulting from unsafe abortion ranges as high as 18%. Maternal morbidity from the consequences of unsafe abortion is also common. The report points out, rightly, that young women, poor women and women in conflict situations are particularly vulnerable. I am proud of the fact that in coalition we put into law our commitment to 0.7% of GNI for aid, with a particular focus on women and girls. I am proud of the fact that DfID has not shied away from areas such as family planning and abortion over recent years—unlike Trump’s America. Long may that continue.
I also pay tribute here to the focus DfID has had on women with disabilities—something pioneered by my noble friend Lord Bruce when he was chair of the International Development Select Committee and my noble friend Lady Featherstone as a DfID Minister. Sightsavers points out that women with disabilities are among the most marginalised in the world. Many are likely to experience the double discrimination of gender and disability. Men with a disability are almost twice as likely to be employed as their female counterparts. Women and girls with disabilities suffer particularly high rates of gender-based violence, sexual abuse, neglect and exploitation.
So although we recognise what has been achieved globally for women, there is indeed still much to do, which is why this annual debate is important. Yes, we should not recall this on only one day a year, but this is a time, at the very least, to take stock of where we are and where we seem to be going. In some regards we appear to be moving forward, but in others the forces of reaction seem to be taking us in the opposite direction.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, in this centenary year, when we celebrate the fact that some women in the UK got the right to vote in 1918, I would like to widen the lens to consider briefly the international scene as it is now—the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has referred to part of that already—and then I shall focus on one country in particular, Albania. This is not just because I visited it last month in the February Recess as a member of the UK’s IPU group, but because Albania provides an example of the challenges that must be overcome when seeking to achieve gender equality and the progress that can be made by determined efforts both within country and with the assistance of the UK and with UN Women.
The report published this month by the IPU Secretary-General shows that,
“progress made in women’s political involvement is slowing. With the exception of some countries that have made a headway because of political will, this has been, overall, a disappointing year”.
It is vital that women are part of decision-making institutions such as Parliament. It is fundamental, not just for gender equality but for democracy and the legitimacy of the process.
Last year we saw some positive developments in women’s participation in elections worldwide. A record number of women contested elections and more seats were won by women than in previous years, but this was largely due to measures such as electoral quotas for women. Whatever our views on gender quota systems, we cannot ignore the impact that they have. In the 20 countries where quotas were used, women won over 30% of the seats, while in the 16 countries where they were not used, they only won 17%. The trailblazers in the Americas were Argentina, Chile and Ecuador—all countries that have developed progressive legislation to promote women’s political leadership.
Elections across the Asia-Pacific region generally reflected the fact that gender norms continue to work against women’s entry into politics as societies lay stronger emphasis on women’s role in the unpaid, domestic sphere. New Zealand was the standout success where they elected the highest ever proportion of women MPs at 39% and Jacinda Ardern as their Prime Minister. Her pregnancy has given rise to a national debate on women’s ability to balance political leadership and motherhood.
Europe was the region making the greatest gains in the number of women MPs. The most prominent increase was in France, where President Macron’s party fielded gender-balanced lists.
Let me turn to Albania. Historically, it has had low numbers of women in elected office but it made significant progress last year. The proportion of women elected jumped from 18% to 28%. Why was this? It was because they benefited from a gender quota and from public fora organised by UN Women which enabled them to raise awareness of the importance of women playing a role in public life.
Our UK parliamentarians’ visit to Albania was timely. There is a significant focus on the western Balkans this year by the UK and the EU. We will host the EU western Balkans summit in London in May and I believe we hold our own summit on the western Balkans later in the summer. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in Munich last month:
“We have a long-standing and enduring commitment to the security, stability and prosperity of the region and this will never change”.
We are working with Governments from all six western Balkan countries to improve the rule of law, promote economic governance and attack the difficult issue of corruption across the region.
Albania is a middle-income democracy—a member of NATO, an EU candidate member state and a member of the Human Rights Council. It is a country that has emerged from the isolation of the Enver Hoxha years and is seeking a pathway to a secure Euro-Atlantic future. Our delegation was given a very warm welcome. I would like to put on record my thanks to the President, Prime Minister, Mayor of Tirana and all the MPs who gave so much of their time to have discussions with us. It was a pleasure to meet the All-Party Alliance of Women MPs to discuss the steps being taken to press for progress on gender equality.
In 2008, Albania passed a law on gender equality which, among other measures, established a minimum 30% quota for women and stipulated that one of the first three names on the political parties’ candidates list must be that of a female candidate. But it is not just a matter of numbers. It is vital that those who are elected are able to take up their places in safety and play their full part in politics.
The women MPs whom we met believed that the application of the gender quota has opened up many more opportunities for women and had some effect on countering prejudicial political attitudes generally. They believed that people are more convinced that women politicians are more stable, more responsible and more professional.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Hear, hear, indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton says. I agree, and I am sure noble Lords would agree too.
In recent years, the Government of Albania have embarked on reforms to improve legal policy and institutional gender equality mechanisms—we use a rather convoluted vocabulary in these circumstances. The new national strategy has provided a strong gender equality vision in Albania. However, as will sound familiar, the financial and human resources to ensure proper implementation are currently insufficient.
Domestic violence prevention, protection, prosecution and referral mechanisms are weak. But they are a Government priority and they are improving for the first time. UN Women makes the point that women in Albania continue to face daunting challenges. Violence against women is common, with almost 60% of Albanian women aged 15 to 49 having experienced domestic violence. Forced and early marriage is still a problem in some, mainly rural, areas of the country. There is much more to do, but it is important to recognise that real progress has been made and for the UK to be a firm and constant ally in that progress.
The formidably able members of the Alliance of Women MPs are ready to meet these challenges, and I wish them well. Next week, when I am in New York at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, I will attend the Albania side event on the participation of women in politics in the western Balkans and hope to learn more.
After half a century of my life working to achieve gender equality, one big hope remains. I hope that one day we will no longer even have to try to defend the principle that equality for one half of the human race with the other half is, quite simply, right in itself. I always am the eternal optimist.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate in such an important year—the 100th anniversary of women gaining the vote. As we have heard, we have a proud record in this country of promoting women’s rights globally.
Today, I want to focus on the progress of women in the UK. As we promote women’s rights globally, we need to do more to get our own house in order. On International Women’s Day, it is welcome that women from minority backgrounds are becoming more visible. As the only woman of Turkish Cypriot heritage in this House, I would like to see more women from black and minority-ethnic backgrounds represented in public life and in all walks of life.
When I was elected in the early 1990s in Hackney, London, I was the first woman from my background to be elected as a councillor and it caused quite a stir. Only a few women councillors had similar experience to mine. I met with some opposition, mainly from the men from my community when I was out canvassing. They asked me who was going to look after my children and cook my husband’s dinner.
That quickly changed as more women from my community and heritage started to become involved in public life. I am pleased to say that women from Turkish Kurdish, Turkish Cypriot and other communities are much better represented in public life today. It is perfectly normal now. I was used to being the “only” or the “first” and I gradually found that very annoying, but I am pleased that that has changed.
My mother came to the UK with very little education. She went to school until the age of only about 12—the first girl in the family to do so. She was unable to speak, read or write English. She struggled when she came here and married very young. But she was a very smart woman, mainly self-taught as many early immigrant women were, and she went on to run a successful small business. I am proud that I come from a line of strong women who are self-starters and who, like many women here as well, just get on with it.
There are more than 2 million black and minority- ethnic women in this country. They are not properly reflected, sadly, in public life across the country, and certainly not in Parliament or local councils. But today when I look around Parliament, I am heartened to see that there have been great improvements. Many will speak from their own life experiences and on behalf of minorities who may otherwise feel silenced. This is why we need greater plurality in public life.
Despite this progress, our work has only just begun. The life chances of black and minority-ethnic groups, especially women of Muslim heritage, still lag far behind the life chances of the rest of the population. Black and minority-ethnic groups tend to have poorer health and shorter life expectancy and face discrimination at work and in their day-to-day lives.
The most recent review by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, about 18 months ago, found that black people in Britain are more than twice as likely to be murdered as white people and three times as likely to be prosecuted and sentenced, and that the life chances of young ethnic-minority people in the UK have collapsed in the last five years and are at their worst level for generations. The review examined education, employment, housing, pay, health and criminal justice and found what it described as an “alarming picture” of rampant race-based inequality entrenched within Britain. Its depressing conclusion was that these figures underline,
“just how entrenched and far-reaching race inequality remains”.
The commission’s chairman concluded:
“We must redouble our efforts to tackle race inequality urgently or risk the divisions in our society growing and racial tensions increasing. If you are black or an ethnic minority in modern Britain, it can often still feel like you’re living in a different world, never mind being part of a one nation society”.
I will just share a few more statistics that need to be highlighted. In work, women from a Pakistani background see the biggest gender pay gap, earning 26% less than their colleagues. A black and minority-ethnic person with a degree is twice as likely to be unemployed. Around 40% of ethnic minorities live in low-income households—twice the rate of the white population. We know, as has been highlighted many times, that race hate crimes against Muslim women have, sadly, increased significantly post the EU referendum. All in all, if you are born into a non-white home in 21st-century Britain, you can expect to earn less, face discrimination and die earlier.
Of course, by way of balance, there are growing exceptions and there have been improvements, but it is not moving or changing fast enough. The time for talking is over and the situation has to be tackled. I do not want to wait another 30 years—although I am sure I will not be here in 30 years’ time—for the balance to be redressed. I call on the House and the Government to make International Women’s Day the day we start to do something about inequalities for women from a BME background.
On Tuesday, I attended an event organised by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, which, in a celebration of International Women’s Day, brought together a growing number of leading Muslim women, among them MPs, lawyers, journalists, professionals and even the winner of “Masterchef” 2017—Saliha Ahmed, a wonderful woman—to showcase how things are slowly changing. Women from less privileged backgrounds are now pushing or kicking open doors that remained firmly shut unless you came from the right background or had the necessary networks. The key message was for young women to ask and to not be afraid to find out how to get involved in public life or the profession they would like to join. They should not be pushed back or be afraid.
This is why role models really matter. Representation is the key to changing this situation. Ethnic minorities make up 12% of the workforce, yet just 6% are in senior positions. We are faced with what I call a concrete ceiling. Ethnic-minority women, who already have to break the glass ceiling, have to go one step further to break the other ceiling as well if they want to get the job they deserve. In a way, we are talking about a double whammy, because women from ethnic- minority backgrounds are more likely to be from a working-class background.
Many of us welcomed the words of the Prime Minister, who raised the issue of the poor life chances of black people in Britain on the steps of 10 Downing Street when she became Prime Minister. The Government, led by the Prime Minister, must urgently raise expectations. This is an issue for schools and colleges as well, which need to raise the expectations of girls, particularly those from poorer and ethnic- minority backgrounds. We know that really matters: role models, expectations and mentoring really make a difference. We must redouble efforts to build a fair society. A fairer and more equal society is a happier society.
Globally, women are speaking out and pushing for their rights. Today I call on the Government and all like-minded women in public life to take action and work with civil society to create a more level playing field for all women here in the UK, no matter what their ethnicity. Let us press for progress.
Baroness Flather (CB)
My Lords, I was here for the Finance (No.2) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, was saying how few people had taken part in the Second Reading, so one noble Lord who was still there said, “Well, it’s because the next debate is so important. But if this debate is so important, why are so few men taking part? Nothing will change in the world unless the men commit themselves also to improving women’s lot. It cannot be done by women alone and I am sure that all the women here know that perfectly well. Until half the people speaking in this debate are men, I will feel quite disappointed. I had been hoping for this all along. I have been in your Lordships’ House since 1990 and it has not happened yet. It is amazing to think that we can do this alone.
Men have really been in the lead since time immemorial: men have been this, men have been that, while women have not. We used to think the cavemen were ahead of the women, but now they have found that cavewomen were very strong indeed. Maybe that will give us an important point to work towards. As has already been said, this whole concept of women today is global and not just British. I thank the Minister as well that it is global. There are so many different and unbelievable things happening in our world that sitting in this Chamber, we cannot really get our heads around it, but we ought to try if we can.
First, I want to remind ourselves of what is happening to some of the women in this country. We already know that a sharia marriage is not recognised by British law. What does that mean for a woman who has a sharia marriage? She has no rights whatever. Is that the right thing? She cannot ask for anything from her husband. He can put her out on the street and that is it. He can sometimes even put the children out on the street. When people say to him, “Why don’t you look after your family?”, he will say, “The Government will look after them”. There are two negative points to this: first, the woman has no rights and, secondly, the Government have to pay to look after that woman and have no claims against the husband. The sooner this is looked at and changed, the better. It is quite wrong for people to come to live in this country and to follow rules which are completely the opposite of what we believe in. It is not right and will never become right. We have to look at these things and say they are not acceptable.
It is nothing to do with religion: sharia is not a religious law, but a law which has been created by the priests—the maulvis. It changes from country to country, and sometimes it changes from one group of three presiding priests to the next three presiding priests.
So please make an effort to get this put right. It is appalling. The statistics tell us that more than 60% of women under 40 could be in unregistered sharia marriages. The families do not like registration. Why should they? Is it not much better for them if they do not have to do anything for their wives? This bothers and upsets me. A sharia review said clearly that these marriages should be registered. What has been done as a result of the Casey report? We know these things are not right, but we just go on doing them. We should know much better.
In many countries there are laws to protect women—in India, for example, there are a lot. If you were to ask a lawyer, they would tell you, “Oh, we have this, we have that”. Ask them how much is enforced. Nothing is enforced, or what is enforced is a minute fraction. It is no use having a law that is not enforced. It is far better to have fewer laws that are enforced. There are a lot of lawyers here today, so I am sure they will agree with me.
In Africa and India put together there are 1 billion women, and they do more work than the men in these areas—it is said that women do more than three-quarters of the work. When I was in Jamaica I saw the women doing far more work than the men. I begged them to have a one-day strike and to do nothing except look after the very sick and the children.
Women have worked very hard in every age and at every stage. They did not have, for example, the support of religion. You might say that religion could have supported women. Some people, such as the Sikhs, say, “Oh, but we believe in equality”. Yes, their religion believes in equality, but it does not exist in fact. So we have also had the burden of religion saying to women, “your place is here”—Kirche, Küche, Kinder—“not in public life”.
I felt quite close to the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, when she said that she did not like being called “the first and the only one”. All my life I have been called “the first and the only one” because that is how my life started. When I came to this House in 1990, I was “the only one”. There were very few women here then as well. I was “the first” to be the Mayor of Windsor. Things have been happening but I think we need to be in these positions because it encourages others to realise that if this woman can do it, they can do it as well. Always be proud of what you have done and what you are able to show other people that you can do.
I would like to talk about women’s attitudes towards other women. It is improving, but it has been quite bad. Women have not been willing to support other women. We have to learn to support each other all the time in everything. I hope this will happen in due course because younger women are much more aware of it.
Lastly, how do we change the attitude of mothers towards their sons and daughters? We have done a lot of work in this country and attitudes have changed, but there is a whole, vast world still where the son is the prince—not the daughter.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, led us through some rather incredible “who would have thought it?” moments. It is also rather incredible that today we have a female monarch, Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Leader of both Houses of Parliament, Scottish First Minister, head of the fire service and head of the Metropolitan Police. Despite all these great achievements, it feels very fragile, as though it could disappear in a minute.
It is eight years since I made my maiden speech in this same International Women’s Day debate and it is therefore always, for me, a moment of reflection. What have I achieved over the past year? What have I done for women over the past year? What more can I do next year? I am not going to dwell on the general election and the effect it had on women in my own party, and how well the Labour Party did, because I covered that ground pretty comprehensibly in the debate on the centenary of the Representation of the People Act last month. It is quite possible that no one would notice if I repeated myself, but I shall resist the temptation.
Let me start on the global stage and set the scene by looking at overpopulation—by which I mean the growth of restless and surplus labour. This is a massive problem, although it is by no means universal. Things are going the other way in Japan, which has the highest living standards in the world, and in much of the West. This gives us a clue about the solution. If we look at the countries where population is growing fastest, where unemployment is highest and where tensions are greatest, without exception we find a common factor: female illiteracy. The correlation is astonishing. Look at the high birth rate in countries of sub-Saharan Africa and you will find female illiteracy running at 50%, 60% or sometimes even 70% plus. Among adult women in Pakistan it is 66%; it is 33% even in India. Small wonder that India’s population is set to overtake that of China, where female illiteracy has been all but eliminated.
It really is that simple. It is not just a moral outrage; it is directly contrary to the interests of world peace, prosperity of country and community, health and happiness that such a huge proportion of our population—so many women and girls—should be unable to participate, alongside their brothers, in the economic life of their country. Female education is the tool that helps tackle so many challenges in the developing world. Societies where women can read, write and do maths as efficiently as their male counterparts will be healthier, happier and more prosperous. They will be in stabler populations and smaller families and, therefore, there will be fewer alienated and maladjusted young men whose egos require them to think of women as childbearing chattels.
This ambition and focus on women and girls is at the heart of the UK’s overseas policy—a policy shared by both Penny Mordaunt at DfID and by the Foreign Office—and will be at the heart of the Commonwealth summit in April. It is not just a campaign for fairness and freedom, but its essential contraceptive impact will help to fix so many other problems—not just overpopulation and poverty but the threat of war, disorder, terrorism, climate change and the loss of habitat and species. Mankind is conquering so many of today’s challenges—from famine to disease—but, if we are to solve the problems of today, mankind needs to prioritise the education of girls and easy access to contraception so that they can have control over their own bodies. Twelve years of full-time education is not the only answer to the world’s problems, but it is a jolly good start.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, mentioned, the McKinsey Global Institute estimates that equality in the job market would yield an extra £20 trillion to global GDP by 2025. I have no feel for what £20 trillion looks like, but it is a heck of a lot of money and a life-changing, even world-changing opportunity.
Along with thousands of men and women, I attended the International Women’s Day march on Sunday, organised by Care International on the theme of #March4Women from here, just outside this building, up to Trafalgar Square. We listened to inspirational speeches. Marchers from all backgrounds, all political parties and none supported all kinds of causes. Many were marching because of their anger at injustice, at girls being denied an education, angry that half the women in the world have experienced physical or sexual violence. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for today inviting many victims of domestic violence and charities which support these women into Number 10 for a reception to celebrate International Women’s Day. Many on the march were angry that 12 year-olds are even today being forced to marry, and that those young teenagers are becoming mothers before they are ready and often die in the process. Still today in 18 countries women need permission from a man to have a job. Around the world millions of girls, and here in the UK 24,000 girls, are at risk from FGM. It was a privilege for me to walk during that march with the inspirational and brave anti-FGM campaigner Nimco Ali, a woman who has spoken out about her own experience and is determined to do what she can to prevent others suffering as she did. Many on that march were concerned that the World Economic Forum report found that the gender pay gap internationally is widening for the first time in decades. All were frustrated at the wasted talent and potential.
I applaud Penny Mordaunt and DfID for continuing to place women and girls at the heart of their efforts, particularly those to bring an end to conflict and bring peace, which includes everyone. I welcome her announcement yesterday of a £10 million fund in the name of Jo Cox, which will focus on Jo’s social, economic and political empowerment work continued by the Jo Cox memorial fund.
I had half hoped to be able to talk about the #MeToo movement today, but that is for another day because, for today at least, Time’s Up.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, whose record on women’s issues and equality is quite outstanding. I congratulate the Minister on initiating the debate.
The campaign for equal rights, as has been said, is not new, but it is always stimulating to participate in a debate of this kind involving women and men. One of the most exhilarating International Women’s Days that I experienced was when I attended a women’s conference in New York with Gloria Steinem as the guest speaker, but that was 35 years ago.
I am afraid that I can go back even further. Forty-four years ago, my former trade union, NALGO, decided to investigate and report on the promotion of equal rights for women, and I was lucky enough to be a member of the group. The report analysed inequality and discrimination in the workplace, the weaknesses of the anti-discrimination legislation and job segregation. It called for a full nursery and childcare facility and flexible working patterns for women. The NALGO history recorded that the report was,
“a devastating appraisal of the situation of women at work, in society and within NALGO”.
I mention this because we have known for a very long time the causes of inequality for women and the solutions. I do not want another report analysing the problems. We need a recognition by Government that they must lead, facilitate, and open their purse where necessary, if we are to move forward.
I commend the Government for going ahead with the requirement for companies and the public sector to analyse and publish statistics on the gender pay gap. It will be interesting to see the concrete figures when they are published shortly. Much publicity has been given to the gender pay gap as a result of the gyrations of the BBC. The downside of this negative coverage is that it has probably frightened a lot of well-meaning employers, who will go into their collective shell rather than making plans. The April deadline for companies with 250 employees or more to publish their gender pay gap data is fast approaching. Last month, only 550 companies out of 9,000 had published their figures. The average gender pay gap is 11%, and is worse in construction and financial services in particular.
I accept that the first round of calculations will be the hardest for companies, but after that it will be much easier and there is plenty of advice around. It is essential for companies to plan now and state how any gap will be rectified over time. An example given in People Management was of easyJet, with a 52% mean gender pay gap but only 6% women pilots. EasyJet has publicly committed to a target of 20% of new-entry pilots being women by 2020. Companies should be praised for taking these steps.
Once employers understand the difference between a gender pay gap and an equal pay issue it will be easier to communicate with their employees. Instead of regarding the exercise as a burden on business, it could be a great opportunity to become a real equal opportunities employer, attracting the best available talent and minimising talent wastage, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said. The CIPD, of which I am a fellow, is holding a gender pay gap conference today, so help is out there.
Local government has often been more progressive than central government on this issue. My thanks go to the Local Government Association for pointing out that next year will be the 150th anniversary of single women ratepayers having the right to vote in local government elections and of the Municipal Franchise Act 1869, an anniversary which should be celebrated. The LGA is continuing its “Be a councillor” campaign on a cross-party basis to encourage more women to stand for election as councillors.
The Greater London Authority has been working with Gingerbread to assist single parents who are locked out of work because of the cost of childcare. They struggle with up-front costs, such as deposits to secure a nursery place, which must be paid before the first pay cheque comes in. This will be even more critical when universal credit is rolled out. It will be paid in arrears and costs prior to employment will not be readily available. Gingerbread has an “up front” policy, whereby local government or employers could pay parents’ deposits directly to enable them to accept a job or increase working hours before the money starts coming in. It is to be hoped that this commendable co-operation will spread to other parts of local government. However, it is a poor substitute for the targeted support which existed in the 2000s.
Local government could do so much more if it were given adequate financial support. The benefit cap has affected single parents, mainly women, who make up three-quarters of capped households. Those who find it hardest to move into work will have preschool children. Single parents still face a disproportionate risk of poverty and figures are returning to the levels not seen for two decades. Compared with the system in 2013-14, lone parent families will be £2,380 a year worse off. Single parents are more likely than the average employee to be trapped in low-paid work. Lifting the two-child cap would keep 200,000 children out of poverty, according to the Child Poverty Action Group. Removing the benefit cap could keep up to 100,000 children from poverty.
Government policy in this area has a detrimental impact on women and their opportunities. I hope the Government will look again at the issue of paying universal credit to women in couples, or at least allow an agreed split in income. The Government have argued up to now that this represents “interference” and would undermine the responsibility of couples in managing their affairs. However, one could equally argue, as the Women’s Budget Group does, that making couples choose one partner to receive the payment also represents “interference”. The Government’s aim to encourage committed couples is commendable, but their current policy could act as a disincentive to single people moving in with a new partner.
Cuts in public services have a disproportionate effect on women. The Women’s Budget Group reported that women have borne 86% of the impact of austerity through lost services and changes to the tax and benefit system. In conclusion, on this International Women’s Day, will the Minister say whether the Government are considering a review of the cuts in benefits which affect women so badly, and whether local government will have the resources that it so desperately needs?
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and I pay tribute to the work that she has done over her lifetime, from which many people have benefited.
Are men from Mars and women from Venus? I pose it as a question that I will leave hanging in the air because, perhaps as this debate progresses, we can take a decision on it. There are differences. I am not somebody who believes that there are no differences that need to be recognised. The question is how we harmonise the differences that need to be harmonised in order to bring about equality.
Back in the 1980s when I did a proper job, I trained people in business. I recall very much then, particularly in the manufacturing sector, how the change in corporate culture, particularly in management style, was starting to come in, mainly because of things such as the Japanese just-in-time system. I can recall then having long discussions—I looked this up at the weekend—about a chap called Hofstede. We used to talk about whether the cultures in certain countries were masculine or feminine. Hofstede wrote a paper that said a masculine culture was a society that emphasised assertiveness and the acquisition of money and material things, whereas femininity was a cultural dimension describing societies that emphasised relationships, concern for others and the overall quality of life.
At that time—many decades ago—he found that Japan had a masculine quality and the Nordic countries and the Netherlands were the most feminine. I was quite interested to see on the front page of the briefing prepared for this debate by the House of Lords Library that it states:
“Gender disparities continue to exist globally, including in the UK”—
which is something we would all agree with.
“A World Economic Forum analysis of the global gender gap, taking into account economic participation, education, health and political participation, found that weighted by population, the average progress on closing the global gender gap stood at 68 percent in 2017. The UK had a gender gap of 33 percent, and was ranked 15th out of 144 countries for overall gender parity. The top three countries were Iceland, Norway and Finland”—
the very Nordic countries which, all those decades ago, had already identified a culture where the things that were important were to the fore. We are talking here about hard-edged management tools and management approaches of societies that emphasise relationships, concern for others and overall quality of life.
In order to bring about this equality, there needs to be leadership on a global level and on a national level. It is needed in our institutions and in our corporate sector, and it is also—this has been touched on once already today—needed in the home. Mothers particularly can have a huge influence on their sons. You might have thought I was going to say “on their daughters”. Mothers can influence the way in which their sons develop. Many of the issues are not just things that worry us but are effectively criminality, not just nationally but around the globe. If they are to be addressed, the culture has to be changed at all levels.
Again, going back many years—I promise I will not keep harping on about the past, but at my age people tend to—when I was a Minister back in the 1990s I also had the privilege of being the government co-chairman of the Women’s National Commission. It was a very fine body of women. Many people around this Chamber were involved with the WNC. I was very sorry that it was a Conservative Government who decided to dispense with it. I think it did very good work. It was exactly the right group of people to bring women together and to make their views known directly to government.
I attended the 1995 UN conference on women in Beijing. I can see others in the Chamber who were there and who were involved. From that came the platform for action that resulted in a decision to make mainstream throughout government departments legislation and policy being looked at through the prism of how it affects women.
I want to add at this point—it has already been mentioned, I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—something about Sightsavers. Sightsavers is incredibly concerned about the United Nations. Of course it has to be a global leader. If the UN is not the global leader, then which organisation is? However, in terms of the women with disabilities, which Sightsavers has flagged up, it says:
“Our attention is focused on the United Nations where, of the ten United Nations treaty bodies, women are currently underrepresented on seven”,
And, even worse, there is only one woman member on the committee that looks at the rights of persons with disabilities. This is quite disgraceful, and that one person will retire in July. I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to say that the Government will make representations on that to the United Nations through ministerial communications and through our representatives in the UN.
As has been mentioned, very often there is more than just one discriminatory area—disability is one; we all know what the others are: sex, religion, colour, race and, I would add, class. I want to complete what I am saying today—because it is, I hope, a day of celebration—by saying thank you, particularly to those women who trod the path or sat on the green Benches before those of us who have had the privilege of serving down in another place. When you read what they went through, not just to get there but when they were actually there, it is quite astonishing. I include all of them in that. It is quite interesting that, although we often mention Margaret Thatcher in terms of being the first woman Prime Minister, it was not just because she was a woman that she had to fight. She fought criticism of the class she came from, from men who thought they were far superior to her, because she was a grocer’s daughter. So very often class prejudice—and it goes both ways—adds to what often is a double or sometimes a triple burden.
I would like to finish—it sounds like the Oscars, I know, but I will never get an Oscar—by saying thank you to my mother, my long-deceased mother, I have to say. She was a working mother of three children. I grew up in a household where it never occurred to me that it was not the norm for married women with families to work. She was just a great role model for me. Thank you to all of the people who have spoken in this debate, many of whom should be getting an Oscar for the work they have done for women.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am delighted because a lot of what I had planned to say—and it was not very much because I had a very late night last night, which I will tell you about later—has been said already by many Peers. That is thanks to the efforts of Andrew Mitchell, the Secretary of State for International Development years ago and his successors in a Conservative Government. I do not often say nice things about Conservative Governments, I know, but at this time I say that they have done a terrific job, if only to make sure that a majority of people who have spoken in this debate so far have mentioned my favourite subject, which is women’s reproductive health, family planning and safe abortion. That is what I plan to talk about now, and to use my favourite phrase, you cannot promote the empowerment of women—the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, has already alluded to this—unless you give them power over their own bodies first. It is pointless talking about it unless you do that.
Women in the West, and particularly in this country, have had it pretty good from this point of view for a long time now, and I think that sometimes we take family planning for granted. We know that, on the whole, we can control the number of children we have. Even I controlled the number of children I had, because these provisions have been there for our generation of women. We do not realise that in many other parts of the world this just does not apply. Often, once a girl starts menstruating, she is married off very early and, from then on, is either pregnant or breastfeeding—or dead, frankly—as she goes on and on producing more and more children. It is a pretty dreadful life. There is no hope of gender equality there and no talk of empowerment.
The most crucial intervention is family planning and safe abortion. Many countries have already achieved this. The Asian Tiger countries are often held up as an example—and they have done it without coercion, I would add. More recently, Indonesia, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Rwanda and Bangladesh have all brought down their fertility rate—meaning their family size—freeing women to do other things. Because of our Government pushing this agenda, more and more women have access to family planning, and I say thank you again to the Government and to the Department for International Development. Maternal mortality has been reduced by 44% since 1990, and although the world population is rising, it is doing so at a slower rate, which is good news. The intervention of non-coercive family planning is about the availability of supplies, and our Government are making sure, as far as is possible, that we spread supplies as widely as possible.
As was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, education is terribly important. Girls have to be educated, but they cannot be educated if they are childbearing. If they are constantly expected to have more and more babies, they will be unable to access education at anything more than a rudimentary level. The World Bank has demonstrated that when women are educated, and when they have fewer children because they have access to family planning, the economy of their country improves and the lot of all the people living there is improved. It is a win-win situation for everybody if that happens.
The reason I had a late night last night is that my All-Party Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health launched a paper. I have a copy with me here and noble Lords will all get one in the next week—I am sorry to advertise it but it is very important. The Who Decides? report is about safe abortion in the developing world. It also mentions this country, which I know is quite a contentious issue.
We need legal, safe abortion in all countries and we need improvements here in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, who was here earlier, piloted the Bill through Parliament in 1967. It was a tremendous thing for the women of this country but it now needs updating. Women still need the permission of two doctors; often they have to have two different appointments, and it can take ages to get an appointment in the first place. They need better access.
Worldwide, the abortion rate is the same whether abortion is legal or illegal in a particular country—abortions still go on. Women who cannot access safe abortion will take matters into their own hands, and many die as a consequence. In fact, 68,000 women die every year from unsafe abortion in the rest of the world. So people who oppose safe abortion provision are promoting death—the death of young women and the death of mothers of young families.
Finally, I want all noble Lords, and in particular the Government, to look at the report. I hope the Minister will reply to me in her closing comments. It is terribly important that we look at provision worldwide. Medical abortion now is so much easier: two pills can be taken in the first 12 weeks to produce a much easier form of abortion through a very early miscarriage, and no surgical intervention is required. We must promote this method worldwide. We must make sure that it is available online and without the intervention of doctors. Women do not need doctors all the time to control our bodies; we can do it ourselves if we are given the means to do so. In this country, that applies also. We should not have to get the permission of two doctors to end an early pregnancy that we unsuccessfully tried to avoid. Women must have that choice: whatever you personally feel about it, an individual woman must have that choice. We must rethink the Abortion Act 1967 and decriminalise abortion because, for goodness’ sake, it is still part of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. It is a criminal offence to have an abortion in this country without two doctors allowing you to do so. Will the Minister please say something about that and promise that women worldwide will get a better, easier deal with the advent of medical abortion, and likewise women in this country?
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and I much admire her wonderful work on promoting family planning, reproductive health and safe abortion.
Today we celebrate International Women’s Day, and this year it is particularly special. A few weeks ago we debated the role of women in public life and the progress made in increasing their representation in Parliament, 100 years after women—some women—were granted the vote. It was an occasion to look back and see how far we have come. I welcome today’s debate, so ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Williams, which gives us an opportunity to look forward.
There is still no country in the world where women are equal to men in political, economic and social terms. We are indeed lucky to live in a country with a Government dedicated to gender equality and who put women’s rights at the heart of international development. I congratulate DfID and the Secretary of State on their Strategic Vision for Gender Equality: A Call to Action, which was announced yesterday. This recognises the need for all of us to take action to make gender equality become a reality. We have come a long way but, as others have already mentioned, there is still a long way to go both in the UK and globally.
I take this opportunity to declare an interest, due to my involvement with GAPS and other NGOs as listed on the register. The UK has a global reputation as a leader on gender equality, but yesterday nominations closed for places on CEDAW—the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. Why have we never put forward a candidate? CEDAW consists of 23 experts from around the world. Every country that signs up to CEDAW is obliged to submit reports, and the committee, having considered these, addresses its concerns and recommendations to the state party as concluding observations. What kind of message does it give to other countries that the UK continues to ignore this very important global committee?
Goal 5 of the sustainable development goals adopted by the UN in 2015 seeks to,
“achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”,
and includes nine targets. Ensuring the inclusion of that goal was a big achievement. However, it is only in the years to come that we will see how effective it has been. Too often, countries sign up to international conventions but then not enough is done to implement them. After all, all countries that are members of the UN have to sign up to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, yet 70 years later we are still pushing for gender equality.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s focus on girls’ education, because it is hard to take part in today’s world without any. Still, an estimated 131 million girls worldwide remain out of school.
The statistics are stark. About a quarter of girls today between the ages of 15 and 24 have never completed primary school and two-thirds of the world’s illiterate people are women. As we have heard, poverty drives some parents to deny their daughters education as they need them to work. In some countries, parents pull their daughters out of school when they reach puberty because they are worried that they will be raped and, if pregnant, they are then unmarriageable. In poor countries, people cannot afford to have an unmarriageable girl.
I mentioned rape, but violence against women is still an epidemic across the world, with one in three women experiencing it in their lifetime. Despite all the work and publicity, even here in the UK two women are killed a week. Nothing can be more frightening for a child than seeing their mother being beaten up. This will have a profound effect on them for the rest of their lives and on the whole community.
Conflict causes rates of domestic violence to rocket. In countries such as Afghanistan, it is estimated that 87% of women suffer from domestic violence. At a symposium in Kabul last summer, I heard a psychologist talk about the fact that, because of high levels of violence in the family, it will be hard to achieve a peaceful society there.
The Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative, launched in 2012 by William Hague—now the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond—brought this issue to global attention. As noble Lords are aware, I was a member of the Select Committee on this issue, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, and sit on the steering board of the initiative. The initiative was always going to be a marathon and not a sprint, as the situation was of such magnitude that it needed sustained effort. So I press the Minister to ensure that the UK does not lose focus on this important issue. Will the UK lead another global summit in 2019 to assess progress?
One has only to look at the conflicts raging today and the high levels of sexual violence committed by Daesh against the Yazidis to see how relevant the initiative is. Ending impunity is key to this. Were any Daesh men held for these war crimes when Mosul and Raqqa fell? What has the UK done and spoken out about in relation to this?
Since the adoption of the women, peace and security agenda in 2000, only 27% of peace agreements have referenced women. Between 1992 and 2011, women made up only 9% of negotiators in peace processes and 4% of signatories, and between 2008 and 2012 this fell to 3%. Yet we know that where women are included in peace processes there is a 20% increase in the probability of an agreement lasting at least two years and a 35% increase in the probability of an agreement lasting at least 15 years.
The UK holds the pen at the UN on women, peace and security, and we launched our latest national action plan in January. However, 18 years after the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, why are Syrian women not allowed at the peace table? We should not have to justify why women should be included in peace processes; we should ask men to justify why they are excluded.
In the aftermath of the Kabul process for peace and security co-operation last week, we must not forget the Afghan women who have put their lives at risk to take part in public life. It is imperative that their rights are not traded away to bring the Taliban around the table. How can we in the UK exert global influence to make sure that more countries adhere to what they have signed up to?
Next week, like my noble friend Lady Anelay, I and many other women from around the world head to the UN for the Commission on the Status of Women. The theme will be rural women, with the review theme looking at women in the media and information and communications technologies. What would we like the effect of this meeting to be? The CSW is the second-largest meeting of the year at the UN, yet almost nothing is heard about it in the media. Around 5,000 women from around the world attend, and we should send out a strong message about some of the terrible suffering endured by women right now, today: the Rohingya women; the women in Yemen and South Sudan; the women and their families being bombed in eastern Ghouta, to name but a few. While CSW is enormously welcomed as a meeting, I hope that the UK will work with others to improve its impact to resound across the world.
I enormously welcome this debate, because we still have much work to do. I look forward to helping our Government to further the cause of gender equality both here at home and around the world.
Lord Pendry (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be the first male so far to take part in this debate. I intend to address my remarks to a relatively up-to-date example of the challenges that lie ahead in the important area of gender equality in sport.
In the past I have initiated debates in this House and the other place on the role of women in the world of sport, and it would be churlish to pretend that no progress has been made on the emancipation of women in sport, in particular during the past two decades. But, clearly, not enough has been done—there have been some strides, but not gigantic ones.
Before I list some of them, I should say that I was struck by a statement made by Nelson Mandela some time ago:
“Sport has the power to change the world”.
Of course, in the case of apartheid, it did just that—certainly in South Africa.
One reason for that change was explained to me by the former president of the republic, FW de Klerk, when I was on a visit to South Africa with a parliamentary rugby team tour. I had a meeting with him and asked him why, given his attitude over the years to apartheid, he had changed his mind. His answer was simple. He said, “We could cope with economic and trade boycotts imposed on us, but, as a sports-loving nation, we could no longer go on being isolated in the world of sport, in particular from the United Kingdom but also from other nations”.
I raise that because it was a mountain to climb, and it was overcome with determination and vigour not only by sports men and women here and elsewhere but by many others. It shows what can be done by women engaged in sport who are attempting to overcome the obstacles of gender disparity standing in their way.
As I have said, some important progress has been made. Who would have thought that, over the past two decades or so, we would have had three women Ministers for Sport? Although the path for them has not been universally smooth, it was certainly a move in the right direction. The first was Labour’s Kate Hoey. Her tenure was cut too short; she was shoved out before she could fulfil her ambitions. Then came the Tories’ Helen Grant, but she was hardly the right person and did not strike quite the right note. She was dismissed within a short period, notably because she once blurted out that women who played sport did not have to feel unfeminine, and that there were wonderful sports that one could do at a very high level where those participating looked absolutely radiant and very feminine, such as ballet, gymnastics, cheerleading and even roller-skating. To be fair, she was probably in the wrong job.
Thankfully, she was replaced by the current Minister for Sport, Tracey Crouch, a former sportswoman who is doing a first-class job in her post. I had reason to sing her praises in earlier debates in this House. She is a credit to sport and to her gender, and I hope that she will remain in her post at least until the next general election. Of course, here in this House we are privileged to have the greatest Olympian of them all, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who, though not a Minister, is an inspirational athlete and a role model to many.
Sport, of course, is not just about medals. Most sport takes place at grass-roots level, away from the glitter of gold and silver. Unfortunately, men are more likely to be active than women, according to Women in Sport: only 29% of women take part in sporting activities, compared to 41% of men. Women need to feel that sport is a place for them, and Sport England’s “This Girl Can” campaign has made a great mark already in tackling notions of fear and judgment in sport. Already, 2.9 million women have taken part in the campaign.
Women’s participation in physical activity is especially important for women in low-income groups, who are most likely to be inactive. This experience will probably cross into other areas of their lives, affecting not only their physical health but their mental health. These issues are not new; they have been discussed by women’s sports bodies over the years—as far back as 1994, when, as shadow Minister for Sport, I was fortunate to be invited to the very first international conference for women in sport, which took place in Brighton with 280 delegates from 82 countries and many sports Ministers from other countries. Many British delegates were bemused and ashamed that no British Minister was present.
On my return to Parliament I asked the Minister, Ian Sproat, whether he was aware that he had missed this unique and important conference, which had taken place in this country, and whether he would at least adopt—as had the Opposition—and endorse the declaration that there was to be an increase in women’s involvement in sport at all levels. The reply of the Minister, Mr Sproat, was:
“If more women wish to involve themselves in sport I shall be very glad for them to do so, but it is up to them. I read the declaration: it was political correctness in excelsis”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/5/94; col. 8]
At the time that view was typical, unfortunately, of some Tory Sports Ministers. However, I always exempted the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who was a Sports Minister around that time. Thankfully, that attitude has changed, however slowly, and there are increasing signs that we are moving in the right direction.
One important factor in female participation is success in sporting events—some quite recent, such as the Winter Olympics in South Korea or the indoor championships in Birmingham.
My time is up so I will not go on, but I would like to repeat how proud I am to be the first male in this debate. I know that there are others in this debate and I look forward—as I am sure the whole House does—to hearing them.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. As this past week we have been remembering the wonders of Sir Roger Bannister, who ran the first sub-four-minute mile, I can reveal that I have recently taken up running and I may set the record for the slowest mile. As the noble Lord said, however, even this girl can.
We are having this debate at a significant time, the run-up to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, which is very important to some of us. That is because 40 out of 53 Commonwealth states criminalise homosexuality. They account for more than half of the world’s nations where same-sex relations are illegal. Seven Commonwealth nations impose life imprisonment. Some have the death penalty for relationships between men. Hate crimes against LGBT people are most widespread in most Commonwealth countries. The vast majority of LGBT people who live there have no legal protection or rights whatsoever.
This Commonwealth Heads of Government summit, happening as it is in London, is an opportunity for those of us living in this country who, over the past 50 years—a milestone we marked last year—have experienced enormous economic, social and political change and advances, to share with others around the world the secrets of how we have advanced as a nation. Will the Minister consider the work of the All-Party Group on Global LGBT Rights, which is working with an organisation called Open for Business, a collection of top global businesses that have come together and are putting together the economic case against discrimination? We are building a lot of data from well-established resources, such as the World Bank, from which we can show that countries where there is a good attitude towards LGBTI inclusion have better economic performance, are more competitive, have greater levels of entrepreneurship and foreign direct investment, and fare better in global markets. They are also the sorts of countries with less of a brain-drain. That applies to both men and women.
Lesbians are often deemed to be at less risk in these countries because they are often less visible, but in fact they are probably more vulnerable in many ways because they usually have a less economically stable existence. I commend to the noble Baroness the work of a very small charity, Micro Rainbow International, which gives business support and start-up funding to LGBT people so that they can set up businesses. The charity provides a good example of how they are able to help, concerning two women who were harassed and badly treated in their community because they were seen as outsiders. They were given money to start a small bakery and are now respected employers in their community. That is but one example of an approach that could be further adopted. I hope that Ministers attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit will make not only the moral case but also the financial and business case to other leaders in the Commonwealth, because their countries need economic development just as much as ours.
My second point is that I really liked the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, who opened this debate so eloquently and fully. She is very different from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, who answers my Written Questions. I am very sorry that she is not in her place to hear me say so. She will know that over the past year and a half I have submitted endless questions to her department, principally about the detention of LGBTI asylum seekers. I have still not received a satisfactory answer on why we are busy locking people up in detention at a cost of £36,000 per year when they are no flight risk whatever.
I will, however, give the Minister due credit for the fact that her department, after 18 months, finally got round to releasing some statistics just before Christmas. These show, quite horrifyingly, that two-thirds of people who apply for asylum on the basis of being LGB—not T: we have excluded trans people—fail. Consequently we are sending people back to countries such as Nigeria, Uganda and Sri Lanka where they will face very serious peril: in some cases they will inevitably be sent to prison for an extended period. I asked the noble Baroness a few months ago what efforts were being made by those supervising such deportations to ensure that people would not be imperilled when they go back. Even by the standards of the Home Office, I got a pretty ropey Answer. It seems that we are busy saying that this matter is the responsibility of the country to which people are returned. I do not think that is good enough when people are put in jeopardy as a result.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, Justine Greening and Mrs May all deserve a lot of congratulations on having the courage to say that they will go ahead with the consultation on the reform of the Gender Recognition Act. That Act is currently not fit for purpose. People who need to rely on it are forced to go through truly humiliating and demeaning experiences to have legal recognition of their identity. Since the Government made that announcement, there has been an absolutely relentless campaign against it, waged primarily by transphobic feminists such as Sarah Ditum and Julie Bindel and Murdoch journalists such as Janice Turner and Andrew Gilligan—along with, I might add, some absolutely woeful journalism on the part of the BBC.
I say to the Government that I would not blame them for being somewhat taken aback by the ferocity of that campaign, but I sincerely hope that they will stand firm—and do so in the knowledge that if they go ahead, as I really believe they should, they will have widespread support from these Benches. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, might agree that there would be support from the Official Opposition’s Benches, too. We know that, at heart, this work is very necessary to bring about equality for a bunch of people who have a really tough time in our country, and to whom we owe it to bring about legal equality.
In the one minute left to me, I want to very much welcome the publication of the report by the group of the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, which I was part of. Autonomy over your body is the absolute bedrock of your existence as a human being but for us women, of all different types and backgrounds, now more than ever—in the face of some of the terrible stuff coming out of the United States—we must stand together. We must understand each other’s differences and bind together on those basic things that are of immense importance to us all and to the girls of the future.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who I know does a tremendous amount of work in the LGBT community. I thank the Government for making the time available for today’s debate, which demonstrates the importance they place on improving women’s lives in the UK and around the world.
History is littered with examples where those who have power do not want to share that power or have used it to disadvantage or exclude others. We have only to look back 100 years to the suffragettes to see the monumental struggles they went through to get the vote for women. Those struggles mean that women in the UK are now entitled to vote, have an education, work and have personal financial security. They can choose if, who and when to marry, and are liberated by access to family planning and health services. This is all underpinned by important equality legislation. I welcome these and many other improvements to women’s lives, and celebrate the huge progress made.
However, there remain ingrained negative cultural attitudes towards women, and disproportionately more to black and ethnic minority women. I have recently been asked to be a panel member for a documentary film directed by Nancy Buirski, “The Rape of Recy Taylor”. Recy Taylor was a 24 year-old black mother who was kidnapped at gunpoint as she walked home from church. She was blindfolded and gang-raped by six white boys in 1944, in Alabama. Few women, particularly black women, spoke of such attacks for fear of their lives and the lives of their loved ones but Recy Taylor courageously identified her rapists.
The law failed Recy Taylor and white media outlets ignored her story. Sexual violence against women of colour in the 1940s went largely unpunished. As the director of the film says:
“Back then, people recognized rape was a crime. Certainly it was in terms of law, but it wasn’t treated that way in terms of the culture. Men were taking advantage of women with impunity, and it was a legacy handed down from slavery, where white men owned their women slaves and their bodies”.
The issue of those who have power and those who do not is important. It is about not just legal rights but responsibilities, cultural norms and the social acceptance of attitudes. In Recy Taylor’s case, it took a powerful group of people to draw attention to those who had no power before people began to take action and the civil rights movement began.
Today, we have seen a wave of sexual assault claims against men in positions of power and gangs of men working together to sexually groom and abuse young, vulnerable girls in places such as Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford. As a former trustee of the NSPCC, I know of the devastating impact these predatory behaviours can have on individuals and their families. So, culturally, has our society really moved on when sexual harassment and abuse claims are so prevalent? The answer has to be yes, because we have stronger safeguarding mechanisms in place today and more people are encouraged to speak out—and do so courageously. To that end, campaigns such as #MeToo and #TimesUp are significant.
But many girls and women around the world cannot speak out; like Recy Taylor, they are given no voice. They have no education, no money and little or no say in what happens in their lives or their futures. Around the world we still have child marriages, the rape of young girls, and girls and women enslaved in prostitution and in enforced labour. Child marriage remains a huge issue for many in countries such as Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, India and Afghanistan. Despite the welcome progress that has been made, as stated by UNICEF earlier this week, one in five children is married before the age of 16. Girls from the poorest families are the most disadvantaged and are likely to be married much earlier than their wealthier counterparts.
As part of the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, the UK provided technical input into the development of the Afghan national action plan to eliminate early child marriage. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could give an update on that plan and any further work undertaken to eliminate child marriage there. It would also be helpful to understand how the Home Office and DfID are working together to eliminate child marriages in Pakistan for girls under the age of 16. That is because the Girl Summit charter in 2015 on ending FGM and child, early and forced marriage included the signatories of some Asian countries—Bangladesh and Nepal—but not those of Pakistan or Afghanistan, even though some individuals and NGOs from Afghanistan and Pakistan did sign the charter. However, it is very regrettable that some NGOs working with disadvantaged women have now been given three months’ notice to leave Pakistan. How are the Government monitoring this situation, and monitoring and progressing the support given through their aid in Pakistan, so that the work relating to enhancing women’s rights and lives is not further eroded?
Despite the Prime Minister making combating modern slavery one of the UK’s top foreign policy priorities, increasing numbers of girls and women are attracted by false promises of marriage and being trafficked into the UK and Europe for the sex trade and into forced labour. More needs to be done to stop this terrible crime, aided by more prosecutions and convictions of the smugglers. Tackling modern slavery is an enormous challenge but it also provides an opportunity for the international community and the UN system to show how it can come together to provide a co-ordinated and coherent response. I would like reassurance from the Minister on how this is being achieved from a UK perspective.
A UN report says that deep-seated attitudes of men towards women contribute to this problem. Are these deep-seated attitudes towards women to blame for the world's inertia when, despite significant modern technology, 300 girls were kidnapped by Boko Haram in Nigeria in 2014, and a further 110 girls from their classrooms only a few weeks back?
While the relationship between insecurity and poverty is obvious, our Government and the UN must seek to tackle instability and terrorism. Girls should not be at risk simply because they want an education. Like the Pakistani economy, the Nigerian economy will not flourish under the instability caused by terrorism and the poor education of girls.
I am pleased that in January the Government published their fourth UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, announcing that championing girls’ education to promote global stability will be at the heart of UK foreign development. I welcome this, but I stress that there are two top planned spending programmes in Pakistan from DfID to the tune of £75.4 million and a further £43.9 million. How is this money being spent, bearing in mind the levels of corruption in Pakistan and the fact that certain NGOs are being asked to leave?
We are richer when we give our girls and women the opportunities to flourish; through our contribution to international aid we are keeping women around the world safer, healthier and better educated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said, we need to tackle attitudes and there needs to be much greater leadership if we really are going to make this work for girls and women. To that end, I urge every woman and man to do much more.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this debate marking International Women’s Day, and thank the Minister for initiating it. I celebrate, as other noble Lords do, the centenary of women’s suffrage this year. Celebration, however, must not mask the plight of too many women internationally and here in the UK.
To this end, I wish to raise the situation of detained women in Yarl’s Wood, some of whom are currently on hunger strike. Although campaigners have welcomed improvement in conditions at Yarl’s Wood since the implementation of the adults at risk policy, which should mean that survivors of sexual and gender-based violence would not normally be detained and that the routine detention of pregnant women would be ended, there are still concerns for detained women.
Today sees a lobby of Parliament by refugee and migrant women under the banner of All Women Count, which calls for safety, dignity and liberty for all women regardless of status in the UK. The Government currently lock up 1,600 asylum-seeking women every year. Critics of the use of detention say it is unfair to deprive a person of their liberty for administrative convenience; that detention is costly, ineffective and harmful; and that there are better alternatives.
Of particular concern, highlighted by noble Lords last week, is that indefinite detention is harmful to detainees’ mental health and well-being. Safeguards to protect detainees and prevent inappropriate cases from being detained are insufficient and ineffective. As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said,
“the point about indefinite detention is not that the person is never released; it is that they do not know when they will be released … this has a devastating impact on mental health”.—[Official Report, 27/2/18; col. 587.]
All these concerns are still being played out at Yarl’s Wood, according to the campaign group Women for Refugee Women, to which I owe my thanks for this briefing. Last year, this group conducted interviews with 26 women who have claimed asylum and been detained since the adults at risk policy came into force and, alarmingly, found that survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are still routinely detained. Many had experience of domestic violence, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and forced prostitution and trafficking. Many had been detained for long periods even when their mental and physical health had deteriorated. Women reported feeling suicidal, and two had attempted suicide while in detention.
I recognise that the Government argue that the purpose of detention is to enable swift removal, but there are too many examples of women incarcerated for long periods. Home Office statistics show that, in 2017, 43% of asylum-seeking women leaving detention had been detained for 29 days or more. Although the number of pregnant women detained has fallen since the 72-hour time limit came into force, it is still the case that the majority of pregnant women are subsequently released to continue with their claims, so their detention serves no purpose. Fewer than 20% of pregnant women who are detained are removed from the UK.
Women for Refugee Women has raised a number of concerns about how the new approach is actually working, despite the good intentions following the Shaw review. There is no screening process that actively identifies whether someone is vulnerable or at risk before they are detained, so survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are going into detention before any attempt has been made to find out about their previous experiences. Survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are not believed when they disclose their previous experiences and find it difficult to obtain supporting evidence that the Home Office will accept. Women are not automatically informed about rule 35 reports—medical reports prepared by doctors working in detention centres—which the Home Office will accept as evidence. Even then, women with this legitimate evidence have remained in detention.
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons report on Yarl’s Wood, published in November 2017, noted “significant improvements” since its last inspection in 2015, but raised concerns about rule 35:
“There were unacceptable delays in the Rule 35 process. The quality of reports was generally poor. They were vague, lacked detail and did not adequately address symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. In some cases the Home Office refused without explanation to accept rape as torture. Detention had been maintained in most cases that we looked at without addressing the exceptional circumstances for doing so. In several cases, detention was maintained despite the acceptance of professional evidence of torture”.
Will the Minister assure the House that the inspector’s recommendation is being implemented? That is:
“Rule 35 assessments should be completed within 24 hours. Reports should provide clear, objective and detailed professional assessments, including on evidence of PTSD. Responses should be prompt. Where professional evidence of torture is accepted, the exceptional reasons leading to the decision to maintain detention should be provided in detail. Rape should be considered a form of torture for the purposes of Rule 35”.
HMIP noted that just a third of all rule 35 reports submitted by doctors working in Yarl’s Wood in the six months prior to its last inspection had resulted in the woman concerned being released. Overall, it found that vulnerable women were still being detained,
“despite professional evidence of torture, rape and trafficking, and in greater numbers than we have seen at previous inspections”.
As a result, it concluded that,
“the effectiveness of the adults at risk policy, which is intended to reduce the detention of vulnerable people, was questionable”.
It is surely wrong that those whose mental and physical health are clearly deteriorating while in detention should remain without hope. Home Office statistics show that, in 2017, 85% of asylum-seeking women released from detention were released back into the community to continue with their asylum claim. So their detention appeared to serve no purpose.
Campaigners are calling for a proactive screening process to ensure survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are identified before detention. There should be an absolute exclusion on the detention of pregnant women. There should be a 28-day time limit on immigration detention. Community-based alternatives for immigration detention, focused on support and engagement, are more effective and less expensive than detention.
Good practice has been demonstrated by the family returns process, implemented in 2011, following the welcome pledge to end the detention of children, which has reduced by 96%. The Government should do more to move away from the detention model and into community-based alternatives. Perhaps the new review by Stephen Shaw to assess progress against the key recommendations for action in his previous report, Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons, will encourage the Government to be braver.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a real privilege to follow the noble Baroness, and I salute her for her dedication to asylum seekers and women who are detained. It is an honour to take part in these yearly events, these annual discussions and debates; it is very uplifting. I speak today in recognition of the centuries of our common struggles freely to participate in the workplace and public life, not because of nostalgia but because we are still plagued by the inequality spoken of so eloquently by so many noble sisters—sorry, noble Baronesses—across the House.
We have achieved some progress in women’s representation in the public arena, but the obstacles that women continue to face in all societies are also faced by Muslim women in Britain. This is exactly what I want to talk about today, as well as speaking about women in Britain. That is not my usual thing—I like to talk about women everywhere—but I thought it would be good to do so, given that we are celebrating this amazing century.
In this decade, Muslim women have become a symbol of many ills of our society, and I have spoken about this many times in this House. Many counterterrorism policies look specifically to women’s role in preventing radicalisation. Sadly, this is an oversimplification, if not a deliberate confusion, of Islamic traditions with the constraint of patriarchal, societal proscriptions and practice. It should therefore not be specifically odd that Muslim women also experience discrimination within their families.
What is of significance is that many women are frustrated too often by having to negotiate choices between emancipation within the home and the workplace and the challenges that they face from Islamophobia. Thousands of women, whose voices are not heard often enough, are frustrated about how Muslim women feel ill-perceived, defined and judged not by their contribution, their presence or their intellect but by their clothing, culture and faith. This generalisation reinforces divisions. It is dangerous and simply wrong, and keeps Muslim women in particular out of power and office.
To address these inequalities as lawmakers, we have to demonstrate that we are prepared to be bold, lead by example and address the issue of discrimination prevailing in society that is the pervasive obstacle to the progress of women and, particularly, to Muslim women’s leadership. So it pleases me no end to speak of my passion for the campaign “Change the Script” by the National Commission on Muslim Women—I refer to my interests in the register.
The campaign sets out opportunities for Muslim women to write their own narrative, which is often marred by misconceptions and reduced to debates about so-called religious oppression and unforgiving and biased statistics about terrorism and Muslim women’s veils. Over the past couple of years, endless conversations have taken place, both in this House and across different parts of the country, with the commissioners, with women and with women-led groups on how to redress the current and mainstream discourse about Muslim women. We have been doing it rather quietly, but it is good work and we will let it speak for itself.
Dismal statistics on employment, education and attitudes to citizenship that are published in various reports do not tend to reflect the entire truth. British Muslims contribute £31 billion to the economy, and countless thousands of talented Muslim women in every profession contribute to make today’s vibrant multicultural, multifaith Britain but remain unheard in the public space. Hence the “Change the Script” campaign, which has just begun, celebrates the incredible achievements of British Muslim women and their contributions to this society over decades that have silently shaped Britain.
The campaign aims to reflect the experiences and strengths of Muslim women, as well as the challenges that they face, by documenting and highlighting their presence in every part of society, every profession and every community and by sharing their stories through the social media campaign #WriteYourScript, a website and an exhibition, alongside publications and forums held across various cities. We have been speaking to women up and down the country, who want their voices, stories and opinions amplified in a positive way.
From community activists, artists, entrepreneurs and stay-at-home mothers to doctors, teachers, lawyers and scientists, thousands of exceptional Muslim women have made a difference to the society that we live in. Take, for example: Humera Khan and Khalida Khan, who set up the pioneering women’s project An-Nisa 35 years ago; Shahien Taj from the Henna Foundation in Cardiff; Polly Islam, who has worked on mental health in Bangladesh, Luton and Rohingya camps in various places; neuroscientist and Ealing councillor Dr Aysha Raza, who is making waves in the male-dominated STEM field; or the artist Siddiqa Juma, who has just won the Leonardo da Vinci Universal Artist Award and has put Islamic art on a mainstream platform. Just this morning, I visited the outstanding work of the Limehouse Project, led by Farida Yesmin. The list is incredible, and seemingly endless, and I would be honoured to talk about every single amazing woman who is defying the stereotypes of Muslims, but sadly time is not on our side.
We all know that achieving social change is a mountain to climb and overcome, and I hope the Minister will assist in generating awareness of these gifted women. We are determined to go beyond public profiles and listing their testimonies; we are documenting them with a publication celebrating their presence, and we are hoping to mount a wall of 100 Muslim women, celebrating the centenary of women’s suffrage as they perceive their world—a small legacy, a gift to our mothers, daughters and granddaughters. Our goal is to ensure that the work is shared with schools and higher education institutions, allowing steps to be taken to address pressing matters in relation to employment and education and increasing the number of mentors for young women.
We wish to see more Muslim women portrayed positively in the public sphere, and on this auspicious and important day for women, 8 March 2018, there is no better way to raise their voices in any campaign that the Government are leading. There have been 100 years of resistance as we celebrate women’s right to vote in Britain. As a first in the Labour movement in this House, I share the pride in achieving 2,008 women MPs—I am sorry, that should be 208; that was wishful thinking, a Freudian slip and all that—of whom six have been Muslim women. However, on every national and international platform men continue to assert and define our rights. Surely time is up for them.
#MeToo grew up among strong women. My amazingly courageous mother, who came here all by herself with five children 46 years ago and raised us, did so among men—both my grandfathers—who honoured women in their families, whether they chose careers or simply stayed at home, regardless of the cultural taboos of their generation. I look forward to the day when we can celebrate equality and justice for all women regardless of their status, race or religion, wherever they are in the UK.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak on this topic. I thank my colleagues for securing the time for this debate. I am proud to support a Government who have taken unprecedented steps to secure gender equality, both in this country and abroad. Before I consider how foreign policy and aid policy can be used to best help women, I will touch on the recent celebration of the suffragettes. These were touching and sobering commemorations, and I am heartened at every new election when the number of women in the other place goes up. Much more work is needed to get this to the 50% that it ought to be, but I have confidence that the Prime Minister will pay attention to this. After all, she can claim a great deal of credit for setting up the body that has helped propel dozens of Conservative women into Parliament.
The Opposition recently hired as an adviser an activist who had a history of making disparaging remarks about various groups. I will not dwell on all of it, but I think there is one point that deserves refuting. She said on Twitter that the suffragettes were,
“white supremacists who were fighting for white women’s rights”.
This is simply wrong. One of my personal heroes is Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, the daughter of Maharaja Duleep Singh. She was a leading voice in the women’s tax resistance movement, which encouraged women to withhold tax until they were granted suffrage. The King at that time was known to remark, “Have we no hold on her?” She was no white supremacist. She was a principled woman, and I am glad that the Prime Minister referred to her at the Vote 100 commemorations a couple of weeks back.
Our aid budget is one of our most powerful international levers of influence. We are valued and respected for sticking to the spending guidelines, even in a time of austerity. I recently spoke on the importance of educating women in less developed states, especially in nursing. It has been shown time and time again that the single most effective policy to combat poverty, close gender pay gaps and boost economic growth is the education of women. If I could have my way, the aid budget would be focused on disaster mitigation and the education of women almost exclusively. However, in other projects there are a number of options to ensure that gender equality is consistently promoted.
Given the recent allegations that have affected the industry, it may be worth showing that British charities can be trusted to do the right thing in the workplace, which would also head off allegations of hypocrisy. What steps are the Government taking to make sure that the NGOs they work with have proper harassment protocols in place for when allegations are brought to them? Additionally, Ministers could urge the NGOs that they work with to ensure that their local hires are gender-balanced and that they train women when they cannot find women with the right skills profile. Of course, this may seem like an extra burden to put on NGOs, but now more than ever they need to show their commitment to gender equality.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for giving us the opportunity for this debate today. I express my gratitude to her, to women in general and to some particular women too. I start, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, with an expression of gratitude to my mother. Had she been alive, she would have been 113 this week. She bore three sons within three years, went 12 years more and then, without any planning, I turned up in the middle of the war. My father was away; she had three young teenage boys and she was working as a weaver. We had very little money and a very poor background; we were born into a society where there was very limited public education at the time. There was no health service: it was six years before the National Health Service came into being. There were many slums around us, and generally life was quite different to what we have come to experience latterly.
I was born into a world where we worried about the quality of our leadership. It was a world that was led by men: Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. The Chinese were preparing for a revolution led by men. We were all at war fighting each other. With male domination, what do men do best? They cannot resist fighting each other for power. There were few women around in political leadership anywhere in the world. There were a few in the Commons and none in the Lords: there were no life peerages then, only hereditaries, who were all male. I have been here for 20 years, and I look back and see the changes that have taken place not only in my lifetime, but in the 20 years since I have been in the Lords. There have been dramatic changes, particularly in the advancement of women and their opportunities here. I have served solely as a Back-Bencher, but I have served primarily under women leaders on both sides of the House. It is a remarkable tribute to the progress that we have made.
We have some great individual women here. On our side, we have already mentioned the late departed Muriel Turner, who used to sit where my noble friend Lady Donaghy is now. She was always there. Noble Lords will all recall with great affection two others who are missing today: my noble friend Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who is unwell, and my noble friend Lady Gould, who, without any doubt, would have been speaking today. She did so much in the Labour Party for women and has done so much in this House since she came in. I am sure we would all like to send our regards to them and best wishes for their recovery from ill health.
My background is in the trade union movement which, again, is very much a male domain. I was the general secretary in a civil service trade union, which had 60% women members and only 40% men, but it was primarily run by men: the leadership, the executive council and all the important positions were, in the main, held by men. In trying to effect changes, we consulted the noble Baroness, Lady Fritchie, a Cross-Bencher who is not in her place today. She played a very important role in public appointments, trying to get gender balance in this country. She helped our union to try to get changes that would advance the interests of women. We did it mainly by a quota system. That was not particularly popular in certain quarters, and it is still not particularly popular in some areas where people say, “No, we will do it solely on the basis of our talent; we do not want any places reserved”. The situation was reflected in the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who told us how quotas have been working in Albania and how they were the only way women there could advance. I believe the problem is the class system. In particular, quotas are strongly opposed by middle-class women, but the working-class sees them as an opportunity, so they should not be ruled out. Our use in the Labour Party of women-only appointment lists is a form of quota system that has produced wonderful results; it should be looked at by other parties. There are parties that have not yet been able to produce a female leader. I hope it will not be long before we have a female leader of the Labour Party. We should look at our structures to ensure that women can continue to rise to the highest places in our organisation.
In business, again, big changes are needed; some changes have been effected. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, who has worked very hard by using the second system that is available and open to us: targets. He has gone for a 25% target for women on the boards of FTSE companies, and a good deal of progress has been made there. So we have quotas and targets.
I also like the concept of mentoring, which was mentioned earlier. I am speaking today primarily because I now have, through the good offices of the Royal College of Psychiatry, a woman doctor working with me. She has spent the last six months with me, working on mental health. She has taken me into new areas that I needed to explore that are good for me and my development, and she has taken me back to some of the issues I looked at when I worked on equality with women. She said, “You should speak in this debate this coming Thursday and persuade some of your male colleagues to speak as well”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said earlier, women will not achieve these changes alone; they need to get men on board with them, to persuade men of a sympathetic mind to stand up with them, and then you will find that you have a majority. Through a majority, we can effect the changes we need.
We still need changes in the NHS: 77% of its employees are women, but the majority of senior leadership posts fall to men. We look at the BBC—we all know what is happening there. Women are a major factor in the BBC, but are not holding as many of the posts as they should. The Armed Forces are the next area in the eyes of the British public. We listened to debates recently about whether the Armed Forces should permit part-time working. God Almighty! We are still debating issues like that—we need to change it.
I will also mention the Queen, who is outstanding. Think of the three monarchs of this country who you believe have made the greatest contribution. To my mind, it is the two Elizabeths and Victoria. When I think about the males, I recall all of them for the worst of reasons. Therefore, there is an argument to be made about the way in which the hereditary system can also produce important changes.
There is still a lot of work to be done. Primarily, we see changes taking place that we are not keeping abreast of. New international companies and communications organisations are being run primarily by men who are not accountable; women are just not on the scene. We had a change at the United Nations, but why did we not have a woman in charge of the United Nations for the first time ever? This is the kind of issue on which women—all of us—should press for change to increase the movement towards greater equality.
The areas in which women have the greatest influence on our lives at the moment are culture and religion. It is difficult to talk about these subjects here, but they have a massive influence on everyone’s lives, particularly with regard to women and equality. We look at where the religions started and who led them; who sustained them, in the main? Take the Church of England and the battle it has had over women bishops. But in many respects, it is women who keep the Church of England going and who do the hard work. That applies in so many other religions. We need changes within the religions and opportunities for greater equality, one way or another. We all need to work together for that—men and women together. Alone we will do nothing, but together we can achieve much.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am another of the minority that is welcomed into this gathering. We talk about female leadership; I cannot help but reminisce that when I first got here, a huge chunk of that leadership was provided by one Baroness Seear. I did not mention her the last time we had the debate on women’s suffrage. There is a military saying: “Anybody who takes the first step and says, ‘Follow me’ is a more efficient leader than anybody who shouts, ‘Forward!’, no matter how loudly”. Baroness Seear not only took the first step but shouted “Follow me!” in a very commanding tone. That is more of an aside.
I was going to talk about women’s sport but I was beaten to it by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. We all know that things are getting better there, but there is that old problem that there is still much more to do. Sport tends to think of its traditions, and the question is how you break out of those or adapt them to allow this new group in. The new group constitutes the slight majority of the population. We are addressing most of the institutions and structures, and we have an excellent example of how successful this approach can be if you give women in sport their moment in the sun: the winter Olympics.
The great success stories and great failures were female; they provided the drama. Elise Christie—a great champion who has not quite delivered at the highest level—crashed out three times. A defending champion came back, defying the odds and reasserting herself. There was the “nearly!” struggle of the curling. That provides the drama and the approach. Many people—at least one or two noble Lords in this Chamber—will say, “But does sport matter?” If you can think of a better way of expressing soft power and bringing nations together, I will be happy to listen. Is there something else that has such a mass appeal, bringing people together? I cannot think of anything. It is able to cut across, using an understandable language of activity and unity, and admiration for what somebody else does. Sport probably takes that all on. To come back to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, I remember that trip to South Africa. The noble Lord may remember that it was a Parliamentary Rugby World Cup. I was playing, and the noble Lord was looking very elegant in a blazer. By the way, if anybody is interested, we are still turning out. I still have my jersey; I would like to say that it fits, but let us just say that I can still get into it.
If you look at the Olympics for examples of how women’s sport has taken off, you will find the perfect example in hockey. The women’s hockey gold medal has done more to lift that sport than just about anything else I can think of. Women’s football has done very well too. I was kept up very late watching England in a tournament the name of which I forget, taking on the world’s best in the USA. I was probably something of a jinx, because I decided that I could not stay up to watch the second half—and they lost. Then again, I support Scotland, so who cares? They have taken great steps. Rugby union has expanded its base and has made sure that it reaches out to schools. Those are traditionally male sports, which are moving on, but hockey has done it. It is true that for hockey, it is easier. I was chatting to somebody who said that one of the great problems in female sport is that the changing facilities seem to be too primitive for women. I do not see that at all in hockey; mind you, we built our clubs for women as well. An old rugby union player takes a bow on that one.
The fact is that you have to bring them in, but once you have done it, and if they are successful or at least competitive, you will build up the whole sport. The whole of hockey has expanded thanks to the shot in the arm that was provided by women. Everybody knows that sport is a social good, a medical good and an economic good. What’s not to like? If the women can do that, we must encourage them. All the sports I have spoken to are taking action in this area—for example, the government initiative whereby 30% of the board has to be female. However, the real challenges are coming not in recruitment but in establishing the underlying structures.
The difficult area is coaching—making sure that we get better female coaching, with more depth. You have really succeeded when, in football, there is no discussion about why you have not got a male coach. I was at a breakfast meeting here at which the FA basically said, “We wanted a coach who was good enough, and as we couldn’t get a woman coach we took a male coach, because of the need for quality at elite-level sport”. That is pretty unanswerable, unfortunately.
Unless you work on this and government encourages this, you will not get past the issue of who takes on the leadership role. Who is the person that will take this on? There is virtually no reason why females cannot take over in male sport. What attitude surveys have been done here? I have been coached by women in my time, such as the incredible and formidable Margot Wells, when I was in the second team at London Scottish. She was a person you did not mess with. I remember cowering in a corner when she shouted at a large group of men for not eating enough for her training programme—an experience that most people in this Chamber will not have been through.
Women have the capacity to get through if they are given the chance, knowledge and drive. What are the Government doing to encourage these sports to make sure that their coaching and development programmes reflect this? I know that work is going on and it is being looked at internally but what are we doing to help? If we do not do this, the hierarchical structure at the business end of a sport will dominate for a much longer period. How are we going to provide encouragement and make sure that the leadership—the person who makes the decisions and picks the team—is female, not only in female sport but male sport, and often enough to make a difference? Once that has been done, we will be close to achieving full equality.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I have three young daughters aged seven, five and two. When I made my maiden speech last year, my seven year-old, Anna, wished me luck and asked whether the men Lords were allowed to make speeches as well, or whether they just had to sit there. Imagine my delight when I came in today to see that I was nearly at the end of the list but surrounded by male noble Lords. It has been a joy to hear their speeches and all the other brilliant speeches by noble Baronesses. My then four year-old asked whether men were allowed to be Prime Minister and I assured her that we have had a few.
There is indeed much to celebrate about the world today. Yet I find myself sad that as my daughters’ innocence slips away, so too will the notion that women are equally represented in Parliament and wider public life. But there is an even harder story to tell them, one of violence and abuse faced by women and girls around the world, as we have heard. In many ways this is a world I want instinctively to shield my girls from. However, the main point I want to make is that around the world we need to start conversations about equality sooner rather than later, if the upcoming generation will have the chance of telling a better story.
Of course, political regimes and legal frameworks drive ultimate outcomes but these are themselves often borne of deeply engrained cultural behaviours and beliefs about gender and the relationships between men and women, who of course start off as girls and boys. My eldest daughter, the seven year-old, knows now that Malala was shot by the Taliban on the school bus. The look of sheer bewilderment on the face of a seven year-old, who takes going to school completely and utterly for granted—although she moaned about it as usual this morning—throws into sharp focus all over again the scale of the violence and injustice faced by Malala and millions like her. We rightly celebrate the courage of women who have demanded and driven a change in attitudes but we must continue to be appalled that they have been forced to find this courage within themselves because of what they faced simply as a result of being born female.
We often talk about gender equality as though it is a women’s issue, when what we need to talk about is the way in which girls and boys, men and women, live alongside each other in understanding and mutual support. I pay tribute to young men around the world who are challenging accepted norms and power structures, including those involved in Plan International’s Champions for Change project, which trains young men to become peer supporters, often using social media to converse with their peers and tackle entrenched attitudes about the role of girls and women. I shall quote Luciano, who is 19 and part of Plan International Brazil’s Goals for Peace project:
“If we want to prevent women from suffering violence, children need to start learning why violence must not be tolerated from a young age”.
He explained:
“I’ve also witnessed violence in my house. My dad has violent traits, which he picked up from his father—it’s cultural. I’ve decided that when I have children, my approach will be completely different”.
This caught my eye because I know that the Government are looking at the role of technology in delivering aid, and I encourage a similar focus on the role of social media and technology in attitudinal change.
While in the UK we can rightly be proud of our record in driving progress on gender equality at home and abroad, we have no room for complacency. We see ourselves as a forward-thinking nation, yet we enable a culture in which young people can readily access images of violent, hard-core pornography and abuse. This goes beyond internet safeguarding. Again it is about challenging attitudes before it is too late. I strongly support the Government’s focus on relationships through PSHE in schools but respectful attitudes cannot sit in a silo. There is an onus on everyone in public life and in the public eye to speak up and tell our young people—boys and girls, men and women—that some of the images they are seeing of women online are not what women’s bodies generally look like, and that much of what they can be exposed to online is not sex but abuse.
As to women in public life in the UK, during my time in Downing Street I worked with my now noble friends Lord Maude of Horsham and Lady Finn, at that time in the Cabinet Office, and a range of officials and advisers who did crucial work on the Government’s diversity plan. It was a privilege to play a role in helping to increase the representation of women on public bodies and to hear their personal stories at the outreach events that we organised. I am pleased to see that the number of women on public bodies has continued to increase, and urge the Government to ensure that momentum is maintained.
I also want us to learn from the problem we had to solve—the fact that many women told us that they were lacking in confidence, perhaps after time out bringing up children, or that they did not feel ready to take on senior roles despite ample experience. How did these highly intelligent women with a wealth of experience come to hold these beliefs about themselves? With this in mind, I was shocked by a study from the University of Illinois showing that, by the age of six, girls are more likely to attribute intelligence to men than women. If girls think this by the time they are six, why are we realising that there is an issue only by the time they are 26, 36, 46 or older? Happily it is now in vogue to tell little boys and girls all about historic female role models and storybooks are thankfully moving away from the “rescued by a handsome prince” narrative.
This is all well and good until I reflect on the throwaway comments I regularly hear from men and women alike. When I tell them about my children, they say, “You will have your hands full when they are teenagers because girls are so bitchy”. My husband is told, with apparent genuine sympathy, that our house will be a mass of hormones and angst with three teenage girls and a menopausal woman—this is in the future—and I have probably been guilty of saying something like that myself because, let us face it, it is ingrained in all of us. I have to keep saying to myself that nothing is inevitable. I do not believe girls are instinctively bitchy. We are supposed to be the role models so let us recognise that we need to challenge every throwaway assumption, otherwise the most powerful public campaigning messages are hollow.
We can support and learn from those inspiring young women and men who have faced depression and abuse but have become all the more determined to challenge assumptions and face down stigma. Let us celebrate today and share their optimism but, above all, let us make sure it is absolutely justified.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for initiating this debate. “Press for Progress” is a noble cause to drive gender equality forward and utilise the momentum of mass media coverage to push for change globally, in all countries, at all levels and within all spheres of life.
Today’s debate on International Women’s Day is particularly important as over the years we have been talking about gender inequality, the pay gap, domestic violence, human trafficking, modern-day slavery and sexual abuse against women and girls in areas of conflict by the powerful against the powerless. These are all uncivilised and barbaric practices that we are grappling with even in the 21st century. I am sure that your Lordships’ House is as shocked as I am to observe that these atrocities occur so regularly, even after all our best efforts to contain them.
A report published by the United Nations last year stated that,
“gender inequality persists worldwide, depriving women and girls of their basic rights and opportunities”.
One of the key areas that a lack of progress affects is the SDGs that our Government are firmly committed to delivering, both at home and around the world. To ensure that we deliver on the SDGs, there is a need for more than just DfID covering these points: there needs to be some coming together between the various organs of government to facilitate a cohesive process that keeps the commitment on track both at home and abroad.
The Independent Commission on Aid Impact monitors DfID’s work and highlights areas of concern or where aims are not met. However, surely for something as important as the SDGs, which affect both home and abroad, there should be some form of consolidated approach from all departments in government. This is particularly so for goal 5, which aims to,
“achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls”.
It has nine target areas. One area of huge concern which affects many women, girls and widows—I declare an interest as founder and chairman of the Loomba Foundation—is violence against women and girls, including widows. The target is to,
“eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation”.
The conclusion of the MDGs and the launch of the SDGs speaks volumes of the progress the world has made in the mission to eradicate poverty and the work that has yet to be done. Though the fight continues to educate and empower women and girls, the issue of widowhood remains underrepresented and unaddressed. Millions of widows suffer social marginalisation, higher susceptibility to disease, the loss of their livelihood or their children and the threat of death, to name a few of the experiences that women and girls across the world must endure as a result of a tragic event over which they have no control—the death of their husbands. Sadly, widows are victims of double discrimination: they are women and they are widows.
These grave injustices are most prominent in the developing world, thus becoming a critical absence in the development agenda. These women and girls have been excluded not only from their own families and societies but from the agendas of development experts and practitioners across the world who devote their careers to ensuring that no one is left behind. Many of these women and their dependants live a vicious cycle of poverty. They are unseen and most certainly left behind. We have made great strides in alleviating poverty since the inception of the MDGs but not so much with stopping some of the terrible things that happen to women, either in conflict or often in the security of their own home. There needs to be a step change in attitudes; we need to do more at an earlier stage. While we are focusing on the education of girls, 64 million of whom, it is well documented, are not in education globally, perhaps we should turn some of our attention to educating boys and ensuring that the message gets to them at an early age about what is and is not acceptable behaviour. It is really and truly only by bringing the other half of the population on board that we will make real progress.
The UN, in collaboration with the EU, has initiated the Spotlight Initiative, which aims to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls, shining a light on these issues in order to make change happen; is this something that DfID is also involved in? To press for progress is a huge challenge, considering how slow progress has actually been. Last month, to commemorate 100 years since the first Act of Parliament to allow certain women the vote, many Peers in this House, myself included, lamented the slow progress we are making to ensure that women’s voices are sufficiently heard at the highest level. As we noted in that debate, women still have not gained equality in this House and the other place. With the recent revelations about pay inequality at the BBC it would appear that we are only paying lip service to real gender equality. If we are to truly make progress, we need to set an example—if we cannot do it ourselves, how can we ask others to do it? We really must get our own house in order first and ensure that there is gender equality here to improve matters for women and for their complete participation in the democratic process. Alongside this, we must bring in better education for boys, so that they fully understand and take on board the message, to allow real change and make real progress.
Finally, I ask the Minister what steps the Government will take to stop paying lip service and do deeds, to press for progress for gender equality here and abroad.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the Minister for initiating the debate and giving us a very good introduction. I am part of the quota of men, by the way, and pleased to be so: I expected it to be a bit larger, I must admit. I have to confess that in this historic year I learned only recently the nuanced difference between the suffragist and the suffragette movements—a gap in my political education. I am not sure where I would have stood. I was reflecting on that. When they took the decision—I do not know if it was in a smoke-filled room—that somebody was going to slash the picture in the National Gallery, I might have asked for an amendment: could they not just stick “Votes For Women” over it instead? Whether they would have liked that, I do not know.
We have had a fascinating debate with a welter of statistics. I have learned a lot and been educated, which is always a good thing. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Gale for reminding us that it is National Apprenticeship Week and giving us the statistics on apprentices, a subject that noble Lords will know I am quite interested in. It is true, as she said, that there are more women apprentices, but if you look where they are, they are in care, in hospitality, hairdressing, nursing, et cetera. When you look at the more highly paid side, it is obvious that we need more encouragement. There are successful women in IT and engineering and we need those young women to be able to go into every school and demonstrate as role models to their peers. I would welcome a comment from the Minister: can she give an assurance that the Government will insist that all secondary schools allow apprentices and employers to come in and talk to their sixth form, their 16 and 17 year-olds, and maybe even earlier, about the value of apprentices as another career path and not simply as an alternative to an academic one?
We certainly have not achieved equality in the realm of pay, or even responsibility. I was reflecting on the time when I was general secretary of my union. It was my good luck to have married someone who said to me: “Part of the contract is that I want two children and I’ll let you know when I want to go back to work”. That was probably over 30 years ago. She was doing something exceedingly valuable in bringing up the family, but it gave me the luxury of not having that responsibility.
I reflected on my deputy general secretary, my noble friend Lady Drake, who unfortunately is not in the Chamber today. She had to carry out that job and worry about looking after three young children. Possibly, if she had not had that responsibility, she would have been the general secretary of the union. We know that the uptake of paternity leave is still woefully small, so most of the responsibility for childcare is falling on women. They get a tough deal because so many more of them have to go out to work as well in today’s society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, is in her seat. I am glad she brought up the subject of sharia law. I absolutely agree with her. I cannot help reflecting on the fact that we had a previous most reverend Primate who recommended it. Today’s most reverend Primate fortunately has gone away from that position. I agree with the noble Baroness that it discriminates against women and should have no part in our society, where there are enough challenges to face.
We face a challenge in ensuring that women get a fair deal. We have made it clear where we stand on female genital mutilation. The late Ruth Rendell, Baroness Rendell of Babergh, was a tireless campaigner on that issue.
I pay tribute to the Government on the areas of equal pay and modern slavery. On pay, I cannot help but reflect on the difference between my son and daughter. My daughter is a trainee advanced medical practitioner—somewhere between a nurse and a doctor, I am not quite sure of the status. She has already done a four-year degree to become a paramedic and is now doing an MSc. She is on half the pay of her brother, who has a nice number in IT. He works hard, but is that really equal pay for work of equal value?
If I look at the four years of training and pay of a nurse and the pay of train drivers, I do not see a four-year training course there. I do not cast any aspersions on the talent or ability of train drivers, but we still have a long way to go in our society in rewarding women for the value of the work that they do.
I will focus briefly on some women whom I have met recently who made a huge impression on me. As part of the Industry and Parliament Trust fellowship programme on manufacturing, I came across a company called Fashion Enter. It is a social enterprise led by Jenny Holloway who has invested a huge amount of her own money in it. She has created a company that actually manages to manufacture clothing in Haringey. She has a phenomenal training scheme which draws in people from a very local and diverse community and teaches them how to cut patterns, sew and make garments. It is a fascinating enterprise. She is not a CEO who pays herself large sums of money, far from it. She has invested her “skin in the game”, to use the title of a recent book, and I pay tribute to her.
As I was going round the factory, I met a young Muslim woman wearing a hijab and I asked her what she did. She said: “I work in Savile Row, I am a tailor”. I have been to Savile Row and I do not think I have encountered many women there. I have certainly never encountered a Muslim woman. I asked her what her speciality was and she said that she made coats. I thought about how that situation has changed. I am sure that 10 years ago we would have seen hardly any women and certainly not a young Muslim woman. It is a tribute to Jenny Holloway that she has created an environment where people like that are able to prosper. I also recently met a Traveller woman who, at the age of 11, taught her mother to read—I apologise for having been absent from the Chamber, because I went to a Gypsy, Romany and Traveller event. The woman is now the director of learning and skills in Derby.
There are some great achievements out there and I end on this one. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld. I was fascinated by her contribution about her children et cetera—we have all faced that challenge, in different ways, as to whether the things that you say tend to encourage the wrong attitude. She happened to mention Malala Yousafzai, for which I am grateful. What an astonishing young women she is. A few years ago, I suggested to the House that she should address Parliament, but I have to say the response was not very good. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, who had the unenviable task of telling me that it could not be done because it would interrupt her education—if I have the wrong person and it was not the noble Baroness, I apologise, but somebody from the Government Benches said to me that it could not be done because it would interrupt her education. I groaned. Here we have this phenomenal role model, one of the most courageous young women you could ever wish to meet.
If you want to influence young women in this country, especially young Muslim women, that there is a really wonderful alternative to going to join ISIS, what a role model she is. Is it not ironic that, in 2017, the youngest-ever Nobel Prize winner—a Nobel Peace Prize winner—addressed the Canadian Parliament, but we have not found the wisdom, generosity or understanding to give her that honour? If I have one plea to the Minister who is replying, it is that she could take that issue away and perhaps give a more considered and sympathetic response, which I think would make a real contribution to young women in this country.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, we have much to celebrate today, as well as the opportunity to point out that there is more to be done in this country and indeed globally. It was good to hear from my noble friend Lady Williams at the outset about the Government’s programme. Looking for a moment at the past, I will say that the United Kingdom can be proud of the fact that we set up the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1975, which achieved a great deal under the inspired chairmanship—or should I say chairwomanship ?—of Lady Lockwood, whose deputy was the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. Not only did this spur on the process of improving the status of women in this country, it served as a blueprint for other countries.
Today’s debate has been compelling and informative and has proved that these issues can bring political parties to work together for the greater good. It reminds me that my late sister Angela, who was then the chief woman executive at Conservative Central Office, had regular contact with her opposite number at Transport House—none other than the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton. That was during the 1970s and 1980s, and look how things have moved on since then. I also record my thanks to the Library and all the outside organisations that have sent in really useful briefings on what is happening and what ought to happen in this country, putting forward ideas, for example, to encourage young women and to bring more women into public life.
Local government is an important starting point for many women embarking on a political career. Indeed, looking around your Lordships’ House, one can see that this is obviously a successful route. Although we still form only 26%, I believe, of the total membership of the House of Lords, anyone following our debates or looking at the Front Benches would be surprised, since women Members are so active and contribute so much. We have only to think of my noble friend Lady Trumpington or indeed the first woman Leader of your Lordships’ House, Baroness Young, not to mention my noble friend Lady Williams, to see shining examples of women who have moved from local government to the Front Bench.
I intend to focus mostly on the international aspects of this debate, and will start by continuing with the theme of local government. In developing countries it is certainly a way to encourage women to commit to their local communities and work close to their homes in a way that impacts on their daily lives. Only yesterday I learned that, in Ethiopia, already more than 50% of elected local councillors are women. This has led to some 38% representation in the regional government. Although the federal parliament has a much lower representation, things are clearly moving in the right direction.
Similarly, in Saudi Arabia—much in the news because of the Crown Prince’s visit—the first breakthrough for women came two years ago when women were permitted both to vote in local elections and to stand as candidates. These examples illustrate success and I believe that the United Kingdom should support activities and education in this area through its development aid programme to enable us to fulfil our commitment to the United Nations’ sustainable development goals, and in particular the nine targets of goal 5.
I also draw attention to the valuable work of the IPU—the Inter-Parliamentary Union—and of the CPA—the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—in this area. Both organisations currently have women chairmen. Gabriela Cuevas, a Mexican senator, now leads the IPU and, only last week, at the pre-CHOGM parliamentary forum, held here in London, the CPA chairman, the Honourable Emilia Lifaka, the Deputy Speaker of the Cameroon Parliament, presided over sessions. Both organisations have ad hoc committees concerned with women’s roles in public life and women’s issues generally. As a member of the executive committee of the British group of the IPU, in a few weeks’ time I shall be at the IPU meetings in Geneva, where we will be considering ways in which the IPU can work to achieve the United Nations sustainable development goals in this respect. I shall be able to quote suggestions from today’s debate in my contribution to those discussions—a rather useful form of recycling.
I turn now to Latin America. I am delighted to say—this has been referred to—that women’s parliamentary representation in the Americas has risen to 28.4% overall. The trailblazers were Argentina, with an increase to some 38%, Chile with 22.6% and Ecuador with 38%. It is interesting and important to note that these are countries that devised progressive legislation to promote women’s political leadership, resulting in increased female representation. We have also seen women presidents elected and re-elected in Chile, Argentina and Central America. Between 2013 and 2015, the region boasted the largest number of female heads of state in the world. However, by the end of 2017, there were none. This bears out what my noble friend Lady Jenkin said earlier: namely, that in spite of success the situation still feels very fragile.
We can still say that, in London, we have one of the largest groups of women ambassadors from the region—currently from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru. But the fact remains that there are still many women throughout Latin America, particularly from indigenous groups, who suffer from many of the injustices that have been outlined today—particularly well by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Health has been emphasised, and I would add land ownership rights to the list, as a means of improving the economic security of women. This is particularly relevant to rural communities.
This leads to my final point. As an example of what can be achieved, I would like to describe a micro-finance project with which I have been involved. It started in Bolivia and has since spread throughout Latin America, with great success. It is called Pro Mujer—for women. Not only do we have a 98% success rate in the repayment of the small loans made to women, who are in many cases a single parent head of household, we have developed the project to offer health checks at the same time as the loan is being processed. This enjoys a high acceptance rate and is a relatively simple way of meeting a huge need.
The world is changing so rapidly that it is easy to see change continuing at an ever-increasing pace—and let us hope so. The important thing in my view is not so much equality but equal opportunity—and, if necessary, equal opportunity to be unequal.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, this has been an absolutely fascinating afternoon. With so many wide-ranging and varied speeches, it is almost impossible to summarise them and I wish the Minister well in doing so. We have had speeches from “men Lords” as well as “women Lords”, according to the daughter of the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld. The noble Baroness talked about how we bring up our daughters and our sons. Several noble Lords mentioned that hugely important point and it is incumbent on all of us to be aware of it.
I apologise to any noble Lord whose speech I do not mention but I have enjoyed every single contribution this afternoon. They have all taught me something that I did not know before. We have had contributions from my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece and the noble Baronesses, Lady Uddin and Lady Flather, who talked about the challenges facing BAME women. My noble friend Lady Barker talked about the challenges facing LGBT women. Young women and gender stereotypes, particularly as they affect young women taking up apprenticeships, were covered in great depth by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. Several noble Lords mentioned sexual harassment and the fight back—the #MeToo movement—notably my noble friend Lady Northover.
Health and education have rightly featured strongly in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, talked about decriminalising abortion by updating the Abortion Act 1967 and the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said that education was the key to health, happiness and wealth. The noble Baroness, Lady Healy, talked about the plight of detainees in Yarl’s Wood, and good for her in speaking up for some of the most disadvantaged people in the worst position in British society today.
There have been a lot of personal tributes to mothers, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I pay tribute to my mother, who encouraged me to believe that I could be anything that I wanted to be. However, I do not think she ever thought that I would end up in this place. She is still pinching herself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, spoke warmly of the contribution of the trade union movement in this area. I pay tribute to the long service that she has given to that movement and to this place. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, talked about the work of his charity in helping widows and tackling violence against women and girls. Many noble Lords have spoken about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, talked about the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the CPA. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, who asked why the Government have not sent a nominee to the CEDAW meeting.
We have heard a lot about women’s sport. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, talked about the drama and professionalism exhibited in women’s sport and the soft power that it can wield. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, talked about the This Girl Can campaign. My noble friend Lady Barker can, and I can too. I am still dead slow—but still lapping everybody on the sofa.
We have had a lot of discussions about other areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, talked about Albania and the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, about Pakistan. Last December I went as a volunteer to Karachi to support the work of VSO and its celebration of Women of the UN’s 16 days of activism against violence against women, working with the police and others to publicise efforts to encourage abused women to come forward and report their abusers. There is a whole culture change going on, particularly in Sindh province, where I was. I met some incredibly inspirational characters, such as Majida Rizvi, a Supreme Court judge who succeeded in getting the laws on rape changed. Before her long campaign to secure a conviction for rape, there had to be four male witnesses. That just shows how far they have come.
We in this place are in a highly privileged position. We can open doors and use our diplomatic skills to put pressure on those who have power over women’s lives, at home and abroad.
A country which is arguably much worse in its treatment of women is Papua New Guinea and the surrounding islands, where families who want marriage for a son are exhorted to pay the bride price. The presence of companies extracting mineral wealth has distorted and inflated the bride price market. Where once, payment would have been in shells—a beautiful way to trade before other forms of currency were introduced—today the monetary wealth that working for refineries has brought has caused the bride price to skyrocket. Leaving aside the lack of say that a girl is likely to have in the matter, many families, having laid out a huge amount of money to “buy” their bride, feel justified in treating her literally like a slave.
Our parliamentary group, extremely ably led by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, was treated with great honour, but I fear our entreaties and remonstrations fell largely on deaf ears. What people say and what they do are sadly often different things when it comes to relinquishing power.
How bad are things in the world today? The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, referred to the international measure of the gender gap, which incorporates disparities in health, education, economy and politics. It has assessed the global gender gap at 68%. In Britain it is 33% and we are ranked 15th out of 144 countries for overall gender parity. Women in Britain are treated twice as well as in the average country but a third less well than the men here. If we are meant to be grateful for this statistic, I can tell you, we are not. Never mind for a moment about the rest of the planet. On this little part of it, which is under our control, we are failing women.
So what should we be doing about it? The first thing that I believe will effect change is to have as many women sitting around the table making the decisions as men. In Parliament we are making great strides in increasing the number of women parliamentarians, as several noble Lords have mentioned. Labour’s policy of all-women shortlists has helped enormously and I am delighted to say this is now being introduced in the Liberal Democrats—and about time too. However, despite the remarks of the Minister, currently there are still only six women in the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister, which is 26% of 23 Cabinet posts; so we have a way to go, is all I am saying, although I applaud all the strides that have been made. It would be very churlish not to do so. Having a woman as Prime Minister is not quite good enough when only a quarter of the Cabinet is female. I note that Mrs Thatcher did the same, with only one woman in her Cabinet apart from herself.
In the workplace, women are still severely underrepresented in any job that involves decision-making, and receive less pay than their male counterparts even when they do succeed—usually at great personal cost—at breaking through the glass ceiling. One piece of government legislation conceived in the coalition and implemented by this Conservative Government is making companies look very seriously at how they reward talent. I speak of the requirement to report on the gender pay gap, which has been mentioned several times. I am already being approached by companies that want to tell me all about their pay gap results and get them out there and justify them before being forced to publish them in April. Our overall gender pay gap stands at 18.4% in favour of men, but I know of at least one large construction company that has been prompted to fundamentally rethink its pay structures and how it values work.
What should Parliament do? Women are held back by the lack of affordable childcare—that is nothing new; we all know that—and that is probably the number one issue for us. In recent years strides have been made in the provision of free childcare and making fees tax deductible. However, that is still not enough. For women in lower-paid occupations, the economics of working while having small children just do not stack up—even when the children are of school age, the benefits can be marginal. We have to do something. It is the fundamental thing that would change the balance.
I have talked already about shared parental leave in the context of what business should do. Really, it is up to businesses to change their culture. Parliament, however, can give them a nudge, as has proved so successful in pay gap reporting. Naming, and by implication shaming, companies has two functions. First, it makes companies think about the policies they are operating compared with others, and a bit of healthy competition—“We’re a better, more compassionate and enlightened employer than you are”—works wonders. Secondly, of course, what you do not measure you cannot manage. For a start, what about requiring that companies over a certain size publish their maternity and paternity pay policy?
The Liberal Democrats have put forward several proposals, including that “upskirting” should be made a criminal offence. Several noble Lords have worked on proposals dealing with period poverty, and we look forward to a response from the Government on that. Other proposals include gender-neutral school clothing, making sexual harassment outside of work illegal and improving knowledge among employers—for example, it is illegal to ask women whether they plan to have children but a lot of employers do not know that. What about changing the rules so that men can register children’s births if they are not married to the mother? To me, that seems a sensible and sane thing to do, and it would be especially helpful if the mother is unwell—it is a partnership, after all. What about changing the name of this place from the House of Lords to the House of Peers? That would make it a lot more gender equal. Finally, we should set a date to look at the Gender Recognition Act, so that we can see changes and progress following the completion of the consultation.
If I can pray the patience of the House for one moment more, I want to talk about my lapel badge—for anyone who cannot see it, it is a spoon. My lot know all about it because I have been on about it for a while, but the charity Karma Nirvana works very hard against forced marriage. Part of its charitable work is to advise the police, airport authorities and schools. If someone is absolutely desperate and fear that they are being taken abroad for a forced marriage, they should pop a spoon in their underwear. That way, they will be stopped when going through security and taken into a separate room on their own where they will be able to express their concerns. If anyone would like to know more about Karma Nirvana and the wonderful work of Jasvinder Sanghera, please see me afterwards.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we have had another great debate today. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on getting us off to a brilliant start. As usual, a range of challenges and celebrations characterised this International Women’s Day debate.
I want to mention two internal parliamentary things that we need to celebrate and which have not been mentioned so far. That, of course, is that we have our first woman Black Rod in 600 years here in our own House. We can also celebrate the fact that the chairman of the Press Gallery and the chairman of the Lobby are both women. They are Kate McCann and Emily Ashton. They issued a press release today—I shall not read it all out, but its headline reads:
“Top female lobby journalists say ‘we need to show it’s not an all-boys’ club’ on International Women’s Day”.
Well, hear, hear to that and congratulations to them.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, I shall not try to cover everything that has been said today, but there are a couple of things which I think are worth mentioning. I certainly support my noble friend Lord Young in his remarks about Malala and his saying that her addressing both Houses of Parliament would be a great thing to do. I do not think that it is the Government’s job to organise that; it is Parliament’s. I invite the Minister to support us in that ambition, but I would exonerate her from having to deliver it. We need to talk to the two Speakers and others to help us to do it.
I enjoyed in particular the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about Albania, about which I did not know very much and have not thought very much. It was absolutely fascinating. I also enjoyed the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about “Who would have thought?”—and quite right, too. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, was also quite right: our gains are fragile, and we have to fight to protect all of them all the way through. My noble friend Lady Donaghy’s appraisal was, as usual, devastating and quite correct. I enjoyed enormously the “Oscars speech” of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning—she was quite right. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, was quite right to ask the question about CEDAW. However, the coalition Government abolished the Women’s National Commission, which was the main organisation that collected the views of British women to take to CEDAW. The noble Baroness is right—so what are we going to do about that? The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was quite right and has my support in bringing forward the gender recognition Bill. As she said, it will be an important moment for a group which is small but has a very hard time. I have always thought that part of our job in the House of Lords is to champion those people and groups who may be quite small in number but who have the most difficult time and are discriminated against.
The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, was right to remind us that the World Economic Forum finds that the UK has a gender gap of 33% overall and is ranked 15th out of 144 countries. Against all the indices about economic empowerment and opportunity, we could probably say, “C-plus. Could do better”—that is the sort of grading that we are approaching; I think that most people would agree with that. One needs to ask why we do not do as well as we should on all those economic indices and I want to suggest something we might consider. I say this in tribute to the Women’s Budget Group of feminist economists, and it is about how we measure economic activity. We can see quite plainly the way in which GDP is measured: it takes into account the value produced through wage labour but not through unpaid domestic care work carried out predominantly by women in the home, even though all are essential to a well-functioning economy. Indeed, proponents of feminist economics argue that, in terms of methodology and focus, modern economics is too centred around men, with women’s contribution to the economy routinely ignored.
From a political perspective, feminist economics is an economics that focuses on what is needed to produce a gender-equal society. It argues that because modern economics is built around the idea of the “economic man”, it is ideologically weighted towards normalising men’s lives and consequently ignores the experience of women. This is important: we cannot expect models based on economic man to understand or even notice gender inequalities, let alone create policies to alleviate them. Would the Minister raise this issue with her right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the Prime Minister, and perhaps suggest that the Treasury take account of it in its economic policies?
This is important, because while there has been progress on some aspects of gender equality, women still experience structural inequality throughout their lives. For example, independent research carried out before Christmas revealed that women have borne 86% of the impact of austerity, largely through lost services and changes to the tax and benefits system. Were we measuring things differently, we would come to a different conclusion about that.
This morning I was privileged to attend an International Women’s Day conference organised by Unity Trust Bank and the Employee Ownership Association. We were addressing the empowerment of women across the world through employee ownership, social enterprise, co-operatives and profit-for-purpose businesses. By the way, women are eight times more likely to be the chair in a co-operative than in a FTSE 100 company. A recent British Council report that looked at social enterprise and women’s empowerment across the world found that 75% of women who start a social enterprise say that it had given them an increased sense of self-worth, while 64% reported enhanced self-confidence.
Such empowered women—social entrepreneurs—provide crucial role models for the next generation, so I congratulate the FCO and DfID on the support they have been giving to the British Council in the social enterprise programme, and I hope that will continue.
We have all been going to lots of celebrations of International Women’s Day. Yesterday I attended the launch of What Women Want 2.0. I remember—as I am sure will other noble Lords—the 1996 What Women Want survey, which was linked to the Beijing United Nations women’s conference. I took part in it. It had a great impact: 10,000 women took part in the survey. The same thing has happened again, and with social media it has generated a huge digital discourse. Fascinatingly, the results mirror almost exactly what women were asking for in 1996, which must make us pause to wonder why there is so much unfinished business: equal rights, equal pay, respect, a child and carer-friendly working world, an end to the culture of pornography and rape, more women in politics, more women running big organisations and companies, and a peaceful safe world for our children and the ones we love. It is very much the same as 1996, but the difference now is that this new wave of feminists—and in 1996 it was still unfashionable to call yourself a feminist—are not only saying that this is what women want but also that this is what women believe they deserve. I took great encouragement from the large and diverse group—hundreds of women—who came to Parliament yesterday.
As the health spokesperson, I finish by raising an issue about women’s health. It is to do with women and mental health. In 2003 we had an excellent women and mental health strategy. It was archived in 2011 by the coalition Government, which is a great shame. This is important: poor mental health among women has increased, with one in five experiencing common mental health problems such as anxiety and depression, compared to one in eight among men. Young women are the group most at risk, experiencing alarmingly high rates of self-harm, eating disorders and PTSD. Women’s mental health is closely linked to their experiences of violence and abuse, which should not be surprising, and many women struggle to get the support they need from the mental health services. Agenda, a women’s organisation supporting women and girls at risk of abuse, poverty, poor mental health and homelessness, found that women and girls are regularly and repeatedly restrained in mental health settings, despite the risk of re-traumatising women who have already experienced violence and abuse.
Can the Minister tell us—if not now, perhaps she could ask her noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy to do so later—what steps are being taken to respond to women’s mental health needs and tackle the rise in mental ill-health among women? Is it not time for the new women’s mental health strategy that we need?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the theme of International Women’s Day this year is “Press for Progress” and I have been struck by the amazing examples of progress in many of the contributions today. Similarly, as many noble Lords have noted, there is more—much more—that needs to be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, highlighted so many shocking and astonishing examples; I will have to have a word with my husband tonight about whether he would give me a kidney. My noble friend Lady Browning enthralled us with her contribution about culture and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has just expanded our understanding of economics. There is so much food for thought and I give my heartfelt thanks to all the contributors. There are far too many to mention.
The vote has been mentioned by many and it would be remiss of me if I missed it out. It is just 100 years—about four generations—since women, albeit not all women, were granted the right to vote. Since then, other courageous and inspirational women from all sides of politics have blazed the trail that has got us to where we are today. We have our second female Prime Minister and our third female Home Secretary, and almost a third of government posts are currently filled by women. There are so many more, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Jenkin and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Some of the campaigners of 100 years ago have their names written forever in history, including Emmeline Pankhurst, Millicent Fawcett and Emily Wilding Davison—and Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, who was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Suri. I know that she has been mentioned in your Lordships’ House before. A great many more have not achieved national recognition, or perhaps notoriety, and we may never know their names. They were just ordinary women doing their bit to challenge injustice.
It was 40 years after women gained the right to vote and to become MPs that they were able to sit as life Peers in your Lordships’ House. In 1958, just 60 years ago and within the living memory of some noble Lords, Baroness Swanborough became the first female Peer to take her seat. Since then, 294 female life Peers have been created and there are now 203 female life Peers in your Lordships’ House. That means that seven out of 10 such Peers ever created are still here. The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, talked about getting our own House in order—so I had a quick look. I have been in your Lordships’ House for 18 months and made my debut at the Dispatch Box in this debate exactly a year ago. Of the 14 political appointments 18 months ago, of which I was one, eight of us were women—more than half. So the former Prime Minister, my right honourable friend David Cameron, was a man of deeds and not words when it came to women’s representation.
This is the most diverse Parliament in British history, with the highest number of women MPs ever. Women make up 32% of all MPs, up from 22% in 2010. But compare that to countries as diverse as Senegal, where 41.8% of MPs are women, and Norway, which has 41.4%. We must and can do better. We must use the examples of all courageous and inspirational women to galvanise women and girls, including those from the BAME communities, as mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hussein-Ece and Lady Uddin, and my noble friend Lady Manzoor, to use their voices and have a say over what our future looks like.
Since 2010 the Government have been making a real difference to “Press for Progress” for women. There are 1.48 million more women in employment than in May 2010 and the employment rate remains at a joint record high of 70.8%. What is more, the full-time gender pay gap, as mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has fallen to a record low of 9.1%, while the overall gender pay gap has fallen from 27.5%, in 1997 to 18.4%. Our ground-breaking gender pay gap reporting legislation, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, will encourage employers to take responsibility and take positive steps to close the gap even further.
The deadline is approaching and I am sure that all noble Lords are very excited by this. I can share with noble Lords that many times more companies have registered than have already submitted their data. So time will tell; I remain positive. Companies leave things to the last minute, as we know. So let us keep an eye on that and see how we do.
We are championing female representation at all levels—an issue that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. Through the Hampton-Alexander Review and the Women’s Business Council, we are supporting business to get more women into senior leadership positions.
We recently launched the national campaign to promote and increase the uptake of shared parental leave, and 97% of all UK workplaces now offer some form of flexible working. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, mentioned childcare. As a mother I agree with the noble Baroness that it is one of the biggest challenges that any family faces when they are deciding how to structure their family going forward. We have doubled free childcare for working parents of three and four-year olds and we have introduced tax-free childcare to help working families.
We have had a wide-ranging debate today. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, gave us a stunning tour-de-force on the world of women in sport. He paid tribute to my honourable friend Tracey Crouch in the other place in her role as Minister for Sport, and I would completely agree with him. He talked about Sport England and the This Girl Can campaign. This girl can, too—but only very occasionally because I am usually too busy. In terms of This Girl Can, over 11,000 organisations have registered, which is a great step forward. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and indeed with me, that we now have some more superstar sporting heroes and role models who have come out of the Winter Olympics, including of course Lizzie Yarnold and Elise Christie for the way she faced up to the challenges that she had. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, also spoke about the benefits of sport and the action being taken. I note his question on coaches. If he will forgive me, I will write to him further on that when I have the full facts at my fingertips.
My noble friend Lady Manzoor spoke very movingly about a crime of the past that is still a crime of the present: sexual abuse, rape and grooming. This was also mentioned by my noble friend Lady Wyld. Large-scale sexual abuse and grooming in our cities must be tackled. Indeed, it must be stopped. The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, spoke about sexual harassment in schools. The Government are taking concrete action. We are working to make relationship and sex education mandatory in secondary schools and relationship education mandatory in primary schools. The DfE, too, is busy improving the guidance available to schools. It will be publishing specific guidance on child-on-child sexual harassment and violence, revising bullying guidance, and consulting on proposals to strengthen the safeguarding guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education. Those changes should come into effect in September 2018—so the Government are not hanging around. The DfE is ensuring that all expert views are reflected, including through an expert advisory group, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, and wide consultation on both the content of the sex education programme and also Keeping Children Safe in Education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, also spoke about the domestic abuse consultation launched by Her Majesty’s Government today, and mentioned why she thought that the Bill was solely focused on criminal justice and a criminal justice approach. The Government are committed to doing everything they can to end domestic violence, and the consultation seeks views from all sides. From legislative and non-legislative action, we need to look at the different things that the Government can be doing to tackle this devastating abuse.
The consultation and the proposals for the domestic abuse Bill are all about intervening early so that we can get people the support that they need. We have made clear in the consultation document our commitment to review funding for safe accommodation, including refuges. This is why we are conducting the most thorough review of domestic abuse services that we have ever undertaken—to make sure that we get this absolutely right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned mental health. This is an area that is very close to my heart as I have worked in mental health provision in the past. The Government are committed to achieving parity of esteem for mental health. I am proud of our achievements. We have invested more than ever before in mental health, with spending estimated to have increased to £11.6 billion. There is additional investment to improve services for eating disorders, which, as we know, disproportionately affect women, and we have introduced the first waiting time standards for mental health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, raised the issue of apprenticeships. We are using the employer Apprenticeship Diversity Champions Network to champion gender representation in industries where improvement is needed. The recently published careers strategy includes a commitment to ensuring that STEM encounters—I think that just means meetings with people from STEM organisations—such as employers and apprenticeships—yes, there we go—are built into the school careers programme by updating the statutory guidance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, mentioned encouraging women into STEM and engineering; as a former engineer myself, I think that is a great thing. This is the Year of Engineering, and we have invested in many programmes to encourage the take-up of STEM-related subjects and courses. We announced substantial spending commitments in the 2017 Autumn Budget on maths, digital and, of course, technical education and the T-levels, which I think will be very important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, mentioned BAME women and the particular challenges that they can face. We are committed to addressing these issues. In October 2017, the Government published the Race Disparity Audit showing how people of different ethnicities are treated across public services, and we have begun a programme of work to tackle some of the disparities with targeted action in employment, education and the criminal justice system.
The noble Baroness, Lady Healy, mentioned women in detention at Yarl’s Wood. We are committed to treating women who seek protection with dignity and respect. We take our responsibilities towards detainees’ health and welfare seriously. We have worked closely with partners including Asylum Aid, the Refugee Council and UNHCR on a range of initiatives to ensure that gender sensitivity is embedded in the asylum process.
On the last area that I would like to mention in relation to domestic matters, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, spoke about the reform of the Gender Recognition Act; I have heard her mention this in the past and I encourage her to keep going. The Government have already begun engaging with a wide range of people and organisations, including LGBT groups and women’s groups. I would like to reassure her that we are standing firm and will bring forward the consultation shortly.
However, it is not just at home where we are pressing for progress. The UK is an international leader on gender equality. We have brought critical issues such as sexual and reproductive health and rights, female genital mutilation and child and early forced marriage to the world stage. The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, called some of these practices uncivilised and barbaric, and I would agree with him. The noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Tonge, graciously mentioned the good work done by DfID over many years, and indeed many of these issues were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, in her contribution.
We have been able to leverage ground-breaking international partnerships and commitments. A good example of this is our instrumental role in securing the inclusion of global goal 5 on gender equality and ensuring that gender equality is mainstreamed across all the other goals. Since 2014, the Department for International Development has had pioneering legislation in place requiring the Government to consider gender equality in all our development and our humanitarian aid. Our leadership puts us at the forefront of global efforts to demand rights for women and girls, and is the key feature of global Britain.
Key to this is that we work across government to achieve the best development, diplomatic, defence and trade approaches to achieve the maximum impact for women and girls. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, will feel reassured that there is indeed cross-departmental action. A good example of this is our cross-departmental government strategy on ending violence against women and girls. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for his work in this area, particularly in highlighting the plight of widows and the Spotlight Initiative.
In January, the Government launched our new UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace & Security, which has nine focus countries, many of which we have discussed in the Chamber today. They include Afghanistan, the DRC, South Sudan and Syria. It puts women and girls at the heart of our cross-government work to prevent and resolve conflict and focuses on diplomacy, development and peace. As my noble friend Lady Hodgson noted, we absolutely know that in peace processes where women are able to exert a strong influence, it is much more likely that an agreement will be reached and implemented and peace is 35% more likely to last for 15 years. This is why the UK has provided around $2 million to the Women’s Peace and Humanitarian Fund, to enhance the capacity of local women to prevent conflict, respond to crises and emergencies and seize key peacebuilding opportunities. We work across government to deliver strong gender-equality messages and secure progressive languages, for example, through the G7 and the G20.
Education was mentioned by many noble Lords as a priority. Between 2015 and 2017, DfID supported 7.1 million children to get an education. That included 3.3 million girls. In April, we will collectively strive for a commitment at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting to 12 years of quality education for all girls across the Commonwealth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned LGBT issues and the Commonwealth. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has spoken about the UK’s special responsibility to help change hearts and minds, and is committed to ensuring that LGBT issues are discussed at the Commonwealth summit. I heard what the noble Baroness said about the evidence being gathered of the costs of discrimination, and look forward to seeing that when it is available.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson mentioned a variety of issues, including the prevention of sexual violence in conflict, an initiative set up in 2012. The UK has committed more than £40 million to this initiative since it was founded. We have supported 23 projects in 14 countries in this year alone, and more than 17,000 police and military personnel have been trained. She will be very pleased to hear that the UK plans to host another PSVI summit to continue with the momentum that we have, and it will take place in 2019.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson and a number of others mentioned CEDAW. The UK strongly supports CEDAW and believes that it is an effective treaty-monitoring body. It is one of the best mechanisms to promote women’s rights around the world. The Government engage with CEDAW and submitted their eighth periodic report to the UN CEDAW committee in 2017, which highlighted the UK’s record on gender equality. A range of factors are considered before making a decision about UK representation on bodies such as CEDAW, and sometimes this means making difficult decisions about which bodies to seek election for. The Government are carefully considering whether to nominate a candidate for the 2020 election.
I turn to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Suri. I thank him for his ideas and thoughts on the activities of NGOs overseas, particularly on potential unwelcome behaviour by certain members of staff. On 12 February, the DfID Secretary of State wrote to all UK charities that directly receive UK aid, asking them to provide full assurances that they have sufficient safeguarding measures in place. Based on these returns, DfID has made 26 serious incident reports to the Charity Commission. At the safeguarding summit on 5 March, the Secretary of State put in place new, enhanced and specific safeguarding standards for all organisations that are recipients of UK aid.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Hooper for her work with the Inter-Parliamentary Union. It is very interesting to hear about women in local government. Often, we talk about women in national government and it is very heartening to hear that women are active in local government. Indeed, it is disappointing to hear that progress at a national level is slightly slowing. Obviously, we will continue to support that work.
I may just have time to address the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge. I pay tribute to her tenacious campaigning in this area over the years—I know that she has done a lot of work on it. The UK firmly believes in supporting comprehensive sexual and reproductive health and rights of women and girls. On the issue of safe abortion, our position is absolutely clear. Research shows that restricting access to abortion does not make abortions less common, just less safe. The UK will continue to show global health leadership in this area.
We all know that there is still a way to go before we achieve gender equality in the UK—
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Before the Minister sits down—I was looking at the Clock—perhaps she could at least comment on Malala Yousafzai. I do not expect her to deal with the issue, but perhaps she could comment on it.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
It is a superb idea. I had her speak at a conference I organised in 2015—but that does not mean that I take responsibility for it. I encourage all noble Lords to support that idea.
We all know that there is a way to go, but we simply cannot afford to let anyone waste their talents because of missed opportunities or social barriers. In 1903, the mantra “Deeds not Words” was adopted by Emmeline Pankhurst, and I encourage all noble Lords to carry on the deeds they are doing. Together we must, and we can, create a fairer and more equal world where everyone has the same rights and the same opportunities, no matter their gender.